politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So I think those are tangentially related to the reason rural areas are conservative, but I think the biggest single factor is exposure to people who think and believe differently but are nonetheless good people.
My experience of rural people and conservative culture more broadly is the importance of tribalism and the tribal cultural bubble.
The more people are confronted with people who think differently, the more tribal thinking begins to break down.
So the internet and education are both really valuable tools if used correctly, but they can certainly be engaged with without ever addressing the underlying issue.
Hate is a lack of imagination.
I get what you are saying, from a "knowledge of power" point of view, but isn't the reality that they just dig in their heels and double down on their current belief systems, versus having to deal with confronting the new ideas and reshaping themselves to them?
Trust me, I want you to be right, and I do believe the same way that you express, but human beings, especially the uneducated ones, have a vast ability to ignore the reality around them, if they want to.
They certainly can dig in and the is no single solution for this. Over the years, I've helped many people adopt a more progressive worldview. I don’t have any debate tactics or strategies, because I’ve never come across any that worked for me.
That said, I can briefly share where I’ve found success. To begin with, it’s important that people know I’m on their team. This is usually accomplished by building a friendship on neutral ground, most commonly a shared hobby or interest.
In the confines of trust and friendship, I usually speak up when I disagree about an assumed worldview or political stance. By this time, they usually know me as a person and recognize I’m probably a little more ‘hippy’ than they are, so they’re not shocked or surprised when I disagree.
I never push beyond that vocal disagreement, however. If they ask for more, I explain why I believe what I believe. Over time this civil disagreement and discussion can become its own foundation for friendship.
The catch is to avoid what my brother calls firehosing, where I just inundate someone with all the reasons I disagree. There is usually a long list and people can find it emotionally traumatizing to have their worldview utterly pummeled by hitherto unknown facts and information. It makes them feel defensive and angry that they have no genuine response.
So I try to allow them to set the tempo of the discussion and stop whenever they’re unable to process further.
I lived in Lauren Boebert’s district of Colorado for many years. I know people who personally campaigned alongside her. I still know some of the most insane, disconnected people you’ll ever meet.
From that crowd I helped a several break out and become genuine champions for progressivism. Some of them are just less rabidly conservative than they used to be and still others are largely unchanged, but have at least learned that not all liberals are out to ruin America. The trick is to persuade without coercion, which is so difficult when the stakes feel as high as they are right now.
My best friend was a gun toting Republican who thought Democrats wanted to destroy the country when I first met him. Now, he’s sold off his guns, believes Democrats need to be more progressive and works in a courthouse to help those who need it most. He’s an incredibly smart guy and most of his growth is entirely his own, but he needed the help of a trusted friend to open him to the possibility of thinking differently.
Well written response, thank you. And I appreciate your efforts, thank you for that as well.
I'm glad you found it helpful. I love people and this process can be incredibly rewarding. More often it's deeply frustrating as people ignore arguments or roll over assertions rather than engage with the idea.
Sometimes you just want to shake people when they miss your point entirely.
But patience often bring new opportunities for increased understanding.
People tend to want to argue to just win (what I call the "Internet Warrior") versus argue to find a solution to a problem.
Which is too bad, because if done right, humanity is a great differential engine, where you put in all different data points in one end of the engine, and you get a consensus out the back end.
But you only get out what you put in, and everyone wants their own personal pound of flesh and victory, versus striving for a common good.
Thank you! I’m genuinely surprised and gratified anyone other than the OP saw the comment.