they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei
The point remains that you will fundamentally misunderstand, and in the process alienate, the people you so desparately want to convince to prioritise other (mutual) interests. — Benkei
This is a good constructive comment, with which I agree with, Benkei.That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests.
Now, if the political landscape would offer more policy combinations, that would include for instance, "lower taxes but in favour of abortion" you'd see people would actually be capable to truly vote in accordance with their interests. So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei
Your argument works for the pro-life side of things.
But voting for lower taxes against social programs such as universal healthcare is precisely an example of such voters going against their own interests.
I think calling people to their faces irrational might alienate them and be just undiplomatic all around. But I don't think laying out why X is not in their best interest but Y is does or should alienate anyone. People who do feel alienated by that (i.e., by a rational presentation of the other view) are opting out of the conversation from the get-go and thus lost causes.
Why won’t you lay out why X is not in my best interest but Y is? Are you opting out of the conversation, and thus a lost cause? — NOS4A2
To continue the conversation I asked what your reason for X is. You haven't offered me anything aside from versions of "because I don't wanna."
There are some reasonably irreducible claims, but "I don't want to pay taxes" is not one of them.
So, if that's your entire reasoning, I rest my case on the irrationality of your position.
People do indeed vote against their interests. Not their "real" interests in the sense you mean -- like I know what their "real" interests are and they stupidly vote against them. They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.