Our house moderate/common-ground seeking/ division-mending optimist/ space-traveling commentator Extradimensional Cephalopod authored another helpful post, and his (its?) perspective is always provocative. It was also buried so deep in the comments that I wonder how many read it, so giving the piece COTD status is appropriate.
Here is E.C.’s Comment of the day on the post, “The Cowardice and Obstinacy of the Trump Deranged: A Depressing Case Study From Facebook (I Despair)“…
There will absolutely be people who aren’t prepared to handle the possibility that they’re wrong. I recognize those people when their responses don’t engage with what I’m saying, no matter how many times I repeat the question. They’ll reply with non sequiturs, strawmen, or simple repetition. Even the most basic and reasonable questions, asked with complete respect, will slide right off of their mind.
Those people are not the low-hanging fruit. We can disregard them for the time being. Someone else can create an environment where they feel safe enough to let go of the dogma they cling to, but that doesn’t need to happen right now.
Part of why I use the values reconciliation method on everyone is that if I don’t, everyone looks like that to me. Barking at people just starts an endless circle of barking. Mutual defensiveness creates the illusion of intractable conflict. I wrote an article about that: https://ginnungagapfoundation.wordpress.com/2025/12/12/how-can-we-stop-chihuahua-rhetoric/.
There is almost no possibility that a person will start thinking reasonably if the approach I use, no matter how solid the logic, appears to threaten their values. Instead, I work to create conditions that reward people for reflecting.
Ethics Alarms 
This works far better on paper than it does in the field. For most conservatives, their political views evolved across the aisle. In contrast, however, leftists generally didn’t evolve from more conservative perspectives: they rejected them from the start and maintain their fun-house self images by continuing that rejection, as if to say “got to hell, dad, I will stay out all night!” You may try your fancy method of engagement, but like the lady in the commercials, they can’t get up. Or won’t. Virtue signaling like some deranged Admiral Farragut, they proudly damn the torpedoes of fact, logic, and “true, wise, decent” liberalism for their entire adult lives. Boiled down to two words: good luck.
This is kind of true for me. I grew up a conservative Christian (although politics wasn’t really discussed). I was very conservative though. I was taught drinking beer was a sin.
Then I went to college. My brother came out as gay. I questioned my religion, and my whole worldview completely broke apart. I was a progressive (though not socialist) agnostic leaning atheist. Bernie Sanders was my guy.
I got older, wise, met an old truck driver who spoke plain truth, came back to God, and I slowly came back around. I am no longer the drinking beer is a sin conservative, and I am probably kind of liberal on certain ideas. Ex: I think health care should be as widely accessible as possible. I don’t want a government takeover because the government is inefficient, but people need to be able to go to the doctor if they need to. That’s probably my most liberal position though, and I’ve found it’s actually somewhat of a common one among many conservatives.
However, I have turned again on the LGBT stuff. I think porn is terrible for society and people who sell it and do it are similar to drug dealers who take advantage of people who struggle with it. I think our society has lost way too much in terms of manners, and I include myself in that evaluation.
But all of this is just to show I was very deep in progressive ideology. All of my friends were the same, and I switched, or switched back to some extent I suppose.
I got older, wise, met an old truck driver who spoke plain truth, came back to God, and I slowly came back around.
What is interesting about what you wrote, and taken in a wider cultural sense and specifically of American religiosity in the present, is that there are two aspect to what is a relatively common ‘turning’:
One is the effort and the resolution, in prayer and meditation, to invoke and encounter the interior divinity or the angelic realm, and to submit oneself to its influence and transforming power. It is done in silence, and the most important part is done alone or small groups. What happens is very private, and one’s who life comes under the influence of those mysterious potencies is transformed in mysterious ways.
The other aspect is also curious, but stranger. It is when masses of people come under the influence of social currents like mass revivals of which there were at least 3 major ones in American history. (The Great Awakenings).
“The Great Awakening was a series of religious revivals in American Christian history. Historians and theologians identify three, or sometimes four, waves of increased religious enthusiasm between the early 18th century and the late 20th century. Each of these “Great Awakenings” was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelicals Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church comradeship, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.”
My personal view, though I cannot imagine it not being controversial, is that the former religious movement, the internal and personal one, is open and can be immensely productive. It can be the way that an individual consciousness actually evolves. When the individual will makes a choice to subject itself to something higher, there is where progress occurs.
The external one, and the one that takes the shape of revivals and specifically in our ultra-modern electronic era — sort of like Donald Trump’s political rallies — and presented and mediated by the public relations networks and as political propaganda, seem far more questionable. Indeed the entire notion (it surely must be false) that a Nation can respond like the individual can to ‘divine currents’ or impulses, seems rather diabolical. It seems to me inevitable that the expression of this revival religiosity cannot but be corrupted by extremely ‘worldly’ influences — power, the lust for control, greed, etc.
I agree with 60% of this. Going into attack mode doesn’t really cause anyone to change their minds, even if it feels good in the moment. However, sometimes people just hate what you believe enough to not want to listen. That’s often the case on anything to do with LGBT stuff or abortion. Black Lives Matter is another one of those issues.
You can write out a reply (or think through one if you are speaking), Use the right tone. Concede what you agree with about the position. Tell them you respect their motives. Some people may like you a little more, but it doesn’t penetrate the bubble.
To add on yet another annoying Facebook story. I had a friend once who posted about BLM, and I replied that BLM was divisive because the group was hyperfocusing on race and dividing people. I opened with more than that and even said racism was awful and police brutality was terrible and no one should be in favor of either.
She deleted me off of Facebook, and then I received an e-mail from this person saying that they enjoyed being friends with me but didn’t think it was a good idea to be friends on Facebook because she didn’t like what I posted. She still wanted to be friends but not be “Facebook friends.”
So, I suppose my tone kept the person “liking me” to some extent, but there was no movement on the ideas at all. I cut off the friendship very harshly.
It’s a tried-and-true statement, especially since Aristotle who formalized a lot of thought on persuasion and speech, that you don’t want to alienate the audience and people are more likely to be persuaded if you are likable and credible. This is the kind of thing that FEELS true, and I bought into this hard for a long time.
And while I think it does help around the margins, tone is really only important if you acting like a crazy person. For example, if I were to write something on Facebook like:
“LOL. Trump owns libtards. You sick freaks all will lose and go cry into your vegan coffee.”
That kind of tone is obviously alienating, but for some topics, your tone doesn’t matter. Being transgender is a mental illness. It doesn’t matter how nicely I say that; the fact I would say that enrages many people. I am saying something perceived as negative about a group of people that another group of people feels the need to defend.
I could even preface my comments by saying trans people deserve respect and dignity, that people shouldn’t use slurs against them, attack them, or mock them. I could say I care about their wellness enough to say that their own brains are lying to them and that, while their experience is real, what they feel is unfortunately not in line with reality.
So, while I agree with tone and civility, I think being realistic about human nature is important too.
I’m not sure transgender was the focus of the quote of the day. I don’t even think it was mentioned. But it’s on your mind, so I respect your right to bring it in. Nonetheless, although I don’t entirely agree with your statement about transgenderism, but I didn’t take offense at it. But I could see how someone would. Thus, I’m not sure you “followed” the quote of the day or if that was even your intention. So, mine is a comment on a comment on a comment. Regarding my point of disagreement, transgender is part of a spectrum within the XY chromosome pairing, much like everything else in the biological and mental domains. Complete androgen insensitivity (XY chromosomes, nearly full female characteristics and identification) to partial androgen sensitivity (categorically different from CAIS), to partial masculinization of the brain to full masculinization. Even within categories, such as “manly men” there are plenty of subtle differences within the overall spectrum. And we know that autism and transgender often go together but we don’t know exactly why. And we know that some people claim transgender status for attention, to shock their parents, to assert individuality, to express some confusion, a biproduct of other mental health challenges, etc. And we know that gender-body misalignment can, in reverse, cause mental stress and issues. Bottom line: there are people whose brains were left either completely or partially at the human biological default of female due to inadequate masculinization in utero. Masculine body changes and brain masculinization happen at different times in utero and through somewhat different mechanisms. It’s absolutely part of the normal spectrum (and always will be) that some people will identify as female for “legit” biological reasons even though they have external male parts. You are correct that they should be respected. You are incorrect that it is universally a mental illness. Now, I wonder whether I followed the spirit of the quote of the day.
I mean, from my end, I believe you did. Direct argument disagreeing with someone isn’t uncivil. I brought up the transgender issue because it is one that gets you fast. If you don’t want to use pronouns, a large number of people will hate you, but it wasn’t really to debate the specifics of transgenderism. I sometimes have a tendency to get a little off topic, so I am trying to do better at sticking to the original post.
My undergrad was in philosophy, so I am used to hearing any and every argument. I grew up in a time where people could be very passionate and still be friends. I’ve met people who disagreed with me on a lot of things that I liked more than people who agreed with me. My personal liking is more about manners, civility, and good-will. The problem with much of the left is they don’t have good-will towards anyone anymore.
Scalia said it after the same-sex marriage decision. You get labeled an enemy of civilization if you take the wrong position.
“Offensive” is also a really broad term. For example, I am offended when people sit during the national anthem, but I would be friends with someone who did so if that person was civil. I’m half religious, and I am friends with people who are skeptical of religion, and it doesn’t offend me. People have different positions than me; what’s important is trying to back it up and being respectful while doing so.
I suppose to use modern lingo, it’s more about the vibe of the person than what they actually believe, to some extent. If someone was a member of the KKK, I probably wouldn’t be friends unless I thought I could reach them. Very few people would I cut off for a difference in political opinions.
I even maintain friendships with people who are pro-choice, and that’s a pretty vile position to me in most circumstances. There are broader goods in larger society.
It works better if we are pleasant and respectful to each other. The medicine goes down easier when it doesn’t have a bitter taste.
You’re half religious? Me too! I go to church and listen from the doorway. When I was baptized I spit half the water back into the baptismal font. I sometimes light incense, but I don’t inhale. I silently pray for spiritual health, and if someone answers I run to a doctor. I turn the other cheek but only if the aggressor missed the first one. I read the Bible – only the even-numbered pages. I’m a flawed person so I confess my sins, but only when my dog is in the mood to hear them… Together, we make a one pious man and one atheist. Next Sunday is my turn to sleep in…
Courteous listening is a good. However, the good must eventuallly lead to the greater good-Truth.
No matter how courteous one may be, if one is not willing or able to realize the relaity of objective Truth, then courteous listeniing is in fact wasteful.
I agree. Listening is not a favor I do for people who are wrong. It is a necessary part of the approach I’ve found most effective by far for removing the fears that prevent them from considering that they are wrong. The trick is identifying and addressing those fears. I’ve managed to make that process simpler and more reliable, by breaking fears and solutions into building-block concepts that show us what to listen and look for.
I think going on a decade or two of writing as part of the commentariat, I think we’ve previously discussed this as the closely related topic of “finding the common ground”. It’s unlikely that we will engage with a complete stranger on a wild banger topic closely related to their TDS; rather we will most likely engage someone carefully to find our common ground and start working our way wider. As we work our way wider with conversation and trust, we’ll find a divergence in our agreement and that’s the key point where it’s valuable to listen and show understanding, which is the first step in common ground.
Conversely – this really only works on macro-scale topics. High minded philosophy and ultimately, there may just exist a difference of opinion.
When it comes to President Trump, any time he does something radical, I’ve given up having any sort of “hot take” on what he’s doing or why he’s doing it. He has information I don’t have, he has a strategy and an end result that I can’t conceive of yet – so I take a step back and just shut my trap. A lot of the things he does….you wouldn’t think they’d have the effect they have….but then 6 months down the road, the dividends start rolling in and you’re like….huh….who would have thought?
We can do better than just finding abstract common ground. Human civilization won’t get much farther without being able to translate abstract values into concrete decisions that people are willing to support and implement. People need to learn how to build things together.
It sounds like you’re willing to trust Trump’s judgment and intentions where other people aren’t. It becomes much easier to have a constructive conversation when you start talking about what outcomes you hope for and which ones would disappoint you. That way people know you do actually have criteria independent of Trump for judging Trump’s actions, that there are lines he could cross that would lose your trust. That’s what allows people to trust you. Does that make sense?
“There will absolutely be people who aren’t prepared to handle the possibility that they’re wrong.”
This statement reminded me of this quote from Chesterton: “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.”
I know my legal background constantly compels me to consider what I may have missed.
I believe my philosophical background functions similarly in things non-work-related.
Generally, I know what I believe and why I believe it. I also know that, if the basis for my belief would be different, my beliefs would be different.
That has done at least two things for me:
I think I will close with an unorthodox opinion. Socrates famously said “I know that I know nothing”. People often treat this as a tongue in cheek belief, as Plato wrote him as someone who seemed to outsmart everyone. I tend to think he was sincere (that is the unorthodox opinion). He really did understand how little he actually knew, because He questioned everything. He knew how he might be wrong. If people truly explored how they might be wrong, they would become wiser.
-Jut
Thanks for sharing that quote! From what I’ve heard of Chesterton and his ideas, it seems he stands out as a champion of nuanced thought, among other virtues.
I have spoke with people who cannot imagine how they could possibly have gone wrong. While I may not have succeeded in expanding their imaginations, I learned more about my own methods of understanding, and about engaging with people who disagree with me but are less blinkered about it. Practicing the humble makes it much more likely that someone learns something from the interaction. Sometimes that someone is me.
1. Reasoning backwards from someone’s first principles is easier when you have some building-block concepts for defining how other people see the world, and what they value in it. I find it helps to define these values functionally, in terms of concerns about possible outcomes.
2. You set a great example by suspending labels and assumptions when looking at situations. I call that applied existentialism. Many people have trouble with that suspension, but when they see someone else do it it seems to leave an impression.
3. The habit of framing assertions as based on my own understanding rather than as objective fact is something my father impressed upon me, and it does help not only with disagreements but with applied epistemology. I’m more aware of how confident I am in remembering things, and quicker to catch mistaken assumptions.
I didn’t realize that people thought Socrates “knowing nothing” was facetious. Based on the ever-useful Socratic method, I thought that his point was to reason our way to conclusions from the ground up instead of blindly defending assumptions that we arrived at for one reason or another. (I actually had a problem with doing that too much, and am still practicing committing to assumptions and proceeding with confidence rather than rebuilding my predictions from scratch whenever something unexpected comes up.)
It boggles me when people equate wisdom with experience, or with applying canned adages to situations without understanding what makes them good advice or when they don’t apply. There are several problem-solving mindsets that I could describe as aspects of wisdom. For simplicity, I might tell people to seek wisdom from the “why”s. Your recommendation that people consider how they might be wrong (and how they might tell) is probably closer to the core, though.
“I know that I know nothing”
I say all the time something similar “You don’t know what you don’t know.”
When talking to people who are on the opposite side of an argument as you are, the first step is to actually listen because it’s likely they know something you don’t. Of course, what they “know” as truth might be a lie, but also what you “know” as truth might be a lie as well and that’s the issue today. We are all working on different information and slightly different cultural worldviews. Then add to it people hate to be wrong and some issues people are almost dogmatic in their viewpoints and simply can not accept that they might be wrong. It will literally shake them too much.
“Antarctican lizard people are kidnapping our bees!” “That sounds bad. I don’t want that to happen. Bees are important for the ecosystem, so we want to make sure there are enough of them around. If lizard people are threatening the bees, then I would want that to stop.” Then we can look at how they arrived at their conclusions, and what might point to a different conclusion.
It has always seemed to me that EC’s methods have soundness and that they will ‘work’ (if that is the right word) among a group of people who have, at an initial point, agreed to interrelate from such a mature position.
I focus on the part about the bees because, and it is a fact, that large segments of populations in our culture(s) are susceptible to belief in quite outrageous fantastic and paranoid notions. And we are living in a period of our history where not only the “ignorant masses” in the lower strata of society have been captured by paranoid fantasies and myth-dreams, but the upper echelons are caught in these emoted dreams as well. The “lunatic fringe” has entered the sphere of power and influence even if that influence is like a shadow over rational decisions.
For example the Palestinian (Gazan) attack on the kibbutzim in Souther Israel was, among various reasons, an attack motivated by the suspected plans of ultra-believing Israelis to destroy the done of the rock and there “rebuild the Third Temple”. Concrete plans were (are) being made for this eventuality. Therefore “in the shadows” is an idea that motivates and compels those even on the fringes of the belief.
The captain of general of this present war (Hegseth) is deeply involved in this mythic-political fantasy that he is a general in Christ’s holy conquering army. And though it is not possible to see into Trump’s psychological landscape, he certainly felt that the very Hand of God turned his head and the bullet only winged him. And it sure seemed to have contributed to his sense of mission inspired by supernatural potencies that are subtly directing the events of the present.
So curiously, EC proposes that the “rational man” can indulge the religious-mythic fantasy of that man caught in Apocalyptic Dreams and, somehow, guide him reasonably out of it. But this is like imagining one can act as if one believes the delusions of a psychotic inmate at the mental institution and somehow move them to a sane psychological space or realization.
If “then we can look at how they arrived at their conclusions”, at that point we have before us a very daunting project! because it involves the very deepest sense about the very nature and structure of Reality. But at the same time the issue of mental inclarity, deranged mental and emotional processes, and “inflicted imagination” (the psyche under the influence of extremely bad dreams, indeed of nightmares involving acts of extreme cruelty, sadism and destruction.
And then consider that “common man” who is captured by such currents who is simultaneously under the influence of cynical propaganda contrived by cynical men very aware of a sort of paranoid psychosis in the population that can be exploited for political — geopolitical — objectives.
Now, you may ask “OK, OK Alizia, we see where you are coming from at least to a degree, but what are you asking for?! What are you proposing?!”
Oh it’s not much really!
I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open those windows both of your physical and mental homes, stick your head out and yell: “I’m realize I am in Satan’s Dream and I want to wake up! I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” “I REALIZE that myself and things have got to change.” But first, you’ve gotta get mad!. Mad at an immense machinery of influence and control that has captured all of us. You’ve got to get to the point where you can truly say: “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!! Then we’ll figure out what to do about our Narcissistic Julius Cesar & the Illegals & the Trannies & the Commies. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say: “I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!”
🤩
Lol. Aliza my kid told me the same thing. He proposed we quit using the banks. “Opt out” of the system, I suppose. It’s interesting how we are simultaneously, as all of humanity, in one of the most comfortable times in existence and things are degrading at an alarming rate (or is it merely a perception of degradation?)
There’s also the idea of not rocking the boat or we might all drown.
There are only so many things we can deal with. For me personally, most aren’t within my ability to influence in any meaningful way at all whatsoever.
Lol. Aliza my kid told me the same thing. He proposed we quit using the banks.
That’s pretty radical! What else does is he recommending? 🌸
Well he has little understanding of economics yet so it probably isn’t as radical to him. lol. It’s not like he pays bills. Being a budding musician, he’s all for people thwarting the AI machine by releasing thousands of song tracks that are simply noise. Also he can’t understand why would anyone bother with college, especially for a music degree. “The only guarantee from college is debt.” While Gen Z might be plugged in, the more astute ones I know are incredibly cynical and they tend to be apathetic.
If I may ask: What musicians and groups does he emulate and what sort of music does he play?
And though it is not possible to see into Trump’s psychological landscape, he certainly felt that the very Hand of God turned his head and the bullet only winged him. And it sure seemed to have contributed to his sense of mission inspired by supernatural potencies that are subtly directing the events of the present.
Unless I have understood incorrectly, the fundament of the Christian myth, and its imperative, is capsulated in the Story that when Jesus Christ went to the desert (like on Vision Quest) that he encountered Satan who took him on flights all around the world and was presented with all the splendor and wealth — all intoxicating temptations of materialism — but he refuses each one, the lesson being that to do so would be to lose the soul.
So — I know this is weird but not without narrative advantage — what if we see (i.e. not those here reading but the surrounding peoples) that it was not “God” that saved Trump but rather that Prince to whom was given the world and all its kingdoms and pleasures? Isn’t the core message of Christianity that “the world” is inevitably corrupt? For the sake of narrative transvaluation it is just as probable that Trump was saved not for glorious, transcendental purposes, but rather that he is the nearly perfect Emblematic Man who is likely to be seduced, corrupted and manipulated for evil’s purposes.
I mean really, which narrative, which interpretive model, is more fitting to a corrupt present? In that this interpretation fits far better with the Gospel modeling of “how things actually work”. But here is the narrative twist that really fits with the Gospel pattern: if in fact he became seduced, or has even been blackmailed by Epstein-like operatives for reasons related to geo-political war games and control.
(Don’t blame me for dreaming this up, these are not my dreams after all).
You have understood incorrectly, though your statement about the world being corrupt is 100% correct.
The fundamental tenant of Christianity is what is recognized this week: the death and resurrection of Christ. Satan’s temptation of Christ was not some spiritual lesson about losing one’s soul, though there is application in that direction. True Christians believe, in fact, that all our souls are/were already lost. The temptation was simply Satan’s attempt to destroy the one perfect God-man’s ability to make atonement and satisfy the demands of His justice on our behalf.
The notion that God saved President Trump from assassination – despite his obvious and numerous flaws – is absolutely within the realm of possibility. If God is sovereign in the affairs of men and if God sets up and deposes world leaders as He chooses to move events toward His ends – and He claims that both those ideas are true – then not only is it possible, it is imperative.
And if the above notion is true, then God has saved leaders from death – from Trump in 2024 to Bush 1 after the first Gulf War to Reagan from Hinckley’s gun to Hitler in July 1944 to…go back as far as you like. These men and women were spared, not because of their goodness or the good they did (in fact, a good number of them have been downright evil), but rather because there is a God that has them in place and has the power to keep them there for His own purposes.
Yes, there is a “Prince and power of the air” (Satan) and there are other “princes” that operate under his influence, but there is a reason they are called “princes.” They do not have ultimate authority. Rather, they operate only with freedom and reach that “The King” gives them. The King is the ultimate ruler and has the final say. Trump was saved not because Satan decided it, but because God so ordered it.