All true but highlighting the hypocrisy is useful in changing changeable minds. I do believe that the unchangeable mind are a large minority. I think there’s a lot of people who believe what they do because they’ve never heard anything but exceptionalist propaganda since birth.
My problem with this is that I think a lot of the changeable minds that are on the fence will recognize how it isn’t really hypocritical, and so this misses the point and just makes it look like a stupid complaint. Because indeed, there isn’t hypocrisy going on here. The mentality is wrong for other reasons, but not because of hypocrisy. So when it comes to changeable minds, I feel like it’s better to put forward solid reasoning rather than merely sophistic reasoning - as the second kind is usually only useful for preaching to a choir who is willing to overlook logical flaws.
I guess I should also say I totally understand that you might convert some people with a hypocrisy argument. But… Although it may be idealistic of me, I’d much rather make converts out of people through actually true lines of reasoning rather than ones that are merely compelling.
Hypocrisy doesn’t apply here. Unfairness does for people who understand fairness as a global standard, following the golden rule, as in “fair is if everyone gets treated equally and the same rules count for everyone”.
For those who understand “fair” as in “something is unfair if I am not getting my way”, the fairness/unfairness argument doesn’t work either. That kind of egocentric view is common among right-wing voters.
What could work for people with an egocentric world view, who can also hold a thought for longer than 10 seconds is to think of the implications. What kind of impact does an unnecessary war on America’s long-term soft power in the world? What does it do to the US-EU relationship, that used to be so important? What will it do to the US citizen who wants to put fuel in their car and heat their house? But this requires reflective and long-term thinking, so that might be a tall order for some.
For the remaining people, an argument would be that Trump betrayed them. He promised no wars and America first. Now he is spending billions of dollars blowing up school girls in a country on the other side of the planet for … no specific reasons. He is a traitor to the cause he claimed to fight for.
In the end, there is no argument that lands with everyone. You always have to figure out who the person is you are talking with. What do the words mean that they use (the meaning of politically charged terms varies wildly between political factions)? What are the emotions behind these words? What are they disappointed by?
Good args, no critique. I think where I see hypicrisy useful is with some part of centre and left of centre voters who do believe in the concept of fairness and who believe in the propaganda that US interventions are about helping others - e.g. freeing some people from opressive regime through oil embargo.
Yeah, that could work there, but then again, when talking to someone like that, you are preaching to the choir already anyway, so it hardly matters what exact terms you use. They will very likely agree with you that Trump is an asshat without principles or understanding of anything but how to manufacture rage.
Thanks for this really nice comment. This is the kind of interaction that makes Lemmy awesome. I am working up a longer response to this when I have time but just wanted to pop in and reply a little earlier
All true but highlighting the hypocrisy is useful in changing changeable minds. I do believe that the unchangeable mind are a large minority. I think there’s a lot of people who believe what they do because they’ve never heard anything but exceptionalist propaganda since birth.
My problem with this is that I think a lot of the changeable minds that are on the fence will recognize how it isn’t really hypocritical, and so this misses the point and just makes it look like a stupid complaint. Because indeed, there isn’t hypocrisy going on here. The mentality is wrong for other reasons, but not because of hypocrisy. So when it comes to changeable minds, I feel like it’s better to put forward solid reasoning rather than merely sophistic reasoning - as the second kind is usually only useful for preaching to a choir who is willing to overlook logical flaws.
I guess I should also say I totally understand that you might convert some people with a hypocrisy argument. But… Although it may be idealistic of me, I’d much rather make converts out of people through actually true lines of reasoning rather than ones that are merely compelling.
I understand. Can you give me an example of a true line of reasoning? Honest, good faith question, in case I learn something I can use. :D
If too much work, don’t worry about it.
Hypocrisy doesn’t apply here. Unfairness does for people who understand fairness as a global standard, following the golden rule, as in “fair is if everyone gets treated equally and the same rules count for everyone”.
For those who understand “fair” as in “something is unfair if I am not getting my way”, the fairness/unfairness argument doesn’t work either. That kind of egocentric view is common among right-wing voters.
What could work for people with an egocentric world view, who can also hold a thought for longer than 10 seconds is to think of the implications. What kind of impact does an unnecessary war on America’s long-term soft power in the world? What does it do to the US-EU relationship, that used to be so important? What will it do to the US citizen who wants to put fuel in their car and heat their house? But this requires reflective and long-term thinking, so that might be a tall order for some.
For the remaining people, an argument would be that Trump betrayed them. He promised no wars and America first. Now he is spending billions of dollars blowing up school girls in a country on the other side of the planet for … no specific reasons. He is a traitor to the cause he claimed to fight for.
In the end, there is no argument that lands with everyone. You always have to figure out who the person is you are talking with. What do the words mean that they use (the meaning of politically charged terms varies wildly between political factions)? What are the emotions behind these words? What are they disappointed by?
Good args, no critique. I think where I see hypicrisy useful is with some part of centre and left of centre voters who do believe in the concept of fairness and who believe in the propaganda that US interventions are about helping others - e.g. freeing some people from opressive regime through oil embargo.
Yeah, that could work there, but then again, when talking to someone like that, you are preaching to the choir already anyway, so it hardly matters what exact terms you use. They will very likely agree with you that Trump is an asshat without principles or understanding of anything but how to manufacture rage.
Thanks for this really nice comment. This is the kind of interaction that makes Lemmy awesome. I am working up a longer response to this when I have time but just wanted to pop in and reply a little earlier
We’re trying to be excellent to each other. This social is actually ours to a large extent. 🤗
It is more than that. The ones that control society want them to be that way, so they go along to get along. That’s the big factor.