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

[mamselle]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

Reptile brain. Is it possible he has had a stroke?

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

[mahagonny]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[mamselle]

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

Oh, dear!!!!

Now I get it....

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[Hegemony]

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."

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.