The Art of Listening

[Bengalzona]

There was once a black woman who convinced a KKK Grand Dragon to quit the group. When they asked her how she had done that, she replied, "I didn't try to change his mind. I just listened to him".

True story.

The art of listening is way undervalued. It always has been. But even more so in today's society. So many of us feel we need to express our ideas and feelings constantly through the various multimedia outlets available. And there is something cathartic to expressing your feelings. But too few stop to consider "Who is really listening?" or even "What am I really saying here?".

In the example I give above, this KKK leader had joined the group years before because when he expressed his thoughts about black people before (which were, admittedly, based upon ignorance because he had never had dealings with black people), he was immediately ridiculed, ostracized and labelled a 'racist' in his community. In those circumstances, the KKK seemed like an option to him: a place where those things didn't happen. He didn't necessarily like the group or a lot of things that it stood for. But they didn't make fun of him. When this woman contacted him and began a series of correspondence, he said some pretty ugly things to her. Obviously, she did not agree. But she listened. Eventually, that act of listening earned the man's trust and he felt comfortable telling her things he had not shared with anyone else, including some things about himself that he only discovered for himself through their conversations. And that changed the man.

https://www.atlantamagazine.com/civilrights/xernona-clayton-kkk-grand-dragon-calvin-craig/?fbclid=IwAR2i0sz3R9Nuhcojje8SNzpMpT41TVZHc4yWEIbBmZz5V_7XnmY_P82DqqM

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes?fbclid=IwAR2zRSxwveOJIkiW9r9nT6oA8Oj3J8uaoUOtJeZmsTzNnNvxhRjJJd2PFVU

https://www.ted.com/talks/celeste_headlee_10_ways_to_have_a_better_conversation?language=en&fbclid=IwAR3zcperFks5uZGrSOkrrWBJjK5nb9eLXeSxWbUOIm2wlGwV6vRMdrJAYyw

https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left?language=en

[GMDino]

(07-29-2019, 07:45 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: There was once a black woman who convinced a KKK Grand Dragon to quit the group. When they asked her how she had done that, she replied, "I didn't try to change his mind. I just listened to him".

True story.

The art of listening is way undervalued. It always has been. But even more so in today's society. So many of us feel we need to express our ideas and feelings constantly through the various multimedia outlets available. And there is something cathartic to expressing your feelings. But too few stop to consider "Who is really listening?" or even "What am I really saying here?".

In the example I give above, this KKK leader had joined the group years before because when he expressed his thoughts about black people before (which were, admittedly, based upon ignorance because he had never had dealings with black people), he was immediately ridiculed, ostracized and labelled a 'racist' in his community. In those circumstances, the KKK seemed like an option to him: a place where those things didn't happen. He didn't necessarily like the group or a lot of things that it stood for. But they didn't make fun of him. When this woman contacted him and began a series of correspondence, he said some pretty ugly things to her. Obviously, she did not agree. But she listened. Eventually, that act of listening earned the man's trust and he felt comfortable telling her things he had not shared with anyone else, including some things about himself that he only discovered for himself through their conversations. And that changed the man.

https://www.atlantamagazine.com/civilrights/xernona-clayton-kkk-grand-dragon-calvin-craig/?fbclid=IwAR2i0sz3R9Nuhcojje8SNzpMpT41TVZHc4yWEIbBmZz5V_7XnmY_P82DqqM

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes?fbclid=IwAR2zRSxwveOJIkiW9r9nT6oA8Oj3J8uaoUOtJeZmsTzNnNvxhRjJJd2PFVU

https://www.ted.com/talks/celeste_headlee_10_ways_to_have_a_better_conversation?language=en&fbclid=IwAR3zcperFks5uZGrSOkrrWBJjK5nb9eLXeSxWbUOIm2wlGwV6vRMdrJAYyw

https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left?language=en

Inspiring...but at some point while listening did she not have to explain that his views were wrong?  She may not have been critical or "ugly" to him but she had to (gently) explain that he was wrong.  Unless he discovered he was wrong himself...which is rare among those with deeply held views. He might have been fringe compared to other members of his group.

Being "wrong" is the what I have found is the hardest part in changing one's mind (mine or anyone else's).

Personal ego getting in the way of personal advancement.

But don't get me wrong, I love the message of gently turning people by showing them you are a real person who can deal them as a another human being and equal no matter their views.

[Bengalzona]

(07-29-2019, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: Inspiring...but at some point while listening did she not have to explain that his views were wrong?  She may not have been critical or "ugly" to him but she had to (gently) explain that he was wrong.  Unless he discovered he was wrong himself...which is rare among those with deeply held views.  He might have been fringe compared to other members of his group.

Being "wrong" is the what I have found is the hardest part in changing one's mind (mine or anyone else's).  

Personal ego getting in the way of personal advancement.

But don't get me wrong, I love the message of gently turning people by showing them you are a real person who can deal them as a another human being and equal no matter their views.

He discovered that he was wrong. And, for people entrenched in a similar group and/or ideology, it is the only way it can truly happen. In the additional links above, I have a link from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church who also had a revelation. But it won't happen with someone who is arguing in their face or shouting insults at them. That is de-humanizing. It happens with someone who disagrees with them, but still treats them with respect and dignity... even though their ideology may be ugly and reprehensible. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Talk with people where they are at." And one of the best ways to show someone respect is to listen to them, even if you don't agree with them.

[GMDino]

(07-29-2019, 09:53 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: He discovered that he was wrong. And, for people entrenched in a similar group and/or ideology, it is the only way it can truly happen. In the additional links above, I have a link from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church who also had a revelation. But it won't happen with someone who is arguing in their face or shouting insults at them. That is de-humanizing. It happens with someone who disagrees with them, but still treats them with respect and dignity... even though their ideology may be ugly and reprehensible. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Talk with people where they are at." And one of the best ways to show someone respect is to listen to them, even if you don't agree with them.

And in principle I agree you get more flies with honey but this approach takes a long time and will only get the ones who are not deeply entrenched (I know we can't convert them all).  In the meantime the entrenched are sucking in the fringe simply by reinforcing them so they know they are "right" and converting more faster than we can save.

And that doesn't even touch on the ones who think the KKK or the Nazis are "right" and simply defending the "white race" (to use the one example). 

I fully understand what you are saying.  I'm playing devil's advocate that while conversion of a few at time is nice there is a problem when the "other side" is recruiting and growing much faster.  

[hollodero]

Not to take away from the beauty of this story, but instances like those are the rare exception to the rule.

Most people are dead set in their ideas and beliefs. And a good listener seldomly gets any credit (most people don't even notice, since sending - not the reception - is the only thing they're interested in anyways).

Also for most people, agreement with them equals a good and smart person, disagreement equals a dumb and bad person. I wish folks were more subtle and open than that, but they just are mostly not.
I listened to a lot of folk, and rarely did I call someone names because of his opinion, but I don't think that changed anyone really.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2019, 11:13 AM)hollodero Wrote: Not to take away from the beauty of this story, but instances like those are the rare exception to the rule.

Most people are dead set in their ideas and beliefs. And a good listener seldomly gets any credit (most people don't even notice, since sending - not the reception - is the only thing they're interested in anyways).

Also for most people, agreement with them equals a good and smart person, disagreement equals a dumb and bad person. I wish folks were more subtle and open than that, but they just are mostly not.
I listened to a lot of folk, and rarely did I call someone names because of his opinion, but I don't think that changed anyone really.

I will grant you that not everyone's mind can be changed.  However, I would advance the idea that listening to them instead of shouting at and castigating them is still the smarter route.  Attacking them is still likely to cause them to dig in their heels and further entrench their opinions.  It also is likely to drive them further in the other direction as they equate "the other side" with being attacked and called names.  If you need a prime example look at the US today.  It's all name calling and no listening.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-29-2019, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will grant you that not everyone's mind can be changed.  However, I would advance the idea that listening to them instead of shouting at and castigating them is still the smarter route.  Attacking them is still likely to cause them to dig in their heels and further entrench their opinions.  It also is likely to drive them further in the other direction as they equate "the other side" with being attacked and called names.  If you need a prime example look at the US today.  It's all name calling and no listening.

Yep, and much easier for a "middle ground" to be found when one side isn't forced to be defensive.

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2019, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will grant you that not everyone's mind can be changed.  However, I would advance the idea that listening to them instead of shouting at and castigating them is still the smarter route.  Attacking them is still likely to cause them to dig in their heels and further entrench their opinions.  It also is likely to drive them further in the other direction as they equate "the other side" with being attacked and called names.  If you need a prime example look at the US today.  It's all name calling and no listening.

Pretty much. While certain individuals bring out the worst in me, generally speaking I try to take a very understanding approach with people I disagree with. There is no point in painting an individual out to be a bad person because of a disagreement. This is the root of my policy of not calling people racist but rather actions or words. Even then, I will tend to say to someone "I'm not sure if you are aware, but what you said there can be perceived as offensive to some individuals." It's at that point that a conversation can take place. When you start throwing some of those trigger words, for lack of a better term, around, you shut down that conversation.

I'm not in favor of leaving things go, but you have to come at it from a place of respect.

[hollodero]

(07-29-2019, 11:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will grant you that not everyone's mind can be changed.  However, I would advance the idea that listening to them instead of shouting at and castigating them is still the smarter route.  Attacking them is still likely to cause them to dig in their heels and further entrench their opinions.  It also is likely to drive them further in the other direction as they equate "the other side" with being attacked and called names.  If you need a prime example look at the US today.  It's all name calling and no listening.

Oh, I do agree with that, civility alone suggests that. Listening and being respectful is a successful strategy to be well liked and have a nicer discourse. I just don't believe there's much success to be had on that smarter route in terms of changing people's minds. 
Most folks only mind their recipient if he annoys them - if he doesn't, he's just a simple open mind one can throw every kind of things in and that's his whole function. Being respectful seldomly gives a person's opinion more authority, for it mostly has none to begin with. One still should be respectful, sure, and I strive to be. As a matter of civility.

Now if everyone would change, things might be differently... but the majority won't. The majority will continue to shout and castigate and set the environment. I grant, I often think a Trump presidency would be impossible if the left weren't quite that disrespectful and smug, leading to that "dig in" route you mentioned.

[*bfine32*]

I've got nothing to say.

[Bengalzona]

(07-29-2019, 10:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: And in principle I agree you get more flies with honey but this approach takes a long time and will only get the ones who are not deeply entrenched (I know we can't convert them all).  In the meantime the entrenched are sucking in the fringe simply by reinforcing them so they know they are "right" and converting more faster than we can save.

And that doesn't even touch on the ones who think the KKK or the Nazis are "right" and simply defending the "white race" (to use the one example). 

I fully understand what you are saying.  I'm playing devil's advocate that while conversion of a few at time is nice there is a problem when the "other side" is recruiting and growing much faster.  

I know you are playing Devil's Advocate here.

But your line also indicates someone approaching the situation with an agenda of changing the other person's mind. In fact, the agenda is so pronounced in the comments, it is almost assured to be noted and lead to rejection from the other party. As Xernona Clayton noted: "I didn't try to change his mind. I just listened."

The technique for successful listening relies on not having an agenda because to communicate an agenda, people generally have to speak. So step one in good listening is to divest yourself of the goal of leading the other party in a direction. Rather the goal should be to allow the person to express themselves, regardless of how ugly their thoughts are or how opposed to them you are, so that further conversations can go forward and be positive. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them or cover up what you believe. In most conversations, the other person is going to know or at least sense that you don't agree from the start. You just approach them with a sincere attitude that you just want to know more about why they feel the way they do and, more importantly, who they are as a person.

You also have to be able to back off of your own defensiveness.

When they know in their heart that at least one person on "the Other Side" is accessible and not 'out to get them or convert them', it is hard for them to buy into the 'dehumanization process'. In fact, those who propose dehumanizing begin to look more radical.

[GMDino]

(07-29-2019, 02:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I know you are playing Devil's Advocate here.

But your line also indicates someone approaching the situation with an agenda of changing the other person's mind. In fact, the agenda is so pronounced in the comments, it is almost assured to be noted and lead to rejection from the other party. As Xernona Clayton noted: "I didn't try to change his mind. I just listened."

The technique for successful listening relies on not having an agenda because to communicate an agenda, people generally have to speak. So step one in good listening is to divest yourself of the goal of leading the other party in a direction. Rather the goal should be to allow the person to express themselves, regardless of how ugly their thoughts are or how opposed to them you are, so that further conversations can go forward and be positive. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them or cover up what you believe. In most conversations, the other person is going to know or at least sense that you don't agree from the start. You just approach them with a sincere attitude that you just want to know more about why they feel the way they do and, more importantly, who they are as a person.

You also have to be able to back off of your own defensiveness.

That doesn't change anyone though.  I could listen to my brother in law tell me (over and over) that Obama was racist and he's not while not saying a word.  I could ask him why he burned crosses and why he thought there were "different kind of n*****s.  Some good and most lazy" and he wasn't going to see the error of his ways.

At some point I had engage in a conversation to suggest that his view needed adjusting.

I've studied interviewing and get where listening without an agenda comes from...and that's very helpful when trying to learn.  Even if it's to learn why someone is openly racist and denies it. But eventually they must be "confronted" to change the direction of their thoughts.  If your "agenda" is NOT to change minds of bad people...why listen at all?

The entire premise is that starting with listening with no agenda is a better way to convert people but that implies that you are only listening with the agenda of converting them.

Like I said, that might get a few fringe people, but not the ones in deep. And I'm using a big issue because it shows (to me) the error of the approach (and we're on a political board).  I might get someone to switch from Coke to Pepsi but not on the political issues of the day.

[Bengalzona]

(07-29-2019, 02:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't change anyone though.  I could listen to my brother in law tell me (over and over) that Obama was racist and he's not while not saying a word.  I could ask him why he burned crosses and why he thought there were "different kind of n*****s.  Some good and most lazy" and he wasn't going to see the error of his ways.

At some point I had engage in a conversation to suggest that his view needed adjusting.

I've studied interviewing and get where listening without an agenda comes from...and that's very helpful when trying to learn.  Even if it's to learn why someone is openly racist and denies it. But eventually they must be "confronted" to change the direction of their thoughts.  If your "agenda" is NOT to change minds of bad people...why listen at all?

The entire premise is that starting with listening with no agenda is a better way to convert people but that implies that you are only listening with the agenda of converting them.

Like I said, that might get a few fringe people, but not the ones in deep. And I'm using a big issue because it shows (to me) the error of the approach (and we're on a political board).  I might get someone to switch from Coke to Pepsi but not on the political issues of the day.

Start with not trying to change them The premise is not that "listening with no agenda is a better way to convert people". The premise is that talking at someone with opposing views with the intent of changing their views doesn't work at all because the agenda gets in the way from the start.

Did you ever try asking other types of questions to your brother-in-law, like: "Did you always feel this way about Obama? When did you start seeing it that way?", or "Do you work with black people? Is that what you have seen?", etc. Not necessarily those questions, but you get the point. You know how to interview. But I disagree that an interview needs to lead to a confrontation. Why can't it be open-ended? I realize that that doesn't sell to an audience. But in personal conversations, who is the audience?

[GMDino]

(07-29-2019, 02:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Start with not trying to change them The premise is not that "listening with no agenda is a better way to convert people". The premise is that talking at someone with opposing views with the intent of changing their views doesn't work at all because the agenda gets in the way from the start.

Did you ever try asking other types of questions to your brother-in-law, like: "Did you always feel this way about Obama? When did you start seeing it that way?", or "Do you work with black people? Is that what you have seen?", etc. Not necessarily those questions, but you get the point. You know how to interview. But I disagree that an interview needs to lead to a confrontation. Why can't it be open-ended? I realize that that doesn't sell to an audience. But in personal conversations, who is the audience?

Absolutely I tried to find out why he was an unabashed racist.  And he was until he died.  And he denied it until he died.

If your agenda is NOT to change the minds or views then listening does...what?  Makes them comfortable telling you they have bad views?  At some point you MUST "confront" their views...that is the only way to truly start change.  NOT confronting their views is how they got where they are.

I'm all for conversations with people we disagree with.  You can learn a lot (good and bad).  But to truly "change" someone's mind you must present facts that disagree with their own.  Now, if you want to have no agenda to change minds and simply find out where they are coming from I fully agree with simply listening is a great way to do that.  But it won't make most people leave the KKK.  

Socrates said we all know the answers ourselves we just need to find those answers within. (Paraphrasing)  So occasionally one might be able to have a person come to a moment of self realization with no prodding in a direction but it seems to be more about "let's get along and not yell at each other" than actually solving problems to me.

[Dill]

(07-29-2019, 02:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Did you ever try asking other types of questions to your brother-in-law, like: "Did you always feel this way about Obama? When did you start seeing it that way?", or "Do you work with black people? Is that what you have seen?", etc. Not necessarily those questions, but you get the point. You know how to interview. But I disagree that an interview needs to lead to a confrontation. Why can't it be open-ended? I realize that that doesn't sell to an audience. But in personal conversations, who is the audience?

This is a critical step in that it directs the listening, actually gets a person to listen to himself.  This has a chance of working when it brings a set of stated ideals compartmentalized in one part of a person's mind into contact with contradictory behaviors and beliefs directed from another part.  But I think a lot of people will then sense the questions lead them away from where they want to be, and stop.

Arlie Hothschild, the author of SSF's article on the "political bubble" thread, is very skilled at this. She does long interviews with Trump supporters in which they largely explain why their choices make sense to them. E.g., "I Don't let my kids watch the Discovery Channel because we don't believe in Evolution." There is never a point where she directly challenges beliefs. Sometimes she does a minimal dot connecting between votes for Republicans in the pocket of Big Oil and deteriorating environmental conditions in a community, which her interviewees complain about.  If I remember though, her goal is to help liberals understand "them" better, resulting in less divisive politics. It is not to convert "them."

I don't think Dino meant "confront" in the sense of creating a confrontation by abrasively challenging "errors" and "telling them like it is." He just meant (If I understand him) that at some point an alternative interpretation of beliefs and feelings and the like must be introduced, or the speaker will not move beyond where he is at. 

This discussion puts me somewhat in mind of Socratic/platonic dialogues, in which Socrates affirms he knows nothing and just asks questions, which eventually lead his challengers into contradiction. Not only is Socrates listening but constantly presents himself as willing to be converted, if only some of his interlocutor's logical inconsistencies can be overcome.  The inquiry is thus open-ended and the result (with few exceptions) an aporia. The dialogue begins with someone who presumes to know what "virtue" or "piety" or "love" is.  And ends with most everyone agreeing no one knows. 

When we are talking about politics, though, and pressure to to formulate some policy or other, people must decide what such terms mean. The hope is that increased facility of reasoning means increased likelihood a policy will work. That presumes some point where policy makers are faced with alternatives and must decide which is likely to work best for the common good (if we are still thinking on the Platonic model).  That requires a review and assessment of at least two sides, with both sides understanding the common goal.

[Dill]

(07-29-2019, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Socrates said we all know the answers ourselves we just need to find those answers within. (Paraphrasing)  So occasionally one might be able to have a person come to a moment of self realization with no prodding in a direction but it seems to be more about "let's get along and not yell at each other" than actually solving problems to me.

Anamnesis. Souls are eternal; but are reborn in forgetfulness.  No teacher can teach anything. He can only bring about recollection of what was once known but forgotten.  That's the argument of the Meno, where Socrates brings a slave boy who does not know the Pythagorean theorem to articulate it, simply by asking the right questions. (The point of the argument is to address the paradox of how we can recognize something we don't know, if we don't already know it. That's still a pretty big problem with all definitions; witness recent discussions on racism on various threads.)

LOL doesn't happen with no prodding though. People need teachers and have to already understand something of logic and the principle of non-contradiction, and to value that understanding. Socrates and Plato would be elitist by modern standards because they as assume "the many" are neither interested in nor capable of this.

Maybe B-zona is plying us with an updated, more democratic version of Socratic method?

[Bengalzona]

(07-29-2019, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Absolutely I tried to find out why he was an unabashed racist.  And he was until he died.  And he denied it until he died.

If your agenda is NOT to change the minds or views then listening does...what?  Makes them comfortable telling you they have bad views?  At some point you MUST "confront" their views...that is the only way to truly start change.  NOT confronting their views is how they got where they are.

I'm all for conversations with people we disagree with.  You can learn a lot (good and bad).  But to truly "change" someone's mind you must present facts that disagree with their own.  Now, if you want to have no agenda to change minds and simply find out where they are coming from I fully agree with simply listening is a great way to do that.  But it won't make most people leave the KKK.  

Socrates said we all know the answers ourselves we just need to find those answers within. (Paraphrasing)  So occasionally one might be able to have a person come to a moment of self realization with no prodding in a direction but it seems to be more about "let's get along and not yell at each other" than actually solving problems to me.

I think you are missing a key element here about agenda. The mere fact that you have a different position and your brother-in-law was aware of it through prior conversations (I assume) means that you are already a representative of that agenda whether you say another word about it or not. And how you represent that unspoken agenda through your responses, questions, respect, etc., can have a far heavier influence than any diatribe por la causa that you may give. You cannot argue logic and facts with someone who eschews logic and facts. But it is a good bet that you can reach them emotionally through sincere interest in them. Letting your agenda through overrides the sincerity.

[Dill]

(07-29-2019, 04:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think you are missing a key element here about agenda. The mere fact that you have a different position and your brother-in-law was aware of it through prior conversations (I assume) means that you are already a representative of that agenda whether you say another word about it or not. And how you represent that unspoken agenda through your responses, questions, respect, etc., can have a far heavier influence than any diatribe por la causa that you may give. You cannot argue logic and facts with someone who eschews logic and facts. But it is a good bet that you can reach them emotionally through sincere interest in them. Letting your agenda through overrides the sincerity.

I think that's a good point. This sort of thing works better with no past history weighing on it.

Dino's brother-in-law could never put out of mind all those Thanksgiving dinners when Dino listed reasons why racism was evil and a blemish on the US.

So what's he supposed to think were Dino to finally catch him in a good mood  after a Steeler victory and a couple of beers, and ask, "You know Bro, I'd like to know a little more about why you hate 'them.' No judgment, just curious."  He would know there is going to be no point where Dino would agree--"Now that you mention it, yeah I guess 'they' are kind of lazy."  He'd be on agenda-guard from the get go.

[Bengalzona]

(07-29-2019, 05:24 PM)Dill Wrote: I think that's a good point. This sort of thing works better with no past history weighing on it.

Dino's brother-in-law could never put out of mind all those Thanksgiving dinners when Dino listed reasons why racism was evil and a blemish on the US.

So what's he supposed to think were Dino to finally catch him in a good mood  after a Steeler victory and a couple of beers, and ask, "You know Bro, I'd like to know a little more about why you hate 'them.' No judgment, just curious."  He would know there is going to be no point where Dino would agree--"Now that you mention it, yeah I guess 'they' are kind of lazy."  He'd be on agenda-guard from the get go.

But why would the topics discussed have to start with the 'beaten dead horse' ? And why would Dino necessarily have to bring up the 'dead horse'? Maybe after talking about the Thanksgiving dinner and the recent Steelers loss, brother-in-law could make some racist comment and there is an opening for a line of questions:

BiL: "Man them ******* sure are lazy! Just like O-bummer!"

Dino: "Is that what you have seen at work?"

BiL: "Yeah! They don't do sh*t!. And I'll tell you something else, that Kenyan ran this country into the ground!"

Dino: "Do you mean because of Obama Care?"

BiL: "Hell yeah! We are all turning into a bunch of pansy Socialists! Trump will straighten that out, man! What's wrong with you? You usually take up for O-bummer?"

Dino: "Just thought I'd actually listen to what you wanted to say for a change. Maybe I don't know everything."

DiL: "That's for sure! Supportin' O-bummer! You don't know anything!"

Dino: "Maybe knowing things is a little over-rated at times.But I don't get Trump. What do you like about him?"

etc.

I mean, it isn't pretty. You forego the instant gratification of making sure your voice is heard in order to let the other person speak their mind unopposed. Eventually after speaking long enough, they get tired of talking. Not in one conversation. Over time. Particularly if they are just regurgitating rhetoric they have heard somewhere else. And eventually, if given an open floor and some gently leading questions, they will want to talk about everyone's favorite topic: themselves. Humans do that.

[GMDino]

(07-29-2019, 05:56 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But why would the topics discussed have to start with the 'beaten dead horse' ? And why would Dino necessarily have to bring up the 'dead horse'? Maybe after talking about the Thanksgiving dinner and the recent Steelers loss, brother-in-law could make some racist comment and there is an opening for a line of questions:

BiL: "Man them ******* sure are lazy! Just like O-bummer!"

Dino: "Is that what you have seen at work?"

BiL: "Yeah! They don't do sh*t!. And I'll tell you something else, that Kenyan ran this country into the ground!"

Dino: "Do you mean because of Obama Care?"

BiL: "Hell yeah! We are all turning into a bunch of pansy Socialists! Trump will straighten that out, man! What's wrong with you? You usually take up for O-bummer?"

Dino: "Just thought I'd actually listen to what you wanted to say for a change. Maybe I don't know everything."

DiL: "That's for sure! Supportin' O-bummer! You don't know anything!"

Dino: "Maybe knowing things is a little over-rated at times.But I don't get Trump. What do you like about him?"

etc.

I mean, it isn't pretty. You forego the instant gratification of making sure your voice is heard in order to let the other person speak their mind unopposed. Eventually after speaking long enough, they get tired of talking. Not in one conversation. Over time. Particularly if they are just regurgitating rhetoric they have heard somewhere else. And eventually, if given an open floor and some gently leading questions, they will want to talk about everyone's favorite topic: themselves. Humans do that.

Then he goes out and votes for Trump because of the immigrants and Hillary killing all those people.

Great talk!  LOL!