Skip to main content

View Diary: How to treat conservative delusion? (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's hard because you're talking to them wrong (7+ / 0-)

    I wrote so much I'm making a diary of it instead.  But here's the summary:

    1) The conversation is a contest for them.  They'll say what it takes to win.
    2) They think you're like them, and vice versa.  Break this.
    3) They're not stupid, they're immoral.  Make them feel shame for what they believe, not what they don't believe.
    4) They focus on appearance, so they will bluster and bluff.  Don't back down.
    5) They focus on catch phrases with particular connotations.  Don't just let these out there; challenge their definitions.
    6) Remind them that governments don't do things for shits and giggles.  Make them be specific, and you'll find common ground.
    7) Don't let them change topic to get out of a bind.
    8) Don't let them lie through unspoken presuppositions and implications.
    9) Throw 'em a bone at the end.

    The most you'll hope for is a seed of doubt, that will sprout before November 2012.

    •  .... (0+ / 0-)

      1. Much like many, if not all on this site
      2. As opposed to a deluded notion that the other side consists of child-like individuals incapable of forming distinct opinions from oneself?
      3. What right to do have to dictate others political and economic philosophy as immoral? Why should you attempt to shame them?
      4. Can't say this isn't the same case
      5. And you can earnestly say that you do not?
      6. Governments may not "do things for shits and giggles", but that does not necessarily add value to many of its functions
      7-9 apply to nearly any debate one could conceive.

      •  Explain this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trueblueliberal

        ~ because it just sounds like knee-jerk stupid to me.

        "Guns don't kill people. People in states without gun-purchase background checks & waiting periods kill people." --John Fugelsang

        by Artryst on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:20:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  see what I mean? (0+ / 0-)

        1-- randfan attempts to change the topic with a little tu quoque.  Too bad this post is about how to talk to deluded conservatives.

        2-- Exaggeration for dramatic effect.  It's well observed that people tend to assume everyone else is like them deep down.  Don't believe me? Tell someone they're atypical.

        3-- Indignation as manipulation: "by what right!?!?!" :  Why are you presupposing that I don't have the right to find something immoral that violates my morals?  

        Why use shame? You just did, you tell me. :)

        4-- More tu quoque?  Let me answer this: I can.  This is why republican candidates up and down the board refused to get specific during the last campaign, beyond blusterous "repeal health care" stuff that everyone knew was impossible.  

        5.  Again with the tu quoque! Is that all you've got?  I'll bite this time, for clarification's sake. I can earnestly say that I do not use catch phrases solely for their connotative effects, independent of their actual semantic meaning.  For instance, I do not call things "fascist" because they are oppressive.  If I were an atypical liberal in this regard, I would not bring it up.

        Now, conservatives do toss around catch phrases like "socialist" without knowing their meaning.  If it was just the fringe, I'd dismiss it like I would a fringe liberal.  But it's just so normal...

        6. Moving the goalposts, eh?: Gov't doesn't need added value.  It's value comes from the fact that we use it to make things right that the market fails do ensure.  In that sense, we impose a moral consensus on everyone.  But that's what all governments do.  

        If you want to cut something, you have to factor in the cost that will arise when the original problem comes back.  To do otherwise is simply using catch phrases.

        7-9:  Finally, some honesty!  But what you say IS wrong.  An honest person seeking truth in a collaborative conversation does not sneak in lies through presupposition like you did  in #3, or change topic like you did in #1.

        But you are correct to say that it isn't limited to political arguments.  A lot of manipulative people and abusers are like this in general.  

      •  Number 3 (0+ / 0-)
        3. What right to do have to dictate others political and economic philosophy as immoral? Why should you attempt to shame them?

        (I assume that 'to do' is a typo for 'do you')

        As the man said, by their fruits ye shall know them. When a political and economic philosophy

        -reaps unimaginable wealth and power for a tiny fraction of the population, by stripping livelihood, wealth, and dignity from the majority

        -consistently aggravates government deficits

        -foments the destruction of the ecological basis for human society

        -relies on appeals to fear and anger, distortions, or outright lies to win political support

        ...How does that qualify as anything but immoral?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site