The Fora: A Higher Education Community

How do you deal with these people (other than just avoiding them)? What do you do if they are family? :(

Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

There are probably things that you can talk about.  Stick to those. 
No one will change their minds, though.  (Dale Carnegie said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".)  So, there isnt much you can do about them.  Staying away from the topics that are a problem is the best way to keep some peace. 

Good luck.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 04, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

Quote from: clean on June 04, 2020, 11:28:50 AM
There are probably things that you can talk about.  Stick to those. 
No one will change their minds, though.  (Dale Carnegie said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".)  So, there isnt much you can do about them.  Staying away from the topics that are a problem is the best way to keep some peace. 

Good luck.

Thanks Clean. Yes, I try very hard to reroute the conversations to more innocuous topics. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 04, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

While the quotation may be an overstatement, there's lots of evidence that the politics of faculty are farther left than a generaton ago, and some ideas which would have been considered controversial at best in a previous generation are now accepted as beyond question by many faculty.  So if the conversation is unavoidable, it might be worth inquiring about specific examples of what the speaker means. Sometimes what sounds pretty wild in the absract is actually much more reasonable when the focus is more specific.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 12:33:28 PM

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

Just to be crystal clear in case there's any doubt: when I say 'learning to let it go', I mean the conversation, not the person!

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 04, 2020, 12:56:14 PM
So if the conversation is unavoidable, it might be worth inquiring about specific examples of what the speaker means. Sometimes what sounds pretty wild in the absract is actually much more reasonable when the focus is more specific.

I'm not often in agreement with marshwiggle, but I think this is right. Ask for details, and let them do the majority of the talking. Model Socrates and the Socratic method: let them get lost and incoherent, and come to terms with that incoherence on their own. Asking questions, even when they're annoying, is a lot less directly confrontational, and I expect the response will be more positive than it would be to a direct confrontation. It may not change their mind (at least not initially), but over time, it might help. At least that way you're letting them expose their ignorance to themselves and whoever else is around, rather than doing it yourself.

(That said, Socrates was huuuuuuuge troll and a total asshole, and who knows if he ended up convincing anyone of anything except that they didn't like him much. If you want to avoid being a Socrates-level asshole, you'll have to learn when to drop the subject!)

Thanks everyone.

There are times, when I put the phone down and walk away. I have to- it's too emotionally intense to just listen, or try to have some semblance of a conversation. Today, I basically said, 'I don't want to talk about it. I have enough stress in my life.' only to be told that this person was trying to 'educate' me.

Hmmmm.....

Other times, I put the person on speaker and my SO listens. He is gobsmacked most of the time.

The main reason I posted this thread is just to put it out there. So, if anyone else has a zealot (religious, political, etc.) who is driving you mad, feel free to post and lighten your load. Maybe we can help each other.

My sister will answer a fairly innocuous, straightforward question with three paragraphs of opinionated, often fairly poisonous, text.

I pick the one simplest, most agreeable thing I can find (or the closest thing to it) and reply to that in a bit of detail, then talk about something I've been doing that interests me. Then I sign off (on an email; I avoid telephoning since it's harder to control those conversations, and I just never answer her calls, let it go to voice mail and then reply with an email whenever possible.

Since we have only started communicating again since my mom died two years ago, and she's always been somewhat like this, I figure the fact that we are maintaining some kind of connection is probably to the good.

My brother is a bit more anodyne, and very terse, so it's easier to reply cordially and let that exchange go as well.

Otherwise, no other zealot has any hold on my time or attention and I don't intend to give it to them. I either walk away, don't reply to an email, or ignore a call.

I don't find the game of "cherry-pick the targets to which you can give your snarky replies" fun, so I just avoid it.

Same here.

M.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 04, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

You've got someone who is clinging to a belief because of some personal reason----a great many zealots need to feel that "you" or "they" or "those people" are doing something terribly wrong so that the zealot will feel justified in hu's antagonism.  Cultural insecurity?  Defensiveness about educational and/or socioeconomic status?  Living in a FOX news bubble?  Who cares? 

While faculty are generally left-leaning, we have been a favorite target of the conservative zealots since Timothy Leary splattered his brains all over the media and Rush Limpbutt reinforced the stereotype.

Online and off I always ask, "Oh really?  Who?"  I stick with it.  "No really, I want to know. Who is teaching Marxism?  Really, what classes?  The dean needs to know about this!  I'd sure like to give them a piece of my mind!"  Have fun with it.  That's really the best way to shut down the zealot.  "Geeze!  How terrible!  Marxism really needs to be controlled!  Putin would be very upset!"

I grew up in a loving, fairly hardcore Republican family, and it took me into adulthood to realize that they were not going to change (although actually they did when Dubya starting making a mess) but it really didn't matter what they thought about what I did or believed.  We got along so much better when I leaned to nod and grunt and go on about my business when "one of those" topics came up, even better when I learned to chuckle.  The chuckle is deadly if used correctly.

Oh! That reminds me: sometimes, you can just play the Zizek game (https://www.thehairpin.com/2016/07/the-best-time-i-pretended-i-hadnt-heard-of-slavoj-zizek/).

Argue all you want. Just don't use your real name.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 04, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

"Yes, Marx's Das Kapital has been taught at universities around the world since its publication in the late 1800s. Marx was probably the first person to propose technological innovation as a main cause of economic change, a topic for which Robert Solow won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1987. By the way, did you know that your tax dollars subsidize professional sports teams owned by billionaires, by contributing to intercollegiate football and basketball, which are farm leagues for the NFL and NBA?"

The assumption that Marxist ideology is taught is neither wrong nor even an exaggeration, which is surprising because economics as a field has one of the lowest percentages of left identifying faculty. Though not as absolutely uniform as sociology, they are still in the the majority. Many programs (Duke, for example) are specifically intended for this area.

But this isn't really your question... I've gotten a couple of these people recently. I've found that using the word "lecture" is very helpful since no one will self identify as one who does it. Such as:

"I'm not open to a lecture on this issue."
"When x has his house in order on y, I'll allow myself to be lectured on ABC."
"I didn't intend to receive a lecture on x."

It doesn't really matter how it's phrased as long as that one word is included. The person will either shut up or pivot to defend themselves against engaging in that activity. This is only effective if that actually is what someone is doing which is generally the case if they have gone on for an extensive period of time, hijacked on an unrelated issue or interrupted someone else.

Just out of curiosity; how many people, in their extended circles, have zealots from both ends of the political spectrum? I do, and I would imagine a lot of people do.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 02:18:42 PM
Thanks everyone.

There are times, when I put the phone down and walk away. I have to- it's too emotionally intense to just listen, or try to have some semblance of a conversation. Today, I basically said, 'I don't want to talk about it. I have enough stress in my life.' only to be told that this person was trying to 'educate' me.

Hmmmm.....

Other times, I put the person on speaker and my SO listens. He is gobsmacked most of the time.

The main reason I posted this thread is just to put it out there. So, if anyone else has a zealot (religious, political, etc.) who is driving you mad, feel free to post and lighten your load. Maybe we can help each other.

In a lot of Carolyn Hax's advice columns she talks about setting boundaries and how to do it/maintain them. One is when a topic or behavior comes up that you do not want to engage with is to say what you said, "I don't want to talk about X." And then change the subject. If the person continues, her advice/script is to reiterate your desire to not about the subject and then say you have to go and hang up or leave the room. You make it clear you are not engaging with the problematic behavior by your own behavior.

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 05, 2020, 05:17:52 AM
Just out of curiosity; how many people, in their extended circles, have zealots from both ends of the political spectrum? I do, and I would imagine a lot of people do.

Not in the family, but in my work and social environment and definitely on Facebook. America is breeding them and has been for some time. Donald Trump is both a symptom and a catalyst. I won't explain any further right now out of respect for the purpose of this thread, but you'll probably hear more from me about this as we go along. Very important question.

Quote from: mahagonny on June 05, 2020, 06:38:22 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 05, 2020, 05:17:52 AM
Just out of curiosity; how many people, in their extended circles, have zealots from both ends of the political spectrum? I do, and I would imagine a lot of people do.

Not in the family, but in my work and social environment and definitely on Facebook. America is breeding them and has been for some time. Donald Trump is both a symptom and a catalyst. I won't explain any further right now out of respect for the purpose of this thread, but you'll probably hear more from me about this as we go along. Very important question.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it. While Trump may have provided accelerant, with apologies to Billy Joel, "he didn't start the fire". Society has been breeding this kind of heavily polarized (and polarizing) environment for a long time.

Quote from: financeguy on June 05, 2020, 04:21:16 AM
The assumption that Marxist ideology is taught is neither wrong nor even an exaggeration, which is surprising because economics as a field has one of the lowest percentages of left identifying faculty.

A lot of people outside of academe seem to think that one cannot teach an ideology without indoctrinating in the ideology. I bet many conventionally conservative economists do a fine job teaching Marxist ideology without indoctrinating anyone in the slightest.

Given that there is a lot of communication among those unfamiliar with the college experience implying incorrectly that these are indoctrination camps, it's important to make the distinction. Asking students to do some critical thinking about the ideologies they study is the opposite of indoctrinating them in those ideologies.

I'd say if you just don't have the time, energy or brain space to engage in a real conversation, then feel free to walk away/hang up/change the subject.
"I don't want to talk about that.  How's your weather/how about that sports team/etc".

They don't have the right to use up your time.

I don't think this has been said yet, specificaly:

The mantra that you can't control others, and you can't control situations--you can only control yourself and how you respond to those others and those situations--applies as well.

It's not up to you to dissuade them from their fantasies/delusions/errors overall.

You may want to respond mildly with a rejoinder rebutting some statement you know to be in error, but you aren't going to change their minds for them.

M.

Quote from: spork on June 05, 2020, 03:10:58 AM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 04, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

"Yes, Marx's Das Kapital has been taught at universities around the world since its publication in the late 1800s. Marx was probably the first person to propose technological innovation as a main cause of economic change, a topic for which Robert Solow won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1987. By the way, did you know that your tax dollars subsidize professional sports teams owned by billionaires, by contributing to intercollegiate football and basketball, which are farm leagues for the NFL and NBA?"

I've heard that Das Kapital is a famous unread book, one that sits on the shelf and is quoted but no one really reads.  Another example is Darwin's The Descent of Man.

Quote from: mamselle on June 05, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
I don't think this has been said yet, specificaly:

The mantra that you can't control others, and you can't control situations--you can only control yourself and how you respond to those others and those situations--applies as well.

It's not up to you to dissuade them from their fantasies/delusions/errors overall.

You may want to respond mildly with a rejoinder rebutting some statement you know to be in error, but you aren't going to change their minds for them.

M.

That's really the most constructive way of addressing it.  It's not easy sometimes.  We're sure we're right, and we want our rightness acknowledged.  We're so convinced that the world would be a better place if others would just think like us that we want to MAKE them think like us.  We assume that our motives for believing what we believe are pure, and that others believe what they do because they're stupid or immoral or self-serving. 

It's usually not as simple as all that. 

I really appreciate all of the responses to this thread (lots of interesting comments).

Maybe I should clarify, this person is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, etc. Very 'deep state' and 'the left are ruining the country by trying to make everyone socialists.' I was also told that I can also only trust family. Very cult-like. Insular.

Toxic.

I know that there is nothing that I can do to encourage this person to question hu's perspective on the world. Never gonna' happen. And that sucks.

As I mentioned upthread, the reason I posted was to unload and also see how common people with this very paranoid worldview are.

It may be accurate, but referring to someone as racist (or any of the other terms utilized) has got to be one of the least persuasive tools in the box. You are guaranteed to exacerbate whatever attitudes this person has while being seen to use these issues as manipulative tools without sincere concern. ("Playing the race card", etc.) Even implying those terms is toxic. They really should not be used in the context of people you wish to continue to interact with, which brings up the logical point of why you'd even want to if you actually believe that's what they are.

Quote from: financeguy on June 06, 2020, 02:24:00 AM
It may be accurate, but referring to someone as racist (or any of the other terms utilized) has got to be one of the least persuasive tools in the box. You are guaranteed to exacerbate whatever attitudes this person has while being seen to use these issues as manipulative tools without sincere concern. ("Playing the race card", etc.) Even implying those terms is toxic. They really should not be used in the context of people you wish to continue to interact with, which brings up the logical point of why you'd even want to if you actually believe that's what they are.

This person is a family member, so it's difficult for me. I have tried cutting off in the past.

+1 to all the disengagement ideas.

A smart preacher-man once told me that if you keep arguing with an idiot, pretty soon the other person is too.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 03:25:49 AM
[. . .]

This person is a family member, so it's difficult for me. I have tried cutting off in the past.

In the interest of sharing ideas (your situation is not unique, unfortunately), what strategies have not worked previously and why?

Whenever one of my family members laments the liberal brain-washing that goes on in colleges, I say, "Brain-washing? I can't even get them to bring the book to class!" Then change the subject.

Quote from: Hibush on June 05, 2020, 11:07:23 AM

Quote from: financeguy on June 05, 2020, 04:21:16 AM
The assumption that Marxist ideology is taught is neither wrong nor even an exaggeration, which is surprising because economics as a field has one of the lowest percentages of left identifying faculty.

A lot of people outside of academe seem to think that one cannot teach an ideology without indoctrinating in the ideology. I bet many conventionally conservative economists do a fine job teaching Marxist ideology without indoctrinating anyone in the slightest.

Given that there is a lot of communication among those unfamiliar with the college experience implying incorrectly that these are indoctrination camps, it's important to make the distinction. Asking students to do some critical thinking about the ideologies they study is the opposite of indoctrinating them in those ideologies.

I appreciate this point very much, but will add our diversity and inclusion department and our union are trying to indoctrinate the faculty in the wake of the tragic George Floyd incident, with a brand new updated summer reading list with all the liberal top forty hits on it.

Quote from: RatGuy on June 06, 2020, 07:48:41 AM
Whenever one of my family members laments the liberal brain-washing that goes on in colleges, I say, "Brain-washing? I can't even get them to bring the book to class!" Then change the subject.

Thanks RatGuy. This made me laugh. :)

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 06:33:24 AM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 03:25:49 AM
[. . .]

This person is a family member, so it's difficult for me. I have tried cutting off in the past.

In the interest of sharing ideas (your situation is not unique, unfortunately), what strategies have not worked previously and why?

Thanks spork. Honestly, I have succumbed to lying.

This person asks questions such as, 'How many of (insert minority group here) are on your campus? Do you feel safe? ' So, I just lower the number.

Changing the subject sometimes works. This person is very bull-headed, tenacious, petulant, stubborn, obstinate- actually delusional also works.

I have hung up several times, but I've been trying to keep things more peaceful, so I haven't done it lately.

Walking away from the phone works very well, but I'm still unsettled to come back and hear ranting.

Actually arguing with the person, in a calm manner, while presenting the facts does NOT work at all. See above description involving delusional thoughts.

One good thing about getting older is you can fall asleep at any time/place. When my mother-in-law goes on her religion/politics rant, I sit down in a comfortable chair,  tune her out in my mind, close my eyes and pretend to fall asleep.  Drooping head is also effective.  Usually, she stops talking to me. I can eventually open my eyes and resume what I was doing.

Quote from: Volhiker78 on June 06, 2020, 09:51:02 AM
One good thing about getting older is you can fall asleep at any time/place. When my mother-in-law goes on her religion/politics rant, I sit down in a comfortable chair,  tune her out in my mind, close my eyes and pretend to fall asleep.  Drooping head is also effective.  Usually, she stops talking to me. I can eventually open my eyes and resume what I was doing.

Too funny! I'll have to try this at the next gathering.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 09:48:06 AM

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 06:33:24 AM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 03:25:49 AM
[. . .]

This person is a family member, so it's difficult for me. I have tried cutting off in the past.

In the interest of sharing ideas (your situation is not unique, unfortunately), what strategies have not worked previously and why?

Thanks spork. Honestly, I have succumbed to lying.

This person asks questions such as, 'How many of (insert minority group here) are on your campus? Do you feel safe? ' So, I just lower the number.

Changing the subject sometimes works. This person is very bull-headed, tenacious, petulant, stubborn, obstinate- actually delusional also works.

I have hung up several times, but I've been trying to keep things more peaceful, so I haven't done it lately.

Walking away from the phone works very well, but I'm still unsettled to come back and hear ranting.

Actually arguing with the person, in a calm manner, while presenting the facts does NOT work at all. See above description involving delusional thoughts.

Looks to me that this relative derives satisfaction from speaking to you. Why take his calls?

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 11:06:51 AM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 09:48:06 AM

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 06:33:24 AM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 03:25:49 AM
[. . .]

This person is a family member, so it's difficult for me. I have tried cutting off in the past.

In the interest of sharing ideas (your situation is not unique, unfortunately), what strategies have not worked previously and why?

Thanks spork. Honestly, I have succumbed to lying.

This person asks questions such as, 'How many of (insert minority group here) are on your campus? Do you feel safe? ' So, I just lower the number.

Changing the subject sometimes works. This person is very bull-headed, tenacious, petulant, stubborn, obstinate- actually delusional also works.

I have hung up several times, but I've been trying to keep things more peaceful, so I haven't done it lately.

Walking away from the phone works very well, but I'm still unsettled to come back and hear ranting.

Actually arguing with the person, in a calm manner, while presenting the facts does NOT work at all. See above description involving delusional thoughts.

Looks to me that this relative derives satisfaction from speaking to you. Why take his calls?

Good question. Answer: Immediate family member. Probably not the best answer. Just a difficult situation. Over the years, I have managed to disengage a bit (no longer dealing with fits from this person when I don't immediately answer the phone every day or so).

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 12:51:59 PM

[. . . ]

Good question. Answer: Immediate family member. Probably not the best answer. Just a difficult situation. Over the years, I have managed to disengage a bit (no longer dealing with fits from this person when I don't immediately answer the phone every day or so).

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this person sounds mentally ill. You should not be sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of maintaining a relationship with someone who is trying to drag you into their own crazy pit.

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 02:19:34 PM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 12:51:59 PM

[. . . ]

Good question. Answer: Immediate family member. Probably not the best answer. Just a difficult situation. Over the years, I have managed to disengage a bit (no longer dealing with fits from this person when I don't immediately answer the phone every day or so).

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this person sounds mentally ill. You should not be sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of maintaining a relationship with someone who is trying to drag you into their own crazy pit.

What makes you suggest the relative is mentally ill? Is their life going worse as a result of their behavior?

The main person who seems to be suffering as a result of their own behavior is the OP.

Quote from: downer on June 06, 2020, 04:31:45 PM

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 02:19:34 PM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 12:51:59 PM

[. . . ]

Good question. Answer: Immediate family member. Probably not the best answer. Just a difficult situation. Over the years, I have managed to disengage a bit (no longer dealing with fits from this person when I don't immediately answer the phone every day or so).

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this person sounds mentally ill. You should not be sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of maintaining a relationship with someone who is trying to drag you into their own crazy pit.

What makes you suggest the relative is mentally ill? Is their life going worse as a result of their behavior?

The main person who seems to be suffering as a result of their own behavior is the OP.

It's painful, but I am estranged from a mentally ill family member.  It is one of the saddest things in my life, but my life overall is much, much better without hu's rage and irrationality darkening my days.

Do what is in your best interest, OP.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 06, 2020, 06:21:50 PM

Quote from: downer on June 06, 2020, 04:31:45 PM

Quote from: spork on June 06, 2020, 02:19:34 PM

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 06, 2020, 12:51:59 PM

[. . . ]

Good question. Answer: Immediate family member. Probably not the best answer. Just a difficult situation. Over the years, I have managed to disengage a bit (no longer dealing with fits from this person when I don't immediately answer the phone every day or so).

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this person sounds mentally ill. You should not be sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of maintaining a relationship with someone who is trying to drag you into their own crazy pit.

What makes you suggest the relative is mentally ill? Is their life going worse as a result of their behavior?

The main person who seems to be suffering as a result of their own behavior is the OP.

It's painful, but I am estranged from a mentally ill family member.  It is one of the saddest things in my life, but my life overall is much, much better without hu's rage and irrationality darkening my days.

Do what is in your best interest, OP.

Thanks Wahoo. I go back and forth about cutting off contact. It depends on the day I guess, or the conversation. It's a loss when you cut off from a person. I'm glad you're in a better place.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 12:33:28 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on June 04, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
Provided they really are wrong and it's not just me, I explain why I think they're wrong. I also try to let it go after a few rounds, and try again the next time it comes up. I think that the key is knowing when to stop.

I have tried those tactics. This person doesn't want to listen and it's not really a good idea to cut this person out of my life. Today's latest Kool-aid-related conversation: 'Students are learning Marxism in colleges now.' I suppose I just need a place to vent (besides the venting thread) and who knows?- maybe there's a piece of advice that may help me save my sanity.

Screw with their heads and have fun with it. Responding with something like, "You're right. And that's why the people that voted for Trump love his socialist Universal Basic Income checks. Please don't tell anyone, I want to keep the socialism going."

"I never discuss politics or religion and that's why I have so many friends".

I tried to post about the crass and selfish behavior of the CBSN anchorperson and staff during the Holding Up the Bible incident at St. Andrew's Church. I was possibly subverted twice.
A "Photo OP" for our President or for Y'all?
He was trying to lead and teach during a time of  crisis in which the very seat of our government was imperiled. Did anyone ask Mr. Trump about his intent. I thought he was calling for calm and a reliance on Christian ethics to moderate events. You people know that and knew that at the time. Shame on CBSN. SHAME!

Quote from: Economizer on June 12, 2020, 11:21:11 PM
I tried to post about the crass and selfish behavior of the CBSN anchorperson and staff during the Holding Up the Bible incident at St. Andrew's Church. I was possibly subverted twice.
A "Photo OP" for our President or for Y'all?
He was trying to lead and teach during a time of  crisis in which the very seat of our government was imperiled. Did anyone ask Mr. Trump about his intent. I thought he was calling for calm and a reliance on Christian ethics to moderate events. You people know that and knew that at the time. Shame on CBSN. SHAME!

You missed the part about teargassing an Episcopal priest in front of her own church, so she could be cleared away for the photo-op. There's nothing Christian about the act.

You also missed the part of condemnation of the photo-op, from the leader of the Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Lutherans. I stopped keeping track of the condemnations from church leaders, after the Evangelical Lutherans chimed in. Take up your retail version of Christianity, with the church leaders themselves.

It seems to me that mature people learn to agree not to talk about subjects they won't compromise on. My MAGA-hat-wearing in-laws and I get along fine, but we've learned what we can't discuss at the table. We don't have particularly deep discussions, mind you, but we get along. Last semester, I had a student who wanted to do an essay on why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed take-in foster kids; I told her that I wouldn't be able to grade her essay fairly, and that it's an issue I simply don't budge on. She chose something else (and wrote a perfectly good essay).

My suggestion to the OP is to cut off contact, write down what issues you don't want to talk about, and maybe find an intermediary within the family (I understand why it's hard to do this yourself within a family context) who could explain to the "offender" what the problem is and what talking points are taboo within the relationship--as in "EPW doesn't want to talk to you about Trump, border walls, race, muscle cars, and/or tennis with you ever again; she's happy to talk to you about other things and missed the contact." Put the ball in the "offender's" court in the sense that you should let them decide if they want to continue the relationship within these new parameters. But be prepared if they decide you're a "snowflake libtard" and don't want to talk to you for quite a while.

Probably more bad advice from the sidelines, but good luck with this.

I wouldn't write down the issues, but I have certainly refused to discuss certain issues that don't matter (and now even things that do matter, but that don't affect me or my child directly).

Set the boundaries and follow through every time with hanging up/walking out/disengaging.  Someone who really wants a relationship will eventually (only took 20 years with one family member) respect your boundaries.  The 20-year-stubborn family member now only talks about food, gardens, and weather with me, but that's fine as I check in on that elderly relative to ensure they can still live independently.

If it matters, then you have to engage.  However, nothing in your examples matter in the same way, for example, that my child's severe peanut allergy or our current continuing state of lockdown that my immediate family will not be socializing in person and yes, dear grandparents, that means no trip this summer, even if you make it because I will refuse to open the door.  Yep, I am being completely unmovable on those issues.  However, if anyone wants a lecture on the risks/benefits and actual science, then I'm ready to give that lecture to the underinformed who show up ready to tell me every single wrong thing they got from the mass media.

Interestingly, some people do respond really well to exchanging five-minute lectures with no changes ever.  However, that requires liking intellectual exchanges and having people who are actually informed enough on issues that matter where multiple valid views exist based on the data.

fishbrains' comment ^:

I once encountered a conspiracy theorist whose family dealt with him in this way. Whenever he brought up his Illuminati-Hillary Clinton child sex trafficking out of pizza parlors-space aliens built the pyramids thing, family members said "Not interested in communicating about this. Bye." If it was at an in-person family gathering, he was shown the door.

Quote from: polly_mer on June 13, 2020, 07:59:30 AM
I wouldn't write down the issues [. . .]

I would write them down because I would have trouble not adding colorful language when I spoke my thoughts. For example, I would write, "I don't want to talk to you about Trump, race, and ziti pasta" but when speaking aloud without a guide, I would probably say something like, "F*ck your orange horseman of the apocalypse, you are straight-up evil you bull$hit fake-Christian-wannabe for thinking it's okay for a cop (or anyone) to kneel on someone's neck for nearly nine minutes until they are dead, and no one calls ziti pasta 'noodles' in the f*cking 21st century!"

Maybe others do better at controlling their mouths than I do.

Ok, how to respond to stalwart zealots with bigwig backups? If they do not address your question or point, don't waste your breath or ink on them. Don't even ask why they are evasive.

Quote from: fishbrains on June 13, 2020, 09:18:50 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on June 13, 2020, 07:59:30 AM
I wouldn't write down the issues [. . .]

I would write them down because I would have trouble not adding colorful language when I spoke my thoughts. For example, I would write, "I don't want to talk to you about Trump, race, and ziti pasta" but when speaking aloud without a guide, I would probably say something like, "F*ck your orange horseman of the apocalypse, you are straight-up evil you bull$hit fake-Christian-wannabe for thinking it's okay for a cop (or anyone) to kneel on someone's neck for nearly nine minutes until they are dead, and no one calls ziti pasta 'noodles' in the f*cking 21st century!"

Maybe others do better at controlling their mouths than I do.

+1 to all of it fishbrains.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 13, 2020, 11:07:20 AM

Quote from: fishbrains on June 13, 2020, 09:18:50 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on June 13, 2020, 07:59:30 AM
I wouldn't write down the issues [. . .]

I would write them down because I would have trouble not adding colorful language when I spoke my thoughts. For example, I would write, "I don't want to talk to you about Trump, race, and ziti pasta" but when speaking aloud without a guide, I would probably say something like, "F*ck your orange horseman of the apocalypse, you are straight-up evil you bull$hit fake-Christian-wannabe for thinking it's okay for a cop (or anyone) to kneel on someone's neck for nearly nine minutes until they are dead, and no one calls ziti pasta 'noodles' in the f*cking 21st century!"

Maybe others do better at controlling their mouths than I do.

+1 to all of it fishbrains.

It was really simple to say, "We can talk food, crafts, gardening, and weather.  How's that garden going?"

When they try a topic on the really long list of no-nos, "we can talk food, crafts, gardening, and the weather.  How's that sweater coming?"

When the second try is wrong, I hang up and don't answer the reconnect.

Repeat every call until the relative gets the message.


There's no point in writing a big list of no-nos, when the yes-yes list is so short and memorable.

Another suggestion that's been useful in my life: play board games or do activities together instead of just talking with no purpose.

Yahtzee, Sorry!, Farkle, Funemployment, Code Names, and other low-learning-curve games can even be played over Skype while during lockdown.

It can be easier to redirect to "Four backwards!  That's tough luck since you're so close."

Quote from: polly_mer on June 14, 2020, 07:00:15 AM
Another suggestion that's been useful in my life: play board games or do activities together instead of just talking with no purpose.

Yahtzee, Sorry!, Farkle, Funemployment, Code Names, and other low-learning-curve games can even be played over Skype while during lockdown.

It can be easier to redirect to "Four backwards!  That's tough luck since you're so close."

Yes! Except Monopoly. Don't play Monopoly.

Quote from: lightning on June 14, 2020, 01:41:33 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on June 14, 2020, 07:00:15 AM
Another suggestion that's been useful in my life: play board games or do activities together instead of just talking with no purpose.

Yahtzee, Sorry!, Farkle, Funemployment, Code Names, and other low-learning-curve games can even be played over Skype while during lockdown.

It can be easier to redirect to "Four backwards!  That's tough luck since you're so close."

Yes! Except Monopoly. Don't play Monopoly.

No one should ever play Monopoly after the age of about ten.  Even then, Monopoly is only for the Nth rainy day in a row when all other entertainment has lost its luster.

Oh, I dunno; adults get different things out of it...

;--}

I once played Monopoly with three other people: two techie guys and one of the guy's girlfriends. 

We were all in our late 20s/early thirties.

The guys had sussed out the percentage likelihood of other players landing on particular properties, and based decisions like how much to invest in putting properties on them on those figures, which they discussed earnestly and determinedly.

The other woman and I found ourselves quietly, at first--and then more intentionally--conflating our decisions for each others' benefit, so that if one got Boardwalk, the other would sell them Park Place, just to try to stand up against the guys' hardline methods.

We almost got them...until they heard us plotting quietly as we went to get the ice cream ready that was to be our treat/dessert at the end of the game.

They said we were colluding illegally; we said we just wanted a strategy that we could use against their hyper-mathed-up game constructions.

We finally decided that we were really just playing two very different games on the same board, and called it a draw, so the ice cream wouldn't melt...

M.

Monopoly tends to lead to arguments more than other similarly accessible-to-all games with a strong luck component.  Some of that is the result of far more house rules than any other game I've ever played.  Much of the rest is due to Monopoly being specifically designed to teach a boring economic lesson while taking a long time to lose.

If the point is a more neutral activity, then playing Monopoly is not a good bet.

She writes as the veteran of serious gaming groups where people would flat out refuse to play games that have such a strong luck component that small children playing blindly have a better-than-even chance of winning.  I am annoyed at the idea of people being mathy enough to run probabilities on outcomes, but dumb enough to waste that effort on Monopoly instead of a real game.

If I'm playing monopoly my hope is to lose as soon as possible without making it obvious that's what I'm doing, because winning is done by making your opponent homeless. And they try to legitimize the mean-spirited object of the game with pretty little hotels and deeds and spaces on the board. It's not even an honest mean game, and it's not too interesting if you play by the book. It could be darkly funny if you made up your own rules though. For example, a debt would be forgiven in exchange for the player's last possession, his board marker. He would then be required to hold his finger in place on the board. After that he could be forgiven a debt by giving up his chair, so he would have to both stand and hold his finger in place for the last few turns before the inevitable death blow. Great game for mean kids with imagination.
Scrabble: be careful who you play with. The person who reads more almost always wins. When you're evenly matched it's great. and even the person who disagrees with you about almost everything can teach you a new word and make you grateful.
Or, when  visiting the relative who's not as educated of well read as you and ask them to teach you a game. Then you are the one trying to catch up.

I go for Trivial Pursuit myself.  I am the Dormmaster.   Show no mercy.

Quote from: polly_mer on June 14, 2020, 08:57:15 PM
Monopoly tends to lead to arguments more than other similarly accessible-to-all games with a strong luck component.  Some of that is the result of far more house rules than any other game I've ever played.  Much of the rest is due to Monopoly being specifically designed to teach a boring economic lesson while taking a long time to lose.

If the point is a more neutral activity, then playing Monopoly is not a good bet.

She writes as the veteran of serious gaming groups where people would flat out refuse to play games that have such a strong luck component that small children playing blindly have a better-than-even chance of winning.  I am annoyed at the idea of people being mathy enough to run probabilities on outcomes, but dumb enough to waste that effort on Monopoly instead of a real game.

These two guys were Computer Science Engineering grad students, trying to impress us, I think....oe maybe each other...

M.

I mostly just play Scrabble, with a family member who is very hard to beat. 

Making a deed trade or sale between two partners in collusion is wrong in the same way forming an extensive bargaining arrangement between one faction of the college faculty and the administration while colluding to exclude the other, or another faction is wrong. Win-win-you lose, loser is identifying allies and enemies. With one player you are sharing your wealth while the two of you prey on other(s).
I like the passive language too -- 'we found ourselves...'

Quote from: mamselle on June 14, 2020, 04:37:20 PM
Oh, I dunno; adults get different things out of it...

;--}

I once played Monopoly with three other people: two techie guys and one of the guy's girlfriends. 

We were all in our late 20s/early thirties.

The guys had sussed out the percentage likelihood of other players landing on particular properties, and based decisions like how much to invest in putting properties on them on those figures, which they discussed earnestly and determinedly.

The other woman and I found ourselves quietly, at first--and then more intentionally--conflating our decisions for each others' benefit, so that if one got Boardwalk, the other would sell them Park Place, just to try to stand up against the guys' hardline methods.

We almost got them...until they heard us plotting quietly as we went to get the ice cream ready that was to be our treat/dessert at the end of the game.

They said we were colluding illegally; we said we just wanted a strategy that we could use against their hyper-mathed-up game constructions.

We finally decided that we were really just playing two very different games on the same board, and called it a draw, so the ice cream wouldn't melt...

M.

I told a friend, an anthropologist, later, and she said that a classic response by oppressed individuals to high-functioning shysters--to band together and work out ways to aggregate power <<en masse>>.

She didn't call it collusion, however, she said it was self-protective cooperation.

A rose...

M.

Unfortunately, the person in question is not a member of my household and lives 100 miles away, so playing a board game is not possible. This person is also not tech savvy so, no skype, zoom, etc. game-playing. Also, this person is a major pain in my ass, critical, condescending, obnoxious and rude, so...

I missed a phone call from this person and I am somewhat dreading the next call.

QuoteUnfortunately, the person in question is not a member of my household and lives 100 miles away, so playing a board game is not possible. This person is also not tech savvy so, no skype, zoom, etc. game-playing. Also, this person is a major pain in my ass, critical, condescending, obnoxious and rude, so...

I missed a phone call from this person and I am somewhat dreading the next call.

You know what?   Life is short!  Why worry about this?  What did I miss that requires that you put up with their shit?  IF you want to keep some sort of family peace and keep in touch with this person, then do on on YOUR Terms.  You call when you have something to tell them, and keep it short and sweet.  Should the topic go off the rails, then announce that your cellphone battery is low and that your call may drop at any moment.

The bottom line is that there are only so many minutes that God has given us.  Use them wisely!

Good luck


(I had a friend that would call me late at night when he was all worked up/heavily caffeinated/otherwise impaired.  If I engaged he would just talk and talk. I learned to let the call go to voicemail and he would time it out!  A few days later I would call in the sunny part of the day and have a shorter, more pleasant conversation.  He didnt feel abandoned (as he wasnt) and I didnt waste a lot of time when he was less reasonable.  )

Quote from: clean on June 15, 2020, 02:45:20 PM

QuoteUnfortunately, the person in question is not a member of my household and lives 100 miles away, so playing a board game is not possible. This person is also not tech savvy so, no skype, zoom, etc. game-playing. Also, this person is a major pain in my ass, critical, condescending, obnoxious and rude, so...

I missed a phone call from this person and I am somewhat dreading the next call.

You know what?   Life is short!  Why worry about this?  What did I miss that requires that you put up with their shit?  IF you want to keep some sort of family peace and keep in touch with this person, then do on on YOUR Terms.  You call when you have something to tell them, and keep it short and sweet.  Should the topic go off the rails, then announce that your cellphone battery is low and that your call may drop at any moment.

The bottom line is that there are only so many minutes that God has given us.  Use them wisely!

Good luck


(I had a friend that would call me late at night when he was all worked up/heavily caffeinated/otherwise impaired.  If I engaged he would just talk and talk. I learned to let the call go to voicemail and he would time it out!  A few days later I would call in the sunny part of the day and have a shorter, more pleasant conversation.  He didnt feel abandoned (as he wasnt) and I didnt waste a lot of time when he was less reasonable.  )

Good advice Clean. The bolded portion above is funny, since I already do this.

It's time to send Gramps gift subscriptions to Mother Jones, The Progressive, and maybe Tikkun.  It's OK to love somebody and still not put up with their sh!t.  If they refuse to have a civil conversation, fighting back (if somewhat passive aggressively) seems only fair. 

Unless this person is set up to leave you a 7 figure inheritance, in which case never mind.

Quote from: mamselle on June 15, 2020, 11:18:49 AM
I told a friend, an anthropologist, later, and she said that a classic response by oppressed individuals to high-functioning shysters--to band together and work out ways to aggregate power <<en masse>>.

She didn't call it collusion, however, she said it was self-protective cooperation.

A rose...

M.

High functioning shysters, indeed. sounds quite familiar.

I have a neighbor on my block, a dear 90-year-old lady, who's generally pleasant to talk to.  Except that she sometimes has gotten caught up in this conviction that COVID 19 is a hoax.  I try to steer the conversation away from that subject.  After a bit she steers it back.  Her son is a retired doctor, so she presumably has heard someone she trusts try to set her straight on the subject.  It's annoying--but also saddening that somebody who is quite friendly and in some ways very admirable should be so stuck on something so foolish.

I don't know how she came to believe in the hoax business.  Based on what I've heard her say, I suspect that it has a great deal to do with what the partial shutdown has cost her.  Her church, which is the center of her social world, has not been able to hold face-to-face meetings for months.  When it has reopened, social distancing has barred her from the visiting and hugging that she loves to do.  She has also been forbidden from visiting friends in nursing homes.  It's heartbreaking for her to see them forced into an isolation that seems to her a fate worse than death.

I guess I'm saying all this because we need to remind ourselves that "zealots" don't say what they say just to be stupid and make our lives harder.  They have their reasons and their concerns that make them care deeply about their hobby horses.  They speak and act out because they're in a lot of pain.  These are painful times for us all.

Quote from: apl68 on June 16, 2020, 07:29:24 AM

I guess I'm saying all this because we need to remind ourselves that "zealots" don't say what they say just to be stupid and make our lives harder.  They have their reasons and their concerns that make them care deeply about their hobby horses.  They speak and act out because they're in a lot of pain.  These are painful times for us all.

That might be true of some zealots (and cranks). I don't buy it as a general explanation. Some people are just like that. Others get like that because of pernicious cable tv. FoxNews has a lot to answer for.

Quote from: apl68 on June 16, 2020, 07:29:24 AM

I guess I'm saying all this because we need to remind ourselves that "zealots" don't say what they say just to be stupid and make our lives harder.  They have their reasons and their concerns that make them care deeply about their hobby horses.  They speak and act out because they're in a lot of pain. These are painful times for us all.

I'd have more sympathy for this person if I hadn't grown up dealing with this behavior from hu on a daily basis. Hu has also written me out of the will (at least once for 'disobeying') and I really don't care, but this is a good example of the personality that I'm dealing with. I suspect that part of it comes from hu's need to control due to an abusive situation. There comes a point when I have to weigh what's more important- being constantly wounded by these interactions, or feeling sympathy for this person's plight.

I do sympathize with those for whom basic losses are hard to bear given their losses in other areas.

I live alone and am happy about it.

But I do understand others have different responses--and I've tried to do what I can about it in those cases where it's possible to work something out.

For three different friends over the past two weeks--all of whom live alone, and each of whom I often meet up with in casual social settings--I've ordered a meal delivered, timed so we could share our dinners and conversations over Zoom in the evenings. Two were in my time zone, one was three zones away.

I'll probably repeat that in a week or so as well as the frequent emails and calls we share.

It so happens at the moment that I can do that..in other settings they've helped me out in other times and places--but it's not like keeping track or anything, it's just friends sharing food, or--as our theology teachers used to call it, " meal fellowship," or "Agape meals," something like that.

It was fun figuring out which restaurants, and what foods, and who delivered when...a time-based game, in a way.

And we had a chance to talk together, joke, and see each other, right down to the special sauce dripping down one friend's chin.

M.

Quote from: downer on June 16, 2020, 07:34:25 AM

Quote from: apl68 on June 16, 2020, 07:29:24 AM

I guess I'm saying all this because we need to remind ourselves that "zealots" don't say what they say just to be stupid and make our lives harder.  They have their reasons and their concerns that make them care deeply about their hobby horses.  They speak and act out because they're in a lot of pain.  These are painful times for us all.

That might be true of some zealots (and cranks). I don't buy it as a general explanation. Some people are just like that. Others get like that because of pernicious cable tv. FoxNews has a lot to answer for.

I've had the misfortune to know people who really are just like that.  But in my experience I've found that the other explanations are more often true.  It's part of why I try not to write people off, even when that's a real temptation.  But I have been forced to write people off before.

Quote from: downer on June 16, 2020, 07:34:25 AM
That might be true of some zealots (and cranks). I don't buy it as a general explanation. Some people are just like that. Others get like that because of pernicious cable tv. FoxNews has a lot to answer for.

My zealot is my mom, and the above is one of the worst things about engaging with her. She will start up ranty group email threads based on the grievance du jour, I will engage, it won't go anywhere... and then I will see a Tucker Carlson clip featured on the Daily Show and realize she'd literally pulled her crusade from there.

Happened this week, actually. I guess maybe it's a reminder not to engage.

As for OP's question: I keep my distance and don't really talk to problem people. There are some battles I will pick every single time (racism is the one), but it's not because I think I'll change minds. It's because racists should catch hell every time they utter that trash, and I'm here for it.

Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on June 04, 2020, 10:36:55 AM
How do you deal with these people (other than just avoiding them)? What do you do if they are family? :(

Stop being a zealot.

I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

Quote from: Anselm on June 17, 2020, 09:39:42 AM
I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

Exactly.

As an adult who no longer lives at home, the real leverage you have is the ability to either be present & available for interactions with your parents/extended family or to not be.

You have the right to be treated with kindness and politeness.  By everyone.  That doesn't mean you have to agree all the time, just that disagreements have to be civil.

If a family member can't hold to that agreement, then you leave the room/hang up the phone/don't answer the text.  You can block them on social media, cut visits short or not visit at all, etc.
Hold firm to your boundaries!  And you might want to consider a therapist to help talk you through this.  It's not easy to limit or cut off contact with a loved one, even if that person is constantly hurting you.

Quote from: the_geneticist on June 17, 2020, 11:36:22 AM
As an adult who no longer lives at home, the real leverage you have is the ability to either be present & available for interactions with your parents/extended family or to not be.

You have the right to be treated with kindness and politeness.  By everyone.  That doesn't mean you have to agree all the time, just that disagreements have to be civil.

If a family member can't hold to that agreement, then you leave the room/hang up the phone/don't answer the text.  You can block them on social media, cut visits short or not visit at all, etc.
Hold firm to your boundaries!  And you might want to consider a therapist to help talk you through this.  It's not easy to limit or cut off contact with a loved one, even if that person is constantly hurting you.

Thanks the_geneticist. Had a convo today and I had to talk over this person to change the subject several times. Managed to get off the phone relatively unscathed. Like you said, it is difficult, when it is a family member, to keep those boundaries.

Quote from: Anselm on June 17, 2020, 09:39:42 AM
I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

This is a really cynical view; it basically suggests that society is doomed to either anarchy, or a police state with one viewpoint completely supressed by force.

In my experience, controversial issues are that way because there are two (or more ) factors that must be taken into account, and much of the polarization is a result of different weights put on the factors by people on different sides of the issue. While complete consensus may not be achievable, people from different viewpoints who make an effort can come to some agreement on the factors themselves, even if they can't agree on their relative importance.

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 17, 2020, 02:04:49 PM

Quote from: Anselm on June 17, 2020, 09:39:42 AM
I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

This is a really cynical view; it basically suggests that society is doomed to either anarchy, or a police state with one viewpoint completely supressed by force.

In my experience, controversial issues are that way because there are two (or more ) factors that must be taken into account, and much of the polarization is a result of different weights put on the factors by people on different sides of the issue. While complete consensus may not be achievable, people from different viewpoints who make an effort can come to some agreement on the factors themselves, even if they can't agree on their relative importance.

increasingly, not in the academic world. Our college is already enlisting all of us in the 'antiracist' pledge. The questionnaire I just filled out didn't ask 'how do you feel about recent events.' It asked 'what are you interested in finding out about antiracism' 'what commitment are you willing to make to antiracism and making the college more inclusive, less racist,' etc. Academia in the last week is riding high on the wave of the moving of progressive positions to the political center that has occurred in the last several weeks.

'Antiracism' is the new manipulative emotional  or identity blackmail technique. The right had something like this a few years ago that they called 'support the troops.' It meant that if you love people who put themselves in harm's way for America, you vote for Prudent Bush.

Quote from: mahagonny on June 17, 2020, 02:17:41 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on June 17, 2020, 02:04:49 PM

Quote from: Anselm on June 17, 2020, 09:39:42 AM
I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

This is a really cynical view; it basically suggests that society is doomed to either anarchy, or a police state with one viewpoint completely supressed by force.

In my experience, controversial issues are that way because there are two (or more ) factors that must be taken into account, and much of the polarization is a result of different weights put on the factors by people on different sides of the issue. While complete consensus may not be achievable, people from different viewpoints who make an effort can come to some agreement on the factors themselves, even if they can't agree on their relative importance.

increasingly, not in the academic world. Our college is already enlisting all of us in the 'antiracist' pledge. The questionnaire I just filled out didn't ask 'how do you feel about recent events.' It asked 'what are you interested in finding out about antiracism' 'what commitment are you willing to make to antiracism and making the college more inclusive, less racist,' etc. Academia in the last week is riding high on the wave of the moving of progressive positions to the political center that has occurred in the last several weeks.

'Antiracism' is the new manipulative emotional  or identity blackmail technique. The right had something like this a few years ago that they called 'support the troops.' It meant that if you love people who put themselves in harm's way for America, you vote for Prudent Bush.

The modern equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Well now I get this is an interesting issue.  My own church, an independent evangelical congregation (c. 60 people in attendance normally), where I was one of but two voters who did not vote for Drumpf in 16, has been back holding live services for a month now.  In our state, the governor, a centrist Republican I never voted for, but for whom all these folks did, has put in a mandatory public maskwearing emergency policy, for about 2 months now.  Sadly, I am one of three churchgoers who is obeying the policy, the other two being a young (29yo) type I diabetic and his wife (interestingly, his dad is an elder and neither he nor his wife mask).  I confess my patience for this has worn thin, both for the issue of our need as Christians to obey those lawful acts of Caesar that would not cause us to disobey God in obeying, and for the awful testimony associated with the lack of concern for the health of our fellow congregants and those they would encounter during the week (a concern amplified for me personally due to the repeated ongoing exposure I face during my retail job).  Thus, finally, after church Sunday I asked the pastor for a few minutes of his time to air my concerns.  I never got to the last part, the 'putting the Lord to a foolish test' concern for our health, and just started in on the legal obedience part.  He flatly denied that the governor had any authority to put such a masking req on us, and asserted a standard Fox-y line about religious liberty and such like.

Ah well.

Quote from: kaysixteen on June 17, 2020, 09:15:54 PM
Well now I get this is an interesting issue.  My own church, an independent evangelical congregation (c. 60 people in attendance normally), where I was one of but two voters who did not vote for Drumpf in 16, has been back holding live services for a month now.  In our state, the governor, a centrist Republican I never voted for, but for whom all these folks did, has put in a mandatory public maskwearing emergency policy, for about 2 months now.  Sadly, I am one of three churchgoers who is obeying the policy, the other two being a young (29yo) type I diabetic and his wife (interestingly, his dad is an elder and neither he nor his wife mask).  I confess my patience for this has worn thin, both for the issue of our need as Christians to obey those lawful acts of Caesar that would not cause us to disobey God in obeying, and for the awful testimony associated with the lack of concern for the health of our fellow congregants and those they would encounter during the week (a concern amplified for me personally due to the repeated ongoing exposure I face during my retail job).  Thus, finally, after church Sunday I asked the pastor for a few minutes of his time to air my concerns.  I never got to the last part, the 'putting the Lord to a foolish test' concern for our health, and just started in on the legal obedience part.  He flatly denied that the governor had any authority to put such a masking req on us, and asserted a standard Fox-y line about religious liberty and such like.

Ah well.

Our pastor has taken essentially the line you were talking about, in reminding the church that we are to follow government directives where they do not directly contradict Christian duty.  That's why we were all masking and social distancing when we reopened last Sunday.

This is exactly the attitude I encouraged my pastor to take, but of course he did not take it.  Indeed, this mask ordinance and other issues regarding the pandemic seems to have hardened him into a Trumpist 'they're coming to take our religious freedom away' mindset, and, although I *think* (but certainly do not know) that at least some of the other folks in the church are probably taking their lead from him and would be masking in church if he did/ told us to do so (I believe his health conditions do actually warrant the exemption from masking that the Governor's policy permits, but almost no one else in the church has such a condition), many folks in the church would have this same view regardless of what he was saying/ doing, and indeed might well react negatively if he were to take the opposite view, the one I want and your pastor takes (and indeed, our lay elder takes, at least the part about obedience to lawful state mandates).  It is also true that, quite unlike the South, up here in very very blue Massachusetts, the people in our church hold a vastly different religious and political perspective than the vast majority of peoplel around here, which strongly contributes to the us vs. them mentality that many of them, including the pastor think, irrespective of the level of education and intelligence of the person.  It is very difficult to deal with, whereas in a place like Arkansas, it would almost certainly be much harder to get and especially maintain such a view, when the vast majority of the folks you'd encounter outside of your congregation are pretty likely to be very simpatico to those religious and political perspectives of yours, or at least say they were.  Lastly, there is also the rather sectarian, almost culty, groupthink mentality that runs rampant in a church like this one, which is not something like the Catholic or Methodist churches, denominations noted for a wide variety of members holding a wide variety of opinions.  I do not much know how to deal with this, either, and must needs admit that I have succumbed on occasion to a wee bit of this 'culty' feeling myself, a feeling of a magnet-type thing pulling me into the overall thinking on any given subject, even if I really do not want to be so drawn,

Kay, here's a piece to maybe share with your pastor:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/church-dont-let-coronavirus-divide/
Key quote, speaking to those who don't think precautions are necessary:  "even if it turns out you're right, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary?"

Quote from: Liquidambar on June 18, 2020, 08:02:36 PM
Kay, here's a piece to maybe share with your pastor:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/church-dont-let-coronavirus-divide/
Key quote, speaking to those who don't think precautions are necessary:  "even if it turns out you're right, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary?"

Yes. This.

M.

I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar. I'm an atheist, but the one thing I actually do appreciate about having so many Christians in this country is that they provide at least some limit on the degree to which people will follow government, even if I disagree with the underlying reason. Unfortunately most of my fellow atheists adopt the state as their religious idol with no boundaries at all.

While we're at is, I actually refuse to use the phrase "the government" in isolation. There are nearly 200 national governments and many thousands of regional governments within them. The use of the general term "the government" almost implies an inevitable natural state. You're really just referring to the people threatening you with violence for non-compliance in a given geographic area. I doubt a christian god would wish one do too much rendering unto Caesar if suddenly ruled by "the government" of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc.

When Jesus said 'give Ceaser what is due him and give God what is due him' he was still living. Isn't that a game changer? Wasn't he saying 'I got your back.'

I think with age, my extended circles shrink, and though I wouldn't say I don't have both extremes represented,
Most either share my views or are only willing to discuss views we have in common.  I don't think I would bother to debate the mom of my kids friend about Trump or even a more clear individual principle. What's the freakin point? I just accept them on fairly superficial terms , and we go from there if we can. Family can be harder. Work folks can either be easier (if , say, similar age and rank) or harder to discuss these things with. It's not that I don't want to discuss important issues with junior faculty. I just don't want them to think they are being brow beaten.

Quote from: financeguy on June 20, 2020, 02:47:15 AM
I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar. I'm an atheist, but the one thing I actually do appreciate about having so many Christians in this country is that they provide at least some limit on the degree to which people will follow government, even if I disagree with the underlying reason. Unfortunately most of my fellow atheists adopt the state as their religious idol with no boundaries at all.

While we're at is, I actually refuse to use the phrase "the government" in isolation. There are nearly 200 national governments and many thousands of regional governments within them. The use of the general term "the government" almost implies an inevitable natural state. You're really just referring to the people threatening you with violence for non-compliance in a given geographic area. I doubt a christian god would wish one do too much rendering unto Caesar if suddenly ruled by "the government" of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc.

Good point about "governments." Traveling and researching in other countries over extended periods, and reading their newspapers and listening to their newscasters, besides being excellent language immersion experiences, pointed out to me just how exclusionary and self-focused/selfish our own news coverage is.

I get better insights about US topics from Reuters. I find out more about Asia, Africa, Europe, and S. America from Le Monde. My cousin's local paper in Liege is more international than my local paper, which is no slouch, but still doesn't reach out as much h as it could (or used to) for a broader perspective on things.

This use of the word "government" points it up, in a nutshell.

The closer Christian citation for me, about the ethical responsibility of co-religionists for each other--and for the newer, younger, or more fragile members of a shared faith community--is the parallel concern for the behaviors expected of the early Gentile converts when disambiguation between adherents to Judaic law and the followers of the Christian Way (as they were first called) became an issue.

In Acts 15:29, and again later in Rom 14, and in I Cor 8, injunctions against certain behaviors (notably the eating of meat offered to idols) were imposed. The operant reason given is that while idols may be seen as impotent and their worship frivolous-- and so, eating offerings to them, or not, was irrelevant-- eating meat taken from those altars was a potential issue of conscience and/or confusion for newer adherents to the faith.

To be charitable to those new baptisands/confirmands, then, the point is made several times that abstention from such meat was requested as an act of kindness, so as not to bruise their consciences. Older, more assured followers of the faith may have seen it as a non-issue, indeed, being certain of their own agnosticism re: the various other cults in the area, but long-standing memebers were urged to be considerate and take the extra trouble to procure meat not so 'tainted' by association, however glancing, with idolatry.

Instead of parading their "rights" about, they are urged to observe humility and greater self-control, and to make the extra effort needed to make their newer members feel comfortable.

I Cor 8 is also, in some readings, the lead-up or prelude--the softer-voiced prologue, perhaps-- to the development in chapters 9-12 of the "ethics of love," which winds up to a full-throated crescendo in I Cor 13 ("the wedding verses") and 14 (which presses out the principles or organic unity and consideration for others into the specific issues faced by early churches in the realms of prophetic utterance, church order, and the enactment of the giftedness celebrated in the earlier passages), as well as that upheld in Roman's 12.

These, too, are tied to ideas of governance and government, of course. A voluntary society differs from civil society in some ways, but the underlying idea of consideration for others as a significant principle, set into conversation with principles of liberty and individual rights, seems to me to be the common thread.

I think of Reingold Niebuhr, Robert Bellah and Robert Coles as exponents of these ideas in the somewhat more recent past. I develop this point from this perspective because I know it best, but it's not the sole arena within which these ideas are discussed.

Jewish and Islamic scholars may have related comments from the Abrahamic perspective. Buddhism's guiding concept of "compassion" and the ideals of Confucianism may obtain in those spheres. Alex Garcia-Riveria wrote along these lines in Latino/a terms, and Ifanyi Menkiti developed Nigerian philosophic considerations along similar lines.

So, I'm suggesting that a conversation--not a conflation--around these ideas might be instructive in the more global context.

M.

I had a friend who would deal with a zealot by listening closely, nodding, and then if there was a pause, finishing their sentence. Then smiling a little. She was able to do this because she'd already heard all of the points and arguments. The zealot thought she was agreeing. My friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

QuoteMy friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

In this thread, I am so reminded about Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I have already provided my best answer, above, but I will suggest that reading that book will help.  IN particular, Dale Carnegie would have said essentially the same thing.  It is hard to argue when someone is agreeing with you.

Personally, I have tried to end arguments with, "I see your point. You are absolutely right".  And when the other continues, I simply repeat, "You are absolutely right".     (Some know what that means when I say it).

However, I probably would prefer to quote Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

Quote from: clean on June 20, 2020, 09:31:23 AM

QuoteMy friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

In this thread, I am so reminded about Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I have already provided my best answer, above, but I will suggest that reading that book will help.  IN particular, Dale Carnegie would have said essentially the same thing.  It is hard to argue when someone is agreeing with you.

Personally, I have tried to end arguments with, "I see your point. You are absolutely right".  And when the other continues, I simply repeat, "You are absolutely right".     (Some know what that means when I say it).

However, I probably would prefer to quote Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

That book was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to recruit and manipulate people according to biographer Jeff Guinn.

Quote from: Anselm on June 20, 2020, 12:10:21 PM

Quote from: clean on June 20, 2020, 09:31:23 AM

QuoteMy friend let her think that. The zealot, not having an opposing view to oppose, was neutralized.

In this thread, I am so reminded about Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.  I have already provided my best answer, above, but I will suggest that reading that book will help.  IN particular, Dale Carnegie would have said essentially the same thing.  It is hard to argue when someone is agreeing with you.

Personally, I have tried to end arguments with, "I see your point. You are absolutely right".  And when the other continues, I simply repeat, "You are absolutely right".     (Some know what that means when I say it).

However, I probably would prefer to quote Dan Aykroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

That book was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to recruit and manipulate people according to biographer Jeff Guinn.

Not hard to believe. The most affable person I know is also the most unscrupulous.

QuoteThat book was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to recruit and manipulate people according to biographer Jeff Guinn.

So there is actual evidence that IT WORKS!!
Read it. Learn it. Live it.

(Hell, even if you think it is a manual on the best way to brown nose, you should read it to KNOW when someone is nosing around to manipulate you!!)

Thanks for recommending the Gospel Coalition essay.  I am on the GC mailing list and most of the folks in our church, those who would know of it, would generally affirm it.  We are 'Reformed Baptists', and as such, are more or less simpatico with the general philosophy of the GC.  That said, I will not recommend this particular essay to anyone here, most especially the pastor, because the author essentially asserts that wearing the mask may well placate those brethren  with a 'weaker conscience', and as such we all should accede to it, even if one has a stronger conscience and knows, asserts, or believes that masking is essentially useless.  Mamselle correctly notes the biblical context of the 'weaker conscience' argument, but of course the biblical argument is case-specific, and this ain't the case.  Indeed, over the years I have seen this passage abused often by those who want to argue that whatever 'Christian liberty' practice they choose to engage in, no matter how foolish or inconsistent with serious biblical praxis, in opposition to those who argue that doing so is sinful or stupid, means that the libertines have a stronger conscience, and if they refrain they would merely be humoring those who are of 'weaker conscience'.   This is an argument I have little time for, especially in this particular case, as wearing the mask is pretty much the opposite of this, and there are numerous other good reasons for doing so, including looking out for the health of your fellow church members, being a good testimony to visitors to the church, esp those who may not actually be Christian believers, and...

the part about obeying Caesar in all things save what God forbids.  This is standard NT teaching.  Peter explicitly teaches Christians to obey God rather than man, which is why he refused orders not to preach about Jesus, but Peter, Paul, James, etc., all really teach that we should do so.  This is pretty standard amongst reformed/ presbyterian teaching, though not necessarily in its most extreme form, and it is especially standard and pretty no-holds barred amongst (ana)baptistic believers, such as our church.  It really is, and if the orders to wear masks had come from Donald Trump, the pastor would eagerly be advocating obedience, and might even rebuke those who wanted to disobey.  That the orders are coming from centrist GOP governors and Democrats, however, brings obedience to those orders into conflict  with the ever-increasing libertarian notions that have been infusing this church and many other churches and individuals like it, ideas that have been percolating slowly for many years by now and sadly have much more in common with the Gospel according to Ayn Rand than anything  in the NT or in any of the traditional confessional and devotional documents of our tradition.  Now if only I had a way to demonstrate this to them...

I'm a big Carnegie guy and can say that yes it does work and like many things (taking up a contact sport or a sales job) it will change your own habits in general, working its way into your general behavior. The pitfall to avoid when letting people discuss themselves as a "net" to get someone in is that you can easily attract more of the people likely to abuse this trait than you would like to have in your life. If you are going to go "full Carnegie" and take all the advantages that come with the ability to pursued that comes with it, you must be prepared to cut people off who are in search of a professional monologue assistant, otherwise you will be a magnet for them.

One thing to look out for is the person that doesn't just want to talk about "their topic" but refuses even the accommodating"tee up" question on their topic, "So, you mentioned that one of the advantages of this strategy is y. What challenges should one prepare for when implementing?" A reasonable individual who is interested in a discussion will realize the valuable gift that they are being given to discuss "their thing" and will answer the softball "teed up" question you've given, potentially pivoting to where they'd like to take it. The person disinterested in any actual interaction at all will not be appreciative of the "conversational gift" because they don't see it that way at all. You're talking. Even if about their topic, this is not your role. The rambler does not want interaction at all, they want an audience.

I do think everyone would benefit from the social skills that can come from having had one sales job in their life. You will realize very quickly how presenting someone with excellent points of your own is much less successful than asking their wants/needs and then framing a response in such a way that you've heard and addressed them. This Carnegie based approach is now often called "consultative selling" which we're all doing even if the "sale" is of an idea.

Quote from: financeguy on June 21, 2020, 11:56:01 PM
I do think everyone would benefit from the social skills that can come from having had one sales job in their life. You will realize very quickly how presenting someone with excellent points of your own is much less successful than asking their wants/needs and then framing a response in such a way that you've heard and addressed them. This Carnegie based approach is now often called "consultative selling" which we're all doing even if the "sale" is of an idea.

I learned from your post, thanks, financeguy.  Makes sense.

Quote from: financeguy on June 20, 2020, 02:47:15 AM
I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar.

Jesus' command to "render to Caesar those things which are Caesar's" was specifically about paying taxes.  In Romans chapter 13 Paul of Tarsus extends this principle by urging Christians to submit to civil authorities by obeying laws and showing due respect.  He appears to have written this during the reign of Nero--who had Paul himself imprisoned and later, most likely, executed.  The point Paul was trying to make is that civil authority is necessary for society to function.  Even if society has a bad ruler, that is no excuse to show disrespect, or to refuse to obey laws when compliance is not itself evil.

This is why I've always been annoyed at the endless expressions of disrespect toward leaders--democratically elected ones at that--which has become such a standard part of our political discourse.  It's why even though I find President Trump quite revolting I try to show the respect his office is due--and to avoid gratuitously disrespecting or demonizing those who have allowed themselves to be deluded into supporting him.  And have done the same with his various predecessors, whatever my own feelings about them.  If early Christians could be expected to obey a Nero most of the time, then we today can surely put up with a Trump or a Clinton.

Quote from: kaysixteen on June 21, 2020, 08:24:38 PM
Thanks for recommending the Gospel Coalition essay.  I am on the GC mailing list and most of the folks in our church, those who would know of it, would generally affirm it.  We are 'Reformed Baptists', and as such, are more or less simpatico with the general philosophy of the GC.  That said, I will not recommend this particular essay to anyone here, most especially the pastor, because the author essentially asserts that wearing the mask may well placate those brethren  with a 'weaker conscience', and as such we all should accede to it, even if one has a stronger conscience and knows, asserts, or believes that masking is essentially useless.  Mamselle correctly notes the biblical context of the 'weaker conscience' argument, but of course the biblical argument is case-specific, and this ain't the case.  Indeed, over the years I have seen this passage abused often by those who want to argue that whatever 'Christian liberty' practice they choose to engage in, no matter how foolish or inconsistent with serious biblical praxis, in opposition to those who argue that doing so is sinful or stupid, means that the libertines have a stronger conscience, and if they refrain they would merely be humoring those who are of 'weaker conscience'.   This is an argument I have little time for, especially in this particular case, as wearing the mask is pretty much the opposite of this, and there are numerous other good reasons for doing so, including looking out for the health of your fellow church members, being a good testimony to visitors to the church, esp those who may not actually be Christian believers, and...

the part about obeying Caesar in all things save what God forbids.  This is standard NT teaching.  Peter explicitly teaches Christians to obey God rather than man, which is why he refused orders not to preach about Jesus, but Peter, Paul, James, etc., all really teach that we should do so.  This is pretty standard amongst reformed/ presbyterian teaching, though not necessarily in its most extreme form, and it is especially standard and pretty no-holds barred amongst (ana)baptistic believers, such as our church.  It really is, and if the orders to wear masks had come from Donald Trump, the pastor would eagerly be advocating obedience, and might even rebuke those who wanted to disobey.  That the orders are coming from centrist GOP governors and Democrats, however, brings obedience to those orders into conflict  with the ever-increasing libertarian notions that have been infusing this church and many other churches and individuals like it, ideas that have been percolating slowly for many years by now and sadly have much more in common with the Gospel according to Ayn Rand than anything  in the NT or in any of the traditional confessional and devotional documents of our tradition.  Now if only I had a way to demonstrate this to them...

I guess I wasn't as clear as I might have been in my interpretation of the citations I was applying to this issue.

Apologies.

I don't believe anyone has a "right" not to mask unless they have a doctor's excuse. Otherwise, it's just plain selfish.

I didn't mean to imply that it was optional; I was using the citations I pointed out to show why it should be expected: you can harm others, whether or not you perceive any potential harm to yourself, and that's not cool.

I didn't realize it had come across as a "suggestion," that might be ignored or taken as a relative pronouncement on the issue. I don't read Paul as saying it in that light, either (I don't know of the Gospel Coalition, so I wasn't referring to anything by them--sorry)

I don't think our options are that expansive here, and I think the pastor in question is 'way out of line.

We're talking about others' lives.

Get a video camera and sign up for a You Tube account.

(Which I'm about to do, in fact, for the tours I usually give in person in the summers. I'd love to do them as usual, but it just seems too irresponsible to me, even if the city historical commission would allow it--and I'm glad they won't.)

M.

Quote from: apl68 on June 22, 2020, 09:53:02 AM

Quote from: financeguy on June 20, 2020, 02:47:15 AM
I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar.

Jesus' command to "render to Caesar those things which are Caesar's" was specifically about paying taxes.  In Romans chapter 13 Paul of Tarsus extends this principle by urging Christians to submit to civil authorities by obeying laws and showing due respect.  He appears to have written this during the reign of Nero--who had Paul himself imprisoned and later, most likely, executed.  The point Paul was trying to make is that civil authority is necessary for society to function.  Even if society has a bad ruler, that is no excuse to show disrespect, or to refuse to obey laws when compliance is not itself evil.

This is why I've always been annoyed at the endless expressions of disrespect toward leaders--democratically elected ones at that--which has become such a standard part of our political discourse.  It's why even though I find President Trump quite revolting I try to show the respect his office is due--and to avoid gratuitously disrespecting or demonizing those who have allowed themselves to be deluded into supporting him.  And have done the same with his various predecessors, whatever my own feelings about them.  If early Christians could be expected to obey a Nero most of the time, then we today can surely put up with a Trump or a Clinton.

Interesting, but how many nations existed at that time, with a Constitution like ours? We are asked to alter or abolish a government that no longer serves the people. 'Consent of the governed' and all that.