What arguments may help progressives moderate or change their views?
While it is difficult to dislodge a faulty opinion once held, it is not impossible - especially if presented with an incongruent fact that produces cognitive dissonance. One example is that progressives think that Conservatives don't care about the poor while the fact is they donate more to charity than liberals. Can you think of other examples? Bonus points for including a follow up to their inevitable response to the dissonance. While this question is focusing on ways to reach progressives, feel free to point out blind spots that Conservative have as well.
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
39 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I've been moderating (discussing possible truths with those who want to know better from worse) with progressives since at least 1980 or so...
That is 40 years of experience.
"One example is that progressives think that Conservatives don't care about the poor while the fact is they donate more to charity than liberals. Can you think of other examples?"
Progressives include individuals who belong in the following categories:
-
False propagandists (who intend to deceive so as to harm: frauds)
a. Paid false propagandists
b. Pro-bono false propagandists -
Brainwashed (Indoctrinated purposefully in Public Schools by Group 1a)
a. They are taught to spread false propaganda and they are taught not to question false propaganda and they are strictly obedient (see: Gulag Archipelago by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn)
b. They still question their brainwashing, they are not strictly obedient -
Curious people having connected to false propaganda and are as yet not connected to alternative narratives that are not intentionally false
a. They are eager to spread false propaganda because that is all they know so far
b. They already question the false propaganda naturally, internally, as too much of it is self-evidently self-contradictory.
All of the above applies equally to "Conservatives," so an example worthy pointing out to those whose minds are not turned off internally by brainwashing is the process known by many words such as The Hegelian Dialectic, or Divide and Conquer. When people see that there are many other people other than the 2 sides of the 2 Party Politics Con Game, they are then sometimes willing to investigate why people are not party to the 2 Party Political Con Game.
Josf-Kelley
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
5
Politics is not simply 2 sided.
The word Politics can be defined many ways by many people doing the things that are political. Organized crime hidden behind a patriotic flag has ONE side, the worst criminals run that side because they are the worst criminals. If there are divisions in a Cartel (groups of organized criminals forming an alliance to share the booty stolen from the victim SIDE) the Cartel is still run by the dominant criminal dominating the dominant criminal gang for as long as that dominant criminal dominates: destroys the competition, by incorporation, threat, fraud, or murder.
Political competitors competing to offer the best political services under the actual law can number as many as there are people competing to supply the demand for the highest quality and lowest cost political services.
That is under the law, as many competitors as there are people inspired to compete. The number of political sides are unlimited by criminal powers that work to either entice, extort, to incorporate competitors, or suicide them, or enslave them, and make them work to pay for the cost of enslaving them.
Under organized crime hidden behind a false patriot front, there is only ONE party, that is the party taking the loot and spending the loot taken on making sure that the victims remain obedient.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
My conversations, mostly online, are mostly with religious people but not enough conversations with "progressives" to consider significant. [Edit: for this reason, I voted "Something else"] However, I've read Greg Gutfeld's How To Be Right: The Art of Being Persuasively Correct, which I strongly recommend. And I'd say that there are 3 key points to consider (at least one of them, IIRC, is in the book):
- Know the facts and be prepared against every point or counterpoint as much as possible. Know yourself and know your enemy...
- Ridicule ridiculous ideas and ideologies and shame the idiots who hold such beliefs.
- Such regressive ideas should not be associated with intellect and "fake" elitism (point 2 should be heavily used!)
And over the past few years I've seen the Right making progress on the first 2 points.
I saw the rise of people such as, to name a few, Tomi Lahren who listed the names of the US citizens who died in Benghazi, on the spot; and Candace Owens who is not only young and female, but also black who is "not oppressed" (that combination is like kryptonite to those glue-sniffing leftists! 
); Blair White (a transgender, BOOM! ) controversies aside of course! Of course my focus is not on their identities but their content/arguments, however I'm only pointing out how that's damaging to the Left narratives! We also now have a White House press secretary who eats the fake news reporters for breakfast. Not to mention Laura Loomer, Jack Posobiec, the OANN...!
And regarding point 2, the memes of the Right and the Left can't meme! Do I need to say more?!
EgyptianRedpill
Level 7
Sep 10, 2020
0
For me it’s taking the liberal progressive ideas to their “logical” end-point. Also, side their own standards on them. If they say they hate hate, they still hate and, therefore, they are only acting to promote what they say they want to destroy. Building on that, for all their talk and promise to alleviate prejudice, discrimination etc, they’ve only created new forms of it. For instance, it’s okay to discriminate against white people or men, therefore, humans cannot get around these things. No matter what a human system will always be intolerant of others. The allure of liberalism is that they seek to eliminate this, but, it’s impossible.
One last one is demonstrating that their ultra tolerance for things like sex always lead to pedophilia. Always. And we’re seeing this now. This is related to the gay agenda. Because homosexuality and pedophilia are closely linked. Just look at the recent legislation out of SFO. Mention to them that sex or love is not free and that there is a very competitive dynamic and inequitable distribution of sex among the population. Therefore there are people left out of the sex bonanza and this entire institution only favors a small minority of people. Moreover that people are being discriminated out of sex due to immutable characteristics.
Towgunner77
Level 5
Sep 10, 2020
0
@Towgunner77, no, "ultra tolerance" in regards to sex does not "lead to pedophilia". We are not seeing this now, homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked in any way. There are vast differences between sexual orientation and gender identity when it comes to any number of consenting adults who are free to live their lives and act as they please, and sexual corruption of a minor (or even animal) who has no ability to consent. There are groups within the far-right who are trying to masquerade as LGBTQ supporters advocating for pedophilia in order to disparage legitimate supporters. Using the never-ending slippery slope approach is never helpful, and people need to stop bringing up pedophilia or bestiality or "marrying your toaster" when it comes to gay / trans / whatever rights.
What if we turn this around to popular Conservative viewpoints, one of which I quite often hear is with absolute religious freedom - in support of discrimination for religious convictions. We can say that allowing this will always lead to Christians committing rampant pedophilia and excusing it as their religious right, much as the Catholic Church has done. We can say this will always lead to children dying because parents decided to pray-away deadly illnesses rather than get medical help. We can say Conservative values will always lead to a return to segregation, where "sundown" towns are re-established allowing Conservatives to run minorities out of their towns with threats of violence.
Now, I don't believe that at all. But that is using your logic with Progressive values.
I have to point out in the strongest terms that there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
The peer-reviewed literature shows that the majority of paedophiles are heterosexual males, usually members of the victim’s family.
The two biggest pedo cases currently in the news — Jeffrey Epstein and the UK Muslim grooming gangs — support the vast body of established research. Both are 100% heterosexual.
@JacksonNought You don't think cancel culture, identity politics, etc, etc is not "running people out of towns" etc... do you know what a real Conservative is?
CONSERVATISM is: a political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change, or simply change for its own sake.
There are bigots and extremists on both sides of politics...
@Lightman there is a difference between Cancel Culture, which I disagree with, and Accountability Culture, which I do agree with. I never said that each side didn't have their demons. You seem to be interpreting my posts as only attacking Conservatives.
But since you put it out there, do you know what a real Progressive is?
Progressivism is: generally any political movement that wants to change government for the better, favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.
Progressivism is what brought on religious freedom, civil rights, same sex marriage, etc.
@JacksonNought Yes and no... I do know what Progressivism is and what it was. Unfortunately it now has almost no link to Progress... only change.
Many currently identify it as regressive.
No one in their right mind would seek change for the worse, unless they were an enemy.
Progressivism did not create most of those changes you mentioned. That is lie.
BTW SSM in the view of a great many is not Progressive in any way, just change, where the majority have caved into a very vocal minority and the useful idiots of the Progressive Left.
I'm not interpreting your posts as anything they are not. You choose the language, not me.
@Lightman how did Progressivism not bring about religious freedom, civil rights, or same sex marriage? By definition, Conservativism would want to keep the status quo "established order" and oppose "radical change". For a long time Christianity was the only accepted religion, and Conservatism would have been okay with that. Progressivism sees people being prevented from equality and tries to amend that.
America is founded on protecting the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". So a vocal minority of black slaves wanted freedom and the majority caved, which was change for change sake and not progress, is that your take? It's the same with SSM - a group of people were treated differently under the law and progress was made to grant equality. You may have not liked it, or think it was regressive. People thought that giving women the right to vote was regressive, or outlawing anti-miscegenation.
You are 100% interpreting my posts to fit your narrative. My language was very clear at the beginning, criticizing both Progressives and Conservatives for being too quick to dismiss the other side, demonize them, and build up strawmen of what they think without actually asking or listening. You saw that and responded with basically "how dare you insult Conservatives!"
@JacksonNought Oh dear.... I had much more respect for you before you asked.
- Progress and Progressivism are 2 different things.
- The Progressive Era started in the late 1800s and ended around 1920. Which excludes it from your claims.
- Today's Progressives are nothing like those in the Progressive Era.
Do you need more information?
I suggest you look up...
The Enlightenment. It is not Progressivism in fact in many ways they are opposites.
Humanists and The Renaissance. Also not Progressives..
The Reformation and Martin Luther. Also not related to what we know as Progressivism.
The Industrial Revolution. Brought about many changes in society.
Postmodernism is what today's Progressives base their beliefs on. Change is change for good or bad, the Earth is dynamic not static planet. All true Conservatives understand this. Conservatives are not anti-progress in fact many embrace and initiate it. Progressives that say otherwise are liars. those tht believe them re fools, useful idiots to be used in their hunger for political and social power.
It is a Progressive lie that Conservatives seek to live in the past and seek to block all change.
You can "insult" (your word) Conservatives all you like... just be factul when you do.
BTW I already proved your biased languge use ok. I'm not going to reproduce all of it for you there is no need to. Look to yourself, not me.
"Conservatives are not anti-progress in fact many embrace and initiate it. Progressives that say otherwise are liars."
Yet here you are telling me, a progressive, what I think.
My language is clear. You can lie all you want and tell me I'm saying something I'm not, doesn't make it true.
@JacksonNought Nope. Just posting a fact
As for you lying.... You just can't face the truth of your bias... get over it. I am.
People can read you know.
@JacksonNought except that leftists were the segregationists and the slave holders and the members of the KKK in the vast majority.
@curvycom not true. If that was the case, then why are all the "leftists" trying to remove Confederate monuments and ban the Confederate flag, and the "rightists" trying to stop them and clinging to their "heritage"?
It is well known that there was a party realignment. First, if we are using terms like "leftists" and using the current-day definitions, then no they were not the majority slave holders and KKK members. If you said Democrats, then yes, but not "leftists". Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the "leftists" were the Republicans, with Democrats opposing desegregation and civil rights. Once the Democratic Party started endorsing more civil rights and discussing black issues, there was a massive shift where southern Democrat racists left the party and joined the Republicans. Today's Democrats where the Republicans of Lincoln.
@JacksonNought They are basically the same, I feel. The people, that hate without reason. Modern day leftists are essentially the same. They simply have a new thing to hate, but they are the same then and now as the subset of the population that are easily led to hate.
@JacksonNought honestly though, dude, it was a snarky comment on my part, not an argument. Just a joke, dude. Still... like most humor -- maybe a grain of truth there whether you like it or not.
Because most progressive beliefs are based, not on logic and reasoning, but on emotional attachments, it is next to impossible to convince them of anything other than the irrational concepts they hold. Besides, most people seem to have a revulsion to being found to be wrong, no matter what the cost of continuing to maintain their mistaken beliefs.
GaryMysels
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
3
I agree with progressives on secularism, gay rights, and healthcare , and Israel
I disagree with em on immigration and huge government
I am a Tribal Socialist Nationalist
FrozenSoul
Level 7
Sep 10, 2020
2
So you are not a tribal Nationlist Socialist? Why not? What is the difference?
@Lightman
U cannot say National Socialist
Shhhhh. It’s a bad word
@SocialDarwin Apparently Nazi is a bad word.... I see it as a historical one.
If you want to change someone's ideas, I'd advise the following:
- Act in good faith
- Assume good faith on their part
- Learn more about their ideas
- Make an argument based on #3
WilyRickWiles
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
6
Change? Is that for the better or worse?
@Josf-Kelley Either/or!
@dd54 I'm just not making a value judgment. The process is the same regardless of whether you're trying to persuade for good or for bad.
@dd54 I never claimed to follow that advice with everyone 
. The fact is, not everyone is acting in good faith, and there's not enough time to persuade everyone online. I try to judge who's not acting in good faith and then focus on persuading the ones who are. But still, if you really want to persuade someone, you have to follow it.
@dd54 You can be biased and in good faith at the same time.
@dd54 None of us are completely objective--as much as we might like to think we are. Why persuade at all if you don't have preferred--or biased--ideas? Good faith to me just means 1. You're honest about why you believe in your ideas (e.g. you're not publicly making a moral appeal but privately aware that you're spreading propaganda to pad your company's bottom line), and 2. You're not claiming good faith in offering an argument but refusing to listen, study, and concede when you know you've been proven wrong.
I tried , more often then i could count, nur sadly never sucessful...
My idea now is , let them Talk, wait till they have presented their unrealistic arguments and let them promise BEFORE, that they will watch a video at the actual Situation in Sweden from e.g. "angry foreigner". Cause they are similar to Kids, who never saw the ugly Face of reality. NEVER...
So the only solution is some Kind of shocktherapy, children that have been burnt and buried alive , after beeing victims of a gangrape...
And probably even THIS won't help often...
GermanGrunt
Level 5
Sep 10, 2020
0
Why bother? Their current reasoned approach in many cases deserves a answer that they'll receive very quickly. In feet per second
DAN_STL
Level 7
Sep 10, 2020
1
Things feel very dangerous now even at brick throwing speed.
@Admin I like eating soup. These rioters are ruining perfectly good soup cans and it makes me sad.
No arguments exist that will overcome fears once established. Fears generate prejudice, which is internally recognized, then defended fiercely against the guilt response.
TimTuolomne
Level 9
Sep 10, 2020
0
Guilt is powerful... what do you think they’re afraid of? “Racist” Trump supporters?
@Admin The guilt comes from knowing within themselves that they are wrong, can’t admit it, and so double down on their position. I’m not defending it; just saying what I see.
@Admin, @dd54, Alexis deToqueville predicted the eventual conversion of any Democracy (which for this point includes our representative republic) to socialism, because the unintelligent masses, unaware of the founding principles and how their rights are protected by them, happily abandon their liberty because they believe they can vote themselves the goodies - as if the government is actually the source of money, not productivity and raw materials.
So some believe that all democracies will fall, and seldom peacefully.
As a few others have said, when speaking with Progressives or Conservatives, the best approach is to act in good faith and try to actually understand their position. Crying out "socialism" or "racism" isn't helpful for speaking with either side. Too often people like to use always-expanding strawmen or demonization to try and tell you what the other side believes and wants to do, while not actually listening to people from the other side, or just calling them liars. It's no wonder there is such a divide right now.
JacksonNought
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
3
Both sides? you mentioned "Socialism" and "Racism" do you really think only one side has racists and its the Conservative side?
Postmodernism creates what "normal" people would call liars, deniers of reality etc, etc, etc...
@Lightman you must have misunderstood my point. Progressives constantly cry out "racism" over any small thing, and Conversations constantly cry out "socialism / marxism" over any small thing. It's the go-to accusation / criticism for each side, and only helps to further the divide.
Agreed. We hold positions based on our opinions, don't act like the other person is evil or stupid. My opinion might be wrong but it's based on the best information I have now, usually assume the other person is in the same position.
Agree that being non threatening and clearly show an openness to change your own mind.
@JacksonNought Nope Progressives cry racism to stop debate and censor free speech... Conservatives can actually be socialists so that is a moot point you've made. Only LW Progressives get correctly nailed for being socialists and that is by anyone, even themselves. I did post what Conservatism is.
As for me misinterpreting your bias... "over any small thing" proves it exists.
Don't confuse true Conservatives, who are BTW conservative by nature for those radicals or bigots that inhabit the extremes... Conservatives are not extremists... extremists are.
@Lightman you clearly have an agenda and are stuck in tribal thinking. You are taking my criticisms of both progressives and conservatives, and only finding issue with conservative criticism. This is exactly the point I was making, and you are part of the problem.
@JacksonNought Clearly you are yet again wrong. I'm a swinging voter I vote policy not people or tribe.
You need to look further back at what you actually write... the bias is clear and its not mine I'm just pointing yours out.
Great question. Wish I had the answer.
With the post-modernists who drive most of the woke-progressive unrest, discussion is impossible because they pride themselves in rejecting the concepts of truth, reason and rationality. If you accept their view that my “feelings” construct my world, then facts and reasoning have no value. Therefore, if somebody “feels” like a woman, he is a woman, in spite of the fact that he has a penis.
The other obstacle is that post-modernists have effectively convinced the public — both left and right — to be skeptical to the extreme. So if I present verifiable figures showing Barack Obama deported almost twice as many southern border crossers in his first two years than Donald Trump deported, they simply reject the figures outright.
Similarly, Steven Pinker gives meticulously footnoted research in The Better Angels of Our Nature and The Case For Enlightenment Now, but factions of both the left and the right simply reject the data as “false”.
Ironically, as both sides readily reject peer-reviewed facts, they often enthusiastically embrace wild conspiracy theories.
We can no longer communicate because an open mind is seen as a weakness, and conceding point to the opposition is seen as a betrayal.
People only moderate their positions when they are motivated to educate themselves. And that is becoming more and more a rarity.
GeeMac
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
3
I keep saying, "You can't fix STUPID"!!!
OUR education system had at least 12 years to create this problem!!!
IMHO, it would take at least that long, no double that, six hours a day, five days a week just to put a dent in THEIR thinking!!!!!
Serg97
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
1
@Serg97 Theodore Dalrymple (Spoilt Rotten) writes about how progressives stated their assault on the UK education system way back in the early 20th century with the Spens Report in 1931.
The impact is now deeply embedded, as Dalrymple says: “...the possession of an opinion on a subject, which is active, is deemed more important than having any information on that subject, which is passive; and that the vehemence (feeling) with which an opinion is held is more important than the facts (knowledge) upon which it is based.”
Progressives have been brainwashing kids for almost a century.
@Admin Try earlier yet with the Prussian education system. It was designed to stratify society to allow for loyalty to an idea or country blindly and layered control and labor groups. This has been used both by Marxist and by Mercantile groups since then as both hate an educated population. This is why the false narrative on education is still pushed in the US and Europe. They teach enough to keep folks ignorant and arrogant. It is how the SNP is pushing an extreme left wing agenda in Scotland and getting away with it.
I have managed to get them to see the light individually... but eventually they all, without exception, fall back to the collective groupthink.
So as much as we try, I think we will all fail with these people.
Progressives cannot tolerate dissent.
Lightman
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
2
@dd54 How many decades do you want me to go back? 1, 2, 3 4 5?
Here is 1 example...I've defended Pauline Hanson and her party when it started up... did it for years still do it when they say something sensible. Convinced and converted quite a few people, most reverted back to stupidity and bigotry though.
Stop wasting my time.
Agreed that it’s hard to reach a progressive who’s friends require them to follow along or leave them.
Seriously though...
- Stop feeding them.
- Teach them the safe way to use and maintain a firearm
- Return Civics and Debating to the classroom
and this one is my personal favorite....
4. Teach them Logic, Reasoning, Philosophy and research skills. The most impactful university course, I ever took was a fourth year elective in civil engineering which taught us the logical fallacies and required us to write one "short" paper each weak that identified fallacies in current newspaper articles. I still do it today. I wrote 10 page papers on 500 word articles.
cRaZyTMG
Level 7
Sep 10, 2020
3
The last thing I want to do is teach a progressive to shoot accurately! . Yes logic would help but we’ve two months to stop the civil war. Need to shock people to use common sense first I’m thinking.
@Admin Admin I have to agree with CrazyTMG, shocking them will only drive them further into the mindset that any who don't agree are the enemy. That is not a good place to go. beleive it or not taking them on a exposure shooting and maintenance day at the range will show them people who like shooting and help get rid of a good bit of the us versus them mindset they have been fed. From there it is just slowly but surely showing were community based on the value of the individual is more supportive then community constructed by government and group think (technocracy to be honest).
@M_MarinoDC, @cRaZyTMG Good points... I was referring to something like seeing BLM/looters which shock some progressive suburbanites into seeing that BLM isn't as noble of a cause as they thought.
@Admin >we’ve two months to stop the civil war
Stop? 
The best thing to repeat to progressives is that they are in fact a small minority held in contempt by intelligent people. Once they understand this, groupthink cannot hold. Another thing is that they think that loyalty to some Democratic fool with grandiose pretentions is progressive. In fact Republican candidate Kim Klacik has more progressive arguments than her Democratic opponents.
Corjova
Level 6
Sep 10, 2020
2
Kim has a powerful ad. I’m afraid that the Democrats hide their plans from the public. “Joe’sa nice guy” a weak policy plan.
I think the difficulty lies in the fact that progressivism is comforting and reality is harsh and sometimes difficult and deadly. It is so much easier and safer feeling for them to believe that the government can and surely will make human beings and human life perfect and eventually bring us to that utopia that they've been promised by all their college professors and political leaders if only we can achieve real equality. Transcendent goals are what build and drive civilizations; goals that may not be achievable in the lifetime of the aspirant but are deemed worthy of the trying and thereby give meaning and purpose. Utopian progressivism may just be the one transcendent goal that is sure to destroy civilization.
Geofrank
Level 7
Sep 10, 2020
0
Being polite also softens the blow of reality but also shocks people when reality bites.
Which flavor of progressive are we talking about? Is it the confirmed, hard-core ideologue for whom the cause is a religious crusade? Or is it those who Lenin referred to as the “useful idiots?”
For the former variety, logic and reason have no place in their world view, a faith-based perspective no less fervent than a devout Christian’s facing arguments that the virgin birth and the resurrection couldn’t have happened. The beautiful thing about faith is that logical assaults make it stronger. Belief in things for which there is no evidence is a badge of honor.
The second group offers more potential, but only inasmuch as they think their support for progressive programs is a logical choice. They’re the ones who are genuinely moved by “equality” and “fairness” and who think BLM is really about saving black lives. They’ll show up to the protests and carry signs, and they’ll cast their vote for the candidate that makes them feel good about themselves, but if you try to get them to examine their assumptions, it gets stressful. In the event you are successful in that effort, any potential conversion will be no more substantive than their previous position. They’ll do whatever makes them feel good.
The ideologue is a true believer and will view any attempt to induce a modified world view as proof of your heresy. The dilettante is much more amenable, but their lack of substance makes any discussion kind of pointless.
Yeah, I’m a cynic. It’s a more fruitful use of my time examining my own assumptions.
Edgework
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
3
Yes, I made a mistake of saying progressives... I should have said moderates as progressives are too dogmatic 
@Admin
What’s to moderate with a self styled moderate? By definition their most telling characteristic is a big crease in their ass from sitting on the fence. They stand for nothing with any passion. Change and progress come from commitment and belief. “Maybe this, maybe that” is what made Jimmy Carter a one-term president. As Rush Limbaugh so aptly put it, “There are no books called ‘Great Moderates In History.’ “
Definition of a NYC conservative: a liberal who’s been mugged. That’s an argument that creates itself.
Once upon a time I spent A LOT of time trying to reason, logic and offer proofs to “Liberals”. ( “Progressive” is simply another name these people have taken and distorted ... just like ‘Liberal” )
After all, I spent most of my adult life in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens ... where EVERYBODY “with a Brain” identified as “Liberal”.
It was a Total Waste of Time ...
Regardless of ANY manner of debate, there was NO getting through to them.
I could get them to where they couldn’t present a rebuttal ... where they would be “forced” to agree for hours ... and the next day, it was like the entire conversation NEVER Happened.
It destroyed LOTS of potential relationships as I was considered to be “Unreasonable and Heartless” ...
NOT “Stupid” because I was simply too smart for that but ...
Their determination was typically that I wouldn’t “Play Well With Others”.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Sep 10, 2020
2
I spent thirty-plus years in Manhattan and Brooklyn myself. Mostly I remained undercover, occasionally trying to engage in a dialogue. One acquaintance was a real Communist, card and all. I asked, “Why do you have to keep killing people, and might that be a systemic flaw in your agenda?” Things degenerated after that.
It’s like you say—the logical part of their brain can be made to acknowledge the paradoxes of their beliefs, but to reach those beliefs they’ve already left logic and reason in the dust.
Most libs are the most selfish super narcissistic fools you will even come across. I have known many, used to be one and have lots in my family. They they get away with this total BS, that they care is a cosmic JOKE. They care out of some sad coughed up covid duty, not because they really care. It is only a sordid flaccid psudo-intellectual exercise in self delusion cranked out of the foul mud of illogical look at me, I'm a walking, talking, virtue signal.
johnlondon
Level 8
Sep 11, 2020
1
Ever try to get through to a person that has been in a cult - nuff said....
johnlondon
Level 8
Sep 11, 2020
1
I seriously doubt anyone, left or right, adopts, maintains, or switches their political position based on arguments. I’ve never witnessed it at any rate... unless they were very young and still forming their views. I’m betting it has more to do with their personal psychology, life experiences, religious beliefs, economic status, and identity commitments.
BlurtReynolds
Level 7
Sep 11, 2020
1
I hated Trump until people showed me 'The rest of the story' with many of the news stories about him.
Recent Visitors 134
Photos 127 More
Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?
Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?
Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?
Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?
Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?
Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?
Posted by Admin Now what?
Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?
Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?
Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?
Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?
Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?