Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.
You said this:
I’m asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.
Not the MAGA people since I don’t live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.
I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.