Only at funerals, weddings and confirmations , every other arena for political discussion is off limits for me.
I think fascist is the most accurate label I can put on MAGA-- but only as I understand that word. We had a thread on what it meant and there is no common understanding, apparently. So it's useless for public discussion. Populist is alright, but not as full-orbed. Idk, maybe, but you're not in my ignore list. I think you always post what you really think, which I appreciate even if I don't agree.
Which isn’t a bad thing when pretty much all of it is just utter nonsense. I, admittedly, have to get better at not clicking on that “show ignored posts” button. I’ve ignored them because what they post 99.9999% of the time adds nothing to any conversation. There’s just no point in trying to engage with some of them and so it’s simply easier to just ignore them all together. I’m perfectly fine having a conversation with many of the right leaning posters here. I got my degree in Poli Sci in the late 90s. Had profs on both sides of the aisle. I loved politics and wanted to get into law but life took me in another direction. I often wonder what the classes are like nowadays. Might be one of the toughest programs to be a professor in now, just because of the movement to the further left and right. Classes must be crazy these days.
I only ignored a few people and they were trolling in the Astros sub forum. I don't ignore people here because some contribute good stuff in other sub forums it's alot different. Like posters like @fchowd0311 who I almost never agree with makes some good posts about Jalen Green. @DaDakota rages inhere but tries to post Rocket content. . You don't see guys like @adoo anywhere else though. He's a shill who comes straight here and posts left propaganda. That's a troll
Depends on who you are having that conversation with .... The problem in this place is that it's filled with people who would rather die on their hill than change their mind when confronted with facts. There aren't many moderates or independents in this forum.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Populist, maybe the last mainstream one? This s!!t ain't that kind of Populism. This is very close to whatever you'd call Pinochet. Without the "Disappearances" and all, but I bet his ICE is all over that task.
Like anything, I think there is a cost benefit analysis that changes from time to time. I stayed out of D and D in the first month or so after the election. I was and am still disappointed and angry with the Democrats and certainly didn’t want to come here to read MAGA gloating while posting owning the libs nonsense. After a few weeks, I felt like coming in here to see the topics. Eventually I started reading, albeit less than before. I think @droxford ppsted something like this. I come in here to read new perspectives from both sides, just like how I open the Fox News app to see what the lunatics are being fed. Here are things we need to know. There is one poster who I disagree with about nearly everything, but he posted useful and interesting information about the Ukraine war that was highly educational. I like reading posters who aren’t mainstream. I can’t remember his name, i suck at that, but there is one dude who declares libertarian, and lots of people get pissed off because they think it is actually fake libertarianism and a guise for Trumperism. I seem to recall he is a lawyer and writes fairly well. Astros123 is very interesting because he rants like a lunatic, but also posts great content if you can get through the noise. There are several others who are interesting. And then there are the elite posters who are professor like in thought and demeanor, the most useful reading. Those are the Juan Valdez’s of the world. Even the braindead people are somewhat interesting because they are a reminder of what is out there. You know, it’s the folks who post and @ the other 3-4 morons in that pack, and then they circle jerk about the latest culture wars thing. It is useful to know people are like that. It explains a lot about the political landscape.
I actually disagree with you on this. One of the root causes of where we are today is that family members stopped confronting and challenging each other. Instead, half of this country has time and time again bitten their tongues to “keep the peace” while their family members belonging to the other half have descended into a rabbit hole of misinformation, hate and grievance. Yet when you think about it, who’s more likely to change someone’s mind and without any kind of ulterior motive? Some pundit on TV or video blogger? No, a family member is the obvious answer. It’s often uncomfortable and awkward to have these conversations, although I would hope we’re all less inclined to use charged language and insults toward family. But because we know these people more closely, we can more easily tie our arguments so that they address their values and other important beliefs. We can’t expect the politicians and pundits to change their hearts and minds - it’s up to us to do so in our own daily lives. And sometimes that means telling (or even better, showing) what people who would “give you the shirt off their backs” that their political (or other) beliefs are deeply problematic and based on disinformation. My parents are on the same side of the political spectrum as me, so I’m well aware I have a much easier time having rational political conversations with them than someone whose parents are committed MAGAs. But I’ve never hesitated challenging their beliefs when I believe those beliefs are based on bad data, much to my sister and wife’s chagrin sometimes. They’ve done the same to me, much to my sister and wife’s delight. If we are indeed committed to the preservation of our democratic republic, its values, and its people, we are obligated not to simply “live and let live” with those who wittingly or unwittingly would destroy it due to fear or misinformation. Rather than wait to until we’re facing off with arms, better to have the hard conversations now.
I would summon up all the courage and patience and train them to use a chatbot like grok or perplexity. It's slowly being weaponized on X, so a research time on asking rigorous and unbiased questions while adding riders to questions you might miss would go a long way. (what are the counterclaims,opposing points of views, and opposition sources? What degree of confidence do they have for accuracy?) If you all know it'll be weaponized at home over time, after letting them know how it works, settle on asking general prompts you both can agree upon that's fair and repeatable. It's pretty much a moderator and you can lay ground rules like you both admit you don't know all the facts in the situation and other stuff like a handshake at the end, etc... This will settle the initial rage bait slop paw pahhh finds on facebook or ****head carlson, but there will be inevitable," the question is wrong or grok doesn't know (Big Tech Deep State!!!111)". This is because they've been breathing and seething Tucker's ass-to-mouth bullshit for nearly a decade. Ask them, "we both read it now we can ask it more why you think it's wrong so we can see why". There will be times when the old geezer will be right because media has blind spots and deliberate coverage blackouts (such as details about Laken Riley), so I would approach this with the initial agreement to both admit to not knowing all the facts. Techniques used: Individual-Level Critical Media Literacy Development Individual training in evaluating information sources and recognizing manipulation tactics represents one of the most promising personal interventions. Research suggests that enhancing critical thinking skills helps individuals resist misinformation regardless of ideological alignment. This approach focuses on developing the ability to distinguish reliable from unreliable sources, a fundamental skill in navigating post-truth landscapes2. While literacy training requires sustained effort, it creates long-term resilience against misinformation. Accuracy Prompts and Reminders Implementing personal practices that prompt consideration of accuracy before sharing information shows surprising effectiveness. Studies have demonstrated that simply reminding individuals to consider accuracy significantly improves their discernment in sharing. Research from MIT revealed that "getting people to think about accuracy makes them more discerning in their sharing, regardless of ideology" and that most people (around 50%) share false information due to inattention rather than malicious intent11. This intervention is particularly valuable because it addresses one of the primary mechanisms of misinformation spread. Cognitive Empathy Development Practicing understanding others' perspectives without necessarily agreeing with them helps break down "us versus them" thinking that often characterizes post-truth discourse. Cognitive empathy isn't about feeling the same emotions but rather understanding "people's predicament as they understand it"1. This approach recognizes that beliefs will "seem rational within their perspective," providing a foundation for meaningful dialogue across epistemic divides. Small Groups (2-10 People) Peer-Led Discussion Groups Creating small groups with trained peer leaders who facilitate evidence-based discussions shows promising results in combating misinformation. Experimental evidence indicates that "peer-led online community groups may help to reduce the spread of misinformation" and can create supportive environments that encourage evidence-based reasoning3. The social dynamics of small groups allow for trust-building essential to changing entrenched beliefs. Deliberative Dialogue Using Bridging Rhetoric Small group discussions employing "bridging rhetoric" acknowledge differing perspectives while seeking common ground. Rather than focusing solely on facts, this approach recognizes that persuasion often requires "looking for areas of overlap between opposing sides" and taking seriously "the outlooks of an intended audience that is different in key respects from the speaker"15. The effectiveness of this approach stems from addressing the emotional and identity-based aspects of belief formation. Collaborative Fact-Finding Groups working together to investigate claims rather than debating pre-formed conclusions can transform adversarial interactions into joint inquiry. Research on vaccine-hesitant parents suggests they often aren't indifferent to facts but have "misplaced trust" and actually "put in more (not less) effort into verification"9. This insight suggests that collaborative investigation may prove more effective than confrontational fact-correction.
