this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
884 points (98.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
21609 readers
2193 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a reasonably experienced "data guy," this seems obviously laughable, but the discussion on X is scary. This guy is a savior in the MAGA world.
We can criticize and poke fun all day, but it doesn't matter much if our message isn't challenging the mindset of those with other opinions.
How do we make better use of our time to impact outside opinion?
We must make better memes
I'm not even joking, the world runs on memes now. It's fucking stupid, but we must shitpost to save ourselves
I agree some form of consistent opposition messaging is needed.
The maga world talks in consistent themes and terminology, which creates a psychological advantage. Unfortunately, it's playground psychology, but if that's the game being played you need to find a way to win at it.
I can't remember the particular phrase that was used, but I heard an argument recently that we need to be more like politicians going on an interview and ensure that we're more on message. For example, it's fairly obvious by now that economically, the problem is wealth inequality, but I see fairly surprisingly few people discussing that.
Garys Economics will be your guy. He only talks about that. He's on youtube.
That's probably who I'm remembering; I recently discovered his work.
I've been told violence isn't the answer and we shouldn't just shoot nazis and nazi enablers dead.
The way most people change their mind isn't based on facts or figures, but emotions. Specifically, in-group belonging. For most people, and this certainly includes me and you some of the time, what our in-group believes is more compelling than an out-groups supposed facts.
They see that guy as someone in their group so they believe him. They see you as a bad outside bad bad bad liar, so nothing you say is likely to get through. (This comic is worth reading on this topic: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe )
If you want to change someone's mind, they have to see you as in-group. Not necessarily the same group as what you're arguing with. We all belong to many groups. American, new yorker, white guy, middle aged, yankees fan, etc etc there are many such slices. Like how you can't get a republican to recycle by appealing to environmental concerns (because environmentalists are out-group, so fuck them), but you might be able to get them to recycle via something like "only american ingenuity can turn trash into bridges and tanks!"
This takes a lot of time and effort, and if you don't get them to stop hanging out with the other group, you won't make any lasting changes.
So I think you'd need a multi prong approach:
All of which takes a lot of time and effort, and your opposite number is basically trying to do the same thing. Except they have fox news, trump, and such in their corner.
And, again, I'm told we definitely shouldn't just shoot extreme right wingers and other nazi sympathizers dead. Nor should we burn their houses down. If we're an emergency responder, we definitely shouldn't let them die while thinking to ourselves "they would let so many die. without a thought, their passing deserves no mourning" or similar.
You should definitely nullify if you're on a jury and someone allegedly did violence to a shitty ceo or red-hat, though, bu that's getting off topic.
By the very same people asking the question: What are you gonna do about it?
Where 'it' is your oppression.
Wow, that was an awesome rabbit hole, thank you for the link.
Maybe a less manipulative-sounding way to phrase that might be that we should remind people that we're all in it together. The far right media and their billionaire buddies have spent the past decade and a half dividing us, and they succeeded. Idk what it would take to unite this country again, but it at least is a little comforting to have a clear problem statement.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm from the UK, and whilst things are less politically dire here than the US, it's still pretty grim. Both the Conservatives and Labour seem reluctant to actually meaningfully tax the rich, even as the working class (and to a lesser extent, the middle class) are being squeezed by a cost of living crisis and general hopelessness. Parties like Reform are taking the racist "things are bad because we have too many immigrants" and I've recently realised that I need to stop resenting people for being taken in by that rhetoric; people are desperate and there aren't people in the mainstream pushing for alternatives (besides Reform). These people have a lot in common with me, such as recognising that we're being fucked but the system, but we just disagree on the solution. It's hard, but ultimately necessary to be able to be in solidarity with people like Reform' voters
Compelling point. I just found that arguing with „these kind of people“ (livibg in europe, so no MAGA‘s here but like-minded, conservative fundamentalists etc.) leads to nowhere. It‘s kind of like the covid-conversations. And often I heard „you can‘t make them change their minds, so just let them be“. Still, I think this behaviour leads to isolation and separates us as a people even more.
Long story short: good question. If you found the answer, let me know.
I can only speak from my very limited experience. My father is the very example of a person who has some beliefs and tries to judge whole world through those beliefs. Everyone who doesn’t share those beliefs is an enemy. If you don’t believe in extreme opinion A, you automatically have to believe in extreme opinion B which is the opposite of A. You probably know such people.
Over last years, we yelled at each other lots of times, but that lead to nowhere. What actually helped was that finding the common ground. To make him understand that just because I don’t agree with his side, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m shilling for the other one. Not everything is bipolar. From my father’s perspective, everyone has to be either pro-Russian or pro-American (which is funny from today’s perspective, but I guess you get my point). You point out that Russia did something bad? He will tell you “Yeah and USA did ! You don’t have an issue with that”. And that’s the thing. To make him understand, that I DO have an issue with that. World is not a football match where you have to take a side and fully commit to it. You don’t have to go “full in” on a topic. Your opinion can be nuanced based on the actual topic, not just dumbed down into “my side thinks that A, so I agree with A. Your side thinks that B, so you have to agree with B”.
Before that I never had much success in having a proper discussion. It always ended up in a screaming match, because he wasn’t listening to arguments. He simply knew, that I had the “other” opinion, so my opinion was automatically wrong. Now he knows, that I don’t fully agree with anyone. He now somehow understands that my opinions are based on a set of principles, not on a tribalistic “my team” vs “your team”. And by understanding that, he’s more open to actually having a discussion on a topic, not just trying to convert me from “bad side” to “good side”.
And don’t get me wrong. He still believes in what he believes in. But he’s more open to accepting that not everything “his side” says is automatically correct. And that by itself is a small victory for me.