But I bet alot of them will demonstrate their ignorance in the answer.
This “empathy” crap?
Been there, done that, doesn’t work in this case.
Broken record is broken, Bo, and giving it another spin ain’t gonna fix it.
Believe me, I’m not looking for a magical recount. That ship has clearly sailed.
However, that doesn’t mean that “out of ignorance” is the wrong conclusion. I believe it’s the right one for a large proportion of Trump supporters. There is evidence to show that.
I think what can both agree on is that the Democrats failed to make their case in a much more effective manner. Therein lies the fault of HRC’s campaign.
Anyway, there will be books written on this election with no shortage of theories about how it looked so right but went so wrong.
They count exactly the same. Therein lies the problem with so many elections and the imperfection of democracy.
True to an extent (believe me, trust me!) but he also made a lot of promises:
-Build a wall
- Biggest tax cuts since Reagan
- Repeal and replace ACA
- Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress
- Pro-life judges
- Kill the TPP
- Hiring freeze on all Federal employees
- Renegotiate NAFTA
- Cancel Paris climate agreement
- Stop all payments to UN global warming programs
- Defund Planned Parenthood
- Ban Muslim immigrants
- Suspend Syrian refugee program
- Cancel all unconstitutional Obama executive orders
- Stop and frisk nationwide
There’s a lot of spiritual decay in America. Consumerism doesn’t fill people’s needs. Outside of politics do they seem happy, content? Do they have good relations with friends and family? Do they seem like part of a community?
Yeah, much easier to call Trump supporters stupid or deplorable.
Oh, how did that work out for ya? Think it will work next time? Keep it up and the midterms will be even less to your liking.
Slee
I do agree, but it is important (and this seems to be missed by a lot of posters here) to realize that the ones the OP and **Czarcasm ** are dealing here are really a set of the Trump supporters that are of the ignorant non-changing variety, there is some overlap of them with the deplorable ones.
We are not talking much here about the ones that can be convinced and that deserve empathy, mostly the Republicans like Romney that condemned the trickle down racism, ignorance and bigotry that is going to take place.
On Edit: and I see that **sleestak **also fell for the straw man.
Like I already said(and am fucking tired of repeating), I’ve tried it the other way for the last couple of decades AND IT DOESN"T FUCKING WORK. That hoop is defective.
In the very post he quoted, I said “been there, done that, doesn’t work in this case”-totally ignored. Maybe someone should follow their own advice?
Don’t be too hard on him. He just got everything he ever wanted, and he is more terrified about it than we are.
Those poor winners-they really need our empathy and understanding in their hour of need.
Yes, but while pedantic one has to point at people like Romney (he was their candidate 4 years ago for chrissake!) that can be convinced. So I would not say all of them are.
Again I agree with your overall point, some will not be convinced, no matter what; what is important is to realize that there are still reasonable Republicans but they are hard to find as IMHO they do not want to be voted out of the island.
I am offering my perspective on what the Democratic Party as a whole can do and what individuals can do. I think at both levels it boils down to the same thing, although the settings and contexts ill obviously differ. As you note, a candidate is going to have a hard time listening to all 450,000 people who live in their district or whatever one at a time. But they can do these same things in town hall meetings, campaign rallies, etc. Right now, if anyone were asking me, I’d advise the Democratic Party to lay off speechifying and move to more Town Hall meetings where concerned citizens can have their say. Listen to them. Make sure you understand their concerns. Ask them questions. Don’t offer a plan or a solution or even a suggestion. Ask them what they want done. Don’t ask them how they would pay for it, or how they would deal with this bit of fallout, etc. Those are the details that we pay our elected reps to figure out.
I face a lot of these statements and sentiments too; I admit that I don’t always have a good answer because a good answer requires time, a presentation of facts, etc. Much of this occurs in a setting that is not conducive to an in-depth look at research, etc. But I’ll do my best to relay how I have answered in the past.
The middle two are the ones I encounter most frequently. Vince Foster was so long ago now that most people don’t even remember who he was or why they recognize the name. I confess that I’ve never had to deal with the pyramid assertion. My response is always “why do you think that?” Then I listen to them. “I don’t remember all of that; why don’t we look it up on break?” If facts don’t match what they said, and they don’t change their mind or at least admit to the facts, I ask “What could you read or hear that might change your mind?” If the answer is “Nothing” I drop the subject. No point in beating a dead horse.
“Shut the fuck up. If I ever hear talk like that outta you again, I’ll have you removed from the job and/or I’ll kick your fucking ass so hard you’ll never talk again. Shut the fuck up.” (I don’t have much patience for racists.)
“All of them? Why? Even your cousin/aunt/uncle/brother/sister/etc.? You’d mutilate a family member and imprison them for something that they have no control over? Wow. What if one of your kids was gay? Them too? Wow.” If the discussion warrants it, I like to ask them if they remember when they chose to be attracted to whoever it is they are attracted to. If appropriate, I tell them I don’t recall making a similar choice at all, that I’ve always been attracted to women.
“Why do you think that? What have you read? Can you show me? What about all these other people who say the opposite?”
“Which of the investigations into Benghazi found that Mrs. Clinton did something wrong? Can you show me where you read or heard that?”
“The solar thing? I remember hearing about it, what happened? Let’s find the Wikipedia article and see.”
Harder to counter as it’s little more than a catchphrase but I always counter with “What was she convicted of again? I don’t even remember the trial!”
“Here dude, smoke a bowl/have a beer.”
eh, I could go on, and on, and on, but I 'll leave it there.
If you have any desire to help me to respond to these questions and statements, that would be great. If not, I understand, because I had no good answer to them either.
[/QUOTE]
In most cases, my strategy is to listen to people first and then to make sure I understand what they’re saying. Criticism or debunking should only be done AFTER you have let them have their say, and should be gentle. People are mistaken, not WRONG. Facts are misremembered, not made-up bullshit. If seeing that they have facts wrong doesn’t dissuade, I like to ask “what could you read or hear that would change your mind?” If the answer is “nothing”, I move on to another subject or to another person.
I believe this approach, even if it doesn’t result in an epiphany, does result in a bond and in mutual respect. I don’t have to agree with them, but I took their statements seriously, I listened to their argument/explanation, I took pains to make sure I understood their point of view… these are all things that people will respect you for. And that bond of respect and interest is what can bridge the divide between people, even more than facts. People will lay down their lives for their children, family and friends, but not for a spreadsheet, no matter how accurate or well-drawn.
I’m sorry I don’t have all the answers. I’m sorry that there will be people and beliefs that cannot be swayed, but there are. But even there, a bond of respect will go a long way and it costs very little in effort or time to create one.
Listen. Understand. Empathize.
Hi there,
Atheist in the next country up, here. Next time you talk to your mother, please ask her why she thinks I should die in a nuclear war for Jesus (he ain’t comin’) if Trump fails. Why does she want me to die? She may think a life without Republicans in charge just isn’t worth living and that’s up to her, but leave me out of it.
So. I am going to completely counter Bo’s argument.
We should not be empathetic. We should not be understanding. We should not listen. We should obstruct. We should complain. We should lie, and believe the lies. We should throw a massive tantrum whenever things don’t go our way.
When those on the right try to reason with us, we should stick our fingers in our ears, and complain about the condescension.
Then, when they wonder why they can’t reach us, we’ll tell them to try more empathy. Try more listening. Try to understand our needs. Then we kick them in the balls, and laugh at them.
I don’t say this because it is what I want to do. I don’t say this because it is the right thing to do. I think that this is abhorrent to do.
I say this because apparently, it is a winning strategy. A strategy so winning, that even in defeat, we are still trying to bend over backwards to appease them.
If you can’t beat them, join them, is pretty much the only lesson I have learned so far this election season.
Compared to your answers, Bo, I am a hell of a lot more empathetic to my coworkers than you would be, and it hasn’t done me a damn bit of good.
It’s not an imperfection in democracy, it’s just the way people are. Not everyone has the time, interest and/or knowledge base to review and assess every piece of of policy that is out there. People have other interests and priorities and they are just as valid as your own.
There is no requirement for a voter to do what you described, “put in the work to make sure what he/she is being told is factually correct, or whether it just feels good”. Sure, in a perfect world everyone would not only have the time and resources to do that, they’d also have the education and background that would make the effort worthwhile. But that isn’t people; it isn’t reality.
For those voters, it’s the candidate who needs to connect with them to overcome their inability to do as you suggest. Or it’s their friends, or their family, or their pastor who can spend time with them to sway them.
Most people are not open to new information, especially information that contradicts previous information. If you are dealing with someone who you believe has a bunch of preconceived notions that are all based on hooey, going full force “WRONG, DIPSHIT! LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT IS!” is more likely to be met with resistance than embrasure. “Are you sure? I don’t recall that; let’s look it up” will still be met with resistance, but likely a lot less resistance than a declaration of stupidity. And even if you don’t change their mind, you’ve still bonded with that person to some degree. It might be a slight and grudging respect, but it’s still respect.
In most cases, my strategy is to listen to people first and then to make sure I understand what they’re saying. Criticism or debunking should only be done AFTER you have let them have their say, and should be gentle. People are mistaken, not WRONG. Facts are misremembered, not made-up bullshit. If seeing that they have facts wrong doesn’t dissuade, I like to ask “what could you read or hear that would change your mind?” If the answer is “nothing”, I move on to another subject or to another person.
I believe this approach, even if it doesn’t result in an epiphany, does result in a bond and in mutual respect. I don’t have to agree with them, but I took their statements seriously, I listened to their argument/explanation, I took pains to make sure I understood their point of view… these are all things that people will respect you for. And that bond of respect and interest is what can bridge the divide between people, even more than facts. People will lay down their lives for their children, family and friends, but not for a spreadsheet, no matter how accurate or well-drawn.
I’m sorry I don’t have all the answers. I’m sorry that there will be people and beliefs that cannot be swayed, but there are. But even there, a bond of respect will go a long way and it costs very little in effort or time to create one.
Listen. Understand. Empathize.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’ve tried that. Pretty much the exact same phrasing, except even more patient with many. They weren’t patient enough to let me finish a sentence before spouting off more.
Like you said, we have to listen. We have to understand. We have to empathize. And we need to shut up, because in doing that, we will never get a word in.
In your answers, I saw several that if I were a sensitive conservative, I would consider to be condescending and patronizing.
I mean, it is hard to deal with someone who acts like a child without treating them like a child and then being considered patronizing.
They aren’t looking to understand me. They aren’t looking to understand the issues. They aren’t looking to get a better grasp on the world around them.
I haven’t said anything about appeasing anyone, have I? :dubious:
Good point.
Also, I think it’s lost on more than a few posters that the way political candidates and public leaders show empathy and respect is to reflect back what they’re hearing by restating it as simply as possible and then honestly responding. Sometimes that response, when what they’re hearing is flat out wrong, dangerous or vile, must be a refutation, but it must be preceded by an acknowledgement of the almost always valid concerns underlying it. “Muslims must be expelled/Muslims are killing Americans” has to be refuted by any political leader committed to egalitarianism and religious freedom, but the underlying fears of terrorism and its use as a tactic by radical Islamist organizations must be acknowledged and validated. (And this is done by most liberal politicians, certainly has been by Obama every time he’s addressed the issue, certainly has been by HRC. In very similar words to those used by John McCain. And G. W. Bush.)
But that approach fails if the recipient is not participating in good faith. Yes, liberals have to validate feelings. This is not a surprise to us. (Although the whining about it is a little shocking coming from the same group that loves to deride “safe zones” and “trigger warnings”. Just sayin’.) We also have to represent inclusiveness and reject bigotry. The validation is usually ignored because the rejection hurts.
But we can’t give up the responsibility to refute fear and hatred. All we can do is work on the valid underlying concerns. Whenever we’ve given serious consideration or even lip service to vile or insane ideas, we’ve tended to normalize them and see them come into practice. Torture, “preventive war”, privatization of prisons and schools… It truly is dangerous to coddle nonsense, and it’s immoral to appear to consider violations of human rights without refutation.
If answering that emotional concern but rejecting the awful “solution” they offer feels like contempt to some voters, that has to be a price we’re willing to accept.