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

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

[WWUpdate]

The 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.

[mahagonny]

The 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.

[WWUpdate]

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.

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.

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.

[WWUpdate]

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."

[mahagonny]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

He's not crazy at all that I'm aware of.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[WWUpdate]

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.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

The 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

[Wahoo Redux]

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. 

[mahagonny]

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.

The 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

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:

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.

There's no effort in pathologizing Brittney Cooper. She's obviously a sick individual.

[WWUpdate]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.