Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else.
In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for example (a pretty conservative country, most would agree), campaigners tried for years to talk about 'social justice' but there was a portion of the population (largely older people) who were just not convinced.
What that population needed to hear was a) a message from someone that was like them, and b) an argument couched in terms of the impact that the marriage vote would have on their grandchildren.
That was far more effective and the country ended up voting for equal marriage. The result of the referendum was also much more legitimate - it wasn't a case of one social class / group pushing through a desired outcome. It genuinely came from the whole country, even though different groups voted for different reasons.
Likewise, if someone believes that all affirmative action schemes are inherently wrong-headed, no amount of argument that "the outcome of affirmative action can be good in the long run" is going to sway them. Second guessing their motives and saying "you're just trying to protect your own interest" is a good way of ensuring they never listen to you again.
It takes guts to admit that not only is your argument potentially not convincing to someone, but that you also may be the wrong person to be making it. In this vein, you can, as a result, also spend a long time with someone and still end up talking past them if you're not careful.
Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audience to come to their own conclusion. Nobody likes being told what to think, but most people take great satisfaction in joining up the dots for themselves.
Some people might still call you a Nazi, but your obvious reasonableness will be a near-infallible shield; they'll look silly and you'll look dignified.
Study marketing. Major corporations have invested billions in developing powerful persuasion methods, so loot their arsenal. You can sell a political position in exactly the same way as a can of fizzy drink, with immeasurably greater success than someone using the traditional techniques of political rhetoric.
These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand.
Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others?
An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section].
In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being:
I wish to live and have a productive and happy life
I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist
What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other.
[Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]:
Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right:
""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. ""
https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer
https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424
See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona...
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misf...
There are more, but I'm pretty sure that you can source the rest for yourself.
The author's merely pointing out the obvious - being emotional about complex issues is a childish and counter-productive thing to do.
Well, maybe that's not so obvious, but you know.
Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. Sometimes you have to drag people, kicking and screaming, into social change. Waiting until you persuade everyone is futile.
People v/s things is not the only gender difference. There are others, which could explain why there aren't more women leaders. Or, it could very well be that sexism/glass ceiling is the reason women aren't at the top. That doesn't mean the people v/s things theory is wrong. It has the most amount of evidence and the largest demonstrated effect sizes (d > 1 even).
People vs things is just one example. The cited science also says that men are more prone to anger and aggressiveness. So in net, leadership positions should be held by women if one were to make an 'ought to' argument based on the science.
The civil rights movement included winning court cases, getting laws passed, and convincing politicians that they should support it. It didn't happen at a barrel of a gun.
More recently, same-sex marriage happened by winning court cases and a lot of work to change public opinion.
It's way too soon to give up on persuasion. Don't support thuggery.
That's one point of view. Another might argue that MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest, say. Yet another might invoke Gandhi or Mandela.
Is civil disobedience a form of force? Yes, I suppose it is one of the possible meanings of 'force'.
However, if that is what you mean, then how is this opposed to being polite and understanding?
Compare your statement of "dragging people kicking and screaming" to MLK's attitude[1]:
> The decision prompted King to write, in a statement, that though he believed the Supreme Court decision set a dangerous precedent, he would accept the consequences willingly. "Our purpose when practicing civil disobedience is to call attention to the injustice or to an unjust law which we seek to change," he wrote—and going to jail, and eloquently explaining why, would do just that.
Or even to Lincoln's[2] (who wrote this at a time when victory in the war was pretty certain):
> With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Your error is in assuming that being polite and understanding means you are to apply exactly no pressure of any kind in furthering your goals. It is not so. Non-violent protest and even self-defense can be done either politely just as well as adversarially. If you ask me, Lincoln waged war yet was more understanding of his enemies than many civil protesters are today.
[1] http://time.com/3773914/mlk-birmingham-jail/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_second_ina...
MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...
I'll leave it up to you to read the full report and research the topic on your own before dismissing this notion as ignorant, when it clearly isn't.
If you feel I'm wrong, please provide your own scientific/scholarly citations and we can discuss the matter intellectually.
At least in the US, the civil rights movement was characterized (primarily) by peaceful, non-violent protests, demonstrations, and speeches. A social movement characterized by force and violence cannot effect positive social change, as far as I know.
The Civil Rights Act and enforcement of said act tended to be backed up with guns and such. You know, state police escorting little kids to their schools.
If the fact that you disagrees with the first clause in an argument is enough for you to conclude the rest of the discussion is unable to make you change your opinion, I'd argue that is a much more significant barrier to open dialogue.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtm...
The people that disagree with you will find ways to slowly peel back all your achievements. In a badly run organization the problem isn't the outdated machines and processes or the shitty products. Those are symptoms of shitty people and management.
If you want to fix an organization the surest way is to fire everyone in management. If you can't do that the best thing you can do for yourself is leave immediately.
Even years of increasing membership, better benefits, virtually every metric increasing steadily was not enough to convince these people that the changes happening were positive. They wanted to do things "their way".
When I came back a year later I saw our shiny new equipment collecting dust in the corner. A few of the old guard were in the middle of a demonstration on how to pretend that it's still the 17th century. The smart new managers I brought in were gone.
Watching that place boomerang so fast struck a chord in me. The only time I'll agree to run anything now is when I have total control of what happens beneath me. Build little slices of heaven surrounded by towers of corporate bullshit. My long term goal is to build my own company but meager attempts so far haven't worked out.
I couldn't change people's opinions even with years of bulletproof evidence that they were wrong. Maybe a few of them individually, but a very small percentage of the group. They simply went along with things until they had an opportunity to change then back to how they liked them. I now 100% understand why management is gutted when a company changes hands.
A very effective way I found was to identify their role models and find one that shares my opinion. For example, I have a friend who salivates to Elon Musk and I've had great success getting him to consider alternate viewpoints by casually mentioning that my opinion aligns with his.
Another more subtle way is to read a bunch of stuff that supports your point of view using their phone or PC. Most big sites these days will show you what they think aligns with your beliefs. You can use the creepy targeting they're already doing to skew the point of view your friend sees.
On the side they choose to support the radical voices adopt a zero tolerance policy for the other side and seek to eliminate any decent. The opposing side has proof that the platforms has a bias against them and will try to subvert the debate so thoughtful opinions do not bother under those circumstances.
You can not change anyone's opinion by refusing them a platform to express themselves. Or allowing engagement but employing a double standard where one side gets to be abusive but the other gets punished for the same behaviour.
If we look at the recent case of James Damore he was fired for his views. How many people at Google who support him are going to change there minds on the issue just because The management decided to take a side and silence any opposing views?
That's how the US Civil Rights Movement and most anti-colonial movements worked. Things aren't perfect now, but imagine how long it would have taken to go door to door and convince every person that poll taxes were racist. Given the state of voter id laws, I don't think we'd have gotten to equitable voting by today if we tried courteously convincing people.
/2cents