No. That’s a poor way to do it. They have very clear ideas on why things are like they are, and for the basis of their racism… they’re wrong ideas, but they’re extremely clear. Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
If that’s a poor way to do it, maybe you have a better way, what is it?
Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
I really can’t make heads or tails of this sentence.
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
I don’t disagree with gentle pushing. I’m saying what your idea is not going to push them at all, nor will it be taken as gentle. Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
Also going into the points they aren’t as sure on, proving them wrong, has given me a great basis of getting them to admit they’re wrong. It’s all in tone of voice. Not being a dick about it.
Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
Just gently question those: oh, why do you think this? What do you think of those people who have another opinion? Keep pulling on whatever they give.
No. That’s a poor way to do it. They have very clear ideas on why things are like they are, and for the basis of their racism… they’re wrong ideas, but they’re extremely clear. Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
Why would you think it’s without knowing they got intoxicated by fake news?
That’s the point, you think they have wrong ideas, so you push them gently to increase the chance that they will question them by themselves.
If that’s a poor way to do it, maybe you have a better way, what is it?
I really can’t make heads or tails of this sentence.
I don’t disagree with gentle pushing. I’m saying what your idea is not going to push them at all, nor will it be taken as gentle. Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
Also going into the points they aren’t as sure on, proving them wrong, has given me a great basis of getting them to admit they’re wrong. It’s all in tone of voice. Not being a dick about it.
You said this:
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
Soap box <— We have not been here for about a decade. Very, very, very few people who voted right wing are still capable of being swayed by almost anything you say, and the effort you put into it, likely isn’t worth it. More Republicans approve of him now 87% to 92% than they did in his first term.
Ballot box
Jury box <— We are here.
Ammo box