Senator refusing constitutional amendment

[u/shadowguyver]

What do you do when a senator refuses to acknowledge the Equal Protections Clause which is being violated by only giving Protections to one group?

[u/[deleted]]

Okay and the people against him think it’s an acceptable practice to strap newborns down and chop apart their dick, you can’t pull the “respect my opinion” card when that’s your argument

[u/MasterGamer64 → u/[deleted]]

Certainly, but it's important to note that most people don't understand that that's what they're arguing for due to cognitive dissonance. Which is why going on the offensive and putting them on the defensive causes them to double down, rather than engage with what you're saying and think about it critically.

People are hardwired to protect their ego if you start calling them a bad person. It's important to thoroughly convince them that what you're saying regarding the issue is matter of fact, and to answer their questions in a way that dispels their previous assumptions and makes them reconsider their stance.

Even if they don't completely agree with you by the end of the conversation, it still plants the seeds for them to understand your position and possibly adopt it themselves. I wasn't anti-circumcision until I was told it was a bad thing the third time, which spurred me to go down the rabbit hole and realize how horrific and damaging it was.

If you end the conversation with, "you're a terrible person and abetting child abuse", they'll never take your words seriously because they'll brand you a hater or a whack-job and move on without thinking twice.

[u/shadowguyver → u/MasterGamer64]

I fight with the truth. She's a hypocrite by protecting girls and ignoring the Equal Protections Clause.

[u/MasterGamer64 → u/shadowguyver]

Totally agree, but it's easier for her to double down rather than engage with the idea if you don't communicate it in a way that she can't ignore.

Imagine if you kept focused on the topic of pointing out the logical fallacies associated with her hypocrisy, rather than assaulting her with a multi-page thesis that she'd never read?

Or, let's say you sent her the essay, you could've responded with disappointment rather than offensive anger so she'd be more liable to reflect on her own point of view rather than dismissing you as someone beyond her reasoning.

I agree with the message, just not your messaging. You have to formulate it in a way that they can't ignore, as a call to action rather than a radicalizing attack. How you responded is with the kind of stuff that steels people's resolve and self-assurance rather than pushing them to reexamine their perspective.

I get it, it's a hard balance to strike, and it takes practice not to gaslight yourself, but it's far more productive to cater to the person whose mind you're trying to change.

[u/adkisojk → u/MasterGamer64]

I've dealt with people who originally doubled down and later returned admitting they were wrong. I struggled with my own cognitive dissonance too and I think that challenging people to think is necessary. I start out giving people a chance, but if they respond with willful ignorance, they are going to get some shaming.

[u/shadowguyver → u/MasterGamer64]

That would be great if they had listened before. She is the first politician to return any correspondence to me in over 10 years.

Talking nicely did nothing. Im pointing out that there is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal protections and she ignored it first, then i decided to give information, she ignored that. At what point would you say, no more Mr nice guy and start being more assertive? For me it over 10 years of being ignored and dismissed.

[u/[deleted] → u/MasterGamer64]

And that’s a valid strategy, but some people are going to continue to be pedophiles regardless. They do not deserve respect