For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family. Today's highlights include:
1. Global warming isn't real because it's getting colder in the week.
2. Covid isn't that dangerous. It's ok to have large parties. If you're vaccinated, then you're 100% covered.
3. China created Covid as a biological weapon to mess with us.
4. You can cure colon cancer by taking vitamins.
Do you have folks who live in realities different from yours? If so, then how to you deal with them when they tell you that your view of the world is 'wrong.' It's especially disconcerting when they rage at me about it.
This issue has come up before in the fora. First off, you need to internalize why some people subscribe to conspiracy theories, in the first place. Once you have that down, you'll resist the temptation to reason with them, and why it's not even worth it to try.
I just have fun with them and play along with their reality, but I go to the extreme and try to see how far I can get them to believe me until I see where their limits are. I'm talking National-Enquirer-style gay Martians disguised as Democrats who are using federal government funding to build landing strips for an alien invasion beginning with illegals who are really the descendants of the Aztecs who were the descendants of the alien race who is coming to invade and some of whom might already be here and married to your daughter. Stuff like that. Have fun!!!!
This is one of the reasons I have very little of depth to say to my family members.
When my brother refers to getting vaccinated against the "Wuhan Flu" I just ignore it, figuring he's just trying to bait me.
Otherwise, I only email when I have something anodyne to say.
And I guess that means I don't really feel compelled to communicate much with them.
If it's not really going to be a two-way street, it's not going to be conversation, and I have 'way to much else to do....like this paper I should be working on, so this is (again) me off the forum until tomorrow (I keep saying that).
M.
(See? I like talking with (well, most of) you guys...) - M
I know I've brought this topic up before and I think I posted this thread out of exasperation. I know there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. I just don't like the way I feel after interacting with these family members.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM
For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family. Today's highlights include:
1. Global warming isn't real because it's getting colder in the week.
2. Covid isn't that dangerous. It's ok to have large parties. If you're vaccinated, then you're 100% covered.
3. China created Covid as a biological weapon to mess with us.
4. You can cure colon cancer by taking vitamins.
Do you have folks who live in realities different from yours? If so, then how to you deal with them when they tell you that your view of the world is 'wrong.' It's especially disconcerting when they rage at me about it.
You mean all this isn't true? :-)
Quote from: dismalist on May 09, 2021, 01:22:18 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM
For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family. Today's highlights include:
1. Global warming isn't real because it's getting colder in the week.
2. Covid isn't that dangerous. It's ok to have large parties. If you're vaccinated, then you're 100% covered.
3. China created Covid as a biological weapon to mess with us.
4. You can cure colon cancer by taking vitamins.
Do you have folks who live in realities different from yours? If so, then how to you deal with them when they tell you that your view of the world is 'wrong.' It's especially disconcerting when they rage at me about it.
You mean all this isn't true? :-)
HA!
My Father-in-Law believes in crop circles.
My Brother-in-Law believes in Bigfoot.
My Mother-in-Law believes that Ouija Boards actually talk to Satan and has warned us not even to look at the Hasbro version lest we be possessed.
Each member of this very strange family has exactly one weird thing they believe, and each member makes fun of the other members for the stupid things the others believe.
My wife and I listen when these subjects come up (fortunately all three are seldom in the same room at any one time), and then on the drive home we have a good time reviewing the show.
It is a little harder to keep quiet when the FIL explains that he voted Trump because "he said the right things," but those days are swiftly vanishing in the past now that The Great Cheetos is banned from social media.
My advice is to have fun with your relatives' weirdness. Weird will never be changed by logic or discussion anyway.
Hopefully you can limit the topics to things that are important to everyone.
How your health is progressing, the youngins, other plans...
Luckily, my Trump loving brother has three kids and sees my parents more than I do. He's also very interested in modern science, even if some of his politics force him into short cuts. So, though we brush on politics, we don't dig too deep or there will be too much bad blood. I really hope Trump doesn't run again. He puts a lot of strain on families.
I say things like "though we will probably never be able to rule out a lab origin for COVID, seems like zoonotic natural origin is consistent with other viruses and other pandemics. " That is more or less the Fauci point of view.
When you can fry burgers on the sidewalk in January, you'll be able to convince conservative relatives that global warming is real and might kill them.
In other words, don't try to convert them, and don't get sucked into them trying to convert you.
Quote from: Ruralguy on May 09, 2021, 03:21:39 PM
Luckily, my Trump loving brother ... . He's also very interested in modern science... . I really hope Trump doesn't run again. He puts a lot of strain on families.
Your brother sounds like me.
Quote from: mamselle on May 09, 2021, 11:00:52 AM
This is one of the reasons I have very little of depth to say to my family members.
When my brother refers to getting vaccinated against the "Wuhan Flu" I just ignore it, figuring he's just trying to bait me.
Otherwise, I only email when I have something anodyne to say.
And I guess that means I don't really feel compelled to communicate much with them.
If it's not really going to be a two-way street, it's not going to be conversation, and I have 'way to much else to do....like this paper I should be working on, so this is (again) me off the forum until tomorrow (I keep saying that).
M.
(See? I like talking with (well, most of) you guys...) - M
This tends to be my approach. I don't talk to them electronically unless I absolutely have to, and then only in simple declarative sentences. When meeting them in-person, after discussing everyone's various aches and pains, the weather, the food we are eating/have eaten, what we are doing for vacation, and our kids, it's time to watch television.
There is one a-hole on my wife's side who likes to bait people into arguments, so I've had to say, "Hey, let's talk about something else!" One time he didn't, so I just left. The doors tend be located in the same places where you entered the place.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM
For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family. Today's highlights include:
1. Global warming isn't real because it's getting colder in the week.
2. Covid isn't that dangerous. It's ok to have large parties. If you're vaccinated, then you're 100% covered.
3. China created Covid as a biological weapon to mess with us.
4. You can cure colon cancer by taking vitamins.
Do you have folks who live in realities different from yours? If so, then how to you deal with them when they tell you that your view of the world is 'wrong.' It's especially disconcerting when they rage at me about it.
I'll take your word for (1) what they or some of them believe and (2) their liking Fox news, but this doesn't sound like the kind of stuff I have heard on FOX news. Maybe on occasion. Not regularly.
Whereas, I have friends who believe that if you state that you think the first recorded case of COVID was in Wuhan or some part of China as a result of a weird practice called 'wet markets' you are hopelessly racist and you probably glare at Asian Americans when you pass them on the street. We don't have wet markets in the US. Does someone think we should? If the Asian Americans do, they're keeping quiet.
To some Americans, calling it the Chinese of Wuhan flu is about like saying the Philadelphia Phillies tend to play in Philadelphia. But far and wide, it's being called COVID-19. The politically correct language crowd has prevailed. Why complain so much?
I watch people like Harris Faulkner. She sounds to me like a well grounded, trustworthy unpretentious type.
The attributed claim that a vaccination makes you 100% immune is interesting. Usually the beef with that academics have with moderates and right wingers is that they don't trust the vaccine. I would applaud the fact that they got one and put some trust in it at least. That's all I'm gonna say here about that, now.
Intelligent people can disagree on how many public gatherings it's reasonably safe to have and how they should be conducted. Some people think the need to demonstrate against the police is a reason to ignore the normal cautions.
Those four items are not really conspiracy theories unless there is some alleged plot to foist lies upon the public. You can ask for evidence and offer them opposing evidence. Learn to accept that some minds will not be changed and there is no sense harming family bonds over these kinds of disagreements.
https://www.rd.com/list/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/
https://www.businessinsider.com/5-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-2015-6
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM
For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family.
[. . . ]
Don't engage on conspiracy-based topics. If a family member insists, end the conversation -- hang up the phone, leave the house, stop sending email replies.
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
What does this look like?
When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
And do they ever do this back to you?
Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 10, 2021, 09:31:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
What does this look like?
When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.
I meet people who are very dedicated to misinformation, alternative facts, faulty superficial impressions, or outright lies.
Their premises are spurious but they believe in them wholeheartedly.
Rightwing propaganda blogs which deal in confirmation bias provide most of the fodder.
You must find other family members with whom you might conspire against them! Alas, not as easy as it sounds.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on May 10, 2021, 08:52:37 PM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 10, 2021, 09:31:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
What does this look like?
When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.
I meet people who are very dedicated to misinformation, alternative facts, faulty superficial impressions, or outright lies.
Their premises are spurious but they believe in them wholeheartedly.
Rightwing propaganda blogs which deal in confirmation bias provide most of the fodder.
https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf
con't
Not to quarrel with what Wahoo posted, but there's this too. I guess we're ignorant about different things. No one is quite a complete idiot.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 10, 2021, 09:31:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
What does this look like?
When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.
Do you mean, what does the questioning look like? Or what does their conceding they don't know look like?
Quote from: mahagonny on May 10, 2021, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
And do they ever do this back to you?
Oh, sure. It's called a 'conference presentation'. Actually, those are worse, because we routinely offer counterexamples or devastating arguments, which you don't do when you're just asking 'why?' over and over. It can look pretty vicious to people outside the discipline, but it's not (usually).
Quote from: mahagonny on May 11, 2021, 08:03:14 AM
No one is quite a complete idiot.
No one here...
But I beg to differ.
If I really want to convince someone and I also want to maintain the relationship with them, then I'll try to meet them halfway by at least empathizing with why they would believe some nonsense. From there I try to make a few points* that force them to to acknowledge how silly it all is, which isn't hard since most conspiracies fall apart easily. However, even the most bulletproof argument won't convince many, or even most, people, so it is probably better to just change the subject away from politics in most cases.
* Probably logical arguments will be more effective than stats, since they can find their own "alternative stats" to counter.
There are some great ideas here and I have tried some of them. I suppose I should say that it has been difficult for me to stand up to these people since we have a lot of history (that I won't get into) and they have a tendency to yell/scream about their beliefs (while belittling me) with such a viciousness that it can be incredibly unsettling . I have hung up on them in the past, put the phone down and done something else (only to come back and hear them still venting) and I have lied in order to get off the phone. I don't like to lie, but it works. Maybe I'm like some of my students with their magical thinking and I thought there would be an answer here that would solve all of my problems. I think my best bet is to make up a lie and use it. Unfortunately, I've gotten really good at it.
Did my post here today 11:20 am get sent properly?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 11, 2021, 08:10:08 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on May 10, 2021, 09:31:52 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 10, 2021, 09:17:28 AM
When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.
I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.
What does this look like?
When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.
Do you mean, what does the questioning look like? Or what does their conceding they don't know look like?
Both.
I often cannot get straight answers to basic questions like "Where did you hear that?" Or asking them to connect the dots for me so I can understand how they got from their premises to their conclusion.
Sometimes the reply is "Oh, come one.
Everybody knows it."
Sometimes they abruptly switch topics, ignoring the question entirely (I'd call this a dodge, not a concession).
Sometimes they get defensive "Who are you to question me?"
There are people in my life who refuse to acknowledge they were wrong on basic matters of fact (things you might not expect someone to feel personally attached to). Years ago we had a family gathering, and a few of us were watching a quiz show on TV. One of the questions had to do with ant colonies, I recall it was asking something like "What sex are the majority of the ants?" The contestant answered "Female", and a family member scoffed, "Idiot! The
queen is the female!" When the host told the contestant he was correct, this family member got quite huffy about it. He seemed to think that if the queen is female, none of the other ants can be female...for some reason.
I was a kid, so I naively thought this could easily be resolved by bringing out one of my books on insects, to show the family member the part about ant colonies. I was surprised when he seemed even more annoyed, saying "I don't need to look at that. I know what I know!"
That incident really stuck with me. It still baffles me.
It's a mistake trying to debate people who have constructed a self-identity based on willful ignorance.
Quote from: spork on May 11, 2021, 03:04:26 PM
It's a mistake trying to debate people who have constructed a self-identity based on willful ignorance.
Yes. That's why one doesn't have to talk with many people.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 11, 2021, 08:10:08 AM
And do they ever do this back to you?
Oh, sure. It's called a 'conference presentation'. Actually, those are worse, because we routinely offer counterexamples or devastating arguments, which you don't do when you're just asking 'why?' over and over. It can look pretty vicious to people outside the discipline, but it's not (usually).
[/quote]
I get it. It's a discipline. People who do it well are like concert pianists who practice four hours a day. People tear each other to shreds in debate, then go have lunch together.
I still don't get how so many of today's academics can pretend black animosity towards whites is not a problem (mostly to the people harboring the attitude), nor how something called 'antiracism' from a cadre of self-insulating holier-than-thous can be expected to become mainstream. And your hayseed relative, I suspect, is just as baffled. Which I take as a very sane response. Or maybe I am the hayseed. Which wouldn't destroy me to believe.
Quote from: spork on May 11, 2021, 03:04:26 PM
It's a mistake trying to debate people who have constructed a self-identity based on willful ignorance.
Yep yep.
I know that arguing against people's political or religious opinions can be taken personally.
But why dig your heels in over a factoid about ants?
Low self-esteem.
M.
I took an AP Psychology class in high school. We were learning about sleep disorders, among them sleepwalking.
'The technical term for sleepwalking,' said our teacher, 'is snombulism.'
'Snombulism?' said young Ergative. 'That doesn't sound right. Teacher, I thought the word was somnambulism.'
'No,' said the teacher, 'it's snombulism.'
So young Ergative went home, fetched a dictionary, turned it to the page where 'somnambulism' was defined, and showed it to the teacher.
'Oh,' said the teacher, 'I was using a different dictionary.'
Uh-huh, thought young Ergative, sure you were. And that was the day that young Ergative decided this AP Psychology class was terrible and not worth spending any more time on. It was clear that the teacher preferred willful ignorance over actually correcting errors in the face of literal dictionary evidence.
Agreed. They are way off the deep end, and is so many students, people just don't want to learn! You can't teach them anything because they are too stupid to correct mistakes.
I have a friend, Ph.D. professor who talks like he knows everything. He thinks global warming is a conspiracy began by scientists and weather experts who only want grant money. But he is very anti-science, anti-government pro religion. He also thinks the Moon Landing in 1969 is a fake. The media conspired this story. Well, I watched this myself on TV. To say this is to ridicule and shame brave astronauts and NASA. (This theory has been around many decades.) He also thinks Trump won the election and accepts this big lie. His Ph.D. is an elite university.
My mother with her wacky anti intellectual notions was also grossly illogical. All fallacious.
This is a collapse of critical thinking, totally. I taught this. They have no idea how to assess the truth and don't even want to try. For their own ego, these people must think they are right.
Jonathan Swift: you cannot reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
Quote from: Myword on May 12, 2021, 07:48:58 AM
Agreed. They are way off the deep end, and is so many students, people just don't want to learn! You can't teach them anything because they are too stupid to correct mistakes.
I have a friend, Ph.D. professor who talks like he knows everything. He thinks global warming is a conspiracy began by scientists and weather experts who only want grant money. But he is very anti-science, anti-government pro religion. He also thinks the Moon Landing in 1969 is a fake. The media conspired this story. Well, I watched this myself on TV. To say this is to ridicule and shame brave astronauts and NASA. (This theory has been around many decades.) He also thinks Trump won the election and accepts this big lie. His Ph.D. is an elite university.
My mother with her wacky anti intellectual notions was also grossly illogical. All fallacious.
This is a collapse of critical thinking, totally. I taught this. They have no idea how to assess the truth and don't even want to try. For their own ego, these people must think they are right.
Jonathan Swift: you cannot reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
What makes you think you know this (ego motive?) Of course when people square off in debate it may go downhill to a reptile brain thing. But people are genuinely
afraid of the new liberal orthodoxy.
Quote from: Myword on May 12, 2021, 07:48:58 AM
Agreed. They are way off the deep end, and is so many students, people just don't want to learn! You can't teach them anything because they are too stupid to correct mistakes.
I have a friend, Ph.D. professor who talks like he knows everything. He thinks global warming is a conspiracy began by scientists and weather experts who only want grant money. But he is very anti-science, anti-government pro religion. He also thinks the Moon Landing in 1969 is a fake. The media conspired this story. Well, I watched this myself on TV. To say this is to ridicule and shame brave astronauts and NASA. (This theory has been around many decades.) He also thinks Trump won the election and accepts this big lie. His Ph.D. is an elite university.
My mother with her wacky anti intellectual notions was also grossly illogical. All fallacious.
This is a collapse of critical thinking, totally. I taught this. They have no idea how to assess the truth and don't even want to try. For their own ego, these people must think they are right.
Jonathan Swift: you cannot reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
There is also something about the "just in case" mindset. They are afraid to be considered suckers so if they profess to not believe something, then they don't have to discover they might be wrong.
Quote from: ciao_yall on May 12, 2021, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: Myword on May 12, 2021, 07:48:58 AM
Agreed. They are way off the deep end, and is so many students, people just don't want to learn! You can't teach them anything because they are too stupid to correct mistakes.
I have a friend, Ph.D. professor who talks like he knows everything. He thinks global warming is a conspiracy began by scientists and weather experts who only want grant money. But he is very anti-science, anti-government pro religion. He also thinks the Moon Landing in 1969 is a fake. The media conspired this story. Well, I watched this myself on TV. To say this is to ridicule and shame brave astronauts and NASA. (This theory has been around many decades.) He also thinks Trump won the election and accepts this big lie. His Ph.D. is an elite university.
My mother with her wacky anti intellectual notions was also grossly illogical. All fallacious.
This is a collapse of critical thinking, totally. I taught this. They have no idea how to assess the truth and don't even want to try. For their own ego, these people must think they are right.
Jonathan Swift: you cannot reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
There is also something about the "just in case" mindset. They are afraid to be considered suckers so if they profess to not believe something, then they don't have to discover they might be wrong.
That doesn't really work, though--because you can be a sucker for not believing something that's true or for believing something that's false. This basis for illogical belief is not based on sound logical principles!
Quote from: ciao_yall on May 12, 2021, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: Myword on May 12, 2021, 07:48:58 AM
Agreed. They are way off the deep end, and is so many students, people just don't want to learn! You can't teach them anything because they are too stupid to correct mistakes.
I have a friend, Ph.D. professor who talks like he knows everything. He thinks global warming is a conspiracy began by scientists and weather experts who only want grant money. But he is very anti-science, anti-government pro religion. He also thinks the Moon Landing in 1969 is a fake. The media conspired this story. Well, I watched this myself on TV. To say this is to ridicule and shame brave astronauts and NASA. (This theory has been around many decades.) He also thinks Trump won the election and accepts this big lie. His Ph.D. is an elite university.
My mother with her wacky anti intellectual notions was also grossly illogical. All fallacious.
This is a collapse of critical thinking, totally. I taught this. They have no idea how to assess the truth and don't even want to try. For their own ego, these people must think they are right.
Jonathan Swift: you cannot reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
There is also something about the "just in case" mindset. They are afraid to be considered suckers so if they profess to not believe something, then they don't have to discover they might be wrong.
Maybe, but I think conspiracy theories come out of deep distrust. After Watergate, political conspiracy theories became much more common. After all, there really were a series of plots involving highly placed people in the government and the President. It made it much easier to believe all kinds of things might be true, including that the government had faked the moon landing.
You can read all these documents about pharmaceutical companies trying to sell as many opioids as they could and trying to convince everyone they were safe even though they knew they were highly addictive. Does that mean Covid Vaccines are dangerous and part of a plot? No, it doesn't, but you can see where conspiratorial ideas come from.
Quote from: Anselm on May 09, 2021, 06:06:12 PM
Learn to accept that some minds will not be changed and there is no sense harming family bonds over these kinds of disagreements.
+1
There's so much fear, distrust, emotion, anger, confusion, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and many loud voices these days. Maybe just listen a little and let loved ones vent. No need to educate or try to convince them when emotions are on fire all around. Try to understand why they might feel the way they feel (though you may disagree strongly) and move on to other topics.
About that moon thing...how come we've never gone back?
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2021, 03:36:14 PM
About that moon thing...how come we've never gone back?
We did.
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2021, 04:43:53 PM
Quote from: Caracal on May 13, 2021, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on May 13, 2021, 03:36:14 PM
About that moon thing...how come we've never gone back?
We did.
In 1972 and not since then, right?
Yeah, although apparently they are planning a crewed mission that would happen in the next few years. The Moon Landing hoax theory never made much sense to me. It isn't like the whole thing is technically infeasible. We can send rockets into space. The moon isn't really that far away. Also, it would be weird to imagine that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to figure out that the whole thing was a fake and in the context of the Cold War they would have been pretty excited to expose a massive American fraud.
Sorry, I've obviously been watching For All Mankind...
I deal with this by mocking them.
It is super ineffective.
Firstly, the conspiracy theories became popular and real after the JFK assasination and like most Americans, I think there was one, a huge number of documented books and research done. Then Watergate, that may have included a few of the same men from JFK murder.
I agree let these conspiracy people vent and change the subject quickly. Dont change their minds...they will come up with "what if this" and other nonsense. And they enjoy the discussion but do understand the meaning of real evidence, even some historians. You need to be tactful with family and friends if possible...though I hung up fast on my moon theory friend. (We never went back because it became too costly, as all revenue was spent on Vietnam War.) In 1969 people thought that this was the start of many flights. I read that one thief stole some moon rocks and went to jail. He said, if the moon landing was faked (hilarious) then why am I in prison?
Hard thinking is stressful and often unpleasant and time-consuming.
I have students read "The Ethics of Belief" by WK Clifford, though it isnt easy. That's the antidote and strongest critical essay on knowledge claims I know.
Quote from: larryc on May 14, 2021, 06:33:45 PM
I deal with this by mocking them.
It is super ineffective.
Favorite quote from Hoosiers to help everyone deal with family members caught up in this: "Look, mister, there's... two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with."
Quote from: Myword on May 15, 2021, 06:52:10 AM
I have students read "The Ethics of Belief" by WK Clifford, though it isnt easy. That's the antidote and strongest critical essay on knowledge claims I know.
Thank you for posting that. It's a very interesting read.
Quote from: Charlotte on May 16, 2021, 04:28:38 AM
Quote from: Myword on May 15, 2021, 06:52:10 AM
I have students read "The Ethics of Belief" by WK Clifford, though it isnt easy. That's the antidote and strongest critical essay on knowledge claims I know.
Thank you for posting that. It's a very interesting read.
After a look at WK Clifford's thoughts in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I posit that he would be very suspicious of a claim that unequal levels of prosperity among races is mostly or entirely because of racist policies. Yet this belief gets extremely forgiving treatment. If my diversity, inclusion and equity department were to take my suggestion and add 'The Ethics of Belief' to their recommended reading list of Ibram Kendi, Robin D'Angelo et al I would be delighted. Also absolutely amazed.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM
For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family. Today's highlights include:
1. Global warming isn't real because it's getting colder in the week.
2. Covid isn't that dangerous. It's ok to have large parties. If you're vaccinated, then you're 100% covered.
3. China created Covid as a biological weapon to mess with us.
4. You can cure colon cancer by taking vitamins.
Do you have folks who live in realities different from yours? If so, then how to you deal with them when they tell you that your view of the world is 'wrong.' It's especially disconcerting when they rage at me about it.
1 is just bad logic and sloppy thinking, 2 isn't completely true but the science actually says you're almost 100% covered if you are vaccinated, 3 there is no evidence for one way or the other - but I wouldn't be so quick to call the idea a whack job idea, and 4 I've never heard of but, again, is bad logic and sloppy thinking (likely conflating anecdotal cases with being proven.)
A lot of the Newsmax stuff is just demonstrably false and crackpot stuff, but I do have some sympathy and a soft spot for so-called "conspiracy theorists." Do you know how many conspiracy theories that sounded nuts turned out to be true decades after things were declassified? Look up the CIA plot to set off a bomb in suburban Miami and blame it on Cuba.
Quote from: Descartes on May 18, 2021, 08:18:46 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on May 09, 2021, 10:37:49 AM
For some deranged reason I feel obligated to talk with my Fox-news-lovin' family. Today's highlights include:
1. Global warming isn't real because it's getting colder in the week.
2. Covid isn't that dangerous. It's ok to have large parties. If you're vaccinated, then you're 100% covered.
3. China created Covid as a biological weapon to mess with us.
4. You can cure colon cancer by taking vitamins.
Do you have folks who live in realities different from yours? If so, then how to you deal with them when they tell you that your view of the world is 'wrong.' It's especially disconcerting when they rage at me about it.
1 is just bad logic and sloppy thinking, 2 isn't completely true but the science actually says you're almost 100% covered if you are vaccinated, 3 there is no evidence for one way or the other - but I wouldn't be so quick to call the idea a whack job idea, and 4 I've never heard of but, again, is bad logic and sloppy thinking (likely conflating anecdotal cases with being proven.)
A lot of the Newsmax stuff is just demonstrably false and crackpot stuff, but I do have some sympathy and a soft spot for so-called "conspiracy theorists." Do you know how many conspiracy theories that sounded nuts turned out to be true decades after things were declassified? Look up the CIA plot to set off a bomb in suburban Miami and blame it on Cuba.
I agree. The person who stated these beliefs is a Luddite and abhors Science.
Reviving this because Juan Williams has some advice for how to have a pleasant visit with those hateful relatives that you are grateful to be able to have Thanksgiving dinner with.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/581496-juan-williams-a-guide-to-combating-right-wing-lies
I suggest something Juan appears not to have thought of: instead of assuming people are full of hate, consider the possibility that they may be full of fear. That leaves the door more open for reconciliation or at least co-existing.
If found this interesting: (my bolding)
QuoteFourth, try not to cover your ears when the shouting begins over critical race theory.
Just say it is not being taught as a course in Virginia public schools, despite far-right, race-baiting claims in the run-up to the Virginia Governor's race.
In a subtle but significant shift the statement is now that CRT is not being taught
as a course. Which is actually more honest than what we have been hearing unanimously from the left, but it's still moving the goalposts because no one in Youngkin's campaign or anywhere has claimed that CRT was being
taught as a course in public schools. They have claimed it's being taught which is approximately what's going on, namely that because of the influence of CRT scholars and their ilk, they have recently changed or want to change, dramatically, the way they are teaching history, and potentially much besides history, in ways that they know are controversial, and they are trying to avoid engaging with anyone who may not like what they've been doing. And they've done this in response to recent events of which their interpretation is for the most part only the political left's one.
Despite all that's been said and written about this, the conversation across the aisle has been a disaster.
Maybe a good thing I'm not dining with Juan Williams. Jaun if you're reading this, Happy Thanksgiving! Food fight later?
Quote from: mahagonny on November 17, 2021, 04:18:40 AM
Reviving this because Juan Williams has some advice for how to have a pleasant visit with those hateful relatives that you are grateful to be able to have Thanksgiving dinner with.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/581496-juan-williams-a-guide-to-combating-right-wing-lies
I suggest something Juan appears not to have thought of: instead of assuming people are full of hate, consider the possibility that they may be full of fear. That leaves the door more open for reconciliation or at least co-existing.
If found this interesting: (my bolding)
QuoteFourth, try not to cover your ears when the shouting begins over critical race theory.
Just say it is not being taught as a course in Virginia public schools, despite far-right, race-baiting claims in the run-up to the Virginia Governor's race.
In a subtle but significant shift the statement is now that CRT is not being taught as a course. Which is actually more honest than what we have been hearing unanimously from the left, but it's still moving the goalposts because no one in Youngkin's campaign or anywhere has claimed that CRT was being taught as a course in public schools. They have claimed it's being taught which is approximately what's going on, namely that because of the influence of CRT scholars and their ilk, they have recently changed or want to change, dramatically, the way they are teaching history, and potentially much besides history, in ways that they know are controversial, and they are trying to avoid engaging with anyone who may not like what they've been doing. And they've done this in response to recent events of which their interpretation is for the most part only the political left's one.
Despite all that's been said and written about this, the conversation across the aisle has been a disaster.
Maybe a good thing I'm not dining with Juan Williams. Jaun if you're reading this, Happy Thanksgiving! Food fight later?
If Mahagonny happens to be your uncle, then buckle up because a rant like this is what you can expect every time you ask him to pass the mashed potatoes or tell the rest of the family what he is thankful for.
Yes, speaking of mahoganny, I think there are two kinds of conspiracy theorists. There are the kinds who have multiple things going on in their lives, and you can engage about sports teams or cousin Billy's new job or whether "Seinfeld" was the best sitcom of all time, and unless you venture over into politics, he won't happen to mention that he believes that X, Y, and Z are conspiracies of the Illuminati.
But the second kind are the ones who bring their pet target into every single conversation. "So I hear cousin Billy is working at Walgreens right now." "Yes, but with Critical Race Theory infecting everyone, it's only a matter of time before a minority unfairly gets a promotion instead of him. Just watch and see. Why, over in Ohio..." Fatally socially awkward as well as conspiracy minded, like people who mention a Star Wars parallel to every single comment you make, or who manage to bring a slight they suffered in 8th grade into every conversation. They can't adjust the topic to the general topic at hand, but keep trying to shift the topic back to their favorite conspiracy. My solution to these people is to see them in very small doses, and then to say, when in person, "Enough with the [whatever], let Janet talk."
Thankfully, at least when I Zoom with family members (as rarely as possible) they match the Type 1 you describe rather than the Johnny-one-note Type 2.
Weather, past travel, family and pets are mostly safe.
That's good for about an hour, all told, and then it's time to hang up.
We'd never correspond or talk if they were Type 2.
M.
Quote from: Hegemony on November 17, 2021, 10:52:11 AM
Yes, speaking of mahoganny, I think there are two kinds of conspiracy theorists. There are the kinds who have multiple things going on in their lives, and you can engage about sports teams or cousin Billy's new job or whether "Seinfeld" was the best sitcom of all time, and unless you venture over into politics, he won't happen to mention that he believes that X, Y, and Z are conspiracies of the Illuminati.
But the second kind are the ones who bring their pet target into every single conversation. "So I hear cousin Billy is working at Walgreens right now." "Yes, but with Critical Race Theory infecting everyone, it's only a matter of time before a minority unfairly gets a promotion instead of him. Just watch and see. Why, over in Ohio..."
What I would be curious about is, has Walgreens done what CVS did recently?
I can always go back to shopping at the neighborhood family-owned pharmacy that's been there for 60 years. Nice people.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ceo-millions-workers-privilege-christopher-rufo
Also: how many were surprised that McAuliffe lost? And not just by a nose. Decisively. Raise hands.
Quote from: Hegemony on November 17, 2021, 10:52:11 AM
Yes, speaking of mahoganny, I think there are two kinds of conspiracy theorists. There are the kinds who have multiple things going on in their lives, and you can engage about sports teams or cousin Billy's new job or whether "Seinfeld" was the best sitcom of all time, and unless you venture over into politics, he won't happen to mention that he believes that X, Y, and Z are conspiracies of the Illuminati.
But the second kind are the ones who bring their pet target into every single conversation. "So I hear cousin Billy is working at Walgreens right now." "Yes, but with Critical Race Theory infecting everyone, it's only a matter of time before a minority unfairly gets a promotion instead of him. Just watch and see. Why, over in Ohio..." Fatally socially awkward as well as conspiracy minded, like people who mention a Star Wars parallel to every single comment you make, or who manage to bring a slight they suffered in 8th grade into every conversation. They can't adjust the topic to the general topic at hand, but keep trying to shift the topic back to their favorite conspiracy. My solution to these people is to see them in very small doses, and then to say, when in person, "Enough with the [whatever], let Janet talk."
Unfortunately, I have the second type in my family and they are a major pain in my ass.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 17, 2021, 03:54:20 PM
Quote from: Hegemony on November 17, 2021, 10:52:11 AM
Yes, speaking of mahoganny, I think there are two kinds of conspiracy theorists. There are the kinds who have multiple things going on in their lives, and you can engage about sports teams or cousin Billy's new job or whether "Seinfeld" was the best sitcom of all time, and unless you venture over into politics, he won't happen to mention that he believes that X, Y, and Z are conspiracies of the Illuminati.
But the second kind are the ones who bring their pet target into every single conversation. "So I hear cousin Billy is working at Walgreens right now." "Yes, but with Critical Race Theory infecting everyone, it's only a matter of time before a minority unfairly gets a promotion instead of him. Just watch and see. Why, over in Ohio..." Fatally socially awkward as well as conspiracy minded, like people who mention a Star Wars parallel to every single comment you make, or who manage to bring a slight they suffered in 8th grade into every conversation. They can't adjust the topic to the general topic at hand, but keep trying to shift the topic back to their favorite conspiracy. My solution to these people is to see them in very small doses, and then to say, when in person, "Enough with the [whatever], let Janet talk."
Unfortunately, I have the second type in my family and they are a major pain in my ass.
Well, (taking a wild guess) if they are 'right wingers' and you are a 'leftie' then they have some idea which media outlets you more than likely frequent, so they may suspect that you are giving some credence to certain journalists, the worst of whom character-assassinate them ('bigots, haters'). And Juan Williams is one of those who seems to suspect people who are not self-identified liberals of nearly free floating hatred. So what you're looking at it is, a society that wants a culture war shall get one.
We can always keep the conversation away from politics at dinner time. Keeping the alcohol to a minimum helps me.
ETA: without knowing Ryan Holiday or his political bent I can easily infer this could well have been written about the political left. Though Williams thinks it makes his case against the right:
"As Ryan Holiday, a media critic, famously wrote, the more hateful and threatening the language, the more time people will spend looking at it because "people like getting pissed off almost as much as they like actual porn."
Also -- what is this assumption of mass use of pornography, Mr. Williams? A little projection perhaps? I do not watch porn and do not appreciate the insinuation.
Is there a way for either side to refrain from accusing the other of hatred? Maybe not, at this time.
Quote from: mamselle on November 17, 2021, 01:11:41 PM
Thankfully, at least when I Zoom with family members (as rarely as possible) they match the Type 1 you describe rather than the Johnny-one-note Type 2.
Weather, past travel, family and pets are mostly safe.
That's good for about an hour, all told, and then it's time to hang up.
We'd never correspond or talk if they were Type 2.
M.
I think I have family members who have Type 1 days and Type 2 days.
I never initiate conversation on anything political with my dad. Some days that goes just fine. Other days...wow.
Pets are
usually a safe topic. I like pets, Dad likes pets, pet-related chats tend to go quite pleasantly.
But one day I mentioned our neighbors adopted a Corgi puppy. The puppy was extraordinarily cute, to the point he was drawing crowds with people asking the owner if they could take selfies with him as if he were a celebrity. I thought it was amusing so I shared the story with Dad. Dad's response: "haha, yup Corgis sure are cute, but it makes me sad the way liberals are trying to ruin democracy."
um...what?
It sounds exaggerated, but that's really how abrupt the transition was.
I couldn't fully follow his explanation for why the Corgi story prompted that thought. It was something like: Corgis have shorter legs than most dog breeds. Some people think Corgis are
too short. Some people think Corgis shouldn't even exist (dunno if that's related to people thinking they're too short). Because they think some dogs shouldn't exist, people build activism campaigns for restrictions on irresponsible breeding. This is a form of telling people what they can and can't do. Liberals love to tell people what they can and can't do. It's really sad that liberals hate freedom.
I didn't know what to say to that. All I could do was blink at him in mute confusion.
Corgis = liberals hate democracy. Ah. Got it. I'm sorry about your dad, smallcleanrat!
What most gets my goat about these interchanges is the complete inability of these people to read the room. It's like Great-Aunt Matilda who goes on about her hernia operation all through Thanksgiving Dinner, while everyone else is rolling their eyes or desperately wondering how soon they can escape. The moral is: if you're talking about Topic X — whatever Topic X is — a whole lot more than you talk about other topics, you are coming across as a bore. And you're violating the first law of getting along in society, which is that you don't get to be the one who decides what the topic of conversation is all the time. People want to talk about umpteen different things, not Topic X all the damn time.
It's like a form of cognitive impairment, bores' inability to see what they're doing. And it's really sad and distressing when they're members of your family and you actually want to have a relationship with them, instead of just being an unwilling audience hoping to get away as soon as you can.
Quote from: Hegemony on November 27, 2021, 02:24:04 AM
Corgis = liberals hate democracy. Ah. Got it. I'm sorry about your dad, smallcleanrat!
What most gets my goat about these interchanges is the complete inability of these people to read the room. It's like Great-Aunt Matilda who goes on about her hernia operation all through Thanksgiving Dinner, while everyone else is rolling their eyes or desperately wondering how soon they can escape. The moral is: if you're talking about Topic X — whatever Topic X is — a whole lot more than you talk about other topics, you are coming across as a bore. And you're violating the first law of getting along in society, which is that you don't get to be the one who decides what the topic of conversation is all the time. People want to talk about umpteen different things, not Topic X all the damn time.
It's like a form of cognitive impairment, bores' inability to see what they're doing. And it's really sad and distressing when they're members of your family and you actually want to have a relationship with them, instead of just being an unwilling audience hoping to get away as soon as you can.
It's not really that politics and current events are off limits for conversation, is it? It's that many folks these days
want to discuss them, but with someone who validates their frustrations with others who don't agree with them. So if one were to say 'the republicans have gone mad, haven't they?' and six guests nod in agreement while the odd man out remains silent and doesn't even dare to roll his eyes because he doesn't think he's going to like where you're going with your commentary, but also sees he's outnumbered then it would be him, as much as you, who is reading the room correctly.
I have a close friend who, in less than thirty minutes into the visit, launches into 'I hate that woman. Hate her [Trump's press secretary].' What do you do with a conversation that starts that way?
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 04:29:17 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on November 27, 2021, 02:24:04 AM
Corgis = liberals hate democracy. Ah. Got it. I'm sorry about your dad, smallcleanrat!
What most gets my goat about these interchanges is the complete inability of these people to read the room. It's like Great-Aunt Matilda who goes on about her hernia operation all through Thanksgiving Dinner, while everyone else is rolling their eyes or desperately wondering how soon they can escape. The moral is: if you're talking about Topic X — whatever Topic X is — a whole lot more than you talk about other topics, you are coming across as a bore. And you're violating the first law of getting along in society, which is that you don't get to be the one who decides what the topic of conversation is all the time. People want to talk about umpteen different things, not Topic X all the damn time.
It's like a form of cognitive impairment, bores' inability to see what they're doing. And it's really sad and distressing when they're members of your family and you actually want to have a relationship with them, instead of just being an unwilling audience hoping to get away as soon as you can.
It's not really that politics and current events are off limits for conversation, is it? It's that many folks these days want to discuss them, but with someone who validates their frustrations with others who don't agree with them. So if one were to say 'the republicans have gone mad, haven't they?' and six guests nod in agreement while the odd man out remains silent and doesn't even dare to roll his eyes because he doesn't think he's going to like where you're going with your commentary, but also sees he's outnumbered then it would be him, as much as you, who is reading the room correctly.
I have a close friend who, in less than thirty minutes into the visit, launches into 'I hate that woman. Hate her [Trump's press secretary].' What do you do with a conversation that starts that way?
In a social gathering, I think the person looking to trash republicans (if they're starting of with 'the republicans have gone mad' I'd predict a rant rather than a discussion) and the six nodding agreement are the ones failing to read the room if they don't notice that they are making another guest very uncomfortable.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 26, 2021, 11:04:30 PM
But one day I mentioned our neighbors adopted a Corgi puppy. The puppy was extraordinarily cute, to the point he was drawing crowds with people asking the owner if they could take selfies with him as if he were a celebrity. I thought it was amusing so I shared the story with Dad. Dad's response: "haha, yup Corgis sure are cute, but it makes me sad the way liberals are trying to ruin democracy."
um...what?
Is it possible that the Corgi's owners are known to your dad as liberals trying to ruin democracy? or, that your dad knows people who are both liberals trying to ruin democracy AND owners of a cute Corgi, hence the Corgi-demise-of-democracy connection?
Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 27, 2021, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 04:29:17 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on November 27, 2021, 02:24:04 AM
Corgis = liberals hate democracy. Ah. Got it. I'm sorry about your dad, smallcleanrat!
What most gets my goat about these interchanges is the complete inability of these people to read the room. It's like Great-Aunt Matilda who goes on about her hernia operation all through Thanksgiving Dinner, while everyone else is rolling their eyes or desperately wondering how soon they can escape. The moral is: if you're talking about Topic X — whatever Topic X is — a whole lot more than you talk about other topics, you are coming across as a bore. And you're violating the first law of getting along in society, which is that you don't get to be the one who decides what the topic of conversation is all the time. People want to talk about umpteen different things, not Topic X all the damn time.
It's like a form of cognitive impairment, bores' inability to see what they're doing. And it's really sad and distressing when they're members of your family and you actually want to have a relationship with them, instead of just being an unwilling audience hoping to get away as soon as you can.
It's not really that politics and current events are off limits for conversation, is it? It's that many folks these days want to discuss them, but with someone who validates their frustrations with others who don't agree with them. So if one were to say 'the republicans have gone mad, haven't they?' and six guests nod in agreement while the odd man out remains silent and doesn't even dare to roll his eyes because he doesn't think he's going to like where you're going with your commentary, but also sees he's outnumbered then it would be him, as much as you, who is reading the room correctly.
I have a close friend who, in less than thirty minutes into the visit, launches into 'I hate that woman. Hate her [Trump's press secretary].' What do you do with a conversation that starts that way?
In a social gathering, I think the person looking to trash republicans (if they're starting of with 'the republicans have gone mad' I'd predict a rant rather than a discussion) and the six nodding agreement are the ones failing to read the room if they don't notice that they are making another guest very uncomfortable.
What I generally do is conceal the fact that I am uncomfortable. 'White fragility' is manipulative behavior, you know, intended to reinforce the white power dominance. That's the new wisdom.
Dogs, and others, can smell fear.
The radical left are bullies, and the left has been inching farther left.
Corgis are usually associated with Queen Elizabeth II, as a go-to link, but I'd hardly describe her as a liberal trying to undermine society, either.
I think the issue is just that your dad's underlying motto is, "anything to get ahold of the 'talking stick' and re-set the conversation to something I can control."
Baffling people with non-sequiturs is a great way to get the talking stick and hang onto it for dear life, you know...
M.
Here's my weird contribution: mood stabilizers. My father (75yo) went from being a even-keeled man of reason to the the weirdo who calls Homeland Security because his Chinese-American neighbors' lesbian daughter is a professor at the University of Texas and she's probably responsible for some viral terrorism. Even the rest of my right-leaning family thought he was going a bit nuts, especially mid-November of last year.
Then he started making lists. Of everything. He'd list in chronological order all of his favorite TV shows or football games he attended. He was also picking fights with random people at the gym or at HEB or the library, much like SCR's corgi story -- but with strangers. So Mom used a regularly scheduled doctor's appointment to ask the doctor about this behavior, and the doctor prescribed a mood stabilizer or antidepressant.
Two months later all of those symptoms are gone. I'm not saying that SCR needs to get her father on medication. But I wonder what part of the conspiracy-theory-rage stuff is considered an "altered mood state."
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 12:39:13 PM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 27, 2021, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 04:29:17 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on November 27, 2021, 02:24:04 AM
Corgis = liberals hate democracy. Ah. Got it. I'm sorry about your dad, smallcleanrat!
What most gets my goat about these interchanges is the complete inability of these people to read the room. It's like Great-Aunt Matilda who goes on about her hernia operation all through Thanksgiving Dinner, while everyone else is rolling their eyes or desperately wondering how soon they can escape. The moral is: if you're talking about Topic X — whatever Topic X is — a whole lot more than you talk about other topics, you are coming across as a bore. And you're violating the first law of getting along in society, which is that you don't get to be the one who decides what the topic of conversation is all the time. People want to talk about umpteen different things, not Topic X all the damn time.
It's like a form of cognitive impairment, bores' inability to see what they're doing. And it's really sad and distressing when they're members of your family and you actually want to have a relationship with them, instead of just being an unwilling audience hoping to get away as soon as you can.
It's not really that politics and current events are off limits for conversation, is it? It's that many folks these days want to discuss them, but with someone who validates their frustrations with others who don't agree with them. So if one were to say 'the republicans have gone mad, haven't they?' and six guests nod in agreement while the odd man out remains silent and doesn't even dare to roll his eyes because he doesn't think he's going to like where you're going with your commentary, but also sees he's outnumbered then it would be him, as much as you, who is reading the room correctly.
I have a close friend who, in less than thirty minutes into the visit, launches into 'I hate that woman. Hate her [Trump's press secretary].' What do you do with a conversation that starts that way?
In a social gathering, I think the person looking to trash republicans (if they're starting of with 'the republicans have gone mad' I'd predict a rant rather than a discussion) and the six nodding agreement are the ones failing to read the room if they don't notice that they are making another guest very uncomfortable.
What I generally do is conceal the fact that I am uncomfortable. 'White fragility' is manipulative behavior, you know, intended to reinforce the white power dominance. That's the new wisdom.
Dogs, and others, can smell fear.
The radical left are bullies, and the left has been inching farther left.
That's why the etiquette should be not to start rants at all if the gathering includes people who may or may not share your views. There's a time and place for rants and validation-seeking, but a family gathering or holiday social often isn't one of them.
Maybe it has to do with being part of the younger generation, but I often can't get away with pretending I'm not uncomfortable. Older relatives will push me to give an opinion, often seeming eager to test whether I show signs of the liberal brainwashing rampant in today's culture. If I try to keep my answers brief and neutral, I'm a typical ignorant and apathetic millennial, and part of the reason the country is going to heck in a handbasket. If I say I disagree they demand explanations (which they barely listen to anyways).
Sometimes I don't realize I'm on a subject too close to politics until I've already triggered the rant (although hindsight often tells me I probably should have).
Some relatives talking about a recently released, highly popular video game prompted Dad to wonder out loud, "If this game is such a big deal, how come I haven't heard about it until now? Come to think of it, don't video game companies advertise anymore? I don't think I've seen a video game ad in a while."
I speculated the reason to be that most of his media consumption (and thus ad exposure) was from the Fox News Channel, and cable news shows have an older viewer demographic than the target consumer demographic for most video games. I thought that was a fairly neutral thing to say, but he got angry, demanding to know where I picked up "that little bit of liberal slander."
Fortunately, I was able to ratchet down his anger by explaining 1) this demographic trend applies to ALL cable news shows (not just Fox News) 2) there is no value judgment implied in that statement; I asked why he called it "slander" as if having an older audience implies something negative about cable news. He thought about it and seemed appeased, saying "Ok. I guess saying cable news has an older audience isn't actually saying anything bad. And I guess it would make sense that they don't show a lot of video game ads."
Situation defused, but I felt as tense as a movie character trying to decide whether to cut the red wire or the blue.
Quote from: RatGuy on November 27, 2021, 12:52:55 PM
Here's my weird contribution: mood stabilizers. My father (75yo) went from being a even-keeled man of reason to the the weirdo who calls Homeland Security because his Chinese-American neighbors' lesbian daughter is a professor at the University of Texas and she's probably responsible for some viral terrorism. Even the rest of my right-leaning family thought he was going a bit nuts, especially mid-November of last year.
Then he started making lists. Of everything. He'd list in chronological order all of his favorite TV shows or football games he attended. He was also picking fights with random people at the gym or at HEB or the library, much like SCR's corgi story -- but with strangers. So Mom used a regularly scheduled doctor's appointment to ask the doctor about this behavior, and the doctor prescribed a mood stabilizer or antidepressant.
Two months later all of those symptoms are gone. I'm not saying that SCR needs to get her father on medication. But I wonder what part of the conspiracy-theory-rage stuff is considered an "altered mood state."
This is a really interesting point.
It would certainly be extremely concerning if this was a sudden and significant change in behavior, but in Dad's case I think a conservative religious upbringing explains a lot. He went to college in the 70's in a strongly left-leaning part of the country, and even then was sneering at the "liberal whiners" with all that hippie talk about women's lib and other nonsense.
[SIDE NOTE: He states he became sympathetic to the issue of equality for women when he had a daughter. But before me, he had a wife. And before her, he had sisters and a mother and school friends who were girls. He loved his family, he cared about his friends. Why didn't he care about women's rights for their sake too? "Don't know. Just didn't."]
I will admit that the Corgi story incident
was a bit alarming, because it was an such exceptionally bizarre segue.
I have often wondered how much sleep deprivation contributes to his quick temper and often rigid thinking. He's been a workaholic for as long as I can remember and regularly skimps on sleep. I'm curious to see if anything changes after he retires (very soon) and is (hopefully) better rested.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 27, 2021, 01:46:14 PM
Maybe it has to do with being part of the younger generation, but I often can't get away with pretending I'm not uncomfortable. Older relatives will push me to give an opinion, often seeming eager to test whether I show signs of the liberal brainwashing rampant in today's culture. If I try to keep my answers brief and neutral, I'm a typical ignorant and apathetic millennial, and part of the reason the country is going to heck in a handbasket. If I say I disagree they demand explanations (which they barely listen to anyways).
Sometimes I don't realize I'm on a subject too close to politics until I've already triggered the rant (although hindsight often tells me I probably should have).
Some relatives talking about a recently released, highly popular video game prompted Dad to wonder out loud, "If this game is such a big deal, how come I haven't heard about it until now? Come to think of it, don't video game companies advertise anymore? I don't think I've seen a video game ad in a while."
I speculated the reason to be that most of his media consumption (and thus ad exposure) was from the Fox News Channel, and cable news shows have an older viewer demographic than the target consumer demographic for most video games. I thought that was a fairly neutral thing to say, but he got angry, demanding to know where I picked up "that little bit of liberal slander."
Fortunately, I was able to ratchet down his anger by explaining 1) this demographic trend applies to ALL cable news shows (not just Fox News) 2) there is no value judgment implied in that statement; I asked why he called it "slander" as if having an older audience implies something negative about cable news. He thought about it and seemed appeased, saying "Ok. I guess saying cable news has an older audience isn't actually saying anything bad. And I guess it would make sense that they don't show a lot of video game ads."
Situation defused, but I felt as tense as a movie character trying to decide whether to cut the red wire or the blue.
I don't care for what your Dad is doing. He and the others need to leave you alone and respect your right to decline to get into the political fray. You're not being a pest to them with your opinions. So they are in the wrong to torment you that way. At the same time, I think he has lost his spirit and is taking it out on people. If he were to tell me liberals are ruining society, I would tell him no they're not, because we're not going to let them. But we won't change things by butting heads. So let's calm down and work together. He should be told about FAIR, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. Then he'd have a community of effective people to talk to who actually might have some influence or idea on how to activate. But that's your call. I'm just throwing my pixels around.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 04:29:17 AM
It's not really that politics and current events are off limits for conversation, is it? It's that many folks these days want to discuss them, but with someone who validates their frustrations with others who don't agree with them.
Some of us just want a rational discussion.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 27, 2021, 08:47:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 04:29:17 AM
It's not really that politics and current events are off limits for conversation, is it? It's that many folks these days want to discuss them, but with someone who validates their frustrations with others who don't agree with them.
Some of us just want a rational discussion.
Of course what I said was rational. It makes sense to me.
mahagonny, if I understood your post properly, you are saying that sometimes political rants are a manifestation of genuine fear or frustration being misdirected at inappropriate targets due to lack of a more positive, productive outlet? So finding an organization or community of people who have similar concerns and goals can give people that outlet?
That definitely make sense to me, but I'm not sure it would be a solution for someone like my Dad. He's never really shown much interest in taking action for political change apart from voting for the Republican presidential candidate every four years.
It's certainly unfair and inaccurate to characterize all people with opposing political views as motivated by hate, but there really are some people (who can be of any political persuasion) who get more satisfaction out of outrage than they do out of positive change. Some people seem to want more than anything to be able to point to a disaster and smugly say, "See, I told you that would happen." Taking action to prevent the disaster would rob them of that moment.
Example 1
Every so often, my dad wants to know if any of my professors are pushing their political views on students. When I tell him I haven't personally been subjected to this, nor have I directly observed any of my professors doing this he seems weirdly disappointed.
I also think this is pretty rich coming from someone who's told me he "educates" his younger employees on political issues since they are young and obviously victims of the liberal indoctrination rampant in the school system these days. They need someone older and wiser to tell them which news sources to trust, debunk liberal lies, and so on. He also likes to say, "Everybody at the office agreed with me on this. No one had anything good to say about the liberal position," as if that means something when expressing the "wrong" view is going to get you a political rant lesson from the boss.
Example 2
I was once telling him about a postdoc at a department social who made some pretty offensive comments about war veterans with PTSD (essentially calling them cowards ands weaklings, but using much less polite language), and Dad stopped me abruptly with excited anticipation on his face saying, "Oh, and I bet everyone jumped all over him and told him to shut up and keep his offensive opinions to himself! That's what it's like in academia today, what with the PC crowd policing your every word." He deflated with obvious disappointment and seemed bored when I said, "uh...no. nobody did that. he got some raised eyebrows. a few people awkwardly sidled away to mingle elsewhere. that's about it." And some of these people were researchers and clinicians whose professional focus was treating PTSD. They could have easily torn his claims apart, but they didn't.
It was really off-putting. And kind of weird that he thought expressing disrespect for war vets was something the nebulous PC overlords would attack. I always had the impression that lack of respect for veterans or for the military in general was a criticism conservatives commonly aimed at liberals, not the other way around.
I'm not sure any of this is consistent with someone who needs an outlet for real discussion and action as opposed to needing to feel superior to someone or something.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 27, 2021, 10:44:47 PM
mahagonny, if I understood your post properly, you are saying that sometimes political rants are a manifestation of genuine fear or frustration being misdirected at inappropriate targets due to lack of a more positive, productive outlet? So finding an organization or community of people who have similar concerns and goals can give people that outlet?
That definitely make sense to me, but I'm not sure it would be a solution for someone like my Dad. He's never really shown much interest in taking action for political change apart from voting for the Republican presidential candidate every four years.
Yes I'm saying that. Many people are afraid of what's happening to our society today. I haven't been this afraid since I received my draft lottery number under President Carter (between zero and 20).
I wish your Dad were acting differently toward you. And, not to get personal, but I recall you've had your challenges with depression, as I have. Our support system is vital. (Not that we are timid about debate!)
My father was a lifelong republican but soured on the party during the George W. Bush reign. You could find out what he thought, but not without his seeing you're interested. When I hung out with friends' Dads who were overbearing, I realized how lucky I was.
If I were a liberal, which I used to be, and your Dad were mine, I would buy him a book by a more conservative academic for Christmas. But one who makes at least some points that I agree with, and some that Dad would agree with, in polite reasoned tones, and is not a conspiracy theorist. John McWhorter-ish kind of style. But it sounds like this might be futile, or you believe it would be.
He might be willing to read something a peer recommended, but I wouldn't have high hopes he'd listen to any of my recommendations.
He believes (or at least say he does) that the Christian Bible is the most important book in the world and the direct word of God. He still bristled when, as a teen disturbed by his constant misquotes and misattributions, I urged him to read it himself rather than rely entirely on other people to learn what it says. That was decades ago; I'm pretty sure he still hasn't read it.
There's a lot of sense in your suggestion to recommend books that are less polemical and more academic in tone, especially if Dad could find some common ground with an author that agrees with some of his views and values. But I often have serious doubts I could confidently identify what those views and values are; I've found it very difficult to make sense of his apparent inconsistencies.
Example: When I was growing up, that old "sticks and stones" motto was one of Dad's staples. He hated hearing about kids being disciplined at school for verbally picking on other children. "Sure, it's not nice behavior, and if they were my kids I'd tell them to knock it off, but to actually punish them? Words can only hurt you if you let them. Typical liberal school system: teaching kids to expect other people to censor themselves to avoid hurting their little feelings."
Then (I think sometime during Obama's first term) he tells me a story about a coworker's son in which the boy was suspended from school for punching a kid who was making fun of him. I thought Dad was going to bring up his old "sticks and stones" speech, but instead he was furious that the coworker's kid was punished while the kid doing the taunting was not. This time his interpretation was, "Typical liberal school system. The poor kid isn't even allowed to defend himself against a bully? Unfortunately, not surprising, given that liberals are all bullies themselves."
So, while I agree it makes sense to try to meet someone where they are, I often despair of being able to figure out how to do this with Dad. I don't really understand where he is in terms of what rules and principles are underlying his opinions.
It seems to me you've identified it several times over, and people are agreeing with you.
He doesn't have a consistent viewpoint, it's just whatever gives him a sense of outrage in the moment so he can enact outrage.
You'll just end up mirroring him if you keep trying to understand it on logical terms: there aren't any.
It's kind that you're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his issues are deeper than you can handle alone.
And when one realizes that (at least, when I realized it was the issue with my folks, and still is with my siblings) I accord us all the grace of skirting those issues, focusing on the ones we can focus on agreeably (we all like animals, we can discuss our travels, we enjoy walking and photography, etc.).
There are actually a lot of areas to explore if the other person wants to make themselves agreeable to you.
If they don't, see "Type 2" above, and stop beating your head against the brick wall.
Your head is taking a beating. The wall is enjoying the stimulation.
Be kind to yourself.
M.
Sure. My current MO with my Dad is to not engage when he gets into these rants and to stick to topics of relatively low risk.
I was mostly trying to say here that mahagonny's proposed approach is a reasonable way to deal with differences of opinion, but not with someone who seems to be primarily driven by seeking outrage.
In that respect, Holiday has a point. Some people don't want discussion. They want the adrenaline rush of picking a fight and the satisfaction of putting someone else down. It's much more about emotional gratification than it is about the actual politics.
I've gone through enough trial and error to have largely lost interest in trying to sway my dad's opinions on anything.
Although, I admit, I do find it hard not to puzzle over his behavior. But my research field is behavioral neuroscience; I've been trained to puzzle over the underlying causes of behavior! :p
Smallcleanrat:
I agree with Mamselle. It sounds like your Dad wants a reason to rage. Why? Who knows?
My Mom is very much the same way. It's very difficult to talk with her about anything since she will jump to 'Democrats are ruining the world and they want everyone to be gay and accept it' in less than 2 seconds after I bring up the most innocuous things like the birds in my backyard.
So, I empathize. I'm sorry that you're dealing with this, as it is painful to interact with a parent this way. You don't need to walk on eggshells around your Dad. Just know that it's unlikely that he will change. Make sure that you direct the conversation when it's uncomfortable, or you could decrease the frequency of contact.
Please take care of yourself.
QuoteIn that respect, Holiday has a point. Some people don't want discussion. They want the adrenaline rush of picking a fight and the satisfaction of putting someone else down. It's much more about emotional gratification than it is about the actual politics.
Reptile brain. Is it possible he has had a stroke?
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 28, 2021, 01:43:51 PM
Smallcleanrat:
I agree with Mamselle. It sounds like your Dad wants a reason to rage. Why? Who knows?
My Mom is very much the same way. It's very difficult to talk with her about anything since she will jump to 'Democrats are ruining the world and they want everyone to be gay and accept it' in less than 2 seconds after I bring up the most innocuous things like the birds in my backyard.
Do know what would help? If people like your mom could see, from time to time, that liberal academics would distance themselves from the most harmful and fraudulent extremists on the left. I don't see them doing that. I'm not defending the quotation from your mom here. people like your mom and SCR's dad may not make their case well at all. They may have no training in rhetoric and argumentation, so you easily outclass them. But hey...so what? that doesn't mean they are wrong about everything or that none of their fears about where society is going are justified.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:11:55 PM
Do know what would help? If people like your mom could see, from time to time, that liberal academics would distance themselves from the most harmful and fraudulent extremists on the left. I don't see them doing that.
I usually ignore you, M, because you have become the irrational rage machine that most of us just shrug our shoulders over----just like the examples in this thread.
But maybe you could back yourself up: who are these "harmful and fraudulent extremists" you refer to and who in academia courts them?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 28, 2021, 02:36:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:11:55 PM
Do know what would help? If people like your mom could see, from time to time, that liberal academics would distance themselves from the most harmful and fraudulent extremists on the left. I don't see them doing that.
I usually ignore you, M, because you have become the irrational rage machine that most of us just shrug our shoulders over----just like the examples in this thread.
But maybe you could back yourself up: who are these "harmful and fraudulent extremists" you refer to and who in academia courts them?
Never mind. There are none. Forget it.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:11:55 PM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 28, 2021, 01:43:51 PM
Smallcleanrat:
I agree with Mamselle. It sounds like your Dad wants a reason to rage. Why? Who knows?
My Mom is very much the same way. It's very difficult to talk with her about anything since she will jump to 'Democrats are ruining the world and they want everyone to be gay and accept it' in less than 2 seconds after I bring up the most innocuous things like the birds in my backyard.
Do know what would help? If people like your mom could see, from time to time, that liberal academics would distance themselves from the most harmful and fraudulent extremists on the left. I don't see them doing that. I'm not defending the quotation from your mom here. people like your mom and SCR's dad may not make their case well at all. They may have no training in rhetoric and argumentation, so you easily outclass them. But hey...so what? that doesn't mean they are wrong about everything or that none of their fears about where society is going are justified.
I think you are making an unwarranted assumption here. What do you think someone would have to do to get people like my dad or evil_physics_witchcraft's mom to be able to see that not every progressive argument takes an "extremist" position? Why do you assume no one has ever attempted to do so?
Of course merely being unskilled at argumentation or rhetoric does not make someone's fears unjustified. But basing those fears on paranoid fantasies rather than fact certainly does.
Not every fear of political extremism is based on the actual goals and statements of political extremists. Some are based on whatever the person
imagines are the political goals of whoever they've decided are entities of pure evil bent on the destruction of civilized society and life as we know it.
No amount of reassurance or fact-checking or Socratic questioning is going to budge them.
I read responses from academics/members of activism groups/what-have-you ALL. THE. TIME. making statements attempting to contrast their real goals and beliefs with those of a more extreme bent. Or with however their statements have been misrepresented or exaggerated by the fear-mongerers or the just plain confused.
I can easily believe people when they say they never see anyone making such disavowals of extremism, but not that the root cause of this is because no one ever does so.
Sometimes people will "see" whatever they expect to see. Or what they prefer to see. It doesn't much matter what anyone else tries to show them.
QuoteAlthough, I admit, I do find it hard not to puzzle over his behavior. But my research field is behavioral neuroscience; I've been trained to puzzle over the underlying causes of behavior! :p
Oh, dear!!!!
Now I get it....
M.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 28, 2021, 02:36:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:11:55 PM
Do know what would help? If people like your mom could see, from time to time, that liberal academics would distance themselves from the most harmful and fraudulent extremists on the left. I don't see them doing that.
I usually ignore you, M, because you have become the irrational rage machine that most of us just shrug our shoulders over----just like the examples in this thread.
But maybe you could back yourself up: who are these "harmful and fraudulent extremists" you refer to and who in academia courts them?
Never mind. There are none. Forget it.
I've asked other angry conservatives this exact question online a number of times.
The angry poster either disappears or deflects, just as you have done.
This thread just makes me sad. I'm tired of listening to people (here and from family) yell, fight and claim that they are on the 'right' side. Is there a 'right' side? Why does this have to be an 'us vs. them' kind of thing? I really wish people could put aside their differences, respect each other and discuss issues calmly instead of venting and hurting other people. There's enough hurt and pain in the world- why add to it? It sounds like a pipe dream, and maybe it is, but I'll continue to try to walk down a healthier path instead of engaging in toxicity.
Anger is an easier emotion than grief, fear, and similar feelings. It has the virtue of seeming righteous. It feels powerful instead of powerless. A lot of people with a lot of difficult emotions take refuge in rage.
Semi-random musing: How can one distinguish inconsistency due to lack of firm principles and inconsistency due to other reasons?
Things like proselytizing in the workplace or in schools: lots of people complain if proselytizing of their own beliefs is prohibited; but if the prohibition is against beliefs they are against, then that's perfectly fine.
I don't know if that's better described as double standards or special pleading or hypocrisy or something else.
I guess I'm talking about inconsistently applied standards vs. inconsistent standards. Or standards with conditions?
Like, "It's out of line to punch someone just because they say your shirt is ugly. But if they insult your mother, they as good as asked for that black eye."
I've heard some people use the explanation, "It is no one's place but the parents' to decide what religious beliefs to teach their own child," as the principle behind why they are angry if anyone else tells a kid their parents' beliefs are untrue or even if they just expose them to a different set of beliefs. I've also heard the same people applaud stories about a teacher or a neighbor deciding to "save" a child by proselytizing to them behind the parents' backs.
I think there is a consistent principle here: "My religion is the One True Religion. It is acceptable, even exemplary, to subvert parents' wishes against proselytizing to their children about the One True Religion. The One True Religion is good for children. However it is never acceptable to do so for any false religions (aka all religions except for mine). Any religion which is not the One True Religion is bad for children."
But for some reason this is not the principle they cite.
I think that's just a subcategory of "Breaking the rules is fine if it's in the service of doing something I feel is important." Which principle, I'm sorry to say, is not restricted to any one political or religious category, though most of the categories insist it's only practiced by "other people."
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 28, 2021, 08:18:53 PM
This thread just makes me sad. I'm tired of listening to people (here and from family) yell, fight and claim that they are on the 'right' side. Is there a 'right' side? Why does this have to be an 'us vs. them' kind of thing? I really wish people could put aside their differences, respect each other and discuss issues calmly instead of venting and hurting other people. There's enough hurt and pain in the world- why add to it? It sounds like a pipe dream, and maybe it is, but I'll continue to try to walk down a healthier path instead of engaging in toxicity.
I sympathize with this sentiment. Though I don't know to what extent I could commit to an "is there even a 'right' side" attitude just for the sake of keeping the peace.
Setting aside the epistemological rabbit hole regarding the extent to which things can be
factually right or wrong...
People are going to differ in what they hold as core values, and that's going to lead to differences of opinion as to what is right and what is ideal. I don't know of a way to argue that there are any objective criteria which can be used to categorize the rightness or wrongness of core values. But I don't think it follows that this means all differences can be put aside and hurting people can be avoided.
Some people will feel hurt when criticized, however calmly and civilly. Some people will feel hurt even when not criticized. They might feel judged or isolated or insulted even if you don't say a word against them; your reluctance to engage is enough for them to infer your disapproval.
In many situations, yes, I think it is possible to play nice and stay civil or simply change the subject. In others...yeah, I don't know.
I do know that I'm awfully tired of having the burden of responsibility shifted to me to manage someone else's outbursts and irrationality. It's far too reminiscent of being told that it's my own responsibility to avoid my mom's abuse. If she's in a bad mood, and I didn't do a good enough job of staying off her radar (out of sight and silent), it's my fault too.
It's like when there's a news story about a teenage boy raping and murdering a girl who rejected him. There are always people who pop up to say, "Well, obviously what he did was reprehensible, but teenage girls can be awfully cruel when they don't like a boy. It's hard not to wonder if this still would have happened if he'd been shown a bit more compassion."
Just...no.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 28, 2021, 06:25:39 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 28, 2021, 02:36:23 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 02:11:55 PM
Do know what would help? If people like your mom could see, from time to time, that liberal academics would distance themselves from the most harmful and fraudulent extremists on the left. I don't see them doing that.
I usually ignore you, M, because you have become the irrational rage machine that most of us just shrug our shoulders over----just like the examples in this thread.
But maybe you could back yourself up: who are these "harmful and fraudulent extremists" you refer to and who in academia courts them?
Never mind. There are none. Forget it.
I've asked other angry conservatives this exact question online a number of times.
The angry poster either disappears or deflects, just as you have done.
My goodness, prof, your memory is not that short. Less than a week ago we were discussing one Brittney Cooper and you agreed that the video of her stating 'we need to take these MF's (white people) out' should be enough to get her fired. But of course, you then went on to make excuses; 'she was having a bad day' or some such. You did note the deafening silence at the mention of her name, which I thought was an impressive show of candor, at the time.
Then there is Kendi, who wants to create a government bureaucracy of lifetime appointees, chosen by himself or members of his cult, to regulate to remove any utterance or policy by anything connected to government that is insufficiently 'anti-racist' by their definition. When asked about policies that can benefit black Americans, such as tweaking interest rates, but might benefit wealthier (including especially many whites) people even more, whether that would be seen as racist policy, the best he could come up with was 'interesting question. We'd have to have a committee look into it.' The man is stunningly lacking in depth. He now states he understands that his ideas appear to be fascist. Congratulations, Dr! He declines invitations to debate from several sincere, qualified people, among them McWhorter and Coleman Hughes. He flies around the country to give lectures to CVS employees, et al ($30K/year) on the evils of white privilege (no question and answer session?) making gobs of money in the process. He's Al Sharpton with a doctorate and an academic department. He surrounds himself with sycophants. This guy defended a PhD thesis? To whom, one wonders.
Rod Dreher's description of Eddie Glaude as 'a revolting race-baiter' has always satisfied me, although I wouldn't make the case that way.
Robin Diangelo...just published her first book, again, with a new title. A piece of work.
I don't have time to delve into this further now, but I wonder if your mind is open enough that you could be persuaded by the evidence anyway. So I hesitate to take on a fool's errand.
Fair enough. At least you have specifics. I don't know why you didn't say this before.
You have grossly mischaracterized what I and other people have said (a sure sign that you are riding the rage machine and refuse to admit it) but I do not like DiAngelo (I think she has signed on to the other rage machine and is making a pretty buck off it) and I would agree that Cooper should have lost her job and would have had her color been different.
But you also hitch your rage machine to people like Dreher. Do you think he is any less crazy than the "liberals" (who are not really liberals but radicals) that you cite above?
You do know that you are a walking, talking beam-in-the-eye guy, right? Or do you think you are being rational? Try to answer plainly without too much crazed rhetoric.
Did the defeat of Donald Trump throw you for a loop? I think so many hardcore conservatives looked to him as a sort of savior that they lost their minds. Is that you?
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 12:39:13 PMThe radical left are bullies, and the left has been inching farther left.
But do they have a monopoly on being bullies? The last time I checked, it wasn't the "radical left" that was telling people which bathrooms to use, how to respect the flag, which reproductive choices to make, which religious teachings to follow, whom to marry, and so on. It wasn't people of the "radical left" who threw their support behind a president with clear authoritarian tendencies--a bully, in other words.
Quote from: WWUpdate on November 29, 2021, 07:33:24 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 12:39:13 PMThe radical left are bullies, and the left has been inching farther left.
But do they have a monopoly on being bullies? The last time I checked, it wasn't the "radical left" that was telling people which bathrooms to use, how to respect the flag, which reproductive choices to make, which religious teachings to follow, whom to marry, and so on. It wasn't people of the "radical left" who threw their support behind a president with clear authoritarian tendencies--a bully, in other words.
If you look at what Trump did rather than his style of talking, you find he was a pretty weak authoritarian. He let the BLM riots go on without challenging governors and mayors too much. With the result that Oregon and California now have the mayhem they chose.
He clearly spoke in support of the right to peaceful demonstration.
We don't care which bathroom you feel you need to use until you are not using the bathroom for its intended purpose. That we have a big problem with.
I would think Biden is the bigger authoritarian, inserting himself indiscreetly into matters that courts and juries are properly deciding, neglecting to control the southern border, from which people in Texas etc. are suffering.
No one in any serious position to influence anything including Trump has tried to keep any Americans from marrying each other in many years. That's total B.S. The last republican of any influence who weighed in on that was candidate Mitt Romney way back when he was asked directly and replied 'no I do not support gay marriage' and it was clear even then that he had no serious plans to fight the trend to accept it.
ETA: I don't hear any republicans telling people which religion they should belong to. I hear some, including black people, saying they are Christian, and that means certain things to
them as a matter of freedom to choose one's religion. This is enough to get the liberals' dander up, many of them.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 29, 2021, 07:51:43 AM
ETA: I don't hear any republicans telling people which religion they should belong to.
That's not what I said. I was referring specifically to religious teachings. It's not unusual to hear Republicans quote the Bible when discussing legislation that affects society as a whole, whether it's gay marriage or abortion. That's an imposition of one's personal beliefs on others--precisely what you say bothers you about the left.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 29, 2021, 07:51:43 AMWe don't care which bathroom you feel you need to use until you are not using the bathroom for its intended purpose. That we have a big problem with.
Then you are, once again, on the side that wants more control of other people's intimate decisions. This flies in the face of the notion that people on the left are busybodies while the right believes in individual choice.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 29, 2021, 07:51:43 AM
No one in any serious position to influence anything including Trump has tried to keep any Americans from marrying each other in many years. That's total B.S. The last republican of any influence who weighed in on that was candidate Mitt Romney way back when he was asked directly and replied 'no I do not support gay marriage' and it was clear even then that he had no serious plans to fight the trend to accept it.
The right accepted it the moment they realized that challenging gay marriage was a losing political battle for them--and not a moment sooner. They never accepted it in the spirit of "live and let live."
Quote from: WWUpdate on November 29, 2021, 08:16:12 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 29, 2021, 07:51:43 AM
No one in any serious position to influence anything including Trump has tried to keep any Americans from marrying each other in many years. That's total B.S. The last republican of any influence who weighed in on that was candidate Mitt Romney way back when he was asked directly and replied 'no I do not support gay marriage' and it was clear even then that he had no serious plans to fight the trend to accept it.
The right accepted it the moment they realized that challenging gay marriage was a losing political battle for them--and not a moment sooner. They never accepted it in the spirit of "live and let live."
What do you want them to do, throw a wedding reception party for you? It's your affair. that has to be enough.
There are some gay republicans, anyway.
QuoteThat's not what I said. I was referring specifically to religious teachings. It's not unusual to hear Republicans quote the Bible when discussing legislation that affects society as a whole, whether it's gay marriage or abortion. That's an imposition of one's personal beliefs on others--precisely what you say bothers you about the left.
If the religious right had their way there would be no more legal abortions, which would result in proportional growth of the black population. This is what the left thinks the white racists want. This is why, though I have a hard time taking stand on legalized abortion, the democrats of today are a party with no substantive positive identity. More and more of them are resorting to saying 'vote for us. We're not Donald Trump.' Like that's enough of a platform.
Well, we won't agree on much at this time. We don't have to butt heads. Have a nice day.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 29, 2021, 07:10:25 AM
You have grossly mischaracterized what I and other people have said (a sure sign that you are riding the rage machine and refuse to admit it) but I do not like DiAngelo (I think she has signed on to the other rage machine and is making a pretty buck off it) and I would agree that Cooper should have lost her job and would have had her color been different.
Good.
QuoteBut you also hitch your rage machine to people like Dreher. Do you think he is any less crazy than the "liberals" (who are not really liberals but radicals) that you cite above?
He's not crazy at all that I'm aware of.
QuoteYou do know that you are a walking, talking beam-in-the-eye guy, right? Or do you think you are being rational? Try to answer plainly without too much crazed rhetoric.
Mahagonny doesn't walk or talk. All he does is read and type. At Thanksgiving dinner I STFU so as not to upset my wife, who is liberal who even reads the news occasionally. I live in a blue state, I'm in fine arts, so at work I'm effectively cancelled.
QuoteDid the defeat of Donald Trump throw you for a loop? I think so many hardcore conservatives looked to him as a sort of savior that they lost their minds. Is that you?
By no means. I vote negatively each time. I don't look for a savior. I vote against the candidate who is likely to do the most harm. That's why Biden needs to run again.
So, to my mentally perspicacious forum-mate, Wahoo: (et al, perhaps)
Here's is something you could do next time you are having a hard time hanging out with conservatives who think all academic are radical leftists. Tell them 'just because I teach in college and may fall more on the liberal side of the spectrum, politically, does not mean I am a radical. I'm not. For example it may interest you to know I not a fan of Robin Diangelo or Brittney Cooper because...' And they now have something to think about that helps both of you.
I think we are making progress.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 04:19:51 AM
So, to my mentally perspicacious forum-mate, Wahoo: (et al, perhaps)
Here's is something you could do next time you are having a hard time hanging out with conservatives who think all academic are radical leftists. Tell them 'just because I teach in college and may fall more on the liberal side of the spectrum, politically, does not mean I am a radical. I'm not. For example it may interest you to know I not a fan of Robin Diangelo or Brittney Cooper because...' And they now have something to think about that helps both of you.
I think we are making progress.
Why should anyone have to disown certain political views in order to please others? You keep saying that people should accept conservative views (even when they are profoundly "politically incorrect"), so why shouldn't conservatives also accept radical views with which they may strongly disagree?
It seems that even though you are trying to normalize "un-PC" views, you are simultaneously trying to pathologize radical views. This is, I feel, intellectually inconsistent, regardless of what one feels about either set of values.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 29, 2021, 07:51:43 AM
Quote from: WWUpdate on November 29, 2021, 07:33:24 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 12:39:13 PMThe radical left are bullies, and the left has been inching farther left.
But do they have a monopoly on being bullies? The last time I checked, it wasn't the "radical left" that was telling people which bathrooms to use, how to respect the flag, which reproductive choices to make, which religious teachings to follow, whom to marry, and so on. It wasn't people of the "radical left" who threw their support behind a president with clear authoritarian tendencies--a bully, in other words.
If you look at what Trump did rather than his style of talking, you find he was a pretty weak authoritarian. He let the BLM riots go on without challenging governors and mayors too much. With the result that Oregon and California now have the mayhem they chose.
He clearly spoke in support of the right to peaceful demonstration.
We don't care which bathroom you feel you need to use until you are not using the bathroom for its intended purpose. That we have a big problem with.
I would think Biden is the bigger authoritarian, inserting himself indiscreetly into matters that courts and juries are properly deciding, neglecting to control the southern border, from which people in Texas etc. are suffering.
No one in any serious position to influence anything including Trump has tried to keep any Americans from marrying each other in many years. That's total B.S. The last republican of any influence who weighed in on that was candidate Mitt Romney way back when he was asked directly and replied 'no I do not support gay marriage' and it was clear even then that he had no serious plans to fight the trend to accept it.
ETA: I don't hear any republicans telling people which religion they should belong to. I hear some, including black people, saying they are Christian, and that means certain things to them as a matter of freedom to choose one's religion. This is enough to get the liberals' dander up, many of them.
I guess you missed what Michael Flynn said a few weeks ago.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/581566-controversial-trump-ally-blasted-after-saying (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/581566-controversial-trump-ally-blasted-after-saying)
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 04:19:51 AM
So, to my mentally perspicacious forum-mate, Wahoo: (et al, perhaps)
Here's is something you could do next time you are having a hard time hanging out with conservatives who think all academic are radical leftists.
I only run into the nutjobs online.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 30, 2021, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 04:19:51 AM
So, to my mentally perspicacious forum-mate, Wahoo: (et al, perhaps)
Here's is something you could do next time you are having a hard time hanging out with conservatives who think all academic are radical leftists.
I only run into the nutjobs online.
And you only read lefty news and commentators, which is why you never heard of Tony Timpa or any of the other white victims of police brutality.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on November 30, 2021, 08:21:34 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 29, 2021, 07:51:43 AM
Quote from: WWUpdate on November 29, 2021, 07:33:24 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 27, 2021, 12:39:13 PMThe radical left are bullies, and the left has been inching farther left.
But do they have a monopoly on being bullies? The last time I checked, it wasn't the "radical left" that was telling people which bathrooms to use, how to respect the flag, which reproductive choices to make, which religious teachings to follow, whom to marry, and so on. It wasn't people of the "radical left" who threw their support behind a president with clear authoritarian tendencies--a bully, in other words.
If you look at what Trump did rather than his style of talking, you find he was a pretty weak authoritarian. He let the BLM riots go on without challenging governors and mayors too much. With the result that Oregon and California now have the mayhem they chose.
He clearly spoke in support of the right to peaceful demonstration.
We don't care which bathroom you feel you need to use until you are not using the bathroom for its intended purpose. That we have a big problem with.
I would think Biden is the bigger authoritarian, inserting himself indiscreetly into matters that courts and juries are properly deciding, neglecting to control the southern border, from which people in Texas etc. are suffering.
No one in any serious position to influence anything including Trump has tried to keep any Americans from marrying each other in many years. That's total B.S. The last republican of any influence who weighed in on that was candidate Mitt Romney way back when he was asked directly and replied 'no I do not support gay marriage' and it was clear even then that he had no serious plans to fight the trend to accept it.
ETA: I don't hear any republicans telling people which religion they should belong to. I hear some, including black people, saying they are Christian, and that means certain things to them as a matter of freedom to choose one's religion. This is enough to get the liberals' dander up, many of them.
I guess you missed what Michael Flynn said a few weeks ago.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/581566-controversial-trump-ally-blasted-after-saying (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/581566-controversial-trump-ally-blasted-after-saying)
I didn't miss it. I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. See reply #9 here:
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=2673.msg89851#msg89851
ETA:
QuoteIt seems that even though you are trying to normalize "un-PC" views, you are simultaneously trying to pathologize radical views. This is, I feel, intellectually inconsistent, regardless of what one feels about either set of values.
There's no effort in pathologizing Brittney Cooper. She's obviously a sick individual.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 09:48:10 AM
There's no effort in pathologizing Brittney Cooper. She's obviously a sick individual.
But Brittney Cooper isn't the issue here. You've frequently referred to leftist as "crazy" while simultaneously arguing for greater acceptance of and respect for right-wingers. If a right-winger, no matter how extreme his views may be to those not on the political right, is branded as "crazy," you'd be the first to ascribe this to intolerant, authoritarian leftists out to silence others. My argument is simply that, if you want to be intellectually consistent, you can't treat the (radical or mainstream) left differently from the (radical or mainstream) right. Either it's OK to condemn both, or both should be tolerated as inherently valuable elements of the marketplace of ideas. Pick one.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 09:48:10 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 30, 2021, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 04:19:51 AM
So, to my mentally perspicacious forum-mate, Wahoo: (et al, perhaps)
Here's is something you could do next time you are having a hard time hanging out with conservatives who think all academic are radical leftists.
I only run into the nutjobs online.
And you only read lefty news and commentators, which is why you never heard of Tony Timpa or any of the other white victims of police brutality.
Bite me, you whackjob.
I read very widely all the news sources, including your conseralunatic propaganda blogs that tell people like you what you want to hear.
You are the one in a bubble, not me.
If Timpa was not a news source it is because angry little conservs like you did not get the word out the way that other communities do. Nor is Timpa's story necessarily a corollary to Floyd's story or any others. I do not always agree with the actions and motivations of BLM, but the reason was have conversations at all is because BLM gets out and makes the issue.
The reason that people like me do not take people like you seriously is that you cannot see your own lunacy. You are a pure hypocrite.
So I read the Tony Timpa stories and watched the very disturbing video on YouTube, mahagonny.
This is not the same as the Floyd murder. I don't know that the officers involved in Timpa's death used good judgment, but Timpa died of a cocaine overdose and the officers were cleared.
You need to learn to think on your own, mahagonny. You have simply become a rightwing answering machine.
The main topic of the thread is dealing with family members (or other people you interact with socially) who go well beyond expressing their political views. We're not simply talking about people who have strong opinions or concerns about the potential impact of current political movements.
We're talking about a subset of people who are:
1) so single-minded that it's difficult to hold a conversation with them on anything without being subjected to a rant about their pet political peeves
AND/OR
2) are not responding to politics they disagree with so much as they are being taken in by the worst of the fear-mongerers and spin doctors whose primary goal is to goad people into frenzied paranoia
I really take exception to the implication that someone else's irrational outrage is my fault (or the fault of whoever the ranter is fulminating against) because neither I nor anyone else has done enough to validate their rage or placate their fears.
Thing 1: You won't hear anybody denouncing extremists if you refuse to listen.
A common complaint RE: people with views at odds to yours is that they spend all their time in self-made echo chambers. It is demonstrably not restricted to a specific political leaning.
This complaint is valid for many, many people, as it stems from basic human tendencies. It feels good to be right. It feels bad to be wrong. It takes a lot of time and effort to evaluate claims critically or give serious consideration to other points of view.
With some people, no amount of reasoned discussion is going to make a lick of difference.
Thing 2: Not everything rant about politics is aimed at the extreme
I've heard people complain about a lot of things I would find difficult to characterize as "extreme." I don't really view myself as politically savvy, so this could just be personal bias on my part. But I'm not sure the following points I've listened to people rage over are based on fear of "extremism."
Example: Anti-discrimination employment laws.
"I should absolutely be able to fire someone if I find out they're gay. No, I don't care if they keep it in their private life and never mention it at work. No law should force me to keep a pervert on the payroll."
"Of course I should be able to ask a job applicant what church they go to. I want to know I'm hiring someone with morals."
"Anyone who's ever worked with a black person knows how lazy and incompetent they are. But somehow you're the bad guy if you want a No Blacks policy."
Anticipated objection: "Ah, but what about affirmative action policies and people saying the next person to hold a certain position should be [insert demographic flavor-of-the month here]? Doesn't that seem extreme and hypocritical?"
What about it?
That's not what these particular complaints are about.
Example: Hate crimes/vigilante "justice".
--"I'm so sick of hearing liberals boo-hooing over mosques in America being vandalized or random towelheads being attacked. They care more about so-called 'tolerance' than they do about justice or the safety of American citizens. What? No, I mean real Americans, not Muslims." (I heard this one a lot in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.)
--"Why are people being so judgmental towards Liam Neeson's story about wandering around town looking for a 'black bastard' to kill in his youth? His friend was raped by a black man, of course he was angry." (NOTE: He wasn't even talking about hunting down the specific black man who raped his friend. Apparently any black man would have sufficed.)
Anticipated objection: "But what about liberals who claim all white people (and ONLY white people) are racist. Some people think it's just fine to hate a white person just for being white. Some people think white people should hate themselves just for being white."
What about it?
If you won't accept "But people on the other side do it too!" as a relevant counter when used as a response to your concerns, why expect it to have any influence when you use it?
Thing 3: Not every rant against a political position accurately reflects said political position
I can never figure out how much of this is willful straw-manning and how much is just terrible comprehension, but the angriest people of my acquaintance also seem to be the people least likely to accurately describe the statement or incident that is making them so angry.
--A school includes material on the major world religions in its history curriculum. This involves having students be able to demonstrate knowledge of specific aspects of these religions (e.g. articles of faith, famous quotations from sacred texts). --> "Liberals are trying to use the public fool system to convert kids to Islam. You see, they love Muslims because Muslims hate America. It's all part of the radical left's plan to eradicate Christianity and replace democracy with full-fledged fascism."
And that's a pretty minor example compared to some of the conspiracy theories related the insidious goings-on of the "deep state" or "Big Pharma" or "the radical homosexual agenda" which hit peak levels of off-the-wall claims, bizarre reasoning, and flimflam rhetoric.
Thing 4: Some rants about politics are not actually about politics.
Some rants are along the lines of "There was a time when you could [....] without anyone complaining. Those times are gone." Too often it's said in a way that implies they are being personally wronged and other people owe it to them to be less sensitive so they can feel more comfortable saying and doing whatever they want.
Times goes on. Cultural attitudes shift. Social expectations and etiquette change.
I can sympathize with changing societal norms leading to some people feeling isolated. I can agree there's merit to giving someone the benefit of the doubt and responding civilly if they say something you find offensive. Sometimes insult is perceived where none is intended.
But I feel no particular obligation to indulge someone who complains about "censorship" or "the death of free speech" after getting awkward silence instead of laughs when making a "non-PC joke."
I'm fully fed up with hearing I need to "lighten up" or "learn to take a joke" (even if all I did was not laugh) especially since it's been my experience that many people willing to lecture someone else on learning to take a joke is terrible at taking their own advice.
I guess this is a lot of words to say that my answer to the question: Have you considered that when a political conservative expresses themselves rudely and irrationally, it's the fault of the liberals? is Yes, I have considered it. But I really don't buy it as a blanket explanation.
Observation: to extricate oneself from a snowbank, short, concise rocking movements are more efficacious than spinning one's wheels.
DNFTT.
M.
This is what Floyd probably died from. We might hear more about it when the other four officers are tried.
https://www.healthline.com/health/substance-use/booty-bump#risks
Facts:
Floyd told one of the officers, before Chauvin arrived, that he had recently been hooping. He also had advanced heart disease and was something like 48 years old. A little old for that kind of recreation. He was foaming at the mouth, and dropped something on the pavement while sitting.
He complained about not being able to breathe, and also of being afraid he was dying, before Derek Chauvin arrived, and even before lying on the pavement.
Store employees or others in the Cup Foods place described him as acting strange.
The trial took place in a circus atmosphere.
There was no mark on Floyd's neck from the alleged trauma. Only Chauvin knows how much pressure he applied and he didn't testify.
Maxine Waters called for more rioting if the verdict was not guilty.
Jurors are not infallible and neither is the criminal trial process.
The medical examiner ruled that chest and neck compression killed Floyd.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 01, 2021, 05:53:13 PM
The medical examiner ruled that chest and neck compression killed Floyd.
I know a pediatrician, a big name, who told me and other friends that he spun his testimony in to mislead the jury in such a way to convict the defendant because he didn't like her. It was a high profile case. sometimes people talk too much when they drink and hang out with you for a whole weekend. I've seen one doctor who was hired by an insurance company lie in court to thwart a personal injury victim's claim. I consider high level credentials to indicate one has a lot of knowledge in their field, but not a clear guarantee of personal integrity or reliable truth telling.
We don't have to agree. I simply gave my reasons for believing what I believe as of this date so it would not be mistaken for a blind rant. I think the trial of the other three may be interesting.
ETA: the 'facts' are not yet things stated under oath but taken together they form a picture. From multiple sources.
That is not germane to the Floyd trial at all.
Haven't spent the holidays with my folks in years.
Was seriously considering it this year, but this thread's brought up memories that are making me rethink those plans.
I've been struggling with significant health setbacks over the last couple of months, and I just don't feel like I have the energy to "play nice" if my folks decide to rant or tantrum.
They always give lip service to basic rules of civility, but violations are frequent and somehow almost never their fault. If I only had a nickel for every time I've heard, "Well, maybe I shouldn't have said/done that, but it never would have happened if you hadn't pissed me off."
I'm also generally questioning whether "playing nice" is always the most appropriate response. Expressing anger or contempt may not change the other person's opinions. Indeed it may further feed into their victim complex or their sense of superiority. Still it may also cause them to reconsider whether a particular rant in particular company is going to be worth the trouble.
I don't think it's always about spoiling for a fight. I think sometimes it's about wanting to be heard, but not challenged. Because a family gathering is meant to be pleasant and sociable, people may be especially unwillingness to engage with or to shut down a rant. People will also feel pressured to stay even if they would rather walk out.
For the ranter, it is a form of ensuring a captive audience.
So I wonder if there are times when it really is best to deny them this, like when a rant involves calls for violence. Especially if there are people present for whom such comments are personal. I will prioritize sticking up for someone (especially if they are younger) over keeping quiet to avoid rocking the boat.
Brain is too tired to turn this into a specific question, but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on the way people often speak dismissively of a rant-prone family member by saying things like:
"Oh, don't mind Grandpa. He just grew up in a different time." or "Well, you can't really blame Aunt Helen for the things she says. It's just the way she was raised."
To your last question: They're enablers.
M.
Growing up in a different time does mean something, though, speaking as someone with one toe in the old pool. I keep thinking of a short film I like to show the Honors students from 1945--"The House I Live In," featuring Frank Sinatra. (It's on YouTube--worth a look as a piece of history.)
Frank takes a smoke break from a recording session to encounter a group of boys chasing a Jewish boy, ready to beat him up. Through some simple straight talk and singing the title song, Frank gets the kids to reconsider beating up the Jewish kid--the film was meant to combat anti-Semitism (and earned a special Academy Award for its humanitarian efforts).
Nevertheless, some of what was considered just plain straight talk in 1945 includes ideas we would now find problematic. But it was the end of World War II, and we were very much thinking in terms of fighting and defeating the enemy--Nazis and "Japs."
Doesn't mean you have to "make nice" with the family if it's not healthy for you, and nobody should try to make that your responsibility. But there's a great deal of morality, culture, and a sense of good and bad that is era-specific.
Hi SCR, You said:
QuoteI've been struggling with significant health setbacks over the last couple of months, and I just don't feel like I have the energy to "play nice" if my folks decide to rant or tantrum.
Holidays are a really stressful time (in the best of times, and these certainly aren't the best of times for a lot of reasons). I think you should protect yourself and your well-being even if that means curtailing access to your family. Do what you need to do to have a restorative holiday break. Prioritize yourself.
Yes, agreed.
I spent 1 or 2 holiday seasons with family in the past 25 years (when there was a family center to gather in) for just that reason.
Thankfully, now, that house has been sold and the question of meeting there is mooted; the rest are much further away.
The 1-hour Zoom call in which we discussed travel, the weather, pets, and so on, was just about the right amount of time.
And I didn't even have to get my feet wet.
M.
Quote from: little bongo on December 02, 2021, 12:09:18 PM
Growing up in a different time does mean something, though
My parents and I used to have epic, angry debates about all sorts of things, some idiotic in retrospect (how long someone's hair should be; earrings in guy's ears; watching Lavern & Shirley) and some struck at more substantial cultural mores (should African-American men dress to the "standards" of white middle class people).
My folks came of age in the late 1940s in very conservative parts of the country, and their cultural lens was narrowly focused. They were confused, angry, and resistant to all the changes wrought by "hippie" and "peacenik" turmoil of the '60s and '70s. They did not understand teen culture at all; if you think about it, they grew up just before America developed its "rebel without a cause" teen angst; my folks were expected to live up to adult standards when they were young. My father once, by way of an apology, said, "I thought there were rules. That's the way I was brought up."
To their credit, they were big enough to rethink some of their bigotries, specifically their homophobia when they actually met and interacted with gay people----thus the power of "coming out"-----and after some truly humungous debates on this very subject with me. And they eventually accepted Rock'n'Roll and stopped thinking of TV as evil.
I have often wondered what future generations will find abhorrent in our zeitgeist. Abortion, pro or con? Gun laws? Guns? Our sexual ethics? Trump or not Trump? In fact, the emergence of Trump after my "party hardy" generation is still a strain and a shock to me.
Quote from: little bongo on December 02, 2021, 12:09:18 PM
Growing up in a different time does mean something, though, speaking as someone with one toe in the old pool. I keep thinking of a short film I like to show the Honors students from 1945--"The House I Live In," featuring Frank Sinatra. (It's on YouTube--worth a look as a piece of history.)
Frank takes a smoke break from a recording session to encounter a group of boys chasing a Jewish boy, ready to beat him up. Through some simple straight talk and singing the title song, Frank gets the kids to reconsider beating up the Jewish kid--the film was meant to combat anti-Semitism (and earned a special Academy Award for its humanitarian efforts).
Nevertheless, some of what was considered just plain straight talk in 1945 includes ideas we would now find problematic. But it was the end of World War II, and we were very much thinking in terms of fighting and defeating the enemy--Nazis and "Japs."
Doesn't mean you have to "make nice" with the family if it's not healthy for you, and nobody should try to make that your responsibility. But there's a great deal of morality, culture, and a sense of good and bad that is era-specific.
Sure, it can certainly be a valid explanation.
And there may be times I can buy it as an excuse. Like, "He doesn't intend any offense when he uses that word. For a long time, that was just the word everybody used."
But I hear a lot of people try to make the argument that because someone's behavior can be explained that means you can't object to it.
What about friends who hold conspiracy theories? Do you keep them as friends?
Another conspiracy theory is the media is evil or incahoots with the government to hide the truth.
It is either ridiculous or a very hasty generalization, at best. They are supposedly hiding the truth about Ukraine, for example.
Since I'm sympathetic with plenty of conspiracy theories, I don't judge others for their theories. I often find a good conspiracy theory very intriguing.
It's only a problem if they won't stop talking about their theories.
Quote from: Myword on May 03, 2022, 10:27:43 AM
What about friends who hold conspiracy theories? Do you keep them as friends?
Another conspiracy theory is the media is evil or incahoots with the government to hide the truth.
It is either ridiculous or a very hasty generalization, at best. They are supposedly hiding the truth about Ukraine, for example.
Hmmm, sounds like Operation Mockingbird.
I do find it suspicious when they all seem to report the same exact thing in the same manner like recently when they all decided to change the pronunciation of Kiev. Maybe they are not in cahoots with anyone but this could be due to groupthink and a follow the leader mentality, sort of like the Organization Man.
Quote from: Anselm on May 03, 2022, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Myword on May 03, 2022, 10:27:43 AM
What about friends who hold conspiracy theories? Do you keep them as friends?
Another conspiracy theory is the media is evil or incahoots with the government to hide the truth.
It is either ridiculous or a very hasty generalization, at best. They are supposedly hiding the truth about Ukraine, for example.
Hmmm, sounds like Operation Mockingbird.
I do find it suspicious when they all seem to report the same exact thing in the same manner like recently when they all decided to change the pronunciation of Kiev. Maybe they are not in cahoots with anyone but this could be due to groupthink and a follow the leader mentality, sort of like the Organization Man.
They didn't decide to change the pronunciation-- they are using the Ukrainian rather than the Russian name. Don't you think the name the people who live there should be use should be used, not the name used by those invading them?
[quote author=Puget link=topic=2355.msg104344#msg104344
They didn't decide to change the pronunciation-- they are using the Ukrainian rather than the Russian name. Don't you think the name the people who live there should be use should be used, not the name used by those invading them?
[/quote]
OK, but why all of a sudden are they doing this now? Russians don't call their own capital Moscow. Kiev is also used by all English speaking people, not just the current invaders.
The media also did the same thing with their pronunciation of Qatar and Kosova (formerly Kosovo).
Out of respect.
M.
Quote from: Anselm on May 03, 2022, 11:15:28 AM
[quote author=Puget link=topic=2355.msg104344#msg104344
They didn't decide to change the pronunciation-- they are using the Ukrainian rather than the Russian name. Don't you think the name the people who live there should be use should be used, not the name used by those invading them?
OK, but why all of a sudden are they doing this now? Russians don't call their own capital Moscow. Kiev is also used by all English speaking people, not just the current invaders.
The media also did the same thing with their pronunciation of Qatar and Kosova (formerly Kosovo).
[/quote]
Probably because now is when the international media realized/acknowledged that the people who live there really do care.
I guess my question would be "Why NOT update, when the people who live there ask you to?"
If a lot of Czechs started asking us to please use Praha instead, I'd do my best b/c that's what they asked and they live there.
Growing up I heard Ki-ev (two syllables) . Ukrainian inlaws used that pronunciation. Now I'm hearing (could be my issue, heheh) Keev. I'm fine with mamselle's respect explanation as we in the US hear things more from people from other nations.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on May 03, 2022, 01:59:51 PM
Growing up I heard Ki-ev (two syllables) . Ukrainian inlaws used that pronunciation. Now I'm hearing (could be my issue, heheh) Keev. I'm fine with mamselle's respect explanation as we in the US hear things more from people from other nations.
Lovely, and I was suspicious of uttering
keev from the beginning. That's just English media journalists' complete lack of knowledge of the existence of any other languages. When even their English is wanting.
The Ukrainian pronunciation still has two syllables, but the second syllable is said a bit subtly.
Stop, look, and listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE1f6GUvG5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE1f6GUvG5Y)
Many Ukranians (like my students' family members) learned Russian and, lingua franca as it was at the time, might have used the Russian pronunciation to make it more 'understandable' to those who didn't know better.
Some moved in and out of Ukrainian and Russian at times; some only spoke Russian out-of-the-house, and Ukranian at home.
But given recent events, it's simply a way to re-enforce their identity.
I and a friend were in Praha in the summer of 1990, just after the Berlin Wall's descent and the opening up of various places and scenarios.
The languages spoken in the train station were German, Russian, and Czech. And not everyone used all three.
To buy a train ticket, I had to use my very rudimentary German with someone in line, who spoke to the sales agent in Russian, who printed the ticket and gave me my change, everyone translating back and forth.
When we got to the city center, we saw the tank monument with flowers and candles.
I doubt they use Russian voluntarily, or as much, anymore.
M.
And this thread is off track, besides the point. Back to my original question...
Quote from: Myword on May 03, 2022, 10:27:43 AM
What about friends who hold conspiracy theories? Do you keep them as friends?
Another conspiracy theory is the media is evil or in cahoots with the government to hide the truth.
It is either ridiculous or a very hasty generalization, at best. They are supposedly hiding the truth about Ukraine, for example.
In response to the boldface question above, I typically let them drift out of my life. I don't have to believe in their existence, you see.
Seriously, all snark aside, they exist as people but not as a part of my life, so I go on without them.
It's different with family members (the original topic of the thread) because (at least in my opinion) it's difficult to fail to acknowledge that everyone related to me exists, even if I don't talk with them and don't intend to.
Facts are stubborn things, as (some say) John Adams once said.
Shouldn't the topic be about dealing with family members and friends who subscribe to false conspiracy theories then?
Fine.
Much like paultuttle, I don't discuss those issues with people wedded to them--whether friends or family.
I don't need to prove my position, I might deflect any nonsense away with a lateral observation that, say, includes a "hmmm..." and an "I'd have to look into that," and a sudden change of topic, if I'm feeling particularly nimble that day.
Or I might excuse myself from the conversation and leave them to it.
Sort of like "ignore" on the boards here, you know?
M.
Quote from: downer on May 04, 2022, 07:41:53 AM
Shouldn't the topic be about dealing with family members and friends who subscribe to false conspiracy theories then?
AKA
different conspiracy theories than you subscribe to.
I am confused as to why there is a need to cut off people who disagree with you over something that is usually of no consequence. False beliefs about healthcare can get someone killed but I fail to see the big deal if someone thinks it was the Cubans who killed JFK and not Oswald.
Quote from: Myword on May 03, 2022, 10:27:43 AM
What about friends who hold conspiracy theories? Do you keep them as friends?
Yes, but depending on the level and dynamics of friendship and the severity of the conspiracy addiction I might try to address the issue:
I have a superficial friend that believes all kinds of conspiracies and honestly I don't care because he's fun to ride bikes or get a beer with once in a while. I wouldn't end the friendship over it, and in fact it is kind of fun/funny, but the friendship isn't that important to me anyway (and I think the feeling is mutual). I'm pretty sure he thinks he's way smarter than me anyway and wouldn't care what I have to say about all this.
On the other hand, one of my best friends from childhood, someone I really care about (and who I know cares about me), was putting posts on facebook about pizzagate day after day, one after another. I became worried that he was losing touch with reality and it hurt me to see him making a fool of himself day after day. At some point, I made a comment on one of his posts saying something along the lines of "people should really stop subscribing to so many silly conspiracy theories." Even though the comment was soft, I know it probably hurt his feelings. Maybe I shouldn't have handled it via private message, but a soft public pushback seemed like the best approach at the time. We're still good friends, fortunately, but my approach might have irritated some of my other friends, so I see now that there was risk.
These things are tricky, but friendship is important and I don't want to push people I care about away just because they believe some stupid things, especially when those beliefs can change. Who among us hasn't believed something dumb before?
i was having a conversation with an old friend and she said something like, "Yeah, but we know the Illuminati are really behind it." I laughed appreciatively, conspiracy theories ha ha ha — until it became clear that she was serious. I'm not going to drop her friendship exactly, but our worldviews and ideas of what constitutes solid evidence are now so different that I keep the conversation superficial.
We used to interact regularly with local relatives who would start talking about things we differed on like Muslims, Hillary's emails (!!) and causes of autism. Then Covid made clear that there were even more differences in our views and now we make very few plans to get together.
On a perhaps related note, I just spent a weekend with six guests (three couples) and my wife, all of whom spent hours in discussion, seething with hate for republicans, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Green, et al. I barely said a word until the discussion turned to Roe v. Wade. Someone said 'the Supreme Court is getting ready to make contraceptive devices and medication illegal.' I said 'they're not going to do that. Condoms and diaphragms and the pill are not going to be made illegal.' One of the party countered 'they're already giving retail workers in pharmacies in some states the right to refuse to sell birth control products if it violates their religion. If there's no one else in the store available, that person cannot purchase!!' To which I responded calmly 'so the customer would have to find another pharmacy to get what they need. I doubt there is a serious shortage of people who are happy to sell condoms, even in those areas.' No response. (Which is fine, I don't need to win an argument. I don't need them to say 'uncle.' I'm happy if someone thinks about what I said without responding.)
(Unsaid: you couldn't walk into a Jewish owned delicatessen and demand non-kosher meat products, could you?)
things they believe:
America is hopelessly, irredeemably racist.
Racism is the reason America was founded.
America's economy was built on slavery.
Republicans are not semi-fascist, as our POTUS says. They are fascist. He was being polite.
More, but I went to bed early and tried to forget.
Almost none of these people had ever heard of Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Raphael Warnock, Glenn Loury, Candace Owens, Ibram X. Kendi, Larry Elder, Robin D'Angelo, gender non-binary status.
ETA: When the discussion wasn't politics, everything was fine. A lot of harmony and affection in the room. During the ranting session, usually one, two or three were talking or yelling at once. I don't know if they even noticed I was silent, which was fine. The only solution. One time I did blow it though: I found out it was unacceptable to report that I had never voted for DJT. It was only acceptable to have voted against him, twice.
Oh here's another gem. One of them stated (with everyone nodding their heads): Donald Trump just yells when he gives a speech. Yelling is his normal speaking tone.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 05, 2022, 07:08:08 AM
On a perhaps related note, I just spent a weekend with six guests (three couples) and my wife, all of whom spent hours in discussion, seething with hate for republicans, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Green, et al. I barely said a word until the discussion turned to Roe v. Wade. Someone said 'the Supreme Court is getting ready to make contraceptive devices and medication illegal.' I said 'they're not going to do that. Condoms and diaphragms and the pill are not going to be made illegal.' One of the party countered 'they're already giving retail workers in pharmacies in some states the right to refuse to sell birth control products if it violates their religion. If there's no one else in the store available, that person cannot purchase!!' To which I responded calmly 'so the customer would have to find another pharmacy to get what they need. I doubt there is a serious shortage of people who are happy to sell condoms, even in those areas.' No response. (Which is fine, I don't need to win an argument. I don't need them to say 'uncle.' I'm happy if someone thinks about what I said without responding.)
(Unsaid: you couldn't walk into a Jewish owned delicatessen and demand non-kosher meat products, could you?)
things they believe:
America is hopelessly, irredeemably racist.
Racism is the reason America was founded.
America's economy was built on slavery.
Republicans are not semi-fascist, as our POTUS says. They are fascist. He was being polite.
More, but I went to bed early and tried to forget.
Almost none of these people had ever heard of Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Raphael Warnock, Glenn Loury, Candace Owens, Ibram X. Kendi, Larry Elder, Robin D'Angelo, gender non-binary status.
ETA: When the discussion wasn't politics, everything was fine. A lot of harmony and affection in the room. During the ranting session, usually one, two or three were talking or yelling at once. I don't know if they even noticed I was silent, which was fine. The only solution. One time I did blow it though: I found out it was unacceptable to report that I had never voted for DJT. It was only acceptable to have voted against him, twice.
Oh here's another gem. One of them stated (with everyone nodding their heads): Donald Trump just yells when he gives a speech. Yelling is his normal speaking tone.
As soon as I read the bolded I knew this dinner did not unfold the way that Mahagonny claims.
But, in all seriousness, saying the SC is likely to do 'x,' or that Trump yells, or that America is racist are not conspiracy theories. Those things may turn out to be untrue or may be based on weak data/information, but they do not fit the criteria of a conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 05, 2022, 07:08:08 AM
On a perhaps related note, I just spent a weekend with six guests (three couples) and my wife, all of whom spent hours in discussion, seething with hate for republicans, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Green, et al. I barely said a word until the discussion turned to Roe v. Wade. Someone said 'the Supreme Court is getting ready to make contraceptive devices and medication illegal.' I said 'they're not going to do that. Condoms and diaphragms and the pill are not going to be made illegal.' One of the party countered 'they're already giving retail workers in pharmacies in some states the right to refuse to sell birth control products if it violates their religion. If there's no one else in the store available, that person cannot purchase!!' To which I responded calmly 'so the customer would have to find another pharmacy to get what they need. I doubt there is a serious shortage of people who are happy to sell condoms, even in those areas.' No response. (Which is fine, I don't need to win an argument. I don't need them to say 'uncle.' I'm happy if someone thinks about what I said without responding.)
(Unsaid: you couldn't walk into a Jewish owned delicatessen and demand non-kosher meat products, could you?)
things they believe:
America is hopelessly, irredeemably racist.
Racism is the reason America was founded.
America's economy was built on slavery.
Republicans are not semi-fascist, as our POTUS says. They are fascist. He was being polite.
More, but I went to bed early and tried to forget.
Almost none of these people had ever heard of Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Raphael Warnock, Glenn Loury, Candace Owens, Ibram X. Kendi, Larry Elder, Robin D'Angelo, gender non-binary status.
ETA: When the discussion wasn't politics, everything was fine. A lot of harmony and affection in the room. During the ranting session, usually one, two or three were talking or yelling at once. I don't know if they even noticed I was silent, which was fine. The only solution. One time I did blow it though: I found out it was unacceptable to report that I had never voted for DJT. It was only acceptable to have voted against him, twice.
Oh here's another gem. One of them stated (with everyone nodding their heads): Donald Trump just yells when he gives a speech. Yelling is his normal speaking tone.
As soon as I read the bolded I knew this dinner did not unfold the way that Mahagonny claims.
I disagree with Mahagonny on many things, but I doubt very much that he yells in person. The point he makes, with which I concur, is that there are all kinds of statements that would have been unremarkable until, in John McWhorter's words, "about 5 minutes ago", which are now treated as either seditious or blasphemous (or both). Wrongthink enrages people by its very existence, regardless of how quietly it is expressed.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 05, 2022, 10:00:22 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 05, 2022, 07:08:08 AM
On a perhaps related note, I just spent a weekend with six guests (three couples) and my wife, all of whom spent hours in discussion, seething with hate for republicans, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Green, et al. I barely said a word until the discussion turned to Roe v. Wade. Someone said 'the Supreme Court is getting ready to make contraceptive devices and medication illegal.' I said 'they're not going to do that. Condoms and diaphragms and the pill are not going to be made illegal.' One of the party countered 'they're already giving retail workers in pharmacies in some states the right to refuse to sell birth control products if it violates their religion. If there's no one else in the store available, that person cannot purchase!!' To which I responded calmly 'so the customer would have to find another pharmacy to get what they need. I doubt there is a serious shortage of people who are happy to sell condoms, even in those areas.' No response. (Which is fine, I don't need to win an argument. I don't need them to say 'uncle.' I'm happy if someone thinks about what I said without responding.)
(Unsaid: you couldn't walk into a Jewish owned delicatessen and demand non-kosher meat products, could you?)
things they believe:
America is hopelessly, irredeemably racist.
Racism is the reason America was founded.
America's economy was built on slavery.
Republicans are not semi-fascist, as our POTUS says. They are fascist. He was being polite.
More, but I went to bed early and tried to forget.
Almost none of these people had ever heard of Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Raphael Warnock, Glenn Loury, Candace Owens, Ibram X. Kendi, Larry Elder, Robin D'Angelo, gender non-binary status.
ETA: When the discussion wasn't politics, everything was fine. A lot of harmony and affection in the room. During the ranting session, usually one, two or three were talking or yelling at once. I don't know if they even noticed I was silent, which was fine. The only solution. One time I did blow it though: I found out it was unacceptable to report that I had never voted for DJT. It was only acceptable to have voted against him, twice.
Oh here's another gem. One of them stated (with everyone nodding their heads): Donald Trump just yells when he gives a speech. Yelling is his normal speaking tone.
As soon as I read the bolded I knew this dinner did not unfold the way that Mahagonny claims.
I disagree with Mahagonny on many things, but I doubt very much that he yells in person. The point he makes, with which I concur, is that there are all kinds of statements that would have been unremarkable until, in John McWhorter's words, "about 5 minutes ago", which are now treated as either seditious or blasphemous (or both). Wrongthink enrages people by its very existence, regardless of how quietly it is expressed.
It was a joke dude, I'm sure Mahagonny (like many of us) does not behave in person the way he does in the Internet.
But the wider point applies to your post too: These people you disagree with about wokeness may be wrong, but they mostly don't fit the criteria of conspiracy theorists.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 10:04:11 AM
But the wider point applies to your post too: These people you disagree with about wokeness may be wrong, but they mostly don't fit the criteria of conspiracy theorists.
Fair enough; it's probably more like religious zealotry, (which would apply to anyone with any very strong ideology). Unshakeable ideas about how the universe works don't require any "conspiracies" explicitly.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 05, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 10:04:11 AM
But the wider point applies to your post too: These people you disagree with about wokeness may be wrong, but they mostly don't fit the criteria of conspiracy theorists.
Fair enough; it's probably more like religious zealotry, (which would apply to anyone with any very strong ideology). Unshakeable ideas about how the universe works don't require any "conspiracies" explicitly.
The people in my non-teaching field are IMHO, (especially recently) particularly not worth discussing current events with. They parrot the views, 'facts' they hear. We are freelancers, usually with minimal secure long-term employment. Their social life is the groupthink of people who seem to be calculating on a daily basis how to avoid saying anything unpopular. It's not, mostly, people who have conspiracy theories. It's more like an ideal breeding ground for all the most lazy, uninformed people to get together and collect nine or ten common progressive themes from CNN to agree on for social bonding.
sun-worshiper: Oh, I get it. Your reaction is "the loony right is doing it worse!" You win.
But an ignorant lefty today can be stunningly ignorant. And there are swarms of them, enough to blot out the sun. 'Wokusts.'
ETA: Observe: no 'all-capitals'. I am speaking softly, still. I like doing it. It drives certain people crazy, especially with the proper vocal inflection. And makes you a smaller target. Except, maybe, here.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 05, 2022, 02:22:28 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 05, 2022, 12:23:03 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 10:04:11 AM
But the wider point applies to your post too: These people you disagree with about wokeness may be wrong, but they mostly don't fit the criteria of conspiracy theorists.
Fair enough; it's probably more like religious zealotry, (which would apply to anyone with any very strong ideology). Unshakeable ideas about how the universe works don't require any "conspiracies" explicitly.
The people in my non-teaching field are IMHO, (especially recently) particularly not worth discussing current events with. They parrot the views, 'facts' they hear. We are freelancers, usually with minimal secure long-term employment. Their social life is the groupthink of people who seem to be calculating on a daily basis how to avoid saying anything unpopular. It's not, mostly, people who have conspiracy theories. It's more like an ideal breeding ground for all the most lazy, uninformed people to get together and collect nine or ten common progressive themes from CNN to agree on for social bonding.
sun-worshiper: Oh, I get it. Your reaction is "the loony right is doing it worse!" You win.
But an ignorant lefty today can be stunningly ignorant. And there are swarms of them, enough to blot out the sun. 'Wokusts.'
ETA: Observe: no 'all-capitals'. I am speaking softly, still. I like doing it. It drives certain people crazy, especially with the proper vocal inflection. And makes you a smaller target. Except, maybe, here.
The bolded is not what I said at all. It is not even remotely related to what I said.
You ignore them.
All of them.
M.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 05, 2022, 07:08:08 AM
On a perhaps related note, I just spent a weekend with six guests (three couples) and my wife, all of whom spent hours in discussion, seething with hate for republicans, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Green, et al. I barely said a word until the discussion turned to Roe v. Wade. Someone said 'the Supreme Court is getting ready to make contraceptive devices and medication illegal.' I said 'they're not going to do that. Condoms and diaphragms and the pill are not going to be made illegal.' One of the party countered 'they're already giving retail workers in pharmacies in some states the right to refuse to sell birth control products if it violates their religion. If there's no one else in the store available, that person cannot purchase!!' To which I responded calmly 'so the customer would have to find another pharmacy to get what they need. I doubt there is a serious shortage of people who are happy to sell condoms, even in those areas.' No response. (Which is fine, I don't need to win an argument. I don't need them to say 'uncle.' I'm happy if someone thinks about what I said without responding.)
(Unsaid: you couldn't walk into a Jewish owned delicatessen and demand non-kosher meat products, could you?)
things they believe:
America is hopelessly, irredeemably racist.
Racism is the reason America was founded.
America's economy was built on slavery.
Republicans are not semi-fascist, as our POTUS says. They are fascist. He was being polite.
More, but I went to bed early and tried to forget.
Almost none of these people had ever heard of Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Raphael Warnock, Glenn Loury, Candace Owens, Ibram X. Kendi, Larry Elder, Robin D'Angelo, gender non-binary status.
ETA: When the discussion wasn't politics, everything was fine. A lot of harmony and affection in the room. During the ranting session, usually one, two or three were talking or yelling at once. I don't know if they even noticed I was silent, which was fine. The only solution. One time I did blow it though: I found out it was unacceptable to report that I had never voted for DJT. It was only acceptable to have voted against him, twice.
Oh here's another gem. One of them stated (with everyone nodding their heads): Donald Trump just yells when he gives a speech. Yelling is his normal speaking tone.
As soon as I read the bolded I knew this dinner did not unfold the way that Mahagonny claims.
But, in all seriousness, saying the SC is likely to do 'x,' or that Trump yells, or that America is racist are not conspiracy theories. Those things may turn out to be untrue or may be based on weak data/information, but they do not fit the criteria of a conspiracy theory.
Right; they are assertions that should require supporting evidence. If I had asked for supporting evidence the result would simply have been like stepping into a hornet's nest. So I didn't. They would not have had evidence, and they would have been indignant that I had asked. However, that's not entirely the fault of these common, non-PhD, afternoon wine and vodka guzzling folks. It's partly the fault of the academic radical leftist world of today and what passes for a legitimate academic. The most conspicuous example being Ibram X. Kendi, who claims that America is reeking with racism in just about all of our interactions, bureaucracies, laws, customs etc. as proven by the fact that most white people have more money, more lucrative careers and more influential positions in some fields (though fewer in some others, which he conveniently forgets) than do most black people. Which is, of course, a ridiculous attempt at providing compelling evidence for a claim of that size, as been noted by folks such as Glen Loury, (who is ignored) not to mention any passable economist and many students of any passable economist.
Although they had never heard of Kendi, it's likely that his visibility and ideas have influenced their thinking. Another thing that I find startling.
I'm pretty sure my recent posts here are in keeping with the thread theme. It's not just liberals like most of you here who have to contend with ignorant, belligerent talkers (and mobs) in your social life.
Quote from: mamselle on September 05, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
You ignore them.
All of them.
M.
OK. Let's have the names, since you are so eminently trusted.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 06, 2022, 04:19:33 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 05, 2022, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 05, 2022, 07:08:08 AM
On a perhaps related note, I just spent a weekend with six guests (three couples) and my wife, all of whom spent hours in discussion, seething with hate for republicans, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Green, et al. I barely said a word until the discussion turned to Roe v. Wade. Someone said 'the Supreme Court is getting ready to make contraceptive devices and medication illegal.' I said 'they're not going to do that. Condoms and diaphragms and the pill are not going to be made illegal.' One of the party countered 'they're already giving retail workers in pharmacies in some states the right to refuse to sell birth control products if it violates their religion. If there's no one else in the store available, that person cannot purchase!!' To which I responded calmly 'so the customer would have to find another pharmacy to get what they need. I doubt there is a serious shortage of people who are happy to sell condoms, even in those areas.' No response. (Which is fine, I don't need to win an argument. I don't need them to say 'uncle.' I'm happy if someone thinks about what I said without responding.)
(Unsaid: you couldn't walk into a Jewish owned delicatessen and demand non-kosher meat products, could you?)
things they believe:
America is hopelessly, irredeemably racist.
Racism is the reason America was founded.
America's economy was built on slavery.
Republicans are not semi-fascist, as our POTUS says. They are fascist. He was being polite.
More, but I went to bed early and tried to forget.
Almost none of these people had ever heard of Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Raphael Warnock, Glenn Loury, Candace Owens, Ibram X. Kendi, Larry Elder, Robin D'Angelo, gender non-binary status.
ETA: When the discussion wasn't politics, everything was fine. A lot of harmony and affection in the room. During the ranting session, usually one, two or three were talking or yelling at once. I don't know if they even noticed I was silent, which was fine. The only solution. One time I did blow it though: I found out it was unacceptable to report that I had never voted for DJT. It was only acceptable to have voted against him, twice.
Oh here's another gem. One of them stated (with everyone nodding their heads): Donald Trump just yells when he gives a speech. Yelling is his normal speaking tone.
As soon as I read the bolded I knew this dinner did not unfold the way that Mahagonny claims.
But, in all seriousness, saying the SC is likely to do 'x,' or that Trump yells, or that America is racist are not conspiracy theories. Those things may turn out to be untrue or may be based on weak data/information, but they do not fit the criteria of a conspiracy theory.
Right; they are assertions that should require supporting evidence. If I had asked for supporting evidence the result would simply have been like stepping into a hornet's nest. So I didn't. They would not have had evidence, and they would have been indignant that I had asked. However, that's not entirely the fault of these common, non-PhD, afternoon wine and vodka guzzling folks. It's partly the fault of the academic radical leftist world of today and what passes for a legitimate academic. The most conspicuous example being Ibram X. Kendi, who claims that America is reeking with racism in just about all of our interactions, bureaucracies, laws, customs etc. as proven by the fact that most white people have more money, more lucrative careers and more influential positions in some fields (though fewer in some others, which he conveniently forgets) than do most black people. Which is, of course, a ridiculous attempt at providing compelling evidence for a claim of that size, as been noted by folks such as Glen Loury, (who is ignored) not to mention any passable economist and many students of any passable economist.
Although they had never heard of Kendi, it's likely that his visibility and ideas have influenced their thinking. Another thing that I find startling.
I'm pretty sure my recent posts here are in keeping with the thread theme. It's not just liberals like most of you here who have to contend with ignorant, belligerent talkers (and mobs) in your social life.
Quote from: mamselle on September 05, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
You ignore them.
All of them.
M.
OK. Let's have the names, since you are so eminently trusted.
Mahagonny, it would be pointless to respond to your crazy and incoherent rant, except to say, once again, that this thread is about conspiracy theories, and what you are describing is something different.
Instead of derailing every thread with an irrelevant rant, why don't you create a Mahagonny grievance megathread? That will be your safe space to complain about all the things that are bothering you without derailing all other threads.
Ignore, ignore, ignore.
M.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on September 06, 2022, 08:13:28 AM
Instead of derailing every thread with an irrelevant rant, why don't you create a Mahagonny grievance megathread? That will be your safe space to complain about all the things that are bothering you without derailing all other threads.
I'm pretty sure I'm happier with the wider world than wokedemia is.
No one was using this long-dead thread anyway. You took the option of jumping in. Howdy!