Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-11-2016, 11:02 PM)taramarie Wrote: "are they interested in responding in kind?" we cannot know but we will never know if we do not pursue a kinder approach first. I was blocked by Eric who thought I was attacking him because I wanted him to listen to people and their viewpoints. I did get frustrated I will not lie. Some naturally will be set in their ways like Eric. But we must look at these people as individuals who are not all the same. They will have their own individual reasons why they appear racist sexist whatever. Talk to them. Do not shoot them down. Do NOT get hostile with them. Like Eric they will harden and double down on their beliefs. It is that simple. If the gentle approach does not work with some well you cannot win them all. But lets see. It may be a wiser method than what people have currently been doing.

Well, I would suggest bigots aren't interested in civility in mutual respect, almost by definition.  What is a bigot after all?

But there are multiple approaches to how one communicates one's values, on this issue and perhaps any such values clash.

Eric and others engage in strident flame wars.  I tend to agree his approach isn't overly constructive.  The response to a partisan's rant is apt to be a partisan rant coming right back in the other direction.  You are absolutely correct that this doesn't tend to be constructive.  It rapidly shifts from issue talk to personal insult to mutual character assassination.  Still, it continues indefinitely with volume and intensity.  I can only assume that both groups of extreme partisans take some sort of pleasure in listening to each other talk, or perhaps listening to themselves talk might be closer to the core.  I sometimes wonder if it is less about values, more about an enjoyment of hate.

If you wish to try other approaches, be my guest.  It takes all kinds.  That some prefer one style of communications doesn't suggest that other approaches have no merit.  I'd just suggest that convincing all blue folk to use the same communication style might not be any easier than convincing red folk to listen.

As an INTP, an engineer archetype, my goal is often to perceive a problem so clearly, to describe it so well, that the other guys have to drop one of their arguments, to retreat to another line of defense.  Success might be having someone not post for a few days, and when he returns he uses a different angle or shifts to another issue entirely.  I don't really expect to turn red folks blue or blue folks red.  I don't even expect most folk to concede that their point was flawed.  A lot of folk will never admit flaws in their world views.  Success has to be implied.  A few days silence and a change of subject are cause for silent celebration but not gloating.  A few months silence followed by a switch from Jr. High level simplistic marxism to falling in line behind a Robber Baron makes it harder to avoid gloating.  

It might be akin in feeling to World War I ground combat.  Taking one row of trenches isn't going to win the war.  You know they are just going to retreat to the next row of trenches and continue a slightly different fight.  Still, when partisans are truly well dug in, that's usually about all one can do.

Sometimes this requires blunt clarity.  If you listen to what they are saying, and you know their thinking is flawed, it is often possible to place one's rhetorical chisel precisely on the flaw then swing one's hammer hard.  Using this approach to full effect doesn't call for a dainty tack hammer suitable for upholstery.  Sometimes one wants and needs a sledge hammer.

Not always.  Some red folk actually get into moods where they listen on occasion.  When that happens, the kinder gentler approach is called for.

In this conversation on bigotry, the broad discussion might be between "political correctness can be and has been taken too far" and "there are true out and out bigots out there, quite active, who must be checked".  I'd start by conceding that political correctness has been taken too far, nod approval to rolling it back when appropriate, but to separate nitpick overuse of affirmative action or insults that might have been more imagined than real as not comparable with burning down churches.  I'm looking to give ground when appropriate to give ground, but to maintain focus on the real problems of violence and prejudice.

I'll be as polite as I can be without losing intensity and focus, but the nature of the problem suggests that the intensity and focus is required.

If you didn't live through the awakening, this might be a bit hard to understand.  By all means, though, try your kinder gentler approach.