Is this ironic? Because if this is serious, note that maybe you are the stubborn person here, the one that is wrong, the one that must be nudged to the right direction and join them eventually.
It’s possible parent comment is referring to factually proven issues, such as climate change, that the right has its own set of propagandistic facts for.
I’d say the any group of people has areas of less factitious basis for their beliefs. But, We all should want to employ truthful factual real, non-propagandistic ideas, eh? Is this controversial?
If we don’t have ground truth, real facts, what can we base anything off of? Our policies will fail, our dollars will be wasted, and division will grow.
One danger with "factually proven issues" is cherry-picking facts or otherwise taking them from context. For example, there might be stats on which a president sucked for most of his term, but in the last few months those stats were decent (or vice versa); and then supporters of the president might shout those last few months' stats from the rooftops, and then do polls that show that supporters know but opponents don't know about those last few months' stats, and gleefully report, "Gosh, well, we're trying to reason with our opponents, but unfortunately they're just so ignorant, what can we do..."
Another danger is people playing with definitions. A third is people claiming things to be "facts" based on cherry-picked studies (and possibly some dubious interpretations thereof).
Progress can be made, but I think it requires a sophisticated approach. Paying attention to all the above dimensions, and probably to the motives of the people involved.
I agree with your approach but, as a generally extremely left leaning individual myself, comments solely using "the right" (or any individual group) as the example make it hard to assign to this kind of thought process alone.
Some regular self doubt "what I think are ground truth facts may need to be requisitioned and revalidated and that isn't just true for one specific group to consider" is a core requirement of trying to hold a fact based viewpoint, just as important as any other part of such an approach.
Well no, because the right's argument for why what they're good is good is:
1. We're not doing that.
2. If we are, it's not that bad.
3. If it is that bad, it's not our fault.
4. If it is our fault, just have faith it'll work out.
A lot of their belief system relies on Trump being a liar. Literally, they're hoping for and arguing that it's all a-okay because Trump is a liar so him saying XYZ terrible thing doesn't matter.
The right isn't trying to push anyone in their direction because even they don't believe their direction. They're currently in a suspended state, a type of dissociation.
Either that or you lack the wisdom and maturity to understand that people can disagree with you and be just as sincere in their beliefs as you are.
No, it's definitely this, and I'm confident in saying that because I do, actually, try to have open conversations with these people. And they always back down and undermine _their own beliefs_. It's a strange kind of paradox, in which they support a set of actions but wish to be immune from any obvious consequences of said actions. Despite those consequences being, you know, the draw of said actions.
For context, a lot of people in my family vote right always. Trust me, I have engaged with people on the right and conspiracists, and the common theme is their reliance in a distrust for the people and actions they themselves support. It's an almost supreme lack of conviction, juxtaposed with a religion-like blind faith.
If it's any consolation to you, or anyone, this isn't a new thing. You can see this kind of behavior throughout history in all populist movements that have gone sour. Their supporters stuck in a type of purgatory, where they must ignore what is actually going on while absentmindedly following the messaging. When asked "so what happens now?", they do not know. But they are certain it will be okay.
This is such a wide-sweeping generalisation that it beggars belief. And this "distrust for the people" you speak of, would that characterize your attitude to people who don't vote Democrat? And speaking of Democrats in general, do they show alot of "distrust for the people" too with their simple-minded, largely ignorant stereotypes of Republicans?
Of course it's a generalization, I'm explicitly generalizing.
But, I should note, I'm not speaking on conservatism or the GOP in general. I'm speaking on, specifically, far-right populist messaging, current-day known as MAGA.
This is a different, but related, beast. I'm confident in speaking on it in this way because populism, by it's nature, appeals to the lowest common denominator in order to be successful. We can make a lot of assumptions about populist movements because we know how, and why, populism works. MAGA operates less like a policy set and more like a Cult, like populist movements of the past.
And, to my original point, if I were to explain to you some of the objectively awful things the Trump administration is doing right now, I am very confident you would have no choice but to use the 4-step game plan written above to dismiss it.
When you have subscribed to a religion, you have no choice but to use the powers of divination and faith to argue. The populist movement never had any logical backing to begin with, so you cannot just conjure one out of nowhere.
You say alot of words without much content.
You dont think there could be any logical reason why 77 million Americans voted for Trump?
You don't think alot of contemporary Democrat beliefs could also be described as a religion that people blindly follow no matter how stupid or extreme?
> You dont think there could be any logical reason why 77 million Americans voted for Trump?
No. Well there is, but not in the way you're thinking.
Far-right populist messaging works because the message is good and designed to cater to as many people as possible.
It plays into people's emotions and sense of identity. It calls upon a sense of national pride and creates an enemy within. It plays into the ego of MAGA cultists, proclaiming them to be the true Americans while those around them are lazy, on handouts, and don't deserve to be here.
> You don't think alot of contemporary Democrat beliefs could also be described as a religion that people blindly follow no matter how stupid or extreme?
Sure, some of it, yeah. There are, after all, populists in the democratic party.
But the democratic party is almost all right-leaning ultra-capitalists. There really are next to no extremists in the democratic party. The only reason you may believe otherwise is because of - you guessed it - far-right populist messaging. MAGA would like for you to believe that the democrats are baby eaters, pedophiles, and communists. Of course, it's just not true. Please see "enemy within" above, sense of national pride, appeal to emotion (harming children) etc etc.
> You say alot of words without much content.
No, I think what's happening is you don't understand what I'm saying or are choosing not to process it, and instead just kind of going "nuh uh!".
"nuh uh!" might have worked before the election. Now that MAGA is destroying the US from the inside out and posting Deportation ASMR while committing crimes against humanity, the "nuh uh" doesn't work. I'm sorry, you have no plausible deniability. You can continue to avoid accountability, but that doesn't change reality happening around you.
Do any other right wingers actually exist on HN? I swear, you guys have the same understanding of right wingers as white suburbantites have of black people.
Yes, most of my family is right-wingers.
What you have to understand about the populist far-right is they are, by definition of populism, appealing to the bottom of the barrel. This characterization of how right-wing voters grapple with what their representatives are doing is uncomfortable because we all know it's true.