you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you're trying to express your political beliefs politically, you are already at a disadvantage. The average person would love to discuss politics with you if you stick to concepts and discuss things without reference to political labels and language. This can be difficult to do if you've mostly absorbed your political views from rhetoric without spending much time to refine them, but if you have a coherent worldview it's not hard to discuss politics in a "nonpartisan" way, so to speak. People are much more open minded and willing to listen if they get the feeling that you are trying to have a conversation with them rather than forcefully persuade them to this or that position. Dialogue also makes what you say a lot more effective in comparison to rhetoric. It's also worth noting that discussing politics is nowhere near as troublesome as you would be led to believe - people are typically willing to listen to anything, so long as you express it calmly and reasonably. Asking others how they feel about this or that aspect of US politics can also be a great way to start, especially if you can tactfully make them feel reassured that you will listen to them honestly and without judgement.

Of course, the average person has little to do with the average psychotic ideologue, who may react with moral indignation to the very idea of discussing something that falls slightly outside the leftist Overton range. In that case it might be worth probing how those people think. If they know lots of leftist terminology, get their political news at Chapocel House or signal a leftist ideologue background in some other way, you are probably better off not bothering with them. Alternatively, if you don't give a shit you can just try to talk politics with them anyway and then downplay the importance of the conversation if they react badly.

Your environment also matters. If you're working at a university or some other progressive, middle class environment, it will be difficult to find people who aren't already extremely opinionated. In any case, it's preferable to remain professional and impartial in most workplace situations. It's difficult to bring up politics in a group discussion without it devolving into a shouting match anyway, so there's not much point in that over a more personal approach.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Leftists will typically tolerate some wrongthink from others that they believe are more left wing than them, so that's possible. You are probably being selective with which elements of your politics you are discussing, though.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Motte and Bailey strategy is useful for probing people. But instead of the "hard to defend" item being complete bullshit, use something that is hypocritical, double standards, etc, e.g. respecting Indigenous rights, use Aboriginals or Aborigines, or whoever, and then apply it to Europe. Get creative with it. This often wakes people up because they just agreed with the logic of something identical right before, then they're forced to re-align or go into cognitive dissonance.

    [–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Personally, I prefer not to have my arguments hinge on liberal democratic or leftist framing. It's better to approach things from a personal perspective, if possible.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    More tools in the toolbelt. Whatever works.