andrewducker | How do you negotiate with crazy people?

How do you negotiate with crazy people?

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

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.

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.

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.

I'll just sit in the naughty corner then.

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

Well, no, not really. I don't actually feel particularly harshly towards

andrewducker here, but this post could do with some gentle mocking.

I think it's likely there's a bit more going on here than my tone being outrageous and hurtful. One, it's not - "twit" is hardly on a par with the amount of scorn

andrewducker is pouring on those "idiotic" Republican voters - and two, it's not like "those crazy Yanks" is an uncommon narrative in geek circles. What does it take to uproot that?

Do you have a better suggestion on how to respond to, "I think you were mean so you are wrong"?

Nobody is saying "I think you were mean so you are wrong". What I am saying is "You are not engaging in a way that I find likely to lead to any kind of useful results. I have a lot of other things I can spend my time on, responding to insults and baseless accusations is not on my list of priorities."

I never insulted any individuals, and accusing me of laughing at people because other people do isn't going to get you very far either.

Dude, I think that if I was one of the Republican voters you're discussing and I and read this, I'd think you were a posh twit laughing at me. That's not the same as me thinking you're a posh twit. Because you're asking, "How do I negotiate with them", I'm trying to represent what - to my best understanding - are the problems of going in with that attitude.

I'm really not trying to insult you here.

(no subject)

andrewducker - 2010-03-24 13:22 (UTC) - Expand

There is a difference between his refering to the views as idiocy, and claiming that they're all idiots - plenty of smart people believe stupid things. (c.f. our past selves - probably also our present selves)

Do you have a better suggestion on how to respond to, "I think you were mean so you are wrong"?
"...so you are wrong" != "...so I'm not willing to engage whilst you're behaving like this". A better response to the latter is "Okay, here's my point without the insults".

I don't agree with you here and I'm not sure how to explain in what way. I think we've got a really different approach to this kind of conversation.

I think the problem that you're falling into is another one of stereotypes. The idea of Democrats and anyone agreeing with them being posh twits is the same exact kind of stereotype as the toothless Republican hick. It's false and basically derailing to the argument.

The way we deal with these sorts of situations is to continue as is being done, and to offer good news sources and truth to dispel misinformation. Yes, it sucks that polling shows that some people hold some really ignorant views. But some of those views are anywhere near as crazy if you look at them through the lens of authoritarianism. The mindset that supports the Republican party most fervently is going to divide the world into two camps. Us and The Other. Obama is The Other, and he's in a place of power, and he's the leader of the opposition, and for a long time the religious right in America has been pushing the idea that the end times are coming.

In that light, suspecting that he's the anti-christ, while still pretty goddamn despicable, seems like a lot less water for them to cross.

It is reasonable to say that such people are crazy, because there's no way you can engage with them in the debate of 'is Obama the anti-christ' and such. But it is probably a better idea to offer better information instead of calling them crazy.

(no subject)

meihua.livejournal.com - 2010-03-24 13:44 (UTC) - Expand

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?

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.

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.

Ok, I didn't express myself very well, and I'm sorry, because man, is this complicated. I'm trying to say loads of stuff at once.

I've met them too, ok? I've had those conversations though not in person, and eep. Good luck with that contractor.

And I know it's widespread and that the polls are, in some ways, accurate. But they're so damn misleading when they're posted without context.

I don't see how you can put an option into a poll of "Obama is the Antichrist" unless you've got an agenda. Every one of those polls is a weapon designed to achieve an agenda, whether that's bolstering a sense of superiority, or cheerleading a fan base, or spreading misinformation.

I'm sure that the basic statistics as shown in the polls are more-or-less accurate. But the stories they tell, embedded in the highly selective context they are posted in, are tapping into large cultural narratives such as:

"Americans are stupid"

"The current government is illegitimate"

"Christians are under attack"

So when I say I give Americans more credit, I mean... it's not about being stupid. Or about having been clearly confronted with nice simple facts about birth certificates and wilfully believing something else.

Am I managing to make any more sense?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

I want to take this in the context of lots of the conversations we've had here, not just on this post. In this post I'm not angry, and that the communication appears to have anger in it is probably based in that context. In many of the other conversations, actually I have been angry sometimes because you were doing things I perceived to be really unhelpful and harmful to me and people I really care about!

So in that situation... well, I dunno. Do you expect me to pretend not to be angry? Or not to get angry in the first place?

I know that it's no fun being yelled at, I don't like it either. I respond to it pretty badly too. But when I've pissed someone off, well, they're going to be angry with me, right?

I have no control over your emotions, and I wouldn't want to control them. Your emotions are yours.

Your actions, on the other hand, are things I feel I do have a right to talk about, and to react to. And I feel justified in asking people to refrain from certain actions in my journal, no matter what their emotional state might be.

If you feel terribly angry about something and want to express that in an aggressive manner then I'd suggest that your journal is the right place for that :-> If you feel terribly angry about something and are willing to engage in an assertive manner then I'm very happy to engage with that.

Of course it's not as simple as that, and I generally try to err on side of engagement, because I don't want to end up not listening to people just because they're angry. But there are definitely limits to my energy, as I'm sure there are to yours, and I know that both of us are a lot less drained when we're not shouting at each other :->

(no subject)

meihua.livejournal.com - 2010-03-24 14:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

andrewducker - 2010-03-24 14:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

andrewducker - 2010-03-24 14:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

meihua.livejournal.com - 2010-03-24 14:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

wildeabandon.livejournal.com - 2010-03-24 15:11 (UTC) - Expand

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.

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?'

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All