Sorry, But Your Astute Election Posts Aren’t Changing Anybody’s Mind



**Sorry, But Your Astute Election Posts Aren’t Changing Anybody’s Mind
You’ve had it with this election cycle. The name-calling. The baby-banishing. The multitudinous email scandals. So you log onto Facebook and fire off a post pumping Hillary Clinton, defending Donald Trump, or, perhaps, reminding everyone that Jill Stein exists. With each accumulating Like, you feel like you’ve accomplished something, like you’ve awoken the masses from this great national nightmare, and like maybe, just maybe, you’ve even changed some minds.

Except you haven’t—at least, not according to new research from the social media marketing firm Rantic. It recently surveyed more than 10,000 people on Facebook, spread evenly across political affiliations. It found that 94 percent of Republicans, 92 percent of Democrats, and 85 percent of independents say they have never changed their view of an issue because of a Facebook post. The majority of people from all political affiliations also say social media is an inappropriate place to express political beliefs. That’s despite the fact that the survey showed 39 percent of Republicans, 34 percent of Democrats, and 26 percent of independents have posted political content on Facebook.

But while all those political posts might not pack the punch we all hope they would, they do have some unintended consequences. The majority of both Republicans and Democrats say they judge their friends based on what they write on social media about politics. What’s more, 12 percent of Republicans, 18 percent of Democrats, and 9 percent of independents who responded say they’ve unfriended someone because of those posts.
All that said, research is still out on how sharing stories from WIRED impacts friendships, and since other research shows that sharing this stuff makes you happy, by all means, keep doing that.

I think people start “with Candidate X is evil” and then develop their factual/rational arguments later.


Hmm… yes, exactly.


I have already heard the “Candidate X is evil” part, but I am still waiting for the rational arguments. I fear the Presidential debates will be a national disgrace, and our free speech tradition will not permit the government to censor them. We have such serious issues to discuss and the sides are so far apart that they only talk past each other. I feel sorry for the younger generations that will have to fix this mess with the poor examples they have been given. America is in danger of being lumped in with the Roman Empire and all the other fallen political powers that failed from within.


BTW, the source for the story is Wired, not Weird – my dyslexia acting up.


I think that the media have much to answer for. For the last 25+ years, it hasn’t been enough to be for a party/person/idea; you have to demonize those you are against. It’s public affairs as a blood sport.

We no longer consider people of the opposing party as good people who want to achieve good ends but through different methods than those we espouse. The idea of working with them to achieve a compromise is ridiculed and anyone who does is vilified.

Our nation has suffered as a consequence.


they’re both evil


Because the method itself has become the end, with predictable consequence.

I now believe that a Republican meltdown and reformation is the best possible outcome, if that can occur in 4 years.



I think that proves my point.

For the most part, I think the parties are comprised of good people who are trying to do the right thing. What the right thing is is where they differ as well as how to achieve the best possible result.



I think that political orientation and ideologies in general are in-group and out-group social signals. Someone indicating they are part of the wrong group then convincing them of anything else may become more difficult.


Any candidate who wants to force us to pay for the killing of pre- born babies is not doing good, she is doing evil.


Might well be true. Probably is for most. But that does not excuse one for failing to even try. Sometimes it isn’t even a matter of the upcoming political action, but of something else. I recently spent a couple of hours with a man who was very, very pessimistic about not only the current political scene, but about the future of the Church in America.

I couldn’t convince him to be more optimistic politically; possibly because I’m not very optimistic about it myself. But as to the slow transition of churchmen in America from a fundamentally political ideology masquerading as morality to a more “Catholic” approach based on traditional principles, I think perhaps I did give him some reason for hope.

And that’s not a terrible outcome.


If I’m not mistaken, Facebook has some hardworking algorithms which are designed to feed into your interests. So if you’ve liked a certain post, or even clicked on links from a poster, they’re more likely to show up in your news feed. Since people are more likely to like and click on posts they agree with, a person’s newsfeed tends to be dominated by posts that they agree with. The result? A person’s bias tend to be reinforced since that’s the only information they see, and when a person posts an article, the people who see it will already agree with it.

Even beyond that, in what passes for political commentary these days, those posts tend not to be directed towards persuasion. Most of it seems to be about rallying the troops (e.g., look how horrible the other team is or look how great or team is) rather than genuinely trying to connect with those who may think or believe differently. Consequently, is it any wonder that these articles fail to convince the other side when that isn’t even their intended purpose.


Somethng to that. I don’t do Facebook, but some time ago I decided to price new Bobcats on the internet. For weeks after that, I got “popups” from Bobcat dealers all over the country as well as from dealers of other kinds of skid-steerers.


The Reason Your Feed Became An Echo Chamber — And What To Do About It

This is a story on that published recently.


she …

:compcoff: I THINK I’ve just cracked the code!

The BEST choices have positive eternal consequences
… and wonderful (day to day) temporal rewards!


Clinton is about as anti-life as you can get and Trump is too wishy-washy about protecting unborn children (and too scary about everything else).

This new independent, Evan McMullin, is pro-life. I was going to skip voting, but now I think I have someone to vote for. He’s trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.


That’s what you and I believe. Those who hold differing views and do not believe there is an eternal life would say that anyone who forces a 12-year-old rape victim to carry an unwanted baby or a woman who already has several children to endure a life-threatening pregnancy or plunge a family deeper into poverty with another unaffordable child because of their religious beliefs are on the other side of evil.


**** while the actual rapist of a 12 year old gets defended by a Hillary Clinton type and walks off with a hand slap.***

This particular issue should be beyond politics but some champion the garbage as if it were virtuous. And yes, rather than even casting it as “horrible but necessary” many are FOR it for the worst reasons (Planned Parenthood founder Margarel Sanger thought it would reduce the black population for instance).

And in all charity I should caution people about the reality that there IS not only eternal life … but piercing judgement as to where we’ll spend it … so, maybe they should get a better cause to champion than to destroy the helpless lives that God is creating. Almost any cause is better.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit