How do you do it?

I stopped participating in a group chat with some long-time friends about a year ago, mostly due in part to the exhausting conversations over politics. Ironically, after Trump was shot, the group decided to silo the conversations into two groups, one for non-politics, and one for politics, and pinged me. We're that kind of group where we go long periods of time not seeing each other in person due to life and kids, but it was nice to have them reach out.

But oh, that politics channel has not changed. Meanwhile, my worldview has shifted dramatically to the left of theirs (and beyond, really). The spectrum is:

  • Center Leaning Republican (a Rogan, Pool, Peterson enjoyer),
  • A Center leaning Dem
  • A Vote Blue Democrat (they are also the only queer person in our group)
  • A 3rd Party guy (basically a libertarian but refuses to adopt a label, and doesn't vote, but also a Peterson enjoyer, rabid anticommunist, they always know a guy, or have a family member, you know what I mean).
  • All white, all male

Something interesting happened when I returned, though. The topic that started this isn't relevant, but it prompted the Center Dem friend to ask me where I get my views from. I sat on that question for an evening and then just wrote out a summary of the Marxist-Leninists view on capitalism and imperialism, without ever using "capitalism" or "imperialism", without referencing Marx or Lenin.

It was long, but, his response was, basically, "Ok, that makes a lot of sense, actually." I then told him that Marx and Lenin would be happy to know you agree because that's their analysis in my own words, as I understand it.

Usually after bringing up someone like Marx, I'll get dunked on with a barrage of anticommunist brainrot, but that didn't happen this time.

So it got me thinking about the title of this post. How do you talk to your lib friends about their distorted world view?

  • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
    ·
    4 months ago

    If they ask something like "Hey, did we (the US) coup (insert country here)?" Don't say yeah they did weve known since 1972, say "You know, I've long suspected it myself. Let's look it up right now." The dopamine of considering the possibility of a real conspiracy and then being immediately proven right will be a powerful reward that they'll remember.

    honestly, I think this is a good teaching technique in general, at least in informal settings. people generally don't like to be talked down to and especially not by a peer (even if that peer does in fact know a LOT more than they do). making the pursuit of knowledge collaborative, even if you have to fake it a little and hide your power levels, has served me much better than just spouting a bunch of well-educated text at somebody and hope they read it. you have to make them think it was their idea, as much as possible. obviously that's not always possible but the ideas you can make them think that they independently discovered will stick with them more. it's like an even more tame version of the socratic method.

    other than that, I think the key tenets in political arguments between peers are 1) be initially kind to gauge whether they're unintentionally misinformed or intentionally harmful on sensitive topics, and if it's the latter, then go for the kill; 2) pick your battles and don't try and convince people whose material interests align overly with the status quo; and 3) have a sense of humor about things so that tense moments in conversations can be dissipated without exhausting the interlocutor(s). an optional 4th condition, though it can be pretty helpful, is to be known in the community/friend group as a well-meaning, pleasant, laid-back, reliable, knowledgable person. cynicism has its place but being a communist in an age of capitalism is all about having hope and believing in people, and nobody wants to talk to you and listen to you if you're an asshole, even if you've read a hundred books on history and economics and politics.