politics

Edit: I blocked your dumbass as the methods you misunderstand are niche and don’t work large scale.

Pity. That's a point I'd have liked to explore, and liked to have helped you explore with some socratic queries and efforts to elaborate and evolve the idea for further exploration of the possibilities and exceptions, if not just finding unfounded misconceptions. Alas, you seemed thoroughly repulsed by the idea of entertaining an idea, and saw it as a threat, like were identity-attached to some idea that seemed challenged. Like the ol' poetic quip says, invitingly, reassuringly: "the ignorance that dies is not you."

My points about morphic resonance and the chicago experiment seem[ed to me to] already establish it does work large scale. So I would have loved to have learned what was behind that contradiction argument, if there were reason there to bump it up to a counterargument, so the search for the truth could continue.

The areas it does not work, seem more niche, in the acute.

If you listen to Daryl Davis' stories enough, you soon realise it's not a simple thing without risk of harm or loss of life. Of course. Confronting the most stubborn and extreme in their bigotry and ignorance, is non-trivial with regards to risk, as much as it is worthy, when done so, so productively. It's not easy, especially when ones own psyche, even, ironically, ones own prejudices, are sabotaging even the will to help a fellow human, or even see them as a fellow human, even casting them as sub-human. Yet through all the strife and dangerous situations he's been in (~ even with his methods to help assure his safety, knowing well the intricacies of what he approached), it's hard to argue with his results. How many have I inspired to leave hate groups? I know not. In person, that I know of for sure? Zero. That's worthy of positive reception, someone coming along with a story of how he's responsible for helping inspire over 200 individuals to come out of their ignorance and leave such groups, and worthy of embracing as inspirational. No? Like I say, I've seen negative reactions, but, yet to find the wording to successfully invite cogent reasoned argument against it. Someone shows you a way, (with evidence, with first hand witness testimonies), that accomplishes your goal, effectively infinitely better than your current way, ... how you react to that may show if you're seeking remedy (like if you're asking to know more about it), or have succumbed to some secondary benefit, some secondary metric incentive, perverting you from a path towards achieving that better world, like if you attack the messenger, to protect your subconscious supply.

Love me some thought provoking stuff. And Daryl Davis' story, as a positive proposition of remedy, in reply to the OP situation (with or without my original reply's characterisation), is for sure rousing some very positive thoughts. Inspires hope of an easier time mendwards than the futility of all our flailing in frustration only making it worse (and being in denial about that, chasing catharsis, instead of just caring and letting that convert.

Imagine some people with Daryl Davis' temprament, getting in between those groups that have had the cartoon worst of each depicted to each other? The calm space he'd manage to hold, that'd break through the hate and fear and desperation, allowing more learning and understanding, giving a chance for respect, of the individual, mutually, no longer simply reaffirming the cartoon icons of hate and plastering those summations across the whole group, readying them for collective punishment. There's no room to plant seed that'd have any chance, when still constantly battling the beasts in the field and trying to plough constantly. And remember, it's not just no chance of remedy, going at them angry for catharsis in ignorance of opposaming. It's escalation. Come at a groupthink with your own groupthink, you're just going to be perceived as a threat to their groupthink, and in being unrelenting, and violently aggressive, as your groupthink, especially when confronting their groupthink, assuredly is, and therefor their groupthink pushes back all the louder with the ideas they've attached their identity to, escalated worse with the groupthink effect where each are spurred on to be more extreme to prove your loyalty to the group... Can you see why that's not a wise approach, and requires... requires... something that's not making it worse! Sure, the instinct, the impulse, is to attack. How's that working out for you? When coming to offer something to someone in a groupthink when you're not in your own groupthink, they may still attack, but you wont engage in the ongoing escalation, because you're not in that desperate fear, and can remain calm, knowing your existence, your life, is not at threat because of the existence of different ideas to your own, because you're not your ideas. This makes it easier to be more effective in tackling the issues arising from some people having ideas so ignorant that they may take dangerous harmful actions. When you see this done, the contrast is night and day. I wish I were better at sharing the idea... but then, running aground here as I have, kinda just shows the terrain, the living boot-camp we're all in, with regards to this stuff. That counter-intuitive wisdom of the monk, reveals the way, yet we lag in the emotion of attachment. And yet, this is still the way.

And still the echoes continue reverberate, "the things we hate in others, are the things we hate in ourselves yet do not face", and so much easier then to confront the bigot out there, when have had compassion for the bigot within.

All else equal, I'll take the chance of mends, over the certainty of worsening.