#elections16

Before I begin, do note that this is easier when done online and with strangers, and it gets much harder when you have to do it face to face, especially with people that are close to you, like family and friends. When it comes to emotional issues it’s very hard to keep a cool head and it will be hard to follow this post to a letter, but these are things that work and something to keep in mind. 

The Socratic method. 

You can find info on this online and many of you have probably heard about it in school or at some point in your lives. Here’s a wiki link. 

Your strategy here is to ask questions that promote critical thinking. You’re trying to lead the other person and steer them in the right direction, while allowing them to reach conclusions on their own. 

This means that you first need to let them talk, listen to them, and then ask questions based on what they just told you. This will make them more open to you and more at ease with you because you will make them feel validated and like they matter. What they’re feeling matters and you’re willing to listen to them and tailor your response to their case specifically. 

You’re not just dumping a whole view on their head expecting them to just take and adopt it; you’re helping them do that on their own. And if they do it on their own, it will stick and be stronger precisely because they went through the whole process of reaching the conclusions themselves instead of just receiving the finished product. 

For example, someone says that LGBT people/movement is destroying their society and values. So you start by asking how this is happening; what specifically about it is destructive; what values are we talking about and why don’t LGBT people have them; do they know someone who has been hurt by it; what do they think LGBT people actually want; are these wants normal and human. The list goes on.  Each answer will open the field for more questions and this cycle will repeat until you hopefully reach the desired conclusion together. 

Logic wins in the end, but it’s hard to make that happen when people are emotional. So you need to do it slowly and step by step, making sure not to dismiss their worries. Yes, it might be ridiculous that you even have to discuss a topic like this, but if you want to change this person’s view, you have to take them seriously because they are serious. You have to first listen to know what their view is exactly so you can steer the conversation in the right direction. 

If there’s one thing that you will take away from this post, it really should be this one. 

Hostility is bad. 

This is a tough one, especially when the other person is hostile to you and especially when discussing issues that matter to you. However, hostility and rudeness are incredibly counterproductive to a fruitful discussion. All it does is make the other person feel attacked and threatened. Then that makes them defensive. And then that makes them hold onto their side of the argument even more firmly. 

There’s this wonderful thing that happens when you’re talking to someone who’s hostile and you’re not. You keep replying calmly and without insults and it’s in stark contrast to their approach. Pretty soon you will see them start to deflate. Anger feeds anger, and when one side is angry and the other isn’t, the former will start feeling inadequate and even a bit ashamed at their lack of control and calm down. In my experience, it’s better not to dwell on that hostility and not to draw attention to it because it can make it flare up again, though it can sometimes be done in a subtle and effective way, such as,

“There’s no need to swear and yell - I’m talking to you normally and we’re just trying to figure this out. I understand it’s important and emotional, but can we please discuss this in a more calm manner?”

It’s tricky because not everyone will be receptive to it, but if they are this will speed up the deflating process by quite a bit. Avoid word constructs such as, “Can we talk about this like adults,” because it implies they’re being silly and childish and then you have to start over from the top. 

Ad hominem is bad.

Ad hominem is something that tends to go hand in hand with hostility. It’s a logical fallacy in which you answer an argument by attacking the owner of said argument personally, by attacking their character, motives, or any other similar characteristic instead of attacking the argument itself. 

This is a tough one again, because you have to control your own strong instincts when it comes to emotional topics. 

Let’s say you’re dealing with a climate change denier or an anti-vaxxer and they give you their reasons. These will usually include an obscure paper written way back when that’s been debunked too many times to count since then. Your instinct may be to laugh in their face and call them an idiot because only an idiot would believe something like that. You may want to call them uneducated or ignorant or any other myriad of colorful words.

What you do instead is something along the lines of, “This information is wrong. I know it’s been circulated a lot and it sounds convincing, but it has been debunked many times. Let me show you some of the sources and data I have.” And then you include your credible sources and make sure to mention how and why they’re credible and better than the one they provided. 

See, it’s a game. And this game is played with words. How you say things matters immensely. You’ve told them they’re wrong in both of these cases and you’ve dismissed their evidence in both cases, and they will have to face and accept that in order to move on (and it’s not easy for anyone to admit they’re wrong), but one way makes that a lot more easier than the other.

Note on logical fallacies. 

There are quite a few of them and it’s good to get familiar with them, both so you could recognize when others use them and learn not to use them yourself because you might also get called out on it. Here’s a source on the topic. 

There’s a bunch, but the ones that come up most often are argumentum ad populum, appeal to tradition, to improper authority, and to emotion, circular reasoning, the red herring (and it’s sub-type the strawman argument), non sequitur, the slippery slope fallacy, and the no true Scotsman fallacy. 

It may seem like a lot even with this shortened list, but I promise you that you already know most of these are bad arguments, you just don’t know their “official names.” And it’s quite easy to recognize and connect them once you read a list such as the one I linked.  

When calling these out, though, do definitely try to steer clear from simply scoffing, “Well, this is argumentum ad populum which is a logical fallacy so it doesn’t hold up.” Don’t even mention the words logical fallacy or the fancy Latin terms. Completely unnecessary.

Instead, turn it into another question that’s more approachable: “Is the majority always right, though? Can you think of any examples in our history where the majority ended up being in the wrong and doing bad things?”

You’ve called out the fallacy and made them think about it without making them feel stupid, inferior, and dismissed. Job well done. 

Note: if you do want to mention the fallacy itself and educate them on that, you could include that sort of in passing. In the example I gave, you could say, “Actually, this is a logical fallacy called XY. You can read about it more here [source],” and then just segue into the rest without dwelling on the fallacy itself too much.

Examples are good.

And very helpful. Sometimes you’re discussing something complicated or something that the other person is having trouble grasping which is when you should definitely come up with examples to simplify it and make it into something closer and more recognizable. 

These come hand in hand with my next point:

Analogies are good. 

Oh, dear. These can be a lifesaver and turn the tide on their own. 

You have to be careful, though, because false analogies are actually another fallacy and they can hurt your case. But if you can come up with a good one, it can pretty much do your work for you. These are definitely seen a lot in our view changing responses. 

Why are they so good? 

Because many times you will be discussing a concept that is foreign to the other person. It will be something they’ve never experienced and can’t relate to so what an analogy does is essentially apply this foreign concept to something they do know, something they will manage to connect to. And so if they agree with the analogy, and the analogy is a good and sound one, they will end up in a place where they have to accept the original premise too. This is why analogies tend to be nails in the coffins of views - it’s hard to rebut a good one. 

Be flexible with your approach.

This is a trap that’s easy to fall into: you’re confident in the approach you’ve decided on and you keep pushing it even though the other person is not receptive. Essentially, you’re hoping that if you repeat the same point enough times, they will get it.

Highly unlikely. What’s more probable is they will get agitated and feel like you’re not listening to them, and you will get frustrated because they’re just not getting it.

So if it’s not working, approach it from a different angle. More questions, different examples and analogies. All of these issues are complex with many different sides to them so don’t get discouraged if this particular one you focused on isn’t working. There’s many more to try.

 Remember that the person you’re talking to is actually a person.

Sounds silly, right? Not so much, actually. I can’t tell you how often people lose sight of this. 

And it’s hard sometimes, it really is. I’ve had to be calm and collected and listen to someone list all the reasons why I shouldn’t marry and why I’m a bad influence on children. I had to keep asking them questions and acknowledge their worries and address them calmly and in detail, as if all of what I’m saying shouldn’t be common sense in the first place. 

And all the while in my head (or out loud if I was in front of a computer screen), I was boiling with rage and probably called them every curse word in the book. Frustration, anger, disdain. 

But then it starts happening. They start to crack. They’re not so sure anymore. They say, “I’ve never thought about it like that,” or “That’s a very interesting point; I need to think about it some more,” or even simply, “Huh.” 

And that makes all those bad feelings go away and they get replaced with elation and renewed motivation because you’re about to change this person’s view on something important. You’re about to make them a better person and an ally to those around them. And when they do and they thank you... There are no words to describe it. 

Note: if they reach a point where they’re saying they need to think about it some more and/or they’ll get back to you, it’s best to let them do it. This means they’ve reached their limit with this new information and they can feel the foundations of their views shaking and they need to process. While you may think it’s the perfect moment to go in for the kill, it’s very easy to overdo it and reverse all the work you’re done. If you’ve managed to respect them up to this point, surely you can do that now when they’re on the verge of changing their view.

Take care of yourselves.

Incredibly important so here are some parting points:

Not everyone can do this. This is okay. You’re not obligated to and I want to emphasize this because people who will read this here will by and large be members of minorities who have had to deal with fear, dismissal, rejections, anger and all the other bad things for so long. Ideally, your allies will do this for you. They should be the ones to address their own groups, after all.

Maybe you can do it, but not with everyone. This is also common and also okay. It’s not the same to talk to someone online and face to face; it’s not the same to talk to a stranger and your parent. 

Maybe you can do it, but not on every issue. It’s easier to defend others than ourselves, especially when arguing with people close to us. Much easier. So maybe you’ll stand up for people not from your group and some others will stand up for you. It’s perfectly okay.

Maybe you can do it, but not every time. We all have a limit. We’ve all had those, “Not today, Satan,” moments and those are perfectly fine and valid. It’s okay to not engage every time and with every person. You’re not alone and there are others who will do it when you’re tired.

If it gets too much, disengage. Seriously, you may think you can do it and then in the middle of an argument something happens and you just reach your tipping point. You can’t keep your cool anymore, you’re getting emotional, you’re feeling hurt or distraught, anything at all - disengage. You’re not obligated to actually see it through.

Make sure you are safe. Again, you’re safer doing this from the comfort and safety of your home while anonymous online than face to face with people. Arguments can get heated so that’s something to keep in mind for sure.

Given that I’m doing this on a whim without consulting the other moderators, that we are already overwhelmed in the aftermath of this election, and that I don’t know how many people this post will reach, I will for now not share the name of the community in question. I have left enough hints for most people to quite easily track it down on their own, but for now  I will not include it here.