As in, not known to you IRL.
I’ve occasionally brought it up before, but a while back in my reddit days I was in a thread where a “professional deprogrammer” had popped in and was talking about how to “deprogram” conservatives and get them to shift left in their views. It centered around restoring their sense of community and belonging with more balanced viewpoint folks IRL and away from their online echo chambers.
I asked them if they had any way to convert someone you encounter wholly online and they said that it was basically impossible, IRL you have a decent chance, but not online.
I’ve been thinking about that quite a bit, so now I’m curious if anybody here has actually gotten an online conservative to come to the dark side light side?
I’m conservative, but I’ve never seen it happen in either direction. Internet arguments are more about the audience than the tankie you’re arguing against.
Have you considered that you’re wrong?
When I was a teenager, yeah. Came out more conservative.
To be fair, it’s kinda unusual to all of a sudden be convinced that it’s ok to be racist, like exploitation, and be against helping the unfortunate.
In my limited and personal experiane. What Trump has done has given people an OK to be their worst selves…
Some people have always been gigantic pieces of shit and just needed permission to stop being polite.
I know right? Especially when the other guy is convinced he’s not being racist and he’s helping the unfortunate, like most lefties.
The irony of this is amazing. You have it so backwards and the worst thing is, you don’t even know you are wrong.
I disagree with you.
However I would like the full version of that argument. Please.
I don’t this will lead anywhere productive, but alright, first let’s get our terms straight. Racism is prejudice based on race or discrimination based on that prejudice. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Right now, there’s this out-group bias. I’m not saying it’s all lefties, but some, even in the government, which makes it systemic. For example, the UK Grooming Scandal, or how in America, illegal immigrants in NYC get housing for free when Americans don’t. (I would very much prefer it the other way around, Americans got housed for free, (Or no one at all, because the government is always corrupt, and they’ll just use it an excuse to funnel taxpayer money to landlords)). Hell, there’s lefties who think we shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants! Even after they commit a crime other than illegally immigrating! For more examples, take a gander at the scholarships available, how many are minority specific? Plenty. How many are majority specific? None. How about homeless shelters? How many are women specific? Plenty (Which is a good thing). How many are male specific? Few. (Which is a bad thing) Hell, the entire saga of Earl Silverman and the first domestic violence shelter for men in Canada is heartbreaking.
I can go on, but it gets tiresome quickly. All of it is pretty racist.
For the second bit, the whole “not helping” bit.
What do you think happens when you send aid to 3rd world countries? Especially on going aid? When you send shirts, those shirts devastate the local textile industry. When you send food, it hurts the farms. Yeah, sure, you could subsidize those local industries, but that quickly spirals out of control. Which factories get funds? How much are the local warlords getting out of it? That sort of thing. If you aren’t fully funding everything for an indefinite period of time, then you’re hurting them.
That’s not to say don’t help in an earthquake or other natural disaster, but it’s gotta be a light touch. Help them back on their feet and then let them go on their way.
We are still in disagreement because you’re splitting hairs to try claiming you’re a good person, and I’m not.
As I said before. We are in disagreement. However I appreciate that you showed at least some of your work.
What hairs? I don’t think I’m splitting any hairs, or getting anywhere close.
I’m not a conservative and I agree with you.
Well, this has got to be one of the only things I’ve ever upvoted from you, but yea
I’ve certainly taken that approach with the tankies these days, I used to debate them, now I don’t really because its pointless. I reply to them every time, but it’s arguments for the audience more than anything.
When I was petitioning for !conservative@lemmy.world to turn it into a satire comm, one kind of comment I saw come up was “if they don’t have a comm where we can argue with them, how can we get them to see the light?” (And before anyone brings it up, yes there are other Lemmy spaces (and a whole instance! (HilariousChaos) that are for “serious” conservative comms like !conservative@sh.itjust.works) and I still think it’s pointless to try because of what I covered with the opening post, but I was really hoping for at least a rare case of it happening.
Responding once, twice at most, is the best way.
I think we can’t convince anyone because if you’re arguing with someone online, they’re probably trolling you if you are saying something honestly. Internet spaces are so segregated that someone who comes here to argue, is probably not arguing in good faith.
Yeah, I have started to bait and be quite a jerk to people who are arguing in bad faith. But never in a drawn out way. I pop in, call them out for bad faith and jet.
Frankly, that’s how you should deal with argumentative people in real life, tell them you don’t want to play their game and then go find another one.
This is the answer.
Providing a rebuttal to a comment doesn’t convince the commenter of the flaws in their reasoning.
However, when silly ideas are consistently rebutted it creates the feeling that the general consensus feels that it’s a silly idea.