I think a good starting point in having rational discussions and solving problems, is to acknowledge what are facts and what are fictions and conspiracy theories. In the words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts”. I live in a very red rural area, packed with the MAGA fa…
I think a good starting point in having rational discussions and solving problems, is to acknowledge what are facts and what are fictions and conspiracy theories. In the words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts”. I live in a very red rural area, packed with the MAGA faithful, and I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people make statements that are obviously and demonstrably wrong and counter to fact, but you cannot convince them of reality with any amount of information, because they have become conditioned to believe that anything other than that issued from the mouths of Trump, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, etc. is “fake news”. If Trump says the world is flat, then the world is flat. If Tucker Carlson says that blue is red, then blue is red. It is just that easy for them.
I, too, live a rural part of the country that bleeds red. There's no getting through to most of them, at least not if you choose the traditional rhetorical strategy of arguing from a fact-based position. That is, as you note, a losing proposition. I learned this the hard way a few years ago, so I've started taking on a different tack, and though I haven't had any redneck smack their heads in recognition of the error of their ways, I have had decidedly more willing listeners. I don't start with facts, I start with opinions, like "I don't trust the guy because he's cheated on every wife he's ever had." "I don't like the guy because he makes fun of disabled people like my son." "I wouldn't let him within 50 feet of my teenage daughter," "He's never supported a policy that has done a lick of good for middle class white guys like me," and so on. They can argue with facts by simply asserting "alternative facts." But opinions? Hell, those are fool-proof. "The Donald is a whack job, and I don't trust anyone whose skin glows." Do you see what that approach does? It disarms your interlocutor. They don't know what to say, and in some cases even manage to register a twinge of recognition that someone is speaking to them from a normal world they once inhabited. In other words, you fight fire with fire. Try it. It works!
I think a good starting point in having rational discussions and solving problems, is to acknowledge what are facts and what are fictions and conspiracy theories. In the words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts”. I live in a very red rural area, packed with the MAGA faithful, and I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people make statements that are obviously and demonstrably wrong and counter to fact, but you cannot convince them of reality with any amount of information, because they have become conditioned to believe that anything other than that issued from the mouths of Trump, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, etc. is “fake news”. If Trump says the world is flat, then the world is flat. If Tucker Carlson says that blue is red, then blue is red. It is just that easy for them.
I, too, live a rural part of the country that bleeds red. There's no getting through to most of them, at least not if you choose the traditional rhetorical strategy of arguing from a fact-based position. That is, as you note, a losing proposition. I learned this the hard way a few years ago, so I've started taking on a different tack, and though I haven't had any redneck smack their heads in recognition of the error of their ways, I have had decidedly more willing listeners. I don't start with facts, I start with opinions, like "I don't trust the guy because he's cheated on every wife he's ever had." "I don't like the guy because he makes fun of disabled people like my son." "I wouldn't let him within 50 feet of my teenage daughter," "He's never supported a policy that has done a lick of good for middle class white guys like me," and so on. They can argue with facts by simply asserting "alternative facts." But opinions? Hell, those are fool-proof. "The Donald is a whack job, and I don't trust anyone whose skin glows." Do you see what that approach does? It disarms your interlocutor. They don't know what to say, and in some cases even manage to register a twinge of recognition that someone is speaking to them from a normal world they once inhabited. In other words, you fight fire with fire. Try it. It works!