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 recommend you read this.
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.
It’s like Trump himself, saying bullshit like it’s the first he’s ever heard of it or whatever.
Can’t tell if you’re talking about religion or conservatives.
Just kidding, it’s the same mental weakness being exploited in both groups.
How is the outcome any different when the end result is them continuing to hold the same opinions contrary to evidence?
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.
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.
Cool, cool. Let’s placate the bullies and hope for the best!
Doubling down makes them even more entrenched, then they start believing CRAZIER things.
Thanks for chiming in, Genocide Jordan.
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 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’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.
What if they convert you into right wing ideology?
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.
Have you considered that you’re wrong?
When I was a teenager, yeah. Came out more conservative.
Well, this has got to be one of the only things I’ve ever upvoted from you, but yea
Internet arguments are more about the audience than the tankie you’re arguing against.
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.
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.
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.
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, that’s how you should deal with argumentative people in real life, tell them you don’t want to play their game and then go find another one.
I’m not a conservative and I agree with you.
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.
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.
I know right? Especially when the other guy is convinced he’s not being racist and he’s helping the unfortunate, like most lefties.
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.
The irony of this is amazing. You have it so backwards and the worst thing is, you don’t even know you are wrong.
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 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.
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.
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 — from empires to democracies — 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.
Still no fan of tankies.
So say we all.
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 doesn’t stand for anything it claims to
There are practically endless similar examples because MAGA doesn’t stand for anything it claims to
“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.
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.”
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)
anarchocristianism
To me this means Dorothy Day or Tolstoy. What does it mean to you?
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.
Does it count if I did it to myself?
My family including my parents moved from rural conservative 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:
-
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 — 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.
-
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.
-
While I haven’t 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 haven’t been able to convince anyone, but I’ve gotten people to agree if I just focus on “I want this in my country cause it would benefit me as a working class man”.
So imo it’s less about going head on and more about finding something you could agree with and just solidifying that, if they are gonna move left it’s 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.
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.
You can try with me if you want. I guess what is it that you want to ask or say ?
I am a lurker, mostly. I have never tried to change anyone’s 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 it’s not directed at me. Just as it happens with religion, I’m 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 I’m saying is, your argument may not get through to the target, but there is collateral … well, not damage, but you get what I mean.
