I had an argument with my neighbor a few months ago. He was dead serious that it’s the Democrats’ fault for making young men Nazis. His arguments were basically exactly what this comic is saying. If you tell someone that hating minorities is wrong, that just makes them hate even harder.
The use of more concrete, low-controlling language, and the restoration of freedom through the inclusion of a choice-emphasizing postscript, may offer the best solution to reducing ambiguity and reactance
Person 1: I like my truck
Person 2: I prefer my EV, trucks consume too much fuel.
P1: trucks have to consume so much fuel because that’s what makes them powerful
P2: but most people don’t need that much power, trucks are unnecessary.
P1 (feeling attacked, goes into a defensive mentality): I need a truck and lots of other people do too. (Continued rationalizations of why trucks are necessary)
P2 (unmoved in their opinion): I still don’t think they’re necessary for the average person.
P1: (further rationalizations as to the everyday benefits of a truck)
P2 (still unmoved in their opinion)
P1 successfully convinced themselves of the benefits of owning a truck.
This is will known to marketing too. Most vehicle advertising is not to get you to buy a (insert vehicle here), but instead, get those with (insert vehicle here) to be so proud of how great their car is, that they convince you to buy (insert vehicle here).
This is actually a very interesting psychological phenomenon. I’m no psychologist, but stretching what I learned from “how to win friends and influence people” to the extreme, directly opposing someone’s viewpoint generally forces them to defend it. By defending it, they rationalize the reasons why they adhere to the idea, and thus end up convincing themselves of their belief.
Your opposition literally only serves to force them to rationalize their belief, and deepen their belief in that thing.
It’s fascinating, but stupid. In my experience, the most intelligent people I’ve ever spoken to will always take opposition seriously, even if with a grain of salt. When struck with an opposing viewpoint, they usually inquire about it, asking the speaker to justify their position so they can understand why they came to this conclusion. The mildly intelligent will then use that justification to tear down the person’s belief in that system. The highly intelligent will then ask questions that cause the speaker to question their own beliefs.
But doing nothing more than asking specific and pointed questions about someone’s beliefs, I have seen very intelligent and clever people, get others to convince themselves that they’re wrong in what they believe.
Long story short, your neighbor isn’t wrong, but they’re also not exactly correct. The character of a person, IMO, is not in what they believe in, but how they react to adversity. Whether that adversity is political, intellectual, physical, or emotional; how you deal with difficulty is the content of your character.
If making people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and women, equal, by granting them the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (including bodily autonomy, and the ability to live, vote, and marry who they wish), causes you to start to lean towards fascism, what do you think that says about your character?
You should have told them they shouldn’t support preaching abstinence then. As if they think that logic traverses throughout situations as such, it means they are trying to teach preteens to have sex
You’re not understanding it vor even trying to take it serious. No wonder voters are running ax from you.
If you constantly tell someone they are at fault for something because they are of a certain race, if you constantly deny them any of their achievements and say is because of privilege, if you constantly chastize them, don’t take them serious and ridicule them when they talk about their problems, they aren’t going to feel represented by and vote for you.
Voting for Trump isn’t a rational decision, it’s a emotional one.
You need to Figuren out where you went wrong so the elections became emotional instead oft rational.
Remind me who they were running as VP again? Was it another cishet white guy? Also maybe you should be the one trying to understand privilege instead of projecting your own insecurities onto the word. Cool flags though bro.
But sure, go on and removed around, being all cocky and passive aggressive about the problem instead of trying to fix it.
I mean, just look at it: You’re framing it in a way that a white cishet guy running for (vice-)president is a problem.
You are making fun of a person advocating for the troubles of young white guys. When in literally the sentence before it you were framing a white vice president as a bad thing. And then you’re wondering why they aren’t voting for you.
It is on the nose. Especially since I already typed it out for you in my comment.
Tim Miller of the Bullwark was just so pissed off by the audacity of “White Guys for Harris”.
When asked why, he would mumble something about White guys being for anything is bad and then he would hear how ridiculous that sounds and change the subject. I saw him do it a couple of times.
If you constantly tell someone they are at fault for something because they are of a certain race, if you constantly deny them any of their achievements and say is because of privilege
I see Trump voters and people who want an excuse for their behavior saying this has happened. I’ve not actually seen it happening beyond the odd anecdotal outlier. I’ve seen people choose to interpret things like white privilege and systemic racism as if that’s what’s being said, but it always seems very clear to me that it’s not what is being said, it’s how they react to folks suggesting they be more mindful of how they interact with others or less dismissive of the ongoing impacts of historical injustices.
Signed, a white guy, who doesn’t deny all the awful things perpetrated by other white guys in the US, nor feel personally responsible for those awful things, nor feel blamed for those awful things, despite also having struggles, no money in the bank, and plenty of my own personal challenges.
It’s hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for the folks willing to fuck shit up for all of us (including themselves) because they aren’t willing to stop and actually consider what is being said instead of what they think is being said, or because being mindful of how they interact with the people around them is somehow just too much courtesy to ask for.
And psst - fixing a lot of those things would help white folks too!
I had an argument with my neighbor a few months ago. He was dead serious that it’s the Democrats’ fault for making young men Nazis. His arguments were basically exactly what this comic is saying. If you tell someone that hating minorities is wrong, that just makes them hate even harder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)
The use of more concrete, low-controlling language, and the restoration of freedom through the inclusion of a choice-emphasizing postscript, may offer the best solution to reducing ambiguity and reactance
This concept has a name. Cool, thanks, TIL.
Could you provide an example?
There’s lots. A pretty easy example:
Person 1: I like my truck Person 2: I prefer my EV, trucks consume too much fuel.
P1: trucks have to consume so much fuel because that’s what makes them powerful P2: but most people don’t need that much power, trucks are unnecessary.
P1 (feeling attacked, goes into a defensive mentality): I need a truck and lots of other people do too. (Continued rationalizations of why trucks are necessary) P2 (unmoved in their opinion): I still don’t think they’re necessary for the average person.
P1: (further rationalizations as to the everyday benefits of a truck) P2 (still unmoved in their opinion)
P1 successfully convinced themselves of the benefits of owning a truck.
This is will known to marketing too. Most vehicle advertising is not to get you to buy a (insert vehicle here), but instead, get those with (insert vehicle here) to be so proud of how great their car is, that they convince you to buy (insert vehicle here).
Oh I meant of your alternative suggestion. I definitely know that exchange lol
This is actually a very interesting psychological phenomenon. I’m no psychologist, but stretching what I learned from “how to win friends and influence people” to the extreme, directly opposing someone’s viewpoint generally forces them to defend it. By defending it, they rationalize the reasons why they adhere to the idea, and thus end up convincing themselves of their belief.
Your opposition literally only serves to force them to rationalize their belief, and deepen their belief in that thing.
It’s fascinating, but stupid. In my experience, the most intelligent people I’ve ever spoken to will always take opposition seriously, even if with a grain of salt. When struck with an opposing viewpoint, they usually inquire about it, asking the speaker to justify their position so they can understand why they came to this conclusion. The mildly intelligent will then use that justification to tear down the person’s belief in that system. The highly intelligent will then ask questions that cause the speaker to question their own beliefs.
But doing nothing more than asking specific and pointed questions about someone’s beliefs, I have seen very intelligent and clever people, get others to convince themselves that they’re wrong in what they believe.
Long story short, your neighbor isn’t wrong, but they’re also not exactly correct. The character of a person, IMO, is not in what they believe in, but how they react to adversity. Whether that adversity is political, intellectual, physical, or emotional; how you deal with difficulty is the content of your character.
If making people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and women, equal, by granting them the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (including bodily autonomy, and the ability to live, vote, and marry who they wish), causes you to start to lean towards fascism, what do you think that says about your character?
There’s lot of these chuds on reddit nowadays
You should have told them they shouldn’t support preaching abstinence then. As if they think that logic traverses throughout situations as such, it means they are trying to teach preteens to have sex
You’re not understanding it vor even trying to take it serious. No wonder voters are running ax from you.
If you constantly tell someone they are at fault for something because they are of a certain race, if you constantly deny them any of their achievements and say is because of privilege, if you constantly chastize them, don’t take them serious and ridicule them when they talk about their problems, they aren’t going to feel represented by and vote for you.
Voting for Trump isn’t a rational decision, it’s a emotional one.
You need to Figuren out where you went wrong so the elections became emotional instead oft rational.
Remind me who they were running as VP again? Was it another cishet white guy? Also maybe you should be the one trying to understand privilege instead of projecting your own insecurities onto the word. Cool flags though bro.
-signed, Another cishet white guy
please, I am a green-liberal.
But sure, go on and removed around, being all cocky and passive aggressive about the problem instead of trying to fix it.
I mean, just look at it: You’re framing it in a way that a white cishet guy running for (vice-)president is a problem.
You are making fun of a person advocating for the troubles of young white guys. When in literally the sentence before it you were framing a white vice president as a bad thing. And then you’re wondering why they aren’t voting for you.
It is on the nose. Especially since I already typed it out for you in my comment.
Tim Miller of the Bullwark was just so pissed off by the audacity of “White Guys for Harris”.
When asked why, he would mumble something about White guys being for anything is bad and then he would hear how ridiculous that sounds and change the subject. I saw him do it a couple of times.
How do you reach out to people are who are addicted to faux-american outrage porn with a side helping of persecution fetish?
preferably you’d not let it get this far.
Or you can just cry around and watch the next batch of savable (saveable?) boys become radicalized.
I see Trump voters and people who want an excuse for their behavior saying this has happened. I’ve not actually seen it happening beyond the odd anecdotal outlier. I’ve seen people choose to interpret things like white privilege and systemic racism as if that’s what’s being said, but it always seems very clear to me that it’s not what is being said, it’s how they react to folks suggesting they be more mindful of how they interact with others or less dismissive of the ongoing impacts of historical injustices.
Signed, a white guy, who doesn’t deny all the awful things perpetrated by other white guys in the US, nor feel personally responsible for those awful things, nor feel blamed for those awful things, despite also having struggles, no money in the bank, and plenty of my own personal challenges.
It’s hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for the folks willing to fuck shit up for all of us (including themselves) because they aren’t willing to stop and actually consider what is being said instead of what they think is being said, or because being mindful of how they interact with the people around them is somehow just too much courtesy to ask for.
And psst - fixing a lot of those things would help white folks too!