Politics. How to better communicate tough topics.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by robini123, Jan 19, 2022.

  1. Pants

    Pants Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    12,811
    Likes Received:
    11,214
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Some of the most interesting and enlightening conversations I've had have been with folks who's views differ from mine. I learn a lot - and I hope they do too. But it comes down to sharing views with that goal specifically - NOT trying to prove the other wrong. And I think that's where is devolves here at PF. It seems to be an imperative that one side needs to belittle and prove the other side wrong rather than learn about the views of the other.
     
    robini123 likes this.
  2. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meh, good luck with that. Too many people have an agenda.
     
    robini123 and RodB like this.
  3. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, but meh, "can't we all just get along?" whine, whine, whine.
     
    doombug likes this.
  4. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,396
    Likes Received:
    26,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are a boulder among rocks.
     
    robini123 likes this.
  5. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    May I suggest another idea? Shift the topic a bit by breaking it down to its base parts. Argue the underlying ideas of an issue and then once common ground has been achieved then talk about the big issue.
     
    rjjj likes this.
  6. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. This is why it is important to have no loyalty to either side as loyalist will come to predictable self-serving conclusion.
     
  7. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, such praise. Not sure I am worthy of it but I sure do appreciate it. I am use to being told how stupid I am.
     
  8. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you are on to something here. Can you give me an example?
     
  9. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    sure! This one that keeps coming up in the threads about trans athletes. Instead of talking about trans athletes themselves I like to focus on what the International Olympic committee said about trans athletes and ask people to explain why the IOC says trans people can compete. In that sense we’re still talking about trans athletes but now we’re talking about something unrelated and forcing ourselves to talk about the idea of an unfair competitive advantage. Rather than trans people themselves.
     
    robini123 likes this.
  10. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So true. Although I would say the agenda is not always the problem. For example my current agenda is to learn and I have learned much by debating on this forum. So obviously context is important here. When I first joined this forum my agenda was to promote my partisan conservative views… which led to predictable negative ends. Once I abandoned my partisanship and shifted focus to learning, my experience here became much more illuminating and productive.
     
  11. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A wise approach. Thanks for the example.
     
    Kranes56 likes this.
  12. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It’s no problem! I’m happy to give an example.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2022
    robini123 likes this.
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even that is difficult. I agree that communicating why you believe something is more important than trying to debate and win someone over. I've been on this forum over a decade and I doubt anything I've written has ever changed anyone's mind, but the challenge now, and it's growing more difficult by the day, is communicating your worldview so (hopefully) someone can understand why you believe as you do.
     
    robini123 likes this.
  14. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I absolutely agree.
     
  15. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is good. You are open minded but sadly a minority here.
     
    robini123 likes this.
  16. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Politics are mostly about emotional projection of one sort or the other. Some of it is better dressed than the rest, but it all boils down to the same. The most effective way to communicate is to say nothing until you have listened to the other side and thought about it for awhile and figured out why the people on the other side believe what the believe.
     
  17. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lots of really good ideas here.

    I have found that treating people with respect is always best for encouraging a meaningful dialogue.

    Other things that work for me ....

    Sharing personal experiences relating to the topic. For example, here recently ...

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-your-gun-defensively.596269/#post-1073205131

    I have shared my own experience with having Covid, my own experience in having a son at war, my experience as a law enforcement officer, etc. These experiences may or may not serve to persuade, but they should at least show WHY you believe what you believe, as opposed to just political dogma.

    A little self-deprecating humor helps put people at ease I think.

    If you can find something you have in common with the other, that can be an opening to respectful discussion. I know a poster whose point of view is as far from mine as you can get, but I know he lives in the same state as I do. I usually start out with him with “Hey neighbor.”

    And when there can be no agreement on an issue, I like to think that still, at least the other guy read it, and MAYBE that plants a seed. I honestly think that where we stand politically, especially we older folks, has been an evolution over years. And a part of that evolution is partly from hearing the other side of things.

    Cheers!

    Seth
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,230
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm perfectly willing to rebut arguments that are weak, contain logical fallacies, wrong data, noting that I, too, may be guilty of same, we all strive to find the truth.

    Civility is all important, but it becomes difficult when confronted with 'non arguments'.

    However, if someone replies and the salient aspect of their argument relies on what I call a 'non argument', which come in many flavors, I just attach an inventory list of them, with check marks to the ones they violated in the rebuttal. I'm not willing to engage because, in my view, to do so is fool's errand. People who do not know how to frame a debate, they just aren't fun to debate. You can be civil with them all you want, but you'll still get the same treatment, in my experience.

    The operative concept is the word 'egregious'. We all engage in small debate sins. But, egregious non arguments are pervasive on internet forums, and if each of us can strive to recognize them, perhaps we could do less of them. Of course, no doubt I'm dreaming, but one can dream, can't he?

    There are probably more, noting some overlap, but these are those I've noticed over the years:

    Non arguments are those arguments that, in my view, do not deserve a serious, diligent, response.

    We all do them to some extent, but the issue is centered around the question:

    Does all or the salient part of your argument rely on any one or more of them?

    Lazy one-liners to a post that was digilent and detailed with substance and backing.
    Vacuous declarations and/or allegations
    generalized vacuous declarations and/or allegations which cannot be substantiated
    Weasel words ('everyone says' "they say" "according to experts" etc., excessive vagueness)
    Ad hominems ( to your opponent(s), their group(s) or another or others in the forum
    Loaded terms and phrases
    Off topic deflections, off point, etc.
    Non-sequitur and/or unnecessary tangential replies (overlaps off topic, etc)
    Rant words of sentiment, words that reveal vague emotional attitude devoid of fact, reason & logic
    Egregious strawman arguments. Modest strawman I respond to.
    Off-the-charts illogic ( though bad logic, weak arguments, etc, I respond to).
    Kill-the-messenger/kill-the-source where it's clearly isn't warranted. Gatewaypundit, The Wonkette, are warranted, but not NYT, etc.
    Cheap shots, childish or sophomoric rhetoric
    Thought-terminating clichés, cult-tropes (TDS, fake news, leftist loon, etc), demagoguery
    Pithy aphorisms that don't really work.
    Posturing ( two types) and both equal self - puffery
    A. The negative type: talking down, shaming, patronizing, mocking, flaming
    B. The false positive type: inapplicable expertise/authority/credentials, etc., not pertinent to the subject at hand.


    Please understand there are numerous logical fallacies. These, in my view, just reveal a weak argument or just plain wrong argument. Of course, this doesn't presume my arguments are perfect, or correct, either. And....

    A weak or wrong argument is worthy of a rebuttal. It's the whole point of debate.
    Whose to say your or my argument is right? We're here to hash this stuff out.

    It's the 'non argument' where all or the salient aspect of the argument relies on them (listed above) that I do not care to engage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
    robini123 likes this.
  19. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,466
    Likes Received:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You and I don't agree on much, but on this we are in full agreement.

    For @robini123 -- I try to make my comments the same as they would be if the person to whom I'm replying were sitting across the table from me. I don't always succeed, but I do try.
     
    robini123 and Condor060 like this.

Share This Page