Read on Twitter
When democrats say republicans don't care about our democracy, they miss how large of a role misinfo played here. Trump voters really do believe what OANN, Brietbart etc tell them.
They are told there was corruption in the Dominion voting machines, that there were "drops" of ballots, and so on. None of it is true nor does it hold up to simple tests of logic.
For example, if the voting machines were the source of the discrepancy, why didn't the manual recount change the results signficantly?
Point being, it's a very different thing to see a fair election and want to overturn it, than it is to legitimately (although incorrectly) believe the election was a fraud. Any of us would want to use every legal muscle to fight that if we thought it really was happening.
What can we do about it?
We can't change everyone's mind overnight.
In fact, we can't change everyone's mind.
But *arguing on the internet* isn't a waste of time anymore.
We have to start by injecting doubt into the equation.
We can't change everyone's mind overnight.
In fact, we can't change everyone's mind.
But *arguing on the internet* isn't a waste of time anymore.
We have to start by injecting doubt into the equation.
In echo chambers, beliefs (right or wrong) are reinforced and embellished. The mere existence of dissent doesn't convert the masses but it does break the echo.
Start by listening. Tuck away your ego. Ask steering questions meant to drive or drive away the conversation...
In my book, I summarize this as follows:
In my book, I summarize this as follows:
Induce doubt and pivot belief to our side. We start by setting the right tone so we can establish control over the conversation. We use questions to constrain our opponent and frame the risk of their position against a common virtue.
Set the right tone: Talk as if you weren't in the room. Keep it friendly or neutral no matter what.
The happier or less angry with you they are, the more likely they are to collaborate.
The happier or less angry with you they are, the more likely they are to collaborate.
Induce doubt: Point out inconsistencies with friendly inquisition, show the other side of the argument in a way that isn't posed as a challenge.
Questions put the appearance of control in their court but the actual control in yours.
They are the *most important* tool in an argument.
They are the *most important* tool in an argument.
Questions can constrain your opponent to face their contradictions and inconsistencies.
Good questions politely request information while at the same time providing facts.
Good questions put the problem solving in their court.
Good questions politely request information while at the same time providing facts.
Good questions put the problem solving in their court.
Framing the risk of your opponent's position makes their message mean something else while demonstrating to onlookers there is something to lose by fully investing in the point of view.
What does all this mean? Well, you'd need a book to explain it and the less time I spend here, the sooner I can provide it. :)
