This is one reason they were so terrified and ballistic at the notion of Obama getting dictator-like powers. In the same way that a dictator’s biggest fear is another dictator, so an authoritarian supporters’ biggest fear is…an opposite authoritarian.
For an authoritarian, there’s no political heaven sweeter than being in charge and having unbridled power. And there’s no political hell worse than being stamped underfoot the boot of an opponent who has that power.
Those who say ‘don’t bother arguing’ are spot on. Like the old saying; never argue with an idiot because they’ll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience (or something like that).
Most are just attention seekers anyway. That’s what they really want.
Same goes for arguing with a narcissist (which Trump is). The easiest way to rile them up is to ignore them and walk away. They can’t tolerate that someone would dare ignore them. Makes for good fun.
But primarily, don’t let them suck you into any sort of dialog. It’s a waste of time & effort.
‘I’m sorry, but until they develop a vaccine against congenital ignorance, I’m afraid I will have to socially distance myself from you to avoid the risk of brain damage.’
I have pointed out that that if G*d could do anything He could have created the universe five seconds ago including us in the midst of this conversation with ersatz memories of our past and all the evidence geologists and astrophysicists keep digging up that shows the universe is nearly 14 billion years old to fool us.
That makes him a trickster god, like Loki, and thus I see no reason to worship Him. They don’t seem to like that argument.
A conversation I had with my Trump-adoring wife soon after the 2020 election went something like this:
Her: I can’t BELIEVE you voted for that corrupt dotard, Biden!
Me: You can’t expect me to vote for Trump. You know I think he’s a monster.
Her: He’s not a monster! He’s the best president this country has ever had!
Me: Really? So you agree with every thing he’s ever said and done?
Her: Yup!
Me: So you don’t disagree with anything he’s said and done in the last four years?
Her: (without skipping a beat) Nope!
Me: So, you think everything he’s done in the last four years was perfect?
Her: (slightest of pauses, continues smugly with) Yup, pretty much!
And I KNOW she doesn’t agree with that 100%, but that’s what she’s choosing to present to me. There’s literally no room for argument or discussion.
She’s saying it not because she’s in 100% agreement with Trump. She’s saying it because she is 100% committed to pissing off “libtards” like you. That is the breadth and depth of their entire philosophy. A petulant F.U. to everyone who has had the temerity to ask them, “Aren’t you embarrassed?!”.
I’m starting to think the only way to “argue” with Trumpers is to punch them right in the face. Hard. And then laugh at them when they cry, and tell them you’re enjoying their tears.
This is really all they understand.
At that point, you are perfectly entitled to grab her by the %$#^ and there is not a damn thing she can do about it.
It’s funny because it’s true. 
Yeah, Doonesbury isn’t the slam dunk it used to be but Gary T still nails it once in a while.
How about “The Misinformation Age.” Never before have so many been so wrong about so much, while believing they are So Right. All thanks to Internet 2.0 and Fox News.
Yep. This is what I’m trying to express. These people understand they’re foot soldiers in a propaganda war. Their purpose is not to reach consensus or mutual understanding. It’s just to win the argument with the libs, and the urge is so strong that they’ll sabotage their economic interests and put their health at risk to do so.
People who can choose what to believe are just different from the rest of us. If anyone knows how to reason with a person like that, it’s definitely not me.
An interesting term crossed my radar for the first time yesterday: disunderstanding. Might not be new to you, but it’s new to me. In a nutshell, it’s the practice of intentionally misunderstanding your opponent’s arguments so as to rob them of their force.
Of course “intentional” does a lot of work here. I believe certain people fall into the habit of consciously disunderstanding, and do it so often that it fades into the subconscious, but some strategic probing can sometimes get them to give up the game (gotta be careful, they understand that people are trying to skewer their precious narrative, and are highly vigiliant of ruses). I believe 100% this is what’s going on with Trumpers.
Sure it makes sense. Nobody likes to get brain injuries. Everybody knows motorcyclists tend to get more of them than other people. Everybody knows helmets are a great way to prevent them. Yet millions of idiots rail against the indignity of having to wear a helmet.
They understand that they’re intentionally putting themselves at risk of grave injury or death. For argument’s sake, let’s presume they don’t want to die or be seriously injured. What thought process describes how they made this decision? To say they’re “pretending” not to be worried, or not to know the risk, is probably a poor word choice on my part for what’s going on. They just decide “it’s not going to happen to me”, and the cognitive dissonance is resolved.
People who can choose their beliefs are just different from you and me.
I think we’re probably talking past each other with no resolution in sight, but I just wanted to take one more stab at expressing that thought a little better.
‘FREEDOM!’
That’s what it is, when it comes to motorcycle helmets. It may cross their minds that they could be hurt if they crash, but I think that’s all drowned out by ‘I ain’t gonna let the gub’ment tell ME what to do!’
The thing is people got a competitive advantage out of bronze, iron, money, and rational thought. What advantage are people deriving from refusing to accept reality? Their denial of the real world just leads them into situations where reality smacks them in the face.
For example, the people who understand getting vaccinated is a good idea get vaccinated. The people who deny this reality refuse to get vaccinated and then they contract a disease and die.
The people who rallied to Trump’s cause and attacked the capital are now getting rounded up and are facing criminal charges. Trump himself is now facing criminal charges he probably could have avoided.
You can’t win a fight against reality.
I think there’s also an element of “I don’t want to be seen as the kind of person who worries that this might happen to them.”
There are two forms of debate:
Genuine debate - to learn and hear out the other side, in which case there is real possibility of being converted, or
Performative debate - a contest of words. You won’t ever win anyone to your side (or vice versa,) especially not if this debate is happening in front of an audience of his/her peers, in which case conceding defeat is social suicide.
The moment a Trumper senses that this is a performative debate - or decides to approach it as a performative debate - any possibility for dialogue is toast, might as well be ejected into the Sun.
Not always, though. One reason some remain devoted to Trump is that he’s their example of NEVER comporting himself as though reality could smack him in the face—because for the most part, it never has. His delusion that he’s a Winner, Respected, Successful, etc., remains largely intact.
It’s not the case that everyone who refuses to get vaccinated dies. So those who don’t want to get vaccinated can easily rationalize away warnings.
It’s not the case that everyone who commits crimes, gets caught and pays a penalty. So those who like fantasizing about committing crimes, and making heroes of those who do—and even many of those who like committing crimes themselves—do so, uninterrupted by Reality.
We’d like to believe in consequences following misdeeds; we’d like to believe in Justice. We’d like to believe in a reality that slaps the delusional and malicious down.
But it doesn’t always work out that way.