Understanding the average wingnut

[kratos12]

Since late 2001 I have posted on a public site that generally has been dominated by right wingers.

Over the years I argued with, was insulted by and even physically threatened by people whom I initially believed could be reasoned with but now believe are completely divorced from reality.

One of the highlights of this almost decade long attempt to reason with this small segment of my fellow Americans came in during the run up to the Iraq invasion. I was making the daily argument that A) There was no evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the US and B) That even if the will to harm us was present they did not possess the capability to do so. In return I was peppered with "It's the WMDs stupid!". Later when it became apparent to most (if not all) that Iraq did not posses WMDs the wingnuts at this board never once acknowledged their error. Even when pressed with Bush's own admit ion that no WMDs were present the nuttiest of the wingnuts refused to acknowledge that at the very least they may have been mistaken.

It was at this time that I started to question not only my adversaries grasp of the facts, but also their grasp on reality.

The following years saw me wasting hours of time and effort attempting to civilly engage these people in rational discourse on the topics of the day. It was frustrating and depressing as no matter how badly the facts reflected the failure of their heros, ideology and policies they collectively just dug their heels in deeper and deeper, became angrier, more insulting and less respectful of any posters who did not share their philosophy. During the 2008 election the insanity rose to an alarming level when posters who i disagreed with but respected started to rationalize the Palin candidacy.

After Obama took office the strain of being exposed to these people became too much to bear. Every single event, no matter how trivial was portrayed as evidence that Obama was the devil incarnate. Posts would spring up about his blackberry, where he had lunch that day, what he was wearing......and their "Beckian" analysis was always the same, whatever Obama said and did PROVED he was a muslim extremist-communist-Nazi-who was trying to destroy America.

So I finally gave up and came to the conclusion that those on the right have no interest in fact or a rational discussion based on those facts. They are rigidly dogmatic, so much so that concrete factual repudiation of their positions simply serves to reinforce them. There is no other way to describe this mindset than insanity.

There is no reasoning with crazy folks, the quicker our Democratic leadership accepts this and stops trying to reach out to them the faster they (at least the small minority of those who have a shred of sanity left) will abandon their ever shrinking and extreme base and return to the fact based world.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Speaking as a sane person, that can speak crazy.

No person ever reached out to me, so I really don't believe in that reaching out narrative from personal observation.

Well accept some close family and friends, but not fair to put any burdens on them.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Enchilada Special, minus one taco, equals average wingnut

(One taco short of an enchilada special)

[mahina]

3. Know what you mean...

There was a study (I don't have the name at hand at the moment, nor authors, sorry) in COmmunication journal that showed data consistent with the author's theory that people basically disregard news that is not consistent with their view of reality.

To read and think would create cognitive dissonance, i.e. discomfort. We just don't bother.

What would it take to re-establish civil dialogue? E.J. Dionne's book "Why Americans Hate Politics" might hold a clue. I'm just starting it now.

One thing is for certain, even though you didn't persuade them, you let them hear a different point of view and that was important. Years later it might sink in. Keep the faith.

[Taverner]

4. Wingnuts live on a different reality plane

One that exists only in their mind

In their mind:

There were WMDs, but the LIBURL MEDIA refused to report it

Obama is a gay, muslin terrorist who wants to turn America into a Marxist state

Gay people already have equal rights - they want special rights now

Gay people and Pedophiles are one and the same

God gave us Earth so we could rape and pillage it

Bush didn't give us a recession, the LIBURL Congress and Obama did

All Muslins are terrorists, every last one

And so it goes...

[mnhtnbb]

5. You discovered what a recent political science study confirms:

"don't confuse me with the facts".

When presented with factual information that conflicts with a political opinion, the person
will dig in on 'believing' and reject the facts in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

In English--it's too threatening to be confronted with information that requires you to
rethink your position on an issue. So...just dismiss the facts.


for more info: http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/situationist-political-science-and-the-situation-of-voters/

[Odin2005]

13. I could not imagine thinking like that.

I have shifted back and forth several times between center-left and far-left exactly because of learning new things about how our society works.

[yowzayowzayowza]

6. The Obama "reaching out" policy seems to have three benefits:

1. Several major bills have been passed with Repubz onboard,

2. Invalidates the Repub minority victimization meme, and

3. Supports Dem re-election claims of Repub obstruction among independents.

Simple.

[T Wolf]

9. I see your three points very differently.

1) Getting a couple of rethugs on board the bills required eliminating (single-payer, public option, etc.) or castrating (financial "reform", marriage equality, etc.) or outright perverting (Wall Street and bankster bailouts, etc.) whatever good intent may have been there at the beginning.

2) The pukes will play "out-of-power" victim no matter what. The media will carry that meme to Idiot Amerika constantly until it is accepted as fact. They will wash their hands and declare themselves blameless for anything negative that has happened in the past six thousand years ago (you know, since creation). There is nothing the Dems will do to effectively counter this.

3) The only exception to #2 is when they crow about stopping some "commie, socialist, Mooslim takeover attempt by Pres. Hussein" which, as in #2, will be the story in the corporate media. The Democratic claims of obstructionism by the GOPsters always fails because we do not control the medium or the message - they do.

The sad thing is that we will never know what Obama and the Democrats could have achieved if they had tried. The saddest thing is that this opportunity will not come again in my lifetime.

[yowzayowzayowza]

23. Responses:

1. This congress has never had a Dem controlled Senate, rather Dem coalition-controlled, a subtle but important distinction. W/o full legislative control, compromise is req'd to accomplish anything. The 'somethings' accomplished, stimulus/HC/FinReg, as flawed as they are, are better than nothing.

2/3. Repukes are gunna sell their crap and media play their part no matter what Dems do. The object is to communicate civility & truth to as many voters as possible with at least one independent brane cell. We control our re-election message thru direct advertising and whitehouse.gov (example) has become a force for the internet savvy.

Again, w/o Senate control, what is it Dems "could have achieved if they had tried"? Tiz indeed sad, but unfortunately this isn't a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' on caliber with FDR/LBJ. There are hundreds of passed House bills comprising the Obama agenda that clearly demonstrate what could have been. Blaming Dems for Repuke obstruction seems counterproductive, at a minimum.

[PassingFair]

7. My husband wants to know if your board centers around flying simulations...

he could have written this! His situation is exactly the same.

:hi:

[kratos12]

11. No

It was actually a college football board that added a discussion board about politics after 9/11.

It was depressing to come to grips that some of my fellow fans were so f-ing nasty.

[Enthusiast]

26. The O-Zone "Off Topic" forum.

I was tombstoned for pointing out various fallacies in their right wing arguments. I simply was not allowed to make my position in a civil manner while right wingers spouted the most ridiculous and insulting arguments.

[Enthusiast]

27. And don't ever mention that you

"believe" in evolution. That makes you a witch.

[hfojvt]

8. sounds to me like a message board and human nature

How rare is it for people to admit "I was wrong"? Especially after a long-running argument. Even if I realize that I was wrong I am never gonna give the dillweed that I was arguing with the satisfaction of admitting it (edit, likely my opponent was very unpleasant in the course of the argument, if they are a typical human)

The other thing is a selection process. Say you are on a conservative board and post something in 2006 like "Even the Bush adminstration admits there were no WMD". On a typical message board this may be read by several hundred people. HOWEVER, the ones who reply will likely be argumentive. You are not gonna hear from the 190 readers who say to themselves "yeah, I sure was a dupe for ever believing all the Bush administration and media hype about WMD." Instead you are gonna hear from the five wackos who have some conspiracy theory about how the WMD is still hidden in uderground bunkers or the US army found it and sold it to the Iranians, or whatever. Based on that sampling it is not fair to conclude that all "wingnuts" are crazy or deluded or even that the average one is.

Finally, there is the question of your evidence. Some people that you had formerly respected supported Palin, and that shows they are crazy. Why? Which would you support for Congress, a janitor or a CPA?

[Odin2005]

14. Maybe it's because of my Asperger's, but I find it incredible that people refuse to believe they...

...may be wrong. In my mind the FACTS are all important, not want I wish or want to be true. It seems like many non-autistics have trouble differentiating between "true" and "want to be true" It's as if admiring they are wrong is admiring a personal flaw, I just don't understand it.

[hfojvt]

19. maybe that's it though

these are not debate societies, they are social groups - Jets and Sharks again, where the core belief that "our group is always right" must be defended at all costs, and where arguments are not between two people seeking truth or understanding, they are contests where two people determine their place in the intellectual pecking order. To admit you were wrong involves a loss of social status.

But I don;t think it is limited to one particular side of the political spectrum. I have argued with too many DUers to believe that. I can remember one such debate involving some personal insults thrown at me for making the statement that "seniors get free water in my town, and perhaps in others". Oh, that was just total nonsense and I was an idiot and full of crap (and I am wildly paraphrasing here lest I get jumped on for making up a quote). So I searched out a link on my city's website where it described the program. Was this greeted with any sort of admission that "oh, you were right, amd I apologize for the attacks". No, it was instead met with another round of attacks.

It seems to be the way people are, that "you are wrong" quickly means "you are bad/defective", which is probably why people don't want to say "I am wrong" because, by the same logic, that would mean "I am bad/defective".

[d_r]

10. only one way to talk to really out there wingnuts

This doesn't apply to wannabe libertarians, or moderate independents who waver back and forth, or your friend who calls himself "fiscally conservative." It applies to really hard core listens-too-much-to-limbaugh sorts of right wing pigeons.

First of all, they are never going to admit they are wrong. Ever. They don't do it. The whole premise of their arguments are ad hominem "I"m right because I'm smart and anybody who disagrees with me is stupid." That's it, that's what they got.

When they finally have to accept that they are wrong, their paradigm shifts and they act like that is what they thought all along. They were never wrong. "Of course there weren't weapons of mass destruction, that wasn't the point in the first place. Nobody really thought there was WMD, that was just some idiots from the media." Or liberals, or communists, or some other group of idiots. "Besides, there really were WMB there all along, they just snuck it out while the pansies in congress twiddled their thumbs, and the media will never report that."

The reason is, they are followers of authoritarian figures. They got that way because their daddy used to beat the daylights out of them and call them worthless. They grew up hearing "why? Because I said so." And so that is a valid reason to them. They believe what they believe because they were told to, they "know" that anything else is just wrong.

You can't reason with them the way you do normal people, because if it is pointed out where they are wrong, they will only believe it harder. You can be sensible. This is where the anti-intellectual stuff comes from. They tune out the smarty pants, because the smarty pants is just a liberal communist anyway, and so MUST be wrong.

The only way to argue with them is to call them out, point out where they are stupid, belittle them and call them names. Just smack the shit out of them. Any reasonable person that would turn them off. These fools respect it. It reminds them of their daddy putting them in their place. They assume that the loudest argument is the right one. They assume that if someone has the truth then they will flaunt it arrogantly, and that if anyone is trying an actual give and take of discourse then it is namby-pamby and they must be wrong.

This is why efforts to compromise have failed so badly. They are all-or-nothing. Efforts at being polite, at finding common ground, at using reason or logic are simply lost.

[Odin2005]

16. That reminds me of this theory of psychological development:

http://www.spiraldynamics.org/aboutsd_overview.htm

These people are at the boundary of the Red and Blue levels, while most Progressives are Orange or Green. The stereotypical "swing" voter is Blue-Orange or Orange.

[d_r]

24. that's interesting

I've never seen it before.

[RagAss]

21. So true...

I get more respect from the ones I've run across when I ask them if they are on meds or call them cretins.

[Odin2005]

12. Most people live in a pseudo-reality constructed by the elites via the MSM.

Who needs a repressive totalitarian state when you can control people's minds with propaganda?

Here are things the average person believes that are just plain false:

"They hate us for our freedoms."

"Saddam was involved in 9/11"

"Saddam had WMDs"

"Chavez and Morales are tyrants"

"America has the best healthcare system in the world"

"America is the freest country on earth"

"Tax cuts help the economy"

"Capitalism is Freedom and Socialism is Tyranny"

"Poor people are lazy"

"Rich people earned their wealth"

"Liberals want to create a class of people dependent on them for government handouts"

[snagglepuss]

15. Well kudos to you for trying. You never know, but I think it likely that you

probably did influence some people to question the insanity.

[kratos12]

17. Honestly

If anyone did they kept it to themselves but I like to think that some of them secretely said "WTF was I thinkin?".

Anyway for anybody else who has tried to have a rational discussion with these kooks I'll post some of the most frustrating topics, maybe y'all can add your own:

1. Without question, WMDs in Iraq they went from insisting that they existed, to insisting that they were smuggled to Syria (just to spite GWB apparently) to simply ignoring their earlier insistance on their existance. They moved the goalposts so often they had to install wheels on em.

2. John Kerry's war record. This one especially pissed me off because the official record was so clear. I got the sense that the nutbags so violently resisted the notion that Kerry actually served in harms way because admitting this fact would have forced them to come to grips with GWBs silver spoon fortunate son Vietnam experience, so they simply refused to acknowledge recorded history an insisted that Kerry's VN record was a fraud. Oh yeah and that he was a commie.

3. Palin. This was initially funny but got scary (and gets scarier all the time), I don't think any explanation is needed.

4. Obamas is (fill in the blank). Take your pick: Muslim, Indonesian, Kenyan, Communist, Fascist, Terrorist sympathizer, a member of the weather underground, etc....they never get tired of throwin this shit up against the wall to see what sticks.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Great observations. But why?

What is it that puts these people in this particular mind set to begin with?

I think Odin is clearly on to something when s/he mentions that influence of the MSM.

It's important to note that although they definitely aren't perfect, lots of other "civilized" countries seem to have fewer whackos that we do.

So it isn't simply "human nature."

I've been thinking about elements that make the U.S. different from other countries (I am a U.S. citizen, born and raised, but I have "foreign" relatives), and they include

Rapacious capitalism

Overt religiosity

A fierce sense of exceptionalism

Defiant pride in ignorance

Anti-intellectualism

Anemic social safety net

Obsession with individuality

Institutionalized indifference to the "fine arts."

Belief in violence as a problem solver

Some of these may be causes. And some may be effects. It can sometimes be difficult to tell. What I don't believe however is that a certain consistent segment of the world's population is going to be wingnuts. I am convinced that we have way more than our share.

[RagAss]

20. I'm sure it didn't take you 7 years to figure that out...you may have just enjoyed it.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

25. You should refudiate their

arguments.

[Steely_Dan]

28. Interesting....

Can you tell us what board or site that you were carrying on these debates?

Thanks...

-Paige

[EstimatedProphet]

29. I agree. This sums it up, in my opinion:

1) Opinions come from facts. They are ideas which are built on facts, about what should be done or what happens because of facts.

2) The right wing in general, and Fox News in particular, has been shown repeatedly to be incorrect in what they claim are facts.

3) Therefore, those who quote the right wing and Fox, when they put out lies instead of facts, do not have opinions. They have delusions instead.

I know this argument pisses people off, but it really shouldn't. We like to think that everyone has an opinion, and should be able to state it. But that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion should be listened to as equally valid.

The fact is, if we are to discuss what we should do about a given subject, we need to have facts on this subject. If we don't, what's the point of discussion? When we try to have a serious discussion about what to do about (for example) our actions in Afghanistan, how is it helpful to listen to the side that believes that all of Islam is a plot by Satan to keep Christians from being raptured? How can we determine what our course of action should be with regards to our space program, if we give equal weight to people that believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese? How do we discuss environmental policy actions, if we bring in people who believe that the government is run by reptilian aliens in disguise who keep polluting our environment in order to conquer us? Yet, this is what our media has been doing for decades now. They gin up controversies between people who examine the facts and have an opinion, and people who are batshit crazy and believe in delusions, and then they tell us the sides both deserve equal consideration. NO THEY DO NOT. We cannot and should not be obligated to give equal validity to ideas which we know are wrong because they are based on misinformation, lies, or delusions. There is no point whatsoever to giving credence to those who are delusional, and in fact, all doing so does is destroy meaningful conversation.