SpinDr79
Member
- Mar 22, 2015
- 50
- 6
- 21
- Thread starter
- #21
I agree with the divisive nature in America today, like cold civil war calibre. I happen to lean at least 75 % liberal on the issues and when talking with those who identify with Republican party mostly, wearing MAGA hats etc, as soon as I introduce evidence of any kind (even to the point of not saying anything, leaving outs in case they don't want to go that deep) and just say, "what are your thoughts on xyz," I have noted a theme (not using absolutes but just observational theme) of a shut down that never used to be there when Bush or Clinton or even Obama's administration was at the helm. Maybe it's just me and others are having no difficulty getting down to the nitty gritty with the issues. But before we can "attack issues" as you say I have to be able to disseminate information without the other party shutting down. Any advice?i'm more how do people want to be treated. i'm not going to continue this divisive LIBERALS VS CONSERVATIVES talk cause, to me, it's counterproductive. you want to know why we're at each other all the time - cause we divide each other up into stereotypes and then apply blanket statements that people must then fight their way out of they were never into.I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.
i would simply suggest you treat people as you want to be treated. when people can't do this after time, i get worn out of their NO I'M ALWAYS RIGHT YOU DOPE type games and move them to ignore.
to me, you either want to help resolve issues and problems we all face, or you want to attack "the other side". how you post tells me all i need to know. yes many convos can get heated and i can certainly act in a "negative" manner also. working on that. but in the end, i'd rather we attack issues, not each other.