Ask Lemmy

I don't argue with conservatives online to try and change their minds. I argue with them to change the minds of people reading the argument. For every social media user that posts content, there are a thousand lurkers. I post arguments so hopefully some of those lurkers might change their mind away from nationalist authoritarianism

Yes, and this is generally how it works:

1. Establish that you care about their perspective, and truly mean it. Most people can sniff out insincerity.
2. Start asking good faith questions about their position. If their beliefs are misguided, they will begin stumbling upon the flaws on their own. It’s okay to guide them gently with the questions, but don’t try to convince of them of any particular viewpoint, and don’t tell them they are wrong either directly or indirectly. That can undo any progress you made. Just focus on encouraging them to deeply analyze logic that you recognize to be flawed.
3. Only offer your perspective / opinions if you are asked directly. If you’ve done #1 and #2 well, this should start happening. I recommend understating your opinions. You don’t have to lie, but keep rants to a minimum and use soft language.
4. Be consistent. No one changes their world view overnight. It takes planting seeds, watering them consistently, and waiting.

P.S. If you are doing this correctly and with an open mind, there’s actually a good chance you might change your opinions on a some things, and that’s okay (as long as they aren’t harmful). It also can show them by example that opinions are flexible and should be based on evidence, not the other way around.

I think contrapoints on YouTube 100% convinced me there is nothing strange or weird about trans people. They are just people and the way society treats them is wrong and we need to change that.

Not to say I hated trans people before but I didn't know much about it and Natalie did a thorough job explaining in a way that was easy to understand.

I was raised super conservative, and the two biggest steps on my journey to the left were Jon Stewart Bernie Sanders

Jon got my attention by pointing out the hypocrisy that did in fact exist on both sides. It gave me a space to exist where I wasn't just called a wrong dumb redneck and dismissed, but felt like he was actually trying to meet me where I was. That allowed me to let my guard down and actually listen to what he was saying.

Bernie Sanders came along in 2016 at a point where I would've called myself a centrist and basically did the same thing. Non judgmentally gave me a space to exist, listed some topics I cared about, then gave me a cause for them.

People don't like being told they're wrong. You cannot debate someone out of believing what they believe. What you can do is ask them questions. Get them to consider why they believe what they believe, and eventually they may start seeing contradictions and change their mind on their own.

Most people do not respond to a single argument or fact. They accumulate multiple experiences. This is why the shift happens gradually for most people instead of instantly when they are confronted with facts.

I drifted slowly from right-libertarian to a more leftish position: pro-union, pro-social-programs, skeptical of the compatibility of unregulated capitalism with individual freedom. Still no fan of tankies.

This wasn't from anyone sitting down and trying to convince me, though. Part of it was discovering how close right-libertarianism had always been to white-supremacism: some old Ron Paul newsletters were unpleasantly enlightening. Part was seeing people who called themselves "libertarians" line up with the far right to support state violence, especially against black and brown people. And heck, part was from getting richer and seeing how that worked.

I have a lot of sympathy for the frustrations that get young men into right-wing positions and occasionally I try to puncture some of the nonsense they're being fed.

Yes, however…

1. Many people you meet online are not, strictly speaking, people.
2. Of the remainder, many are there for a reason.

I would wholeheartedly agree with the deprogrammer with one clarification: “known to you IRL” refers more to anonymity than to whether your interactions take place online, and the reason for that is important to consider.

I'm in the middle of pulling a chat friend out of his programming. His only real problem was being raised in Texas by a Good Ol Boy single father, and once he got out from under his dad's wing, he started to realize that what he was taught simply isn't lining up with reality.

He started out as an incel, but now he's in therapy and has a girlfriend.

I think of it less as 'converting' and more just holding his hand while he figures out that his dad's advice was complete horseshit. It takes forever, and not everybody has the spoons to pull it off, but I do, so I will.

I'm getting there with my coworker although I wouldn't quite call her conservative; she voted for the NDP in Canada where we live as we are both union members and that's who we vote for, but she loves Trump, but in this crumbling hellscape of the last few months and the tariffs he's hollering on about on Canada, she doesn't like that because she can't cross border shop. She says he's gone rather loony although she still likes him.

However, she isn't stupid, and she watches all sorts of news from all over and doesn't just blindly believe in the cult. The last few days I have explained dark money to her, and how it fuels elections in the US for both parties and how basically the Koch brothers and all the Tanton network groups fund Trump. I gave her some articles to read, and she's starting to get it. I didn't put it from the perspective of hating trump, just that she should know how these things are funded for everyone (the Democrats are no stranger to dark money either and just because the groups they funnel it in under sound sunnier and less racist doesn't make them any less sketchy), and how the political landscape is manipulated that way. I am finding she's listening to this, and coming away with a better perspective, rather than trying to explain why he's totally wrong. Dark money is a topic I recommend to everyone to learn about, because these elections in the US are being bought by dark money.

Before deleting most of my Reddit stuff, I had a good conversation with a conservative about climate change. They pulled out all the standard right wing talking points, and I tried to remain respectful as I provided sources that refuted every one. One they threw out that I hadn’t heard of at the time was “global wobbling,” which I had to look up. 10- minutes later, I responded, with sources, saying that it was yet another thing the right throws out to confuse the issue for voters, but something climate scientists are well aware of and can measure and predict. At that point, they thanked me for all the info and said they had some reading to do. That’s the best I’ve ever gotten. Don’t know if they changed their view, though.

Don't know if I've ever done it, but it was done to me.

So, it's obviously possible.

I'm pretty amused by the mix of comments where people are offering up themselves as irrefutable evidence, while others proclaim with certainty it can't be done. Actually a humbling perspective see people who've convinced themselves trying to convince others I don't exist.

Confronting them with the flaws in their thinking only makes them double down:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/202401/why-do-people-double-down

I just humour people when they tell me political opinions I don't agree with. No one ever changes their minds.

absolutely not and i imagine the same is true for leftists.

I was raised Right. Change is a long series of events that no one person or interaction triggers. Dogma is only truly changed from within.

No, they have ego issues that prevent self reflection.

My "deprogramming," was more a series of small hints I was on the wrong path.

At first, people who tried arguing pushed me further toward the right. They came at me from inciting angles, making up facts to support their arguments. Yeah, the left bullshits too, and if you believe everything that supports your point of view without question - you're not that different from the people you hate.

I remember someone asking me to a Fahrenheit 9/11 showing at university, called me a Bush supporter when I wouldn't go. I wasn't, I just didn't like Michael Moore. Still don't for the above reasons.

Looking back, I could have gracefully immersed myself in other viewpoints if it weren't for the constant needling of wannabe academics and the automatic disdain they had for my views. I was attacked for even bringing up points because I was questioning myself. Honestly, I get why conservatives hate academia.

I will say some arguments stuck, though. Statements that sounded like complete nonsense in the moment make sense to me now, years later. It's not wasted breath to share your views with someone, they'll remember.

Regardless, I was still wrong and it wasn't other people's responsibility to educate me. I did that through meeting good, patient and understanding friends, actively trying to dismantle my biases, and through therapy. Oh, and some pretty intense acid trips. That shit will fast track you to a feeling of oneness with your community real quick.

I don't think anyone is going to change their views over an Internet post or conversation. Maybe someone might come around on a particular topic if an argument really resonates with them, but someone changing their entire worldview can take years. But sure, I think it's possible given enough conversation and slight nudging over time, given they aren't being more radicalized by other content every day.