15% of adults have ended a friendship over politics. But there is a way to have political disagreements that build your relationships with your loved ones rather than erode them.
Sounds great but unlikely to happen soon. Her are a few suggestions: if someone uses an inflammatory term like anti-racism ask them to define the term and then explain what it requires in practical day to day terms. The same for every label one utters with the intent of silencing or demeaning someone who does not share their view or position ( two easy examples are calling someone a white supremacist or a fascist, two labels frequently invoked even by some of our most prominent leaders and their spokespersons). Finally, do not stereotype, but rather deal with each individual person with regard to his or her words and actions. Once someone stereotypes it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion because they have a closed mind and they have made clear they are not open to civil dialogue or debate
When debating someone who favors CRT I also think it's a good idea to be armed with immediate facts to support your position. I'll bring up on my phone facts and articles that support my arguments and if the veracity of what I show them is questioned I then ask them that if they concluded that what I showed them was true, would they be ok with that. If they say yes then I ask them if they believe that ascribing a negative trait to someone based solely on the color of their skin is racist, and then proceed from how they answer that. If we're in disagreement I like to use the line "well reasonable minds can differ" even though I think their position is unreasonable. I also love to show the clip of Bill Maher who while mediating a debate on CRT, stated the following: "If CRT means teaching history unvarnished, I'm for that, if it acknowledges current racism, I'm for that; but if it means making school children fixate on race, I'm not for that, and if it's about "collective guilt" I didn't do anything to your Great Great Great Grandfather, I don't want to be held responsible for that; or if it's about a "toxicity" for being born white or about dividing everybody into oppressor and oppressed groups, I'm not for that." And I then like to ask them what parts of that they agree or disagree with.
I offer a suggestion. In cases where two people are engaged in Manichean discussions, separate them and ask each if he/she is listening, or thinking about the next brilliant rebuttal to be made in support of his/her position. The honest answer is always the latter.
I generally just start asking the person a series of non-aggressive and progressively deeper questions about their views, how they arrived at them, whether their data is correct, are there additional data-points, and acknowledging the problem, what could be alternative solutions to the same problem.
Most people, left or right, haven't thought much past the bromides anyway. So conversations are shorter. And if they actually have put some thought into it, more interesting.
Excellent piece. The ‘scout’ analogy is a helpful one. One thing I’ve discovered from calmly responding to frightened reactions to my new found conservatism is that many progressives don’t actually know what they stand for beyond what activist organizations and political leaders tell them to. I don’t judge them for this, rather I use it as a reminder to continually reflect on my own values and be open to pivoting as my knowledge/wisdom grows.
Sounds great but unlikely to happen soon. Her are a few suggestions: if someone uses an inflammatory term like anti-racism ask them to define the term and then explain what it requires in practical day to day terms. The same for every label one utters with the intent of silencing or demeaning someone who does not share their view or position ( two easy examples are calling someone a white supremacist or a fascist, two labels frequently invoked even by some of our most prominent leaders and their spokespersons). Finally, do not stereotype, but rather deal with each individual person with regard to his or her words and actions. Once someone stereotypes it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion because they have a closed mind and they have made clear they are not open to civil dialogue or debate
When debating someone who favors CRT I also think it's a good idea to be armed with immediate facts to support your position. I'll bring up on my phone facts and articles that support my arguments and if the veracity of what I show them is questioned I then ask them that if they concluded that what I showed them was true, would they be ok with that. If they say yes then I ask them if they believe that ascribing a negative trait to someone based solely on the color of their skin is racist, and then proceed from how they answer that. If we're in disagreement I like to use the line "well reasonable minds can differ" even though I think their position is unreasonable. I also love to show the clip of Bill Maher who while mediating a debate on CRT, stated the following: "If CRT means teaching history unvarnished, I'm for that, if it acknowledges current racism, I'm for that; but if it means making school children fixate on race, I'm not for that, and if it's about "collective guilt" I didn't do anything to your Great Great Great Grandfather, I don't want to be held responsible for that; or if it's about a "toxicity" for being born white or about dividing everybody into oppressor and oppressed groups, I'm not for that." And I then like to ask them what parts of that they agree or disagree with.
Have relationships with adults. Not in terms of age but, in terms of maturity - avoid highly “educated”white women. 🤷🏽♂️
I offer a suggestion. In cases where two people are engaged in Manichean discussions, separate them and ask each if he/she is listening, or thinking about the next brilliant rebuttal to be made in support of his/her position. The honest answer is always the latter.
I generally just start asking the person a series of non-aggressive and progressively deeper questions about their views, how they arrived at them, whether their data is correct, are there additional data-points, and acknowledging the problem, what could be alternative solutions to the same problem.
Most people, left or right, haven't thought much past the bromides anyway. So conversations are shorter. And if they actually have put some thought into it, more interesting.
Who is teaching critical race theory? Our schools don't teach civics and history, let alone civility and common sense.
Excellent piece. The ‘scout’ analogy is a helpful one. One thing I’ve discovered from calmly responding to frightened reactions to my new found conservatism is that many progressives don’t actually know what they stand for beyond what activist organizations and political leaders tell them to. I don’t judge them for this, rather I use it as a reminder to continually reflect on my own values and be open to pivoting as my knowledge/wisdom grows.