How to Deal with Zealots Who Tell You that Your Way of Thinking is Wrong.

[polly_mer]

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

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

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

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

[spork]

fishbrains' comment ^:

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

[fishbrains]

I wouldn't write down the issues [. . .]

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

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

[Economizer]

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

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

I wouldn't write down the issues [. . .]

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

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

+1 to all of it fishbrains.

[polly_mer]

I wouldn't write down the issues [. . .]

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

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

+1 to all of it fishbrains.

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

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

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

Repeat every call until the relative gets the message.


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

[polly_mer]

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

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

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

[lightning]

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

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

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

Yes! Except Monopoly. Don't play Monopoly.

[polly_mer]

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

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

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

Yes! Except Monopoly. Don't play Monopoly.

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

[mamselle]

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

;--}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.

[polly_mer]

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

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

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

[mahagonny]

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

[kaysixteen]

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

[mamselle]

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

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

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

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

M.

[apl68]

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