1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
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 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.
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:
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.
Does it count if I did it to myself?
What if they convert you into right wing ideology?
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 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'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 ?
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 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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doubling down makes them even more entrenched, then they start believing CRAZIER things.
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.
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.
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.
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’m not a conservative and I agree with you.
