[Publius]

Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails

2) It's more than belief; it's Faith. You don't beat Faith with antagonism.

You don't beat it by humoring it either in my experience.

Seems like nobody I know in the flesh is currently willing to admit to being a Trump supporter.

That's interesting. We could start an entire thread on why you think that is.

So much of "the discourse" these days can be summed up as "I am going to use my perceived freedom of speech to try to get you to shut up".

Yes. So this could be a thread of its own as well. How we respond to those moments could have ripple effects.

I say this as a devout Christian: such is the nature of Faith. It is by definition irrational.

Many significant thinkers would say that this is exactly why universal suffrage was not part of the original founding of democracy.

The inability of most people to be able or willing to identify, much less set aside, personal biases when making decisions. For nation states, this is a dangerous, even if short-lived, proposition. In all honesty, if not for our geography, the United States wouldn't have lasted 50 years. It also would not have hit the 100 year mark, and we certainly wouldn't be here today.

My pet definition of the word 'proof' is: 'evidence that I am willing to believe'.

That's exactly part of the problem.

The veracity of a statement is not determined by the discomfort it creates.

There are people who would believe that Trump did shoot someone on 5th Avenue if you just told them he had. There are others who would not believe it if they woke up in the hospital with a bullet wound.

And both of them are toxic to free nations, and should be treated as the threats to democracy that they are.

In reference to my statement that Jimmy Carter and John Adams were not good presidents you wrote that you think they'd both be proud of who they were and what they did. Maybe that's true, but the same can be said of Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson and Donald Trump.

They were all terrible presidents, though.

I do think kind and good people can become President and do a good job. I just think they certainly cannot be gentle and weak about it. They have to have a certain amount of pragmatic devotion to the bottom line that they're capable of, even if they prefer not to have to do it.

Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails

I'd say something like: "If you have tried 'everything else but' talking to them nicely, I think I see part of the problem.

I can't refute that. I suppose I was implying that an under-utilized option for people who refuse to be reasonable is to increase the personal consequence of their poor decision.

(also, it's [talking to unreasonable people] not about expecting it to do the trick)"

Then what's it about? Why bother? What are you hoping to get out of such conversations if not to bring them around to reason and hopefully create a better society out of it?

a bad guy should never be President, full stop.

Can't refute that either.

Maybe that's the problem. This should be a thread of its own.

If they are a bad guy, they will be bad to you, and they will be bad to you with all the power of the President. That is unacceptable.

There is something in between a goody two-shoes and a mass murderer, though. We've had plenty of "not too nice but still not dictators" as president.

I asked:

What approach does work for getting an irrational, unreasonable person with nothing to lose and everything to gain to suddenly change tact?

You replied:

Your key term there is 'suddenly'.

It's not that key of a term. I just generally meant to get them to change their minds after a long and stubborn entrenchment of their stances.

If they are the type of person to suddenly change tact, they will just as suddenly change back as soon as your back is turned.

I disagree. This implies that the person is being intentionally dishonest. If that's the case, no amount of any persuasive techniques is going to do any good and thus the question is moot.

I have often been very strong in my beliefs for a long period of time. However, when shown that I was mistaken, I immediately and irrevocably let go of my previously flawed beliefs, and did not return to them as soon as my inquisitor went away.

If you want to change the mind of any person, rational or not, you have to be prepared for an investment of time at least, and possibly work as well.

I agree. I'm asking why you think your manner of work and time investment pays off better than any other.

Based on my observations, here are some shortcuts:

Acknowledge that Democrats are bad when appropriate.

That's not a short cut to me. That's just being honest and reasonable. I don't think this should be a tool of persuasion, I think this should be a behavior based on ethics and integrity.

Be polite and nice within reason.

What's within reason to you?

Literally hold up your hand to get a chance to speak rather than interrupting, don't use insults, obey the Golden Rule.

I have done literally that exact thing. You and I should go talk to some people together. It doesn't work as well in my experience as you seem to think it will. Maybe we're talking to different people about different things, and maybe it's in different environments.

I almost universally find "true believers" to be unable to engage in normal speaking behaviors.

Remember that from their perspective, you are the irrational person; that narrative cannot be broken down, only worn down.

It's not my fault that grown adults do not know what the word "rational" means. I am not perfectly rational, but I'm pretty rational. I really cannot help it if they have no grasp on reality.

Agree with them 3 times in a row without directly disagreeing in between (listen for points or partial points in their arguments that you can agree with, like "Trump is President"). This seems to be magic.

That's funny. I was about to write "this sounds like a witch's spell" and then I read the "magic" part.

I agree as honestly as I can, and I disagree as honestly as I can. I am not willing to allow them to think I believe that Obama is Muslim just because that's the second thing they say.

It won't 'turn' them, but it seems to set off a bomb in their consciousness that causes them to see you as a person.

Perhaps it causes them to see you as a dishonest person, who at first pretended to agree with them but is actually tricking them.

Or it could be that your sudden shift from ally to adversary causes them cognitive dissonance at which point they simply shut you off in their brain.

Once they see you as a Person and not as an Enemy, the conversation can begin.

If I am standing in front of someone face to face, I can't really understand how agreeing with them the first three times they speak is not going to make me any more or less of a person to them.

You don't reason with Enemies. You can only reason with People.

I disagree. In fact the people I have found to be most reasonable are the people that have gotten absolutely demolished by someone or something at some point in their lives, and had to honestly re-evaluate their understandings of reality.

Maybe being nice does that for some people. I'm not ruling it out. I definitely think a good ass kicking helps a person get into "let's actually solve this" mode though.

Hope this helps!

I hope so too. Keep us updated on your experiences. you should start a thread on your interactions so we can hear how it goes.