How do you negotiate with crazy people?

[andrewducker]

• 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.
• 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
• 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
• 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
• Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

From

I mean, I know a lot of, say, Conservatives in the UK have beliefs I don't agree with.  But the vast majority of them, so far as I can tell, just have different experiences to me, and different opinions about how things should be organised.  They don't believe that the leader of the oppositon is the fucking antichrist, or other things that can be disproved by 30 seconds with Google.

Comments

[meihua.livejournal.com]

Wow, those simpletons are fucking idiots, right?

Well, no.

Their idea of "political engagement" is different. They don't really care much who is in Washington as long as that person gets the hell off their lawn, in every sense. They aren't particularly interested in whether or not that person's a socialist, or a Muslim, or whatever. What seems like a really important distinction to us is irrelevant to them and it's not based on the same level of judgement. It's more like asking, "Is Tom Cruise a golfer?" Well, uh, I dunno. Don't have a clue, don't really care. Maybe? I'd probably tick a box marked "might be a golfer".

And the mainstream political discourse completely excludes them. It's all about "is this plan or that plan good for the nation". But most of them couldn't give a fuck about this or that plan - they don't want any plans at all, they want Washington to shut the hell up and stop giving them plans.

So when the few people who understand that, who speak to them, say, "Hell with these damn Washington politicans and their socialism", then, well, obviously that's who they'll listen to. "Socialism" is redefined to mean "Letting my neighbours use my lawn". "Facism" is redefined as "Telling me what to do with my lawn".

It's perfectly reasonable and I'm sure that if I lived in the South and had similar political priorities, I'd come out with some of the same kind of things.

Ok, so some of the antichrist stuff is harder to swallow.

But damn if I'm not fed up of this kind of "haha lol they so stupid" analysis of the voting priorities of those who have been identified as "Republican".

[andrewducker]

Nobody is judging every Republican. I'm talking about the 45% who believe he has no right to govern because he was born abroad (with no evidence to back this up). The 57% who think that because he's got a funny name and a different colour of skin he must be a Muslim. The 34% who believe that a mythical source of all evil sent him to earth to bring about the apocalypse.

If people want to have a small government and think that voting Republican will get them it then they're merely completely ignorant of actual behaviour of the previous Republican administrations. If they want to believe blatant lies and idiocy then they deserve to be called on that.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

If people want to have a small government and think that voting Republican will get them it then they're merely completely ignorant of actual behaviour of the previous Republican administrations. If they want to believe blatant lies and idiocy then they deserve to be called on that.

I don't think this is a very kind or accurate way to understand it. You have massively more information about the US political parties than most Americans. If you live in middle or southern America (and this is true elsewhere, but particularly in these areas), and if you believe in everyone's power to realise their dream through hard work - which many, many do - then you receive two kinds of messaging.

1) Posh twits laughing at you
2) Down-to-earth people saying common-sense things such as, "making everyone buy insurance is bad!". And also saying other less common-sense things, which get associated with the common-senseness of their other actually common-sensical opinions.

A third category is desparately required - down-to-earth people saying common-sense things who don't also say crazy shit.

Right now, you're a posh twit laughing at them, you're part of the problem.

[andrewducker]

So I'm a twit. And I'm laughing at people.

Good way to engage there. Insults and accusations.

I'll be happy to engage with you when you're not behaving like that.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I'll just sit in the naughty corner then.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Cas. You're acting like a twelve year old. I know that you're better than that.

[asim.livejournal.com]

I'm not laughing. You likely read my post yesterday. I take this current turn real damn seriously. I grew up and now live in the Southern US. The idea that this is "All about hicks" is disquieting, and as simple as you accuse Andrew of being.

This in't about them being stupid, and I don't know where you make this out to be just hicks. We have, here in America, People in Congress saying these things on National TV, pushing resolutions about Birth Certificates and the like. We have a cable channel devoted to passing these ideas along. We see these ideas reporting in the overall media, and not always debunked. These ideas are EVERYWHERE, now.

Moreover -- to argue that we should give people a pass because they are NOT reasoning, not seeking knowledge, seems an odd way to debate an issue that is literally causing people to revert to activities and behaviors we decided to reject as a cultural decades ago. You'll agree that ignorance is no excuse for breaking laws, right? Then, in like fashion, is ignorance no defense against pointing it out.

If, in truth, the core of the GOP and Tea Party ethos is Individual responsibility, then how in all that's Holy can you then say it's someone else's responsibility that they lack these points of basic knowledge? Isn't it incumbent upon them to learn? Isn't it incumbent upon Nationally-known elected leaders they look up to -- far more than just one -- to not promulgate ideas such as Birtherism?

By your lights, I feel like no one should have called out McCarthy, because hey! He was just ignorant. And I fear for a discussion that starts from any premise like that. I strive mightily to be civil in my political discussions, but there's a line that must not be crossed, and people who hold these beliefs are crossing it. I just kicked someone off my Facebook today for wishing the President would die. and that's not the only incident like that's I've personally seen recently.

So, how, exactly, do we approach this, given that I don't even see where Andrew mocked them?

[meihua.livejournal.com]

So, how, exactly, do we approach this, given that I don't even see where Andrew mocked them?

Man, I don't know, I wish I did. And I agree absolutely with everything you've written here. There's a whole system of shit going down over there and it's coming from voters and media and influential politicans and companies and just everywhere.

I don't think this is "just hicks" - and if it seems like that's what I'm saying, then, I haven't expressed myself very well, because that's almost my point - it's not just hicks. It's not even just voters. It's everything, all pushing this misinformation at once. And in that situation, I think it is tough to make up one's mind.

In fact can I just link this comment, because this says what I want to say:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1998022.html?thread=13454790#t13454790

That's not the same meaning I get from the original post which is just more ammo for the "whoa those dudes are stupid" stuff. Who's writing these surveys which show these results? Who's interpreting them? If I speak to 100 Americans, do 14 of them really think that Obama is Satan's minion?

Easy to post those surveys, easy to believe them, easy to laugh (or get angry) at Americans for believing what the surveys imply they believe. I don't think they believe that, I give them more credit.

[asim.livejournal.com]

I don't think they believe that, I give them more credit.

Then we're at a crossroads. They do believe it. I've met them. I've debated them, as much as one can. I had to confront a damned contractor at my house over spewing this stuff! And there are a lot of them, including critical media figures.

Here's a report on another poll. Here's a report on polls from New Jersey on the topic. Another national poll by the same outfit -- and I assure you, I can go on.

This is not a joke. Not a misinterpreation of one poll. It's widespread, it's deeply embedded, and it's real. Please understand that, if nothing else.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

Btw - I'm also cool with yelling at people with stupid politics, and indeed kicking them off facebook or whatever. I mean it's not a duty to engage in negotations with people who are stomping on your head, and anyone's got the right to scream "FUCK YOU" at them, I know I do often enough. But if one wants to talk to them... hell, thinking of them as crazy is just a really bad place to start. They think what they think for reasons, they consider themselves rational person, they have consistent worldviews. If one wants to "negotiate" - then that's all gotta be taken into account.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Even judging that large percentage is pretty sweeping though. Assuming (and as noted earlier, I think it's a dubious assumption), that these polls are an accurate assessment of republican views, does it really seem likely to you that such a large number of people are stupid or "crazy"*, rather than that they've got a hugely different set of inputs and influences?

*as an aside, as someone who has suffered from fairly severe mental illness, I'm not keen on using crazy as shorthand for "has views which I find stupid/repulsive/incomprehensible"

[andrewducker]

I can judge their opinions. I don't blame individuals for holding opinions that are clearly reality-divergent, I blame the system and society they're brought up in. but I can certainly hold a person responsible for not looking into things in more detail and attempting to educate themselves (whilst bearing in mind the social and educational environment that they come from).

I'm certainly not laughing at anyone. I'm bloody furious at the system/culture/media, not at the individuals on the ground. What I want, as the original post said, is a way to negotiate with people whose beliefs and opinions are based on lies and mythology.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

Dude, I totally agree with you here, and if the OP had said this, I wouldn't have commented in the first place. Quoting those surveys without any analysis is... out-of-place, somehow, and feeds into the general snobbish UK geek-culture narrative of "those americans are stupid". If I saw more comments like the one I'm replying to here and less reposts of polls without context then I probably wouldn't go off on this stuff.

[andrewducker]

Could you try to avoid going off anyway? Or go off in your own journal? I don't mind you saying (as Wildeabandon did) that these things are generally biased, etc. I'm all behind being corrected on my stupidity. I just react badly to anger directed at me, particularly if it feels like it's based on things I didn't say.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

That seems fair enough, although I think your modifier in parantheses is important - I've spent my entire life being taught to question things, and can't imagine whether I'd be inclined to do so otherwise.

What I want, as the original post said, is a way to negotiate with people whose beliefs and opinions are based on lies and mythology.
Understood, but a good place to start would probably be a)not calling them crazy and b)trying to understand why they've come to their views and beliefs on that basis. Exasperating as Cas's comments may have been, their suggestion that there need to be people espousing facts and sense in a way that isn't simultaneously sneering at people who don't initially agree is a good one.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

with no evidence to back this up?

They have plenty of 'evidence' for these claims. They keep being told it by their leaders, their columnists, their politicians. That's their 'evidence' they trust the people who tell them this stuff, so they have no need to go check it.

Just like you believe this article by John Avlon which may or may not be slanting the interpretations of the poll to make a point but is largely a plug for his book. Note that I don't know what spin he has put on the figures, but nor do you. And that Andrew, is the problem here. We all believe the people we want to believe. And as you demonstrated a few weeks ago, how the question was asked makes a difference to the answers received. 'Obama is a Muslim, agree or disagree?' will get very different answers to 'What religion is Obama?'

[andrewducker]

They keep being told it by their leaders, their columnists, their politicians. That's their 'evidence' they trust the people who tell them this stuff, so they have no need to go check it.

And I object to that on a terribly deep level. I don't trust my leaders, my columnists or my politicians. It's obvious with only a little experience, that all of those people can lie, be corrupt, and be mistaken. I listen to people from "the other side" a fair bit, and I deliberately read around to try and get a balanced view. If you're only ever reading your side's view on things then you're asking to be taken advantage of.

And of course the polling isn't perfect. It never will be. But this is hardly the first time I've come across figures like this, and it isn't contradicted by any of the data I'm getting out of the USA.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

That's very interesting. Even though I'm still anxious about some of those statistics (even if the real proportions are much lower), I was literally unsure how some of those points took hold, and that's a good explanation of how someone could be thinking (that I might or might not still think it's awful, but at least can understand what people DO want, rather than just treat them as incomprehensibly hopeless).

[meihua.livejournal.com]

Also remember the complete information vacuum in the States. Everything is opinion pieces, nothing is raw information. The media and politics combine into an endless soap-opera with narratives which are told to kids in primary school. Someone who didn't grow up there just can't have any idea what it's like - and I speak as someone who didn't, by the way, so my understanding is likely flawed as well.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

But isn't there a responsibility on voters to attempt to find stuff out? If an opinion piece here were to say "50% of people believe Gordon Brown is a socialist" I'd think that 50% were (unfortunately) misinformed and want to do a bit of digging under the headline.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that there's a responsibility on middle-American voters to figure out what "socialism" means in UK political discourse and change their own definition to match that? Or do you mean that they should be better informed on the ways in which the current US administration's policies differ from socialist policies?

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

The democratic system gives those with no interest or knowledge the same voting rights as those who form an opinion. I've never been convinced this is a good thing. But what are the alternatives - some sort of qualification or permit to vote? That sort of elitist idea is never going to get far.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I mean that any voter in any jurisdiction should be prepared to find out enough about their candidates/leaders to come to an informed conclusion (whatever that might be). Perhaps "socialism" is the worst example I could have chosen from the above list (and I only chose it so I could have a go at Gordon Brown for not being an adherent :-) but to take a different one, as far as I'm aware, from what I've read as an interested outsider, there's no evidence that Mr Obama is ineligible because of his place of birth and considerable, easily available, irrefutable evidence that he was born in Hawaii and therefore is indeed eligible. There isn't a complete information vacuum on this issue, it seems to me, just an unwillingness to look at what's available and think about it critically.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

They aren't particularly interested in whether or not that person's a socialist, or a Muslim, or whatever.

No, sorry, you're wrong here. This is dead fucking serious to a lot of Americans. America has had exactly one President who wasn't a Protestant Christian, and we killed him, and I think it'll be a long time before we get another. Mitt Romney's religion (he's a Mormon) is a major factor in why he's unlikely to be run by the Republicans. Religion in American politics--religion in America, period!--matters in a way that you probably have trouble understanding on a visceral level. It is flat out not equivalent to "golfing" in the way that you wrote it off to be.

We're still fighting about whether evolution versus "God created it all" ought to be taught in our public schools because of religious beliefs. Ditto "abstinence only" sex education vs. education that actually teaches things, ditto whether or not pharmacists have a religious right to not dispense prescribed medicine that they have a religious objection to, ditto the place of homosexuals in society (second class citizen or "to be converted"?), ditto ad nauseum.

You asked in another comment whether or not, if you went into the US and asked people, you'd really find 14 out of a 100 people who said that President Obama "may be the Antichrist"?

The answer is: In some areas you'd find far fewer than that. In other areas you'd find it to be a widespread, hardheld conviction. Of course the same thing can be said in America about snakehandling, spontaneous healings, speaking in tongues, feng shui, the imminent Apocalypse, and people rising from the dead.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

The religious aspect is one thing I constantly forget. Thank you for reminding me, and yeah, I totally withdraw that.