Complaining about how Republicans will never change is the wrong way to think about this.
Elections are not decided by devoted democrats or devoted republicans. They're decided by swing voters. The last election was decided by 6 million Americans who flipped from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024. That's 1.7% of the population.
Those are not cult followers. They're low information voters who don't follow politics and will believe the opinion they see the most. They've changed their minds before and they will change them again. A good strategy is to hit them on two fronts, bombard them with both rational and emotional arguments, presenting facts and reminding them how terrible their life is now under Trump.
Republicans are fantastic at controlling online sentiment. Democrats need to start countering these bot swarms. Everytime you see this "what's the point, Trump voters will never change their minds" reply on social media, refute it. Keep challenging them, we only need a few of them to change their minds.
Elections in the United States are decided, above all, by who votes. What Trump did was depress turnout among the Democrats and increase turnout among the GOP. Of course, President Biden dropping out wasn't helpful. But, the key to Trump's political success both times was to run a campaign ignoring the middle, turning off the left (~~ depressing their vote), and turning on the right (~~ increasing their vote).
Hence... victory, twice. And, my moving to Spain twice.
Conservative forces and backers spent a lot of time creating media zones in rural America to strangle information sources in their beds. It's why smart phones with that whole Internet access damaged the bible belt and church attendance so massively. Information could be had outside approved lanes.
I have zero faith (no pun intended) in their ability to follow a chain of reason, they didn't logic their way in to this mess. We're going to drown together...
I mean its not just MAGA, there is a large contigency of religous that arent MAGA but still think the world is 6000 years old and humans hunted dinosaurs, god put us here on Earth to pillage its resources and savage natives need to be "saved."
For real. The more astute ones I've dealt with are aware of this trick and actually use it themselves. They call it Socratic debate, but it's really sealioning.
This advice has to include that you don't ask snarky, rhetorical questions. You have to ask like there's every chance in the world they'll give you an answer that surprises you, because they will.
A persons deeply held beliefs aren't just one layer down. You'll have to go through a few followups, in a trusting dialogue to get anywhere close to challenging their real beliefs like that.
Never tried the religious bit, but the immigration one is a dead end. Every conversation has ended with the admission of “I don’t care that they’re tortured, it would take too long to treat them humanely and getting them out is all we care about”.
The linked comment was specifically in the context of religiously-motivated MAGA people, and they even have a few examples of follow-up questions for this scenario. Questions like "Which of Jesus' teachings are they following in their treatment of immigrants?" or "How should they balance catching the bad guys while making sure citizens aren't caught up by accident?"
And later in the comment they also point out that the goal of "debates" like these is not necessarily to change the mind of the person in question, but to sway the silent "audience" who make up the majority of any online forum.
This is how it works with any ideology where someone is going to dig in their heels. Whether it's Christian Nationalism, or something on the other end of the spectrum like believing in alternative medicine such as acupuncture or homeopathy versus tried-and-true medical science.
If you attack or belittle someone's beliefs, they will invariably hold fast and resist. If you try to find common ground or if you encourage them to question why they are thinking in such a way, they are more likely to budge. They're still unlikely to shift their mindset, but it can grease the wheels a bit or plant a seed.
They are not suggesting you point out the flaws in their reasoning. They are explicitly stating you should ask questions instead. They later point out they they purposefully never make assertions to prove the person wrong.
I don't know whether this person was aware of it or not, but cognitive linguist George Lakoff wrote a book about framing, which is used to get people to think about certain topics in a certain way by leveraging their or existing values and biases and positioning concepts advantageously.
Politicians use framing all the time, to do things like making Venezuela appear to be a threat to the US that requires "defensive" action. Framing had the double advantage of making anyone who questions it seem like a threat themselves.
An antidote to that is to ask "frame busting" questions.
I'm on mobile so can't explain it in the detail required, but it looks like that person has managed to find this solution in their own way.
Bear with me since I don't know much about linguistics, but:
They are not suggesting you point out the flaws in their reasoning
, and
An antidote to that is to ask "frame busting" questions.
Sounds like the same thing to me.
If they have constructed a "frame" based on their beliefs, and then
we bust those frames, then that mightily sounds like pointing out the flaws in their reasoning.
Using the example of "defensive action" against Venezuela, if the framing is "Venezuela is a threat", and busting that frame is to show that it is not, then that sounds like pointing out flaws in their reasoning.
Which I cynically observe never worked as far as I've seen.
The difference is where the cognitive work happens.
Pointing out flaws keeps you inside their frame and just argues over facts within it ("Venezuela is a threat." "No it's not"). Frame-busting questions challenge the assumptions that make the frame feel natural in the first place.
I'm going to have to dig into the topic of Venezuela to make the point, so apologies if you have no interest in that particular issue, but:
Pointing out flaws looks like:
“Venezuela isn’t responsible for most drugs entering the US. Production and trafficking routes are far more complex, and demand is domestic.” This directly contradicts the frame (“Venezuela is a threat”) and predictably triggers identity-defence. You’re telling them they’re wrong.
Frame-busting questions look like:
"What level of drug flow turns a country into a ‘national threat’ rather than a law-enforcement issue?” “Why is this framed as a foreign threat instead of a domestic demand problem?” “If drug exports justify ‘defensive’ action, why aren’t the same standards applied to other source or transit countries?” “What outcome would count as success here, and how would we measure it?”
Notice what’s happening: you’re not asserting your conclusion. You’re forcing the criteria, definitions, and comparisons to be made explicit. Very often, the frame collapses under its own weight without you ever saying “that’s wrong”.
From the outside it can feel like “pointing out flaws”, but psychologically it’s different. One says “your reasoning is incorrect”. The other says “walk me through your reasoning” - and lets them encounter the cracks themselves.
It's fairly common for someone to respond with "you're missing the point", but that's actually a sign that your frame busting is working. You aren't operating inside their frame of reference anymore and it can feel somewhat disorientating for them.
I hope that makes sense, but really, it's a fairly detailed and nuanced concept that is better understood by reading the book.
You’re forcing the criteria, definitions, and comparisons to be made explicit
Which, depending on the person, doesn't work, because they've given up on trying to be reasonable or logical a long time ago.
Why don't we play a little roleplay? I'd like to see where this leads if the person being asked questions gives straight answers that might make sense to their own feelings, even if they actually don't have any basis in reality.
"What level of drug flow turns a country into a ‘national threat’ rather than a law-enforcement issue?”
Any! This hasn't been taken seriously until now.
“Why is this framed as a foreign threat instead of a domestic demand problem?”
Why wasn't it so far? Now we're finally dedicating enough resources to fix the problem! Obummer and Sleepy Joe let this fester for way too long without doing anything about it!
“If drug exports justify ‘defensive’ action, why aren’t the same standards applied to other source or transit countries?”
We haven't gotten around to them. But we will! Why shouldn't we go after the worst offenders first?
“What outcome would count as success here, and how would we measure it?”
Don't know, don't care. This needs to be solved! The eggheads can worry about how to measure it and put it into statistics.
You are correct that some people will react this way, but like the poster said, not all people in forums are bad actors. Some are just spectators, and if you are a neutral spectator and you read the above dialogue, one person sounds composed and rational, and the other sounds emotional and irrational. You aren't looking to convert the MAGA you engage with. You are looking to make an impact on everyone reading.
Pointing out the flaws in their reasoning means pointing to something and explaining how it's flawed. That frequently leads to pushback.
Frame busting (and I don't think that term is very clear) asks your interlocutor to to explain something that you see as a flaw in their reasoning, without suggesting there is a flaw. In trying to explain it, they are likely to recognize the flaw themselves, even if they don't admit it.
A buddy gives me grief when I do this to evangelizers because he thinks I'm wasting time with them. I disagree because my goal is not to turn them, but to put a chink in their armor, allowing a bit more reason to get through and eventually turn them.
I’m an atheist, but every time I’ve gone into that sub I’ve backed out pretty quickly because a lot of the tone seems stuck in the naughties’ “New Atheism” movement. The whole “if I call God a ‘Sky Daddy’ and belittle anyone with beliefs, then I’m sure everybody will see how superior my way of thinking is”. Even back then I thought that was a counter-productive attitude primarily designed to make people who already agree with you a) feel smart and b) tell you how smart you are.
I think of that sub as catering quite heavily to people who reached atheism from a strongly Christian (specifically American Christian) background. They've lived their lives in a place where questioning God is strongly discouraged, and so the subreddit acts as a venting space for everything they couldn't say before. They can talk to people who've been through similar things. It's not meant to convince anyone, it's meant to reassure people who feel surrounded by religion that they're not alone.
By contrast I grew where being atheist was just kind of the default. I don't feel the need to assert my atheism in much the same way I don't need to assert not playing golf. So I don't relate to much of what the subreddit is about. Despite being an atheist, I'm not the target audience.
My one comment to add is that many of the people I knew who grew up in secular environments don’t seem to understand how ingrained and militant evangelical Christianity is.
I’ve had so many friends that think of it as purely table dressing or astrology because, for them, it seems as nonsensical as believing in the tooth fairy into adulthood.
Former Christians understand the stakes and the opposition mindset much better than their native secular peers (I’ve found this doubly true with former Muslims). They recognize policy discussions are pretty fruitless if religion is ignored and they understand how foundational religious beliefs actually are to someone’s worldview.
The tone of r/atheism has remained in the “new” atheists mode but in the past decade, many atheist YouTuber have begun to approach these issues in a more empathetic and non-confrontational way. I see both as effective in thier own way and I think that different people require different communication strategies if this kind of movement is going to be effective in the mainstream.
it seems as nonsensical as believing in the tooth fairy into adulthood
Yeah. I'm not thinking about convincing adults that Santa isn't real, I'm thinking "LOL look at these idiots". Someone else can do the epistemology, that's not my job. It feels sort of dirty anyway; would you go around telling other people's kids that Santa doesn't exist?
The issue is that we live in democracies and these people represent the strongest voting blocks for some of the worst political movements in the planet.
Yeah, it sucks. I have my personal doubts that a secularization (deconversion) drive is the fix for that, and as a liberal I'm honestly still uncomfortable having that as a stated goal (I'm like Gene Roddenberry and sort of hope that it happens naturally).
I'd have more hope for an effort from within Christianity to fix Christianity, but I'm not a Christian, so I'm not a part of that. And I'd of course never pretend to be one for those purposes. That's fucked up.
Eh...I agree with you, but you know, the religious all have their spaces where they can talk down their nose at everyone who doesn't agree with their specific sect. Sometimes it's not about convincing the people around you. Sometimes it's about having a spot to go "shields down" and rep with other atheists about this delusional crap. I'm not going to r/atheist because I'm trying to convince...other atheists?...I'm going there because I've had a few and want to bitch and moan.
As another commenter said, I think it’s a cultural thing. I’m from the UK where being an atheist isn’t a big deal, so I don’t ever really feel the need to vent. Any more than I feel the need to vent about people who believe in horoscopes or ghosts.
The “Sky Daddy” stuff has always just felt kind of childish to me. Perhaps I’d feel different if I grew up somewhere where religion was considered important and you could be looked down on if you were an atheist.
Re convincing, I was mostly talking about the “New Atheism” movement (and “Atheism+”, which grew out of it, if you remember that). Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. as well as many smaller names. It really was a thing for a while to claim to be trying to show people the silliness of their beliefs by insulting them directly.
I mention it because it’s what always comes to mind when I see aggressive anti-theism, as it’s really what legitimised that kind of discourse. And anybody who was there or who has read some unbiased accounts should view it more as a cautionary tale than anything else.
Part of OOP's point is to broadcast that conversation for others, OOP knows that the person they are questioning will be very unlikely to change their mind. But the "audience" might, in the second conversation they provided the audience might think "wow, that guy's a fucking idiot, can't even answer one question"
Bruh, asking Qs always hits different than just throwing shade. Makes em think instead of just lashin’ out. Facts be, questioning their beliefs with curiosity gets way more real talk than just calling them out. Trust me, debate’s a sprint, not a warzone.
Asking people questions and promoting discussion has been a wonderful way to engage people and progress understanding for thousands of years.
But it only works with logical, rational people who are engaging in good faith conversation.
Most MAGA voters are none of that.
Its a cult. You can't reason people out of a cult. They will change the definition of words and concepts mid-sentence if they to in order to "win" the conversation.
Trump is, by definition always right. So if you ask a question exploring how he might be wrong, they just change the definition of right and wrong so that he's right.
Inflation was a bad thing under Biden, right? Hallmark MAGA talking point. So now prices are way worse under Trump. Ask a MAGA about that. Inflation is now good because we're winning with tariffs.
The first comment about identity-belief fusion hit the nail on the head. This is how human belief works, in a general sense, and it's a significant contributor to why so many people have beliefs that are so significantly disconnected from reality. Reality is meaningless if it conflicts with our deeply held sense of self, and we will fabricate our own reality if it means we get to uphold our egos.
If we were smart, we'd prioritize a culture where we don't entangle our beliefs with our identities so thoroughly. This is such a foundational part of how humans think and form beliefs and we're currently at the level where people are so ignorant that they don't even realize that this concept exists, so yeah we're really doing great.
Sometimes I have to remind myself that these types of concepts are relatively new in terms of the human timeline and it takes time for us to integrate information into our societies. With any luck, we'll eventually realize that having the majority of our populations be stupifyingly ignorant is actually quite bad for us.
OP writes like an LLM with the em-dashes replaced by ellipses and a couple of grammatical errors thrown in to hide it.
It’s possible that a human wrote this but it sets off alarm bells for me. Especially the short rhetorical questions (“And better?” & “Finally?”) and the go-to LLM structure “it isn’t x, it’s y” throughout.
I’m sure this is all true, but it’s not really a solution that scales. The fundamental problem is that they are not thinking deeply about anything and lack the skills to do so.
A mature adult with a fully formed reasoning system and internal moral compass is already processing reality through the learned lessons and knowledge that they have accumulated up to that point. You don’t have to stop them to ask how the current situation and their reaction to it squares with their experiences or stated values—that is happening constantly and largely passively.
They know that kidnapping children and disappearing their parents is wrong because how could it not be? They aren’t doing it because of something their bible or the constitution says or considering the contradictions.
These people exist in survival mode. They are hearing something that comforts them in some way or makes them feel more powerful and running towards it, or avoiding the pain of being excluded from their social group after it has adopted these beliefs. These people aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are severely developmentally stunted.
Even if you can get through to them to convince them that one of their political position is at odds with their own logical assessment or belief system, it isn’t necessarily going to create a cascade of self-examination and cultural deconstruction.
I think ultimately we will have to alter the environment and culture that gives birth to people predisposed towards functioning in survival mode. A happy, healthy person with a strong community of friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues who aren’t talking about White Replacement or The Masculinity Crisis aren’t going to seek that kind of garbage out. We need to fix our fucking broken, alienating, exploitative economy and start taking care of the needs of ourselves and others, starting at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—food, shelter, medical care, and working up from there. How could we possibly have a healthy and functional society otherwise?
The thing about attacking them is that it’s not about convincing them, it’s about swaying a third party who may not be committed to either side. The odds of convincing anyone out of their tightly held beliefs is low, statistically, and while I grant this is my own bias speaking, I suspect the odds of convincing MAGA are even lower. You might have more success convincing them with questions instead of attacks, but that might not be the way to get the biggest number of new people on your side.
True, but the person you're talking to isn't always the intended audience. We're dealing with a malignant movement here. I also think it's important to starve recruitment into this moment by impressing upon young, impressionable men what kind of miserable dweebs these conservative "influencers" and similar grifters are.
Understanding to the individual; scorn and mockery to the moment.
OP isn't wrong but they're brushing up against a phenomenon that isn't unique to Christian Nationalism.
Your politics are an externalization of your core values.
If you take a particular position, you can dismantle it and follow the pieces back until you get to a fundamental belief. If you do that for enough of your positions, you can arrive at what your core values are.
There's also a difference between disagreeing and attacking.
Saying "I think your view on taxes is interesting but I think of it more like..." is disagreeing.
Saying "I think y our view on taxes is stupid and shows you don't know anything" is attacking.
When you attack, you're not only attacking the person's viewpoint but you are also attacking the values associated with that viewpoint. Our brains subconsciously make that connection, it's why so many people treat their political views as just self-evidently right without being able to actually articulate out loud why what they believe is "right" - it makes sense to you because it's constructed in your worldview and you're not used to having to explain that out loud, you just say "well everybody knows that."
Attacking someone's fundamental values is basically telling them "The entire way you see and understand the world is wrong" and that is very scary for people to be told. That's how we establish safety, that's how we build community, that's what we've spent decades of our lives doing so to have that threatened elicits a defensive reaction, not an introspective one.
What's more unique to the right (though tbh this is a current in a lot of modern politics) is an obsession with objectivity as a measure of correctness. Personal views, emotions, and interpretations are seen as unreliable because they're biased, uninformed, or colored by emotion so if people face the idea that their politics is based on their fundamental values, ideas that aren't really informed by objective logic, they feel that that invalidates their political beliefs somehow.
The fixation is with tying their political beliefs to an objective idea that can be proven to be good/correct outside of that individual person because not only does that make them smart for having arrived at that conclusion but it validates their underlying worldview and value system - if the ultimate destination can be proved to have been right, then the route we took there must also be right.
It's basically "I got the right answer so my method must be correct" with the "right answer" being defined as a belief in something that can be objectively shown to be true.
fr fr, ppl just double down on faith instead of thinkin it thru. questions > attacks always, cuz it gets ppl to actually reflect instead of just diggin their heels. makes ’em less defensive and maybe, just maybe, opens a lil space for change. attacking just puts ppl on blast and shuts down real convo.
fr fr, ppl get way too defensive bc they confuse identity w facts. just ask questions, make ’em think, nothing shuts down convo faster than attacks. gotta keep it chill to break that belief bubble.
Yeah maga are known for their logic and reasoning abilities
They are known for believing they are wise and can answer questions for any reasonable person.
Until the person is found to be a traitorous TDS bully who asks scary things and makes good orangutan king look bad so mean and unfair like.
Complaining about how Republicans will never change is the wrong way to think about this.
Elections are not decided by devoted democrats or devoted republicans. They're decided by swing voters. The last election was decided by 6 million Americans who flipped from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024. That's 1.7% of the population.
Those are not cult followers. They're low information voters who don't follow politics and will believe the opinion they see the most. They've changed their minds before and they will change them again. A good strategy is to hit them on two fronts, bombard them with both rational and emotional arguments, presenting facts and reminding them how terrible their life is now under Trump.
Republicans are fantastic at controlling online sentiment. Democrats need to start countering these bot swarms. Everytime you see this "what's the point, Trump voters will never change their minds" reply on social media, refute it. Keep challenging them, we only need a few of them to change their minds.
Elections in the United States are decided, above all, by who votes. What Trump did was depress turnout among the Democrats and increase turnout among the GOP. Of course, President Biden dropping out wasn't helpful. But, the key to Trump's political success both times was to run a campaign ignoring the middle, turning off the left (~~ depressing their vote), and turning on the right (~~ increasing their vote).
Hence... victory, twice. And, my moving to Spain twice.
Got a spare room? Spain sounds nice.
Sorry, mate, the daughter shares it with the computers :p
Anyone who claims to be a swing voter at this point is just an ashamed republican that will never vote for a democrat.
Trump literally ran on Nazism. https://apnews.com/article/trump-hitler-poison-blood-history-f8c3ff512edd120252596a4743324352
There could not conceivably be less of an excuse for ever voting for him.
I wouldn't say it's online sentiment.
Conservative forces and backers spent a lot of time creating media zones in rural America to strangle information sources in their beds. It's why smart phones with that whole Internet access damaged the bible belt and church attendance so massively. Information could be had outside approved lanes.
Walz calling republicans "weird" was the best thing that ever happened for the Democrat campaign, and they threw it away over "decorum".
But republicans are not weird, they are dangerous.
I have zero faith (no pun intended) in their ability to follow a chain of reason, they didn't logic their way in to this mess. We're going to drown together...
I take it you didn't read the comment at all.
I mean its not just MAGA, there is a large contigency of religous that arent MAGA but still think the world is 6000 years old and humans hunted dinosaurs, god put us here on Earth to pillage its resources and savage natives need to be "saved."
For real. The more astute ones I've dealt with are aware of this trick and actually use it themselves. They call it Socratic debate, but it's really sealioning.
This advice has to include that you don't ask snarky, rhetorical questions. You have to ask like there's every chance in the world they'll give you an answer that surprises you, because they will.
A persons deeply held beliefs aren't just one layer down. You'll have to go through a few followups, in a trusting dialogue to get anywhere close to challenging their real beliefs like that.
But that's still only the second-best conversation you can have with a christian nationalist, behind a swift "fuck you" and walking away.
That is the exact opposite point the OOP was trying to make. Good job.
Indeed it is. Good job to you for figuring it out.
The point oop was trying to make is that stupid insane talking point bullshit is exactly the same as intellectually and academically rigorous truth.
Fuck oop.
Never tried the religious bit, but the immigration one is a dead end. Every conversation has ended with the admission of “I don’t care that they’re tortured, it would take too long to treat them humanely and getting them out is all we care about”.
The linked comment was specifically in the context of religiously-motivated MAGA people, and they even have a few examples of follow-up questions for this scenario. Questions like "Which of Jesus' teachings are they following in their treatment of immigrants?" or "How should they balance catching the bad guys while making sure citizens aren't caught up by accident?"
And later in the comment they also point out that the goal of "debates" like these is not necessarily to change the mind of the person in question, but to sway the silent "audience" who make up the majority of any online forum.
This is how it works with any ideology where someone is going to dig in their heels. Whether it's Christian Nationalism, or something on the other end of the spectrum like believing in alternative medicine such as acupuncture or homeopathy versus tried-and-true medical science.
If you attack or belittle someone's beliefs, they will invariably hold fast and resist. If you try to find common ground or if you encourage them to question why they are thinking in such a way, they are more likely to budge. They're still unlikely to shift their mindset, but it can grease the wheels a bit or plant a seed.
No this is reddit. "Fuck your cult" is all anyone circle jerks here about 😮💨
r/StreetEpistemology
Love this, thank you
lol
I used to think like that. "Surely, if I point out the flaws to their reasoning, they will realize that they were wrong and change their opinion!".
You cannot reason with the unreasonable, and the fact that r/atheism of all places didn't get that is deeply ironic.
They are not suggesting you point out the flaws in their reasoning. They are explicitly stating you should ask questions instead. They later point out they they purposefully never make assertions to prove the person wrong.
I don't know whether this person was aware of it or not, but cognitive linguist George Lakoff wrote a book about framing, which is used to get people to think about certain topics in a certain way by leveraging their or existing values and biases and positioning concepts advantageously.
Politicians use framing all the time, to do things like making Venezuela appear to be a threat to the US that requires "defensive" action. Framing had the double advantage of making anyone who questions it seem like a threat themselves.
An antidote to that is to ask "frame busting" questions.
I'm on mobile so can't explain it in the detail required, but it looks like that person has managed to find this solution in their own way.
Bear with me since I don't know much about linguistics, but:
, and
Sounds like the same thing to me.
If they have constructed a "frame" based on their beliefs, and then we bust those frames, then that mightily sounds like pointing out the flaws in their reasoning.
Using the example of "defensive action" against Venezuela, if the framing is "Venezuela is a threat", and busting that frame is to show that it is not, then that sounds like pointing out flaws in their reasoning.
Which I cynically observe never worked as far as I've seen.
The difference is where the cognitive work happens.
Pointing out flaws keeps you inside their frame and just argues over facts within it ("Venezuela is a threat." "No it's not"). Frame-busting questions challenge the assumptions that make the frame feel natural in the first place.
I'm going to have to dig into the topic of Venezuela to make the point, so apologies if you have no interest in that particular issue, but:
Pointing out flaws looks like:
“Venezuela isn’t responsible for most drugs entering the US. Production and trafficking routes are far more complex, and demand is domestic.” This directly contradicts the frame (“Venezuela is a threat”) and predictably triggers identity-defence. You’re telling them they’re wrong.
Frame-busting questions look like:
"What level of drug flow turns a country into a ‘national threat’ rather than a law-enforcement issue?”
“Why is this framed as a foreign threat instead of a domestic demand problem?”
“If drug exports justify ‘defensive’ action, why aren’t the same standards applied to other source or transit countries?”
“What outcome would count as success here, and how would we measure it?”
Notice what’s happening: you’re not asserting your conclusion. You’re forcing the criteria, definitions, and comparisons to be made explicit. Very often, the frame collapses under its own weight without you ever saying “that’s wrong”.
From the outside it can feel like “pointing out flaws”, but psychologically it’s different. One says “your reasoning is incorrect”. The other says “walk me through your reasoning” - and lets them encounter the cracks themselves.
It's fairly common for someone to respond with "you're missing the point", but that's actually a sign that your frame busting is working. You aren't operating inside their frame of reference anymore and it can feel somewhat disorientating for them.
I hope that makes sense, but really, it's a fairly detailed and nuanced concept that is better understood by reading the book.
Which, depending on the person, doesn't work, because they've given up on trying to be reasonable or logical a long time ago.
Why don't we play a little roleplay? I'd like to see where this leads if the person being asked questions gives straight answers that might make sense to their own feelings, even if they actually don't have any basis in reality.
Any! This hasn't been taken seriously until now.
Why wasn't it so far? Now we're finally dedicating enough resources to fix the problem! Obummer and Sleepy Joe let this fester for way too long without doing anything about it!
We haven't gotten around to them. But we will! Why shouldn't we go after the worst offenders first?
Don't know, don't care. This needs to be solved! The eggheads can worry about how to measure it and put it into statistics.
You are correct that some people will react this way, but like the poster said, not all people in forums are bad actors. Some are just spectators, and if you are a neutral spectator and you read the above dialogue, one person sounds composed and rational, and the other sounds emotional and irrational. You aren't looking to convert the MAGA you engage with. You are looking to make an impact on everyone reading.
Pointing out the flaws in their reasoning means pointing to something and explaining how it's flawed. That frequently leads to pushback.
Frame busting (and I don't think that term is very clear) asks your interlocutor to to explain something that you see as a flaw in their reasoning, without suggesting there is a flaw. In trying to explain it, they are likely to recognize the flaw themselves, even if they don't admit it.
A buddy gives me grief when I do this to evangelizers because he thinks I'm wasting time with them. I disagree because my goal is not to turn them, but to put a chink in their armor, allowing a bit more reason to get through and eventually turn them.
I’m an atheist, but every time I’ve gone into that sub I’ve backed out pretty quickly because a lot of the tone seems stuck in the naughties’ “New Atheism” movement. The whole “if I call God a ‘Sky Daddy’ and belittle anyone with beliefs, then I’m sure everybody will see how superior my way of thinking is”. Even back then I thought that was a counter-productive attitude primarily designed to make people who already agree with you a) feel smart and b) tell you how smart you are.
I think of that sub as catering quite heavily to people who reached atheism from a strongly Christian (specifically American Christian) background. They've lived their lives in a place where questioning God is strongly discouraged, and so the subreddit acts as a venting space for everything they couldn't say before. They can talk to people who've been through similar things. It's not meant to convince anyone, it's meant to reassure people who feel surrounded by religion that they're not alone.
By contrast I grew where being atheist was just kind of the default. I don't feel the need to assert my atheism in much the same way I don't need to assert not playing golf. So I don't relate to much of what the subreddit is about. Despite being an atheist, I'm not the target audience.
I would agree with this take.
My one comment to add is that many of the people I knew who grew up in secular environments don’t seem to understand how ingrained and militant evangelical Christianity is.
I’ve had so many friends that think of it as purely table dressing or astrology because, for them, it seems as nonsensical as believing in the tooth fairy into adulthood.
Former Christians understand the stakes and the opposition mindset much better than their native secular peers (I’ve found this doubly true with former Muslims). They recognize policy discussions are pretty fruitless if religion is ignored and they understand how foundational religious beliefs actually are to someone’s worldview.
The tone of r/atheism has remained in the “new” atheists mode but in the past decade, many atheist YouTuber have begun to approach these issues in a more empathetic and non-confrontational way. I see both as effective in thier own way and I think that different people require different communication strategies if this kind of movement is going to be effective in the mainstream.
Yeah. I'm not thinking about convincing adults that Santa isn't real, I'm thinking "LOL look at these idiots". Someone else can do the epistemology, that's not my job. It feels sort of dirty anyway; would you go around telling other people's kids that Santa doesn't exist?
The issue is that we live in democracies and these people represent the strongest voting blocks for some of the worst political movements in the planet.
Yeah, it sucks. I have my personal doubts that a secularization (deconversion) drive is the fix for that, and as a liberal I'm honestly still uncomfortable having that as a stated goal (I'm like Gene Roddenberry and sort of hope that it happens naturally).
I'd have more hope for an effort from within Christianity to fix Christianity, but I'm not a Christian, so I'm not a part of that. And I'd of course never pretend to be one for those purposes. That's fucked up.
Eh...I agree with you, but you know, the religious all have their spaces where they can talk down their nose at everyone who doesn't agree with their specific sect. Sometimes it's not about convincing the people around you. Sometimes it's about having a spot to go "shields down" and rep with other atheists about this delusional crap. I'm not going to r/atheist because I'm trying to convince...other atheists?...I'm going there because I've had a few and want to bitch and moan.
As another commenter said, I think it’s a cultural thing. I’m from the UK where being an atheist isn’t a big deal, so I don’t ever really feel the need to vent. Any more than I feel the need to vent about people who believe in horoscopes or ghosts.
The “Sky Daddy” stuff has always just felt kind of childish to me. Perhaps I’d feel different if I grew up somewhere where religion was considered important and you could be looked down on if you were an atheist.
Re convincing, I was mostly talking about the “New Atheism” movement (and “Atheism+”, which grew out of it, if you remember that). Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. as well as many smaller names. It really was a thing for a while to claim to be trying to show people the silliness of their beliefs by insulting them directly.
I mention it because it’s what always comes to mind when I see aggressive anti-theism, as it’s really what legitimised that kind of discourse. And anybody who was there or who has read some unbiased accounts should view it more as a cautionary tale than anything else.
Part of OOP's point is to broadcast that conversation for others, OOP knows that the person they are questioning will be very unlikely to change their mind. But the "audience" might, in the second conversation they provided the audience might think "wow, that guy's a fucking idiot, can't even answer one question"
This comment just sounds like "have you tried sea-lioning?"
Before trying the Socratic Method, it's worth recalling that they made Socrates drink hemlock for being such an arsehole.
Been doing it for a while, you can corner people up pretty easy with "why?"
Bruh, asking Qs always hits different than just throwing shade. Makes em think instead of just lashin’ out. Facts be, questioning their beliefs with curiosity gets way more real talk than just calling them out. Trust me, debate’s a sprint, not a warzone.
The very first sentence is dead wrong lol
Yeah see, this is the problem.
Asking people questions and promoting discussion has been a wonderful way to engage people and progress understanding for thousands of years.
But it only works with logical, rational people who are engaging in good faith conversation.
Most MAGA voters are none of that.
Its a cult. You can't reason people out of a cult. They will change the definition of words and concepts mid-sentence if they to in order to "win" the conversation.
Trump is, by definition always right. So if you ask a question exploring how he might be wrong, they just change the definition of right and wrong so that he's right.
Inflation was a bad thing under Biden, right? Hallmark MAGA talking point. So now prices are way worse under Trump. Ask a MAGA about that. Inflation is now good because we're winning with tariffs.
Its. A. Cult.
The first comment about identity-belief fusion hit the nail on the head. This is how human belief works, in a general sense, and it's a significant contributor to why so many people have beliefs that are so significantly disconnected from reality. Reality is meaningless if it conflicts with our deeply held sense of self, and we will fabricate our own reality if it means we get to uphold our egos.
If we were smart, we'd prioritize a culture where we don't entangle our beliefs with our identities so thoroughly. This is such a foundational part of how humans think and form beliefs and we're currently at the level where people are so ignorant that they don't even realize that this concept exists, so yeah we're really doing great.
Sometimes I have to remind myself that these types of concepts are relatively new in terms of the human timeline and it takes time for us to integrate information into our societies. With any luck, we'll eventually realize that having the majority of our populations be stupifyingly ignorant is actually quite bad for us.
Christian Nationalists are basically just the Creationist Fundies of the politics world.
Winners like that have profound logic like "if human came from Chimps, why are there still chimps?"
You REALLY think youre gonna get through to that mindset?
How do you reply to "look it up" though? Seems to be their go-to for literally anything...
Ask them where. Ask them what their sources are. Ask them why they trust those sources.
OP writes like an LLM with the em-dashes replaced by ellipses and a couple of grammatical errors thrown in to hide it.
It’s possible that a human wrote this but it sets off alarm bells for me. Especially the short rhetorical questions (“And better?” & “Finally?”) and the go-to LLM structure “it isn’t x, it’s y” throughout.
I’m sure this is all true, but it’s not really a solution that scales. The fundamental problem is that they are not thinking deeply about anything and lack the skills to do so.
A mature adult with a fully formed reasoning system and internal moral compass is already processing reality through the learned lessons and knowledge that they have accumulated up to that point. You don’t have to stop them to ask how the current situation and their reaction to it squares with their experiences or stated values—that is happening constantly and largely passively.
They know that kidnapping children and disappearing their parents is wrong because how could it not be? They aren’t doing it because of something their bible or the constitution says or considering the contradictions.
These people exist in survival mode. They are hearing something that comforts them in some way or makes them feel more powerful and running towards it, or avoiding the pain of being excluded from their social group after it has adopted these beliefs. These people aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are severely developmentally stunted.
Even if you can get through to them to convince them that one of their political position is at odds with their own logical assessment or belief system, it isn’t necessarily going to create a cascade of self-examination and cultural deconstruction.
I think ultimately we will have to alter the environment and culture that gives birth to people predisposed towards functioning in survival mode. A happy, healthy person with a strong community of friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues who aren’t talking about White Replacement or The Masculinity Crisis aren’t going to seek that kind of garbage out. We need to fix our fucking broken, alienating, exploitative economy and start taking care of the needs of ourselves and others, starting at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—food, shelter, medical care, and working up from there. How could we possibly have a healthy and functional society otherwise?
The thing about attacking them is that it’s not about convincing them, it’s about swaying a third party who may not be committed to either side. The odds of convincing anyone out of their tightly held beliefs is low, statistically, and while I grant this is my own bias speaking, I suspect the odds of convincing MAGA are even lower. You might have more success convincing them with questions instead of attacks, but that might not be the way to get the biggest number of new people on your side.
True, but the person you're talking to isn't always the intended audience. We're dealing with a malignant movement here. I also think it's important to starve recruitment into this moment by impressing upon young, impressionable men what kind of miserable dweebs these conservative "influencers" and similar grifters are.
Understanding to the individual; scorn and mockery to the moment.
OP isn't wrong but they're brushing up against a phenomenon that isn't unique to Christian Nationalism.
Your politics are an externalization of your core values.
If you take a particular position, you can dismantle it and follow the pieces back until you get to a fundamental belief. If you do that for enough of your positions, you can arrive at what your core values are.
There's also a difference between disagreeing and attacking.
Saying "I think your view on taxes is interesting but I think of it more like..." is disagreeing.
Saying "I think y our view on taxes is stupid and shows you don't know anything" is attacking.
When you attack, you're not only attacking the person's viewpoint but you are also attacking the values associated with that viewpoint. Our brains subconsciously make that connection, it's why so many people treat their political views as just self-evidently right without being able to actually articulate out loud why what they believe is "right" - it makes sense to you because it's constructed in your worldview and you're not used to having to explain that out loud, you just say "well everybody knows that."
Attacking someone's fundamental values is basically telling them "The entire way you see and understand the world is wrong" and that is very scary for people to be told. That's how we establish safety, that's how we build community, that's what we've spent decades of our lives doing so to have that threatened elicits a defensive reaction, not an introspective one.
What's more unique to the right (though tbh this is a current in a lot of modern politics) is an obsession with objectivity as a measure of correctness. Personal views, emotions, and interpretations are seen as unreliable because they're biased, uninformed, or colored by emotion so if people face the idea that their politics is based on their fundamental values, ideas that aren't really informed by objective logic, they feel that that invalidates their political beliefs somehow.
The fixation is with tying their political beliefs to an objective idea that can be proven to be good/correct outside of that individual person because not only does that make them smart for having arrived at that conclusion but it validates their underlying worldview and value system - if the ultimate destination can be proved to have been right, then the route we took there must also be right.
It's basically "I got the right answer so my method must be correct" with the "right answer" being defined as a belief in something that can be objectively shown to be true.
Well no shit... Sad that people didnt already know this.
fr fr, ppl just double down on faith instead of thinkin it thru. questions > attacks always, cuz it gets ppl to actually reflect instead of just diggin their heels. makes ’em less defensive and maybe, just maybe, opens a lil space for change. attacking just puts ppl on blast and shuts down real convo.
fr fr, ppl get way too defensive bc they confuse identity w facts. just ask questions, make ’em think, nothing shuts down convo faster than attacks. gotta keep it chill to break that belief bubble.