Mosque bombed in Minneapolis Minnesota

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Bookwrack**

sebster wrote:

We genuinely have no idea what to do to debate people who just don't give a gak about reality.

See Doritos' first post in this thread where he made up a deeply stupid lie and in his very next post double-downed with 'facts that contradict me don't count! Watch me run with these goalposts! I'm the flash~!'

**jmurph**

Things I learned today:
-Crimes don't count if no one is convicted
-The media is wrong about guns because some people don't want AR-15s to be called assault rifles because they lack selective fire, despite common usage
-Despite a kerfuffle over such word use, it is leftists/liberals who try to shout down rational discourse
-Bigotry only exists in left wing areas because facts don't matter

**Grey Templar**

jhe90 wrote:
Hmmm

Have they caught the one who made the IED.
I mean are they just a plain crazy or a skilled crazy with a cause.

Quite abit more dangerous.
And yes, IED. Well, guns are legaly everywhere in US, and they use a bomb.somthung quite abit harder to make.

Bombs tend to be used by people who are interested in self-preservation. Someone who walks into a place to shoot it up knows he likely won't be walking out because the police will show up.

So while bombs are very very dangerous for the bomber, in their mind relative to the chances of them getting killed in a shootout it often seems better. And on a few levels it likely is.

And it's not really true that bombs are hard to make. Some basic high school chemistry and chemicals that are available off the shelf will get you what you need. Anything from a basic pipe bomb to even some primitive chemical/gas bombs.

**Co'tor Shas**

And judging by pictures of the room, it wasn't anything more complicated than a pipe bomb.Not very powerful, just meant to hurt people. It's just lucky nobody was there at the time.

**TheAuldGrump**

Nostromodamus wrote:
I'd suggest we refrain from admitting to manufacturing explosives in an online forum.

Stumping is something you have to do on farms anyway.

A lot of farmers have made their own ANFO. Cheap, and does the job.

The Auld Grump - which doesn't mean I wasn't doing something stupid....

**jhe90**

TheAuldGrump wrote:
Nostromodamus wrote:
I'd suggest we refrain from admitting to manufacturing explosives in an online forum.
Stumping is something you have to do on farms anyway.

A lot of farmers have made their own ANFO. Cheap, and does the job.

The Auld Grump - which doesn't mean I wasn't doing something stupid....

Removing stumps is a valid use. They are a bugger to dig or burn. And a few farmers blowing up stumps at worst scares a few birds and makes a hole in dirt on a large farm.

It ain't like there mass producing semtex or C4.

Doing it on a farm is very different to doing it in back garden.

**sebster**

Bookwrack wrote:
See Doritos' first post in this thread where he made up a deeply stupid lie and in his very next post double-downed with 'facts that contradict me don't count! Watch me run with these goalposts! I'm the flash~!'

Yeah, I mean I don't think it was a lie, I think he genuinely believed it. But it was a ridiculous belief that he hadn't thought through, and when given information that clearly contradicted the claim, he started inventing some very weak rationalisation just so he could keep believing it.

And none of the registered as even slightly unusual. We just accept this kind of nonsense as par for the course. I wasn't even going to comment, until he made his statement about the left demonising him, and not knowing what to do when he said he didn't care if people thought him an donkey-cave. I decided then to comment because he touched by mistake on a bigger issue here, he is right that the left doesn't know what to do. But not because he's being demonised or called an donkey-cave, but because he's being corrected about incorrect claims he's made, and he's showing he simply doesn't care that the claims were false. What are people supposed to do when people simply don't care that their facts are plainly wrong.

**Kilkrazy**

As regards people ignoring the facts in order to cling to their beliefs, I read about an interesting psychological study on anti-vaxxers.

Basically, the idea was to try and find a way to change their minds about vaccination. Instead of presenting the facts around the safety of vaccination, the researchers explained the dangers of not being vaccinated. This turned out to be much more effective in changing peoples' minds.

I am wondering if a similar approach could be used on issues like climate denial and so on, and how it might work in practice. Are there differences between anti-vaxxing and climate denial that would make the technique ineffective?

**Peregrine**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Are there differences between anti-vaxxing and climate denial that would make the technique ineffective?

There are. The idea of "tell them how scary the consequences are" has been used, extensively, with climate change. But where the vaccination denialists are mostly good-intentioned but gullible people being misled by a single fraud climate change denialism is driven by major industries and their well-funded lobbyists. It's just a much harder target to deal with, and there's a lot more money being spent on saying "no, don't worry, climate change isn't going to hurt us".

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:
As regards people ignoring the facts in order to cling to their beliefs, I read about an interesting psychological study on anti-vaxxers.

Basically, the idea was to try and find a way to change their minds about vaccination. Instead of presenting the facts around the safety of vaccination, the researchers explained the dangers of not being vaccinated. This turned out to be much more effective in changing peoples' minds.

I am wondering if a similar approach could be used on issues like climate denial and so on, and how it might work in practice. Are there differences between anti-vaxxing and climate denial that would make the technique ineffective?

I don't know about that exact technique, but it sounds interesting. I guess the difference is that the dangers of non-vaccination are immediate, a risk to your own children, while climate change is more abstract, and might only affect other people.

I don't know if this is crossing the line in to discussing politics, if it is mods just delete it, but...

If you haven't read it, it's worth reading the transcript between President Trump and Australian Prime Minister Turnbull. It shows a really interesting take on managing a person who is plainly hostile to facts that threaten his worldview. It's interesting to see Turnbull avoids contradicting Trump wherever possible, instead he lets Trump say his piece, and then waits a bit before returning to that point again, mentioning the correct facts almost in passing, and always in a way that sounds amenable to Trump. This means Turnbull isn't threatening Trump's ego by giving him facts that contradict his own statements, instead he is introducing facts through a side door and repeating them enough times so that they get accepted.

It's an interesting technique, although I see three issues;
1) It can be pretty patronising. You are basically managing the other person, not discussing with them. So it only works for someone who is clearly wrong, and also pretty stupid (and not all people committed to non-reality are stupid).
2) It isn't easy to do. Turnbull is smarter than most, and way more patient than most people would be in that situation.
3) The technique didn't actually work that time. The call made international news for how badly it went, although Trump ended up accepting to continue the deal.

**Kilkrazy**

BoingBoing recently had a story about a scientific method for winning arguments.

http://boingboing.net/2017/08/07/the-scientific-way-to-win-an-a.html

Basically it is to use various kinds of social or psychological techniques such as Turnbull used in your example.

It is kind of patronising and manipulative, though if you are in a "discussion" with someone who seems to be incapable of participating in a reasonable discussion, I suppose you have to use different methods to try and get your point over.

And yes, it is not easy because you have to control your own emotions and biases, and it doesn't always work, whatever the BoingBoing headline says.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:
And yes, it is not easy because you have to control your own emotions and biases, and it doesn't always work, whatever the BoingBoing headline says.

It's good stuff, and worth keeping in mind. Parts of it seem a little manipulative, but other parts like avoiding a whole mass of facts are just about making sure the message is made clear.

Thing is though, how much would the things in that link, or the techniques used against anti-vaxxers, or the stuff Turnbull did (which didn't even work in that instance), have helped with the guy in this thread? And even if it did work, how long would it have lasted before he disappeared back in to the bubble, got re-established with new 'facts', and returned to his old ways?

The issue is bigger and deeper than some effective techniques for one on one debate.

**Easy E**

I suggest that classic, "How to Win Friends and Influence People". It works face to face pretty well, but can take a while.

Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
-Don't criticize, condemn, or complain. Human nature does not like to admit fault. When people are criticized or humiliated, they rarely respond well and will often become defensive and resent their critic. To handle people well, we must never criticize, condemn or complain because it will never result in the behavior we desire.

-Give honest and sincere appreciation. Appreciation is one of the most powerful tools in the world. People will rarely work at their maximum potential under criticism, but honest appreciation brings out their best. Appreciation, though, is not simple flattery, it must be sincere, meaningful and with love.

-Arouse in the other person an eager want. To get what we want from another person, we must forget our own perspective and begin to see things from the point of view of others. When we can combine our desires with their wants, they become eager to work with us and we can mutually achieve our objectives.

Six Ways to Make People Like You
-Become genuinely interested in other people. "You can make more friends in two months by being interested in them, than in two years by making them interested in you."[4] The only way to make quality, lasting friendships is to learn to be genuinely interested in them and their interests.

-Smile. Happiness does not depend on outside circumstances, but rather on inward attitudes. Smiles are free to give and have an amazing ability to make others feel wonderful. Smile in everything that you do.

-Remember that a person's name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language. "The average person is more interested in their own name than in all the other names in the world put together."[5] People love their names so much that they will often donate large amounts of money just to have a building named after themselves. We can make people feel extremely valued and important by remembering their name.

-Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves. The easiest way to become a good conversationalist is to become a good listener. To be a good listener, we must actually care about what people have to say. Many times people don't want an entertaining conversation partner; they just want someone who will listen to them.

-Talk in terms of the other person's interest. The royal road to a person's heart is to talk about the things he or she treasures most. If we talk to people about what they are interested in, they will feel valued and value us in return.

-Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely. The golden rule is to treat other people how we would like to be treated. We love to feel important and so does everyone else. People will talk to us for hours if we allow them to talk about themselves. If we can make people feel important in a sincere and appreciative way, then we will win all the friends we could ever dream of.

Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking

-The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it. Whenever we argue with someone, no matter if we win or lose the argument, we still lose. The other person will either feel humiliated or strengthened and will only seek to bolster their own position. We must try to avoid arguments whenever we can.

-Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're wrong." We must never tell people flat out that they are wrong. It will only serve to offend them and insult their pride. No one likes to be humiliated, we must not be so blunt.

-If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically. Whenever we are wrong we should admit it immediately. When we fight we never get enough, but by yielding we often get more than we expected. When we admit that we are wrong people trust us and begin to sympathize with our way of thinking.

-Begin in a friendly way. "A drop of honey can catch more flies than a gallon of gall."[6] If we begin our interactions with others in a friendly way, people will be more receptive. Even if we are greatly upset, we must be friendly to influence people to our way of thinking.

-Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes. Do not begin by emphasizing the aspects in which we and the other person differ. Begin by emphasizing and continue emphasizing the things on which we agree. People must be started in the affirmative direction and they will often follow readily. Never tell someone they are wrong, but rather lead them where we would like them to go with questions that they will answer "yes" to.

-Let the other person do a great deal of the talking. People do not like listening to us boast, they enjoy doing the talking themselves. Let them rationalize and talk about the idea, because it will taste much sweeter to them in their own mouth.

-Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers. People inherently like ideas they come to on their own better than those that are handed to them on a platter. Ideas can best be carried out by allowing others to think they arrived at it themselves.

-Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view. Other people may often be wrong, but we cannot condemn them. We must seek to understand them. Success in dealing with people requires a sympathetic grasp of the other person's viewpoint.

-Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires. People are hungering for sympathy. They want us to recognize all that they desire and feel. If we can sympathize with others, they will appreciate our side as well and will often come around to our way of thinking.

-Appeal to the nobler motives. Everyone likes to be glorious in their own eyes. People believe that they do things for noble and morally upright reasons. If we can appeal to others' noble motives we can successfully convince them to follow our ideas.

-Dramatize your ideas. In this fast paced world, simply stating a truth isn't enough. The truth must be made vivid, interesting, and dramatic. Television has been doing it for years. Sometimes ideas are not enough and we must dramatize them.

-Throw down a challenge. The thing that most motivates people is the game. Everyone desires to excel and prove their worth. If we want someone to do something, we must give them a challenge and they will often rise to meet it.

Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment
-Begin with praise and honest appreciation. People will do things begrudgingly for criticism and an iron-fisted leader, but they will work wonders when they are praised and appreciated.

-Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly. No one likes to make mistakes, especially in front of others. Scolding and blaming only serves to humiliate. If we subtly and indirectly show people mistakes, they will appreciate us and be more likely to improve.

-Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person. When something goes wrong, taking responsibility can help win others to your side. People do not like to shoulder all the blame and taking credit for mistakes helps to remove the sting from our critiques of others.

-Ask questions instead of giving direct orders. No one likes to take orders. If we offer suggestions, rather than orders, it will boost others confidence and allow them to learn quickly from their mistakes.

-Let the other person save face. Nothing diminishes the dignity of a man quite like an insult to his pride. If we don't condemn our employees in front of others and allow them to save face, they will be motivated to do better in the future and confident that they can.

-Praise every improvement. People love to receive praise and admiration. If we truly want someone to improve at something, we must praise their every advance. "Abilities wither under criticism, they blossom under encouragement."[7]

-Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to. If we give people a great reputation to live up to, they will desire to embody the characteristics with which we have described them. People will work with vigor and confidence if they believe they can be better.

-Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct. If a desired outcome seems like a momentous task, people will give up and lose heart. But if a fault seems easy to correct, they will readily jump at the opportunity to improve. If we frame objectives as small and easy improvements, we
will see dramatic increases in desire and success in our employees.

-Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest. People will most often respond well when they desire to do the behavior put forth. If we want to influence people and become effective leaders, we must learn to frame our desires in terms of others' desires.