I think the GP's only indefensible claim is "none of this is true," the observations the researchers made could all be statistically valid and people may be "seeking social change" by moral grandstanding.
After all, you have a mess of political tribes vying for influence, and the dominant tribe is the one that broadly gets to set the rules.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psycholo...
Epstein didn't kill himself. Sorry, I don't have any proof. But they did a study, and lied.
Then why are social media companies so hell bent on suppressing the ones they don’t like? They’re reaching _somebody_.
Your base agrees with you, and is invested in that position. They're not going to change their mind, but they may abandon you if you don't demonstrate that you're committed. Your aim is to motivate them to support you, through money or activity.
The other side's base is the opposite, of course. And your aim there is to get them to stay home, or to abandon their side. This is why hypocrisy is such a common charge and there's so much focus on various scandals.
Persuasive arguments are aimed at people who haven't formed an opinion. That's why plainly ideological outlets will present themselves as objective and authoritative; people who feel they are neutral can sign on with them without feeling like they're actually taking a side.
So the reason you don't hear people changing their mind is the people who are likely to are those who haven't formed an opinion, and thus aren't sounding off in the first place.
Moreover, the evidence you present is rarely as compelling as you think. Ask a lawyer how often they've had to talk down clients who were convinced they had an ironclad argument. The big ideologies have axiomatic differences they are not necessarily fully aware of, and those tend to be why neither is convinced by the other.
But it is possible to raise a point they have a genuine problem with. If you have done so, the thing to look for is not an immediate response. It's that the other side's talking points shift in response; especially if they shift to "let's change the subject."
For example, charity is a good thing (feeding the poor, etc.), but would anyone say that making a show of your generosity is a phenomenon that never happens? It's an impure motive, but it's also very common. So common it's a standard PR strategy for companies.
You can say that good can still come of it regardless of motives, and I'd agree, but when trying to understand a social phenomenon, I think it's fair to look at what motivates people to participate.
In my view I see it as a primary motivator, and I think people are unaware of this.
Take a look around you next time someone starts ranting on “Save the oceans” or Climate change — and as much as you know those individuals think about what is intrinsically motivating them.
Correct, they seek social status by bashing unseen unknown people in front of people with higher social status. The more powerful those they seek to impress, the more people will seek to impress them.