PDA

View Full Version : Your Strategy For Coping With RWNJ's?



Packy
2-6-15, 2:52pm
We all know them, or encounter them in our daily lives. These are the polarized, hyper-patriotic armchair Generals, who usually listen to talk radio and a certain cable news channel. They self-identify as "Conservative", when they are really not very conservative at all. They are extreme in their views & see everything in black and white, not shades of gray. Facts do not matter to them, only their principles. You are either with them, or the enemy. They tend to exhibit other forms of fanatic behavior(that I'm not going to specify here), but especially when it has to do with partisan politics. I guess the first rule when you interact with Those People is: Don't Engage; but usually, they are looking for it. What are your experiences with such people? This is not a debate about ideology; this is a discussion about keeping things Simple by avoiding needless conflict with dogmatic, reactionary ideologues. Especially, if they are someone who may have power over you, such as a boss, elderly relative with lots of $$, etc.

catherine
2-6-15, 3:19pm
(I had to look up the acronym RWNJ)

#1: I DO NOT watch Fox News. (My DH does, unfortunately, but I stay out of earshot when he's got it on)
#2: I DO NOT watch MSNBC--they're the mirror image of Fox News, but just as bad
#3: I DO NOT watch/read any other mass media news on TV--some newspapers are a little better, but they have their own agendas. I realized how news-averse I've become when my DH mentioned that train crash in New York and I hadn't heard of it. At this point, the world could end and I wouldn't know it unless I saw smoke signals.

As far as people in real life, I'm lucky in that I rarely encounter them. I mentioned earlier about my LWNJ friend whose FB posts I blocked--that's how I dealt with her.

My DS is dating someone whose father is very ideological on the liberal side which is somewhat exasperating to my son. His gf tries to put her dad in his place, but with limited success.

This type of thinking is very dangerous, and I avoid it like the plague. If I'm baited, I try to get away with "That's not how I see it." and leave it at that. I used to try sending articles/data whatever else to support my position, but that type of person will see it the way they want to, no matter how ironclad the data.

bae
2-6-15, 3:28pm
When dealing with irrational people of whatever sort, I smile, nod, and back away, while looking for a big stick.

Packy
2-6-15, 3:56pm
Yah, ha! You can get those little cans of pepper spray that clip on your belt, but rwnj's might be carrying their problem-solver and utilize it for a pre-emptive strike, so I guess a hasty retreat really is the best option. I guess I should've included the LWNJ's, like Catherine mentioned, as well. The deal is, in this neck of the woods, they are greatly outnumbered by RWNJ's, and tend to be less aggressive--in this area, that is. Go onto their turf, and I'm pretty sure you'd be up against it too, if you weren't v-e-r-y careful. I must admit I've unfollowed several F'book-ers, L & R, on account of flooding my news feed with an unending stream of propaganda. That said, I do occasionally venture over to their page and read their entries until I've had enough. Just so I am informed as to what issues they are in a dither about, now.

kimberlyf0
2-6-15, 4:01pm
I think you just described most of my family, including my siblings, aunts, cousins, etc. There are even a few "birthers" among them.

I'va had my entire adult life to learn to cope in these situations, and not engaging is the best part. When the talk gets crazy I am quiet in a way that is clear that I disagree (they all know I disagree), but I won't get into it with them. I spent too much of my 20s thinking I could influence them, but the reality is that they get more "conservative" as the years pass and more people pick up the ideologies.

They are looking to engage yes. They like to agree with each other, but getting into a heated argument with me would really make them happy. I tend to use broken record techniques at times like that.

As for non-family, again, I don't engage, but sometimes I will quietly say I disagree, or I will carefully and politely point out the racism, classism, etc. in their statements, usually very subtly by suggesting that we are all human beings and all want the same fundamental things. But, really, people tend to leave me alone -- who wants to argue with a Quaker? ;)

Rogar
2-6-15, 7:12pm
I have a fiend of 30 or more years that seems to get more conservative every year and is getting to the point of conspiracy theory. It's possible had we met today we wouldn't be friends, but so long of a friendship is hard to discard. It is near to impossible to avoid ideology discussions as he usually starts the discussion. I keep reminding myself that there are certain political views that may be worth discussing, but in the end it's much like the weather. It just seems more important to get along than argue about something you can't change. I also tend to use the psychologist approach, like, why to you think that, where did you hear that, or I understand. Sometimes I actually like hearing where and why people get such ideas and just listen. I even find myself agreeing occasionally. It's not always that easy.

jp1
2-10-15, 7:26pm
I just tried a new strategy for this. Instead of responding to "that Derek guy" I clicked the big X in the right corner of the facebook window. (That Derek guy is the one lone hardcore rightwing friend of a friend. (as a gay man living in San Francisco I don't know any out Republicans in my circle of friends.) Virtually everytime my friend posts an article with any sort of political stance "that Derek guy" inevitably shows up to be the sole defender of the rightwing position. So often that another friend of my friend has taken to posting the first response to these things with "Cue that Derek guy in 3...2...1..." And inevitably "that Derek guy" is the next response.

Today, though, instead of pointing out the flaws in his simplistic understanding of the ACA lawsuit I simply closed that window and now I'm going to go to the store to get the fixings to make a nice lasagna for dinner.

iris lilies
2-10-15, 7:55pm
I just tried a new strategy for this. Instead of responding to "that Derek guy" I clicked the big X in the right corner of the facebook window. (That Derek guy is the one lone hardcore rightwing friend of a friend. (as a gay man living in San Francisco I don't know any out Republicans in my circle of friends.) Virtually everytime my friend posts an article with any sort of political stance "that Derek guy" inevitably shows up to be the sole defender of the rightwing position. So often that another friend of my friend has taken to posting the first response to these things with "Cue that Derek guy in 3...2...1..." And inevitably "that Derek guy" is the next response.

Today, though, instead of pointing out the flaws in his simplistic understanding of the ACA lawsuit I simply closed that window and now I'm going to go to the store to get the fixings to make a nice lasagna for dinner.

As an aside, I suppose it's a bi-product of living in flyover country that I DO know gay men who vote Republican. But then, our neighborhood is filled with gay men so there is a pretty big sample population here.

And frankly, one of them is in the closet about voting Republican. It's too bad when tolerance for alternative viewpoints is so low that someone prefers not to talk about his view with friends. He only talks to us about it because he sees the political signs in our yard.

Alan
2-10-15, 9:04pm
It's too bad when tolerance for alternative viewpoints is so low that someone prefers not to talk about his view with friends. He only talks to us about it because he see the political signs in out yard about red candidates.
I'm just the opposite. I get a kick out of engaging those who's superior levels of tolerance require them to be intolerant of "those people", sometimes referred to as RWNJ's. To be honest, that's what kept me coming back to the old forums. Not only was it filled with smart, funny and engaging personalities, a lot of them were really tolerant as well. :moon:

jp1
2-10-15, 10:30pm
As an aside, I suppose it's a bi-product of living in flyover country that I DO know gay men who vote Republican. But then, our neighborhood is filled with gay men so there is a pretty big sample population here.

And frankly, one of them is in the closet about voting Republican. It's too bad when tolerance for alternative viewpoints is so low that someone prefers not to talk about his view with friends. He only talks to us about it because he see the political signs in out yard about red candidates.

Obviously there are other aspects of the Republican agenda that would be reasonable for gay people to support, but equality and not being discriminated against are simply too important to a significant majority of gay people to be especially tolerant of gay Republicans. If the Republicans ever give up their antigay agenda and become willing to accept gay people as equal to straight people then perhaps the animosity towards gay Republicans that is felt by other gay people will fade.

oldhat
2-11-15, 10:56am
I'm always open to discussing politics with people whose views differ from mine; in fact, as a rule I enjoy it.

I do, however, have a list of what I call "conversation stoppers." When I hear one of these, I'm no longer interested in talking to that person since they don't inhabit the reality-based universe. My conversation stoppers include the following assertions:

--Climate change is a hoax.
--The Iraq war was a success.
--Earth is 6,000 years old.

There are probably others, but these are the only ones that spring to mind at the moment. So it's really a pretty short list.

LDAHL
2-11-15, 11:23am
To me, the conversation stops at the point the argument shifts from ideas to ad hominem nonsense. Disagree with the President? You're a racist. Taxes too high? You have insufficient compassion for the victim group du jour. Do you want to fight back when attacked? You're a xenophobe lacking the historical perspective to realize how monstrous the Crusades were. Hesitant to turn your property and liberty over to a new carbon-control bureaucracy? You're anti-science. Are you a straight caucasian adult male with a job? That in itself is evidence of your membership in the oppressor class, and an automatic disqualification for an opinion on any number of subjects.

catherine
2-11-15, 11:25am
I'm always open to discussing politics with people whose views differ from mine; in fact, as a rule I enjoy it.

I do, however, have a list of what I call "conversation stoppers." When I hear one of these, I'm no longer interested in talking to that person since they don't inhabit the reality-based universe. My conversation stoppers include the following assertions:

--Climate change is a hoax.
--The Iraq war was a success.
--Earth is 6,000 years old.

There are probably others, but these are the only ones that spring to mind at the moment. So it's really a pretty short list.

I was at the dog park the other day when I ran into a couple of other conversation stoppers:

"And that Obama is going to raise the taxes on all you rich people!" (he obviously doesn't know us very well)
"Unless big corporations hoard billions of dollars overseas, the prices on everything will go up!"

I enjoy the dog park, and thankfully, there was plenty of room there to meander away and play fetch.

iris lilies
2-11-15, 11:33am
--Climate change is a hoax.


--Earth is 6,000 years old.

My uncle discovered the age of the earth and Uncle Pud said it is 5 billion years old.

But would you be open to this idea rather than "Climate change is a hoax"

--climate change is overly politicized, the science is promoted through shaming dictatorial screeds, and healthy skepticism when the topic comes up is simply prudent ? :laff:

oldhat
2-11-15, 11:34am
To me, the conversation stops at the point the argument shifts from ideas to ad hominem nonsense. Disagree with the President? You're a racist. Taxes too high? You have insufficient compassion for the victim group du jour. Do you want to fight back when attacked? You're a xenophobe lacking the historical perspective to realize how monstrous the Crusades were. Hesitant to turn your property and liberty over to a new carbon-control bureaucracy? You're anti-science. Are you a straight caucasian adult male with a job? That in itself is evidence of your membership in the oppressor class, and an automatic disqualification for an opinion on any number of subjects.

If that's your list of conversation stoppers, you must not have a lot of conversations. Except with people who already agree with you, of course.

iris lilies
2-11-15, 12:48pm
If that's your list of conversation stoppers, you must not have a lot of conversations. Except with people who already agree with you, of course.

Do you have a lot of folks who stand around allowing you to denigrate them in conversation, then? Cool.

LDAHL
2-11-15, 1:14pm
If that's your list of conversation stoppers, you must not have a lot of conversations. Except with people who already agree with you, of course.

Outside the internet, I have only encountered that line of argument once on a college campus when I declined to sign a petition. But then, we're pretty backward here in the Midwest.

Teacher Terry
2-11-15, 7:33pm
We were friends with a couple for 16 years & I ended the friendship about a year ago for this reason. The first 2 years we never talked politics but that slowly changed by the hubby. Finally I said we could no longer go there but he would still try. Then she started to join him. There were other things too but eventually it was not worth the effort.

jp1
2-13-15, 10:40pm
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/politics/ginsburg-scalia-parasailing-sotu-wine/

Well, if these two can get along and enjoy each other's company maybe we need them to post about how they do it.

Gregg
2-16-15, 10:34am
Are you a straight caucasian adult male with a job? That in itself is evidence of your membership in the oppressor class, and an automatic disqualification for an opinion on any number of subjects.

As a member of that class I used to expend some effort trying to prove the spoon in my hand at birth was made of wood (or more accurately, corn cobs), not silver. Once I figured out it was highly unlikely that the people requiring such documentation from me would ever be engaged in a meaningful conversation I simply started backing away. I've been going backwards ever since.

ApatheticNoMore
2-16-15, 1:46pm
I believe most people do the best they can. There are probably some exceptions, yes of course (the exceptions probably end up disproportionately in prison etc. - and I say that without any intent to justify mass incarceration of course).

But many may do the best they can to end up with little more than the world recognizes as still eating out of that wooden or corn cob spoon, and the world will not see that.

And of course many do not, and frankly should not, prioritize money above all else, prioritize it enough not to be homeless, yes of course, but not above all else.

To be a straight white male is to be privileged ceteris paribus, a word I stole from economics class, on how such and such will be the case all other things being equal. In the real world all other things are seldom equal. Straight white male born to a drug addict for instance, straight white male born with genetic physical health problems etc. and less extreme things, we're born with some innate personality dispositions that may be more or less desirable in a certain context etc.

My strategy: well I only run into them at work where they are spending 1/2 hour complaining about a water bond or something. I take a walk :)

JaneV2.0
2-16-15, 2:59pm
Your posts are always so thoughtful, such a breath of fresh air, ApatheticNoMore. Thank you.

JaneV2.0
2-16-15, 3:04pm
My uncle discovered the age of the earth and Uncle Pud said it is 5 billion years old.

But would you be open to this idea rather than "Climate change is a hoax"

--climate change is overly politicized, the science is promoted through shaming dictatorial screeds, and healthy skepticism when the topic comes up is simply prudent ? :laff:

That's my position. I've seen enough shifts and dodges and outright failures of science not to regard it as a god. It's a tool, and an imperfect one when money or ego or political power gets involved. I'm a skeptic across the board, except in engineering science where your hypothesis has to work, or your widget won't dance.

Packy
2-16-15, 3:32pm
Tell you what--if I can't figger out what to do with that 8 pound can o' dicced beets, I may just use it for targget practice. Prettend it's one o' them LWNJs.

bae
2-16-15, 3:57pm
Tell you what--if I can't figger out what to do with that 8 pound can o' dicced beets, I may just use it for targget practice. Prettend it's one o' them LWNJs.

Borscht freezes decently.

Packy
2-16-15, 5:28pm
Another stereotypical individual that is just as fanatical, that you will encounter, is the PHNJ. This is the acronym for: pot head nut job. They insist that pot is not only harmless, but beneficial. They use straw man arguments to attack, like: "MAN, YOU THINK IT'S BETTER TO DRINK TWO CASES OF ICE BEER AND A LITER OF EVERCLEAR AND DRIVE 120 MPH THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE WITH A BAC OF .999, THAN IT IS TO SIT AT HOME AND LISTEN TO GRATEFUL DEAD ALBUMS AND SMOKE A JOINT TO RELIEVE MY BACK PAIN AFTER A HARD DAYS' WORK AS A SECURITY GUARD!!!!!!!". Plus, the PHNJ will vehemently insist that it isn't at all addictive, either: "MAN, I'VE SMOKED POT MORNING NOON AND NIGHT EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS, AND I CAN QUIT ANY TIME I WANT!!!! MAN, IF I WEREN'T SO PEACE-LOVING & LAID-BACK, I'D KICK YOUR BUTT FOR ACCUSING ME OF BEING A DRUG ADDICT!!!!!! And so on. Because it tends to polarize, always be sure of the other persons' view on pot before you make any references to it, so you won't push their buttons. You don't need a backlash from a PHNJ--they will go tell their fellow PHNJ's, and accidents can mysteriously befall you, since they are generally too "peace-loving" and "laid back" to just assault you, single-handedly. . Hope that helps you some.

gimmethesimplelife
2-21-15, 2:51am
As an aside, I suppose it's a bi-product of living in flyover country that I DO know gay men who vote Republican. But then, our neighborhood is filled with gay men so there is a pretty big sample population here.

And frankly, one of them is in the closet about voting Republican. It's too bad when tolerance for alternative viewpoints is so low that someone prefers not to talk about his view with friends. He only talks to us about it because he sees the political signs in our yard.I know some gay men who vote Republican, too.....This really opened my eyes a little as I will admit that prior to meeting these men, I'd always been an auto pilot Dem. I have had a few convos with these guys and I have to say that much of what they believe I don't agree with but a few points do stick with me - such as the intensity of the national debt. And then of course in Arizona our former governor Jan Brewer (very much a Republican) expanded Medicaid and I think of John Kasitch in Ohio who also expanded Medicaid and seems to walk some of the talk about being a compassionate Conservative.....I no longer buy that Democrats are automatically correct in any given situation and that Republicans are automatically wrong. Rob

gimmethesimplelife
2-21-15, 2:53am
Your posts are always so thoughtful, such a breath of fresh air, ApatheticNoMore. Thank you.Agreed 100%. Rob

gimmethesimplelife
2-21-15, 3:01am
Obviously there are other aspects of the Republican agenda that would be reasonable for gay people to support, but equality and not being discriminated against are simply too important to a significant majority of gay people to be especially tolerant of gay Republicans. If the Republicans ever give up their antigay agenda and become willing to accept gay people as equal to straight people then perhaps the animosity towards gay Republicans that is felt by other gay people will fade.I see your point and I am not disagreeing with you or thrashing what you have posted. I do however have one thing I'd like to say here - passed on along to me by a gay male Republican friend of mine. Which is this. Remember it was Clinton who passed DOMA? Not only NAFTA, something which I deeply resent from the core of my being but also DOMA. This silenced me, which is not always easy to do as you may gather about me by now. It's true. Funny thing too is that the one time in my life I was in San Francisco was right after DOMA came to be - I remember being in the Castro listening to activists up on a stage speaking about it. I remember then too thinking to myself - wait a minute, Clinton's a Democrat, right? The other side of this, though - had we a Republican in office at the time, would Don't Ask Don't Tell have been overturned? Would gay marriage be going as far and as fast as it has the past year? I agree with your take on Dem's being the much better choice for respecting equality and for being much less discriminatory, but I still remember it was Clinton that passed DOMA......Rob

jp1
2-21-15, 10:02am
Rob, you're obviously correct about DOMA. However, that was over 20 years ago and gay rights was at a very different place then. If someone had told you when DOMA became law that 20 years later 3/4 of the states would have gay marriage you would likely have laughed and told the person to change their meds. The dems have gone with the shifting public sentiment in their acceptance of gay people as human beings deserving to be treated the same as non-gay people. Most Republican politicians, not so much.

To elaborate on my earlier comment that for me, and many gay people, this issue trumps all others, the reason is that gay marriage is not important because of the wedding ceremony, or the cake, or any of the other happy aspects of it, although certainly those are nice. The important part is the bad times. Without gay marriage there's no guarantee that there won't be more gay men or lesbians facing the horrifying situation that Janice Langbehn and Lisa Ponds faced when their marriage from MA was not acknowledged by a hospital in FL while they were on vacation. Being denied access to one's spouse as they lie dying in a hospital would have to be right up there as one of the worst life experiences one could have. There are plenty of other important issues facing this country but, frankly, life and death issues involving my family make the national debt or whatever seem trivial in comparison.

gimmethesimplelife
2-21-15, 2:45pm
Rob, you're obviously correct about DOMA. However, that was over 20 years ago and gay rights was at a very different place then. If someone had told you when DOMA became law that 20 years later 3/4 of the states would have gay marriage you would likely have laughed and told the person to change their meds. The dems have gone with the shifting public sentiment in their acceptance of gay people as human beings deserving to be treated the same as non-gay people. Most Republican politicians, not so much.

To elaborate on my earlier comment that for me, and many gay people, this issue trumps all others, the reason is that gay marriage is not important because of the wedding ceremony, or the cake, or any of the other happy aspects of it, although certainly those are nice. The important part is the bad times. Without gay marriage there's no guarantee that there won't be more gay men or lesbians facing the horrifying situation that Janice Langbehn and Lisa Ponds faced when their marriage from MA was not acknowledged by a hospital in FL while they were on vacation. Being denied access to one's spouse as they lie dying in a hospital would have to be right up there as one of the worst life experiences one could have. There are plenty of other important issues facing this country but, frankly, life and death issues involving my family make the national debt or whatever seem trivial in comparison.I agree 100%, especially with your last line. Hell probably couldn't match my level of fury and intense activism that would result from being denied hospital access to a dying spouse of mine. And I agree with your line about telling someone they need to change their meds if 20 years ago they told me that gay marriage would be legal in so many states and possibly the entire nation sometime this summer. Who ever would have believed that would happen even five years ago? I also agree with your take regarding Republican inaction on these issues for the most part. I also remember the former governor of Arizona that I respect so much for expanding Medicaid in Arizona - Jan Brewer - I remember her unpleasant statement she released on last October 17th - the day gay marriage became legal in Arizona. I told people to cut her some slack as at least she fixed it so that people unworthy of access to health care in Arizona had access to it due to her Medicaid decision - but you are right in my book. As a gay man I deserve these basic rights any straight married couple would have - shame on me for settling for less for all my often indignant words. My bad on this one. Rob

JaneV2.0
2-21-15, 3:46pm
Another stereotypical individual that is just as fanatical, that you will encounter, is the PHNJ. This is the acronym for: pot head nut job. They insist that pot is not only harmless, but beneficial. ....

I don't know if I qualify--I still haven't got around to taking advantage of Washington's legalized marijuana, though I plan to--but I do think it has beneficial qualities, like alcohol in moderate amounts. Who knows--I may embrace your characterization!

Packy
2-21-15, 4:38pm
I don't know if I qualify--I still haven't got around to taking advantage of Washington's legalized marijuana, though I plan to--but I do think it has beneficial qualities, like alcohol in moderate amounts. Who knows--I may embrace your characterization!Well, it may sound strange, but I am not really taking a stand in the matter. Although I would not encourage someone to take up pot smoking, I figure realistically, it's their choice. What I am doing is illustrating the behavior of the PHNJ. See, there is potential for benefit and potential for harm in every endeavor. Well isn't there? A rational person will weigh the benefits vs detriments, carefully, and own up to them. But the Nut Job is so polarized, to the exclusion of all other points of view. According to the Nut Job, their belief system is flawless and there is no downside; but that of others is complete foolishness. See? I like old Packards. But, if I insisted that there were no suitable alternatives to them, that everything else ever made was junk, that Packards were the best car ever made, and that anyone who says otherwise should be executed for treason--well--I'd be a "Packard Head Nut Job." That said, I still reserve the right to ridicule a persons' habit of consistently doing things that are far less than prudent. See? Hope that helps you some.

kib
2-21-15, 4:39pm
I'd say 90% of the people I've ever known who are pot users are just fine - similar to people I know who drink alcohol recreationally. The other 10% appear to be in some way dependent, highly uneasy when sober and clearly 'different' - and in most cases not very enjoyable companions - when medicated to their preferred level of comfort.

Packy
2-21-15, 4:47pm
I'm not trying to be annoying--it just comes naturally. But, one of Murphy's Laws states this: "Approximately 95% of all statistics used to win arguments are made up on the spot." I am not sure where the other 5% comes from. Your results may vary, depending upon your POV. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.

JaneV2.0
2-21-15, 4:48pm
I'd say 90% of the people I've ever known who are pot users are just fine - similar to people I know who drink alcohol recreationally. The other 10% appear to be in some way dependent, highly uneasy when sober and clearly 'different' - and in most cases not very enjoyable companions - when medicated to their preferred level of comfort.

That's about the percentage of problematic alcohol users, I think.

I have fond memories of my grandfather's Packard, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a PHNJ. Of either kind. But only time will tell...

kib
2-21-15, 4:52pm
I actually sat and thought about the people I know who are pot users. Not saying that's everyone's number, but it's an honest assessment of mine. No Packard parts here either, sorry.

jp1
3-3-15, 10:33pm
As an aside, I suppose it's a bi-product of living in flyover country that I DO know gay men who vote Republican. But then, our neighborhood is filled with gay men so there is a pretty big sample population here.

And frankly, one of them is in the closet about voting Republican. It's too bad when tolerance for alternative viewpoints is so low that someone prefers not to talk about his view with friends. He only talks to us about it because he sees the political signs in our yard.

Reason tv went to CPAC and managed to meet some gay Republicans using Grindr (an app for meeting gay people nearby where you are using your phone's GPS) and several were willing to talk to them. Alas a couple of them wanted to remain in the closet about being gay republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/grindr-cpac-gathering_n_6792274.html