I'm just curious--has any member of Ricochet changed his or her mind about any political issue as a result of being confronted with a better argument here?

If so, which ones? 

Comments:


Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

No.  But Peter Robinson did persuade me, at the San Francisco soiree, that I was being too hard on Mitch McConnell. 

Edit: Now that I think of it, I do recall telling Diane Ellis that she had changed my view on something, but I can't remember what it was.  Maybe she does.

Edited on May 14, 2011 at 6:21pm

Joined
Mar '11
Abdiel

The Burqa ban. I opposed it before reading the arguments here (or at least cited here ).

And Turkey ;). Nevermore shall I mock the country as if it were some kind of third-world plutocracy.

I'm curious as to what brought you to ask the question. A moment of pessimism perhaps?

Ursula Hennessey

Islam/the range of Muslims (sort of ... it's a work in progress in my mind), thanks to you, Claire. 

Truckers & trucks on the road, thanks to Dave Carter.

I'm sure there are others, but those two jump to mind immediately.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Abdiel: I'm curious as to what brought you to ask the question. A moment of pessimism perhaps? · May 14 at 9:07am

No, not at all--just genuine curiosity, and I was asking myself the question. I know there have been moments when I've said to myself, "That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that." I'm trying to remember which ones, exactly. 

Del Mar Dave
Joined
Oct '10
Del Mar Dave

 Not a mind-changer, but certainly far more reflective consideration of the topics addressed. 

Plus a LOT more appreciation for Turkey. 

And a far greater understanding of the challenges that we auto drivers present to captains of multi-ton trucks - despite the fact that my sister drove 18-wheelers for a few years as her mid-50s emancipation from our parents.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

The Wikileaks debate was one: I thought the side that lost the vote won the argument. I switched my vote because it seemed to me their arguments were more persuasive. So that's one example.

Limestone Cowboy
Joined
Oct '10
Limestone Cowboy

Ricochet contributors help me appreciate  details and subtleties of various issues which I may not have considered. On the whole a pretty sharp group. I particularly appreciate the civility.

And like others above, I enjoy getting a more insightful local viewpoint, whether from  from Turkey, Israel, or 18 wheelers cabs.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Yes, that having a code of conduct makes it alot harder to swear at the *#^*@! democrats if there were any here. 

Actually, sitting in the choir as we do, civility and circumspection come to mind rather than theory in this forum. Knowing that you and the other editors may read something that I write occasionally requires me to edit myself and hope for pith. Being a breitbart drop out and having had my own blog on and off over the years , it's easier to be conversationally respectful and it provides the most entertainment.

Edited on May 14, 2011 at 6:48pm
Yeah...ok.
Joined
Jan '11
Yeah...ok.

1. Previously, I had considered myself clever.

2. Sarah Palin

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Involvement in Ricochet debates has led me to research several topics more deeply than I would have otherwise, and has provided new sources. Positions that I probably would not have reached without my Ricochet participation:

  • That the "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan was not merely met with some ingratitude on the part of locals, but is actually feeding the Islamic supremacism argument as examples of Dhimmi tribute, and that Petreus' magic tactic in Iraq and then Afghanistan was Dhimmi submission to Islamic supremacy.
  • That there are resources on the net doing an excellent job of tracking and exploring the Islamist threat despite ridicule from most of the establishment press, and that the state-based Islamist support extends well beyond the well-known Iranian, Saudi, et. al. connections.
  • That Turkey's AKP is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood with US blessing, because they seem like really nice people and the CIA thinks they are YMCA cuddly.
  • From the Wikileaks debate, the reminder of the chaotic state of free press precedent and  following the Pentagon Papers kerfuffle and the generational change over 40 years from a press that considered consequences to a press philosophically committed to print and be damned.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.

My overall question here, I think, is what makes political opinions change. Do they often change suddenly when confronted with a better argument? Or is it a subtle process of influence? If the latter, what works and what doesn't? (If they don't ever change, we're in trouble, because a lot of opinions out there need changing.) 

SMatthewStolte
Joined
Feb '11
SMatthewStolte

I’d be more hopeful about Newt and less interested in Mitch Daniels if not for Ricochet. And Steyn keeps my pessimism nice and robust. 

I will say, as an aside, I think it both is and should be relatively rare that a single, easily identifiable argument (or even single website) would change anyone’s considered opinion. I don’t often form an opinion until I think I’ve considered most of the relevant facts and lines of reasoning. But my opinions do develop over time, even if I am not always able to trace out exactly which events caused what developments. I only say this as an aside. I think Claire’s question is an interesting one. 

[UPDATE: THIS POST was cross-posted with Claire’s last comment (#11). It turns out that my  comment wasn’t an aside after all.]

Edited on May 14, 2011 at 7:06pm
KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

I think most people change their minds gradually, subconsciously, and are rarely aware of the exact train of thought that brought them from Point A to Point B. That's how it works for me, at least. So, the fact that I can or can't recall any specific mind-changers doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 

I will say that Richard Epstein made a couple comments recently about originalism that gave me pause. He's said that originalists don't fully grasp what originalism means, and that even Antonin Scalia hasn't been consistent on it. Now I've read a couple books from Robert Bork, a few things from Scalia, and I thought I had a good handle on what originalism means. Well, obviously, Epstein's comments make me wonder if I'm missing something, so now I'm on the lookout for criticism of originalism, one way or the other. His comments haven't so much changed my mind as they have alerted me to, perhaps, a different way of thinking about it. 


Joined
Jan '11
ChrisMcK

I appreciate the Turks more and the Turkish government less than if I didn't read Ricochet. I also tend to mostly ignore early primary stuff, which makes me easily swayed by the posts here.

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

And, not to blow sunshine at you, Claire, changing minds isn't the only thing that makes Ricochet useful. Your writings are a perfect example. I will almost never comment about your posts, because I know nothing about Turkey and can't possibly have anything useful to add. But I read your posts, precisely because they inform me about a world I know nothing about. 

It's not that your writings change my mind, because I don't have a mind on the subject to begin with. But your writings are useful, not to mention entertaining, and they give me the beginnings of some knowledge about that part of the world.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: My overall question here, I think, is what makes political opinions change. Do they often change suddenly when confronted with a better argument? Or is it a subtle process of influence? If the latter, what works and what doesn't? (If they don't ever change, we're in trouble, because a lot of opinions out there need changing.)  · May 14 at 9:58am

It's a subtle process of influence.  When debating lefties (as I often do when not here), the idea is not to change their minds.  Because direct argument never works, psychologically.  It's adversarial.  The idea is to impress the audience with how insane your opponent is, and how cool you are.  Thus making them more receptive, gradually.

Ricochet has perhaps clarified previously fuzzy hedges for me.  As a Machiavellian and Diplomacy savant, one likes to keep one's options open.  But the arguments here have made me more principled.

SMatthewStolte
Joined
Feb '11
SMatthewStolte

One of the biggest changes for my political thinking has been a consequence of shifting which sources I took to be reliable authorities. A decade ago, I might have heard an array of facts or statistics that I just took at face value, thinking, It sounds scientific enough, or, Well, that sounds like a fact rather than an opinion. 

In essence, I’ve just grown more skeptical of that. I’ve sort of learned that there’s a kind of style that each political camp has when it presents its facts. So I’ve grown more skeptical. But I’ve also grown to count on different authorities as generally reliable. That skepticism has tended to push me in a more conservative direction; though, perhaps, another kind of skepticism could push someone in the opposite. 

Claire Berlinski, Ed.
ChrisMcK: I appreciate the Turks more and the Turkish government less than if I didn't read Ricochet. 

I'm really glad to know that--and thanks, Ursula and KC, too. (Ursula also succeeded in making me more interested in Mitch Daniels than I would have been otherwise.)

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

 

I'm really glad to know that--and thanks, Ursula and KC, too. (Ursula also succeeded in making me more interested in Mitch Daniels than I would have been otherwise.) · May 14 at 10:31am

Me too.  Ricochet has certainly made me more aware of, and more favorable to, Mitch Daniels.

I agree with other comments that a change of views on fundamental issues is a subtle process.  The Ricochet conversations often enlighten on issues I'm not watching and thus allow those issues to find their way into my broader view of things.  I find that very valuable. 

It has also been a great pleasure to get to know other Ricocheteers via cyberspace.  There are certainly many I'd like to meet in person.

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

I still prefer Sarah Palin over Mitch Daniels, so there is maybe not much hope for me ;-)

I guess it has clarified for me the difference between the Rupublican Party and the Tea Party - I identify more, now, with the Tea Party.

I remain more in Mark Steyn's pessimistic camp than Claire's optimistic camp, concerning the spread of Islamism.

But I enjoy the conversation :-)


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In