Although it could act as a good filter, if they lash out it's a valuable red flag
You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion, if that's the level at which they communicate.
Most people just want to feel some control over their lives, so telling them they're wrong and trying to reframe their reality might not ultimately be a positive, as long as their beliefs allow them to remain predictable and act within reason in their society.
What's their motivation? If it is to knowingly start and propagate lies, then you're obviously not going to get them to change. If it's to parrot falsities to feel control or look smart (what I believe PG is referring to as "conventional-minded"), figure out ways to subtly shift that without making it clear you're undermining them, if that's your motivation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing unless you're a cult leader or protecting a loved one from a con.
But then, hey, why is your reality the correct version of reality?
If I feel as though the online recipient of my messaging isn't receptive, there's really no need to contend in the first place. I don't have to change everyone's mind, nor is it really my place to do so ...
I think it's not about social acceptance. It is unacceptable because if you call them bullshit without giving good reasons why you think so it is not advancing the discussion in any good way. You are not contributing anything except your personal opinion.
If you do have good reasons to explain why you think they are wrong you don't need to call them names because you can just provide the correct reasoning instead.
I think something to reiterate is that it never goes well when you tell the other person that you disagree with them. A person is not just one idea, they're made from thousands... You're merely disagreeing with one idea, and that should be made clear when you're speaking with them. Regarding the parent comment's terminology of "calling bs", that's a bit of a harsh way to put it, or approach it, if you're trying to reconcile a difference of opinion over a single idea, and not fundamentally pointing at another person and saying, "You are your one bad idea and I don't like either."
Exactly, it is about the question "why?". Why are your reasons for believing something more plausible. But that is not the mindset of an emotionally charged person.
Was the election rigged? A Trump supporter would say "Of course it was". But a judge in Pennsylvania had a good response to Giuliani (who was trying to argue it was): "... Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here".
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsy...
Unfortunately, that is so. But usually, that person's motivation is to feel understood, valued, respected, and safe within the reality / status quo they've come to understand is their best guess. When you realize their specific fears, it makes it easier to empathize and work with them on seeing from other perspectives, and that those perspectives don't threaten them, even though they are not innately familiar or intuitive initially... But that can be quite challenging.
I'm not sure what Giuliani's motivations are, but if they aren't emotional on a personal level, they aren't his own fears, which doesn't work the same way...
No way Biden outperformed Obama with Black voters in key swing states and underperformed him everywhere else!
The results in some of these ridings has the hallmarks of election fraud. This is why its still not getting certified by so many states. And I predict will go to legislature to pick electors in those states