,

How the hell do you have a conversation with somebody like that?

I've been wondering the same thing so I've been investigating different approaches to try and figure it out.

Here's a little controlled experiment I've performed.

When someone complains about Trump and his alleged tyranny, I start by finding common ground.

They are opposed to government overreach. Great. So am I. We can agree on that (in fact we don't, because I know they love government overreach when it's in their favor, but I'm taking what they say at face value).

I emphatically agree that government overreach shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I don't indicate one way or the other whether I agree with them that Trump has overreached. We're discussing principles, not events.

Here's where the experiment comes in:

To half the people, I describe libertarianism as a response to government overreach.

We start out at odds with each other, but by the end I manage to convince them to some degree that the government has been given too much power and they should be put in their place. 100% success rate.

To the other half the people, I cite libertarianism as a response to government overreach.

None of them have taken kindly to it. They all revolt against the idea. They have been told that libertarianism is bad so they regurgitate canned responses they've heard. Dialogue breaks down. 100% failure rate.

So they agree with libertarianism when it's described to them, but they reject it outright when it's named.

The difference is that when I use keyphrases they've indexed a pre-programmed response to, I box myself and my standpoint in, I activate their NPC programming and we are no longer talking to each other.

The same thing would have happened at the beginning of the conversation if I had disagreed with their assertion that Trump has engaged in government overreach, which is why I kept the discussion in the abstract.

The same thing will happen to anyone who wants to approach this topic of BLM and who makes the mistake of saying "All Lives Matter". You will lose your audience completely. They will put you in a box labelled "behind the curve, holds opinions outdated by the big brains at Twitter, not worth engaging with".

They will be cemented in their belief that they know something you don't, that you are only in possession of misinformation, and have nothing of value worth listening to.

Keep the discussion abstract, focused on principles, only delving into event-based discussion when relating personal experiences, avoiding key-phrases that trigger their programming. If you can manage this you'll find some common ground and find opportunity to leave an impression. You won't change their mind, that's too much to hope for, your goal should only be to plant a seed of understanding that allows them to relate to where you're coming from.

How the hell do you have a conversation with somebody like that?

I've been wondering the same thing so I've been investigating different approaches to try and figure it out.

Here's a little controlled experiment I've performed.

When someone complains about Trump and his alleged tyranny, I start by finding common ground.

They are opposed to government overreach. Great. So am I. We can agree on that (in fact we don't, because I know they love government overreach when it's in their favor, but I'm taking what they say at face value).

I emphatically agree that government overreach shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I don't indicate one way or the other whether I agree with them that Trump has overreached. We're discussing principles, not events.

Here's where the experiment comes in:

To half the people, I describe libertarianism as a response to government overreach.

We start out at odds with each other, but by the end I manage to convince them to some degree that the government has been given too much power and they should be put in their place. 100% success rate.

To the other half the people, I cite libertarianism as a response to government overreach.

None of them have taken kindly to it. They all revolt against the idea. They have been told that libertarianism is bad so they regurgitate canned responses they've heard. Dialogue breaks down. 100% failure rate.

So they agree with libertarianism when it's described to them, but they reject it outright when it's named.

The difference is that when I use keyphrases they've indexed a pre-programmed response to, I box myself and my standpoint in, I activate their NPC programming and we are no longer talking to each other.

The same thing would have happened at the beginning of the conversation if I had disagreed with their assertion that Trump has engaged in government overreach, which is why I kept the discussion in the abstract.

The same thing will happen to anyone who wants to approach this topic of BLM and who makes the mistake of saying "All Lives Matter". You will lose your audience completely. They will put you in a box labelled "behind the curve, holds opinions outdated by the big brains at Twitter, not worth engaging with".

Keep the discussion abstract, focused on principles, only delving into event-based discussion when relating personal experiences, avoiding key-phrases that trigger their programming. If you can manage this you'll find some common ground and find opportunity to leave an impression. You won't change their mind, that's too much to hope for, your goal should only be to plant a seed of understanding that allows them to relate to where you're coming from.