CIA rendition flights from rustic North Carolina called to account by citizens

I've also talked people out of supporting outrageous statements or made them question their own beliefs (rural relatives in South Dakota who loved talking about their lack of income tax now openly question why SD gets so much more government tax money than neighbouring MN etc).

That said, the point isn't to be "win", it's to have a dialogue, share ideas, and break out of the "us vs them" mentality.

It is extremely hard and works only with people not entirely webbed into "alternative media". I managed to get only one attendant of a Nazi march to rethink his views. In three years. Conspiracy theories are hard to break out of, especially for those without a job and doing nothing but watch "freemen of the land", "europe will be islamized" or "the hooton plan is real" (hooton plan = nazi nutjob theory that "the elite" wants to extinguish the Germans by having them breed with "weaker races") videos all day.

The rest, well... beating them like Spencer isn't exactly the most moral way either, but forcing them back into their caves at least keeps them off the streets. I don't want Nazis openly marching with torches on the streets.

I’ve found the most movement comes with frank and respectful exchange of ideas. I’ve moved a little as a result, and I’ve seen others move a bit too. Sometimes that movement has come simply from recognizing the other party isn’t as insane as common rhetoric would paint them.

I frequently change my mind, which is proof that one or more people out there are changing at least one person's mind. And here's the thing: in nearly all cases, the person or, more often, the people who change my mind never know it. I am often stubborn in the moment and unwilling to admit I've been swayed. More often, I don't realize that I have been swayed until I revisit the conversation over the next months, while adding in new information from other conversations or things I'm reading with a developing perspective. Sometimes my mind changes so slowly that I don't even notice it did until someone quotes back to me the now (obviously! objectively!) wrong thing I used to think.

My point is this: you may be changing minds without knowing it. And another point: even if you aren't, you are likely benefitting personally from having meaningful conversations with people.

Proof: me.

I've changed my mind on certain topics - esp drugs and to a certain degree AGW based on discussions.

Protip: calling me a troll, paid shill, downvoting honest questions doesn't work on people like me.

I do however listen to reasonable arguments and take pride in being able to change my mind.

I know the question wasn't directed at me, and it's not with respect to the proposed Muslim ban, but I have changed the mind of some of the voters from this general background: specifically, would-be Roy Moore voters. I convinced a good handful of them not to vote for him[1]. And as far as I know, they stayed home.

The key is to be extremely patient, honest, and respectful. You can't use the typical Twitter technique of beating them over the head with opinions, or even the blunt HN technique of overwhelming them with facts. You have to first try to understand their viewpoint, and where they are coming from. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, just understand it. And the best way to do that is to start asking lots of respectful questions, and depending on the person, sharing your own background. Then, start interspersing harder questions about the subject in question, like Roy Moore in this case. Don't push too hard, but ask hard questions in a respectful way.

Of course, in these situations, you have to be open to having your opinion changed, as well.

It's not a very eloquent summary of what I've done in this situations, but it's the best I've got tonight.

1. Perhaps the hardest part about this is differentiating between propaganda sock puppet accounts, whom you will likely never convince, and actual people who happen to believe some pretty crazy things. Once you've identified real, genuine fellow citizens behind whatever pseudonymous social media account, you're half-way there.

And it kind of just slots so many pieces of wrong conclusions and xenophobia and dehumanization of the "other" together in one, painfully clear image...

I'm not sure of that moves the needle on being able to convince anyone.. But if not we might as well all build gas chambers and furnaces and burn vagrants as a source of electricity. Because if we give up fighting for the right for all of being viewed as human - what's left?

[ed: to more directly answer the question - I know I've made people pause - but most recently - a friend really made someone reconsider/reframe their idea of feminism/equality due to an hour or two of discussion and and real-world examples. So it is possible, but it takes patience, emphaty and knowledge.]

[1] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6333056/

I'm a better and more mature person at 40 than I was at 20 because people have taken the time to patiently point out flaws in my own thinking. Not every conversation moves the direction of your life, but they do collectively nudge you in the right direction.

1 - https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...

Engage them directly, wait until the next conversation on the topic in a group, and hang back. Sometimes you'll be surprised. People don't always change their minds immediately, but this is to be expected -- it is a means to protect the ego.

One thing to note is that the beliefs you’re convincing people of don’t have to be top-level shifts like ‘be a communist instead of a libertarian ‘... one can help others see individual issues or political figures in a new light.

With one caveat, though. If you approach it with the mindset that you're out to educate other voters, you're not going to succeed. What you can do is have actual conversations with them. Sometimes those have results.

When one person sets out to educate another, there's a presumption of power, position, and knowledge. Unless the person to be educated has set out specifically to be educated, this is almost certainly going to rub them the wrong way. Instead of being educated on the subject you'd like, you'll educate them that advocates on a given subject are arrogant lecturing asses.

This is especially true at the end of a war.

I took it more as him pointing out that while Trump, right or wrong, is crucified in the press on a daily basis Obama was able to successfully spin a benevolent image to the point that he was absolutely held to a different standard. All presidents have blood on their hands, but there is a certain irony in Obama being the first Nobel peace price winner to bomb another peace prize winner.

But those who actually got bombs dropped on them... could be literally anyone

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-stri...

https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki...

Not a good track record no matter how you try to spin it.

True, agreed. They could still stand up for what's right. Criticizing your party doesn't mean automatically endorsing the other party.

But I was also talking about the mainstream media and the coverage it got there as well.

> The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" did not denounce Obama

Or look at the recent "shithole" controversy. Trump said "shithole" (which was terrible, of course) and they talked about it for weeks. Forgot which reporter was even crying on screen about it. That's fine, it's good to be critical and scrutinize those in power. But Obama was dropping bombs on pretty much the same countries and everything was relatively quiet, not many tears from reporters there. Democracy Now was covering and other articles here and there. It's because Obama was polite, composed and projected a professional image.

What does that have to do with Obama? Trump wasn't in the picture when Obama did any of this. This whole "what about you?" kind of rhetoric is utterly useless and pointless. All it does is reinforce football team politics.

Look at each case without trying to diminish one case by saying someone else did something worse. Obama messed up or deliberately did awful things and his actions have got nothing to do with anything anyone said or did about Trump later.

For example, suppose you're heading an FBI group, and you've got a suicidal terrorist in custody who is part of a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. You have excellent evidence this guy is involved, and that the terrorists probably have a nuclear bomb in the country, and, if they realize their coconspirator has been captured, they are likely to detonate immediately.

The terrorist demands to see his lawyer. Your specialists say you should deny that request, because his lawyer may signal, intentionally or otherwise, the other terrorists. Should you allow the terrorist to meet with his lawyer?

Our society's laws say he should be able to see his lawyer. We value that kind of thing. And yet, if you would risk millions of lives to protect this right... Well, that seems perverse to me.

Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.

No one has been convicted for fire bombing dresden, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or the fire bombing campaigns in Japan. No one has been convicted over nan king. No one (afaik) have been convicted of us support for the coup in Chile.

There's atrocities to go around, only the weak at the international levek gets prosecuted.

And while it didn't "go well" in neurnberg - it certainly helped nazi Germany meet many milestones.

It's also face-saving to some extent - it lets the leadership say "We do not torture" accurately and with a straight face, and I believe it's _slightly_ less risky legally (knowing torture is likely rather than actively ordering).

That said, I've no doubt some government agency could use torture with impunity on US soil though (especially when you consider local police forces have come somewhat close to doing exactly that. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homa... ).