Marilyn Lands, a Democrat who made reproductive rights a central part of her campaign, will win a special election Tuesday for an Alabama state House seat, CNN projects.
Her victory serves as another data point for national Democrats, who hope the backlash over strict state abortion laws following the overturning of Roe v. Wade and concerns about in vitro fertilization treatments will help their party in November, even in traditionally Republican areas.
Debate doesn’t change people’s minds, that’s not what it’s for.
Or rather, it does, but that takes months to years.
If you’re dreaming of delivering a sick, 360 no-scope bullet point to a conservative that gets them to finally see the other side, you’re playing the wrong game.
Using their own language against them confuses them. Confused people think more. That’s the whole point of this.
If you’re debating Tucker Carlson, there’s pretty much nothing you can do but beat him down rhetorically; he’s paid not to understand you.
If you’re debating your neighbor, getting him to think about abortion bans as government overreach is actually a successful play.
Debate is not for convincing ur opponent, in these cases. The successes ive had w conservatives came from doing the opposite: convincing them that the view im trying to convert them towards is one theyve already held.
Debating them is for the spectators. If ur debating a conservative and no one is around for it, ur just playing into their game and u will get riled up and lose.
I would say that if you’re in a 1-on-1 with someone, it’s just that your goals are different.
You can convince people of things, especially little things, but the higher stakes subjects are difficult because there are strongly felt emotions that go with them.
When you’re debating conservatives into viewing trans people as “just fine, actually,” you’re not really debating whether puberty blockers are safe. You’re debating their own feelings of disgust. Or, their insecurity over their own place in society.
So, with that in mind, you’ll get less purchase from them with statistics, and you might get a lot more by treating them like they’re crazy for thinking any of this is a big deal. Like, they’ve got their whole “you should be racist too” pitch, and none of it is working on you. This can make them feel, for lack of a better term, weak, and that’s useful to you.
And even then, you have to realize that this is a long process. Emotions are not rational, and they will come up again and again and again, and worse, this person is probably member to communities whose sole purpose is to stoke the fires of these feelings—it’s difficult.
But anyway, that’s a long-winded way of agreeing with you, I think. If you can connect something you believe to something they do (the fear of a 1984 government that’ll tell them they can’t use some fertilizer, maybe), you’ll probably have at least a slightly easier time getting them to listen.
Yeah, i think that is a long winded way of largely agreeing with me xD i especially like, “this is a long process. Emotions are not rational”
Its easier if u can dance this tango with em over long stretches of time. Ive really gotten conservatives to agree with some shockingly far left sentiments, like ending insurance companies, trans rights, instituting a max wage, or the like, but it takes trust that has to be built up over time. Thats what sucks. And if u leave them be without forcing the issue when u can and when theyre open to hearing it, they will inevitably find someone else to listen to, and that will more than likely be someone else rightwing.
