tl;dr: The CEO said he was pro-Trump and he didn’t like the shooting. Certainly not a smart thing to say but not entirely bad, right? Well, he said it to the all the customers via their mailing list.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
56 points
*

What’s actually going on is a little bit more subtle, I think.

The people supporting him mostly don’t know he’s a rapist. They don’t know he wants to throw his opponents in prison or kill them. All they see is this incredible opposition to him from people they know, and it just confuses them, because the news they consume doesn’t tell them any of that. And so, they don’t know what the big deal is, and so they just don’t talk about it and plan to vote for Trump sort of quietly.

And, human nature being what it is, if it does come up in conversation, everyone talking to this guy assumes the underlying picture in everyone else’s head is equal to the picture in their own, and so of course this person is already aware that Trump’s a criminal rapist treasonous shitbag who’s dumber than rocks, and just supports him anyway, and so they react with arguing and hostility instead of doing the much harder work of building a shared understanding and engaging in a dialogue that they know isn’t going to resolve into anyone’s mind changing on the first day.

It’s easy to decide that someone’s fully aware of the facts and they’re just a huge piece of shit with how they reach judgements off the same facts you have, and you need to yell at them. That’s rarely how it works though (although, sometimes, yes.) The much more difficult and more successful path is to understand where they’re coming from and how they got to their wrong judgement, and try to work with them to help understand things better even if they’re being hostile or what they currently think is wrong as hell.

This is my opinion on it

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

I think it’s a bit more cut and dry. This late in the game, nobody that’s going to vote doesn’t already know about Trump and all of his controversies. Whether or not they get the facts from the news they consume, they’ve already been confronted with the ugly truth in some way at some point.

If they are still “not aware” that he’s a rapist, a violence proliferator, a traitor, or a fucking idiot, it just proves they are WILLFULLY ignorant. Which is no excuse.

They don’t get a free pass just because they actively ignore facts. It’s safe to assume they support Trump over literally anyone else specifically because he has these evil qualities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Pre January 6th tolerating their personal delusion was dangerous but still somewhat tolerable. Post January 6th they are an imminent danger to themselves and everyone else.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I got into a discussion about wilful ignorance and the right with my girlfriend a couple months ago. Me calling them wilful ignorant was my compromise cause at this point the facts are out there and there’s no good reason to vote for him beyond you being evil. It’s extremely easy to fact check those facts you hear about the guy you wanna vote for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

They know and don’t care. And even if they’re in denial, they continue to deny, despite being proven over and over again. They call it fake news, deep fakes, or just flat out say [a thing that happened] just never happened.

Just watch anything from Pretty Little Liars or Daily Show etc. interviews with people at his rallies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I think there’s a difference between knowing but not caring and not believing it. I know plenty of people who support Trump despite his awful history but I also know plenty more who thinks all the bad press is a lie.

This doesn’t absolve them in any way but you’re not gonna change anyone’s mind in the latter camp by telling them “you know he’s bad, you just don’t care”. And before you say it’s not worth trying, I successfully convinced two different coworkers who voted Trump in 2016 to actually look into the accusations and both voted 3rd party in 2020

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I don’t think ignorance is much of an excuse in the US in 2024. You can just go read wikipedia and its sources.

At this point for anyone older than like 15 it’s willful. It’s a willful desire to stay in the comfort of your in-group rather than deal with the negative feelings that come from “Are we the baddies?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I think you underestimate HOW prominently the idea “every other media is maliciously lying to you” features in conservative media

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Ignorance is not (just) lack of notions, it is lack of method, it is not having the tools to analyze the notions. You don’t learn that on Wikipedia.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It was very upsetting to me and at the same time very enlightening when I had a long argument with a Trump supporter and realized he literally didn’t have the critical thinking tools to even analyze a source, see if it had self-contradictions, compare what it was saying against verifiable things and see if it was trustworthy. For him it was either “this thing is gospel” or else “everything is chaos and nothing is true and the world is a maelstrom of hopeless lies,” and he was choosing option A.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

My fiancé was on the phone with her mother yesterday, explaining Project 2025 to her, and her mother literally said, “Oh, Trump wouldn’t go along with all that. He used to be a Democrat, so he’s petty liberal for a Republican.”

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 480K

    Comments