As in, not known to you IRL.
I’ve occasionally brought it up before, but a while back in my reddit days I was in a thread where a “professional deprogrammer” had popped in and was talking about how to “deprogram” conservatives and get them to shift left in their views. It centered around restoring their sense of community and belonging with more balanced viewpoint folks IRL and away from their online echo chambers.
I asked them if they had any way to convert someone you encounter wholly online and they said that it was basically impossible, IRL you have a decent chance, but not online.
I’ve been thinking about that quite a bit, so now I’m curious if anybody here has actually gotten an online conservative to come to the dark side light side?
I don’t argue with conservatives online to try and change their minds. I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument. For every social media user that posts content, there are a thousand lurkers. I post arguments so hopefully some of those lurkers might change their mind away from nationalist authoritarianism
I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument.
This is why I would labour to keep arguing until either I get last word, or the interlocutor clearly runs out of good arguments. You can’t reason with people who never reason themselves into an idea to begin with. But you can convince the readers that the idea is dangerous and to keep away!
Yes, and this is generally how it works:
- Establish that you care about their perspective, and truly mean it. Most people can sniff out insincerity.
- Start asking good faith questions about their position. If their beliefs are misguided, they will begin stumbling upon the flaws on their own. It’s okay to guide them gently with the questions, but don’t try to convince of them of any particular viewpoint, and don’t tell them they are wrong either directly or indirectly. That can undo any progress you made. Just focus on encouraging them to deeply analyze logic that you recognize to be flawed.
- Only offer your perspective / opinions if you are asked directly. If you’ve done #1 and #2 well, this should start happening. I recommend understating your opinions. You don’t have to lie, but keep rants to a minimum and use soft language.
- Be consistent. No one changes their world view overnight. It takes planting seeds, watering them consistently, and waiting.
P.S. If you are doing this correctly and with an open mind, there’s actually a good chance you might change your opinions on a some things, and that’s okay (as long as they aren’t harmful). It also can show them by example that opinions are flexible and should be based on evidence, not the other way around.
Thank you, that’s very insightful and useful.
I was raised super conservative, and the two biggest steps on my journey to the left were Jon Stewart Bernie Sanders
Jon got my attention by pointing out the hypocrisy that did in fact exist on both sides. It gave me a space to exist where I wasn’t just called a wrong dumb redneck and dismissed, but felt like he was actually trying to meet me where I was. That allowed me to let my guard down and actually listen to what he was saying.
Bernie Sanders came along in 2016 at a point where I would’ve called myself a centrist and basically did the same thing. Non judgmentally gave me a space to exist, listed some topics I cared about, then gave me a cause for them.
People don’t like being told they’re wrong. You cannot debate someone out of believing what they believe. What you can do is ask them questions. Get them to consider why they believe what they believe, and eventually they may start seeing contradictions and change their mind on their own.
I think contrapoints on YouTube 100% convinced me there is nothing strange or weird about trans people. They are just people and the way society treats them is wrong and we need to change that.
Not to say I hated trans people before but I didn’t know much about it and Natalie did a thorough job explaining in a way that was easy to understand.
Most people do not respond to a single argument or fact. They accumulate multiple experiences. This is why the shift happens gradually for most people instead of instantly when they are confronted with facts.
Maybe but I feel I’ve made it worse sometimes too.
There’s a couple sayings. ‘The smart man sounds like crazy man to the stupid man’ and ‘You can’t win an argument with an idiot’.
As complex as it can be, it usually boils down to that or you just find out they’re rich, selfish, like control, and love schadenfreude.
But what is if I think the conservative/fashist sounds crazy to me? Is he smart then?? Am I the stupid?
All people who are crazy are crazy. Not all people who seem crazy are crazy.
Maybe the fascist seems crazy cause he’s crazy, but maybe he seems crazy cause you’re the stupid.
I’ll claim the role of the smart man here. Fascists are stupid or self serving and short sighted.
Yes, however…
- Many people you meet online are not, strictly speaking, people.
- Of the remainder, many are there for a reason.
I would wholeheartedly agree with the deprogrammer with one clarification: “known to you IRL” refers more to anonymity than to whether your interactions take place online, and the reason for that is important to consider.
I’m getting there with my coworker although I wouldn’t quite call her conservative; she voted for the NDP in Canada where we live as we are both union members and that’s who we vote for, but she loves Trump, but in this crumbling hellscape of the last few months and the tariffs he’s hollering on about on Canada, she doesn’t like that because she can’t cross border shop. She says he’s gone rather loony although she still likes him.
However, she isn’t stupid, and she watches all sorts of news from all over and doesn’t just blindly believe in the cult. The last few days I have explained dark money to her, and how it fuels elections in the US for both parties and how basically the Koch brothers and all the Tanton network groups fund Trump. I gave her some articles to read, and she’s starting to get it. I didn’t put it from the perspective of hating trump, just that she should know how these things are funded for everyone (the Democrats are no stranger to dark money either and just because the groups they funnel it in under sound sunnier and less racist doesn’t make them any less sketchy), and how the political landscape is manipulated that way. I am finding she’s listening to this, and coming away with a better perspective, rather than trying to explain why he’s totally wrong. Dark money is a topic I recommend to everyone to learn about, because these elections in the US are being bought by dark money.
If it means anything, I started my journey on lemmy as an armchair socialist who in practice was more a welfare capitalism type person. Now I’m a full on anarchist (anti-capitalist). So a steady stream of influence, especially when people make good points and it helps make sense of my suffering, has shifted my political views strongly.
(But the basis for that shift was already kind of laid out, I’ve been fascinated by anarchist critiques for a while, and one of my favourite political authors was one. But the sort of being in a community of likeminded people [lemmy] and having significant suffering at the hands of the current system that made me more strongly shift towards those views).
On the other hand. Simply having a few conversations with my vaguely left wing partner about my views has led her to go from vaguely social democrat to anarchist.
I think the lesson is change is possible, it’s just a slow series of events that add up. Usually there isn’t one thing that straight up switches a person.
You went from water up to your waist to water up to your chest.
This post is asking about people who aren’t in the water at all and have a visceral reaction to the mere suggestion that they even look at water, let alone go in it.
That’s super unique because most people that are anarchists are anarcho-capitalists and that’s generally what people mean by ancap.
Anarchy sort of implies Capitalism.
Not really at all. Look up anarchism on wikipedia. This is the first paragraph:
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism.[1] Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
“Anarcho-Capitalism” is a rather recent name for a sort of ideology that most anarchists would instead call “stateless capitalism”
No, they have ego issues that prevent self reflection.
I just humour people when they tell me political opinions I don’t agree with. No one ever changes their minds.
absolutely not and i imagine the same is true for leftists.
I drifted slowly from right-libertarian to a more leftish position: pro-union, pro-social-programs, skeptical of the compatibility of unregulated capitalism with individual freedom. Still no fan of tankies.
This wasn’t from anyone sitting down and trying to convince me, though. Part of it was discovering how close right-libertarianism had always been to white-supremacism: some old Ron Paul newsletters were unpleasantly enlightening. Part was seeing people who called themselves “libertarians” line up with the far right to support state violence, especially against black and brown people. And heck, part was from getting richer and seeing how that worked.
I have a lot of sympathy for the frustrations that get young men into right-wing positions and occasionally I try to puncture some of the nonsense they’re being fed.
I was also right libertarian, although I have been called a fascist for that, , anyway I shifted from that slowly into anarchocristianism and I will stay here. I just don’t believe in government anymore only in communities and obviously in God but that’s another story.
I just want people to have their needs covered, to have strong sense of communities (love your neighbors) in non violent environments and I think human government is inherently violent either physically violent or economically violent. Jesus spoke of all this.
What I think people needs to understand is it’s not the same to be left in the US than in Spain for example, different countries have different kinds of issues caused by different ideologies. So it’s easy to understand why someone in Germany loves worker unions but in Spain don’t because in Spain the biggest ones (UGT and CCOO) work for the government (the so called Leftist Psoe)
anarchocristianism
To me this means Dorothy Day or Tolstoy. What does it mean to you?
Same but mostly Jesus.
I think most of us who were previously more conservative leaning and who became more liberal just… actually have integrity, to be honest.
When we said we believed in individual freedoms for example - we meant it. MAGA gives no shits about freedom. There are practically endless similar examples because MAGA doesn’t stand for anything it claims to
Too many American right-wingers use “freedom” to mean “I get to impose costs on you; you don’t get to impose costs on me.” It’s not equality; it’s strictly positional. Look at the association of “freedom” with shitty driving for a little example: “I get to threaten you on the highway, pollute your air, tear up the land with my off-roading … but taxing my gasoline is on offense to the Founders.”
There are practically endless similar examples because MAGA doesn’t stand for anything it claims to
“Trump is the president for peace, Biden will start WWIII!”
Parroting fox news: “we don’t need to be so friendly anymore, we need to take Canada and Greenland by force if necessary.”
“Trump will bring down inflation and the price of food!”
Parroting fox news: “It’s our duty to pay higher prices to support American businesses!”
“Trump and the GOP represent the party of law and order, they will protect the constitution!”
“What Trump says goes, anyone obstructing his plans are traitors! He deserves a 3rd term! He who saves his country breaks no laws!”
MAGA stands for anything that gets them what they want in the immediate moment and then tosses it away when their needs change… It’s infuriating.
Still no fan of tankies.
So say we all.
Come over to anarchism (libertarian socialism). Anarchy isn’t lawlessness; it’s as close as we can get to true democracy. Not this 2 party bullshit. Government AND Corporations and People shouldn’t tread on us. The government should serve the needs of the people and protect their rights from other people.
Side note, if you describe it as Anarchism and avoid saying “left”, “liberal”, or “socialism”. You might be able to reach loosely right-wing people who would otherwise turn off at any of those words.
Thing is, the economists are right about free markets being a good idea; and free markets depend on a certain kind of regulation to exist. The trouble with capitalism is that it’s never been a reliable ally of freedom of any sort; going back to the origins of capitalism in the private funding of colonial slaver monopolies. The association of capitalism with free markets is largely propaganda; capitalism started with colonial slaver monopolies like the VOC; to a first approximation every firm wants to be a monopoly, and a great way of doing that is political corruption; see today’s USA.
But there’s a reason every government since ever — from empires to democracies — has done things like standardize weights & measures, build public goods like roads to enable trade, and establish courts of law to enforce contracts and fair dealing. Those things are really good ideas! And I’m not sure I can credit the left-anarchist proposals to replace them any more than I can credit the anarcho-capitalist ones.
Mutualism sure has some nice ideas though.
I would love to read more of this differentiation between free markets and capitalism, and the links to the slave trade, if anyone would feel so inclined to throw a book recommendation my way
For a start, look at the history of major companies traded in the first stock markets, such as the Dutch East India Company (VOC), the British East India Company (EIC), the Hudson’s Bay Company, etc. These were colonial ventures, but they raised money through the sale of shares traded publicly.
However, they were not subject to competition in the market, as they enjoyed legal monopolies and used military force. They also frequently employed slave labor.
Isn’t that just the (American) definition of liberal? That the market works, if restricted and guided enough by the state, so it works in the right way?
Anarchy means “without leaders”, not “without order”.
That is something so very many get wrong, either unintentionally, or because they’ve been told that lie constantly by a hierarchy hell bent on ensuring people can’t think of any other way things are done.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail appeared to have the most accurate representation of anarchy *I* have seen in modern media (that flavor wouldn’t work for a large government though). A fucking satirical comedy no one would take seriously. All other references I’ve seen about anarchy seemed like “fuck the government” was the entire ideology.
I’ve veered mostly into mutualism for awhile. Indavidualist anarchy is a sucker’s game. NOBODY can do everything alone.
Building networks and community? That’s just… what people do.
I was a bit by the libertarian bug in college but what got me is just where you draw the line and it can never deal with economic inequality. Even if you started in perfectly level field it will lead to massive inequality eventually.
Confronting them with the flaws in their thinking only makes them double down:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/202401/why-do-people-double-down
Thanks for chiming in, Genocide Jordan.
You guys must hate it when I point this stuff out:
Which is why direct confrontation is always a bad idea. You basically have to guide them into coming to the correct conclusion on their own without overtly trying to convince them.
If they won’t change their mind, is doubling down any different than continuing to believe what they already believe?
They actively reject the evidence and believe what they want to an even greater degree.
How is the outcome any different when the end result is them continuing to hold the same opinions contrary to evidence?
Doubling down makes them even more entrenched, then they start believing CRAZIER things.
I mean, this is psychology, not politics or logic. When someone is told not to do something they feel they have the right to do, they are more likely to do it. When someone is told they’re stupid when they have been trained to feel correct and logical, they are more likely to stand by that belief. If a figure that they have developed a vicarious, parasocial relationship with is validly criticized, they will denounce the critic as if it were an attack on the core of their being, rather than agree with the critique.
These right-wing beliefs are like psychological parasites, ticks. The only correct solutions are to remove it with surgical precision with a careful plan. Prodding it and squeezing it is what you instinctively want to do, but that just makes it dig in further.
People think that they are rational, but rational thought has virtually nothing to do with right-wing beliefs. Instead, it’s all about feelings. They believe whatever they feel is true, and bury themselves in echo chambers where everyone believes the same things, so that they aren’t confronted with cognitive dissonance.
They believe whatever they feel is true, and bury themselves in echo chambers where everyone believes the same things, so that they aren’t confronted with cognitive dissonance.
And, importantly, have convinced themselves that anyone arguing against them is doing the exact same thing. Classic projection.
When their alt right beliefs bite them in the ass they don’t change their mind.
What kind of careful approach do you think is going to magically work? Why would any approach make anything better or worse when they won’t change due to direct negative impacts to themselves from their own actions.
Well, a single action is never going to de-program these people. You ask why any approach would make anything better or worse, but I noted why certain approaches make things worse. I don’t know how to affirmatively convince these people, but I’d say a necessary (even if not sufficient) condition to making things better is not making them worse.
Cool, cool. Let’s placate the bullies and hope for the best!
Can’t tell if you’re talking about religion or conservatives.
Just kidding, it’s the same mental weakness being exploited in both groups.
It’s like Trump himself, saying bullshit like it’s the first he’s ever heard of it or whatever.
I’m in the middle of pulling a chat friend out of his programming. His only real problem was being raised in Texas by a Good Ol Boy single father, and once he got out from under his dad’s wing, he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn’t lining up with reality.
He started out as an incel, but now he’s in therapy and has a girlfriend.
I think of it less as ‘converting’ and more just holding his hand while he figures out that his dad’s advice was complete horseshit. It takes forever, and not everybody has the spoons to pull it off, but I do, so I will.
a man of high logic, far easier to convert than majority of them.
Your bias is showing. Intelligence isn’t necessary to be left wing. Change is hard for everyone and requires emotional intelligence, not IQ.
No it isn’t & I didn’t say anything about IQ.
He said
he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn’t lining up with reality.
to realize this is a man of high logic
Please could you define what you understand by “high logic”?
Personally, I’m only familiar with “higher-order logic” as defined in maths. So for me, someone with “high logic” has the ability to interconnect and solve complex problems, which is one of the key skills measured by IQ tests.
Realising your beliefs and reality do not align doesn’t require complex logical reasoning, so for me the statement you quoted doesn’t mean high logic.
yea that’s the joke
