US Politics: Choking our Democracy

[Maithanet]

I decided to go with this less lewd title over one featuring a play on "Trump bump". 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Guy Kilmore,

Quote

Larry is, knowingly or unknowingly, following the steps for the Stages to Successful Behavioral Change which is about how to tailor your engagement to create interactions in which you can leverage your relationship to foster change.  It is a model we use in the mental health and chemical dependency field, in part, when dealing with someone who doesn't realize there is a problem or hostile to addressing a problem.  He is talking to people that are in pre-contemplative, or maybe, maybe in the contemplative stage (There are further subsets to these 5).  It is where you take opportunity to ask questions and express wonder to get people to think.  If done in a non threatening way, you can get some self-reflection.  I do the same thing.  

Is this completely applicable to changing one's political views though? I can see how certain stages may overlap, but I'm not sure it's the same progression as changing your eating habits or eliminating drug use. I could be wrong though.

Quote

I agree we have to make people uncomfortable, but in our individual conversations where we are leveraging tenuous relationships, you also have to gauge the level of that uncomfortableness and their level of tolerance.  This is something for the long haul and it isn't fast.  Right now, you are advocating for Larry to interact at people at a higher level of change, which ends up damaging your personal relationship and costing you leverage, and usually resets people to a lower of level of change preparation.

Now, I am not speaking on societal/group level engagement, but individual/personal level of engagement with those you have an identified relationship with or want to develop one with.

I don't disagree with the overall thrust of this, but the inverse is that if you're too resistant to pushing people outside of their comfort  zones, no change will occur. The example used before was taking people with racist beliefs and getting them to acknowledge that police brutality is a real thing because it also affects white people. I guess that's something, but it really isn't getting to the much larger issues that need to be discussed as Larry accurately pointed out. You're right to say you have to gauge just how far you want to push it, but the above is not nearly enough to develop meaningful change. 

@larrytheimp,

Quote

There is a time and place for a more aggressive conversation.  I'm sure you've seen me do that right here on this board.  I've had many of those conversations on the job site over the years.  After I read that article (think someone posted it here a couple years ago) I tried to change gears. 

The other approach has its role too.  I'm more inclined to do the aggressive route with friends or family members where there's already some established trust or history of actual discourse.  But in casual conversation in a work environment?  More towards the one from DiAngelo.  

It's very true it depends on the degree of established trust, and ultimately you have to make that call, but that still doesn't mean you can't push people further than they're ready for. You just have to judge if that means showing them statistics that hopefully won't turn them off or putting a long article from Ta-Nehisi Coates in their hands.

Quote

Alternately, if someone is being explicitly hateful, or shouting from the other side of a protest line, neither one of those conversations is happening.  

Some people you just have to write off.

[Kalbear]

@DMC:

Quote

According to most estimates, nearly a quarter of Hillary supporters voted for McCain, and Obama still kicked the shit out of him.

I'm surprised that you're stating this so uncritically. This is something that is routinely quoted and is based on one fairly flawed source. Exit polling indicated that it was 15% or so at best.

[Guy Kilmore]

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Guy Kilmore,

Is this completely applicable to changing one's political views though? I can see how certain stages may overlap, but I'm not sure it's the same progression as changing your eating habits or eliminating drug use. I could be wrong though.

I don't disagree with the overall thrust of this, but the inverse is that if you're too resistant to pushing people outside of their comfort  zones, no change will occur. The example used before was taking people with racist beliefs and getting them to acknowledge that police brutality is a real thing because it also affects white people. I guess that's something, but it really isn't getting to the much larger issues that need to be discussed as Larry accurately pointed out. You're right to say you have to gauge just how far you want to push it, but the above is not nearly enough to develop meaningful change. 

You are looking at this as a binary thing, where it is more about being on a continuum.  The models of change is about presenting discomfort in manageable ways for you and the person without cutting off future opportunities to engage.   It is about how to shift ones thinking and value paradigm.  This is what we use to address mental health disorders, minus psychosis (I could be wrong on that), and maladaptive patterns of thoughts/behaviors, which one could argue that political thought can fall right in line with that.  (I will say that I have used it to change help people come to change on a variety of topics, political being one of them.)  This is all based in clinical social work.

It is also about creating points of commonality for continued relationship building.  So you get someone who is "Blue Lives Matter" but then, hearing about white people being killed are like, hmmm, maybe police brutality is a thing.  Then they want to educate and read more about it, Then they go to a step where they start wanting to do something about, go to a protest, vote someone else in, etc., etc.  And if they buy it, you have a point of commonality, something to relate to, which, then makes it easier to leverage and move them from the precontemplative spot of police brutality on blacks (Also they are going to intersect with a different group of people than their current peer group, people who might expose them to realities that they were unaware of, which again is going to be uncomfortable.  There might even be resets, you just continually re-engage to where they are at).  This is what I have been doing for a living for the past 16 years (and I know you respect personal experience/expertise), creating engagement with people who don't want to engage, and they are so far away from that engagement they are willing to hurt others and themselves.  There are other methods of engagement (my go to is Motivational Interviewing, coupled with understanding where someone is in the Steps of Change, because Motivational Interviewing is really good at resolving ambiguity and Steps of Change is really good at developing relationships).

I mean, I am not going to defend the well researched models of change, you indicated earlier you hadn't read up on this stuff, there is a place to start.

 

[Zorral]

This should be titled Shooting Our Democracy, rather than choking it.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/with-itchy-trigger-fingers-some-right-wingers-predict-the-next-civil-war-has-finally-arrived

Quote

The first shots in the second American civil war have been fired — at least, according to some right-wing groups that have sought to use recent shooting deaths during protests across the country as a call to arms.

[....]

Just a few days earlier, two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin — Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum — were allegedly killed by the 17-year-old Trump supporter Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse has been charged with homicide. No one has been charged in the Portland killing yet, but The Oregonian reported that a self-identified anti-fascist protester was under investigation. 

The Oath Keepers’ tweets went beyond their normal schtick, said Sam Jackson, an assistant professor at the University of Albany and author of a new book about the group.

For years, Oath Keepers leadership has speculated about potential armed conflict: In 2015, for example, members of the group claimed that the “Jade Helm” military training exercise was a front for martial law. And last year, Rhodes said Democrats’ impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump marked “the verge of a HOT civil war.” But these conflicts, of course, never materialized. 

“They’ve identified the start of a civil war over and over again,” Jackson said. “The identification or anticipation of a civil war is consistent.”

“What’s different now is they’re pointing to a particular act of violence from the people that they’ve identified as the other side — the enemy combatants in the civil war,” he added. “What’s different now is they’re not just anticipating that it’s going to happen soon — they’re rhetorically positioning that it has begun.” ....

 

 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

@DMC:

I'm surprised that you're stating this so uncritically. This is something that is routinely quoted and is based on one fairly flawed source. Exit polling indicated that it was 15% or so at best.

The CCES says it was 24%:

Quote

The 12% Bernie-to-Trump figure (and 24% Clinton-to-McCain figure)[see note below] comes from Brian Schaffner of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst who based it on extrapolations from the data in the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

They're one of the three most reputable polling analysts in the country along with the ANES and the GSS.  The analysis excludes caucus states, yes, but there's nothing systematically wrong with omitting them from your sample - primary states still provide an intuitively diverse sample, and more than a sufficiently large one.  CBS put the number at 16%.  Point is, it was a hell of a lot higher than 4% - and likely more than the 15% at best you're asserting.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Guy Kilmore said:

You are looking at this as a binary thing, where it is more about being on a continuum.  The models of change is about presenting discomfort in manageable ways for you and the person without cutting off future opportunities to engage.   It is about how to shift ones thinking and value paradigm.  This is what we use to address mental health disorders, minus psychosis (I could be wrong on that), and maladaptive patterns of thoughts/behaviors, which one could argue that political thought can fall right in line with that.  (I will say that I have used it to change help people come to change on a variety of topics, political being one of them.)  This is all based in clinical social work.

I don't think I'm looking at this in a binary fashion, I tried to establish two ends of a spectrum and then said you need to figure out what kind of actions on that spectrum will best produce the result you're seeking. And I agree with the article you linked, it was clear and made it easy to picture how a person would progress through the five stages. And I can see how it could apply in some political settings. However, I want to address something that I think could be fundamental to how it could fail in these times with the specific area of change we're discussing.

Quote

It is also about creating points of commonality for continued relationship building.  So you get someone who is "Blue Lives Matter" but then, hearing about white people being killed are like, hmmm, maybe police brutality is a thing.  Then they want to educate and read more about it, Then they go to a step where they start wanting to do something about, go to a protest, vote someone else in, etc., etc.  And if they buy it, you have a point of commonality, something to relate to, which, then makes it easier to leverage and move them from the precontemplative spot of police brutality on blacks (Also they are going to intersect with a different group of people than their current peer group, people who might expose them to realities that they were unaware of, which again is going to be uncomfortable.  There might even be resets, you just continually re-engage to where they are at).  This is what I have been doing for a living for the past 16 years (and I know you respect personal experience/expertise), creating engagement with people who don't want to engage, and they are so far away from that engagement they are willing to hurt others and themselves.  There are other methods of engagement (my go to is Motivational Interviewing, coupled with understanding where someone is in the Steps of Change, because Motivational Interviewing is really good at resolving ambiguity and Steps of Change is really good at developing relationships).

Blue Lives Matter is a perfect example. I think most people who support the Black Lives Matter movement are sincere in their beliefs, while some also join along because it's "trendy" from their perspective. I don't see Blue Lives Matter supporters in the same light. I'm sure those supporters all agree with the sentiment in general, but I think it's also fair to assume that rather large share of those supporters, whatever the percentage maybe be, are doing it to troll liberals. "Owning the libs" for many on the right is one of the major motivating factors, and I suspect the overlap between those people and the people whose behavior you think needs changing is pretty high. How do you get the process of change going when the starting point is inherently coming from a person who may likely be operating in bad faith when they know, or at least likely know, that that's specifically what they're doing? You may have a better chance of changing a stone cold racist than a bunch of trolls, and in many ways a large section of the Republican party has become just that. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

This should be titled Shooting Our Democracy, rather than choking it.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/with-itchy-trigger-fingers-some-right-wingers-predict-the-next-civil-war-has-finally-arrived

 

 

The impeachment wasn't the spark because Trump remained in office. But if Trump loses the election in November, there may be just enough crazies to get some group shooting conflicts happening on the streets. Trump is certainly stoking the fear with pre-emptive election-rigging claims. I would want to keep an eye on the dark web chatter of leftist groups to see if they are readying themselves for something. 

[Raja]

 

Come for the bricks, stay for the soup.

[Mindwalker]

How much do the Republicans pay Laura Ingraham so she even provides damage control while interviwing DT... it's mind-boggling.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, Raja said:

 

Come for the bricks, stay for the soup.

Y'all must have some stonkingly heavy bricks over thar.

Of course the constitution does not give you the right to bare bricks or soup. So when the right wing groups show up with guns, that's just them exercising their constitutional freedoms.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think I'm looking at this in a binary fashion, I tried to establish two ends of a spectrum and then said you need to figure out what kind of actions on that spectrum will best produce the result you're seeking. And I agree with the article you linked, it was clear and made it easy to picture how a person would progress through the five stages. And I can see how it could apply in some political settings. However, I want to address something that I think could be fundamental to how it could fail in these times with the specific area of change we're discussing.

Blue Lives Matter is a perfect example. I think most people who support the Black Lives Matter movement are sincere in their beliefs, while some also join along because it's "trendy" from their perspective. I don't see Blue Lives Matter supporters in the same light. I'm sure those supporters all agree with the sentiment in general, but I think it's also fair to assume that rather large share of those supporters, whatever the percentage maybe be, are doing it to troll liberals. "Owning the libs" for many on the right is one of the major motivating factors, and I suspect the overlap between those people and the people whose behavior you think needs changing is pretty high. How do you get the process of change going when the starting point is inherently coming from a person who may likely be operating in bad faith when they know, or at least likely know, that that's specifically what they're doing? You may have a better chance of changing a stone cold racist than a bunch of trolls, and in many ways a large section of the Republican party has become just that. 

Wanting to "Own someone" is a desire and behavior that can be modified to a degree as long as you have some kind of relationship with the person that can provide leverage.  That is true with anyone.  I am frequently in family situations where another member wants to "own" another family member.  There is usually a motivator under that.

Now, I do agree, if there is no relationship, no point of commonality to leverage, then that is a tough row to hoe.  

[HoodedCrow]

I don’t know what the fix is other than Fire Trump, but we are being exposed to a lot of abusive behaviors. The pathological lying alone is disorienting, the excitement for and approval of violence is wildly poor leadership. Watching other people fall for Trump is hard. 

[Corvinus85]

44 minutes ago, Raja said:

 

Come for the bricks, stay for the soup.

He's likely thinking of all those bricks Kevin McAllister dropped on the Wet Bandits in New York, which failed to kill them. After all, he was in that movie.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Corvinus85 said:

He's likely thinking of all those bricks Kevin McAllister dropped on the Wet Bandits in New York, which failed to kill them. After all, he was in that movie.

I love that story - that he only let em use the hotel if they put him in the movie, and they cut most of what he wanted them to film.

[Quijote Light]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I love that story - that he only let em use the hotel if they put him in the movie, and they cut most of what he wanted them to film.

I actually read somewhere that this was standard if someone wanted to use his hotels/properties in film or television. He’s such a pathetic, disgusting person. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Wanting to "Own someone" is a desire and behavior that can be modified to a degree as long as you have some kind of relationship with the person that can provide leverage.  That is true with anyone.  I am frequently in family situations where another member wants to "own" another family member.  There is usually a motivator under that.

Now, I do agree, if there is no relationship, no point of commonality to leverage, then that is a tough row to hoe.  

And I guess that was what I was trying to get at, but maybe I wasn't being clear, because there is no relationship between liberals and strong Trump supporters. Interestingly enough though, after reading the article again, you could make a pretty strong argument that a lot of never-Trumpers went through all five stages and it's probably not even hard to document the progression for them.

24 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

I don’t know what the fix is other than Fire Trump, but we are being exposed to a lot of abusive behaviors. The pathological lying alone is disorienting, the excitement for and approval of violence is wildly poor leadership. Watching other people fall for Trump is hard. 

I said a while back that the only thing that could change things and rid us of Trumpism was some kind of historical calamity.

Seems I was wrong.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

How much do the Republicans pay Laura Ingraham so she even provides damage control while interviwing DT... it's mind-boggling.

Laura Ingraham doesn't need to be paid to be a vile, bootlicking piece of shit. She started her journalism career by going to meetings of the LGBTQ group in her college and outing attendees. She's fucking damaged and despicable and covers for Trump out of professional courtesy.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Now that Trump has denied having a series of mini-stokes and his 'doctor' has signed off on his denial, I presume we all agree he had a series of mini-strokes sometime in the recent past?

[Jaxom 1974]

5 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

How much do the Republicans pay Laura Ingraham so she even provides damage control while interviwing DT... it's mind-boggling.

 

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Laura Ingraham doesn't need to be paid to be a vile, bootlicking piece of shit. She started her journalism career by going to meetings of the LGBTQ group in her college and outing attendees. She's fucking damaged and despicable and covers for Trump out of professional courtesy.

The most baffling part of all of that interview...okay it isn't THAT baffling...is that he couldn't even handle the softball questions...