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 getting there with my coworker although I wouldn’t quite call her conservative; she voted for the NDP in Canada where we live as we are both union members and that’s who we vote for, but she loves Trump, but in this crumbling hellscape of the last few months and the tariffs he’s hollering on about on Canada, she doesn’t like that because she can’t cross border shop. She says he’s gone rather loony although she still likes him.
However, she isn’t stupid, and she watches all sorts of news from all over and doesn’t just blindly believe in the cult. The last few days I have explained dark money to her, and how it fuels elections in the US for both parties and how basically the Koch brothers and all the Tanton network groups fund Trump. I gave her some articles to read, and she’s starting to get it. I didn’t put it from the perspective of hating trump, just that she should know how these things are funded for everyone (the Democrats are no stranger to dark money either and just because the groups they funnel it in under sound sunnier and less racist doesn’t make them any less sketchy), and how the political landscape is manipulated that way. I am finding she’s listening to this, and coming away with a better perspective, rather than trying to explain why he’s totally wrong. Dark money is a topic I recommend to everyone to learn about, because these elections in the US are being bought by dark money.
Most people do not respond to a single argument or fact. They accumulate multiple experiences. This is why the shift happens gradually for most people instead of instantly when they are confronted with facts.
I think contrapoints on YouTube 100% convinced me there is nothing strange or weird about trans people. They are just people and the way society treats them is wrong and we need to change that.
Not to say I hated trans people before but I didn’t know much about it and Natalie did a thorough job explaining in a way that was easy to understand.
I don’t argue with conservatives online to try and change their minds. I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument. For every social media user that posts content, there are a thousand lurkers. I post arguments so hopefully some of those lurkers might change their mind away from nationalist authoritarianism
I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument.
This is why I would labour to keep arguing until either I get last word, or the interlocutor clearly runs out of good arguments. You can’t reason with people who never reason themselves into an idea to begin with. But you can convince the readers that the idea is dangerous and to keep away!
Yes, and this is generally how it works:
- Establish that you care about their perspective, and truly mean it. Most people can sniff out insincerity.
- Start asking good faith questions about their position. If their beliefs are misguided, they will begin stumbling upon the flaws on their own. It’s okay to guide them gently with the questions, but don’t try to convince of them of any particular viewpoint, and don’t tell them they are wrong either directly or indirectly. That can undo any progress you made. Just focus on encouraging them to deeply analyze logic that you recognize to be flawed.
- Only offer your perspective / opinions if you are asked directly. If you’ve done #1 and #2 well, this should start happening. I recommend understating your opinions. You don’t have to lie, but keep rants to a minimum and use soft language.
- Be consistent. No one changes their world view overnight. It takes planting seeds, watering them consistently, and waiting.
P.S. If you are doing this correctly and with an open mind, there’s actually a good chance you might change your opinions on a some things, and that’s okay (as long as they aren’t harmful). It also can show them by example that opinions are flexible and should be based on evidence, not the other way around.
Thank you, that’s very insightful and useful.
Yes, however…
- Many people you meet online are not, strictly speaking, people.
- Of the remainder, many are there for a reason.
I would wholeheartedly agree with the deprogrammer with one clarification: “known to you IRL” refers more to anonymity than to whether your interactions take place online, and the reason for that is important to consider.
I was raised super conservative, and the two biggest steps on my journey to the left were Jon Stewart Bernie Sanders
Jon got my attention by pointing out the hypocrisy that did in fact exist on both sides. It gave me a space to exist where I wasn’t just called a wrong dumb redneck and dismissed, but felt like he was actually trying to meet me where I was. That allowed me to let my guard down and actually listen to what he was saying.
Bernie Sanders came along in 2016 at a point where I would’ve called myself a centrist and basically did the same thing. Non judgmentally gave me a space to exist, listed some topics I cared about, then gave me a cause for them.
People don’t like being told they’re wrong. You cannot debate someone out of believing what they believe. What you can do is ask them questions. Get them to consider why they believe what they believe, and eventually they may start seeing contradictions and change their mind on their own.
No, they have ego issues that prevent self reflection.
I drifted slowly from right-libertarian to a more leftish position: pro-union, pro-social-programs, skeptical of the compatibility of unregulated capitalism with individual freedom. Still no fan of tankies.
This wasn’t from anyone sitting down and trying to convince me, though. Part of it was discovering how close right-libertarianism had always been to white-supremacism: some old Ron Paul newsletters were unpleasantly enlightening. Part was seeing people who called themselves “libertarians” line up with the far right to support state violence, especially against black and brown people. And heck, part was from getting richer and seeing how that worked.
I have a lot of sympathy for the frustrations that get young men into right-wing positions and occasionally I try to puncture some of the nonsense they’re being fed.
I was also right libertarian, although I have been called a fascist for that, , anyway I shifted from that slowly into anarchocristianism and I will stay here. I just don’t believe in government anymore only in communities and obviously in God but that’s another story.
I just want people to have their needs covered, to have strong sense of communities (love your neighbors) in non violent environments and I think human government is inherently violent either physically violent or economically violent. Jesus spoke of all this.
What I think people needs to understand is it’s not the same to be left in the US than in Spain for example, different countries have different kinds of issues caused by different ideologies. So it’s easy to understand why someone in Germany loves worker unions but in Spain don’t because in Spain the biggest ones (UGT and CCOO) work for the government (the so called Leftist Psoe)
anarchocristianism
To me this means Dorothy Day or Tolstoy. What does it mean to you?
Same but mostly Jesus.
I think most of us who were previously more conservative leaning and who became more liberal just… actually have integrity, to be honest.
When we said we believed in individual freedoms for example - we meant it. MAGA gives no shits about freedom. There are practically endless similar examples because MAGA doesn’t stand for anything it claims to
Too many American right-wingers use “freedom” to mean “I get to impose costs on you; you don’t get to impose costs on me.” It’s not equality; it’s strictly positional. Look at the association of “freedom” with shitty driving for a little example: “I get to threaten you on the highway, pollute your air, tear up the land with my off-roading … but taxing my gasoline is on offense to the Founders.”
There are practically endless similar examples because MAGA doesn’t stand for anything it claims to
“Trump is the president for peace, Biden will start WWIII!”
Parroting fox news: “we don’t need to be so friendly anymore, we need to take Canada and Greenland by force if necessary.”
“Trump will bring down inflation and the price of food!”
Parroting fox news: “It’s our duty to pay higher prices to support American businesses!”
“Trump and the GOP represent the party of law and order, they will protect the constitution!”
“What Trump says goes, anyone obstructing his plans are traitors! He deserves a 3rd term! He who saves his country breaks no laws!”
MAGA stands for anything that gets them what they want in the immediate moment and then tosses it away when their needs change… It’s infuriating.
Still no fan of tankies.
So say we all.
Come over to anarchism (libertarian socialism). Anarchy isn’t lawlessness; it’s as close as we can get to true democracy. Not this 2 party bullshit. Government AND Corporations and People shouldn’t tread on us. The government should serve the needs of the people and protect their rights from other people.
Side note, if you describe it as Anarchism and avoid saying “left”, “liberal”, or “socialism”. You might be able to reach loosely right-wing people who would otherwise turn off at any of those words.
Thing is, the economists are right about free markets being a good idea; and free markets depend on a certain kind of regulation to exist. The trouble with capitalism is that it’s never been a reliable ally of freedom of any sort; going back to the origins of capitalism in the private funding of colonial slaver monopolies. The association of capitalism with free markets is largely propaganda; capitalism started with colonial slaver monopolies like the VOC; to a first approximation every firm wants to be a monopoly, and a great way of doing that is political corruption; see today’s USA.
But there’s a reason every government since ever — from empires to democracies — has done things like standardize weights & measures, build public goods like roads to enable trade, and establish courts of law to enforce contracts and fair dealing. Those things are really good ideas! And I’m not sure I can credit the left-anarchist proposals to replace them any more than I can credit the anarcho-capitalist ones.
Mutualism sure has some nice ideas though.
I would love to read more of this differentiation between free markets and capitalism, and the links to the slave trade, if anyone would feel so inclined to throw a book recommendation my way
For a start, look at the history of major companies traded in the first stock markets, such as the Dutch East India Company (VOC), the British East India Company (EIC), the Hudson’s Bay Company, etc. These were colonial ventures, but they raised money through the sale of shares traded publicly.
However, they were not subject to competition in the market, as they enjoyed legal monopolies and used military force. They also frequently employed slave labor.
Anarchy means “without leaders”, not “without order”.
That is something so very many get wrong, either unintentionally, or because they’ve been told that lie constantly by a hierarchy hell bent on ensuring people can’t think of any other way things are done.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail appeared to have the most accurate representation of anarchy *I* have seen in modern media (that flavor wouldn’t work for a large government though). A fucking satirical comedy no one would take seriously. All other references I’ve seen about anarchy seemed like “fuck the government” was the entire ideology.
I’ve veered mostly into mutualism for awhile. Indavidualist anarchy is a sucker’s game. NOBODY can do everything alone.
Building networks and community? That’s just… what people do.
I’m in the middle of pulling a chat friend out of his programming. His only real problem was being raised in Texas by a Good Ol Boy single father, and once he got out from under his dad’s wing, he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn’t lining up with reality.
He started out as an incel, but now he’s in therapy and has a girlfriend.
I think of it less as ‘converting’ and more just holding his hand while he figures out that his dad’s advice was complete horseshit. It takes forever, and not everybody has the spoons to pull it off, but I do, so I will.
a man of high logic, far easier to convert than majority of them.
Your bias is showing. Intelligence isn’t necessary to be left wing. Change is hard for everyone and requires emotional intelligence, not IQ.
No it isn’t & I didn’t say anything about IQ.
He said
he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn’t lining up with reality.
to realize this is a man of high logic
Please could you define what you understand by “high logic”?
Personally, I’m only familiar with “higher-order logic” as defined in maths. So for me, someone with “high logic” has the ability to interconnect and solve complex problems, which is one of the key skills measured by IQ tests.
Realising your beliefs and reality do not align doesn’t require complex logical reasoning, so for me the statement you quoted doesn’t mean high logic.
yea that’s the joke
I just humour people when they tell me political opinions I don’t agree with. No one ever changes their minds.
absolutely not and i imagine the same is true for leftists.
Don’t know if I’ve ever done it, but it was done to me.
So, it’s obviously possible.
I’m pretty amused by the mix of comments where people are offering up themselves as irrefutable evidence, while others proclaim with certainty it can’t be done. Actually a humbling perspective see people who’ve convinced themselves trying to convince others I don’t exist.
Well it can be done, IRL, and it does seem as though it can be done online as long as it’s across a time span of years and a deep well of mutual respect to lean on.
I struggle with how to word my thoughts about this, but online, text-based communication seems to always start out being interpreted as negative in its messaging. So those reading tend to assume the sender is being disingenuous from the start.
That’s why it may take longer to deprogram via online methods than in person. Online, we have to first get past the perception that we are disingenuous or mocking the reader. It’s not easy to do when right-wing propagandists have fed them a steady diet of tribalism and mistrust for the last couple of decades (at least).
In person, we can verbally relay those things we can’t accurately convey in text with nonverbal cues: emotion and sincerity. It can also be easier to cut off misunderstandings before they can reinforce those negative assumptions by gauging someone’s nonverbal communications in the moment, something we can’t do while they read our words.
It’s weird cause it can feel like it takes a month of chats online to equal the same progress as chatting in person for an hour. I made the time comparison up, but I’m sure you understand my meaning. Trying to do this online is just time-consuming and that’s not to mention the person you are talking to has to WANT to discuss these things with you.
I just wish it was easier for me to stomach the bullshit and vitriol IRL.
Would you mind sharing more details on your experience?
Like, was it a single person that got you thinking, or feedback from a group?
Is there a particular conversation that you remember as the start of change, or rather a gradual shift over time?
Did/was something happen(ing) in your personal life at the time that made you more open to hearing another opinion?
It was a confluence of things.
And to set the stage, political leanings are complex. There is a tendency (insistence, I’d even say now) to collapse a 10 dimensional notion to 1D. At the time (myself, and what conservative parties were offering) aligned on a retrospectively narrow majority of dimensions.
I’d really drank the capitalism kool aid. You work hard, you get rewarded. The role of the government is to facilitate the opportunities by putting business is a favourable position to incentivize the creation of opportunities to create jobs. Poor people don’t want to work; if the jobs are readily available it’s on them for not participating.
I’d also really drank the baseless vibe Kool aid. “Conservatives are good at economy” “Conservatives are for personal freedom”. These associations were unchallenged through my youth. You spend 20 years internalizing those “truths”, it’s nonsensical to expect to convince someone otherwise in minutes.
I grew up in a rural area. It was just accepted as truth. There were no homeless people in my sightlines. I understood their experience as much as I understood the experience of a kangaroo.
I moved to the city, and my friend group was a mixed bag politically. Nobody too far in any direction, and politics wasn’t a major topic of conversation.
I did have a gaming buddy, though, full on communist. Super smart dude. Loves Talking about politics. Usually voice chat. A few times a year he’d be in town and we could meet for lunch or something.
I think eventually I would have shifted my perspective organically as a function of just having a broadened perspective, but he was certainly the catalyst.
Things I took as true, he’d say “no” and have data to show it. We’re men of an era, so I wouldn’t say he was “nice” about it, but it was never personal attacks.
We would (and still do) argue. At length. It wasn’t an overnight thing. It was a years thing.
When I mentioned earlier about the many constituent pieces of a political leaning, those really just got dismantled one by one. Or, shifted. I still think personal freedom is important. I just now reject the idea that conservatives offer policy to support that value.
Nobody has asked, but I think the key for me was to not make it about identity. Show how your values don’t map to the political party you think you support. When I’d challenge, he would respond directly. If we were talking about… I dunno… Taxes, and he felt like I was making points that he didn’t have the greatest answers for, he wouldn’t just change the subject (but her emails!) kinda thing. He loves being right but he had the integrity to not switch gears just to “win”. That built a lot of trust.
It was probably a few years before I actually ever read any backing sources he ever provided. But eventually, I was just too curious. If he hadn’t built that trust I don’t think I ever would have.
I don’t think anyone can flip someone with an identity-based political association in a single conversation online. If the relationship is transient, there is no trust.
You gotta charge up the person’s curiosity level. I think many people can contribute to that, though.
People who trip over themselves to make broad statements about how stupid and terrible you are for how you voted reduce the curiosity. People who respectfully engage with curiosity, avoiding identity attacks raise it.
And, it’s not just me who believes this. Putin does, as well: it’s the playbook for destabilizing western democracy. His troll farms are designed to get people to just snap at eachother and write eachother off as terrible people and lost causes.
Before deleting most of my Reddit stuff, I had a good conversation with a conservative about climate change. They pulled out all the standard right wing talking points, and I tried to remain respectful as I provided sources that refuted every one. One they threw out that I hadn’t heard of at the time was “global wobbling,” which I had to look up. 10- minutes later, I responded, with sources, saying that it was yet another thing the right throws out to confuse the issue for voters, but something climate scientists are well aware of and can measure and predict. At that point, they thanked me for all the info and said they had some reading to do. That’s the best I’ve ever gotten. Don’t know if they changed their view, though.
I’d like to stay optimistic and hope they did as well, though if my own experience is any indicator, there’s equal chance they fell into the pit of “Maybe climate change is real, but it’s not that bad/it’s better for me.”
Ill be honest, thats a victory in itself. Creating a crack isnt a loss. Its progress. As small as it may be. A damn doesnt fail because of a meteor hitting it. Its a crack here, a fracture there. It adds up.
The resiliency of that mentality isnt impenetrable.
Confronting them with the flaws in their thinking only makes them double down:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/202401/why-do-people-double-down
Thanks for chiming in, Genocide Jordan.
You guys must hate it when I point this stuff out:
If they won’t change their mind, is doubling down any different than continuing to believe what they already believe?
They actively reject the evidence and believe what they want to an even greater degree.
How is the outcome any different when the end result is them continuing to hold the same opinions contrary to evidence?
Doubling down makes them even more entrenched, then they start believing CRAZIER things.
