#polarizing views

[geisteszustand]

communication tips : polarized conversation

so i had found this podcast, “how to fix our polarized conversations (with robb willer)” on the ”how to be a better human” podcast. (spotify link) this podcast was very well articulated and i wanted to share this with everyone here.

to give some information, robb is a professor of sociology, psychology and organizational behavior at standford university. he studies the role of morality in politics. his research shows how moral values, typically a source of ideological division, can also be used to bring people together. his political research has investigated various topics, including economic inequality, racial prejudice, masculine overcompensation and americans’ views of climate change. willer’s writings has appeared in the new york times and the washington post, including his op-eds “the secret to political persuasion” and “is the environment a moral cause?” willer received a ph.d from cornell university and a ba from the university of iowa. before becoming a professor, he worked as a dishwasher, construction worker, mover, line cook, and union organizer. (stolen from spotify’s description.)

while this is written discussing politics, as it was the theme of the podcast, this ultimately can be interpreted to describe any major discussion that is polarized, such as fandom discourse about what is and isn’t acceptable to write.

it is possible to have a discussions with people who disagree with major issues. the main problem is that arguments are put together in ways that are convincing to us, which is not useful since we are already convinced. so willer recommends moral reframing.

what is moral reframing?

moral reframing, as defined by willer is, articulating a political position you’re advocating for in terms of not your own values, but the moral values of the audience, or person, that you’re communicating with. for instance, liberals are often drawn to arguments regarding equality, fairness and justice (to name a few) while a conservatives are more likely to respond favorably to religious values, patriotism, and tradition (to name a few.)

so what does this ultimately mean for me?

if you wish to communicate effectively, connect the policy to their preexisting moral values. you by no means are going to sway someone from the other view to change their entire life view, but you can make them understand and even change their idea on an opinion. such as the example from the podcast, by reframing homosexual marriage as “gay people are patriotic, they want to live like everyone else and are proud americans” or arguing for environment protection as defending the sanctity of the earth, you are more likely to sway someone to supporting your beliefs (or end goals.)

polarization is very common given the difference in socioeconomic factors, geographical factors, and other variables. it is okay that people agree to the same end goal but for different reasons. it is important to be respectful to these differences and be empathetic to others.

empathy, as defined my webster means, the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another. it does not mean that you agree with the other person.

willer recommends listening to the people when they talk, not only will understand what arguments to use to sway their opinion but it gives respect to the other person making them more likely to give you the same respect.

personalizing it to your own personal reasons, not a ‘he said-she said’ or ‘friend of a friend.’ make it your own personal tale. and allow some of your arguments to be subjective language rather than authoritative, use “i think” or “i feel.” it is also recommended to allow yourself to agree with the other person. such as “i agree with you that it is important to give children great education,” after that, it makes it easier to connect with the other person.

as i said in the communication tips post “online communication” people will misinterpret what it is that you say and be unresponsive to. it is to be expected, just pick and choose your battles because sometimes it’s not worth the time that you will spend.

are you saying to have conversations with people who have ‘evil’ views?

so, willer himself does not give any groups of people to not talk to, it’s the podcaster who makes the argument to not talk to someone who has inherently prejudicial views that makes it unsafe to be near them. i absolutely agree that it can be very unsafe to be near someone who has inherently prejudicial views against another person, regardless of their status as minority or majority. it is extremely important to understand when it is important to not engage for your own safety and when someone merely disagrees with you.

it can be considered prejudicial to believe that white people can face discrimination, but by no means is it necessarily life threatening to engage with a conversation with such people. i will even argue that daryl davis, a r&b and blues musician actually convinced several ku klux klan members to leave and denounce the group. consider your safety first and foremost but it is still possible to engage with these people and change their minds.

it is also hard to engage in conversations with people when their sources are completely opposite, such as using cnn or fox news. it also makes it difficult when people exist within echo chambers. both of these make it harder to bridge the divide. if people are isolated from other beliefs, they are not being challenged but they are not also being allowed to see other perspectives that may be more convincing. it is also important that people have trust in the sources, this is why media literacy is so crucial in such conversations. a source can be accurate, but it’s bias can form a narrative that makes it seem more untrustworthy.

the word choices are important, if you would like to discuss immigration using terms like “illegal aliens” is less likely to sway a liberal to a term choice of “undocumented worker.”

no matter what, it is vital to watch for fallacies. ad hominem attack, meaning an insult to the other person or group, is less likely to convince that person or group to support your cause.

but why does it matter? if someone is stupid (or insert another insult,) i have the right to tell them.

it matters because are not responsive to being degraded or insulted in serious conversations. even people with a degradation kink may find you less convincing in a political discussion when you throw around insults at people you dislike. even if people from your political view give you likes and positive feedback, you did nothing to bridge the divide or change opinions.

and if that argument misses, read back what you wrote. would you be convinced by what you said if someone told you those same things (or things similar but in response to political division?) the likely answer is no, but, should you be the oddball, i guess i should remind you that empathy is vital in conversations with others.

can we go over the important parts one more time?

so, in conclusion, there are ways to bridge the growing polarization that we are facing in the modern world. in order to convince others to support what you do, it is best to use moral reframing. moral reframing is using the other person/group’s beliefs to convince them or persuade them to your opinions.

you will have different reasons to the same outcome, but that is okay. it is important to use empathy and give respect to those who have different values and opinions than you. it is also important to not insult or disrespect others intentionally as that does little to persuade.

however it is also important to realize that there will be people who intentionally misunderstand you or refuse to meet you in the middle. it is okay to not engage with those people and people who are a huge threat to your safety. just as it is not okay for you to insult others, know that it is not okay to be subjected to insults and hate, so it’s fine to nope out of those conversations.

[sail-not-drift]

"I did not then, nor will I now, discuss the career of Dr. Cook in his later days. I am wholly unfamiliar with the facts which led to his imprisonment, and I have no desire to know them or have an opinion regarding them. Even had I known that he had been guilty of baser crimes than those with which he was charged, I would still have felt my duty and my inclination to be the same. Whatever Cook may have done, the Cook who did them was not the Dr. Cook I knew as a young man, the soul of honour and kindness, lion-hearted in courage." - Roald Amundsen, My Life As An Explorer (1927)

Graphic text from Not Easily Conquered by dropdeaddream and WhatAreFears. Photo citations in alt text.

[ecoharbor]

📍Lofoten, Norway 🇳🇴

[siro-cyll]

oh my gosh!! it’s you!! i’ve seen your fandom art around for years and have practically looked up to the stuff you’ve done- I love your work!! I know you want to focus on stanford- and I understand that completely, but i’m genuinely curious to see your Prof. Membrane again. I loved the way you would draw him- you put so much more emotion into that man and I didn’t even know that was possible <:0 You don’t have to if you don’t want to, though ^_^

Oh man, I haven't drawn Membrane in FOREVER. I mainly drew him for @lord-rosenth0rne because she adores him. You can thank her because a bunch of those drawings were based off her fics and silly things we were talking about with him. I'm glad others still like my drawings of him c:

While I was going back through my art for color ref, I found this old drawing I made back in 2019, based on what happened in Enter the Florpus when Zim took Membrane's place on stage. It still makes me laugh so take this too:

[naffeclipse]

Okay basing this off the fact Eclipse can travel waters, what if Yn tells him they can't live in one cold and he just takes them to the warmer waters?

Heheh seahorse yn

Oh my gosh oh my gosh hhhhghghghhghg new Y/N just dropped

This would be one setting where it's not in the Arctic but Eclipse has left those waters to drift about, and look what he happens to find! A lovely little siren, hiding in the kelp.

A leafy sea dragon that can camouflage and even change colors to hide themselves in seaweed and the kelp formations they live amongst. Speed is not their forte. They also have a prehensile tail that can coil around or grasp things. They would live in deeper waters and have beautiful dark brown, yellow, and greenish hues to their leaf-like appendages over their tail with small, transparent dorsal and pectoral fins!

Every time Eclipse glides through the warm waters of seagrass, searching like a hungry shark, Y/N clings tightly to kelp with wide, terrified eyes. They watch him drift closer, hoping against hope that their tail colors have shifted enough to blend them into invisibility. But, somehow, he always snatches them out of the protection of the underwater forest and meadows. Y/N cannot run away, they simply lack the agility and speed, so they're stuck once Eclipse has his hands on them.

Y/N gets used to Eclipse's grabbiness—it's strange to interact with an apex predator that doesn't want to eat them (at least not right away.) They will relax enough to let Eclipse pull them along, his pace so much faster, and even coil their tail around him when Eclipse decides to stretch out on the seagrass for cuddles.

Y/N's leafy appendages are a great source of awe and admiration for Eclipse, and Y/N has never seen such a black and white fish like him before, especially not in their home. Eclipse loves Y/N's slow and drawn-out singing. Y/N doesn't often sing, especially when he's taking hold of them, but he'll keep his hands off just to let them echo a few notes while weaving in between the long kelp strands. He'll follow, much less graceful in the watery forest, but he never loses sight of them.

[chiliger]

Will you fight for them?

Will you be loyal?

Will you bleed?

[plurralthiing]

i accidentally drew this woman so tall i had to expand the canvas. anyways uhh mantis lily upon ye + sketch without her fancy clothes.

strongly inspired by our friend @bumg-i's mantis lily interpretation ehehe

[commissions open]

[torchickentacos]

me after my mom called and said 'hey I found this old canon eos 400D with a bunch of lenses if you're interested'

[kara-knuckles]

I'm honestly baffled by how many people seem to get "Manfred is freethinker, Ascalon is sheeple" from Babel and "Manfred outsmarted Hoederer" from 14. I can at least begrudgingly understand the former, because the narrative goes out of its way to invalidate Ascalon's every decision so you need to be invested enough to take a step back and see it's actually bullshit, but with the latter W outright mocks Manfred for acting exactly like Hoederer predicted, and this is despite Ulsulah's advanced warnings about the situation on Lifebone. Hell, the fact that Hoederer doesn't even try to fight (presumably because he is acting as a bait and this minimizes his potential injuries) and complete lack of reaction from everyone else suggest that everything was still proceeding according to plan B (separate Manfred from his men so you don't fight them at the same time), even if plan A (intercept him) got Damazti'd.

[mages-ballad]

also not to sound spiteful but i think its WILD to bring up the dotharl as a similar comparison to alexandria. if the dotharl knew what alexandria was doing to souls i can tell you theyd probably be very very angry.

[roaldamundsen]

so these are from the oregon historical society. I can pratically see his pores the image is so clear x

[hanafubukki]

I chose chaos today 😂😂

I’m so curious though?? 👀👀

I do both btw. I only do milk first to annoy my sibling when he gets on my nerves 😈😈

Have fun 💕💚

Would love to hear your thoughts 🥰🌺💞

[ecoharbor]

📍Polar Express, Zermatt, Switzerland 🇨🇭

[brrroker]

just beat DE

[vultures-and-scavengers]

when i say she almost hits the roof at this comment...

annette trevelyan is a pacifist. she is anti-war. she sees the past few months as her having been marched out to the hinterlands by the inquisition, and while she's in favor of clearing rifts, while she tried to avoid any conflict between people, she still got caught up in it, and was still forced to take lives. she never killed anyone pre-inquisition, never even fought anyone pre-inquisition.

she sees herself as a religious puppet, and one with now bloodied hands, at that.

annette, in her eyes, has to comply to keep some level of autonomy, and so she plays along, but she has very complicated feelings about the inquisition and her role in it. and now the man she sees as party to a great deal of violence, the man who offers military suggestions and scorns more political ones, is offering her a way out of a fight, saying its her choice?

shes never had a choice, a true choice, in her participation with the inquisition and she's never had a choice about being marched out to war, but now when it benefits him, he's offering her one?

lol. lmao, even.

of course cullen does somewhat have a point about if annette dies, the mark is gone, and so is their hope at closing the breach. in his mind, bless his heart, he's trying to keep from losing annette because they need her mark. he also definitely does not want mages around, so its a 2-for-1 for him.

[ellahorans]

.