Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

 

Just now, Captainant said:

In our modern media landscape, truth can always be defeated by a firehose of falsehoods. And by golly, that's trump's signature move

We probably need to rethink what the concept of media is, in general. The media as a concept of true information is dead. It's all just televised or digital entertainment. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

Nope there has been coverage of the crime statistics.   The stories are out there, but people have their own facts now.

 

News story from 2/12 of this year.  Also talks about why people don't think it's true

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

We probably need to rethink what the concept of media is, in general. The media as a concept of true information is dead. It's all just televised or digital entertainment. 

Well formerly trusted sources (read: MSM) stopped being about informing the public a long time ago and became another entity that exists SOLELY to generate a profit for its shareholders. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, locodos said:

Nope there has been coverage of the crime statistics..

I didn't say there was zero media coverage, but mainstream media outlets tend not to fact check these wild claims when he makes them.  Granted, they'd be fact-checking something pretty much every day, but it's part of the job description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captainant said:

Well formerly trusted sources (read: MSM) stopped being about informing the public a long time ago and became another entity that exists SOLELY to generate a profit for its shareholders. 

I know, that's what I'm saying. But even know, even posters like us who know this, still complain and say "oh, the media doesn't do shit." Even that statement still gives a gravitas, an expectation of "the media" that it absolutely doesn't fucking deserve anymore and we should reset accordingly. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have an unprecedented ability to get accurate information from various media and non-media sources.  We just have to be vigilant and critical in how we process that information.

The blame lies with the voter.  Not 100%, but so much so that nothing else matters.

That's democracy's fatal flaw.

The left is banking on it working, the right is committed to finding an alternative.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, locodos said:

Nope there has been coverage of the crime statistics.   The stories are out there, but people have their own facts now.

 

News story from 2/12 of this year.  Also talks about why people don't think it's true

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics

I actually had a conversation with my old boss about this a few weeks ago. He was convinced all of the big cities were in the middle of a huge spike in violent crime. When I told him the actual statistics did not support his argument he told me "Oh yea, I have heard that, but it's just that the FBI has been under reporting the crimes."

How in the fuck do we deal with this? I know it's something that comes up on here daily, but how can you reach people like this if we can't even agree on a shared reality? This is a smart and very successful person - he just won't accept any data that doesn't support is priors. I just shook my head and laughed in his face.

  • Rage+1 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

We have an unprecedented ability to get accurate information from various media and non-media sources.  We just have to be vigilant and critical in how we process that information.

The blame lies with the voter.  Not 100%, but so much so that nothing else matters.

That's democracy's fatal flaw.

The left is banking on it working, the right is committed to finding an alternative.

I get this point, and somewhat agree to it. But we used to have guardrails to help the voter stay informed. So there is shit that can be done. But we set it on fire for corporate and personal profit. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In our modern media landscape, truth can always be defeated by a firehose of falsehoods. 

i started to read hamilton's reynold's pamphlet the other day and saw this in the intro.  the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Lies often detected and refuted are still revived and repeated, in the hope that the refutation may have been forgotten or that the frequency and boldness of accusation may supply the place of truth and proof. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.2b07317454343ad3c83549d8d5aecd04.png

 

I fully expect to have an order from a judge within the next months:

Judge Impotent expands the restraining order In Endless Trump Case #6 to include directly ordering the public to kill court officials, attorneys, clerks, family pets, and jurors. This follows the firebomb attack on a dog house in the yard of a jury foreperson. Police have started what will be an interminable investigation of whether the firebomb, which included an asbestos note saying "Trump ordered me to do this," is related to the attack. 

The burning dog asked, "why is this fuckwad not in jail awaiting the results of the trial?" Newspeople huffed about decorum and ex-president precedents, and lawyers debated the definition of firebomb.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

image.png.2b07317454343ad3c83549d8d5aecd04.png

 

I fully expect to have an order from a judge within the next months:

Judge Impotent expands the restraining order In Endless Trump Case #6 to include directly ordering the public to kill court officials, attorneys, clerks, family pets, and jurors. This follows the firebomb attack on a dog house in the yard of a jury foreperson. Police have started what will be an interminable investigation of whether the firebomb, which included an asbestos note saying "Trump ordered me to do this," is related to the attack. 

The burning dog asked, "why is this fuckwad not in jail awaiting the results of the trial?" Newspeople huffed about decorum and ex-president precedents, and lawyers debated the definition of firebomb.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But we used to have guardrails to help the voter stay informed.

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

In other words, during the old days we were driven to the center by guardrails and now we are driven to the edges by the lack of guardrails.

What is harming is us not necessarily the guardrails or lack thereof.  It's the continued social silo-ing of our population into the college educated and the un-educated.  There is no draft or service requirement, or more importantly, a healthy and vibrant public school system that is giving us exposure to each other and creating a national identify of understanding the "other".

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

In other words, during the old days we were driven to the center by guardrails and now we are driven to the edges by the lack of guardrails.

What is harming is us not necessarily the guardrails or lack thereof.  It's the continued social silo-ing of our population into the college educated and the un-educated.  There is no draft or service requirement, or more importantly, a healthy and vibrant public school system that is giving us exposure to each other and creating a national identify of understanding the "other".

 

truth GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

The FCC's Fairness Doctrine required broadcast media outlets to not only cover controversial topics but fairly report differing viewpoints on those topics.  Given that the average American is loathe to actually read, this was a pretty effective way to reach the masses in an unbiased manner.  Whether this drove people towards the center is not particularly clear.

Of course, the FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and here we are, permafucked.

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The FCC's Fairness Doctrine required broadcast media outlets to not only cover controversial topics but fairly report differing viewpoints on those topics.  Given that the average American is loathe to actually read, this was a pretty effective way to reach the masses in an unbiased manner.  Whether this drove people towards the center is not particularly clear.

Of course, the FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and here we are, permafucked.

 

 

The repeal of the fairness doctrine would have happened in practice anyway as cable news was really the driver of partisanship in media. The FCC only has authority over public airwaves so I would imagine we'd be in the same place regardless.

 

I don't think the answer is / ever was forcing fairness in ideas.

 

I think the real issue is that while we've democratized voting and information (i.e. the internet), we've enacted incredibly un-democratic $ policy.

The trickle down economics /  tax cutting / $ = speech has allowed for a relative few to control and manipulate messaging.

 

I'd argue we were always as dumb as this. There just wasn't an ability to have so few controlling the message to persuade the dumbs.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

The repeal of the fairness doctrine would have happened in practice anyway as cable news was really the driver of partisanship in media. The FCC only has authority over public airwaves so I would imagine we'd be in the same place regardless.

That's probably true, but I was trying to point out that the "guardrails" we had in place pre-cable news didn't necessarily drive people to the center as was asserted.  I don't think there's much evidence of that.  If there is, I'd like to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

Because these people never leave their trailer parks to see the world for themselves so they believe everything that’s shoveled at them by Trump. These dimwits are the exact reason why the GQP wants to dismantle the education system in this country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I don't want to go way off topic, because this makes sense to me too, but can't we argue that those guardrails themselves were limitations to truth?  Less disruptive, but still stifling us by cutting off more radical ideas and theories.

In other words, during the old days we were driven to the center by guardrails and now we are driven to the edges by the lack of guardrails.

What is harming is us not necessarily the guardrails or lack thereof.  It's the continued social silo-ing of our population into the college educated and the un-educated.  There is no draft or service requirement, or more importantly, a healthy and vibrant public school system that is giving us exposure to each other and creating a national identify of understanding the "other".

 

Are guradrails limitations to the "truth?" Well, assuming we're talking about a Truth that isn't subjective...no. Facts, numbers, figurse, statistics, reporting that truth is...the fucking truth. And in a world of subjective topics, opinions, etc, yes, it can be limiting. And I couldn't give less of a company fuck if it is limiting, becuase we have limitations on all kinds of dangerous things these days. Speed limits, blood-alcohol limits. There's a reason some substances are controlled and you can't buy hydrochloric acid on the same aisle as vinegar. So as other's have posted with the "Cant handle the truth" bit, yeah. And I'm ok with that.

I agree with the rest of what you say about school, and no requirement to serve, etc. It's all true, we have no shared identity, and now that there are now guardrails, we don't even have shared truth. Our difference here is the subjective concept of what's best for society. And I'll take the gruadrails and pushing people to the center, thankyouverymuch. 

3 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

 

The repeal of the fairness doctrine would have happened in practice anyway as cable news was really the driver of partisanship in media. The FCC only has authority over public airwaves so I would imagine we'd be in the same place regardless.

 

I don't think the answer is / ever was forcing fairness in ideas.

 

I think the real issue is that while we've democratized voting and information (i.e. the internet), we've enacted incredibly un-democratic $ policy.

The trickle down economics /  tax cutting / $ = speech has allowed for a relative few to control and manipulate messaging.

 

I'd argue we were always as dumb as this. There just wasn't an ability to have so few controlling the message to persuade the dumbs.

 

A smart society would pass law that would require all airwaves that are bought/leased/owned privately to follow a certain set of rules. So the concept that we'd be in the same place I reject, becuase this topic was that we could have guardrails. We COULD do something about this, but we don't. I don't know what the laws are elsewhere in the world, but I do know that Fox News doesn't act like Fox News as we know it in Europe, or Australia. Just here. 
 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm as full of disdain for for the people who support Trump as anyone on this website, but casually clasiffying them as people in trailer parks is dismissive, but more importantly dangerous. And it glosses over the true power this propoganda has had on American society. On my retired parents street, which is a retiree neighborhood, there are multiple doctors, succesfull businessmen, quite a few millionaires (or people with 2-3 homes), etc. And they all to a person vote for Trump and repeat all of the fucking lies. 40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park, but 40% love Trump. Dismissing them all as trailer trash is a mistake, imo. 

Yeah, I'm gonna quote myself on this one:

Quote

So I've posted this before, but Harper's published Who Goes Nazi in 1941. I think it's spot on and very revealing about the personality types that will support fascism. There's certainly more than one type, but the key takeaway for this discussion is that it typically takes a specific type of resentment that comes with achieving something but not receiving the social reward you think you're due. You see this with petty small business owners that think they're gods because they employ five people, you see it with aggy lawyers, etc. It's like a disease that is only found among the upper-middle class. That's what fuels fascism.

His base isn't the trailer park, it's College Station, Waco, Kingwood, etc. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park,

Apropos of nothing, I laughed.  This almost implies 60% of Americans live in a trailer park.  (Yes, I know what you meant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Apropos of nothing, I laughed.  This almost implies 60% of Americans live in a trailer park.  (Yes, I know what you meant.)

Ask the question again in 20 years and we might be laughing, in the most gallows of ways, at the rate we're going. 

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm as full of disdain for for the people who support Trump as anyone on this website, but casually clasifying them as people in trailer parks is dismissive, but more importantly dangerous. And it glosses over the true power this propoganda has had on American society. On my retired parents street, which is a retiree neighborhood, there are multiple doctors, succesfull businessmen, quite a few millionaires (or people with 2-3 homes), etc. And they all to a person vote for Trump and repeat all of the fucking lies. 40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park, but 40% love Trump. Dismissing them all as trailer trash is a mistake, imo. 

Its becoming more that way every cycle: Rs get more uneducated support over time.  D support:

Screen_Shot_2021_05_10_at_10.42.18_AM.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Its becoming more that way every cycle: Rs get more uneducated support over time.  D support:

Screen_Shot_2021_05_10_at_10.42.18_AM.jp

Yes. Trump has drawn the dregs, typcially people who wouldn't have voted before, to the polls and it's brought down the average. But to imply that's all there is, is foolish. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm as full of disdain for for the people who support Trump as anyone on this website, but casually clasiffying them as people in trailer parks is dismissive, but more importantly dangerous. And it glosses over the true power this propoganda has had on American society. On my retired parents street, which is a retiree neighborhood, there are multiple doctors, succesfull businessmen, quite a few millionaires (or people with 2-3 homes), etc. And they all to a person vote for Trump and repeat all of the fucking lies. 40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park, but 40% love Trump. Dismissing them all as trailer trash is a mistake, imo. 

 

This is wild and something I've been trying to understand and sort out like most of us I'm sure for quite awhile. I just don't get it, I don't understand how educated people who prior to 2016 ish knew the difference between truth and falsehoods, right and wrong now seem to be under this brain washed spell. And its millions of people, I cant wrap my head around this because it makes no god damn sense to me. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The Latino support data, if accurate, are what should scare Democrats.


The other way to look at it, is if a vast majority of that Latino support is from Texas and Florida (cubans and the RGV here in Texas), then it don't make much of a shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Royal We said:

How in the fuck do we deal with this?

Ask him for proof. You've shown yours, now he has to show his.

You're allowing him to get away with a level of evidence you wouldn't accept from yourself.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

This is wild and something I've been trying to understand and sort out like most of us I'm sure for quite awhile. I just don't get it, I don't understand how educated people who prior to 2016 ish knew the difference between truth and falsehoods, right and wrong now seem to be under this brain washed spell. And its millions of people, I cant wrap my head around this because it makes no god damn sense to me. 

 

 

Really? It makes perfect sense to me. As people age, they get more conservative by nature. And I don't mean politics. I mean in the whole "The world has changed, and I don't recognize it as much and that makes me uneasy" concept. And humans don't like change. We were farmers for 10k, years, and now in the last 200 we've industralized, visited space, built computers, allowed blacks to be human beings, allowed women to vote and work, digitized, let homosexuals USUALLY not get beaten to death for existing, etc. That's a lot of change. Humans don't like change.

Specifically, since 2016, you've got a bunch of old AF boomers, who have always been conservatives listening to fox news, now retired with nothing but time on their hand, still with fox news on in the background, just listening and absorbing that hate and propoganda. And doing it while their cognition is delcining. They're now getting it from Facebook. All of their friends are saying the same thing. The guardrails that existed when they were young and in middle age don't exist anymore, but they assume that they do, therefore a company they've listened to their entire life with "news" in the name can be trusted. Meanwhile, the "news" companies are getting more aggressive, more brash, peddling that rage dopamine hit. And in the middle of all that, Covid wrecked shop. It's all a perfect storm snowballing at once. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Eh, it helps impede a move towards purple.  It's also stupid, but hey, pull up that ladder.

You're more ambitious than me, dude. With the gerrymandering in this state, we'll turn purple when there's federal election laws passed. 

I'm shooeting for "Biden wins the election" and that's it at this point. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just for grins, I looked up violent crime statistics for New York state.  They peaked in 1990, with 1,181 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people.  That number is currently 429 instances per 100,000 people, a reduction of nearly 64%.

But, people believe Trump anyway, and the media mostly just sits on its hands.

Media loves to sell a horse race. Even if one of the horses needs to be taken out back and shot. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Eh, it helps impede a move towards purple.  It's also stupid, but hey, pull up that ladder.

It's standard.  Once any demonized group begins to find itself somewhat "accepted" in greater society, it starts to vote more like the majority.  Happened with Irish and Italians in the NE.

A shitload of hispanics in the RGV live a life that is indistinguishable from the rednecks around them: they drive fancy new trucks to their oilpatch jobs, the don't want any regulations that might jeopardize those things, they drink beer, barbecue, and root for the cowboys.  So....they vote like the white dudes who do all those things.  Not all of them, but more of them than before.

Now, the fact that they are doing so while that very political party is actively demonizing the shit out of all of them, and threatening to scrutinize any brown people for possible deportation, is a special kind of stupid.  But then, being completely stupid and voting like it is the American brand these days, so hey, congrats to RGV hispanics, you really ARE assimilating!

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm as full of disdain for for the people who support Trump as anyone on this website, but casually clasifying them as people in trailer parks is dismissive, but more importantly dangerous. And it glosses over the true power this propoganda has had on American society. On my retired parents street, which is a retiree neighborhood, there are multiple doctors, succesfull businessmen, quite a few millionaires (or people with 2-3 homes), etc. And they all to a person vote for Trump and repeat all of the fucking lies. 40% of Americans don't live in a fucking trailer park, but 40% love Trump. Dismissing them all as trailer trash is a mistake, imo. 

Your point is very valid. I was going more about the uneducated that make up his most enthusiastic and cult like base. The people on the videos from rallies that get posted on Twitter and we all laugh at. That’s the frustrating thing to me. These are people that Trump despises yet they worship him. And then the assumingly educated folks you refer to are in on it as well for reasons I’ll never understand.

I’ve made jokes about it before, but the fact is that traffic on this site would take an huge hit if all the Trumpers moved to TexAgs where they belong. There are lots of folks that received an education at this once fine state’s flagship university that not only think this is all hunky dory, they vote for it enthusiastically.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Ask him for proof. You've shown yours, now he has to show his.

You're allowing him to get away with a level of evidence you wouldn't accept from yourself.

I get what you're saying but we were sitting at a breakfast table having a conversation. I wasn't going to whip out my phone and pull out a news source that he would hand-wave away anyway. (I don't think I'm going to find a link on foxnews.com that shows an accurate depiction of murder rates)

So I rolled my eyes and laughed in his face - ahhhhhhh, of course, the statistics are made up!!!!

13 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Specifically, since 2016, you've got a bunch of old AF boomers, who have always been conservatives listening to fox news, now retired with nothing but time on their hand, still with fox news on in the background, just listening and absorbing that hate and propoganda. And doing it while their cognition is delcining. They're now getting it from Facebook. All of their friends are saying the same thing.

I think this is as big of a part of it as anything else. My mom got off Facebook (I think when they started taking down obvious Covid disinfo) and is very active (not sitting in front of the TV on Fox all day), but the people she spends time with are absorbing this BS in all their waking hours. So even though my mom isn't getting on FB everyday, she's still inundated with the same horseshit. She gets it at the hair salon, at the Mahjong game, at trivia night at the only good pub in town, etc. It's an echo chamber of bullshit and it's very rare that these people come across someone like me who will push back/call them out/shame them/laugh in their face. They are shocked to encounter someone that completely disagrees with them about most things while still looking and sounding like them.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I get what you're saying but we were sitting at a breakfast table having a conversation. I wasn't going to whip out my phone and pull out a news source that he would hand-wave away anyway. (I don't think I'm going to find a link on foxnews.com that shows an accurate depiction of murder rates)

You're still doing it. The key is to get him to question his information, not for you to look things up for him. You don't even have to point out that his information is literally just some crap he made up. You just ask him where he got that information, how you might verify it yourself. You're letting him engage in lazy thinking.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You're still doing it. The key is to get him to question his information, not for you to look things up for him. You don't even have to point out that his information is literally just some crap he made up. You just ask him where he got that information, how you might verify it yourself. You're letting him engage in lazy thinking.

Go Ahead Yes GIF

 

It's not a bad thought, but I'm not sure he would have seen the error of his ways and sought new sources of information if I'd only have asked him where he got his information all 37 times he spouted some obviously made up bullshit.

Where did you get this information that approaching conversations like you suggest has been successful in cutting through people's echo chamber of bullshit? I'm willing to try anything because I've certainly not made any headway with what I'm doing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Royal We said:

Go Ahead Yes GIF

 

It's not a bad thought, but I'm not sure he would have seen the error of his ways and sought new sources of information if I'd only have asked him where he got his information all 37 times he spouted some obviously made up bullshit.

Where did you get this information that approaching conversations like you suggest has been successful in cutting through people's echo chamber of bullshit? I'm willing to try anything because I've certainly not made any headway with what I'm doing.

 

Eh, it's just bein' Socratic, really. It's more or less what How to Win Friends and Influence People covers, sorta; you'll never win an argument by having one. (I don't argue to change people's minds; I do it because I'm an asshole who enjoys arguing.) You change people's minds by getting them to wander over to the right conclusion themselves. You start by finding out how they got there. Then ask them why they didn't take a different path.

It's not necessarily about cutting through in the moment, either. For this kind of thinking, it's about planting seeds that might not sprout for a year or even a decade later.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...