How do we discuss or 'win hearts and minds' in a post-truth world?

[ShakeWell]

Pro lurker here and soooo glad DU is back. So much so that I felt compelled to say thanks, become a star member, and hopefully add to the discussion of how we move forward in Trumplandia.

So the title is the current question that vexes me, but first, a quick bit of back story...

I finally had the chance to talk to a great friend today. Although he and I go back a touch over 30 years, both of us have had a big slice of life come in and keep us busy lately. So this is our first call since the election and in the midst of discussing the endless list of 'how did this guy get elected' topics, he brought up that the word 'Post-Truth' is Oxfords word of the year. Even though he's an English prof by trade, I'm a glorified IT guy, so word of the day isn't something we've generally discussed in the many years of our friendship.

I sprang to the Google machine while he started reading from the article:

"The dictionary publisher defined post-truth as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

So there it is, an understandable definition of what I cannot understand. Thom Hartman brought up Reagan dropping the Fairness act in 1987 in his show recently and discussed how that move progressed us to where we are today. From where news was news with facts and historically related precedents versus the info-tainment ratings wars displayed everyday. To a place where most people get their news from fb and twitter in which absolute lies are being liked and retweeted over and over and over. Where Alex Jones and the many sites of Bannon are quoted as support for arguments, where don the con can lie 40 times a day without question, and where video evidence doesn't even matter.

I want to engage and debate as this used to be an enjoyable undertaking for me because progressives always have the best answers to problems of the greater good. However, you just can't argue with crazy. Which is back to where we started:

How do we discuss/debate in a post-truth world?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/post-truth-oxford-dictionaries-word-year-2016-n685081

[KT2000]

1. Well, my RW neighbor

sent me one of those hate Obama chain-mails that misstates an article and lets it fly on the internet. I sent him the proof that it was false and suggested he should not send lies and hate to his friends and family.
So far that is all I can come up with.

[LWolf]

2. Like this:

1. Let go of hate.
2. Listen. Do more listening. Don't just wait for your turn to jump in with your talking points. Just listen.
3. Don't argue. Have a conversation.
4. When responding, always begin by reflecting what you heard. Use empathy.
5. Don't argue. Don't try to "win." That simply creates an environment of competition where there has to be a winner and loser, and makes the person you are engaging defensive.
6. Ask open ended questions; genuine questions that inspire thinking, rather than right answers. That thinking will continue after your conversation is over.
7. Don't be strident. When you express disagreement, do so with respect and maintain empathy.
8. Be respectful, inside and out.

If you honestly want to have a conversation, to listen attentively and respectfully and with empathy, and to share, you can make a difference. If you just enjoy "winning" an "argument," you foster resentment and do more harm than good.

[ShakeWell]

4. Thanks!

Valid points to ensure an open dialogue, thank you for you post. Also, I didn't mean to imply that my enjoyment stemmed from winning and argument. The point I muddled up a bit was that a term had to be created to describe our current climate of people believing something that is provably false.

The constant stream of misinformation is relentless, increasing exponentially in volume, and becoming much more sophisticated in presenting propaganda mixed with normal headlines. This propaganda is dangerous, difficult to counter, and even msm seems to be complaisant in normalizing tRump.

What I used to enjoy was discussing policy differences and solutions between the parties and various players of the time. These conversations of sifting through the offered solutions to find the best option are becoming a distant memory when the person you're talking with comes from an alternative reality.

[Hortensis]

5. Yes. Plus, just stay out of the way and let them start

learning to hate someone else. In the beginning they'll insist on believing that Medicare was failing and their leadership had no choice. When those vouchers purchase a fraction of the medical care they NEED and leave them sick and/or in debt, they're going to just plain be angry.

And that's only one thing they're going to be angry about. Right now Wall Street is eyeing America's riches as they as they get ready to add back crooked fees on banking services, dismantle laws protecting consumers from predators, eliminate taxes, and generally rev up that giant sucking sound. Big emphasis is likely to be placed on what can't just be repaired by legislation, though, like selling off federal lands to corporations, giving the (former U.S.) postal service to privateers, etc.

In two years the right's anger MUST be focused on their own leaders, not diverted our way, so they will vote to take them out.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

6. A lot of good advice there

It is very difficult. Sometimes I get so upset I want to just throw away the friendships I have with conservatives, but I try not to act on those negative impulses. I try to keep that stuff to myself or discuss with other democrats/liberals who would get it (that's why I come here ). I keep my conservative friends because I think we need them and they need us. This is the sort of thing that will change minds in the end. Maintaining friendships with conservatives. Providing evidence that not all liberals are bad people. I think that is small thing we all can do that can help. We can't close ourselves off to people that think differently than we do. I find that more face to face conversations are better. People can really get pissed off at each other easily online because there is no body language to read. Definitely listen and be empathetic. Be respectful. People typically reciprocate the treatment that they've been given, so if you are kind to them, they will be kind to you.

[Coyotl]

3. Better fake news.