42 1

What arguments may help progressives moderate or change their views?

While it is difficult to dislodge a faulty opinion once held, it is not impossible - especially if presented with an incongruent fact that produces cognitive dissonance. One example is that progressives think that Conservatives don't care about the poor while the fact is they donate more to charity than liberals. Can you think of other examples? Bonus points for including a follow up to their inevitable response to the dissonance. While this question is focusing on ways to reach progressives, feel free to point out blind spots that Conservative have as well.

Have you been able to moderate a progressive?

View Results
Admin 8 Sep 10
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


If you want to change someone's ideas, I'd advise the following:

  1. Act in good faith
  2. Assume good faith on their part
  3. Learn more about their ideas
  4. Make an argument based on #3

Change? Is that for the better or worse?

@Josf-Kelley Either/or!

@WilyRickWiles Ricky this is you're typical response to an issue you have no idea how to resolve but hey let's throw the party l7ne anyway. You're disturbed Ricky, seriously!

@dd54 I'm just not making a value judgment. The process is the same regardless of whether you're trying to persuade for good or for bad.

You first. Set the example Ricky.

@dd54 I never claimed to follow that advice with everyone 😉. The fact is, not everyone is acting in good faith, and there's not enough time to persuade everyone online. I try to judge who's not acting in good faith and then focus on persuading the ones who are. But still, if you really want to persuade someone, you have to follow it.

@WilyRickWiles Are you acting in good faith or are you acting on your political bent?

@dd54 You can be biased and in good faith at the same time.

@WilyRickWiles biased good faith sounds like a an oxymoron but I'll give it some thought.

@dd54 None of us are completely objective--as much as we might like to think we are. Why persuade at all if you don't have preferred--or biased--ideas? Good faith to me just means 1. You're honest about why you believe in your ideas (e.g. you're not publicly making a moral appeal but privately aware that you're spreading propaganda to pad your company's bottom line), and 2. You're not claiming good faith in offering an argument but refusing to listen, study, and concede when you know you've been proven wrong.


You can't - it's like teaching a pig to dance. You just waste your time and annoy the pig.


On both sides, my key is to try and speak their language not my language.
To try to understand their perspective and thus rebut it instead of merely trying to proselytize my perspective and try to shove it down their throat.

I have an easier task than most however: I want both sides to come closer to the middle, not to the other side. It is much easier to walk a progressive away from far-left identity politics and a conservative from alt-right conspiracy than to try to get a progressive to believe conspiracy or a conservative to accept identity politics.

A gross example of this would be:
If you are a progressive talking to a conservative, don't focus on changing their mind using calls to identity, academia, etc. Rather, use religion, economics, and liberalism to moderate an extreme view into a moderate one.
If you are a conservative talking to a liberal, vice versa; don't focus on changing their mind using appeals to religion or economic but issues of identity and academia.

But this is understandably difficult for most because it asks that you think like the person you want to moderate. And in doing so, you risk, as Ender said in my favorite book Enders Game, quote:

""In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."

And this is unconscionably to most, to love thine enemy is anathema to people on the far left and right... they are the enemy after all! They don't deserve love! But the truth is that they do deserve love, we all do. Just because you hold a different view should not dehumanize a person. Rather, they are an aspect of humanity that you don't embrace and in doing so, they have a perspective and viewpoint that while disagreeable to you, is not disagreeable to them and merits understanding.

Another quote I'm fond of using, apocryphally by aristotle, is:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

As such, we should all strive to entertain a thought from the other side even if we don't accept it. We are more educated that way at best... and you gain valuable ammo at worst! 😉

"I have an easier task than most however: I want both sides to come closer to the middle, not to the other side. It is much easier to walk a progressive away from far-left identity politics and a conservative from alt-right conspiracy than to try to get a progressive to believe conspiracy or a conservative to accept identity politics. "
Rubbish... 1. alt-right is not about Conservatism. 2. Radicals and extremists re not Conservatives. 3. Progressives cannot tolerate dissent. 4. There re extremists on both sides of the L/R divide... not to be confused with Progressivism or Conservatism which can be found on both sides of that divide.


  1. correct; never said they were
  2. correct; never said they were.
  3. correct; however, that also applies to Conservatives.
  4. correct; however, leftist conservatives and rightist progressives are all but unicorns.

@TheMiddleWay One day you might just get there... with no caveats
Perhaps you just need to live a little longer and gain more experience.

I have no idea where you want me to be but I'm perfectly happy where I am, thank you.

@TheMiddleWay everyone is entitled to settle for mediocrity. 🙂


@Lightman what was that you said about insults? Refresh our memiry.

@dd54 didn't mention it... care to quote me?

@Lightman read your own posts, sonny.

@dd54 still wasting my time I see


I've been moderating (discussing possible truths with those who want to know better from worse) with progressives since at least 1980 or so...

That is 40 years of experience.

"One example is that progressives think that Conservatives don't care about the poor while the fact is they donate more to charity than liberals. Can you think of other examples?"

Progressives include individuals who belong in the following categories:

  1. False propagandists (who intend to deceive so as to harm: frauds)
    a. Paid false propagandists
    b. Pro-bono false propagandists

  2. Brainwashed (Indoctrinated purposefully in Public Schools by Group 1a)
    a. They are taught to spread false propaganda and they are taught not to question false propaganda and they are strictly obedient (see: Gulag Archipelago by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn)
    b. They still question their brainwashing, they are not strictly obedient

  3. Curious people having connected to false propaganda and are as yet not connected to alternative narratives that are not intentionally false
    a. They are eager to spread false propaganda because that is all they know so far
    b. They already question the false propaganda naturally, internally, as too much of it is self-evidently self-contradictory.

All of the above applies equally to "Conservatives," so an example worthy pointing out to those whose minds are not turned off internally by brainwashing is the process known by many words such as The Hegelian Dialectic, or Divide and Conquer. When people see that there are many other people other than the 2 sides of the 2 Party Politics Con Game, they are then sometimes willing to investigate why people are not party to the 2 Party Political Con Game.

Politics is not simply 2 sided.


The word Politics can be defined many ways by many people doing the things that are political. Organized crime hidden behind a patriotic flag has ONE side, the worst criminals run that side because they are the worst criminals. If there are divisions in a Cartel (groups of organized criminals forming an alliance to share the booty stolen from the victim SIDE) the Cartel is still run by the dominant criminal dominating the dominant criminal gang for as long as that dominant criminal dominates: destroys the competition, by incorporation, threat, fraud, or murder.

Political competitors competing to offer the best political services under the actual law can number as many as there are people competing to supply the demand for the highest quality and lowest cost political services.

That is under the law, as many competitors as there are people inspired to compete. The number of political sides are unlimited by criminal powers that work to either entice, extort, to incorporate competitors, or suicide them, or enslave them, and make them work to pay for the cost of enslaving them.

Under organized crime hidden behind a false patriot front, there is only ONE party, that is the party taking the loot and spending the loot taken on making sure that the victims remain obedient.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868


Seriously though...

  1. Stop feeding them.
  2. Teach them the safe way to use and maintain a firearm
  3. Return Civics and Debating to the classroom

and this one is my personal favorite....
4. Teach them Logic, Reasoning, Philosophy and research skills. The most impactful university course, I ever took was a fourth year elective in civil engineering which taught us the logical fallacies and required us to write one "short" paper each weak that identified fallacies in current newspaper articles. I still do it today. I wrote 10 page papers on 500 word articles.

The last thing I want to do is teach a progressive to shoot accurately! 😉. Yes logic would help but we’ve two months to stop the civil war. Need to shock people to use common sense first I’m thinking.


  1. Read The Art of War
  2. Shock does not result in common sense.

@Admin Admin I have to agree with CrazyTMG, shocking them will only drive them further into the mindset that any who don't agree are the enemy. That is not a good place to go. beleive it or not taking them on a exposure shooting and maintenance day at the range will show them people who like shooting and help get rid of a good bit of the us versus them mindset they have been fed. From there it is just slowly but surely showing were community based on the value of the individual is more supportive then community constructed by government and group think (technocracy to be honest).

@M_MarinoDC, @cRaZyTMG Good points... I was referring to something like seeing BLM/looters which shock some progressive suburbanites into seeing that BLM isn't as noble of a cause as they thought.

@Admin you maybe confusing shock with fear. Fear is a short term motivator and people acting on it are irrational and unpredictable. I'd rather take on a committed communist than a fearful patriot.

@Admin >we’ve two months to stop the civil war

Stop? 🤔

The lack of common sense and critical thinking skills have been devestating to our society since the mid-70s because instead our youth were fed high doses of critical theory social injustice, racism & feminism by rote along with sides of entitlement, hedonism & what I refer to as a case of the fuck its...


Never mind "moderate them", how do you get them to shut up?

Ok any luck then with nice moderates?


Great question. Wish I had the answer.

With the post-modernists who drive most of the woke-progressive unrest, discussion is impossible because they pride themselves in rejecting the concepts of truth, reason and rationality. If you accept their view that my “feelings” construct my world, then facts and reasoning have no value. Therefore, if somebody “feels” like a woman, he is a woman, in spite of the fact that he has a penis.

The other obstacle is that post-modernists have effectively convinced the public — both left and right — to be skeptical to the extreme. So if I present verifiable figures showing Barack Obama deported almost twice as many southern border crossers in his first two years than Donald Trump deported, they simply reject the figures outright.

Similarly, Steven Pinker gives meticulously footnoted research in The Better Angels of Our Nature and The Case For Enlightenment Now, but factions of both the left and the right simply reject the data as “false”.

Ironically, as both sides readily reject peer-reviewed facts, they often enthusiastically embrace wild conspiracy theories.

We can no longer communicate because an open mind is seen as a weakness, and conceding point to the opposition is seen as a betrayal.

People only moderate their positions when they are motivated to educate themselves. And that is becoming more and more a rarity.

GeeMac Level 8 Sep 10, 2020

Okay ecpkaiin to nme how they changed everything but no one can change what they did? That's BS

@dd54 who changed what?

Yes it’s scary that there are many naive comebacks that they do when confronted with uncomfortable truths.

@GeeMac American history, the truth about civil rights abd the marxist attack on our country supported by dems.

FWIW, people farther to the left acknowledge Obama's sins. And some are not at all fans of Biden, but when we say anything, we get pushback from fellow liberals.

@GeeMac the paradigm. I agree with you but detest that they lack...I think you get my drift. You can put lipstick on the pig but it's still a pig.


As a few others have said, when speaking with Progressives or Conservatives, the best approach is to act in good faith and try to actually understand their position. Crying out "socialism" or "racism" isn't helpful for speaking with either side. Too often people like to use always-expanding strawmen or demonization to try and tell you what the other side believes and wants to do, while not actually listening to people from the other side, or just calling them liars. It's no wonder there is such a divide right now.

Both sides? you mentioned "Socialism" and "Racism" do you really think only one side has racists and its the Conservative side?
Postmodernism creates what "normal" people would call liars, deniers of reality etc, etc, etc...

@Lightman you must have misunderstood my point. Progressives constantly cry out "racism" over any small thing, and Conversations constantly cry out "socialism / marxism" over any small thing. It's the go-to accusation / criticism for each side, and only helps to further the divide.

Agreed. We hold positions based on our opinions, don't act like the other person is evil or stupid. My opinion might be wrong but it's based on the best information I have now, usually assume the other person is in the same position.

Agree that being non threatening and clearly show an openness to change your own mind.

@JacksonNought Nope Progressives cry racism to stop debate and censor free speech... Conservatives can actually be socialists so that is a moot point you've made. Only LW Progressives get correctly nailed for being socialists and that is by anyone, even themselves. I did post what Conservatism is.
As for me misinterpreting your bias... "over any small thing" proves it exists.
Don't confuse true Conservatives, who are BTW conservative by nature for those radicals or bigots that inhabit the extremes... Conservatives are not extremists... extremists are.

@Lightman you clearly have an agenda and are stuck in tribal thinking. You are taking my criticisms of both progressives and conservatives, and only finding issue with conservative criticism. This is exactly the point I was making, and you are part of the problem.

@JacksonNought Clearly you are yet again wrong. I'm a swinging voter I vote policy not people or tribe.
You need to look further back at what you actually write... the bias is clear and its not mine I'm just pointing yours out.


I voted for Never Tried because I'm the progressive who needs moderating. But there's one point I want to talk about:

One example is that progressives think that Conservatives don't care about the poor while the fact is they donate more to charity than liberals.

Here's the thing—my problem with charity (although if you give, good for you!) is that it shouldn't be necessary. Like, why do people who work 40-hour workweeks have to use foodstamps, some of them are homeless, etc.

I have one fiscally conservative (socially liberal) friend I used to discuss politics with all the time. She said it was nice that we could talk about it so civilly. But I found her ideas frustrating, to say the least, and eventually stopped talking politics around her. One thing that irked me to no end was her idea that an employer doesn't owe you a living wage. She said if you want a living wage, "get a better job." Of course, that was long before a pandemic took hold (and I don't personally believe it's a hoax) and it turned out the lowest paid workers are also the most essential ones, give or take a couple of professions. Like back in the day we'd go to a restaurant—in the case I'm going to cite, Einstein Bagels—and I'd talk about how hard all the women behind the counter were working. I mean they were working every second, doing multiple orders, probably on their feet ALL day. She said that that was a job meant for a high-schooler who wants some spending cash.

BUT, what about when you go during hours when school is in session? Who's going to make your Garden Avocado Egg Sandwich at 9am while the kids are in school? And kids can't work all night every night, they have homework to do and tests to study for! But hey, if workers want a living wage, they should get a better job, and you make your own damn breakfast. Right?

So when I asked her how are people supposed to live, her answer was "charity". But charity is undependable. As blogger Jim Wright (a retired naval officer and centrist) put it:

... those who don’t remember that history, who again work for less than a living wage, without benefit, without safety nets, without recourse, have been convinced by the wealthy, by business, by politicians, that they don’t need them ... Things like a 40 hour work week, Social Security, Medicare, Workman’s Compensation Insurance ... were created because when you leave it up to the church and charity to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and heal the sick, a hell of a lot of people go hungry and cold and ill. ... you leave it up to charity and family to take care of old people, a hell of a lot of old people end up stacked like cordwood in institutions. ... when you leave it up to industrialists and share holders to treat their workers with dignity and respect and to pay them a living wage for their hard work, you get indentured servitude. Every. Time. Every single time.

So to answer your question (sort of), giving to charity is nice, but basically this friend I told you about said if people are down on their luck it's "too bad." And I'm sure she gives to charity, but I'm not totally convinced that she cares about the poor. So take from my rambling what you will.

Although I agree with you that the current federal minimum wage is too low, I don't think I can support any substantial increase in a short period of time. If we raised the minimum wage to say, $15/hr, many businesses would have to lay employees off or absorb the cost themselves. And I don't think it's as easy as capping the highest salaries and redistributing the leftovers. True, minimum wage jobs aren't anyone's cup of tea, but not everyone working a min wage job is working hard, just like not everyone making $100,000/year is working hard. I believe in upward mobility through human agency and merit. When you take away the incentive to reach higher (i.e. by raising the minimum to the point where flipping burgers makes a comfortable living or by capping high salaries to the point that working harder is futile), so goes the motivation as well. Not to mention most minimum wage jobs do not require hard skills that are valuable in the job market. But as I said, I do agree it is way too low right now and I don't have an answer on what the right number should be.

A "living wage" is a fools game. Before you get angry let me show you why. Henry Ford believed that a labourer should be able to buy the product they make and therefore started paying his workers $5/day in the early 1890's. This was a scandal to the wealthy progressives who were milking the US for every penny they could (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Brechenridge, Dow, Corning, Mott, etc).

Now let's look at some items from then:

  1. a loaf of bread cost 0.5cents, a dozen eggs between 1-5 cents depending on size and type (chicken, duck ,or quail). 40 arces of land would cost a person six to nine months of full time work. Wages had not yet been reclassified (via administrative and not legal change) to be counted as income. There were investment groups and associations that aid in college, trade schools, and retirement homes. One income was enough to mostly support a family as long as you had either a vegetable garden or a second minor income stream. Very rarely was there true single income homes at that time except among the higher skilled workers and white collar labor.

The depreciation of currency and labor during that era (1870's to 1920) was less then 2% per year with an over all deprecation of less than 20% during that time line.

Now you start looking at the same numbers from FDR forward and you the value of labor dropping radically as the cost of living in the US always stays above minimum wage. The amount of labor that has it's value dropped to minimum wage increased greatly over that time period. The buying power of the labor has also dropped heavily. Now remove minimum wage and get folks to stop being on the Mercantilistic addiction that they currently are on and you will see a huge change in labor value. Stop supporting a university system with public funds as they raise their prices to over 500% above inflation and put students in debt while mentally conditioning them that a degree is required for a "good" life. Most of them don't even have a truly independently formed idea of what a good life is or how they want to get there.

These are but some of the issues with minimum or "living" wage. it is a never ending case of a dog chasing it's tail and wondering why it hurts when it get to bite the cord. The better answer is to value your own labor and the labor of others (stop buying buying products that devalue others). In doing so Apple will go out of business as will a lot of other less than honest companies (Tesla comes to mind)

Value others labor and don't go to business that doesn't produce truly quality products (McD's and more than a few others fit that bill). Don't charge prices that are GRQ (Get Rich Quick) as that add's to devalued labor. Don't support industries that devalue society and people. If you go that route then there will be a decrease in low end labor jobs but you might find an equal increase in medium skilled labor as more folks start looking for better skills and better quality. Michigan has over seven thousand skilled labor jobs open right now that start just above minimum wage as a new person learning the skills but quickly get you to above $20/hr due to the demand for skilled labor. Invest in yourself as the one currency you can not earn back is time and is the most valuable. Treat it as such and you might see how the argument changes. No insults or offenses meant, hope this helped.

@lenouveaureve according to senior economist Dean Baker,, if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $24 an hour. $48,000 a year isn't rolling in dough, LOL, you'll never see a burger-flipper driving a Ferrari.

Baker also doesn't think certain CEOs should be getting paid as much as they are. (I know this level of pay for CEOs in general is rare, but if we're talking about an Amazon, Walmart, or McDonald's, this point is pertinent.)

@M_MarinoDC your responses make a lot more sense than anything my above-mentioned friend says, that's for sure. I totally agree with you regarding Apple and McDonald's (though I do eat there every now and again because I like salt, fat, and sugar, and I'm still attached to my 2011 Macbook—but when I needed a new computer, I bought a Chromebook).

Blurb about the iPhone:

@M_MarinoDC Your eloquence is much appreciated 😅. I think I'll put "invest in yourself" on a wall here.


Which flavor of progressive are we talking about? Is it the confirmed, hard-core ideologue for whom the cause is a religious crusade? Or is it those who Lenin referred to as the “useful idiots?”

For the former variety, logic and reason have no place in their world view, a faith-based perspective no less fervent than a devout Christian’s facing arguments that the virgin birth and the resurrection couldn’t have happened. The beautiful thing about faith is that logical assaults make it stronger. Belief in things for which there is no evidence is a badge of honor.

The second group offers more potential, but only inasmuch as they think their support for progressive programs is a logical choice. They’re the ones who are genuinely moved by “equality” and “fairness” and who think BLM is really about saving black lives. They’ll show up to the protests and carry signs, and they’ll cast their vote for the candidate that makes them feel good about themselves, but if you try to get them to examine their assumptions, it gets stressful. In the event you are successful in that effort, any potential conversion will be no more substantive than their previous position. They’ll do whatever makes them feel good.

The ideologue is a true believer and will view any attempt to induce a modified world view as proof of your heresy. The dilettante is much more amenable, but their lack of substance makes any discussion kind of pointless.

Yeah, I’m a cynic. It’s a more fruitful use of my time examining my own assumptions.

Yes, I made a mistake of saying progressives... I should have said moderates as progressives are too dogmatic 😟

What’s to moderate with a self styled moderate? By definition their most telling characteristic is a big crease in their ass from sitting on the fence. They stand for nothing with any passion. Change and progress come from commitment and belief. “Maybe this, maybe that” is what made Jimmy Carter a one-term president. As Rush Limbaugh so aptly put it, “There are no books called ‘Great Moderates In History.’ “

Definition of a NYC conservative: a liberal who’s been mugged. That’s an argument that creates itself.

@Edgework Yes... but moderates vote too. 🙂


Because most progressive beliefs are based, not on logic and reasoning, but on emotional attachments, it is next to impossible to convince them of anything other than the irrational concepts they hold. Besides, most people seem to have a revulsion to being found to be wrong, no matter what the cost of continuing to maintain their mistaken beliefs.


I've tried... it can't be done. Also doesn't help if they're not even willing to have a conversation with you. If you're not willing to be wrong (Where ever you may lean politically) then nothing will be fixed.

KanjaG Level 5 Sep 11, 2020

I think it goes without saying that if you can't have a conversation, you can't change someone's mind.

I've learned to choose my battles. It's not about winning the war in one conversation. You'll never have a checkmate moment in which the person you're debating concedes and agrees the moment you soundly refute their argument. So it's a process. Take your time ... or don't even waste your time. The people who are convinceable are in the middle, not the extremes.

And WTF are you doing in #SouthAfrica!? Do you have a #Patreon I can contribute to so you can arm yourself before SA goes the way of Zimbabwe? I worry about you SA Whites. 😟

@ZuzecaSape No No I'm one of the lucky ones, will perhaps be moving next year. Thanks though!

@KanjaG If I had my way, we'd be liberating #SouthAfrica.


Most libs are the most selfish super narcissistic fools you will even come across. I have known many, used to be one and have lots in my family. They they get away with this total BS, that they care is a cosmic JOKE. They care out of some sad coughed up covid duty, not because they really care. It is only a sordid flaccid psudo-intellectual exercise in self delusion cranked out of the foul mud of illogical look at me, I'm a walking, talking, virtue signal.


Once upon a time I spent A LOT of time trying to reason, logic and offer proofs to “Liberals”. ( “Progressive” is simply another name these people have taken and distorted ... just like ‘Liberal” )
After all, I spent most of my adult life in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens ... where EVERYBODY “with a Brain” identified as “Liberal”.
It was a Total Waste of Time ...
Regardless of ANY manner of debate, there was NO getting through to them.
I could get them to where they couldn’t present a rebuttal ... where they would be “forced” to agree for hours ... and the next day, it was like the entire conversation NEVER Happened.
It destroyed LOTS of potential relationships as I was considered to be “Unreasonable and Heartless” ...
NOT “Stupid” because I was simply too smart for that but ...
Their determination was typically that I wouldn’t “Play Well With Others”.

I spent thirty-plus years in Manhattan and Brooklyn myself. Mostly I remained undercover, occasionally trying to engage in a dialogue. One acquaintance was a real Communist, card and all. I asked, “Why do you have to keep killing people, and might that be a systemic flaw in your agenda?” Things degenerated after that.

It’s like you say—the logical part of their brain can be made to acknowledge the paradoxes of their beliefs, but to reach those beliefs they’ve already left logic and reason in the dust.


Being a classical liberal makes me a bona fide progressive. That Ministry of Truth proclamation that leftism is "progressive" needs to be discredited.


At jacksonnought. No, I’m not saying all gays are pedos. I’m saying many of them are, because, they are. I’m saying there is a real connection here.

Yes there were outed pedophile drag queens. Also, I want to know why drag queens in general want to be around little kids? Because they do want this and they do dress and behave in very sexual ways when with kids.

Why this desire to be around kids?

Again you have grown men on all fours doing stripper like dance moves to an audience of impressionable kids one was a little innocent 3 yr old girl on a chair that he was doing some kind of solo dance for. At a certain point the man turned around and had is posterior pointed at the child...on all fours.

You’re like...nothing to see here. And, well that’s the sort of thing they do, apparently, at Catholic Churches, so...

This is documented you can’t argue against this. This is what I mean when I state the truth that gay and pedo are connected. Or are you going to make the argument that not all of these drag queens are gay? Yeah ole miss Q over there in fishnet stilettos is straight as an arrow.

Here’s the thing about the Catholic Church and Christianity. What happened was done by people who were not at all consistent with the teachings of the church. They were corrupted. You make it sound as though the church actually teaches pedophia is good and therefore promotes this. You’re just being straight-up ignorant.

Worse still is that there is a force promoting pedophila and it’s liberals who include gays. It was hollywood that fawns over the issues with the church yet they a huge hotbed for sexual abuse of all kinds. Corey Feldman has made this clear. Once again, second mention, you have “cuties” being released. Clearly pedophilic.

And again, what corner of society is pushing for drag queen story hours? What corner of society has open aire sex festivals that do include children as participants?

Oh yeah, that’s the Catholic Church, right?

Look, I feel like your a good communist in Stalin’s Russia that got locked up in the gulag and still refuses to accept the truth.

Gnash your teeth all you want. This is the truth and your side, liberal, is revealing this truth. Because you are trying to “normalize” this and in doing so you inadvertently reveal the machinations of child sex abuse. It’s only a matter of time until this comes to the surface. It’s systemic it’s in go poetry and art etc.

Once again, way off base. Totally wrong. Yes, a lot of drag queens are gay, but some aren't. You don't have to be gay to be a drag queen or king. It's called acting / performance. Drag, or even cross-dressing, is a different identity than homosexuality or trans identity.

Yes, some gay people are pedophiles. Also some straight people. Also some seriously devout Christians using the Bible to justify it. Not all though. To try and link homosexuality with pedophilia is what is straight-up ignorant.

So you don't like characters reading stories to children? Well let's get rid of Barney or other animal mascots reading to kids, that just promotes bestiality right? Let's stop with the mall Santa photos. Let's stop teaching the Bible, which is full of violence and sexuality, to children. There is a trend of children's sports coaches engaging in pedophilia - let's ban children's sports.

I agree, let's not overly sexualize children or subject them to strippers. But don't try to equate a man dressed as a comical female character as a stripper trying to corrupt children's minds.

Yeah, there is a pedophile problem in Hollywood. There is also a pedophile problem in religion. Don't act like one is bad and a product of the environment while the other is fine or only perpetrated by corrupted individuals who don't subscribe to the teachings.

No one is trying to normalize pedophilia. Take off your tin-foil hat.

As for "Cuties" since you seem to be clinging to that, that was an unfortunate case of America and its love of sexualizing / fetishizing women's bodies. The French film, Mignonnes, is a coming of age story about a young Senegalese girl, which actually is highly critical of a culture which steers impressionable young girls toward the hypersexualization of their bodies - no different than you see in popular teen pageants (hosted by our so-pious president), or ridiculous school dress codes that send girls home for the thickness of their tank top straps or arbitrary rules on the length of skirts and shorts. As with everything in the USA, the marketing was changed to focus on sexualization, which is where the controversy came from - and rightly so. So perhaps America just has a problem with sexualizing female bodies, even of children. This is where rape culture comes from, telling women they must be to blame for men being unable to control themselves. And those uniform rules, and female victim blaming, typically come from conservative religious ideology, the type that accused women of being witches for knowing math.


I am a progressive but you lying cunts promised me a commie president.

Biden is NOT A fucking commie.

Burn in hell, you fucking pedos !


I seriously doubt anyone, left or right, adopts, maintains, or switches their political position based on arguments. I’ve never witnessed it at any rate... unless they were very young and still forming their views. I’m betting it has more to do with their personal psychology, life experiences, religious beliefs, economic status, and identity commitments.

I hated Trump until people showed me 'The rest of the story' with many of the news stories about him.


Ever try to get through to a person that has been in a cult - nuff said....


The best thing to repeat to progressives is that they are in fact a small minority held in contempt by intelligent people. Once they understand this, groupthink cannot hold. Another thing is that they think that loyalty to some Democratic fool with grandiose pretentions is progressive. In fact Republican candidate Kim Klacik has more progressive arguments than her Democratic opponents.

Corjova Level 5 Sep 10, 2020

Kim has a powerful ad. I’m afraid that the Democrats hide their plans from the public. “Joe’sa nice guy” a weak policy plan.

@Admin the dems are running on hate Trump not policy. They have conditioned youth for decades that their truth is precedent over facts. The critical theorist, progressives have created an ethnocide monster in blm that I believe they will not be able to control in the long run.


I have managed to get them to see the light individually... but eventually they all, without exception, fall back to the collective groupthink.

So as much as we try, I think we will all fail with these people.

Progressives cannot tolerate dissent.

Really, What gqve you done that failed?

@dd54 How many decades do you want me to go back? 1, 2, 3 4 5?
Here is 1 example...I've defended Pauline Hanson and her party when it started up... did it for years still do it when they say something sensible. Convinced and converted quite a few people, most reverted back to stupidity and bigotry though.
Stop wasting my time.

Agreed that it’s hard to reach a progressive who’s friends require them to follow along or leave them.

@Admin sorry, I can't help ribbing lightman at times because he picks at the US rather than focus on Austrailia's issues.

@dd54 I never pick on the US... quotes please.


To really change a viewpoint from either side you must pose a genuine question and leave it to sit with the person.

waynus Level 7 Sep 10, 2020

I agree with progressives on secularism, gay rights, and healthcare , and Israel

I disagree with em on immigration and huge government

I am a Tribal Socialist Nationalist

So you are not a tribal Nationlist Socialist? Why not? What is the difference?

U cannot say National Socialist
Shhhhh. It’s a bad word

@SocialDarwin Apparently Nazi is a bad word.... I see it as a historical one.


If a person is neurotic than the conversation is not really about facts, or intellectual debate, but something else. Let me explain. Every person has three needs, to be accepted, to feel secure and to be significant.

We have the same emotional needs but different ways of trying to meet them. Some ways are more neurotic than others.

“Neurotic suffering indicates inner conflict. Each side of the conflict is likely to be a composite of many partial forces, each one of which has been structured into behavior, attitude, perception, value. Each component asserts itself, claims priority, insists that something else yield, accommodates. The conflict therefore is fixed, stubborn, enduring. It may be impugned and dismissed without effect, imprecations and remorse are of no avail, strenuous acts of will may be futile; it causes - yet survives and continues to cause - the most intense suffering, humiliation, rending of flesh. Such a conflict is not to be uprooted or excised. It is not an ailment, it is the patient himself. The suffering will not disappear without a change in the conflict, and a change in the conflict amounts to a change in what one is and how one lives, feels, reacts.”

― Allen Wheelis, How People Change

“Neurotics complain of their illness, but they make the most of it, and when it comes to taking it away from them they will defend it like a lioness her young.” ― Sigmund Freud

“The tenacity with which the neurotic adheres to any attitude is a sure indication that the attitude fulfills functions which seem indispensable in the framework of his neurosis.” ― Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Towards Self-Realization

Regressive politics, trying to sound noble, calling itself progressive, has become a safe space for neurotic individuals avoiding responsibility of dealing with their own neurosis. And it has become normalized. Off course problem you can't talk about is now two problems and its like quick sand, a downward spiral. First for individual and than in large numbers for nation.


None of us is correct all the time. But when one acquires good habits, one can generally be much less wrong. There is a reason I'm beginning with an aside: namely there are ways in which we can know the rightness of things, but rather than get all pedantic about it, I'll share an anecdote I recently heard:

It kind of starts with caring about a specific person. Here's what I mean: The founder of the #walkaway movement was a (gay) progressive that pretty much accepted all the stories he was spoon fed. A very good friend of his very patiently got him to agree to watch one video on the fact that Donald Trump did NOT make fun of a handicapped reporter. The movement founder had some respect for his good friend, so he agreed to watch the video. He fully expected not to be convinced, but the video actually showed decades worth of footage of Trump using the exact hand gestures he made with the disabled reporter when he meant to convey he thought the question or statement was ridiculous.

So ultimately there was no arguing with decades of archival footage or the implication that the media had to be deliberately lying.

But ultimately, what this fellow asserts is that he never would have had his eyes opened to the truth if his friend hadn't cared about him enough to gently present this evidence.

Now this friend might have been wrong and her evidence could have been weak, but it wasn't, and ultimately, it was convincing.

Later on though, he tried presenting the same evidence to other friends of his, and was soundly rejected. I believe, and so does he, that it was because for him, newly red pilled, the issue came first. But in his case, the care came first, and the issue came second. And ultimately , this is how he comes across now, as a caring person that also is in possession of some facts, rather than the other way around.

This has been my experience also. Assuming you happen to be right, you start with love and care and understanding, then you have a chance of getting your point to register. It's always hard to do, always takes a lot of care and effort, and is usually worth the effort. That's what I've personally found.

This is the best take in the thread. Good man, Curvy.

@Flagherty Thank you for saying so, I appreciate it. Although I do tend to ramble a bit, I try to look at things in ways that are a bit different--practical perhaps. I credit my "sperg" brain. My wife credits the "Light of Christ." : )

Write Comment