Arguing politics with right wingers is like arguing with creationists

Everything they say is based on beliefs, not evidence.  They seem to have no interest in an honest discussion of the facts.  Instead they hang on to their naive ideologies like "Freedom" and "govt is incapable and corrupt".  I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but sometimes the best solution is a public solution.

 

For right wingers, the only solution is a capitalistic solution - everything else is "socialist".

 

Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions on tactics that might get these people to open thier minds just a little bit?

Views: 317

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is so true. Especially with historical figures. Usually people judge what is said by who says it, and whether they like or dislike that person.

Most people are just stubborn. In debates they don't really listen; just wait for their chance to talk again (if even that! some just interrupt or talk over people!). If proven wrong, they put it aside, hang out with their similar-minded friends, and are reassured until the nagging idea that they're wrong subsides. It makes me wonder how anyone can change their minds at all, and where are the people who don't vote strictly along party lines at elections.
Thank you Danny, Nice response.

This reminds me of a quote about "certainty" from Richard Feyman that I read just yesterday:

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell..."
— Richard P. Feynman
I haven't seen a survey on this, but the ones I'm debating aren't literal creationists. They may be gullible, but they aren't completely ignorant.
Thx John. I get your point, but I'm not sure I'd call it insanity. I think it's more of a combination of lack of critical thinking and desire for social conformity. Throw in a few cult leaders (Beck, Limbaugh and co) and you get a bonafide wingnut.
I'm sure plenty of atheists call themselves right-wing and have good reasons. Either side gets crazy at some point.

But yes, I know what you mean. And it's always sad when it happens to someone you know. :P
Yes, there are crazies on both sides. I'd suggest, though, that the right has the numbers and is getting all the PR at this particular time.
Exactly, at this point, most of the silliness seems slanted to the Right, not that this will last forever.
It is frustrating for me because the word 'conservative' and the idea of 'Republican' has been so twisted that it no longer resembles a shadow of its original principals. This is further infuriating because it is not as if these ideas were not written down by the actual people who created them, unlike some other books that are very open to interpretation, so there really is no excuse for it.
We have lost the whole concept of who 'the people' are and replaced it with 'the corporations' and call that conservative. That is not conservative, that is not even good capitalism, because corporations get tax breaks, subsidies and all other manner of preferential treatment. It is like the idea that a free market and regulation are mutually exclusive, they are not. How can we have a free market if the people don't know what they are getting or if one group is able to do what they want with things that affect the entire nation? Transparency requirements are a type of regulation to prevent rigged markets that create a more free market. So part of the problem is the both the language that is used and the way in which it is used are sloppy.
Too much is dumbed-down and lazy for the 24 hour mass news and we don't often ask enough questions. People like to feel informed with the talking points, but we often don't bother with the critical thinking that would take us beyond the noise to some actual problem solving.
Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't recognize the modern Republican Party. And Obama is as much of a socialist as Eisenhower. Hell, Richard Nixon signed the Clean Water Act and negotiated with the commies in China. He even tried wage and price controls to combat inflation, an anti-free-market move if there ever was one. The Republibaggertarian movement is adolescent ignorant selfish obstinance, and little else. Oh, flag lapel pins. They've got that, too.
Have you noticed that Eisenhower is never mentioned by the right wing? It could be because he maintained the marginal tax on the wealthy at 80% or above, ended a war and didn't start another and bad mouth the military industrial complex.
Actually, he initially called it the military, industrial, congressional complex but advisors thought that cut to close to the bone.
Comparing the life achievements of Ike and those of "Saint Ronnie" reveals what dismal criteria the right has for their heroes. Of course a comparison with GWB would be ROTFLMAO.
The biggest wart on the Eisenhower administration was in the form of tricky Dicky Milhouse.
Tricky Dick was, in turn, a remarkably progressive Republican in many regards. Yes, he had no regard for the Constitution, the rule of law, or democratic principles, but he improved environmental regulations, made a connection with China, and even implemented wage and price controls to try to tame inflation--a misguided idea, but hardly a free-market fundamentalist one.

Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower would not recognize the modern GOP, and would feel quite at home in the Democratic Party. Obama is just as much of a socialist as any of those three presidents. The modern GOP is completely insane, neither conservative nor pragmatic.
On the other hand, Danny, look how much the Teabaggers are falling all over themselves to insist that they are not racists. Look at the collective gasp at Rand Paul's suggestion that the Civil Rights Act was an imposition on "the private right to discriminate". Whiskey. Tango. Fucking foxtrot. Republibaggertarians are constantly jizzing all over themselves about their rights, and they rarely stop to think that maybe people shouldn't have the right to do certain things (until it happens to them, of course). But when somebody like Paul takes the stupidity to its obvious conclusion, even Republicans backpedal.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service