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?
Yes, and this is generally how it works:
- Establish that you care about their perspective, and truly mean it. Most people can sniff out insincerity.
- Start asking good faith questions about their position. If their beliefs are misguided, they will begin stumbling upon the flaws on their own. It’s okay to guide them gently with the questions, but don’t try to convince of them of any particular viewpoint, and don’t tell them they are wrong either directly or indirectly. That can undo any progress you made. Just focus on encouraging them to deeply analyze logic that you recognize to be flawed.
- Only offer your perspective / opinions if you are asked directly. If you’ve done #1 and #2 well, this should start happening. I recommend understating your opinions. You don’t have to lie, but keep rants to a minimum and use soft language.
- Be consistent. No one changes their world view overnight. It takes planting seeds, watering them consistently, and waiting.
P.S. If you are doing this correctly and with an open mind, there’s actually a good chance you might change your opinions on a some things, and that’s okay (as long as they aren’t 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 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 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?
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.
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.”
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.
Still no fan of tankies.
So say we all.
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.
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 hadn’t heard of at the time was “global wobbling,” 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. That’s the best I’ve ever gotten. Don’t 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.
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.
absolutely not and i imagine the same is true for leftists.
If it means anything, I started my journey on lemmy as an armchair socialist who in practice was more a welfare capitalism type person. Now I’m a full on anarchist (anti-capitalist). So a steady stream of influence, especially when people make good points and it helps make sense of my suffering, has shifted my political views strongly.
(But the basis for that shift was already kind of laid out, I’ve been fascinated by anarchist critiques for a while, and one of my favourite political authors was one. But the sort of being in a community of likeminded people [lemmy] and having significant suffering at the hands of the current system that made me more strongly shift towards those views).
On the other hand. Simply having a few conversations with my vaguely left wing partner about my views has led her to go from vaguely social democrat to anarchist.
I think the lesson is change is possible, it’s just a slow series of events that add up. Usually there isn’t one thing that straight up switches a person.
You went from water up to your waist to water up to your chest.
This post is asking about people who aren’t in the water at all and have a visceral reaction to the mere suggestion that they even look at water, let alone go in it.
That’s super unique because most people that are anarchists are anarcho-capitalists and that’s generally what people mean by ancap.
Anarchy sort of implies Capitalism.
Not really at all. Look up anarchism on wikipedia. This is the first paragraph:
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism.[1] Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
“Anarcho-Capitalism” is a rather recent name for a sort of ideology that most anarchists would instead call “stateless capitalism”
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.
+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.
You have two options:
- Insist upon yourself, with presentable and short facts hard to deny
- Argue from their perspective and draw their ire towards the party they (used to) support with their own morals
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’
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.
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.
Not much better, I’d bet. The death penalty does not stop murders from happening. Sure, there might be slightly less, but it would not scare people off the crime, just off getting caught.
What’s stopping you from doing it now?
-
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.
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!
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.
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.
Thanks for chiming in, Genocide Jordan.
You guys must hate it when I point this stuff out:
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
he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn’t lining up with reality.
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
I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument.
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!
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 creator
Fair point, people are different.
