I found myself in the middle of a political conversation. It was wild.
I went back and forth within my own mind on doing a video about this, I had one up for a bit then took it down... I'd have to dance around who I am talking about to talk about what went down and try to avoid the drama... but here, not so much. I'm still not naming names mind you... but this blog is only known or read by a few people at best... so I'm pretty safe to say whatever here. If ya know, ya know.
So the otherwise scientific person said that all Trump supporters/defenders are assholes.
Wow. Really? Like... all of them? Yep. Also that Trump is a fascist. He liked posts that seem to be "on his side" and made fun of anyone/everyone who he thought was on the "wrong side". Yikes.
Yet, in the video he simply said a few things about Harris, that's it. What he wrote in his description was rather nasty towards Trump, but he didn't say such things in the video. He just gave positive reasons to vote Harris.
So... what's up with the disconnect between that and the comment section? In the comments he was all to happy to insult anyone who he thought was an "asshole" and thought that they didn't deserve facts or that they didn't care about them. He was being very inconsistent. I pointed this out. He didn't seem to like that much.
So I showcased how to respond to claims made, at least from my view. Someone made a claim that Trump was more in favor with the population then Harris, I asked how they knew this and where that info came from, the otherwise science minded person who made the video simply said they were in a bubble and didn't know what was going on. They assumed that person was a Trump supporter and thus, not worth his time or energy to debate, educate, give facts to. He said that facts don't matter in this case feelings do - yet the video does not reflect that.
What is going on? Super mega cognitive dissonance between my video says things that (might) be facts about (X) person so you will vote for them... however my comment section I'm going to go full dumpster fire mode and just insult anyone who I think is on the "wrong side".
Madness. But one person stepped into the light, as it were, to say that they realized they were in fact, being a bit loose with language and asked me some questions that were insightful and thanked me for the civil exchange. So, logic can work, does work and so does reason.
I dove into looking for if insults work at all (click) and why political beliefs are hard to challenge (click) as well as the claim that the "truth does not matter to them" (that turns out to be slightly true it seems) (click)
My assumption before looking at any of that was that politics can act like religion does, infecting our minds with the ideas of the party we are part of, there are the symbols, traditions, the in-group, the parallax between politics and religion is very close I think.
Although the last two links are articles they seem to be supported by some science. As far as not liking or caring about truth - if you identify as a single person, rather then a group, its seems to be easier to speak up. (So thus identity politics would consume much of if not all of your ability to speak up perhaps)
But, in short, his ideas that we should insult - are not supported by these things - maybe there is something out there that shows that insults "work" - that is, they do change minds. Or they do convince people. However, given that the reason some people care so much about politics is that they make it part of who they are, then insulting them (or the politics) will not, and can not change the view they hold. At least if you present the truth and do so with good intent - maybe you have a better chance. Clearly insults do not forward anything at all and only act to make it more of a battlefield of words.
In fact, a few people commented on how the "liberal" was having "TDS".
Does it do anyone any good if you or other people of "your party" call names of the others?
What harm is there in taking the high road?
Well Trump = EVIL OMG END OF WORLD THIS TIME FOR SURE. Oh. Well, then that super mega justifies using tactics that have no support to show they work?
... I guess so, perhaps the scientific minded person should have looked into what convinces people to change ideas and proceeded to do those things, rather then use his feelings to justify more feelings he had.
I do not know, and can not know if my comments changed anything. I encoraged logic and reason to be used in a space that seemed to not be using it. It effected perhaps a single person. So...well, that's not nothing.
Maybe once the science guy's head cools down he can go back to doing science stuff. If not, then I guess I'll have to watch other peoples stuff to learn science stuff. If I want politics - there are plenty of channels out there.
IDK. Its just... weird and wild. Reminding me, once again - we are all human and subject to falling for beliefs, be they religious or politic, we are all subject to black/white ingroup think - we are not above that, we are in it. In full. Whatever it is you will not question - that is the thing that is the thing you must question the most. "Trump = evil" if that is your key belief, then that is the one you must challenge the most.
We must, I suggest always use reason and logic in our conversations. Yes, you can be emotional, but temper that with logic and reason. Else, madness.
Anyway... I'm going back to religion where I can make sense of things.
Oh also if you want to know who I'm voting for... well come on you should know the answer by now.
....
Lobsters!
