My understanding is that the real best way to convince people of stuff is a little flattery, a little bullying, show some cleavage, show some supporting evidence but only a little because it's seasoning not the meal, and always appeal to emotions, prejudices, and preconceived beliefs.
In my experience, people have to meet you halfway if you want any chance of changing their mind. Diehard believes, i.e. 90% of people actively debating this shit on niche internet forums, are generally set in their ways. People who have actually do a bit of research and are starting to show some cracks in their beliefs can be brought over but they have to take that initial step themselves, trying to force people to make that step just makes them more entrenched.
Word. I keep forgetting the precept that you're not arguing with the person you're arguing with, you're doing socratic dialogue at them for the benefit of your audience who maybe isn't an ideological poltics freak.
I would also point out, most of these debates happen is spaces where there probably aren't many neutral lurkers anyway, if lurkers at all. Everyone observing probably already has a side they strongly agree with and will always interpret whatever side they already supported as having won, or, if their side gets really owned, just say it was cuz of underhanded tactics.
My understanding is that the real best way to convince people of stuff is a little flattery, a little bullying, show some cleavage, show some supporting evidence but only a little because it's seasoning not the meal, and always appeal to emotions, prejudices, and preconceived beliefs.
In my experience, people have to meet you halfway if you want any chance of changing their mind. Diehard believes, i.e. 90% of people actively debating this shit on niche internet forums, are generally set in their ways. People who have actually do a bit of research and are starting to show some cracks in their beliefs can be brought over but they have to take that initial step themselves, trying to force people to make that step just makes them more entrenched.
Word. I keep forgetting the precept that you're not arguing with the person you're arguing with, you're doing socratic dialogue at them for the benefit of your audience who maybe isn't an ideological poltics freak.
I would also point out, most of these debates happen is spaces where there probably aren't many neutral lurkers anyway, if lurkers at all. Everyone observing probably already has a side they strongly agree with and will always interpret whatever side they already supported as having won, or, if their side gets really owned, just say it was cuz of underhanded tactics.
“What Is To Be Done?” by Sydney Ilyich Sweeney