How Do You Deal with Family Members who Subscribe to Conspiracy Theories?

[Hegemony]

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.

[mahagonny]

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?

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[hungry_ghost]

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? 

[mahagonny]

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[RatGuy]

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."

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.