Can any of you successfully discuss politics with someone who doesn't agree with you?

I mean IRL and I mean with people who are from the opposite end of the political spectrum - not someone who generally agrees with you but may disagree on an issue or two.

If you are able to have an effective, civil conversation with your opponents (my definition of successful) - please tell me how you do it because I can not.

I would like to be a person who can calmly discuss politics (and religion) but I find I have so much anger about these topics that I blurt things out that are both ineffective and hurtful.

How can one even think about influencing someone else to look at an issue from a different perspective if you can't make your point in a civil manner? What is the point of having a political and/or religious conversation if it's only two people ranting and not listening?
It might feel good for a moment or two but really it doesn't change or improve anything.

I love my family and friends too much to subject them to my blurting but there is no way to completely avoid these topics and if one of them makes a statement that is untrue or truly abhorrent, I can't just let it stand - it just isn't right.

So if you have successful strategies, I'd love to hear them. Maybe this could be my New Year's resolution.

And I usually wind up finding common ground somewhere.

Writing/reading/analyzing/discussing politics and policy, often in public forums like radio and local TV (on top of my public writings), is what I do for a living. I practice every day. And, in perhaps a dangerous admission, I find common ground oftentimes because there are aspects of the conservative philosophy I can agree with.

Uncomfortable for them.

For me politics is Damn personal and they all sense this and know they will never change my mind.

there is another forum with both left and right and occasionally a civil discussion can ensue.

I have found that discussion is easiest when I don't feel involved in the outcome. If I feel strongly about some area I can't discuss it well as I find myself reacting to what I believe is utter denial on the other person's part.

They seem to think the same thing of the left. It's difficult but can be done as I've watched it occasionally between the calmer members of that forum.

I'm always faced with someone who is totally uninformed and when I try to explain reality, I hear something like "Oh, I don't have time to research stuff like you do. I just know what I believe and I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are."

uninformed about something. I didn't mean he was stupid and I know there are many things that I am uninformed about, but that was the end of a new friendship. In honesty, I did listen to a lot of his bullshit without calling him on it but I couldn't let this one go. :-(

If anyone makes any statement in a topic, the very first reply is always "Link?". And, until that person lists the link to the source, it's considered meaningless.

The longer you staye here and read, the more you'll realize that you can't believe what you hear on the TV networks.

The best TV political opinions are Keith Olberman on MSNBC and occasionally Tim Russert. But with him, realize he doesn't usually ask follow-up questons, and accepts the politician's answer. So, you have to know who's lying to watch Tim.

Occasionally, especially on Neo-Con discussions, Chris matthews can get it right. But sometimes he loves the politician too much to really force the proof.

Welcome to DU!

on how to deal with people who disagree with you. i've been here at DU for quite a while.

and she certainly doesn't need me to speak for her *LOL*, but what I got from the post was that being well informed, and confident of your facts makes it a lot easier to enter a discussion without growing angry. Being confident in your arguement goes a long way for me anyway.

I just wait to pull my hair out until after they leave.

land mines.

However, a couple of issues resonate on both sides: The recognition that our troops are suffering with never ending deployments to a horrific situation.

And, the general degrading of most folks' economic health at the expense of corporations and the mega wealthy.

Make that three....global warming.

If you predicate your exchange on one of these, it helps to more gently sway, hopefully, the debate your way.

Oh, and most important, listen, really listen. You can always learn something and become more understanding even when, or especially when, in discussion with someone who holds different views than you.

Happy New Year, I like your resolution! :hi: MKJ

2000, so I missed when it was easy. :-)

Of course my dad and I got in some heated exchanges before then, I'll never forget him asking me if not changing my name when I was getting married was some kind of "women's lib thing.":rofl:

Again, these are very difficult and I often fail trying to execute them, but I believe they help me when I can muster the wherewithal to do them:

1. I must fully accept and acknowledge that I could be wrong about my conclusions and beliefs. Everyone once thought the world was flat. Knowledge evolves. The only way to temper myself is to admit my own flaws.

2. I must assume that, in spite of previous experience, my opponents may be correct. Stranger things have been known to happen and humility goes a long way in conversation.

3. I must accept from the onset that my goal is not to change the other; rather, I'm trying to learn myself and, if possible, help others to learn as well.

If I admit I could be wrong, my temper lowers dramatically. If I allow the other side the possibility of being correct, I am able to listen to their side. If I set my goal on learning rather than convincing, I can actually come out ahead instead of always feeling bad when the conversation ends. I have, on occasion, learned from my ill-informed family and friends, and when I do, they usually do, too.

That's it. Mostly, I try not to discuss politics with them, but I often fail...quite often!

Peace.

would benefit from practicing :-)

Keep asking them questions.

Like:

How come the US dealt with Saddam more than a year after he gassed the Kurds? I thought we were against murderous dictators.

or

If the VA can negotiate for lower drug prices for vets, why can't Medicare do the same?


The secret is to NOT make the question personal. Don't ask anything that directly questions the person's intelligence. Simply question the facts that they base their opinion upon.

Sooner or later, after enough questions, that person (assuming they have a mediocre amount of brain cells) will start asking themselves those questions also.

Rule #1 - Avoid insults and putdowns.

Stick to facts and avoid getting personal.

If your opponent wants to go in that direction, call them on it immediately and let them know you will not continue the conversation, if they have to resort to insults. Usually, when someone has to stoop to that level, means they don't have the truth on their side.

Keep an open mind. None of us are right all the time.

Try to see the world through the other person's eyes. We are all shaped by our personal experiences. That doesn't make one person more right or wrong then the other, but when you try to understand where another person is coming from it can go along way to finding common ground.

Assume the best instead of the worse about the other person.

On that note, I need to go take another dose of my own medicine. These concepts are so easy to forget.

I live in SC and if I am going to talk about politics in real life, it is usually with somebody who doesn't agree with me.

The things I have found that work are:

A) Avoid being confrontational. I might want to scream at them for supporting Bush or the war, but as soon as you get loud or pushy, people completely shut you out. No matter how right you are, they only hear the tone and you are done.

B) I say "we" a lot. It takes it away from a Me vs. You thing. Nobody likes to feel stupid. If you approach people from a 'here, let me enlighten you' stance, they just try harder to figure out why they are right.

C) I LISTEN in what they are saying. Even if in my head I am thinking "bullshitbullshitbullshit", I let them get it all out and I listen. A lot of times, I can find the base reason for WHY they think the way they do. Sometimes it might be a base fear or some personal experience. That gives me a jumping off point for explaining why I feel differently.

D) I basically think most people are good. When I hear someone barfing back some FOX news talking point, I realze that most people don't have the luxury of time that I do to spend hours on the internet looking into stories. I don't think they are lazy. I think they are busy trying to live their lives. If somebody is REALLY on the other side and I truly think I am right, I try to figure out how a good and honest person could come to feel the way they do. It makes it easier to come up with arguments that might influence them.

E) And lastly, I have had to learn that some people, good and rational people, just don't think like I do. I have decided it is because they LITERALLY don't think the way I do. There are all kinds of problem solving skills that people use to approach life. Each person generally has a few styles of handling problems and they vary. Also, I have read studies which have proven that people are hardwired for a certain level of happiness and optimism/pessimism. If you are a natural optimist, you might have a hard time convincing a natural pessimist of your viewpoint.

What are their influences, that make them think the way they do. Once you take the time to understand the other person, it's easier to compromise. Usually I am able to get the person to understand my point of view, even if they don't necessarily agree with it. Other times, a bell will go off, and I end up starting to question my own opinion. If you are open-minded, and willing to learn, it can be fun, because you don't know where the conversation will end up.

Most open minded people have come over to my point of view with civil discourse or taken a nihilistic centrist statement that all politicians are corrupt so it does not matter what they do. I officially don't take a democratic point of view so much as I take a humanitarian point of view with what I consider to be common sense and moderate policies. At the moment the Democratic party most closely mirrors my ideals and as such has gained my support for the moment. When anyone tries to discuss Bush with me I keep to the facts the best I can though I will admit it gets difficult, especially when nine times out of ten I am met with emotionally or loyalty based arguments. Emotionally based arguments are difficult to disarm. In the case of those basing their arguments on loyalty I have used the example that the military, where loyalty is considered one of the primary virtues has relieve their own field commanders of duty or even taken 'direct' action to relieve incompetent leadership when the lives of the troops were being thrown away.

edited to add this example -

For example - I converted one person to agreeing with my point of view when I stated that personally I'd have been happier if Saddam had been given life at hard labor and shuffled off into ignominy with nobody to hear from him again. I argued that with his dieing that they had a martyr, a conspiracy and a target. That from his dieing that he would only serve as a further catalyst and that we really don't know what will happen in the afterlife so if you really want to punish him, make him live and be constantly reminded that he is nothing more than a monster who's teeth have been pulled.

party for my husband's side of the family. My SIL, very right-wing, made a comment about the good news that Saddam was executed. I don't know what she was expecting by making that statement but in my usual avoidance/deflection mode I made no comment and hoped the subject was changed.

Then my nephew's girlfriend said "I think he got off too easy, they should have tortured him first like he tortured all those people." I was shocked that she said that and just blurted "I think that's disgusting."

There's a million responses I could probably have made that wouldn't have insulted her and would have at least had her think about what she was saying - I'm damn sure she couldn't have converted me to her POV - and this is my problem, controlling the impulse to just react without thinking.

For instance, Saturday at work I wore my Bush Vampire shirt, only one person even noticed enough to comment and then it was with a nihilistic point of view that all politicians wanted to strip us of civil liberties so it wasn't important. There is no real way to combat apathy. I've gotten into arguments over Bush and some of the crap that has been done in various names over the past few years. Mainly when dealing with excusists that ignore any wrongdoing on their 'side' by stating that 'everyone' does it. I do try to keep to civil discourse though, I don't need the stress.

...trying to talk with someone who has no opinion at all. I want to kick them in the ...well you can guess where I wish I could kick them, lol.

It is the worse to me to try to talk to people who want to "stay neutral" ~ or worse the ones who "don't care" as they seem to me to be the most frustrating. I just feel that if they would make a stand it might actually help this country to move forward. I think it is naive when they think that "getting along" will somehow heal something. It only makes people be silent, it does not heal a damn thing! If there has anything I have learned, it is that these people are usually not very savvy as to what is going on and to tell you the truth I am MAD at these people Most of all because I hold their practiced ignorance responsible for the mess we are currently in as much if not more than some wing nut who at the very least is making a stand on their beliefs. I give up trying to tell these "neutrals" that in my forays into politics I have learned that "getting along" usually means liberals are forced to shut up and cower down and pretend conservatives are right, or we are considered "unpatriotic".

I guess just having the facts helps, and if I am not too passionate about everything, this helps if I HAVE to talk about this stuff with any of them.

Will, you are amazing! I wish I could be like that! I cannot talk to conservatives either, as I find them pretty insufferable and full of hubris and most of them just do not have a clue (or worse don't want to know the truth). How do you DO that??????

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cat In Seattle

I no longer suffer fools gladly. Thirty two years ago, I moved away from my family, because-primarily-we had little common ground.

Of course, there were numerous visits and conversations were wide ranging but subjects of intense difference were studiously avoided.

I can and will have thoughtful intercourse with those who have studied their own positions and have reached their conclusions therefrom, but I avoid those whose uninformed views, left or right, arise from strictly emotional reactions.

This does, naturally, reduce the number of people I interact with, but I have reached the point where I can choose my battles carefully and refuse to upset myself or others if there is no gain for either. I will not change the world but I will change my little part of it. The analogy of trying to teach a pig to sing comes to mind.

so I don't get into this kind of discussion all that much anymore. This isn't an easy road to take and it's not for everyone....

My mother and my BIL however are two I can't totally avoid which means that there will be tense discussions at times. They are so far right it's impossible to dialogue with them rationally and I know it will get ugly. For example, my mother refuses to believe that we have killed almost as many Iraqis as Saddam (and in some reports, we have killed more Iraqis), she believes GW Bu$h is a sincere and honest Christian, tax cuts are good for the poor - big national debt is good for our country, stem cell research causes unendurable agony to "babies", Bill and Hillary Clinton have personally killed over 300 "political opponents", there is no such thing as global warming - it's a myth devised by Al Gore right along with his development of the internets, etc. etc. etc.

I mean, beyond my mother these kinds of ideas are shared by my neighbors and clients. If anyone has any ideas on how you hold a discussion with such people without getting angry, I'm also a good candidate for re-education since frankly I can't seem to discover how in hell you find "common ground" with these folks.

When I do find myself in these kinds of discussions, I usually state my facts as I know them and tell them I will get them hard copies of my supporting documentation, (hopefully without getting steamed). And then I absolutely follow up. I've given hard copies of data to my mother, BIL, clients and neighbors with great regularity. They never bring up that particular discussion again and neither do I. It's a very, very awkward method.

Unless I'm itching for a fight, of course. Which only happens when THEY start blathering about how everyone who voted for Lula is a gay nazi baby-eating commie.

Yes, we have them here too. Thankfully, there's much fewer here.

I usually try and find an area of their life that's being adversely touched by the current politicians and then work out from there.

If you can make it personal most people are more willing to be receptive.

Well if you just want to discuss here are a few things to remeber.

1. Let the person finish what their saying, don't interupt!
2. LISTEN to what their saying, don't just be waiting in anticipation to respond.
3. Concede to some of their points when you should, it is highly unlikely that your arguments are without major flaws.
4. Detach yourself from your arguments, don't feel like your pride is on the line.
5. Don't preach, your boring the other person.
6. Keep on track, you'll know your discussion is going downhill if you keep changing subjects somehow every 30 seconds. You start off with your topic, then quickly reach a subtopic usually based off a rejection of somones premises, and then based on the rejection of those premises you reach a new sub topic, and so on and so on.
7. Analyze issues, an issue is a problem where there is no widely accepted normative. Other peoples viewpoints are just as valid.
8. Sarcasm and insults are just a big flat out NO.
9. Get out of the other person quotes Bible scripture as proof of their argument. You could remain civil but the exchange that goes out is usually just absurd and a waste of both peoples time. It really is like equivalent of arguing in two different languages.
10. If the discussion has turned bitter, concede. Think about it this way, neither of you have convinced anyone of anything. A poor exit strategy means burning a bridge or damaging a relationship which isn't worth it.

Some advice, anyone can verbally defend what they believe in. Have you tried taking up a side of an argument you vehemently disagree with? I mean one you really absolutely loath.

silly fundie nutbags. Shove a few facts in their face along with a few scriptures and it's fairly easy. But it can't be the fake born agains, it has to be the ones that really believe, the ones that have been raised up in it. It doesn't work on the ones that just use the church for their own advancement though.

answer is offered, ask where we found the WMD's. Then aske them why wer're so stupid or our government lied to us about WMD's. Then, Make sure they know that the 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and we have official and personal business associations with the Saudis. Remind them that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently called Cheney over for a personal chat, and he went. Ask them if they could do that? Summon Cheney to their house?

The point is that Bush has personal oil/financial accounts with the Saudis called the Carlyle group. Remind them that after 9/11 the only planes flying were taking Bin Laden's family to safety in europe. Remind them that there is a pipeline in Afghanistan that we want control over. Tell them that Saddam Hussein was messing with Opec's oil pricing, and that's the real reason * wanted him taken out.

Remind them of the gas gauging here at home.

Before you know it, you've inserted so much solid evidence that they've been lied to, that they'll start listening. People don't like to be lied to or robbed. Appeal to their greedy nature, and it gets real easy.

Then, the real sources to send them to google are Greg Palast (author), Richard Clarke (Author of Against All Enemies) and Frank Rich (New York Times).

Those three sources will make them mad as hell and they'll be back to get your opinion of it all.

It's not so tough.

I also like to explain the Iraq insurgency like South Africa: The Sunnis are the whites unfairly exploiting the black majority with outside help. The Shia are the black majority, and also, more moderate in their religion. Now that Hussein is no longer holding the whites at bay, the blacks are taking revenge. And the US is now stuck, because we have financial ties to the whites: Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are all sunni (white.) Iran, quite unfortunately, is Shia (the blacks.) So, we're backing the evil exploitive regime. It's traditionally america's role to back the opressed, but in this case, that would mean siding with Iran.

And that's the real reason we can't finish Iraq or leave. We're stuck there because we want it both ways: We want the financial opportunities from the Sunnis but want to see ourselves as the rescuers of the Shia, but we're too busy rattling our saber at Iran to run to their aid.

We don't want to hand Iraq to Iran, but in effect, that's what we've done. And that's why Iran's Almadinajan (ok, I can't spell his name) is laughing at us. He gets it all, and most americans haven't a clue.

There are three sorts of right-winger: those who interested in civil exchange, those so fixed in their views that they won't consider any inconvenient fact, and those who just don't care about the facts at all. You can only really engage in discussions with the first kind: for the others, it's a matter of countering their effect on third parties.

I find it's best to let them say their piece and make a mental note of the key points that demand discussion (since it's unlikely you can examine every single point of disagreement), or pollitely intervene with a correction when they err so far from reality that everything that follows is going to be based on that assumption. Don't waste time on secondary trivia. In practice, lots of errors arise from a single misreading: from one correction, others can follow.

I think one failing common to both sides is to argue from their own favored sources. It's better to use your opponent's sources, or generally-accepted ones. If we're closer to truth, we can draft common sense to support our reasoning. Citing a beloved liberal firebrand isn't going to shake any conservative worth their salt, but citing a Republican government report may do it. Conspiracies definitely need to be left at home.

Argue from reason, not conscience. We all have our core beliefs as to what we want to see, and we're not about to change them in some ten-minute discussion. And often they're less opposed than we like to think. You're for life? So are we. Working communities? Yup. Religious freedom? We're actually way ahead on that score.

It's often better to question the effectiveness of approaches in delivering an end: too often their preferred policy doesn't even do what they think it does. You want to encourage and reward economic risk-taking? Then don't reward risk-free rent-seeking, which has been the greater consequence of GOP policy. You want to preserve your religion? Take a look at England before you decide hitching it to the state is such a good idea. You want to contain radical jihadism? Then don't attack those who stand in its way.

It's an arduous business, and too many just aren't for discussion at all. Then there are the professional mouthpieces who stick with the message because it's a living. But often it's the most strident who are the least secure in their views, especially the young. You might not change their views at one sitting, but a little doubt can go a long way.

I love diversity of opinion.

As many have stated above, you must be ready to listen as well as talk, respect the opinions of others as you expect yours to be respected ... most important, know when to walk away or change the subject.

These are people you care about, so I can assume that they do have positive characteristics ...

Listen to them and ask them questions. Then I say, I see your point and considered that but after thinking about it ... or after reading this paper ... and then I share my point of view. I never argue politics in anger cuz all it does is get everyone pissed.

However, my brothers I handle differently. They use to make cracks for my benefit and I never made a nasty response but always made it clear that I was a proud democrat. Every once in awhile I made a comment such as "she thought I was voting republican and I almost died of shame. I told her that my critical thinking skills were much more evolved than that." "or I told her that I'm a much stronger person that that."

But this year I fixed it for good I think. I named dropped which was all true, but only just barely, and I explained why I no longer went to church. I said that our pastor made us pray for the continued wisdom of George Bush and I was stunned. I said I would have prayed for George Bush, I had no problem with that, but his continued wisdom? You must be kidding. And I said that the people at church treated me like I was beneath them. I don't mind if something thinks differently than I, but if they think they are better than me, well that ain't gonna fly. I decided my energy was better spent making things better than bothering with them." (I think that if someone thinks they are better than I, when I dismiss them it makes them wonder."

So rather than arguing with them, it has taken awhile and a lot of intestinal fortitude, but now they are very curious and look at me curiously and tend to stop and listen when I talk. Oh by the way, two are doctors and one is a CPA. *LOL* I love my life! It works for me but I'm a very patient person.

Most of the time I find myself wading through minutia of a topic, bits and pieces of past arguments
that I feel should be obvious, and or common knowledge. You know, things that have been made public and are relevant but seem to be ignored by the other side. I feel that they let their bias block my point and I get frustrated.
Of course I could be having totally the same effect on them.

for the most part. now it is more a jab and then everyone lets it go.

this year!!!!

I really am going to miss the guy. He was about 10 years older and served in Germany during the vietnam war. He watches/listens to way too much MSM. Every few days we would have chats over our side fence about politics, family stuff etc. (think Tim, the tool man here)

Instead of getting angry over things we disagreed about I would find a way to make a joke and point how how ludicrious our current situation is. I know it's not funny, but getting angry just makes people keep a firmer grip on their opinion (right or wrong).

My joking was not in a condescending manner, but more of a "doesn't this sound like a science fiction plot, too bad it's true". Once in a while I would get a little overheated, but by remembering to bring things back to a lighter issue or things we agreed upon we would always part on good terms which ensured further discussions and more opportunites for me to keep him up to date on current facts.

He really was a good man, just generally MISINFORMED.

Arm yourself with facts and a sense of humor and the TRUTH shall prevail!

for polishing your writing style and debating skills. There's enough disagreement here to make debate with right-wingers superfluous. To answer your question, discussing politics can be helped if you:

1) Try to understand where your interlocutor is coming from. People start with different sets of facts and see the world differently. What may seem to be stubbornness may not be -- once you have a "take" on things, it takes a lot to overcome that perception. But it sometimes happens. I used to be a Republican and an evangelical, which makes it easier to appreciate that others can have divergent beliefs in good faith.

2) Establish common ground. This is not usually as difficult as it sounds. For example, if you're discussing Saddam's execution, you can probably both agree on the principles that crimes should be punished and that everyone deserves a fair trial. That removes the argument from the realm of principle and places it on how to interpret the facts.

3) Most importantly, concede where the other person has a legitimate point. This will help prevent hard feelings and will affect your attitude as well. Limited agreement also has the benefit of being the single most powerful debating tactic you can use. I have heard good debaters absolutely destroy their opponents by agreeing to 90% of their individual points and then showing that they were irrelevant to the topic under debate.

4) When discussing online, review your words and anticipate what effect they will have. It's in your interest as well, since only trolls enjoy flame wars. I frequently edit my posts to remove snarky comments, and only go off on someone about one in twenty times.

5) Stay on topic. Half of flame wars are caused by off-topic comments.

I face a lot of disagreement, since my parents and brother are right-wing evangelicals (my mother used to work the phones on the 700 Club). Most of the time I just try to avoid controversy, which is often the best option with friends and family. I also have a strange mixture of opinions (I am an MBA finance manager who reads Chomsky and wsws.org, for example), so there's pretty much no one I agree with on everything.

This was a good topic to post. Handling disagreement on emotional issues with aplomb is one of the hardest things to do, and takes a lot of practice.

Here on DU, for a start, and in life with family and friends.

With people IRL it's important to remember that they're family and friends first, political second.