9 ms·

That's real optimistic of the Guardian but somehow I doubt there's all that much grass roots support against rendition flights. We live in an age where "Muslim

That's real optimistic of the Guardian but somehow I doubt there's all that much grass roots support against rendition flights. We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus.

knz 9y ago
> We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus. So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Much of the country is purple not red and blue - if you can have a respectful conversation with someone you can find common ground on these issues. And show up on election day. The First Amendment exists for a reason - "we get the government we deserve" applies to those of us who chose to stay informed as well if we don't respond to the challenges of the day.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  >So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Not trying to be facetious, but I'm incredulous.
  - knz 9y ago
    Yes, very much so with some individuals. I have friends and family across the political spectrum and we regularly talk about the issues of the day (always in person, social media is a horrible platform for this). I've had success educating individuals about issues like net neutrality, gun rights, gay marriage, climate change, and environmental regulation to the point that they completely changed their views to at least neutral. They've changed my views on issues as well. I've also talked people out of supporting outrageous statements or made them question their own beliefs (rural relatives in South Dakota who loved talking about their lack of income tax now openly question why SD gets so much more government tax money than neighbouring MN etc). That said, the point isn't to be "win", it's to have a dialogue, share ideas, and break out of the "us vs them" mentality.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? It is extremely hard and works only with people not entirely webbed into "alternative media". I managed to get only one attendant of a Nazi march to rethink his views. In three years. Conspiracy theories are hard to break out of, especially for those without a job and doing nothing but watch "freemen of the land", "europe will be islamized" or "the hooton plan is real" (hooton plan = nazi nutjob theory that "the elite" wants to extinguish the Germans by having them breed with "weaker races") videos all day. The rest, well... beating them like Spencer isn't exactly the most moral way either, but forcing them back into their caves at least keeps them off the streets. I don't want Nazis openly marching with torches on the streets.
    - CodeWriter23 9y ago
      Check out how many minds this man has changed. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
      - mschuster91 9y ago
        This, sorry, were different times, however I admire the patience of this man. Today it is possible for someone to hear, watch and read only fake news all day without having any kind of dissenting viewpoint, compared to prior times where the only exposure was the weekly KKK gathering and maybe some letters. It is way harder (or impossible!) to break through the psychological walls the exposure to this shit creates. In addition, today's fake news and right wing propaganda is specifically engineered to appeal to the lowest prime instincts only, and Facebook's algorithms only intensify the problem as they keep feeding you more and more poison.
        mixmastamyk 9y ago
        Ten years ago I would still try to engage “TV watching folks” about the things I had read about, for example re: Sept 11. Only later realized I never had a chance, versus the corporate idiot box on in their house 4+ hours a day.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    That’s kind of a disrespectful way to deal with someone, going in with the idea their mind needs to be changed. Nothing productive comes from telling someone they’re wrong. I’ve found the most movement comes with frank and respectful exchange of ideas. I’ve moved a little as a result, and I’ve seen others move a bit too. Sometimes that movement has come simply from recognizing the other party isn’t as insane as common rhetoric would paint them.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    I largely share your incredulity, but allow me to make a more optimistic counterpoint. I frequently change my mind, which is proof that one or more people out there are changing at least one person's mind. And here's the thing: in nearly all cases, the person or, more often, the people who change my mind never know it. I am often stubborn in the moment and unwilling to admit I've been swayed. More often, I don't realize that I have been swayed until I revisit the conversation over the next months, while adding in new information from other conversations or things I'm reading with a developing perspective. Sometimes my mind changes so slowly that I don't even notice it did until someone quotes back to me the now (obviously! objectively!) wrong thing I used to think. My point is this: you may be changing minds without knowing it. And another point: even if you aren't, you are likely benefitting personally from having meaningful conversations with people.
    - philipov 9y ago
      I'm glad you made this point, because it's a maxim I live by: You can't change people, you can only encourage them to change themselves. To effect change, people must be open and willing to change themselves. And I don't think most people are, especially the older we get. If you want to change people's minds on a big scale, it's by educating the young, and creating incentives towards your way of thinking. It requires institutional power, and it takes generations.
      - thisacctforreal 9y ago
        I like the first two paragraphs but I'm not sure I can swallow that third one. As a direct counter-example: I think a lot of older people have given up their previous views on privacy in exchange for using Facebook and doing other commonly-intrusive internet activities. I think I'd replace the paragraph with "If you want to change someone's mind, try demonstrating an alternative with better trade-offs". I'm hoping the GDPR will be a demonstration to Canadians & Americans that demanding a right to privacy is a viable alternative to the status quo. Social networks, advertising, and privacy are able co-exist, just perhaps not with the existing trade-offs allowing free-as-in-beer and know-me-better-than-myself-"features". edit: reordering paragraphs edit2: reorganization
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Works. Proof: me. I've changed my mind on certain topics - esp drugs and to a certain degree AGW based on discussions. Protip: calling me a troll, paid shill, downvoting honest questions doesn't work on people like me. I do however listen to reasonable arguments and take pride in being able to change my mind.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      > Protip: calling me a troll, paid shill, downvoting honest questions doesn't work on people like me. It doesn't work on anybody.
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      From the perspective of someone who has been on both sides of the arguments regarding climate change how is it possible to be intelligent and not believe in climate change. I absolutely don't mean to imply you are stupid. I had a relative who was extremely intelligent, his career being aurospace engineer who didn't believe in cimate change and another a computer programmer who didn't believe in evolution. I don't think I understand how people can believe nonsense and yet obviously be capable of learning complex and difficult topics.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Your examples are both about people being sceptical, but then you say: >"I don't think I understand how people can believe nonsense [...]" // Are these supposed to be related. Not believing in evolution doesn't mean you do believe in nonsense, for example. Once you've been around the block a few times it's easy to get cynical about scientific claims. Too much scientism.
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        The programmer believed that god waved a magic wand to bring into being all present and prior animals. He had thought about this extensively and had done research and still believed the magic wand explanation.
      - 9y ago
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    > Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? I know the question wasn't directed at me, and it's not with respect to the proposed Muslim ban, but I have changed the mind of some of the voters from this general background: specifically, would-be Roy Moore voters. I convinced a good handful of them not to vote for him[1]. And as far as I know, they stayed home. The key is to be extremely patient, honest, and respectful. You can't use the typical Twitter technique of beating them over the head with opinions, or even the blunt HN technique of overwhelming them with facts. You have to first try to understand their viewpoint, and where they are coming from. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, just understand it. And the best way to do that is to start asking lots of respectful questions, and depending on the person, sharing your own background. Then, start interspersing harder questions about the subject in question, like Roy Moore in this case. Don't push too hard, but ask hard questions in a respectful way. Of course, in these situations, you have to be open to having your opinion changed, as well. It's not a very eloquent summary of what I've done in this situations, but it's the best I've got tonight. 1. Perhaps the hardest part about this is differentiating between propaganda sock puppet accounts, whom you will likely never convince, and actual people who happen to believe some pretty crazy things. Once you've identified real, genuine fellow citizens behind whatever pseudonymous social media account, you're half-way there.
    - frandroid 9y ago
      Sarah Silverman's encounter with a troll recently was a great demonstration of what you explain here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2018/01/08/a-man-trolled-sarah-silverman-on-twitter-she-ended-up-helping-him-with-his-medical-problems/?utm_term=.72ecc01d6f56 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2018/01...
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      I forgot where I read it, maybe on the Southern Poverty Law Center's site, but I could be wrong, but they were talking about a similar thing -- how to convince people to change their mind. The example was about how to change people's opinion in regard to transgender people. The idea was similar -- beating them on the head with 140-character sarcastic blurbs, showing stats and facts, insulting etc, just doesn't work. What works is to talk to them face to face and to present a case of one particular individual, not a hypothetical one but one whose name is John or Jane and how they are struggling and how they face hate and discrimination and how it makes them feel.
  - e12e 9y ago
    I just recently watched "City of ghosts"[1], and while there are many strong moments - one that stood out to me, is about in the middle, where these people - heroes in our time - who fled isis/daesh because of being persecuted - because of being citizen journalists - are in Berlin at a counter-demonstration against a neo nazi rally. And it kind of just slots so many pieces of wrong conclusions and xenophobia and dehumanization of the "other" together in one, painfully clear image... I'm not sure of that moves the needle on being able to convince anyone.. But if not we might as well all build gas chambers and furnaces and burn vagrants as a source of electricity. Because if we give up fighting for the right for all of being viewed as human - what's left? [ed: to more directly answer the question - I know I've made people pause - but most recently - a friend really made someone reconsider/reframe their idea of feminism/equality due to an hour or two of discussion and and real-world examples. So it is possible, but it takes patience, emphaty and knowledge.] [1] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6333056/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6333056/
  - merpnderp 9y ago
    Likely because he leads with “Muslim ban,” which sounds ignorant. Most people who agree with the ban realize it is a temporary ban on countries requested by DHS because there currently is no valid process for doing background checks on people from those countries. So yeah I can see why he fails to change minds.
    - learc83 9y ago
      Regardless of what Trump actually implemented. During the campaign he called for a Muslim ban. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." >We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. The OP is saying that close to half the voters voted for Trump, so it's likely they agree that a Muslim ban is appropriate.
      - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        Well, it makes a great deal of sense in using "Muslim Ban". You 'otherize' them, you set them up against "You", and then you discriminate against them because they hate and want violence against you. It's also hard to go against this, as we've been at war with the Middle East since Desert Storm - only a ceasefire was called. And then later add on extremist moslems during September 11 attacks, and yeah.. It's a perfect firestorm of justifiable hatred of a religion by a great many people.
        EliRivers 9y ago
        Sets a very useful precedent too, opening the door for bringing back Roman Catholic bans.
        crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        True that, but they're still Christians as far as R's are concerned. Yeah, they do have some weird radical views like the Pope - but those can be fixed. The people in the middle east worship a "psychotic man with a hairy mole" (aka: Mohamed). I learned that on WIBC, 1070KHz after a multitude of interviews that Mike Pence hosted back in the mid 90's with "religion intellectuals". I was in my mid teens during that.. should have recorded him talking about all this, but I'm sure the radio studio has recordings as well. And back to the main issue, "Otherization" allows targeting anyone they don't want. And this seems to be drifting hard to neo-nazism. I know the people on Daily Stormer and similar groups are rather happy.
  - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
    There is Daryl Davis. He's black and personally convinced 200 KKK members into leaving the organization [1]. I'm a better and more mature person at 40 than I was at 20 because people have taken the time to patiently point out flaws in my own thinking. Not every conversation moves the direction of your life, but they do collectively nudge you in the right direction. 1 - https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
  - totalZero 9y ago
    > Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Engage them directly, wait until the next conversation on the topic in a group, and hang back. Sometimes you'll be surprised. People don't always change their minds immediately, but this is to be expected -- it is a means to protect the ego.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    If you want to know if you've probably changed someone's opinion, look for evidence of confusion. That said, you may not find any obvious tell unless they say something.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    That's a strange set of questions to ask. If I take you on good faith that you aren't merely trolling the commenter, it means that an affirmative reply from a pseudonymous respondent on the internet would quell or at least temper your incredulity. That seems like a very brittle and easily gamed way to decide what you do and don't believe.
  - code_duck 9y ago
    My own views have evolved based on conversations I’ve read and participated in online. I don't necessarily realize it at the time I’m still participating in the conversation, or stubborness may preclude me from telling the person presenting the opposing viewpoint that I decided to abandon my belief in favor of theirs, but i have been persuaded in the past. I assume this happens to other people as well. One thing to note is that the beliefs you’re convincing people of don’t have to be top-level shifts like ‘be a communist instead of a libertarian ‘... one can help others see individual issues or political figures in a new light.
  - gcb0 9y ago
    somebody did change yours.
  - Kalium 9y ago
    Yes! I have! With one caveat, though. If you approach it with the mindset that you're out to educate other voters, you're not going to succeed. What you can do is have actual conversations with them. Sometimes those have results. When one person sets out to educate another, there's a presumption of power, position, and knowledge. Unless the person to be educated has set out specifically to be educated, this is almost certainly going to rub them the wrong way. Instead of being educated on the subject you'd like, you'll educate them that advocates on a given subject are arrogant lecturing asses.
- dgzl 9y ago
  I used to be highly political on Facebook. From my experience, people just don't care.
  - astronautjones 9y ago
    Do it in reality
    - mieseratte 9y ago
      That's honestly the most realistic approach. I make a conscious effort not to follow politics nowadays, too much negativity, but doing so online seems to always cause folks to fly into defensive mode. In person less so. Facial cues, maybe?
  - paganel 9y ago
    Same experience here. I stopped it almost completely a couple of months ago when the authorities from my country (EU and NATO member, mind you) have started fining people for their anti-Government FB posts. The stated reasons were that those posts were inciting people to violence, but the police never revealed the posts' contents so there's no way to actually know when one can become liable for posting an anti-Government message, I mean "lets get the Government down!" can be seen as inciting people (and a new proposed law even mentions potential prison time for the same kind of FB posts). No way I risk going through that hassle for no real benefits, as people have very rarely changed their mind based on others' FB messages.
  - knz 9y ago
    Do it in person and don't approach it as a conversation specifically about politics - "Did you see x in the news? Crazy huh?" is better than "Here is this hilarious meme about Republicans/Democrats!" etc.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    How do you be "highly political" on Facebook?
    - 9y ago
- remind_me_again 9y ago
  Yes, educate fellow citizens. Here's a material for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsfROmgVN5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsfROmgVN5U
mieseratte 9y ago
> We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. When has someone pushed for a "Muslim ban" in the United States?
- ComradeTaco 9y ago
  Donald Trump. "I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani said, as transcribed by The Washington Post. "So when (Trump) first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'" [1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-travel-lawsuit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-trav...
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  While Trump's immigration policy was not actually a Muslim ban and was actually very similar to some of Obama's policies, a quick scan of my Facebook feed indicates that there are plenty of conservatives who actually do want a "Muslim ban" and believe that there's a significant movement to overthrow the government and institute Shariah Law in the U.S.
  - zerocrates 9y ago
    He called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." The fact that he didn't actually do that because of its manifest illegality is somewhat beside the point.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    In my experience liberals want a Muslim ban too, they just aren't capable of stating it as such. For example, 86% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for homosexuality. It's a simple question, how many of those people do you want voting in your district? How many of them do you want on your school board? Now, I'm fairly liberal leaning as far as immigration is concerned, and I don't support a Muslim ban either. But if you're checking the box that says you think gay people deserve to die, you can kindly turn your ass around and go back to wherever you came from, regardless of your religion. But this "policy" of mine disproportionately impacts Muslims. And by our modern standards of bigotry, that would mean that I support a "Muslim ban."
nickysielicki 9y ago
It's cheap of you to try to conflate the issue of torturing prisoners with the issue of restrictions on immigration. It is not inconsistent to support immigration restrictions on countries with Muslim extremists while simultaneously being against the torture of prisoners. You're tapping into identity politics.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  Do you really need an exhaustive list of people not giving a shit about civil liberties, human rights and American values as long as its "terrorism and pedophiles"? "Muslim ban" is just the latest and least subtle. Let's work backwards: Trump advocated targeting civilians in a war zone as a campaign promise. It was met with thunderous applause. https://www.christianpost.com/news/trump-kill-innocent-family-isis-gop-debate-152612/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/trump-kill-innocent-famil... How do you like your second amendment? How do you like due process of law? How about fuck both those things cause we're going to put people on Kafkaesque lists without any day in court and bar them from gun ownership without explanation. Surely such a measure would be massively unpopular with Republicans... http://time.com/4370009/donald-trump-gun-control-watch-list-nra/ http://time.com/4370009/donald-trump-gun-control-watch-list-... In fairness on that last one it didn't matter who you voted for. Hillary literally said the same thing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-no-fly-list/85892542/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/... Its not like the US would actively hack US citizens on US soil in order to suppress a peaceful protest. Oh shit. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/26/standing_rock_protester_surveillance/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/26/standing_rock_prote... But you know, fuck them hippie protestors and occupy types. Whole lot should go get jobs amirite? Do I need to continue? Because I can. I've barely even touched upon the Obama era. And obviously the Patriot act and Guantanamo before that. Let me be clear here. I don't hate America. But when transgressions like this are applauded it becomes clear that a huge fraction of our populace just doesn't stand for our values. Our country is only as good as the people in it.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >with the issue of restrictions on immigration. It's cheap of you to throw a muslim ban into the immigration bucket and not into the religious freedom bucket.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
progressivebaka 9y ago
How is what was proposed a Muslim ban?
_delirium 9y ago
I dunno, if you look at specifically this kind of intelligence cooperation with "dirty" states' intelligence agencies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), I've found people in "conservative" rural areas to be almost uniformly against it, even if you wouldn't be able to tell that from how their political representatives vote. I mean, to be fair, most people I've met in any location of any politics aren't really happy with it, which contrasts with how we seem to have a bipartisan consensus in favor. But the minority of people who will actually argue in favor have almost uniformly been in "liberal", urban areas. I've had a few infuriating arguments with California liberals defending Dianne Feinstein's views on intelligence cooperation, while I've never run into someone in a conservative part of Texas who really wants to convince me that CIA-Saudi connections are Actually Very Good. At most, they might fall back on "well, Clinton is even worse" in defending a GOP politician's votes, but I've never personally met rural conservatives who want to own that position. (Admittedly, I don't know any conservatives from more of a Donald Rumsfeld demographic, who I know exist and I assume are probably also on board with that kind of thing.)
- ainiriand 9y ago
  I agree. It looks to me that this is just the case of the CIA operating completely out of control. USA is not to blame, the president is not to blame, and the citizens are not to blame.
  - thisacctforreal 9y ago
    If no one is to blame for letting it happen, who do we expect to step up and attempt to address it?
    - ainiriand 9y ago
      CIA director at that time.
      - testvox 9y ago
        This sounds like the "following orders" defense. Can organizations really get away with (in this case literal) murder just by appointing some idiot as director and pushing any liability onto him?
dmitrygr 9y ago
You present this as a dichotomy: Muslim Ban / Rendition flights, but that is a false dichotomy. People outside the country have no implicit right to enter it, but people inside the country have the constitution apply to them, including prohibition against torture and imprisonment without a charge.
shadowbantruth 9y ago
Full population. You do realize that Obama had the exact same ban in place and there was no protest anywhere? Please downvoted away (I've been shadow banned for just this before) but this is a fact.
learc83 9y ago
We used to live in an age where more than half the population thought that separate bathrooms for Black people was as good idea. It seems bad now, but we're a hell of a lot better off than we were a few generations ago on the human rights front and the only way to make things better is to keep trying.
novia 9y ago
Well, I'm a North Carolinian and I just heard about this group from the article. I plan to attend the next meeting on the 22nd. Not all of us out here are hicks, especially when you get to the big cities. Look at the voting trends by county and you'll see that Wake goes blue every year.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
If I say my perfect person is Joseph Kony (a North African warlord; who created a religion of a sincretic mix of animism, Christianity, and Islam) and that I'm going to follow his example as closely as I can - please let me in to your country. Why would you ever say yes? If you were to suggest stopping all people who admitted to idolising Kony from entering the country it would seem reasonable, no?
- tclancy 9y ago
  Arguing from the specific to the generic is an obvious logical fallacy and a darn slippery slope unless you also want to kick all Christians out a country based on the behavior of a small number of infamous ones.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Isn't the policy about immigration? I'm talking about chosen ideological association. Do Christians, as a group, claim an ideology that demands violent oppression? Yes the OT has stories of it, but Jesus - whom Christians claim to follow (cf. Gandhi) stood for equality and peaceful resistance. As far as anyone knows Jesus didn't kill anyone, nor call for violence against anyone; the opposite in fact. Yes, plenty of Christians are murderous and immoral. If the leader of group A says kill people who won't join our group, or tax them heavily, your choice. And leader of group B says give everyone tea and cake if they want it. You're saying that if an adherent of group B happens to kill someone you should treat group B the same as group A. I say that's wrong. To be specific again, this works for the KKK to, or people idolising Hitler, or ... if they admit that and want entry it seems good ground on which to refuse; even if that person doesn't ever intend to act on the ideology, or is unlikely too as far as can be established. (Aside, there's no fallacy in establishing general rules based on specifics, unless scientific method is fallacious; even if it were fallacious the Fallacy Fallacy applies, ie fallacies don't indicate the truth value of any particular proposition).
zpatel 9y ago
Around your point of muslim ban and people getting what they deserve in a democracy, interestingly, the Quran (the holy book of God, believed by muslims) declares this: "Verily, God does not change the state/condition of a People until they change themselves." (Quran 13:11)
Fnoord 9y ago
> In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Small but important nuance: the majority vote gets the government they "deserve" ("voted for"). The rest has to go along with the majority vote. The rest are people as well, but they're marginalised by both your quote as well as by reality. The difference can be small. Case in point: the last US presidential election.

knz 9y ago

> We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Guess we really don't deserve human rights and habeus corpus. So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Much of the country is purple not red and blue - if you can have a respectful conversation with someone you can find common ground on these issues. And show up on election day. The First Amendment exists for a reason - "we get the government we deserve" applies to those of us who chose to stay informed as well if we don't respond to the challenges of the day.

IIAOPSW 9y ago
>So speak up. Educate your fellow citizens as to why these issues are important. Break through their media bubble/snowglobe and have multiple meaningful conversations that go deeper than the talking points spewed out by media personalities. Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Not trying to be facetious, but I'm incredulous.
- knz 9y ago
  Yes, very much so with some individuals. I have friends and family across the political spectrum and we regularly talk about the issues of the day (always in person, social media is a horrible platform for this). I've had success educating individuals about issues like net neutrality, gun rights, gay marriage, climate change, and environmental regulation to the point that they completely changed their views to at least neutral. They've changed my views on issues as well. I've also talked people out of supporting outrageous statements or made them question their own beliefs (rural relatives in South Dakota who loved talking about their lack of income tax now openly question why SD gets so much more government tax money than neighbouring MN etc). That said, the point isn't to be "win", it's to have a dialogue, share ideas, and break out of the "us vs them" mentality.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? It is extremely hard and works only with people not entirely webbed into "alternative media". I managed to get only one attendant of a Nazi march to rethink his views. In three years. Conspiracy theories are hard to break out of, especially for those without a job and doing nothing but watch "freemen of the land", "europe will be islamized" or "the hooton plan is real" (hooton plan = nazi nutjob theory that "the elite" wants to extinguish the Germans by having them breed with "weaker races") videos all day. The rest, well... beating them like Spencer isn't exactly the most moral way either, but forcing them back into their caves at least keeps them off the streets. I don't want Nazis openly marching with torches on the streets.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    Check out how many minds this man has changed. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      This, sorry, were different times, however I admire the patience of this man. Today it is possible for someone to hear, watch and read only fake news all day without having any kind of dissenting viewpoint, compared to prior times where the only exposure was the weekly KKK gathering and maybe some letters. It is way harder (or impossible!) to break through the psychological walls the exposure to this shit creates. In addition, today's fake news and right wing propaganda is specifically engineered to appeal to the lowest prime instincts only, and Facebook's algorithms only intensify the problem as they keep feeding you more and more poison.
      - mixmastamyk 9y ago
        Ten years ago I would still try to engage “TV watching folks” about the things I had read about, for example re: Sept 11. Only later realized I never had a chance, versus the corporate idiot box on in their house 4+ hours a day.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  That’s kind of a disrespectful way to deal with someone, going in with the idea their mind needs to be changed. Nothing productive comes from telling someone they’re wrong. I’ve found the most movement comes with frank and respectful exchange of ideas. I’ve moved a little as a result, and I’ve seen others move a bit too. Sometimes that movement has come simply from recognizing the other party isn’t as insane as common rhetoric would paint them.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  I largely share your incredulity, but allow me to make a more optimistic counterpoint. I frequently change my mind, which is proof that one or more people out there are changing at least one person's mind. And here's the thing: in nearly all cases, the person or, more often, the people who change my mind never know it. I am often stubborn in the moment and unwilling to admit I've been swayed. More often, I don't realize that I have been swayed until I revisit the conversation over the next months, while adding in new information from other conversations or things I'm reading with a developing perspective. Sometimes my mind changes so slowly that I don't even notice it did until someone quotes back to me the now (obviously! objectively!) wrong thing I used to think. My point is this: you may be changing minds without knowing it. And another point: even if you aren't, you are likely benefitting personally from having meaningful conversations with people.
  - philipov 9y ago
    I'm glad you made this point, because it's a maxim I live by: You can't change people, you can only encourage them to change themselves. To effect change, people must be open and willing to change themselves. And I don't think most people are, especially the older we get. If you want to change people's minds on a big scale, it's by educating the young, and creating incentives towards your way of thinking. It requires institutional power, and it takes generations.
    - thisacctforreal 9y ago
      I like the first two paragraphs but I'm not sure I can swallow that third one. As a direct counter-example: I think a lot of older people have given up their previous views on privacy in exchange for using Facebook and doing other commonly-intrusive internet activities. I think I'd replace the paragraph with "If you want to change someone's mind, try demonstrating an alternative with better trade-offs". I'm hoping the GDPR will be a demonstration to Canadians & Americans that demanding a right to privacy is a viable alternative to the status quo. Social networks, advertising, and privacy are able co-exist, just perhaps not with the existing trade-offs allowing free-as-in-beer and know-me-better-than-myself-"features". edit: reordering paragraphs edit2: reorganization
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Works. Proof: me. I've changed my mind on certain topics - esp drugs and to a certain degree AGW based on discussions. Protip: calling me a troll, paid shill, downvoting honest questions doesn't work on people like me. I do however listen to reasonable arguments and take pride in being able to change my mind.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    > Protip: calling me a troll, paid shill, downvoting honest questions doesn't work on people like me. It doesn't work on anybody.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    From the perspective of someone who has been on both sides of the arguments regarding climate change how is it possible to be intelligent and not believe in climate change. I absolutely don't mean to imply you are stupid. I had a relative who was extremely intelligent, his career being aurospace engineer who didn't believe in cimate change and another a computer programmer who didn't believe in evolution. I don't think I understand how people can believe nonsense and yet obviously be capable of learning complex and difficult topics.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Your examples are both about people being sceptical, but then you say: >"I don't think I understand how people can believe nonsense [...]" // Are these supposed to be related. Not believing in evolution doesn't mean you do believe in nonsense, for example. Once you've been around the block a few times it's easy to get cynical about scientific claims. Too much scientism.
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        The programmer believed that god waved a magic wand to bring into being all present and prior animals. He had thought about this extensively and had done research and still believed the magic wand explanation.
    - 9y ago
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > Have you ever actually gotten that to work? Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? I know the question wasn't directed at me, and it's not with respect to the proposed Muslim ban, but I have changed the mind of some of the voters from this general background: specifically, would-be Roy Moore voters. I convinced a good handful of them not to vote for him[1]. And as far as I know, they stayed home. The key is to be extremely patient, honest, and respectful. You can't use the typical Twitter technique of beating them over the head with opinions, or even the blunt HN technique of overwhelming them with facts. You have to first try to understand their viewpoint, and where they are coming from. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, just understand it. And the best way to do that is to start asking lots of respectful questions, and depending on the person, sharing your own background. Then, start interspersing harder questions about the subject in question, like Roy Moore in this case. Don't push too hard, but ask hard questions in a respectful way. Of course, in these situations, you have to be open to having your opinion changed, as well. It's not a very eloquent summary of what I've done in this situations, but it's the best I've got tonight. 1. Perhaps the hardest part about this is differentiating between propaganda sock puppet accounts, whom you will likely never convince, and actual people who happen to believe some pretty crazy things. Once you've identified real, genuine fellow citizens behind whatever pseudonymous social media account, you're half-way there.
  - frandroid 9y ago
    Sarah Silverman's encounter with a troll recently was a great demonstration of what you explain here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2018/01/08/a-man-trolled-sarah-silverman-on-twitter-she-ended-up-helping-him-with-his-medical-problems/?utm_term=.72ecc01d6f56 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2018/01...
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    I forgot where I read it, maybe on the Southern Poverty Law Center's site, but I could be wrong, but they were talking about a similar thing -- how to convince people to change their mind. The example was about how to change people's opinion in regard to transgender people. The idea was similar -- beating them on the head with 140-character sarcastic blurbs, showing stats and facts, insulting etc, just doesn't work. What works is to talk to them face to face and to present a case of one particular individual, not a hypothetical one but one whose name is John or Jane and how they are struggling and how they face hate and discrimination and how it makes them feel.
- e12e 9y ago
  I just recently watched "City of ghosts"[1], and while there are many strong moments - one that stood out to me, is about in the middle, where these people - heroes in our time - who fled isis/daesh because of being persecuted - because of being citizen journalists - are in Berlin at a counter-demonstration against a neo nazi rally. And it kind of just slots so many pieces of wrong conclusions and xenophobia and dehumanization of the "other" together in one, painfully clear image... I'm not sure of that moves the needle on being able to convince anyone.. But if not we might as well all build gas chambers and furnaces and burn vagrants as a source of electricity. Because if we give up fighting for the right for all of being viewed as human - what's left? [ed: to more directly answer the question - I know I've made people pause - but most recently - a friend really made someone reconsider/reframe their idea of feminism/equality due to an hour or two of discussion and and real-world examples. So it is possible, but it takes patience, emphaty and knowledge.] [1] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6333056/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6333056/
- merpnderp 9y ago
  Likely because he leads with “Muslim ban,” which sounds ignorant. Most people who agree with the ban realize it is a temporary ban on countries requested by DHS because there currently is no valid process for doing background checks on people from those countries. So yeah I can see why he fails to change minds.
  - learc83 9y ago
    Regardless of what Trump actually implemented. During the campaign he called for a Muslim ban. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." >We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. The OP is saying that close to half the voters voted for Trump, so it's likely they agree that a Muslim ban is appropriate.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      Well, it makes a great deal of sense in using "Muslim Ban". You 'otherize' them, you set them up against "You", and then you discriminate against them because they hate and want violence against you. It's also hard to go against this, as we've been at war with the Middle East since Desert Storm - only a ceasefire was called. And then later add on extremist moslems during September 11 attacks, and yeah.. It's a perfect firestorm of justifiable hatred of a religion by a great many people.
      - EliRivers 9y ago
        Sets a very useful precedent too, opening the door for bringing back Roman Catholic bans.
        crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        True that, but they're still Christians as far as R's are concerned. Yeah, they do have some weird radical views like the Pope - but those can be fixed. The people in the middle east worship a "psychotic man with a hairy mole" (aka: Mohamed). I learned that on WIBC, 1070KHz after a multitude of interviews that Mike Pence hosted back in the mid 90's with "religion intellectuals". I was in my mid teens during that.. should have recorded him talking about all this, but I'm sure the radio studio has recordings as well. And back to the main issue, "Otherization" allows targeting anyone they don't want. And this seems to be drifting hard to neo-nazism. I know the people on Daily Stormer and similar groups are rather happy.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  There is Daryl Davis. He's black and personally convinced 200 KKK members into leaving the organization [1]. I'm a better and more mature person at 40 than I was at 20 because people have taken the time to patiently point out flaws in my own thinking. Not every conversation moves the direction of your life, but they do collectively nudge you in the right direction. 1 - https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
- totalZero 9y ago
  > Have you personally ever changed a single persons mind? Engage them directly, wait until the next conversation on the topic in a group, and hang back. Sometimes you'll be surprised. People don't always change their minds immediately, but this is to be expected -- it is a means to protect the ego.
- Natsu 9y ago
  If you want to know if you've probably changed someone's opinion, look for evidence of confusion. That said, you may not find any obvious tell unless they say something.
- jancsika 9y ago
  That's a strange set of questions to ask. If I take you on good faith that you aren't merely trolling the commenter, it means that an affirmative reply from a pseudonymous respondent on the internet would quell or at least temper your incredulity. That seems like a very brittle and easily gamed way to decide what you do and don't believe.
- code_duck 9y ago
  My own views have evolved based on conversations I’ve read and participated in online. I don't necessarily realize it at the time I’m still participating in the conversation, or stubborness may preclude me from telling the person presenting the opposing viewpoint that I decided to abandon my belief in favor of theirs, but i have been persuaded in the past. I assume this happens to other people as well. One thing to note is that the beliefs you’re convincing people of don’t have to be top-level shifts like ‘be a communist instead of a libertarian ‘... one can help others see individual issues or political figures in a new light.
- gcb0 9y ago
  somebody did change yours.
- Kalium 9y ago
  Yes! I have! With one caveat, though. If you approach it with the mindset that you're out to educate other voters, you're not going to succeed. What you can do is have actual conversations with them. Sometimes those have results. When one person sets out to educate another, there's a presumption of power, position, and knowledge. Unless the person to be educated has set out specifically to be educated, this is almost certainly going to rub them the wrong way. Instead of being educated on the subject you'd like, you'll educate them that advocates on a given subject are arrogant lecturing asses.
dgzl 9y ago
I used to be highly political on Facebook. From my experience, people just don't care.
- astronautjones 9y ago
  Do it in reality
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    That's honestly the most realistic approach. I make a conscious effort not to follow politics nowadays, too much negativity, but doing so online seems to always cause folks to fly into defensive mode. In person less so. Facial cues, maybe?
- paganel 9y ago
  Same experience here. I stopped it almost completely a couple of months ago when the authorities from my country (EU and NATO member, mind you) have started fining people for their anti-Government FB posts. The stated reasons were that those posts were inciting people to violence, but the police never revealed the posts' contents so there's no way to actually know when one can become liable for posting an anti-Government message, I mean "lets get the Government down!" can be seen as inciting people (and a new proposed law even mentions potential prison time for the same kind of FB posts). No way I risk going through that hassle for no real benefits, as people have very rarely changed their mind based on others' FB messages.
- knz 9y ago
  Do it in person and don't approach it as a conversation specifically about politics - "Did you see x in the news? Crazy huh?" is better than "Here is this hilarious meme about Republicans/Democrats!" etc.
- mcguire 9y ago
  How do you be "highly political" on Facebook?
  - 9y ago
remind_me_again 9y ago
Yes, educate fellow citizens. Here's a material for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsfROmgVN5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsfROmgVN5U

mieseratte 9y ago

> We live in an age where "Muslim ban" sounds like appropriate policy to about half the population. When has someone pushed for a "Muslim ban" in the United States?

ComradeTaco 9y ago
Donald Trump. "I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani said, as transcribed by The Washington Post. "So when (Trump) first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'" [1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-travel-lawsuit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-trav...
TallGuyShort 9y ago
While Trump's immigration policy was not actually a Muslim ban and was actually very similar to some of Obama's policies, a quick scan of my Facebook feed indicates that there are plenty of conservatives who actually do want a "Muslim ban" and believe that there's a significant movement to overthrow the government and institute Shariah Law in the U.S.
- zerocrates 9y ago
  He called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." The fact that he didn't actually do that because of its manifest illegality is somewhat beside the point.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  In my experience liberals want a Muslim ban too, they just aren't capable of stating it as such. For example, 86% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for homosexuality. It's a simple question, how many of those people do you want voting in your district? How many of them do you want on your school board? Now, I'm fairly liberal leaning as far as immigration is concerned, and I don't support a Muslim ban either. But if you're checking the box that says you think gay people deserve to die, you can kindly turn your ass around and go back to wherever you came from, regardless of your religion. But this "policy" of mine disproportionately impacts Muslims. And by our modern standards of bigotry, that would mean that I support a "Muslim ban."

nickysielicki 9y ago

It's cheap of you to try to conflate the issue of torturing prisoners with the issue of restrictions on immigration. It is not inconsistent to support immigration restrictions on countries with Muslim extremists while simultaneously being against the torture of prisoners. You're tapping into identity politics.

IIAOPSW 9y ago
Do you really need an exhaustive list of people not giving a shit about civil liberties, human rights and American values as long as its "terrorism and pedophiles"? "Muslim ban" is just the latest and least subtle. Let's work backwards: Trump advocated targeting civilians in a war zone as a campaign promise. It was met with thunderous applause. https://www.christianpost.com/news/trump-kill-innocent-family-isis-gop-debate-152612/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/trump-kill-innocent-famil... How do you like your second amendment? How do you like due process of law? How about fuck both those things cause we're going to put people on Kafkaesque lists without any day in court and bar them from gun ownership without explanation. Surely such a measure would be massively unpopular with Republicans... http://time.com/4370009/donald-trump-gun-control-watch-list-nra/ http://time.com/4370009/donald-trump-gun-control-watch-list-... In fairness on that last one it didn't matter who you voted for. Hillary literally said the same thing. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-no-fly-list/85892542/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/... Its not like the US would actively hack US citizens on US soil in order to suppress a peaceful protest. Oh shit. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/26/standing_rock_protester_surveillance/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/26/standing_rock_prote... But you know, fuck them hippie protestors and occupy types. Whole lot should go get jobs amirite? Do I need to continue? Because I can. I've barely even touched upon the Obama era. And obviously the Patriot act and Guantanamo before that. Let me be clear here. I don't hate America. But when transgressions like this are applauded it becomes clear that a huge fraction of our populace just doesn't stand for our values. Our country is only as good as the people in it.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>with the issue of restrictions on immigration. It's cheap of you to throw a muslim ban into the immigration bucket and not into the religious freedom bucket.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

progressivebaka 9y ago

How is what was proposed a Muslim ban?

_delirium 9y ago

I dunno, if you look at specifically this kind of intelligence cooperation with "dirty" states' intelligence agencies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), I've found people in "conservative" rural areas to be almost uniformly against it, even if you wouldn't be able to tell that from how their political representatives vote. I mean, to be fair, most people I've met in any location of any politics aren't really happy with it, which contrasts with how we seem to have a bipartisan consensus in favor. But the minority of people who will actually argue in favor have almost uniformly been in "liberal", urban areas. I've had a few infuriating arguments with California liberals defending Dianne Feinstein's views on intelligence cooperation, while I've never run into someone in a conservative part of Texas who really wants to convince me that CIA-Saudi connections are Actually Very Good. At most, they might fall back on "well, Clinton is even worse" in defending a GOP politician's votes, but I've never personally met rural conservatives who want to own that position. (Admittedly, I don't know any conservatives from more of a Donald Rumsfeld demographic, who I know exist and I assume are probably also on board with that kind of thing.)

ainiriand 9y ago
I agree. It looks to me that this is just the case of the CIA operating completely out of control. USA is not to blame, the president is not to blame, and the citizens are not to blame.
- thisacctforreal 9y ago
  If no one is to blame for letting it happen, who do we expect to step up and attempt to address it?
  - ainiriand 9y ago
    CIA director at that time.
    - testvox 9y ago
      This sounds like the "following orders" defense. Can organizations really get away with (in this case literal) murder just by appointing some idiot as director and pushing any liability onto him?

dmitrygr 9y ago

You present this as a dichotomy: Muslim Ban / Rendition flights, but that is a false dichotomy. People outside the country have no implicit right to enter it, but people inside the country have the constitution apply to them, including prohibition against torture and imprisonment without a charge.

shadowbantruth 9y ago

Full population. You do realize that Obama had the exact same ban in place and there was no protest anywhere? Please downvoted away (I've been shadow banned for just this before) but this is a fact.

learc83 9y ago

We used to live in an age where more than half the population thought that separate bathrooms for Black people was as good idea. It seems bad now, but we're a hell of a lot better off than we were a few generations ago on the human rights front and the only way to make things better is to keep trying.

novia 9y ago

Well, I'm a North Carolinian and I just heard about this group from the article. I plan to attend the next meeting on the 22nd. Not all of us out here are hicks, especially when you get to the big cities. Look at the voting trends by county and you'll see that Wake goes blue every year.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

If I say my perfect person is Joseph Kony (a North African warlord; who created a religion of a sincretic mix of animism, Christianity, and Islam) and that I'm going to follow his example as closely as I can - please let me in to your country. Why would you ever say yes? If you were to suggest stopping all people who admitted to idolising Kony from entering the country it would seem reasonable, no?

tclancy 9y ago
Arguing from the specific to the generic is an obvious logical fallacy and a darn slippery slope unless you also want to kick all Christians out a country based on the behavior of a small number of infamous ones.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Isn't the policy about immigration? I'm talking about chosen ideological association. Do Christians, as a group, claim an ideology that demands violent oppression? Yes the OT has stories of it, but Jesus - whom Christians claim to follow (cf. Gandhi) stood for equality and peaceful resistance. As far as anyone knows Jesus didn't kill anyone, nor call for violence against anyone; the opposite in fact. Yes, plenty of Christians are murderous and immoral. If the leader of group A says kill people who won't join our group, or tax them heavily, your choice. And leader of group B says give everyone tea and cake if they want it. You're saying that if an adherent of group B happens to kill someone you should treat group B the same as group A. I say that's wrong. To be specific again, this works for the KKK to, or people idolising Hitler, or ... if they admit that and want entry it seems good ground on which to refuse; even if that person doesn't ever intend to act on the ideology, or is unlikely too as far as can be established. (Aside, there's no fallacy in establishing general rules based on specifics, unless scientific method is fallacious; even if it were fallacious the Fallacy Fallacy applies, ie fallacies don't indicate the truth value of any particular proposition).

zpatel 9y ago

Around your point of muslim ban and people getting what they deserve in a democracy, interestingly, the Quran (the holy book of God, believed by muslims) declares this: "Verily, God does not change the state/condition of a People until they change themselves." (Quran 13:11)

Fnoord 9y ago

> In Democracy the people get the government they deserve. Small but important nuance: the majority vote gets the government they "deserve" ("voted for"). The rest has to go along with the majority vote. The rest are people as well, but they're marginalised by both your quote as well as by reality. The difference can be small. Case in point: the last US presidential election.