The result likely will be the same, but the mentality differs enough for me to make it different. One is a flat fuck you no. The other is willingness to let the other guy shoot himself in the foot first.
2 Likes
Fair point, but I distrust Trump to the point where a flat âfuck youâ no is more appropriate. Even if he were to do something nice, like get rid of the TPP, Iâd wait for the other shoe to drop. Someone like Trump doesnât do something nice without a catch.
6 Likes
âŚwas that typo, or a deliberate? Either way, I approve.
1 Like
I think one hope would be trying to redraw the fault lines, since there are plenty of conservatives who were already disillusioned with the Republicans before the election, and dislike Trump even more. Find issues to agree on and work with people outside of the normal ideological circles. Make a point of uniting under a specific positive cause â agreeing on everything isnât necessary. I think arguments are often not all that convincing in themselves â you have to be exposed to the culture and get used to the way of thinking, because it is very different. I like Frederick Douglassâs statement, âI would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong,â
5 Likes
Iâve seen that advice before, and it can and does work at times, but, as noted in the article, does require that the other individual be at least somewhat open to persuasion and possessing of a rational state of mind.
13 Likes
i have and approach iâve practiced on those occasions when iâve been forced into a discussion about the mainstream media my first step is to explain to them that i rarely watch any network or cable news because i consider them to be tilted too far to the right overall even cnn. sometimes that will end the conversation because their confusion with that statement is too much for them to carry on. for those who persist i invite them to watch some episodes of âdemocracy nowâ with amy goodman if they want to see a news program which really has a leftist spin. i have also been known to hand over a paperback copy of âmanufacturing consentâ by herman and chomsky and tell them to read that if they really want to understand the media.
about 1 in 10 will actually go to the trouble to watch amy goodman and that many mainly because i am well known in my professional, family, and local community as a person of intelligence and generally sound judgment. of those who do watch the show about 1 in 10 of those will go on to add âdemocracy nowâ to their media diet because, as one older friend put it âthat womanâs bound to be a communist but she makes some good points sometimes and i just canât deny it.â as for the herman & chomsky book only about 1 in 80-90 will even take a book to read (you think i have time to read a book?) and i can only recall about three people who finished it. two of them began the ascent to liberalism after reading it and one of them told me it made sense when he was reading it but after he was finished it just didnât hold up to reality.
glacier, meet candle . . .
8 Likes
Very much a typo, unfortunately.
Could you compare progressive viewpoints on Trump to the same ones on Obama? There is a lot there and maybe you can unify under your critical response to both and how they are similar - the drone strikes killing US citizens, islamophobia based justifying further destabilization, etc.
There are more productive, life-affirming and successful things to do with our lives.
I came across the article and it seemed relevant so figured Iâd post it simply because I do like when people can find a way to talk rather than yell.
2 Likes
Itâs a good one, and itâs very good advice on formulations. I first ran across it a few years back from this Mother Jones article:
And Iâve tried to put it to use. Problem is, it does require that the person on the receiving end to be at least somewhat rational and willing to hear alternate perspectives at allâand thatâs not always the case.
14 Likes
Just finished reading it. That was most definitely worth sharing, so thank you. At the metal shop where I work, there are several Trump supporters. Youâd think union workers would be among the most resistant to someone so anti-labor. And yeah, there are several unapologetically open Democratic supporters here, too. But right now Iâm so overcome by indignation that any earnest attempt at discussing politics would turn toxic, quickly. I canât afford that, psychologically or occupationally.
But maybe implementing whatâs discussed in this article would help (while heeding @bibliophile20âs asterisk of advice) so, again, thanks for sharing the link. A good idea or approach is always worth sharing more than once.
5 Likes
Two things informing my thinking on this topic lately:
Specifically:
In Venezuela, we fell into this trap in a bad way. We wrote again and again about principles, about separation of powers, civil liberties, the role of the military in politics, corruption and economic policy. But it took opposition leaders 10 years to figure out that they needed to actually go to the slums and the countryside. Not for a speech or a rally, but for a game of dominoes or to dance salsa â to show they were Venezuelans, too, that they werenât just dour scolds and could hit a baseball, could tell a joke that landed. That they could break the tribal divide, come down off the billboards and show that they were real.
If weâre going to beat this, we need support from the center as well as the right. And for the moment that means setting aside the resentment, disbelief, and fury I feel towards anyone that cast a vote for this. The few members of my family that are reachable Iâve engaged in conversation and framing it as Iâm not going to scold you or shame you or get angry (as hard as that might be), I want to listen and I want to understand. And then biting my tongue and listening as hard as I can while coming from a place of empathy.
The people united can never be defeated. Donât let them divide us.
Secondly, this whole thread is worth a read, but specifically:
https://twitter.com/gnrosenberg/status/826130063011741696
Related - has anyone else waded through the âAmerica Dividedâ series?
7 Likes
When I talk to anyone about American politics, I start by saying that I think the American electoral system needs a major overhaul. Nobody seems to object much, whatever their political leaning, and it means I can criticise Trump without getting into boring discussions about whether or not Hillary was just as bad.
I donât meet many, but I think if I had to talk to a Trump supporter about Trump Iâd go with âI can see the attraction, I just donât think heâs fit for the job.â The first part sounds like a compliment but I could say the same for Hitler, the second part is a position I think I can defend against all comers.
Go on, explain to me how Trump is a fit candidate to lead a nation. Never mind politics, I want to talk about basic competency. Whereâs his big business successes that didnât end in failure or litigation? What exactly is his net worth anyway and how long has he been withholding his taxes, again? And everythingâs running smoothly now heâs in power, isnât it? Hasnât even sorted out his cabinet yet and heâs already pissing off our allies and running into trouble with the courts. He can sign an executive order but he doesnât have anyone who knows how to draft one. Ha ha no, but seriously buddy, the guy is a jackass. Heâs got to go.
Already accepting donations for his 2020 campaign though, isnât he? Typical fucking guy.
9 Likes
I was a year ahead of Robb Willer in grad school, so every time he gets press for something cool like this, it fills me with jealousy and self-loathing.
Thatâs really useful information, but, as the article points out, hard to act upon because those values themselves look to be the problem. Liberal values seem to be based upon love; conservative values seem to be based upon fear. I can see why it may be expedient to make an argument as though you share conservative assumptions, but what about changing the value system itself? That is, instead of appealing to patriotism to persuade someone on ten different divisive political issues, wouldnât it be more effective to expose people to other cultures in a way that erodes their underlying ethnocentrism?
(or just get them to drop some acid)
10 Likes
That doesnt seem to be what the author is saying. What if we try that another way with common framing:
- liberal values seem to be based on non specific love
- conservative values seem to be based on love of country
When you reframe it, you get a position where people can talk to each other.
But isnt âdiversityâ a liberal value? Love of the other? Those things cant be true when we only extend that courtesy to people who think the same way, right? Wouldnt that be just the mirror image of âvalues based on fearâ?
You do know that there are conservatives who arent white, yeah? Aside from that, assuming the worst of someone right from the start, trying to force them to think another way, that doesnt seem very love based at all.
Storytime: Last year I had to go to West Virginia for a few weeks to my fatherâs small hometown. Serious Trump country. Hadnt been there in many years and was a bit surprised to see that now there are a surprising number of middle eastern owned businesses, bars, restaurants, grocery shops and that (unsurprisingly due to demographics) most of the customers were white. Again, let me restate that this was Serious Trump country. Point being that just being exposed to some other cultures doesnt mean people will be liberal.
5 Likes
I think this thread generally assumes this; many are not rational or open to helping others, but there are enough good people with ideological differences that it can make sense in some cases. I think it can be good to see some liberal/conservative differences as cultural or cognitive rather than right/wrong, even if there are strong ethical implications to these differences. I found The Righteous Mind enlightening in this respect, and itâs helpful to see values in more literal terms: âI give this a higher priority, while this is less importantâ rather than âthis is essential, this doesnât matterâ (which is not true of any value in any group).
One of the things that Iâve found frustrating in the past is the issue of identity politics. To some degree, itâs not a problem to do it, as long as you recognise that every group is going to start doing it â which puts you back where you started. Part of the problem is that it emphasises the outgroup; you must support us but you are not one of us. Often there seems to be an attempt to force people who are nominally willing to provide support to provide vocal rejection of ingroup loyalty, to an odd extent. Violence is largely perpetrated by men, so we should focus on eliminating violence against not men. Never mind the fact that there are many non-violent men and men are four times as likely to be killed, we should feel better about the fact that the one who kills us probably has a penis. Also, never mind the fact that men raised in a culture of violence who act out violence on men will also act out violence on women â weâre all connected and should show solidarity to each other. Over a third of domestic violence is against men â it isnât insignificant and it isnât taken seriously enough by society. But again, the call is to stop domestic violence against not men.
Another one is Black Lives Matter. Of course they do, all lives matter. No, you have to say that phrase and stop there. Never mind that police violence against everyone in America is obscenely high, and that it affects many poor white neighbourhoods too. Never mind the fact that improving this situation and focusing on the worst affected areas will predominantly improve black lives. Itâs sooooo important to make a barrier where people have to give verbal assent to policies that specifically exclude them, even if they strongly agree that a predominant focus should be on other people.
Pro-life: many people who are against abortion also want to make life better for others. They adopt, run clinics, give to charity, volunteer, support their families and do many other things. These things may not be the most effective ways of dealing with the problems that exist, but these are things that can be negotiated within a good faith argument. The status of a fetus is a complex issue that can depend a lot on how you think of it, and there are good people who cannot agree that abortion should be a right in all cases. This does not make them only pro-birth and not pro-life, or even make them anti-choice; they may be strongly pro-choice where it does not involve taking a life. Itâs possible to acknowledge the good that people do and their own values without putting them into our framework; i.e. stating that we have the same aim of making life safer for women and children, even if we have strong disagreements in important areas.
A lot of this seems to be saying, âwe insist that you show solidarity with us, but we do not offer solidarity with you.â The problems must be removed, and we can join together to do that. But liberals systematically push people away by saying in conservative terms that they are not welcome. Their contributions to society are written off because we have better ideas. Their fears are not respected because they arenât as likely to be realised as with other people. The problem is that people are not naturally evil, but they are naturally insecure â whatever their demographic. When you validate these concerns and make it clear that you have their back while they have yours, people can put these insecurities aside and believe that we are actually in this together. Focus on people who honestly want to make the world a better place, and combine your forces where possible rather than spending all your energy fighting each other over other issues. Trench warfare is extremely unproductive.
5 Likes
As Trumpâs tweet in response to the judge who halted his travel ban shows, it is urgent and imperative that both sides of the political divide clearly understand the implications of Trumpâs astute and clearly well informed activities aimed at unstitching the hard won rights and governing system the USA benefits from.
Totalitarianism isnât just beckoning - he is driving full throttle for it.
This is a pretty restrained, but well expressed, summary of the current situation from a CNN writer.
In my mind I am picturing the events that have occurred on a timeline, mapped onto the coming to total power of the Nazi party. It took a while, but was well documented and recorded in the media.
The parallels really are parallel. Can the USA prevent it?
Reaching across to Trump supporters is key - bear in mind though, how few National Socialists there really were, compared to the size of the population. It can sneak up, fast.
Anyone whose mind is not whirling at the prospect, keep an alarm setting on whether Trump actively commences some form of control and influence over military and intelligence networks.
I imagine he wants to take the USA into a war like Iraq, to tenderise the American population, then in his second term, consolidate total power.
1 Like
I have opportunities to talk to Trump supporters/voters every freaking day in real life. How I deal with them depends greatly on the nature of the relationship and their reason for supporting/voting for Trump.
@anon67050589 offers good advice in a similar thread:
8 Likes
I get your point and Iâm not opposed to having those conversations, but âlove of country,â expressed as nationalism, seems inextricably linked to division and exclusivity. âAmerica is the best country in the worldâ goes hand-in-hand with âand if you donât like it you can get out.â Itâs only because there is so much emphasis on country of birth that we can seriously consider a wall along our border.
Iâd rather have the conversation be about that.
My brother is an anti-Muslim, anti-gay Kim Davis-loving Christian fundamentalist. Christianity has afforded him an experience of the divine, and he feels the need to protect it with his lifeâthat itâs under siege, in factâbecause he canât quite wrap his mind around the fact that itâs not exclusive to his faith. Likewise, conservatives donât look at immigrants and see the same yearning to be free; they donât trust that their alien customs contain within them the same wholesome values as their own. They donât think that a same-sex couple is capable of providing their kids with the guidance that they remember from their childhoods.
Liberals and conservatives are both experiencing the âsacredâ â that ineffable something that may be expressed in a religion, in scientific inquiry, in the Bill of Rights, and so on. The difference is that conservatives believe that the sacred is only accessible to people like themselves, and therefore feel the need to defend it from the other, whereas liberals see it as something universal that can be freely shared.
Thatâs the point Iâm most interested in getting acrossâyou donât need to build a fort around the things you love, because others are capable of sharing them with you. I want that conversation.
Not necessarily, but itâs hard to ignore how much this election was a competition between urban and rural. Yes, thereâs an element of self-selection to that, but by and large diversity forces you to see real people instead of their caricature.
6 Likes
