I live in a very conservative small town with plenty of Trump lovers, one guy even has a sign in front of his house declaring he's a "Proud Trump Cult Member" yep! I've learned over the past 8 years that (for me) debating with them is futile and usually ends with them calling me a "Fucking Liberal". One time I was chatting with a woman about our local water problem (we are running out of water locally) and she was on board for most of the conversation, but when I suggested some environmental changes as well as leadership support that could help change it, she got her back up and said "I don't need this! Jesus will help me!" I said, well Jesus isn't helping you right now if you've been hauling water into your house with tanks you buy from the city. That was the end of that conversation. I've pretty much given up on the idea of conversing with the fascist right. However, in our local liberal group meetings we talk about how to win them over, in my opinion it's a waste of time.
None of this works without Christian nationalism (which seems like it’s the end point of nearly all Christianity, given enough time). It’s the glue that holds all of this evil together.
I agree, Paulette. It's a waste of time to try to win them over. Some liberal voices are stating that we have to appeal to the nonvoters and swing voters instead. I think this is a waste of time as well—the majority of the adults in the USA lean conservative. As long as we liberals keep defending trans people and immigrants--both true and worthy positions that we should absolutely maintain--we will be unpopular with the majority of Americans.
Pete Buttigieg is much smarter than me, so it’s sad to see his continued commitment to his Fox « debates » despite there being no evidence to support his hypothesis that these appearances change minds. The average person isn’t convinced by facts. Viewers show up for the entertainment value of seeing their side win.
So pundits who participate in these so-called debates should be clear-eyed about their being used by the platform to enhance the other’s status and influence. Why this isn’t stunningly apparent is beyond me.
I'd question whether Buttigieg is smarter than you. Better at self-promotion? Yeah he's probably pushing elite tier there. But since Trump is in that tier I don't think we have to associate it with broad intelligence.
Once again, Berlatsky gives us a lot to consider while providing a helpful (and new to me) theoretical tool: the concept of "chattering class solidarity." I was already thinking about the whole "debate me bro" framework--after all, you can win a debate and still be wrong.
But this shifts my train of thought in a different direction. Thinking about how the conventional debate club format can be used as a tactical political tool; how "the club" works to defend debaters' free speech; how this creates a whole different dynamic, network connections, and affinities. The debate opponents can then enjoy a kind of solidarity and mutually benefit from the platforming, but all this is opaque to the audience.
Can anyone who has debated a conservative claim that they changed their mind on anything? And do these centrists ever debate leftists? If hearing other opinions than your own is important shouldn't we hear Ezra Klein debate a radical feminist or a genuine communist? I highly doubt they give such a debate much merit, if they've actually done a single one ever.
It’s a bit like Bill Maher, who for years bitterly criticized Trump, decided that his one in-person meeting with him went better than expected because Trump was congenial and polite. (??!) Um, just because Nazis are polite to your face doesn’t mean they aren’t plotting against you when your back is turned.
I live in a very conservative small town with plenty of Trump lovers, one guy even has a sign in front of his house declaring he's a "Proud Trump Cult Member" yep! I've learned over the past 8 years that (for me) debating with them is futile and usually ends with them calling me a "Fucking Liberal". One time I was chatting with a woman about our local water problem (we are running out of water locally) and she was on board for most of the conversation, but when I suggested some environmental changes as well as leadership support that could help change it, she got her back up and said "I don't need this! Jesus will help me!" I said, well Jesus isn't helping you right now if you've been hauling water into your house with tanks you buy from the city. That was the end of that conversation. I've pretty much given up on the idea of conversing with the fascist right. However, in our local liberal group meetings we talk about how to win them over, in my opinion it's a waste of time.
None of this works without Christian nationalism (which seems like it’s the end point of nearly all Christianity, given enough time). It’s the glue that holds all of this evil together.
I agree, Paulette. It's a waste of time to try to win them over. Some liberal voices are stating that we have to appeal to the nonvoters and swing voters instead. I think this is a waste of time as well—the majority of the adults in the USA lean conservative. As long as we liberals keep defending trans people and immigrants--both true and worthy positions that we should absolutely maintain--we will be unpopular with the majority of Americans.
“a mutually beneficial cross-promotional relationship”
Perfect summation!
Thanks for this and the rest of it.
I’m always learning from you. Thank you.
Pete Buttigieg is much smarter than me, so it’s sad to see his continued commitment to his Fox « debates » despite there being no evidence to support his hypothesis that these appearances change minds. The average person isn’t convinced by facts. Viewers show up for the entertainment value of seeing their side win.
So pundits who participate in these so-called debates should be clear-eyed about their being used by the platform to enhance the other’s status and influence. Why this isn’t stunningly apparent is beyond me.
I'd question whether Buttigieg is smarter than you. Better at self-promotion? Yeah he's probably pushing elite tier there. But since Trump is in that tier I don't think we have to associate it with broad intelligence.
Are these debates valuable? If so, to whom?
Once again, Berlatsky gives us a lot to consider while providing a helpful (and new to me) theoretical tool: the concept of "chattering class solidarity." I was already thinking about the whole "debate me bro" framework--after all, you can win a debate and still be wrong.
But this shifts my train of thought in a different direction. Thinking about how the conventional debate club format can be used as a tactical political tool; how "the club" works to defend debaters' free speech; how this creates a whole different dynamic, network connections, and affinities. The debate opponents can then enjoy a kind of solidarity and mutually benefit from the platforming, but all this is opaque to the audience.
Lots to think about. Thanks for this article.
Can anyone who has debated a conservative claim that they changed their mind on anything? And do these centrists ever debate leftists? If hearing other opinions than your own is important shouldn't we hear Ezra Klein debate a radical feminist or a genuine communist? I highly doubt they give such a debate much merit, if they've actually done a single one ever.
It’s a bit like Bill Maher, who for years bitterly criticized Trump, decided that his one in-person meeting with him went better than expected because Trump was congenial and polite. (??!) Um, just because Nazis are polite to your face doesn’t mean they aren’t plotting against you when your back is turned.