One-on-one is definitely the best way, and only way i have been able to push ideas. Just as Bernie did in West Virginia, we have to define and lay out what we believe in, to individuals, and many see them as good ideas. But mainstream has given us a name - the far left - and given it a bad connotation. What we need to be seen as is the ‘very middle’ or something similar. Show people that what we want is what most think is common sense.
4 Likes
If uniparty corporate boot lickers call you far left or right that is a win in my book.
Next time ask them if AIPAC is speaking on their behalf or is it ALEC that fills their mouth with these trait musings?
When they are both trash it is easy to put them where they belong.
1 Like
I only have minutes each day that I can allot to social engagement, unfortunately I doubt I’ll be able to attend any town hall or take part in any live discussion that’s longer than a few minutes. There are a number of websites and forums and shows that are dedicated to fighting disinformation, but I was specifically interested in people talking face to face and feeling comfortable in responding to extreme right wing statements.
That isn’t what this thread was intended for, but it’s adjacent.
1 Like
@enduser , @jared123456 I’m not sure if I’m reading something into your responses, but I’m curious about what each of you read as aggressive intent regarding my post. Sorry for the delay, I rarely get a free minute.
My statements were about responding to people who are vocally spreading misinformation in public, and giving people like myself a way to engage them without immediately being read as combative. The idea of dismantling an entrenched lie is (I think) far beyond what anyone would want to deal with in their everyday life when responding to some rando in a store or at a gas pump.
Do you think it would be beneficial to have some phrases or statements that are simple, direct, factual and not disrespectful, that could be common responses to the rhetoric that we hear in public?
Apologies to @cerberusalphagaming , this has an impact on reaching an older audience but is definitely not what your thread originally intended.
2 Likes
I completely get what you’re saying. It can seem beyond impossible to have an actual and factual conversation with someone who is on Team Trump. My mom is a horribly perfect example of this. No matter what you say, she just doesn’t care or listen because she is so brainwashed into believing that facts are lies. You can just about imagine what she thinks of me having a Master’s in Public Health, especially since it’s built on a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology. (I’ll just say that the word “proud” has never been used.) I suppose an effective response all depends on how far down into the MAGA rabbit hole they have traveled. You know?
3 Likes
My father-in-law is not completely lost, but on certain topics it’s like a switch goes off in his mind and he starts on a rant (usually half-based on reality, or less) and it’s difficult.
My sister-in-law used to be good at listening and then countering in a calm, respectful way. I tend to acknowledge what he’s saying, try to find a little common ground if possible (since I hate Biden and corporate Dems too, usually there’s something I can agree with) and then tweak it just a little bit — that’s not what I heard, actually X, Y, ot Z is (also) true, etc.
If I got too far in the weeds with him I’m worried we’ll get into an argument, which I don’t think does anyone any good. So it would be helpful to have some sort of strategy to more effectively break through the propaganda besides just a small push-back that keeps the peace but probably doesn’t change his beliefs.
3 Likes
Something to remember also is that most tRump supporters are not MAGAts. The MAGAts are the cult-like ones that would eat glass for him. The regular Trump supporter is able to be talked to and even reasoned with. Most of them voted Trump because he was NOT the worst not cause he was the best. These are the ones that can be talked to and possibly “converted”. My tactic is to stick to the topics/issues and NOT say who is for or against something. Once you say “Bernie is for” or “AOC is against” etc; that is when the MAGA switch gets flipped and they stop listening
2 Likes
That’s so wrong. Of course we experienced conservatism. Do you think socialism was born last week?
Also - Vietnam resistance? Black Panthers? SDS? Any of this strike a chord?
I’m 71 and a lifelong socialist. My grandfather introduced the union to Sealtest Dairy in Albany/Schenectady waaay back in the early part of the 20th century. He was a socialist when socialism was new.
1 Like
The difference between the conservatism of the 50s-90’s and conservatism today is that today they are 10x further to the Right than they were in say 1980. I always say that Joe Biden TODAY is further to the Right on the Political Spectrum than Ronald Reagan was in 1980. But that isn’t to say they weren’t conservative back then either. I use this chart myself. I put Reagan at about the same spot as Obama in the REAL
4 Likes
LOL. Great comparisons.
Thanks for the clarifying question! Firstly, I am a bit confused by the question, as I don’t recall sensing nor commenting on your posts’ aggressiveness. My sincerest apologies for potentially misrepresenting your writing. After rereading the thread, I do not read any aggressiveness from you. To the contrary, I find your comments mindful, respectful, and productive; I appreciate our collaboration. 
But I might have found what you’re asking about; if my following clarification is not actually what you’re referring to, then please use some quotations to show me what you mean by my reading of your aggressiveness.
Earlier you wrote:
Then in reply to your comment:
Here it sounds like this reply was written such that, (because it starts by advising against being adversarial) it could be read as if your previous post (asking about dismantling mistruths, and debating zealots), might have some sort of “adversarial” position.
However, when I read your previous post I do not read it as if it has an adversarial position, nor aggressive intent (despite enduser’s potentially confusing reply). In my experience with @enduser’s style of writing, they can write in such a way that enables others’ writings to appear to be something other than that which they are. (In this case, by reading enduser’s reply one is then more likely to misunderstand your earlier post).
Probably because I am accustomed to that style, it was simple for me to read past it. I read enduser’s reply as not intending to misrepresent your earlier post, but to add something of their own (on how to approach dismantling malformed worldviews). Then I replied to add further on that tangent:
In my reply, my agreement with enduser follows the tangent on how to approach such dismantling; I did not mean to appear to agree with how enduser’s reply to your post could make your post seem to be adversarial.
1 Like
Also, much of the left-right framing in politics is too simplifying, especially in how it contributes to systemic political trends, such as polarization and tribalism. I think part of reaching an older audience, and part of escaping our descent into fascism, is by engaging in politics issues without triggering left-right (ill-)framed perspectives.
1 Like
I think public responses are tricky. It depends on so many things. Where is the public setting; what is the relationship of the setting to those speaking mistruths; what is one’s relationship with them and the setting; what are the relationships any public bystanders have with all that, and each other; what are one’s “beneficial” intentions / definitions; etc.
And, any “common” responses of similar meaning when used too broadly can tend to lose meaning, especially when communicated to those not actively wanting to understand.
And I’m also a bit out of my element, since I live in a fairly progressive area. I mean to say, I can’t know well what the rhetoric is that you’re asking about trying to respond to, nor how the socialization of the area should be navigated by any response.
I do think larger cultural patterns and social structures need to change, and that speaking up in the face of needed adaptation could help that. And while I have some ideas of the directions adaptations need to get to, I’m not sure how to get us there in even my own local area (let alone another area). And, what I mean to say by this paragraph is, I would think our potential responses to things we would divert from could be partly based on the directions we would rather move towards; (if we don’t have a shared active direction, then we’re together passively not really getting anywhere very well).
Then again, sometimes a response is better idealized as seeking to understand others rather than seeking to share one’s understanding. Especially in my experience as a mentor, I first need to understand my mentee before I can understand well enough how to begin to move towards sharing my understanding with them in the way that they can appreciate it.
I don’t know if I’m actually being helpful in this reply. But I didn’t want to not respond to the question.
3 Likes
Thanks, I’m always concerned about how something I typed could be interpreted differently than I was intending. Much like the responses from you and @enduser were by myself 
2 Likes
You are not alone there, for sure! For what it’s worth, I think your tone and how you express your ideas have always been completely respectful and insightful. I hope you are doing well! 
3 Likes
I think the best way to reach older adults, like myself, is to avoid labels like “Progressive” and “Conservative.” The older one gets, like myself, the more one becomes aware of the gray areas in life and thus has less patience for hypocrisy and rigid thinking. I see it more like Union organizing, where you connect with people as though they were brothers and sisters, and you talk to them about the best ways to get their Universal needs met on a personal level. I think you have to do this on a person by person basis, because as famed mental health theorist, Harry Stack Sullivan, said, “While we are more human than anything else, we are also very different from one another.”
3 Likes
Trying to get the olds to willingly watch our stuff is the problem. They are old and powerful enough to look at something and just get angrier and angrier without ever opening their mind.
What we need to do is give them something that MSM won’t. Stories they are actually curious in and MSM refuses to show. Now, i’m not an old, and my resident old is completely uncooperative so i have no idea what they actually think deep in their angry rebellious heart that they’ve given up all hope on.
In general the key to winning any audience is to tell them something they want to hear that their current show refuses to tell them. The key to us winning(and not being lying republicans) is for us to find how MSM corruption is fucking them, and then exploit that.
3 Likes
Perhaps I am not representative, but I am a 71 year old Socialist. If the goal is to attract the centrist and slightly left of centrist older people who may (or may not) be open-minded, then you are probably correct that staying clear of the standard labeling is a good idea.
4 Likes