A potential tier 2 way for dealing with conservatives

[Infinity16]

Here's a group that advocates listening to people from the other side as a means of getting through to them

https://www.joinsmart.org/

I call this a tier 2 way because what separates tier 2 from tier 1 is that it's not judgemental. Beige, purple, and red make up pre-conventional morality which is only focused on the self. Blue, orange, and green make up conventional morality which abides by the golden rule, but is judgemental. Yellow and turquoise represent post-conventional morality.

[Joseph Maynor]

Focus more on relationship than on belief when you interface with people.  You have to relax your judgment muscle to a degree.  

[Basman]

The tribalism shite is an American thing. It's a skill issue.

[WonderSeeker]

My best friend in the world is conservative as fuck. We've been deep frineds for 10+ years.

Let me tell you, going shooting with him, hanging out in his circle of Trumpers, and debating politics with them for hours, then drinking a beer after taught me more about conservatives than 100+ hours of YT on the conservative value system (save Leo's brilliant video on it).

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

On 30. 4. 2026 at 10:09 AM, Basman said:

The tribalism shite is an American thing. It's a skill issue.

Definitely not just an American thing, in Europe it is the same way. One thing I don't really understand about this whole democracy thing anymore; is that neither side would be actually willing to uphold it anymore. Yes, you got individual people like Trump who are actively trying to become authoritarian, but that doesn't mean conservatism has to inherently be anti democratic. Neither does liberalism. But in these current times, if both sides believe that they are completely correct and everyone is so polarized, and both sides believe that the other side is the ultimate threat, then both sides are now anti democratic. Right? So why are we playing these cringe word games such as "saving democracy" if you inherently believe that your opposition should not exist? I see that from the both sides in the US now, and the attempts of censorship from the EU wokies specifically. So, we are all clearly moving in the undemocratic direction worplwide and yet people are still using these empty phrases such as "save democracy" like it means something

[enchanted]

On 30/04/2026 at 0:20 AM, Infinity16 said:

Here's a group that advocates listening to people from the other side as a means of getting through to them

https://www.joinsmart.org/

I call this a tier 2 way because what separates tier 2 from tier 1 is that it's not judgemental. Beige, purple, and red make up pre-conventional morality which is only focused on the self. Blue, orange, and green make up conventional morality which abides by the golden rule, but is judgemental. Yellow and turquoise represent post-conventional morality.

Looks like a great site. The type of communication called "non-violent communication" will also work well for these purposes. There's books and videos on the topic. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 09:03 PM by enchanted

[Fruehlingserwachen]

4 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

So why are we playing these cringe word games such as "saving democracy" if you inherently believe that your opposition should not exist?

Because there is this intersubjective moral dogma that only the democrats are good. Intersubjective means that a thing doesn't really exist in material form, but because we all accept its existince, it exists. Like all states, institutions, organizations, moral codes, laws etc. 

And the moral dogma of you having to be democratic is one ot these things. Although nobody gives a fuck about democracy, everybody knows that he has to pretend like he's a good democrat to justify his participation at a debate. But in the end only flat minded people can be real democrats. Because you really need to have no strong beliefs or political ideas to really think that it's a good idea to let people vote. Otherwise you only think this if they vote for you and if they don't, they need to be better informed. Because if they were rightly informed they would had voted for the best candidate and this is obv your one. It's about legitimation, not about good politics.

[Joseph Maynor]

But politics is inherently oppositional, so we need to make sure we're not imposing a pipe dream on a system that doesn't work that way like politics.  It's trying to bury conflict in favor of order.  Good luck.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

7 hours ago, Fruehlingserwachen said:

Because there is this intersubjective moral dogma that only the democrats are good. Intersubjective means that a thing doesn't really exist in material form, but because we all accept its existince, it exists. Like all states, institutions, organizations, moral codes, laws etc. 

And the moral dogma of you having to be democratic is one ot these things. Although nobody gives a fuck about democracy, everybody knows that he has to pretend like he's a good democrat to justify his participation at a debate. But in the end only flat minded people can be real democrats. Because you really need to have no strong beliefs or political ideas to really think that it's a good idea to let people vote. Otherwise you only think this if they vote for you and if they don't, they need to be better informed. Because if they were rightly informed they would had voted for the best candidate and this is obv your one. It's about legitimation, not about good politics.

Exactly this, you've described it perfectly. I mean, they even call themselves the "democrats" and in most countries outside of the US, people would use the term "democratic parties" to loosely describe the block created as an opposition to conservatives. The irony is truly palpable