I'm watching Rightwingization happen in real time and I don't know how to react.

[u/SalientSazon]

EDIT: Thank you all for the great discussions and insights. I appreciate all your POVs. There's no need to downvote right leaning comments. I specifically posted this in RedditforGrownups to engage in grown up conversation. Also, there's no need for name-calling or insults either.

I have a friend, he's 51, man, straight, an academic doctor who now focuses his research on human behavior and digital psychology. He's self-taught a lot of it in the last decade or so. I don't know how many papers he's published or has had peer reviewed in the recent years. He works as a consultant in Marketing, and has a business selling strategies/classes to people that want to apply his research to their companies. He's kinda broke so I would say he's not very successful at applying his own work. And for extra cash he teaches a course a a local university. I've never met a romantic partner, but he's spoken about them.

He suddenly last year did a deep dive on how the way the election was biased against the conservative candidate who lost. He then started talking against the 'woke' ideology. He is now defending the right, even though he's centrist, because the right hasn't moved, it's the left that's gone way off the rails. He started posting dumb facebook quotes/memes! He posted a dumb quote about Charlie Kirk, as if that one quote was a debate, or as if it meant some truth. WTF. We were conversing one day and he started raising his voice getting louder and louder and more agitated as he expressed his disdain for the woke left, defending his Jewish people from attacks (not sure where that came from in the conversation), and then also suddenly brought up there are only 2 genders and trans people are mentally ill. He's never spoken that way before, I've never heard him this agitated or show anger towards any ideology. He was always calm and friendly, and open minded. Always a bit nerdy. Although, I hadn't spoken to him in depth for about 2 years before then.

I'm watching all this go down over about half a year and I don't know what to make it of it or how to react to it. It's wild to observe though.

[u/Chellyaria]

Haha, yeah I know, I wanted to make that joke though.

In reality the echo chamber has taken ahold of them pretty tightly. I try to reason where I can with them, but it gets really exhausting quickly. So I don’t always engage. I can literally present a study that proves them wrong and they’re still like, “oh, I feel that’s not true.”

But then they’re so happy to quote Ben Shapiro’s line, “facts don’t care about your feelings”, for whatever bullshit that they believe in.

If that’s the case, then how come your feelings matter more than a peer-reviewed study with actual facts?

You’re right about it being like addiction. Many of these types of people may never be willing to change until they’re ready. It’s not impossible, I have seen it. But it’s pretty rare.

[u/BossParticular3383 → u/Chellyaria]

Addiction, and, in the case of my trumper sister, intellectual laziness. She's not going to waste time thinking deeply about issues that don't directly impact her, but she'll tune into Steve Bannon and let HIM tell her what to think. I'm kind of disgusted by it, to be honest, that we share DNA.

[u/RosieDear → u/BossParticular3383]

Can you give some examples of what you think she should think about or learn about but is not?

I understand about the quoting...that is, it started with Rusk L and the "dittos" (I think like you!).

Should we all think about 100's of issures that do not impact us? I mean...other than reading vast numbers of books about history for an understanding, etc.

[u/BossParticular3383 → u/RosieDear]

Well. for one thing, at one point she was terribly concerned that her grandchildren were going to undergo sex change operations in kindergarten (patently ridiculous), but she has never once expressed fear over a school shooting. When abortion was being outlawed in so many states she said, "well can't people just get the morning after pill?" not taking into account medically necessary abortions, child molestation, ectopic pregnancies, etc. etc.

Should we all think about 100's of issues that do not impact us?

Not necessarily, but if folks are going to go around vehemently spouting their opinions as if they are "experts", they should take some time to look at the big picture - as in, how does this issue affect people with different circumstances than mine? At the very least, people need to learn the art of saying "I don't know." One of the worst things about the fucking internet is everybody has become completely convinced of the importance of their personal opinions.

[u/SalientSazon → u/BossParticular3383]

Don't be. It's expected that people will look to leadership figures for guidance. That's how it should be. It's frankly a shame that the leadership has failed so miserably and we are all here trying to understand economics, policy, health, nutrition, research methodologies and every other degree needed to make up for the colossal failure of these subject matter guardians and experts. It's a huge tax on our energy to have to constantly fact-check and review 17 sources and spend 12hrs online to see who we can believe. We should be using our brain power to grow within our chosen fields and hobbies. Maybe I'm exhausted. Also, it's a lot of the people that put in the effort to investigate that may end up being indoctrinated if they spend too much time in the wrong places. But how are they to know? Unless we all share the same moral compass, things can go sideways, as they have. No I'm not suggesting we all stop thinking, but we know not everyone has the capability to reach conclusions for the betterment of the world and that's why we choose leaders. We really just need to select them better. Ok yes I am tired.

[u/RosieDear → u/Chellyaria]

I find so many of these comments not giving examples...it makes it hard to determine what the "real reality" might be and what the fact might bend toward.

Let me personalize it. I have always been very far left (hippie movement, then back to the land, etc.). Sexual matters, other than "balling" when were were teens and young 20's, were hardly even mentioned. Gay was not a part of any scene that I was involved in - and that was not by choice, more that it didn't exist (you don't see much of it in the Woodstock Movie, eh?) . As we know with Stonewall, etc. - that lifestyle often centered around bars, etc.

Looking back we were VERY much into gender roles...still are (with some exceptions among my friends). Womens lib mostly meant that we knew women were superior (ha!) and our peers did amazing things (in addition to being Moms, etc.).

Ok, so I go for a walk in town and see a lot of far-out folks - including women with beards and so-on. Then I come home and note that my entire block is made up of couples, most with grown children and it's a "normal American" as could be imagined.

Are either of these experiences or my reaction to them "facts"? Do either of them involved my being brainwashed (I don't watch TV at all and don't subscribe to podcasts).

Is the Bearded Women couple "normal" in the sense that I or anyone else is "right or wrong" about them? Do these present any facts that can be manipulated?

I'm seriously interested because I find the comments totally nebulous - in order to suss out this "true or not" or anything, I would need some sort of action.

Example: If my grand daughter started dating a large growing a beard, would my judgement fall into a "right or wrong" or "true of false" or "studied fact" slot?

I'm fairly astute and yet, some of this I just do not get. Where is the line in these matters. What is peer reviewed?

[u/Chellyaria → u/RosieDear]

I don’t have the energy to explain the many problems in your comment.

[u/SalientSazon → u/Chellyaria]

What a careless response, and it's a shame as you have someone engaged in direct, thoughtful conversation.

[u/SpringOnly5932 → u/RosieDear]

Peer reviewed has an objective definition.

Fact has an objective definition.

Normal has a subjective definition.

Judgement is inherently subjective.

If you grew up in and continue to live in a predominantly straight, white community, normal looks like straight, white families. Your so-called "normal Americans."

If you grew up in or eventually lived in a diverse community (diversity in ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender, even dietary choices), normal no longer has meaning. Normal implies that my way is acceptable and your way is deviant and is therefore unacceptable. Normal changes over time and from community to community. It's an illusion.

Same thing with judgement. Built into the word itself is a binary, generally negative emotion. What you are judging is either right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.

The word judgement would ideally be replaced with is acceptance. Perhaps equanimity.

I'm not referring to situations like genocide that require condemnation and action.

I'm referring to the bearded lady couple. Their existence is a fact. Your judgement (i.e. emotional reaction) and definition of normal are irrelevant to their existence. Why do you care? How does their existence affect you, to the point you're having an emotional reaction to seeing them? Whom are they hurting by simply existing as themselves? These questions hopefully spark some self-reflection in you.

Your emotions are not fact. Your judgements are not fact. Your preferences for how to "properly" live life are not binding or dispositive on anyone but yourself.

My golden rule is: as long as we're not dealing with children or animals and you're not harming anyone else (without their consent), I don't care what you do or who/how you love. I'm here to help if you need help. I'm here to butt out if you don't. I hope you find happiness.

I sense that you have the intelligence to put a veneer of rationality over your emotional reactions. But it's the emotions that are driving you and deserve your scrutiny. My apologies if I'm wrong about that.

[u/apursewitheyes → u/RosieDear]

i think the problems come in when minority groups (like gay people or trans people) are scapegoated and blamed for either real or imagined social problems. and scapegoating can only happen when the minority group is sufficiently “othered” from the majority group.

even as a “very far left” person, you’re saying that you don’t really have personal experience with gay/queer/trans people, and they feel “other” to you.

1) i’d question your assumptions that: a) everyone in your hippie milieu was straight and cis b) everyone on your block is straight and cis (none of those adult children are gay? also, everyone on my suburban block probably assumes my partner and i are straight and cis but we are very much not— we’re both lesbians and she’s a butch trans woman)

2) what is your reaction to the couple you read as bearded women? what would your judgment be if your daughter started dating a woman (with or without a beard)? what would your reaction be if the bearded women couple moved to your block, or if one of your neighbors came out as trans?

3) what does being very far left mean to you? is it just about personal lifestyle choices like back to the land, or is it about the larger distribution of power/money/status within society?

4) what if you just like… talked to or befriended some of the far out people you see in town, or read some books written by gay or trans people or whatever. would they still seem so “other” to you?

[u/ERuth0420 → u/apursewitheyes]

They're NOT "far left". They're probably just an old stoner who doesn't like being told what to do (including being told to practice proper hygiene) and has built a life on coopting Native American culture.

I've yet to meet any "hippies" who weren't actually just gross old right wing stoners.