Skip to main content

A Weekend at Trumpsters

About a week and a half ago I spent a weekend with a Trump-voting family. At no time did I bring up politics, even when the subject was broached by a member of said family. I just listened and came away with these observations:

- The family came across as quite welcoming.

- Simple people. I don't mean that in a bad way. They just didn't require much to be content. If the Thesaurus gods were aware of them, they'd be the first listing for antonym under the term high-maintenance.

- It appeared as though one was highly reluctant on staying tuned in to the every day happenings in the country, let alone the world, and the other was satisfied getting his/her news from Facebook.

- They came across as educated in general, but ignorant when it came to the world of politics (one of them at least).

- Their favorite word appeared to be taxes.

- Oddly enough, it seemed as if they have received governmental assistance for quite some time.

- Without rationalization, both uttered their disdain for liberal filmmaker/documentarian Michael Moore.

- One came across as a born-again Christian, who seemed to relate all good things to "God."

- The born-again Christian was passionate about animal rights, but seemed to take issue with minorities and the LGBT community.

- Both came across as quite outdoorsy, at least at some points in their lives.

From a political perspective, I saw reasons for hope and hopelessness. The family I felt largely represented many far-right Trump supporters in this country, or just far-right conservatives in general. They came across as kind, welcoming, and perhaps willing to listen to a voice from the other side of the political spectrum, so long as it was the right voice - meaning a cool, calm, and collected one; intelligent, but not condescending; relatable. On the downside of things, they also came across as possessing a hard exterior shell; set in their own ways; and more than likely unwilling to budge even if the so-called right voice came along.

This illustrates the difficult position many liberals and moderates face in attempting to engage in civilized discourse with the far-right. Often times when we bring up critical thinking points such as fallacies, we're deemed "elitists" and "intellectuals" (yes, apparently those are bad things). If we bring up fact-checkers, we're told said fact-checkers are liberally-biased. We have to speak with passion, but not too much. We have to find that perfect balancing act between simple/intelligent, relaxed/passionate, and adding a healthy dose of relatability to the mix. This is far easier said than done, as no matter what point of theirs we debunk, chances are good we'll be dismissed. It seems the only way we're able to reach them is by making a positive point of our own, to which they can directly relate. No, not everyone is a storyteller, but we sure as hell can all try.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"