The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...
-
@majorrage said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
So ... open forum. Why am I wrong? Why is me saying that Anika Moa saying "am I not white or male enough" is a nonsensical or logical argument for criticism of here tattoos?
I really would like to understand this, not a shit stirring thread.Anyone telling you to argue from facts is ignoring the fundamental issue - if facts worked rather than emotional attachment to an idea, then your sister wouldn't be as antagonistic and illogical as she's currently being.
Even if you could get the discussion to a point where she doesn't feel attacked, it's the same physiological response religious people have. It's immaterial that you point out the leaps of logic and contradictions, her belief is part of her identity and as such, only a gradual process of seeing flaws will help her realise there's a problem with the central premise she adheres to. The same way most people tend to drift away from their religion, there's no epiphany as a result of well meaning interlocutors.
The hardest part is the gripes and grievances have an historical basis, from which however unsteady the foundation, it provides a buttress. And for some, those grievances are lived experiences that still exist.
-
Give her a forum to properly explain her views.
Talking is a way of thinking, and better in many ways than an internal monologue.
Try that tactic of saying back to her what you genuinely think she just explained.
Leave your opinions to one side and be sure she's been able to articulate her opinions. Make it your objective that she should be heard.
You don't want to beat your sister or make her feel stupid. You love her.
The objective is to hear her side and perhaps with her talking and putting her views in order she will see inconsistencies.
Active listening and giving her the floor is way more difficult than we realise.
Let her set out her platform as a starting point.
I used to be like her and it took months of angry denial to come around, and months of calling BSG a fluffybunny (which he is!) before the weight of evidence took over. I always had a "but you don't know or a whatabout..." to retreat into a safe space between my ears.
It'll take a while but being the conversation passenger will be more fruitful than fighting over the wheel.
Be patient and check your tone of voice.
Again your objective is for her discover different viewpoints, not to beat her into submission, figuratively speaking.
Don't forget it's also a great way for you to learn new viewpoints and why such viewpoints arise
-
@siam said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
Give her a forum to properly explain her views.
Talking is a way of thinking, and better in many ways than an internal monologue.
Try that tactic of saying back to her what you genuinely think she just explained.
Leave your opinions to one side and be sure she's been able to articulate her opinions. Make it your objective that she should be heard.
You don't want to beat your sister or make her feel stupid. You love her.
The objective is to hear her side and perhaps with her talking and putting her views in order she will see inconsistencies.
Active listening and giving her the floor is way more difficult than we realise.
Let her set out her platform as a starting point.
I used to be like her and it took months of angry denial to come around, and months of calling BSG a fluffybunny (which he is!) before the weight of evidence took over. I always had a "but you don't know or a whatabout..." to retreat into a safe space between my ears.
It'll take a while but being the conversation passenger will be more fruitful than fighting over the wheel.
Be patient and check your tone of voice.
Again your objective is for her discover different viewpoints, not to beat her into submission, figuratively speaking.
Don't forget it's also a great way for you to learn new viewpoints and why such viewpoints arise
Err.... You are welcome?
-
@baron-silas-greenback
Yeah thanks, all good. Message delivery might need some work, but all good đ -
There is an interesting critique of Ben Shapiro on Quillette which makes almost the same points as yours. Although I wanted to disagree with the thesis, it does seem very true that confronting the emotional ideas that underly peopleâs interpretation of facts, is sometimes more important than straight up refuting them factually.
-
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
-
@paekakboyz I was using the backhanded complimentary version of fluffybunny đ
-
Another good wad of replies overnight. Thanks to all.
In a nutshell, she think it's not worth debating me as my position is firmly entrenched. And vice versa. And the only way to move forward is to step back, listen to her and ask questions without offering prejudice and then try and explain things. Well ...
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
It's tribalism and a knee-jerk instinct to defend one's side no matter what. Can happen on the other side as well. I'm sure there are people who will defend whatever Trump says and then slander the person calling it out as "out of touch" or something. Ultimately if you've invested so much time and energy in your own side and have become convinced of the total righteousness of that position, not even a slide show identifying every single error in minute detail will make any difference to your stance. In other words, you're dealing with fanatics and have to view them as such. Just accept that people like this exist and just move on with your life.
Maybe this wins post of the thread for me ... probably just easier. Accept that I'll never know why I'm wrong and move forwards. Reality is that she will take a position of extreme upset at any argument of her views, and it's simply not worth it.
Apparently the Don Brash incident ended up in a stand up and walk out with tears. It is her holiday here and I don't want to be the one to ruin it.
-
@jc said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@majorrage what does your sister do for a living? Is she surrounded all day by people who would be offended by your politics? Did she qualify in an area dominated by people who believe in progressivism (teaching being the obvious example)?
Works for the government as a policy analyst in the social services sector. So in answer to you other questions massively yes and yes.
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
Really good points there.
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
Thats interesting actually. I know exactly why my sister believes what she believes. It's her job to deal with the "downtrodden" everyday and understand why they are where they are, and what the government should be doing about it. I fully get it.
What I don't get at all is why somebody who I know is extremely smart (smashed me all the way through school (including in logical subjects such as maths / physics) and got a PhD from a reputable uni) can call me flat out wrong when I'm just talking what I view as basic logic.
-
Well I'm just on my way to watch Cornell West go head-to-head in debate against Douglas Murray. Maybe I'll get an insight, or maybe it'll just devolve into a screaming match. Either way it'll be fun..unless antifa show up and then it'll just be unbearable
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Mansplaining
-
@gt12 said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
There is an interesting critique of Ben Shapiro on Quillette which makes almost the same points as yours. Although I wanted to disagree with the thesis, it does seem very true that confronting the emotional ideas that underly peopleâs interpretation of facts, is sometimes more important than straight up refuting them factually.
Agree, although it is much more difficult to change 'feelings'
-
Read it here.
This observation echoes the main thesis of Jonathan Haidtâs The Righteous Mind, in which he argues that our faculty for reason labors to validate our intuitions (including our moral impulses), not vice versa. In Haidtâs analogy of the Rider and the Elephant (elaborated in the clip below), the Rider represents âstrategic reasoning,â whose direction is determined by the much larger and more powerful Elephant, which represents intuition and emotion. Haidt explains why so many debates fail to persuade, writing, âYou canât change peopleâs minds by utterly refuting their argumentsâŚIf you want to change peopleâs minds, youâve got to talk to their elephants.â
Ben Shapiroâs tendency has not been to talk to elephants so much as make them stampede. Take, for instance, the now-infamous tweet he sent in September 2010 which read: âIsraelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.â A fair-minded look at the tweets sent immediately after this one reveals that Shapiroâs assertion was made in reference to the Israeli and Arab political leadershipsânot to these populations as a whole. Shapiro reiterated this explanation in a recent defense of the tweet at the Daily Wire, in which he describes the Left as âidioticâ for its collective failure to appreciate context.
But what Shapiro is really criticizing in his article is the willingness of people to be led by their elephants, even though this is inevitable and therefore entirely predictable. Regardless of any technical defense of the tweet disqualifying it as racist, if Shapiroâs objective as a good faith interlocutor is to invite people to consider new perspectives, then it is strategically unjustifiable. If, on the other hand, his intention is solely to enrage his opponents and electrify his supporters, then he is engaging in demagoguery and should not complain when people react exactly as intended.
-
Worth a watch on the subject of persuasion and from a difference of opinion potentially more extreme than your sisters views on Anika tattoo complaints.... a black jazz musician whose hobby is making friends with KKK members.
Full doco is on Netflix "Accidental Courtesy"
-
jegga said:
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isnât absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
The gender pay gap doesn't mean that women get magically payed 25% less. It means that women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important, meaning that on average they get payed less.
I would advise that you actually try to evaluate your opponent's position rather than going for the interpretation that makes you feel smart.
-
Admiral Bradley said:
jegga said:
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isnât absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
The gender pay gap doesn't mean that women get magically payed 25% less. It means that women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important, meaning that on average they get payed less.
I would advise that you actually try to evaluate your opponent's position rather than going for the interpretation that makes you feel smart.
Welcome aboard Admiral.
With regard to your post above are you able to:
-
Substantiate that "women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important"
-
Suggest why "women have less access to job opportunities, get promoted less often, and in general work at jobs that aren't seen as important"?
-