submitted by Agent47
Ex: The Wall, Impeachment etc.
Ex: The Wall, Impeachment etc.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Edit: also, I don't feel the need to agree with everything Trump does. And, who knows, I could be wrong about something. That's the first step to good communication and trust. Though, I just say, "I'll have to think about that" rather than admit defeat as I may find out I was right or think of a response later on!
Edit2: never feel like you have to stay until the end if a conversation gets angry. Never let them lead you away from your good, first point. Don't just resound to whatever red meat / red herring they throw out. Don't rush to reply. Stop, get up, give yourself 5 minutes. Don't just shoot off in anger and repent at leisure. Etc.
Edit3: read old books, read theory, Ben Shapiro has many good articles about debating them well. But, just knowing both sides of an argument should be the starting point for any seeker of truth.
Impeachment would take a day to unpack so I avoid that. Wall, what the hell? Better that he is trying than them calling for open borders. Before Trump, I remember, nobody had the balls. And, its not like groups aren't looking up to stop new construction.
Basically, I'm not going to give away all my secrets but just approach them like I would any other human. If they present with aggression, I take a deep breath and remind them that we watch different news sources THOUGH I probably watch more from their side than they do of mine and so who's really the informed one? They slow down when I start mentioning the names and history of their trusted news anchors and secret honeycomb hideout podcasts, like, oh sh!t, respect, this guy knows more about my argument and more details of lib history than me. That's always fun. Helps that I used to be super activist liberal for years so know their arguments inside out and how shallow they are.
There's this quote that I'll leave you with, about science, that I think applies here.
Person one knows nothing about science and so doubts it.
Person two knows a little about science and so defends it shrilly.
Person three knows a lot about science and so doubts it.