All they want is to be right and to convince the other they're wrong.
Beyond convincing them they're wrong, it can seem they want the righteous vindication of a concession. They want their opposing interlocutor to proclaim the error of their ways and denounce their former position. It can lead to just beating down an opponent to the point they don't even reflect on the full discourse. Sometimes you need to make some solid points and leave it at that. When people are flat out denying facts they usually fall into one of two groups. The first group are the Fucker Carlsons and Bitch McConnells of the world. They know they're lying and pointing out facts won't matter. The other group is people who haven't employed much critical thinking to the "facts" the first group provides. Either they've fully committed to the lies and are lost causes, they haven't had the time to truly flesh out their positions, or they might categorically lack the mental faculties to use critical thinking.
For the former group, they are playing their role and won't change no matter how foolproof your argument. So putting out facts at the forefront can help to have that information available to contrast the propaganda should someone from the latter group see.
For the latter group, no one wants to be wrong. So being systematically shown to have been duped and lied to can cause some pretty typical defense mechanisms. Enter cognitive dissonance. So making a few points and trying to not be abrasive or confrontational can set them a little more at ease. You need to allow them some time to process. Trying to force some "win" can cause them to just dig in deeper to their preconceived notions. Then it's harder to pull them out.
My general approach to someone whom I'm having a face-to-face discussion with is to ask questions. Tell me why you feel this way and how your ideas solve a (perceived) problem. Then I try to lead them outside the box and think with a broader brush. Is this really the solution to the problem or a solution looking for a problem.
But, frankly, more often I just get a better sense of where they're coming from and I find that we're not so different. We have different ideas about tangible things but when you step further back, we have a lot more in common. It's these echo chambers that give a distorted focus on our ideologies.
I find that this is when our true core difference become more apparent. And here is where we can start having real discussions and negotiations about framework and policy. When you can find some respect for someone, you might find you want to help them, even if you never vote for the same representative. We do't need to agree with each other but we should offer to help one another.
Yeah… complete lack of respect for one another may actually be the greatest threat to our democracy. People don't even want to consider offering respect to someone who doesn't respect them first. I genuinely don't think a lot of people even know what respect means anymore. Treat people like you want to be treated.
When I was in third grade I was to catechism classes and had my first communion. The whole time I'm going I'm like, but what about Judaism and Buddhism, and Islam, and the Native American and Roman and Greek and Aztec gods? Who says Catholicism is the "right" religion? Granted, these are philosophies based in fantasy but the point I'm trying to make is that it's extremely easy to stay within your echo chamber and not question what's right or wrong or truth or fiction. The liberals love to lean on science to prove themselves right but they're also the same people who wear "free range" as a crown when the chickens are still living in shit and believe paper and reusable bags are better than plastic bags (its complicated).
Everyone is a product of propaganda / marketing / branding / advertising / political and religious greed / The Algorithm.
All we will ever truly have is each other.
Make peace with it.
Beyond convincing them they're wrong, it can seem they want the righteous vindication of a concession. They want their opposing interlocutor to proclaim the error of their ways and denounce their former position. It can lead to just beating down an opponent to the point they don't even reflect on the full discourse. Sometimes you need to make some solid points and leave it at that. When people are flat out denying facts they usually fall into one of two groups. The first group are the Fucker Carlsons and Bitch McConnells of the world. They know they're lying and pointing out facts won't matter. The other group is people who haven't employed much critical thinking to the "facts" the first group provides. Either they've fully committed to the lies and are lost causes, they haven't had the time to truly flesh out their positions, or they might categorically lack the mental faculties to use critical thinking.
For the former group, they are playing their role and won't change no matter how foolproof your argument. So putting out facts at the forefront can help to have that information available to contrast the propaganda should someone from the latter group see.
For the latter group, no one wants to be wrong. So being systematically shown to have been duped and lied to can cause some pretty typical defense mechanisms. Enter cognitive dissonance. So making a few points and trying to not be abrasive or confrontational can set them a little more at ease. You need to allow them some time to process. Trying to force some "win" can cause them to just dig in deeper to their preconceived notions. Then it's harder to pull them out.
I agree with this.
My general approach to someone whom I'm having a face-to-face discussion with is to ask questions. Tell me why you feel this way and how your ideas solve a (perceived) problem. Then I try to lead them outside the box and think with a broader brush. Is this really the solution to the problem or a solution looking for a problem.
But, frankly, more often I just get a better sense of where they're coming from and I find that we're not so different. We have different ideas about tangible things but when you step further back, we have a lot more in common. It's these echo chambers that give a distorted focus on our ideologies.
I find that this is when our true core difference become more apparent. And here is where we can start having real discussions and negotiations about framework and policy. When you can find some respect for someone, you might find you want to help them, even if you never vote for the same representative. We do't need to agree with each other but we should offer to help one another.
Yeah… complete lack of respect for one another may actually be the greatest threat to our democracy. People don't even want to consider offering respect to someone who doesn't respect them first. I genuinely don't think a lot of people even know what respect means anymore. Treat people like you want to be treated.
When I was in third grade I was to catechism classes and had my first communion. The whole time I'm going I'm like, but what about Judaism and Buddhism, and Islam, and the Native American and Roman and Greek and Aztec gods? Who says Catholicism is the "right" religion? Granted, these are philosophies based in fantasy but the point I'm trying to make is that it's extremely easy to stay within your echo chamber and not question what's right or wrong or truth or fiction. The liberals love to lean on science to prove themselves right but they're also the same people who wear "free range" as a crown when the chickens are still living in shit and believe paper and reusable bags are better than plastic bags (its complicated).
Everyone is a product of propaganda / marketing / branding / advertising / political and religious greed / The Algorithm.
All we will ever truly have is each other.
Make peace with it.