And this is why..if Trump runs in 2020...he will get more support than he deserves. Attitudes like this make the very people who might consider changing their POV avoid changing their sides...
Demeaning people as a way of getting them to join you? Ineffective and borderline moronic.
They aren't going to join you regardless of what you do.
Look, if they are going to vote for Trump because liberals are being mean to them, against their own better interests, than they are beyond help anyways.
If Liberals don't understand that they may be acting in a way that is counter to their own better interests (alienating potential support) then they are beyond help.
Liberal Hubris is a MAJOR strategic shortcoming.
Other than inflating your own ego, I don't see much upside of continually insulting all Trump supporters.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
Obviously, some won't...but many would have been open to dialogue except that they were unnecessarily mocked.
I don't honestly don't get the Dems dogmatic defense of ######baggery.
You sound like a liberal snowflake, putting outcomes of another Trump election on butthurt Conservative feelings.
People from both sides are mocking the other side on varying degrees.
Trump still mocks Clinton, Democrats etc etc.
It's a fact of life, don't know why you think conservative losers should be treated like children.
Most of these voters we're talking about make their vote choice generally on a few emotional issues. Take illegals for example, they want them out because "they're taking our jobs" and "costing us millions". Except as we know the evidence says they're generally taking jobs Americans don't want to do (and keeping costs of essentials like produce artificially low), and they actually pay lot more in taxes than these voters think (many think they are actually leeches of the government). So how exactly do you convince them their incorrect beliefs are exactly that, incorrect? You can't, and frankly you shouldn't even try. Best to simply view these voters as lost and ignore them. I agree you only harden their support by mocking them, but believing you can actually convince them to stop focusing on emotional issues so much is pointless. This is what's so great about Canada, the most emotional issues in this country are basically 100% settled. In Murica, not so much.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Most of these voters we're talking about make their vote choice generally on a few emotional issues. Take illegals for example, they want them out because "they're taking our jobs" and "costing us millions". Except as we know the evidence says they're generally taking jobs Americans don't want to do (and keeping costs of essentials like produce artificially low), and they actually pay lot more in taxes than these voters think (many think they are actually leeches of the government). So how exactly do you convince them their incorrect beliefs are exactly that, incorrect? You can't, and frankly you shouldn't even try. Best to simply view these voters as lost and ignore them. I agree you only harden their support by mocking them, but believing you can actually convince them to stop focusing on emotional issues so much is pointless. This is what's so great about Canada, the most emotional issues in this country are basically 100% settled. In Murica, not so much.
Good points...I think you have to acknowledge that they are upset for a valid reason (terrible economic prospects) and at least inform them that the real threat to their future doesn't really come from immigration as much as it comes from automation.
I agree that the best you might be able to do is emphasize, attempt to educate and/or ignore. Mocking is counter-productive.
Trumps policies will eventually reveal themselves to many of his supporters as asinine, give these people an 'out'...don't remove the potential for them to leave by treating them poorly.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Last edited by Fozzie_DeBear; 04-23-2017 at 09:38 AM.
Dems just need to look at Kansas, Brownback has more or less installed the GOP handbook to a T, and he's the least popular governor in America, so unpopular he almost allowed the Dems to win a House seat in one of the 5-6 reddest states in America. GOP fiscal policies are basically proven failures, so as sad as it sounds you basically just need to sit back and let them suffer if you're a Dem voter. Then when the time is right you can pounce and show that you'll institute policies that better help them.
We all know Americans love voting against their own interest. Letting them suffer for it is probably a better approach then telling them they're stupid for doing it. People are more likely to adapt or change through first hand experience, not through badgering.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Republicans are willing to kick millions of people off Health care and raise the rates on others to fund building the wall, because that's why America voted them in.
Well, if you're an American that voted for that and still wants it, a little mocking is not going to change your mind.
If Liberals don't understand that they may be acting in a way that is counter to their own better interests (alienating potential support) then they are beyond help.
Liberal Hubris is a MAJOR strategic shortcoming.
Other than inflating your own ego, I don't see much upside of continually insulting all Trump supporters.
Ridicule mixed with rational argument is actually far more effective than empathetic arguments. It is not in fact a bad strategy
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Ridicule mixed with rational argument is actually far more effective than empathetic arguments. It is not in fact a bad strategy
It's actually probably the least effective strategy there is. This just isn't how moral psychology works. Our brains are not wired for this, unfortunately - when it comes to political and moral beliefs, rational arguments are largely ineffective and mockery simply makes people defensive and encourages them to double down.
Basically, human beings kind of suck.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It's actually probably the least effective strategy there is. This just isn't how moral psychology works. Our brains are not wired for this, unfortunately - when it comes to political and moral beliefs, rational arguments are largely ineffective and mockery simply makes people defensive and encourages them to double down.
Basically, human beings kind of suck.
That's written a lot, but there's growing proof it's not necessarily true
You can call them buffoons all you want, you can tease them, mock them, tell them they suck. I'm just not sure what you think it's going to do...
I think it's counterproductive
You don't understand these people nor their politics. They voted for Trump because they saw him as a strongman who would stand up to the PC garbage they viewed as hurting this nation. They like this type of rhetoric. This is the way they debate issues. They show up at a knife fight with a gun and then laugh at you for being an effete liberal while they blow you away. The only way they respect you is when you get into the trenches and sling the mud with them. These are people that love a bully, and the only way you get any respect from a bully is to bloody their nose. Taking the high road and letting them beat on you makes you look as weak and they think you are.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Those findings actually make some sense in the context of conspiracy theories, but I think the author of the article is missing the fact that the findings aren't inconsistent with the basic conception of motivated reasoning. When told to believe something that conflicts with our understandings, we ask "must I believe this". When told to believe something that aligns with our understandings, we ask "can I believe this".
In the specific context of conspiracy theories that they're dealing with, you're effectively just undermining the latter - you're hammering home to people, "no, you cannot believe this". People will still resist that conclusion, but it's not surprising that it's possible to create doubt by providing unequivocal facts that don't depend on interpretation or moral judgment of any sort. This notwithstanding the fact that even presented with that kind of evidence, obvious reality is still resisted tooth and nail. Hell, just look at any controversial call these playoffs and see how different fan bases react to video evidence in 1080p from multiple angles.
That isn't the case with politics and morality. Any rational argument you might make that X is good or Y is bad in those arenas is easily dismissed or justified because there just isn't math, or photographs, or historical records, or eyewitness testimony that you can present people with. In those arenas, you basically have to get people detached from their intuitions emotionally before reason can do any effective work.
So some guy might be more inclined to buy into Pizzagate because he hates Hillary Clinton and everything he stands for. Using mounds of evidence, you might be able to decrease his certainty that Pizzagate is a real thing. But in the vast majority of cases, you're not going to be able to rationally convince him to stop hating Hillary and everything she stands for. Your logical arguments will fail to persuade, and your mockery will only make him hate you, too (and by association everyone who holds similar views to you).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I do find it interesting that mockery of Trump is often met with the insistence of niceties and a gentle hand, suggesting that we have to cradle their delicate sensibilities as not to give further rise and solidification of Trump support.
It's something I've never heard in response to the rise of that demonic "far left," you know, the liberal snowflakes, the crybabies, the safe spacers. Mockery on that end seems to go fairly unchecked by the bipartisan or right leaning crowd. I've literally never in my life heard "you shouldn't call them snowflakes, that'll only further entrench their Marxist views! we need to understand their concerns and have a conversation." I've heard plenty of criticisms that don't use mockery, but none that condemn the mockery.
It's interesting that (often old) people on the right need a calm hand and kid gloves, but there are mockeries so commonplace of the young left that they're memeable at this point.
Trust me. I've been called a snowflake. I've been called worse. It didn't entrench my views. If a young person can take insults from old right wing losers and maintain a level head, surely we should expect the same from old right wing Trumpets when the tables are turned. If a little bit of mockery is all it takes to shut down their critical thinking ability then I'm sorry, you're dealing with an actual child, they're probably not worth your time.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Those findings actually make some sense in the context of conspiracy theories, but I think the author of the article is missing the fact that the findings aren't inconsistent with the basic conception of motivated reasoning. When told to believe something that conflicts with our understandings, we ask "must I believe this". When told to believe something that aligns with our understandings, we ask "can I believe this".
In the specific context of conspiracy theories that they're dealing with, you're effectively just undermining the latter - you're hammering home to people, "no, you cannot believe this". People will still resist that conclusion, but it's not surprising that it's possible to create doubt by providing unequivocal facts that don't depend on interpretation or moral judgment of any sort. This notwithstanding the fact that even presented with that kind of evidence, obvious reality is still resisted tooth and nail. Hell, just look at any controversial call these playoffs and see how different fan bases react to video evidence in 1080p from multiple angles.
That isn't the case with politics and morality. Any rational argument you might make that X is good or Y is bad in those arenas is easily dismissed or justified because there just isn't math, or photographs, or historical records, or eyewitness testimony that you can present people with. In those arenas, you basically have to get people detached from their intuitions emotionally before reason can do any effective work.
So some guy might be more inclined to buy into Pizzagate because he hates Hillary Clinton and everything he stands for. Using mounds of evidence, you might be able to decrease his certainty that Pizzagate is a real thing. But in the vast majority of cases, you're not going to be able to rationally convince him to stop hating Hillary and everything she stands for. Your logical arguments will fail to persuade, and your mockery will only make him hate you, too (and by association everyone who holds similar views to you).
You're correctly stating the fact that ridicule and rational argument rarely change people's minds. You'll have no disagreement with me here.
What you're ignoring is that nothing works well. Empathic rationalizing is less effective. In the end, you use what works best, even if it rarely works.
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
If Liberals don't understand that they may be acting in a way that is counter to their own better interests (alienating potential support) then they are beyond help.
Liberal Hubris is a MAJOR strategic shortcoming.
Other than inflating your own ego, I don't see much upside of continually insulting all Trump supporters.
Hubris (and snobbery, arrogance, elitism, insults...) are supposedly what lost the Democrats the election because people don't like that!
But they lost it to the most arrogant, elitist, insulting snob who possibly ever lived. The irony.
The landscape is too partisan to go out and convince people, what's going to happen is eventually, some of them, not all of them, are going to realize on their own that they were duped. Unfortunately, I do think there were a lot of people that voted for Trump for legitimate economic gripes and just bought into his populism. These people are going to be even more radical next time since this is just going to be another administration that does nothing for them.
Palin -> Tea Party -> Trump ... who knows how far this #### is going to go.
What you're ignoring is that nothing works well. Empathic rationalizing is less effective. In the end, you use what works best, even if it rarely works.
I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that it's less effective. In fact, to the extent that people buy into Dale Carnegie and Roger Fisher and those types, there's some reason to think that the model is more effective. Moreover, if you listen to what Haidt suggests as a model for interacting with people who disagree with you politically, I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that almost no one actually tries it. It's hard and frustrating and usually doesn't feel like it's worth the effort. There isn't really any good data as a result.
I'm with you, though, in saying that nothing works particularly well. We've got thousands of years of evolutionary biology telling us to adhere strictly to in-group dogma. That's pretty tough to counteract even if you're actively trying to do so in your own case, much less trying to drag other people kicking and screaming to it.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It's actually probably the least effective strategy there is. This just isn't how moral psychology works. Our brains are not wired for this, unfortunately - when it comes to political and moral beliefs, rational arguments are largely ineffective and mockery simply makes people defensive and encourages them to double down.
Basically, human beings kind of suck.
Haidt makes a very good argument in his discussion of moral psychology, but the issue isn't just about moral psychology. There's a lot of sociology and developmental psych theory in play here as well. I theorized that the schism in the electorate is based on the patriarchal versus matriarchal constructs - conservatives believing in the patriarchal constructs versus liberals believing in the matriarchal. This explains both groups and their behaviors to a tee. Also explains why conservatives have so many mommy issues and why liberals continue to emasculate every issue they come across.
