@Robby said in American Politics: A Brand New Day:
I think what they keep forgetting is that people vote on feeling, not policy. People aren’t smart.
You tell them 30,000 times that their kids are going to get their genders changed in school and they “believe” it in the sense that it tracks with something they already feel, that trans people are bad and they’re going to hurt you in some way. You can’t answer that claim by snickering and saying “come on! No one is changing your kids genders in school.” You have to play an ad about how trans people are people and you love them 30,000 times. Because you have to change their hearts about trans people so that ad is defanged.
We hear “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats” and we say “what is the matter with you!” But the people who believe it believe it in their bones. And if they can vote in secret to not be seen as dumb or racist or transphobic or misogynist? Or if they guy in charge gives them permission to be terrible? Well, here we are.
This is interesting and explains a sort of shift I've seen in how issues are discussed over the years. I used to see people discuss the logical arguments for or against a position more often.
You used an example of trans people, I saw that topic brought up less back then but to use gay people as a similar topic, I used to see people going back and forth on whether or not being gay is a choice; about how that Bible passage might've been about prostitutes, adultery, pedophilia, or any other number of things; whether marriage is inherently a religious ceremony; the broader topic of separation of church and state, etc. Somewhere in the 2010s I mostly stopped seeing that. The arguments became simpler like "love is love" or "it's a sin". It's the same with a lot of other topics.
I always wondered why that was, because I figured that the emotional arguments wouldn't work until you got through to someone logically. Ex: Being gay isn't a choice, and being trans isn't a mental illness, but even if they were, that doesn't change anything because they still deserve respect and human rights regardless. But my mindset was that someone who's against the LGBTQIA+ community wouldn't support them as long as they had those false beliefs. Afterwards if they changed their mind you could be like "Even if what you believed was true, wouldn't it still be bad to treat them like garbage, take away their rights, or commit violence against them?" And then they could have a moment of self-reflection and be like "Yeah you're right, that was pretty horrible to think that way " But I didn't think that would work often until you got through to them with the logic first. Seeing the political climate of recent years and with the points you made in your posts, I think I had it backwards. Now I'm considering that maybe you have to connect the emotional points first and then later they can look at the logic and be able to see how it makes sense.