No, it happens further back than that. If you pretend that all opinions are equally important, if you legitimize provably wrong opinions just for the sake of "teaching the controversy" or "hearing both sides of the argument", you teach people that it's okay to be ignorant, that it's okay to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the facts when they're presented.

Donald Trump is what happens when you tell someone "yes, it's okay for you to think the president is a Muslim from Kenya" and not challenge that opinion. Unless you seriously think we should continue to pretend that these are actually legitimate opinions to hold? If someone says "vaccines cause autism" and you show them the facts but they come back and say "but those facts were made up by so-called "scientists"!", what then? What's your next move? You've already proven them wrong, they've already ignored you.

Either you continue to listen to them, thereby legitimizing their point of view, or you say they're crazy and move on with your life. Because you can only argue with facts. If you argue with them, you're inherently accepting their opinion as fact. We need to foster the idea that it's not okay to ignore easily provable facts. Ignorance is not an option. We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.

>Either you continue to listen to them, thereby legitimizing their point of view, or you say they're crazy and move on with your life.

And they get pissed off at being called crazy, and elect Donald Trump as President. So that didn't work out so well for you.

>We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.

"Shutting down" people like that legitimizes their persecution narrative, which is a really, really bad move.

I think this is an important conversation, so I'd love to hear how you would handle the balance between not legitimizing their opinions and not forcing them to double down due to persecution. It's something that we, as a whole, seem to be failing at right now, and you're right, I don't have a good answer for it.

I'd handle that balance by dropping the "not legitimizing their opinions" part completely.

There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly, the idea of "legitimizing" an opinion suggests that there is some group of people who have the authority to decide what opinions are okay to hold and what aren't. The problem is, a) there is no dispassionate authority you can refer to when we're talking about political issues; everyone brings their own biases whether consciously or not, and b) people who already disagree will not cooperate with that authority voluntarily, and c) the authority has no actual power in a democratic polity anyway. You can't arrest the other side, you can't put them in camps, you can't fine them. All you can do is yell insults at them, and if they don't care what you think, you are effectively powerless -- and obviously powerless to anyone watching.

Your only option in a democratic society is to have faith in the truth, plainly and calmly and repeatedly and respectfully spoken. When the other side comes at you with illogical nonsense, don't get angry; look at it as an opportunity to educate the onlookers, an opportunity that the other side has generously given you. And take that opportunity as often as they foolishly provide it to you.

And yes, one can be cynical and believe that the truth doesn't always win out. But suppression of lies either ends up in the fascist state you're trying to prevent, or eventually collapses in on itself and creates an even worse reaction. In an open society, the fascists are a couple of losers in basements complaining to themselves while the world moves past them. In an increasingly closed society such as the one we live in now, they become the brave rebels fighting the Establishment. Don't let them be the brave rebels.

Thanks for the opportunity to express these thoughts.

Very well said. I think you're spot on that these folks aren't going to back down, but at least you can use the opportunity to explain the facts to other people who might be more willing o hear them. That's something we're missing during these discussions, we put a lot of emphasis on hearing both sides of the story, but not a lot on making sure everyone is aware of the facts, even if it hurts the rhetoric of one side of the argument. Fact checking during debates or roundtable discussions would go a long way towards rectifying that.

Thanks for the conversation, I do see your point and I agree. It's a no-win (or at least a only-partial-win) situation, but stating the facts and moving on is probably the most effective route, with the hope that the truth wins in the end.

They're just so damn annoying though!

One way to make those interactions less annoying is to, perhaps temporarily, put aside your goal of getting them to agree with you, and choose another more achievable goal. Here are a few you could try:

Have a cordial interaction with someone who sees things differently

Learn from this person about one of the things they are an expert on

Understand more deeply the pseudo-logic of their mindset and where it comes from

All of those goals are realistically achievable which should make them less frustrating than trying to win. And as a side benefit if you succeed at any of the above, you should be in a better position to bring them around should you go back to trying to do that.