ι΄PieFedHas anybody here actually succeeded in getting an online conservative/right-winger to reflect and legitimately and long term shift their views left?
submitted by
As in, not known to you IRL.
I've occasionally brought it up before, but a while back in my reddit days I was in a thread where a "professional deprogrammer" had popped in and was talking about how to "deprogram" conservatives and get them to shift left in their views. It centered around restoring their sense of community and belonging with more balanced viewpoint folks IRL and away from their online echo chambers.
I asked them if they had any way to convert someone you encounter wholly online and they said that it was basically impossible, IRL you have a decent chance, but not online.
I've been thinking about that quite a bit, so now I'm curious if anybody here has actually gotten an online conservative to come to the dark side light side?
I love that you think that you are right and that it the people that disagree with you who should change their mind. Have you ever considered that maybe u might need to change ur beliefs as well?
Hah, no. When I look at the conservative party all I see is hate, hate and more hate.
You hate the people that are different from you or whoever you're told to hate. You spend so much time dressing up this hate to make it more palatable for yourself and others, but if you peel it all away, that's what really drives you and your fellow conservatives and it is just shameful.
At least with the tankies, what they do, they do because it'll bring true equality (or at least that's what they're *led* to believe).
The reign pullers for conservatives tells you to vote for them, support them, spread propaganda for them to *hate* on a group because some group deserves your hate for one inane reason or another.
The reign pullers for tankies have to get their support by promising good things like equality, the banishment of the rich, full unalienable human rights to include healthcare.
Yea the reign pullers are lying, they always do that on all sides, but *what* they have to lie to you *about* to get you to do the things they want you to do MATTERS.
And the lies they feed you, are disgusting.
American political parties do not define political perspective globally. U can have conservative views and still hate what the us conservative party is doing.
Not at all I hate people who oppose freedom and equal ity of opportunity. Turns out thats both parties when it comes to the us.
That's the same thing as what Hitler promised. The ends do not justify the means.
The left says the exact same thing for the exact same reasons just they point the hate at different groups of people.
Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome cos those are 2 very different things. I would argue that's its a human right to do with your own body as u choose. Its the same right that gives women the right to an abortion that also gives Nazis the right to spew their hate and wave their arms around as they please. You cannot have one without the other.
I'm in Australia where we have free healthcare and I think that it should be a free for all. In fact I'm fighting against the right wingers of my country who are trying to make our system more like your fucked up system.
So why align with any political group if u know they are all the same playing the same games. Pick beliefs u believe in personaly from all sides of political ideology. Tribalism for any side is just as bad as tribalism for any other side do not try justify ur team to urself simply because they are your team.
I never said I believe the lies I'm simply saying that the side u hate because you where told to hate have some good points. This doesn't mean I subscribe to all their beliefs nor do I subscriber to all the left wing beliefs.
We all have far more in common than things we don't. I would encourage you to think/enquire why people u disagree with hold the beliefs they do with an open mind and you might just find u agree.
Hah, don't try to play the reasonable middle-ground card with me.
Sure, hide behind semantics. I'm clearly talking about conservatism as an ideology - the same ideology that opposes progress and protects hierarchies of power worldwide. Whether it's the US Republican party, the UK Tories, or Australia's Liberal party - it's all built on the same foundations of preserving privilege for some at the expense of others.
Bull. The policies your "side" keeps pushing TARGET specific groups of people - immigrants, LGBTQ+ folks, Black and brown communities. Don't pretend it's about some noble principle when the outcomes keep hurting the same people over and over.
Are you seriously comparing leftist policies to Nazism? This is peak bad-faith argument. Hitler used promises of "equality" as a very thin veneer to scapegoat Jews and other minorities. Hitler's "equality" was *only* (and openly) for his defined "master race" - it was exclusionary by design. Leftist policies aim to *include* everyone in their benefits. In some cases the same tactics the right uses today, Hitler was far closer to today's right-wingers than left
No, we don't. Being intolerant of intolerance isn't the same as hating someone for their identity. Calling out bigotry isn't "hate" - it's accountability. I refuse to accept this false equivalence.
This talking point is so tired. There IS no "equality of opportunity" when systemic barriers exist from birth. Your side loves to pretend we're all starting on equal footing when that's *demonstrably* false.
Oh, so you enjoy the benefits of "leftist" policies while arguing against them? How convenient. And yes, your healthcare system IS better than our nightmare - because it operates on COLLECTIVE responsibility rather than individual "freedom."
They're not all the same, and that was my entire point about. What they lie ABOUT matters.
When progressive leaders lie, they're promising universal healthcare, living wages, and equal rights they *might* not be able to deliver. When conservative leaders lie, they're just literally *scapegoating* immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and minorities for *all* of society's problems.
I align with the side that at least has to *PRETEND* to care about making everyone's lives better, not the side that openly campaigns on making certain people's lives worse. The fact that you can't see this difference proves you're not the "free thinker" you claim to be.
Both sides have corruption and liars, but only one side has to appeal to basic human decency to get votes. That's why it matters who supports whom, even knowing politicians will more likely than not disappoint me.
Yet here you are, repeating every conservative talking point in the book. You claim to be above it all while pushing the exact rhetoric that maintains the status quo.
Save your "both sides" nonsense for someone who'll fall for it. I'm not interested.
Are you saying what I'm saying is a reasonable middle ground? Cos the rest of your response looks like ur calling my beliefs non reasonable and not a middle ground.
Do you truly believe half the population has absolutely zero good points?
Again its not my side. I choose to believe in some of their beliefs. I've lost more liberties under left wing governments than I have under right wing governments.
I am comparing the stated goals of Hitler to the stated goals of the left. Specific y in the context of tankies who are also supporting genocidal regimes. The lefts equality excludes me, I get paid less for the exact same job, and I get less scholarship opportunities simply because I'm a straight white man. Equality of outcome is actively fucking over my equality of opportunity.
Because that's all the left ever does huh? U seriously believe this? What are the tankies doing? Are they haring or just calling out bigotry?
There u go proving my original point that your too ideologically captured to even consider the other side.
I not claiming we have equality of opportunity I'm just saying that is what we should be aiming for.
I do. I like a lot of leftist policies. I'm just arguing for you to consider that not all leftist policies are good and not all conservative policies are bad.
So u know ur being lied to, being sold a false dream and yet u are defending one lie because u think its a better lie than the other lie.
By equal rights do u mean no rights?
I think ur missing quite a bit on nuance here. But yes that's essentially what they are doing.
It doesn't make my life better. It makes my taxes worse, it gives other people more opportunities that I don't have, it makes my vote less valuable, it erodes my liberties. Its the same its just that the left is scapegoating a different group. The fact u can't see this proves that your are completely ideologically captured.
Basic human decency huh? Do you think you are the righteous justified in any action as the ends justify any means? As I said before that's what Hitlers followers believed.
I believe I also pushed for free healthcare and bodily autonomy (the right to an abortion etc) I didn't realise those where right wing talking points.
Again proving my original point that you cannot fathom the idea that the other side might have some good points. You are the one who is ideologically captured incapable of individual free thinking.
Sort of. I have s friend who I consider a RL friend but whom I've never met face to face (he's part of an RL friend group, but he joined after I moved away so our only contact is online.)
He and I have discussed politics extensively over the last 10 years or so, and he's gone from being a 2-time Trump voter to rejecting him outright and voting against him this time. He's not s Democrat, but I still consider it progress.
I drifted slowly from right-libertarian to a more leftish position: pro-union, pro-social-programs, skeptical of the compatibility of unregulated capitalism with individual freedom. Still no fan of tankies.
This wasn't from anyone sitting down and trying to convince me, though. Part of it was discovering how close right-libertarianism had always been to white-supremacism: some old Ron Paul newsletters were unpleasantly enlightening. Part was seeing people who called themselves "libertarians" line up with the far right to support state violence, especially against black and brown people. And heck, part was from getting richer and seeing how *that* worked.
I have a lot of sympathy for the frustrations that get young men into right-wing positions and occasionally I try to puncture some of the nonsense they're being fed.
I think most of us who were previously more conservative leaning and who became more liberal just⦠actually have integrity, to be honest.
When we said we believed in individual freedoms for example - *we meant it*. MAGA gives no shits about freedom. There are practically endless similar examples because MAGA doesnβt stand for anything it claims to
Too many American right-wingers use "freedom" to mean "I get to impose costs on you; you don't get to impose costs on me." It's not equality; it's strictly positional. Look at the association of "freedom" with shitty driving for a little example: "I get to threaten you on the highway, pollute your air, tear up the land with my off-roading ... but taxing my gasoline is on offense to the Founders."
"Trump is the president for peace, Biden will start WWIII!"
Parroting fox news: "we don't need to be so friendly anymore, we need to take Canada and Greenland by force if necessary."
"Trump will bring down inflation and the price of food!"
Parroting fox news: "It's our duty to pay higher prices to support American businesses!"
"Trump and the GOP represent the party of law and order, they will protect the constitution!"
"What Trump says goes, anyone obstructing his plans are traitors! He deserves a 3rd term! He who saves his country breaks no laws!"
MAGA stands for anything that gets them what they want in the immediate moment and then tosses it away when their needs change... It's infuriating.
So say we all.
Come over to anarchism (libertarian socialism). Anarchy isn't lawlessness; it's as close as we can get to true democracy. Not this 2 party bullshit. Government AND Corporations and People shouldn't tread on us. The government should serve the needs of the people and protect their rights from other people.
Side note, if you describe it as Anarchism and avoid saying "left", "liberal", or "socialism". You might be able to reach loosely right-wing people who would otherwise turn off at any of those words.
Thing is, the economists are right about free markets being a good idea; and free markets depend on a certain kind of regulation to exist. The trouble with *capitalism* is that it's never been a reliable ally of freedom of any sort; going back to the origins of capitalism in the private funding of colonial slaver monopolies. The association of capitalism with free markets is largely propaganda; capitalism *started* with colonial slaver monopolies like the VOC; to a first approximation *every* firm wants to be a monopoly, and a great way of doing that is political corruption; see today's USA.
But there's a reason every government since ever β from empires to democracies β has done things like standardize weights & measures, build public goods like roads to enable trade, and establish courts of law to enforce contracts and fair dealing. Those things are really good ideas! And I'm not sure I can credit the left-anarchist proposals to replace them any more than I can credit the anarcho-capitalist ones.
Mutualism sure has some nice ideas though.
I would love to read more of this differentiation between free markets and capitalism, and the links to the slave trade, if anyone would feel so inclined to throw a book recommendation my way
For a start, look at the history of major companies traded in the first stock markets, such as the Dutch East India Company (VOC), the British East India Company (EIC), the Hudson's Bay Company, etc. These were colonial ventures, but they raised money through the sale of shares traded publicly.
However, they were not subject to competition in the market, as they enjoyed legal monopolies and used military force. They also frequently employed slave labor.
Isn't that just the (American) definition of liberal? That the market works, if restricted and guided enough by the state, so it works in the right way?
Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order".
That is something so very many get wrong, either unintentionally, or because they've been told that lie constantly by a hierarchy hell bent on ensuring people can't think of any other way things are done.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail appeared to have the most accurate representation of anarchy *I* have seen in modern media (that flavor wouldn't work for a large government though). A fucking satirical comedy no one would take seriously. All other references I've seen about anarchy seemed like "fuck the government" was the entire ideology.
I've veered mostly into mutualism for awhile. Indavidualist anarchy is a sucker's game. NOBODY can do everything alone.
Building networks and community? That's just... what people do.
I was a bit by the libertarian bug in college but what got me is just where you draw the line and it can never deal with economic inequality. Even if you started in perfectly level field it will lead to massive inequality eventually.
I was also right libertarian, although I have been called a fascist for that, , anyway I shifted from that slowly into anarchocristianism and I will stay here. I just don't believe in government anymore only in communities and obviously in God but that's another story.
I just want people to have their needs covered, to have strong sense of communities (love your neighbors) in non violent environments and I think human government is inherently violent either physically violent or economically violent. Jesus spoke of all this.
What I think people needs to understand is it's not the same to be left in the US than in Spain for example, different countries have different kinds of issues caused by different ideologies. So it's easy to understand why someone in Germany loves worker unions but in Spain don't because in Spain the biggest ones (UGT and CCOO) work for the government (the so called Leftist Psoe)
To me this means Dorothy Day or Tolstoy. What does it mean to you?
Same but mostly Jesus.
Confronting them with the flaws in their thinking only makes them double down:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/202401/why-do-people-double-down
If they won't change their mind, is doubling down any different than continuing to believe what they already believe?
They actively reject the evidence and believe what they want to an even greater degree.
How is the outcome any different when the end result is them continuing to hold the same opinions contrary to evidence?
Doubling down makes them even more entrenched, then they start believing CRAZIER things.
I mean, this is psychology, not politics or logic. When someone is told not to do something they feel they have the right to do, they are more likely to do it. When someone is told they're stupid when they have been trained to feel correct and logical, they are more likely to stand by that belief. If a figure that they have developed a vicarious, parasocial relationship with is validly criticized, they will denounce the critic as if it were an attack on the core of their being, rather than agree with the critique.
These right-wing beliefs are like psychological parasites, ticks. The only correct solutions are to remove it with surgical precision with a careful plan. Prodding it and squeezing it is what you instinctively want to do, but that just makes it dig in further.
People think that they are rational, but rational thought has virtually nothing to do with right-wing beliefs. Instead, it's all about feelings. They believe whatever they feel is true, and bury themselves in echo chambers where everyone believes the same things, so that they aren't confronted with cognitive dissonance.
And, importantly, have convinced themselves that anyone arguing against them is doing the exact same thing. Classic projection.
When their alt right beliefs bite them in the ass they don't change their mind.
What kind of careful approach do you think is going to magically work? Why would any approach make anything better or worse when they won't change due to direct negative impacts to themselves from their own actions.
Well, a single action is never going to de-program these people. You ask why any approach would make anything better or worse, but I noted why certain approaches make things worse. I don't know how to affirmatively convince these people, but I'd say a necessary (even if not sufficient) condition to making things better is not making them worse.
Can't tell if you're talking about religion or conservatives.
Just kidding, it's the same mental weakness being exploited in both groups.
It's like Trump himself, saying bullshit like it's the first he's ever heard of it or whatever.
Thanks for chiming in, Genocide Jordan.
You guys must hate it when I point this stuff out:
https://lemmy.world/comment/16101271
Which is why direct confrontation is always a bad idea. You basically have to guide them into coming to the correct conclusion on their own without overtly trying to convince them.
I'm in the middle of pulling a chat friend out of his programming. His only real problem was being raised in Texas by a Good Ol Boy single father, and once he got out from under his dad's wing, he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn't lining up with reality.
He started out as an incel, but now he's in therapy and has a girlfriend.
I think of it less as 'converting' and more just holding his hand while he figures out that his dad's advice was complete horseshit. It takes forever, and not everybody has the spoons to pull it off, but I do, so I will.
a man of high logic, far easier to convert than majority of them.
Your bias is showing. Intelligence isn't necessary to be left wing. Change is hard for everyone and requires emotional intelligence, not IQ.
No it isn't & I didn't say anything about IQ.
He said
to realize this is a man of high logic
Please could you define what you understand by "high logic"?
Personally, I'm only familiar with "higher-order logic" as defined in maths. So for me, someone with "high logic" has the ability to interconnect and solve complex problems, which is one of the key skills measured by IQ tests.
Realising your beliefs and reality do not align doesn't require complex logical reasoning, so for me the statement you quoted doesn't mean high logic.
yea that's the joke
I don't argue with conservatives online to try and change their minds. I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument. For every social media user that posts content, there are a thousand lurkers. I post arguments so hopefully some of those lurkers might change their mind away from nationalist authoritarianism
This is why I would labour to keep arguing until either I get last word, or the interlocutor clearly runs out of good arguments. You can't reason with people who never reason themselves into an idea to begin with. But you can convince the readers that the idea is dangerous and to keep away!
Don't know if I've ever done it, but it was done to me.
So, it's obviously possible.
I'm pretty amused by the mix of comments where people are offering up themselves as irrefutable evidence, while others proclaim with certainty it can't be done. Actually a humbling perspective see people who've convinced themselves trying to convince others I don't exist.
Well it can be done, IRL, and it does seem as though it can be done online as long as it's across a time span of *years* and a deep well of mutual respect to lean on.
I struggle with how to word my thoughts about this, but online, text-based communication seems to always start out being interpreted as negative in its messaging. So those reading tend to assume the sender is being disingenuous from the start.
That's why it may take longer to deprogram via online methods than in person. Online, we have to first get past the perception that we are disingenuous or mocking the reader. It's not easy to do when right-wing propagandists have fed them a steady diet of tribalism and mistrust for the last couple of decades (at least).
In person, we can verbally relay those things we can't accurately convey in text with nonverbal cues: emotion and sincerity. It can also be easier to cut off misunderstandings before they can reinforce those negative assumptions by gauging someone's nonverbal communications in the moment, something we can't do while they read our words.
It's weird cause it can feel like it takes a month of chats online to equal the same progress as chatting in person for an hour. I made the time comparison up, but I'm sure you understand my meaning. Trying to do this online is just time-consuming and that's not to mention the person you are talking to has to WANT to discuss these things with you.
I just wish it was easier for me to stomach the bullshit and vitriol IRL.
yea I don't think it is possible online, dialog isn't ingested the same. It is a many years process.
It can certainly be done in real life in single conversations though. Like that black guy that befriended KKK members and changed them.
Would you mind sharing more details on your experience?
Like, was it a single person that got you thinking, or feedback from a group?
Is there a particular conversation that you remember as the start of change, or rather a gradual shift over time?
Did/was something happen(ing) in your personal life at the time that made you more open to hearing another opinion?
It was a confluence of things.
And to set the stage, political leanings are complex. There is a tendency (insistence, I'd even say now) to collapse a 10 dimensional notion to 1D. At the time (myself, and what conservative parties were offering) aligned on a retrospectively narrow majority of dimensions.
I'd really drank the capitalism kool aid. You work hard, you get rewarded. The role of the government is to facilitate the opportunities by putting business is a favourable position to incentivize the creation of opportunities to create jobs. Poor people don't want to work; if the jobs are readily available it's on them for not participating.
I'd also really drank the baseless vibe Kool aid. "Conservatives are good at economy" "Conservatives are for personal freedom". These associations were unchallenged through my youth. You spend 20 years internalizing those "truths", it's nonsensical to expect to convince someone otherwise in minutes.
I grew up in a rural area. It was just accepted as truth. There were no homeless people in my sightlines. I understood their experience as much as I understood the experience of a kangaroo.
I moved to the city, and my friend group was a mixed bag politically. Nobody too far in any direction, and politics wasn't a major topic of conversation.
I did have a gaming buddy, though, full on communist. Super smart dude. Loves Talking about politics. Usually voice chat. A few times a year he'd be in town and we could meet for lunch or something.
I think eventually I would have shifted my perspective organically as a function of just having a broadened perspective, but he was certainly the catalyst.
Things I took as true, he'd say "no" and have data to show it. We're men of an era, so I wouldn't say he was "nice" about it, but it was never personal attacks.
We would (and still do) argue. At length. It wasn't an overnight thing. It was a years thing.
When I mentioned earlier about the many constituent pieces of a political leaning, those really just got dismantled one by one. Or, shifted. I still think personal freedom is important. I just now reject the idea that conservatives offer policy to support that value.
Nobody has asked, but I think the key for me was to not make it about identity. Show how your values don't map to the political party you think you support. When I'd challenge, he would respond directly. If we were talking about... I dunno... Taxes, and he felt like I was making points that he didn't have the greatest answers for, he wouldn't just change the subject (but her emails!) kinda thing. He loves being right but he had the integrity to not switch gears just to "win". That built a lot of trust.
It was probably a few years before I actually ever read any backing sources he ever provided. But eventually, I was just too curious. If he hadn't built that trust I don't think I ever would have.
I don't think anyone can flip someone with an identity-based political association in a single conversation online. If the relationship is transient, there is no trust.
You gotta charge up the person's curiosity level. I think many people can contribute to that, though.
People who trip over themselves to make broad statements about how stupid and terrible you are for how you voted reduce the curiosity. People who respectfully engage with curiosity, avoiding identity attacks raise it.
And, it's not just me who believes this. Putin does, as well: it's the playbook for destabilizing western democracy. His troll farms are designed to get people to just snap at eachother and write eachother off as terrible people and lost causes.
Before deleting most of my Reddit stuff, I had a good conversation with a conservative about climate change. They pulled out all the standard right wing talking points, and I tried to remain respectful as I provided sources that refuted every one. One they threw out that I hadnβt heard of at the time was βglobal wobbling,β which I had to look up. 10- minutes later, I responded, with sources, saying that it was yet another thing the right throws out to confuse the issue for voters, but something climate scientists are well aware of and can measure and predict. At that point, they thanked me for all the info and said they had some reading to do. Thatβs the best Iβve ever gotten. Donβt know if they changed their view, though.
I'd like to stay optimistic and hope they did as well, though if my own experience is any indicator, there's equal chance they fell into the pit of "Maybe climate change is real, but it's not that bad/it's better for me."
Ill be honest, thats a victory in itself. Creating a crack isnt a loss. Its progress. As small as it may be. A damn doesnt fail because of a meteor hitting it. Its a crack here, a fracture there. It adds up.
The resiliency of that mentality isnt impenetrable.
I was raised Right. Change is a long series of events that no one person or interaction triggers. Dogma is only truly changed from within.
I grew up believing 9/11 was an inside job and the planes were military cargo ones with missile pods and the purpose was an auto-coup and also a heist of the gold bullion stored in the towers basement, vaccines caused autism and a range of other diseases, and I voted for Clive Palmer (Australia's cheap dollar-store knockoff of Trump).
The turning point for me was getting off 4chan (I went via 99chan which became a nazi site before dying which is not great) , talking to more people besides just my mother and Aunt, and somehow stopping being a contrarian shitgibbon by losing the belief that all politics is irredeemably corrupt and a vote for Clive was a vote for chaos, respectively. I THINK I was looking for a world that was more interesting and made more sense than this one.
Ironically I started my internet life on &TOTSE, which is about as left as Lemmy, but there, I was an antisocial lying troll. Now I am not antisocial anymore.
I still believe that the moon is hollow and inhabited by ancient inbred families of cannibal Reptilians who aim to repopulate the earth but don't have the means to return, but that's fairly harmless IMO.
You've still got time.
I was in Geometry class when 9/11 happened. The day stopped. The news was turned on in class a few minutes before the second plane struck. I watched it in real time. I had been in those towers 6 months before too...
About the worst rabbit holes for me were giving any audience to perpetual motion trolls, and Brown's gas nonsense in car stuff.
Everyone tries to simplify messy complexity and we are all tribal in scope. I've learned to only pay attention to people with academic credentials. I don't watch translated nonsense from general news outlets. The information I pick up elsewhere is more collectivised where I expect to see a bunch of people talking about something from different angles before I view the information as relevant. I also do not care for any outlets claiming to bridge some divided narrative as these are controlling where the line in the sand is drawn. If two parties are Right and Right-Jihadists like in the USA, calling one party Left is manipulating by validating the status quo and outdated perspective.
What changed me started with stratification of rock layers and realizing deep time was not compatible with my religious narrative. I encountered a sharp personal dislike for biases and prejudice against others without logic or reason. I encountered a lot of plausible seeming arguments, but ultimately the people making those arguments had nothing to offer; they are trolls with no depth, interests, personality, community, richness in life. Look at such a person's profile and they are not real. There is no greater engagement or value they add to the world. All they do is make arguments that muddle political narratives. I learned to view these people as either getting paid to post or idiots. I care about real people and that means your politics should only ever be a small part of your person and profile. Any person that lacks a serious passion project and hobby(s) but posts their politics is a joke to me.
In a way, I extend this to any group now. Like do people in your group include Nobel laureates that contribute significantly to the advancement of humanity. Because if they don't, why bother wasting time with fools that lack top aspirations. Live life with no excuses. Excuses are for fools. Do the best you can with the cards you're dealt in life.
I've just met more people. Friends coming out kind of forces you to re-evaluate the casual *phobia. I don't think online can do it. You have to experience and learn yourself.
Deleted by author
Fair point, people are different.
Yes, and this is generally how it works:
P.S. If you are doing this correctly and with an open mind, thereβs actually a good chance you might change your opinions on a some things, and thatβs okay (as long as they arenβt harmful). It also can show them by example that opinions are flexible and should be based on evidence, not the other way around.
Thank you, that's very insightful and useful.
I was raised super conservative, and the two biggest steps on my journey to the left were Jon Stewart Bernie Sanders
Jon got my attention by pointing out the hypocrisy that did in fact exist on both sides. It gave me a space to exist where I wasn't just called a wrong dumb redneck and dismissed, but felt like he was actually trying to meet me where I was. That allowed me to let my guard down and actually listen to what he was saying.
Bernie Sanders came along in 2016 at a point where I would've called myself a centrist and basically did the same thing. Non judgmentally gave me a space to exist, listed some topics I cared about, then gave me a cause for them.
People don't like being told they're wrong. You cannot debate someone out of believing what they believe. What you can do is ask them questions. Get them to consider why they believe what they believe, and eventually they may start seeing contradictions and change their mind on their own.
No, because nobody is actually about discussions anymore. They want to be right. I've sat down and talked to plenty of right wingers, after and before all this crazy shit pushed everyone into tribalism, and it was mostly that we agreed on what was good but disagreed how to get there. I miss those times. Now it doesnt seem theres any middle ground to build on.
I'm conservative, but I've never seen it happen in either direction. Internet arguments are more about the audience than the tankie you're arguing against.
This is the answer.
Providing a rebuttal to a comment doesn't convince the commenter of the flaws in their reasoning.
However, when silly ideas are consistently rebutted it creates the feeling that the general consensus feels that it's a silly idea.
Have you considered that youβre wrong?
When I was a teenager, yeah. Came out more conservative.
To be fair, it's kinda unusual to all of a sudden be convinced that it's ok to be racist, like exploitation, and be against helping the unfortunate.
I know right? Especially when the other guy is convinced he's not being racist and he's helping the unfortunate, like most lefties.
The irony of this is amazing. You have it so backwards and the worst thing is, you don't even know you are wrong.
I disagree with you.
However I would like the full version of that argument. Please.
I don't this will lead anywhere productive, but alright, first let's get our terms straight. Racism is prejudice based on race or discrimination based on that prejudice. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Right now, there's this out-group bias. I'm not saying it's all lefties, but some, even in the government, which makes it systemic. For example, the UK Grooming Scandal, or how in America, illegal immigrants in NYC get housing for free when Americans don't. (I would very much prefer it the other way around, Americans got housed for free, (Or no one at all, because the government is always corrupt, and they'll just use it an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to landlords)). Hell, there's lefties who think we shouldn't deport illegal immigrants! Even after they commit a crime other than illegally immigrating! For more examples, take a gander at the scholarships available, how many are minority specific? Plenty. How many are majority specific? None. How about homeless shelters? How many are women specific? Plenty (Which is a good thing). How many are male specific? Few. (Which is a bad thing) Hell, the entire saga of Earl Silverman and the first domestic violence shelter for men in Canada is heartbreaking.
I can go on, but it gets tiresome quickly. All of it is pretty racist.
For the second bit, the whole "not helping" bit.
What do you think happens when you send aid to 3rd world countries? Especially on going aid? When you send shirts, those shirts devastate the local textile industry. When you send food, it hurts the farms. Yeah, sure, you could subsidize those local industries, but that quickly spirals out of control. Which factories get funds? How much are the local warlords getting out of it? That sort of thing. If you aren't fully funding everything for an indefinite period of time, then you're hurting them.
That's not to say don't help in an earthquake or other natural disaster, but it's gotta be a light touch. Help them back on their feet and then let them go on their way.
We are still in disagreement because you're splitting hairs to try claiming you're a good person, and I'm not.
As I said before. We are in disagreement. However I appreciate that you showed at least some of your work.
What hairs? I don't think I'm splitting any hairs, or getting anywhere close.
In my limited and personal experiane. What Trump has done has given people an OK to be their worst selves...
Some people have always been gigantic pieces of shit and just needed permission to stop being polite.
Iβm not a conservative and I agree with you.
Well, this has got to be one of the only things I've ever upvoted from you, but yea
I've certainly taken that approach with the tankies these days, I used to debate them, now I don't really because its pointless. I reply to them every time, but it's arguments *for* the audience more than anything.
When I was petitioning for [email protected] to turn it into a satire comm, one kind of comment I saw come up was "if they don't have a comm where we can argue with them, how can we get them to see the light?" (And before anyone brings it up, yes there are other Lemmy spaces (and a whole instance! (HilariousChaos) that are for "serious" conservative comms like [email protected]) and I still think it's pointless to try because of what I covered with the opening post, but I was really hoping for at least a rare case of it happening.
Yeah, I have started to bait and be quite a jerk to people who are arguing in bad faith. But never in a drawn out way. I pop in, call them out for bad faith and jet.
Frankly, thatβs how you should deal with argumentative people in real life, tell them you donβt want to play their game and then go find another one.
Responding once, twice at most, is the best way.
I think we can't convince anyone because if you're arguing with someone online, they're probably trolling you if you are saying something honestly. Internet spaces are so segregated that someone who comes here to argue, is probably not arguing in good faith.
My "deprogramming," was more a series of small hints I was on the wrong path.
At first, people who tried arguing pushed me further toward the right. They came at me from inciting angles, making up facts to support their arguments. Yeah, the left bullshits too, and if you believe everything that supports your point of view without question - you're not that different from the people you hate.
I remember someone asking me to a Fahrenheit 9/11 showing at university, called me a Bush supporter when I wouldn't go. I wasn't, I just didn't like Michael Moore. Still don't for the above reasons.
Looking back, I could have gracefully immersed myself in other viewpoints if it weren't for the constant needling of wannabe academics and the automatic disdain they had for my views. I was attacked for even bringing up points because I was questioning myself. Honestly, I get why conservatives hate academia.
I will say some arguments stuck, though. Statements that sounded like complete nonsense in the moment make sense to me now, years later. It's not wasted breath to share your views with someone, they'll remember.
Regardless, I was still wrong and it wasn't other people's responsibility to educate me. I did that through meeting good, patient and understanding friends, actively trying to dismantle my biases, and through therapy. Oh, and some pretty intense acid trips. That shit will fast track you to a feeling of oneness with your community real quick.
Deleted by author
But what is if I think the conservative/fashist sounds crazy to me? Is he smart then?? Am I the stupid?
All people who are crazy are crazy. Not all people who seem crazy are crazy.
Maybe the fascist seems crazy cause he's crazy, but maybe he seems crazy cause you're the stupid.
I'll claim the role of the smart man here. Fascists are stupid or self serving and short sighted.
I think contrapoints on YouTube 100% convinced me there is nothing strange or weird about trans people. They are just people and the way society treats them is wrong and we need to change that.
Not to say I hated trans people before but I didn't know much about it and Natalie did a thorough job explaining in a way that was easy to understand.
I don't think anyone is going to change their views over an Internet post or conversation. Maybe someone might come around on a particular topic if an argument really resonates with them, but someone changing their entire worldview can take years. But sure, I think it's possible given enough conversation and slight nudging over time, given they aren't being more radicalized by other content every day.
I have changed my opinions by being exposed to new knowledge and different opinions multiple times, so I assume it could happen to other people too.
I have too. I've been ignorant and confidently wrong occasionally.
This is why so many conservatives constantly refer to books, higher education, and bigger communities as liberal agenda indoctrination.
And then what is annoying on top of that is the conservatives who went to college and got the better life because of their degree, but then actively try to prevent others from attending college. Because everyone who attends college will get liberally brainwashed, except for themselves. They are so full of themselves they think only they were smart enough to not get brainwashed. But they think everyone else is dumb and will be brainwashed.
I've have conservatives tell me this. I wouldn't call it a conversation, because they were "so smart" and I was "too dumb" that it was a talking down to, not a conversation. They had no plan to listen to anything other than the knowledge they were bestowing to a dumber person.
I've had small success with my aunt by focusing on her love of children, explaining how many are dying under the needlessly cruel boot of Israel
From what I have figured out:
1) They need to already respect you in some way, this does not work on random strangers unless you are a top tier communicator or public figure
2) You need to identify the levers, for my aunt it is babies in danger. It will be different for different people, you need to do your homework
3) INFINITE PATIENCE and consistently reiterating your own genuine respect for them (this can be hard, you may need to dig deep), you need to show them that they aren't your enemy and that they have been lied to by people they have trusted for nefarious purposes
4) Play on the rights inherent distrust for the elite, Muskrat and co ARE the elite! Look at what he's doing to medicare!
5) It will take many, many sessions and you CANNOT falter or get impatient or it gives them an excuse to dismiss everything before
It's not easy, it takes time and effort, though it is doable
Yea, IRL it's possible, but it's much got damn work. I'm doing this rn for some family members, and it's been a few years and I think I'm starting to make a breakthrough on one.
I've needed to stoop to some "drastic" measures though, like manipulating their favored corporate social media algorithms away from the alt-right bubbles or drastically artificially slowing down certain places like Facebook so that it's "painful to use"
I've failed at #3 on multiple people IRL. It's so hard arguing with a brick wall...
And I've had a lot more setbacks than successes, my aunt isn't the only one I've been working on but she's the only one to make progress.
Don't give up! There is a hopeful future at the end of all of this if we can just get 10% of them to understand
I was very conservative. My drift leftward started before the internet was enough of a thing to have video debate spaces, but online debate has given me a lot to think about and pushed me farther left. I credit George Carlin with some of my early movement. He's like an online debate, just against air.
My family including my parents moved from rural conservative to progressive left (probably somewhere around Social Democrat).
I've spent A LOT of time trying to truly reach out to conservatives, Trump supporters, from this angle. It requires a lot of time, but know two key things:
1) All you can do is plant seeds for neurons to grow. Belief structures get locked in like worn paths through a jungle, and so carving new ways requires an immense amount of time. You'll never see the fruits of your labor yourself β both because the vast majority of people have an ego they protect at all cost, and because by the time something "clicks" and new neural paths build, you'll be long gone.
2) Always recognize that your target audience is not the individual, themselves, necessarily, but the onlookers to the discussion. Always hold the high road. Always be courteous and let them throw the first punches. You'll have a much easier task convincing the fence-sitters whose egos aren't directly on the line as a direct participant in the conversation.
You can increase the probability you'll reach these people by ending the conversation on a cordial note once you realize arguments are starting to become circular. You also know you made some decent ground if they just ghost the conversation or delete their entire comment chain without warning. You pierced their ego; they feel embarrassed. You've given them food for thought. Try to also frame how you got out of the echo-chamber so it's not necessarily an attack on them, but an example of growth on yourself.
It's a thankless task, the victories you'll never see until we see it on a statistical level. The problem is that it's a competition for who commands their attention the most, and you'll never compete with Twitter, Fox News. You just have to hope they have that eureka moment, combined with perhaps a direct run-in with the fascism you warn about.
+1 for the onlookers. I have watched plenty of arguments myself, just trying to build an opinion. Humans work like that.
I was raised Christian. I was taught homosexuality was a sin. I used to angrily preach at others to convert them or they'll burn in hell. etc. etc.
Fuck those people
That said, no, I have not succeeded in shifting anyone's views ever. Typically the people I encounter are beyond saving unless the things happening directly impact them.
Most people do not respond to a single argument or fact. They accumulate multiple experiences. This is why the shift happens gradually for most people instead of instantly when they are confronted with facts.
I'm done trying to change minds, they're sure as shit not changing mine. I just can't with these people anymore. You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into.
Public shaming is the way to go, it's served humanity plenty well in the past to curb unwanted behavior and minority opinions. Shove the hypocrisy down their throats and revel in their little shocked Pikachu faces.
Using their own tactics against them is cathartic and effective, they're used to people trying to reason with them and then dragging you into more and more insane arguments and stances. The reins really come off when you realize you can lie just as much as they do and hand wave any counterarguments. Burden of proof? How about I just throw some more bullshit at you, etc. Quote the bible, extra points for obscure/confusing passages. Frustrate the fuck out of them, its only fair.
Shaming doesn't work. It just makes people hide and get worse.
Maybe, I guess I'm willing to step up to public flogging when necessary.
Pedophiles and child molesters are literally the most hated and shamed people on the planet.
1 out of 5 to 1 out of 10 children are sexually abused depending on what numbers you go by (it is likely even worse based on report rates for sexual violence and commonality of trauma related amnesia).
Shame doesn't help anyone. In fact it's one of the biggest reasons why victims don't speak out.
Are you proposing to somehow reason a pedophile out of molesting kids? I think regular public beatings would be more effective than a 2 year prison sentence. There's a reason they don't last long with other inmates, they know that's not something you talk out of someone.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/end-of-phoenix-sex-offender-treatment-program-puts-public-at-risk-lawyers-say-1.3862939
Less than 4% recitivism is pretty impressive compared to the average prison stay.
That said, I think sheltering those unwilling to take accountability and change is a disgusting abuse of the 'justice' system. I think criminals unwilling to enter/engage with rehab programs should:
Not be released from prison regardless of term
Not be separated from Gen pop in prison
Interesting, I wonder what the recidivism rate would be if the affected community were allowed to go medieval on them instead.
While I havenβt convinced anyone, I have seen things shift to a more class conscience level.
Luigi might have been the turning point. Slowly right wing spaces are turning anti rich.
I havenβt been able to convince anyone, but Iβve gotten people to agree if I just focus on βI want this in my country cause it would benefit me as a working class manβ.
So imo itβs less about going head on and more about finding something you could agree with and just solidifying that, if they are gonna move left itβs gonna happen slowly by them observing their life.
Luigi situation is interesting because pretty much everyone agrees that the health insurance industry is broken. While most conservatives (probably?) disagree with his method, they can't wholly disagree with his motive.
You have two options:
People change minds even if you don't see them do so directly, option 1 could pay off in the future as they shift certain narratives, understand certain topics and gain new morals or goals, but option 2 is immediately and pays off if they listen, someone who supports war would be turned off from supporting trump if you, say, used trumps incompetence to blame him for 'risking American troops'
Feel free to disagree but in my own experience observing people any tipe of radical thought is usually a mental health issue. You can't treat mental health through comments.
Psychotherapists treat mental health through comments.
Yes, however⦠1. Many people you meet online are not, strictly speaking, people. 2. Of the remainder, many are there for a reason.
I would wholeheartedly agree with the deprogrammer with one clarification: βknown to you IRLβ refers more to anonymity than to whether your interactions take place online, and the reason for that is important to consider.
Does it count if I did it to myself?
The person you're taking to online has a vested interest in defending the position they put forth. Someone reading your response who initially agrees with the person you're talking to does not have a defensive attitude to the same degree. Your arguments will be much more successful with the observer than with the other participant. You will probably never know if you had an impact on the observer. That's what you should be aiming for though.
I have been told by multiple people (so, like, two. Maybe 3) over the years that things I have posted have changed their minds and their leanings on political topics. But these were not any of the people I was directly addressing. I think they may have all been before the rise of Big Social, too.
I am a lurker, mostly. I have never tried to change anyoneβs opinion online that I can think of. But as a lurker, you can bet that my viewpoint might be changed by a good argument, even if itβs not directed at me. Just as it happens with religion, Iβm sure there are conservatives (or leftists for that matter) on the internet that may have cracks beginning to form in their worldviews, and the right exposure on the internet can send them down a rabbit hole of questioning and considering alternatives. I suspect a major part of the reason I have gotten more and more leftist myself over time is because of exposure to good arguments on the left and much fewer on the right, plus the lack of desire from the right to partake in good faith arguments.
So what Iβm saying is, your argument may not get through to the target, but there is collateral β¦ well, not damage, but you get what I mean.
I've watched conservative theists unravel and admit things about themselves openly as they crash out under questioning they started by making a thread on debate forums, but they always relapsed by the next day.
No. They will just shift their personality on you, usually saying "well I really hate all politicians, but I just think Trump is funny" or something dumb like that. MAGAts do not want facts. Living in crazy conspiracy world is their hobby. They can post something like "Hillary is a vampire" and all the cons in their echo chamber upvote it.
absolutely not and i imagine the same is true for leftists.
I just humour people when they tell me political opinions I don't agree with. No one ever changes their minds.
What if they convert you into right wing ideology?
I'm getting there with my coworker although I wouldn't quite call her conservative; she voted for the NDP in Canada where we live as we are both union members and that's who we vote for, but she loves Trump, but in this crumbling hellscape of the last few months and the tariffs he's hollering on about on Canada, she doesn't like that because she can't cross border shop. She says he's gone rather loony although she still likes him.
However, she isn't stupid, and she watches all sorts of news from all over and doesn't just blindly believe in the cult. The last few days I have explained dark money to her, and how it fuels elections in the US for both parties and how basically the Koch brothers and all the Tanton network groups fund Trump. I gave her some articles to read, and she's starting to get it. I didn't put it from the perspective of hating trump, just that she should know how these things are funded for everyone (the Democrats are no stranger to dark money either and just because the groups they funnel it in under sound sunnier and less racist doesn't make them any less sketchy), and how the political landscape is manipulated that way. I am finding she's listening to this, and coming away with a better perspective, rather than trying to explain why he's totally wrong. Dark money is a topic I recommend to everyone to learn about, because these elections in the US are being bought by dark money.
I recommend you read this.
I don't find it worth the effort. Because let's be honest, it is probably a lifetime's worth of effort to even try to get one of these lost causes to see even a glimpse of the shit they've gotten themselves and others in based on their voting decisions.
It's not online but at my usual bar I often get into arguments with a monarchist guy and a free-market/deregulation dude. They often tell me they'll someday manage to make me "take the red pill". It's kind of annoying for them to disregard my views like that. That's why I don't actively try to change theirs.
No, they have ego issues that prevent self reflection.
I'm not sure there even is right or wrong. It's almost like the war is just entertainment. A sick part of human nature. The animalism within all people.
You can try with me if you want. I guess what is it that you want to ask or say ?