So I was just wondering about all this and wondered if any of you had ideas about how to change people's minds?

The answer is to give up trying to change minds, I'm afraid.

If your mission is to change minds, you're engaged in a fool's errand.

Like the joke goes in dependency circles... "How many people in recovery does it take to change a light bulb? None - the lightbulb has to want to change."

That's what's so frustrating about intellectual frauds like #9. They engage in discussion in bad faith. They're not out to learn; they're out to proselytize their disinformation to the credulous. And see, that's where this whole bargain breaks down - because it's *their* mission to spread *their* version of events, or whatever, and it's completely at odds with your mission. That's an irreconcilable collision.

All you can do is speak the truth, and keep speaking the truth, and keep speaking the truth. Let go out of outcome. Persuasion is a tricky art form. You almost need someone's permission in order to talk to them about changing their opinions, especially if you're poking a stick at some core belief (stupid as that core belief may be; people tend to cling to their superstitions above all else).

(And at that point, about all that's left is satire.)

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

I've been pondering similar territories lately, and the notion I've settled on is that we need to ask each other questions. Too much online discourse is declarations and rebuttals. Antagonistic communication is rarely persuasive. It can be fun for the person wielding the logician's red pen or dishing out the put downs, and it entertains the home crowd, but in the end it just reinforces dividing lines. Often such attacks are built on prejudices, whether the prejudice is "everyone to my political left is secretly a socialist" or "every newcomer is a sock puppet."

If we all make an effort to resist that first impulse to insult and dismiss someone and instead ask them a real question they might be willing to answer, perhaps we can have more constructive conversations and actually learn stuff about each other.

I'm not going to accept your conclusion, AA. There have been too many ideologies that have won converts in the past, we just have to get the message and the method right. The light bulbs that want to change are the easy ones.

The right wing is a minority, as is the Christian right, but they weield influence outsixe to their numbers. They did it by lying, why can't we do it with the truth?

There's something else going on with the human psyche. Why else would certain people get mad at me for telling them that George Bush's first business was set up and financed by Osama Bin Laden's older brother? I'm amazed at how many people think I'm lying when I tell them that. Why is that and what do we do about it?

That's all well and good.

And let go of outcome.

My first experience in the post-bachelor's degree job market was working for Greenpeace Action as a door-to-door canvasser. I was an environmental sciences major in college, and I was pretty well grounded in facts, figures, and some of the hows and whys of ecology. So, I approached the job of Greenpeace employee as, "go from door to door and have conversations with people about changing the way that we interact with our environment."

The job, in point of fact, was to raise $110 a night, of which you were paid a 38% commission. That was the basis of the pay structure. The quota was an average; you could actually raise $0 for four consecutive days, so long as you brought home $550 on the fifth day and suffer no penalty. If you didn't raise that money, the difference between what you didn't raise and what you did went into a draw against your commissions (they called it a "buffer") into perpetuity (or, at least, as long as the organization was going to keep you aboard).

So, who would you guess was more successful - the people who looked upon the job as a numbers game? Or people that looked upon this as a job where you used unassailable facts and persuasion in order to win converts?

I'll guarantee you, it was the former. Among important lessons I got out of that job were (1) know the game, and (2) know when to give up, and (3) dignity is not a foodstuff.

The best fundraisers were the best at knowing the game, and working the game. The people who focused on persuading and converting and educating earned subminimum wages. The burn rate in that job was tremendous. I managed 10 months, but only because I picked up clerical work on the side.

Bottom line: I learned quickly (not quickly enough) that you can only do your best -- and the rest ain't up to you.

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

Why else would certain people get mad at me for telling them that George Bush's first business was set up and financed by Osama Bin Laden's older brother? I'm amazed at how many people think I'm lying when I tell them that. Why is that and what do we do about it?

Why? Because of their beliefs.

How'd they get them? No idea. And it's not my business to care. I'm not in the misinformation business, and I'm not a psychologist. They get beliefs like anyone else gets them. What sticks, what doesn't -- not really sure.

What I would do: Tell them the truth, and then let go of the outcome. All you can do is put it out there.

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

... how to change people's minds?

Good question. I don't know the answer but have some thoughts.

Try to identify up front if the person is open to change.
Identify your audience.

Determine what truly concerns the person.

Is there an issue of importance that can overcome some of the person's current voting beliefs?

I believe (though I am a glass half full kinda person) that people's minds can be changed. It is a slow process, no doubt.

Many people now seem to identify their political party with their religion. It would be very hard, if not impossible, to get someone to change their religion. Separate the religion, bring up reality and people might listen.

Just a few thoughts...

Also -- the more I think about it, the more I think that it's important to (1) network internally with people of like minds, and (2) work to be sure that the playing field is level. I'm all about media reform.

There will always be an "us" and a "them" when it comes to your particular ideological slant. That's part of nature's cruel symmetry. The problem comes when the liars also control the delivery and dissemination of info.

You do what you have to do, Steve. Just keep your wits, that's all I'm trying to communicate. Since you were asking for advice & strategy, that is... It's fine by me if you dismiss everything that I offer out of hand. I'm just putting it out there, speaking "what's so" for me. I'm not trying to dissuade you, or anyone, from participating or trying to change people's minds, if that's really what you're after. I, for myself, just can't choose it as my particular mission. I have no mission in blogging.

That's what made "discussing" issues with #9 (pronounced: "goddamned asshat") so infuriating -- he was convinced I was trying to keep him from performing his mission (to this day, he accuses me of shutting him down so he "couldn't infect the herd"), but I didn't have nor do I have a particular agenda in poking around here at KV, other than to stave off frustration and boredom.

Venting, commiserating, expressing outrage -- yes. Winning converts -- not really. That's me, though. Do what you gotta.

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

Jimmy Carter,from'66 to '70,
was a horse of many colors.

In '66,Time desribed him as a "racial moderate".

In '70, he was a self proclaimed "red neck".
Campaigning @ all-white private schools,
Embraceing Lester Maddox
"as the essence of the Democratic Party."

Then,when elected,blountly stating,
"The time for segregation is over."

Misleading,yes,but effective.
He lost as a "racial moderate",in '66
Won as a "redneck",in '70.

Folks in politics have always bent the truth.
No doubt,smears & dirty tricks have raised their ugly head.
Like the fellow said,
"Politics ain't bean bag"

In '94,the Republicans,ran the best campaign
I have ever seen.
The symbolism was dead on
Thompson's red truck
Frist's red white & blue tie.

The Contract with America was a sharp message
in contrast with the Democrats
elect me;
I want to be majority leader.

They were fresh;we were out of touch.
Rush & the radio heads
taunted us

To tell the truth;I deserved it.
I'd always been pretty smug.
Win the fucking House.
Then talk to me about power.
They Had!

Then impeachment
It got mean.

Within,or maybe more to the point,
outside the Republican Party a monster was born.
For the Republican Party
Steppenwolf,the band,said it best
"There was a monster on the loose
it's got our heads into a noose."

Then came swift boat
Almost immediatly became part of our language
Everybody knows what it means to be swift boated.

What to do?

1.The Greens;a journey of a thousand miles begins with a
first step.If you want to be a part of a first step
join em.

2.If not,to work within the Democratic party,
you must compromise.No way with only two parties
will a candidate agree with you,all the time.

Fact is,I did not agree with Harold all the time.
But I saw no point in pushing our differences in public.
If elected,I would have told him,get out of Iraq now;pass a living wage,today.
I would have pushed him to the left he would headed to the center.
Then supported him for re-election.

3.The most important thing is,big county election comming up,find you a candidate.put up sign,register a few voters,
knock on your neighbors door,talk to your friends,give a couple bucks,advocate for them on Knoxviews.

Like the comment on Kos said
"you've got to win to govern."

That's what Fox News is all about. Build an entire belief structure based on lies, feed lies into the machine and let a core of people believe nothing is wrong with their fundamental vision of the world.

Look at Bush's 28% floor of support. Those people can't be budged. And frankly, any Democrat would have a similar 28% floor too, even if he were as bad as Bush (though in a different way). It's the middle you move. That's why we won in 2006. We convinced the middle that the Republican Party is no longer trustworthy on matters of importance to the American people, foreign or domestic. And the GOP won't get the middle back until it purges itself of Christian right ideologues, neocons and tax cut jihadists. Their ship has sailed and it ain't comin' back. It'll take the smart folks on the Right a few more election cycles to figure it out. For now, they'll keep fooling themselves that they lost in 2006 because they "weren't conservative enough." Let them fool themselves with that for awhile.

We must immediately counter, loudly, the lies as they come out. We must be bold enough to call fox noise what it is and not allow candidates to be destroyed ot even inconvenienced by vicious lies.
We can also communicate in a polite way to our families and friends that Teddy Roosevelt's republican party died years ago. Lead them gently, so as not to cause a rift, to the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative before they get changed. Then for all who read the Bible but are democrats remind them that to be liberal is a good thing and conservative is not in the King James version. I personally think there is a reason for that. Don't stand by and see your loved ones hoodwinked again.

This topic fits the slightly newer post up about Al Gore's new book. I hope more Americans start looking more inward here, because by turning eight years over to this Bush cabal our country has really jumped the shark. We're in a damn tight spot. On a lot of fronts.

(And at that point, about all that's left is satire.)

I think my dissenting comments have gotten shorter and snarkier over time. Partly because I've gotten more realistic/fatalistic(?) about the likely effects of my words.

A few years back I would occasionally get into long argumentative political debates by e-mail with one particular freeper friend. I would isolate and dispel every main accusation that came my way. I was proud of how well I sliced and diced him. Problem was, a) I couldn't field all of his accusations, because just as I'd pin the idiot down on one point, he'd launch three new talking points straight from the GOP's Big Smear book--I was always on defense, and b) I realized (partly because of (a) ) that it was hopeless for this "moran" to change his thinking anyway, especially from anything he heard from this liberal.

All during these debates, my brother, who would be getting copied on the e-mails, would occasionally chime in with smartass one-liners that presented the same side I was representing. Reading his remarks, which were clever but quick and easy, beside my lengthy and very time consuming diatribes I could see that he was making better arguments through satire. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report prove this night after night.

So while I still like a good debate, I'm pessimistic about the odds for success. Just ask Karen Hughes. (And if you do, also ask her how her mentor's doing in D.C. and how her big pro-American P.R. effort in Muslim countries turned out.)

Good comments.

As an aside... Y'know, I really thought this thread would invite more commentary than it has.

____________________________

Deliver this message to the one I love the most:
"I've lost all my money to a 300 pound ghost."
Squeaky was a sad child; the product of neglect.
Got stoned by a jellyfish demanding her respect...

Hope.

I've often thought that we should have an all volunteer army and draft our government. Anyone who actually wanted to hold office would be automatically excluded.

Unfortunately we live in a Darwinian social experiment and have to make choices and take action.

We know what "Drink the Kool Aid"
means now.

But isn't it based on mass suicide?

The absurd would ask.

If life is meaningless;shouldn't we
all just drink the kool aid.

Using the Greek myth of Sisyphus;
the fellow "doomed forever to roll uphill
a heavy stone which always rolled downhill."

Camus believed you must imagine "Sisyphus as happy"
because,"The struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart."

Futhermore,the Shakespearean spin on todays absurd political world is in Macbeth;a world defined by "idiots"

"Full of sound & fury
Signifying nothing"

Camus said"If the world were clear;art would not exist."
I believe the same for politics.

A little absurdity is a good thing.
But we must remember

The world is not clear
Politics exist.

The struggle
against sound & fury matters.

The disscussion on the thread is
What do we do?

I have offered a motion.
Individually,we support a candidate
in the county primary,put up a sign,register a few voters
knock on your neighbors door,talk to your friends,
give a little money,advocate on Knoxviews.

Because"if you can't win;you can't govern"

Mr Webmaster

I call for the question.

I am reminded of a comment the late, beautiful and great Ann Richards made on Larry King Live.... "When Democrats vote, Democrats win"... That's what we gotta do, people.... Get out the vote!

what is the difference b/t a liberal and a progressive? are these not different labels for the same thing.

what is the difference b/t a liberal and a progressive? are these not different labels for the same thing.