The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone.<p>Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else.<p>In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for example (a pretty conservative country, most would agree), campaigners tried for years to talk about 'social justice' but there was a portion of the population (largely older people) who were just not convinced.<p>What that population needed to hear was a) a message from someone that was like them, and b) an argument couched in terms of the impact that the marriage vote would have on their grandchildren.<p>That was far more effective and the country ended up voting for equal marriage. The result of the referendum was also much more legitimate - it wasn't a case of one social class / group pushing through a desired outcome. It genuinely came from the whole country, even though different groups voted for different reasons.<p>Likewise, if someone believes that all affirmative action schemes are inherently wrong-headed, no amount of argument that "the outcome of affirmative action can be good in the long run" is going to sway them. Second guessing their motives and saying "you're just trying to protect your own interest" is a good way of ensuring they never listen to you again.<p>It takes guts to admit that not only is your argument potentially not convincing to someone, but that you also may be the wrong person to be making it. In this vein, you can, as a result, also spend a long time with someone and still end up talking past them if you're not careful.
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things).<p>Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. Sometimes you have to drag people, kicking and screaming, into social change. Waiting until you persuade everyone is futile.
What I've learned after a lot of pain is that you can't convince anyone of anything. I've poured years of my life into shitty organizations to try to "fix" them and gotten nowhere.<p>The people that disagree with you will find ways to slowly peel back all your achievements. In a badly run organization the problem isn't the outdated machines and processes or the shitty products. Those are symptoms of shitty people and management.<p>If you want to fix an organization the surest way is to fire everyone in management. If you can't do that the best thing you can do for yourself is leave immediately.
I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."
The bigger problem now is that some of the platforms themselves have chosen to take sides on contentious debates and engage in unfair treatment of the other side. This has the effect of emboldening the most radical players on both sides and drowning out moderate voices and any chance of dialog.<p>On the side they choose to support the radical voices adopt a zero tolerance policy for the other side and seek to eliminate any decent. The opposing side has proof that the platforms has a bias against them and will try to subvert the debate so thoughtful opinions do not bother under those circumstances.<p>You can not change anyone's opinion by refusing them a platform to express themselves. Or allowing engagement but employing a double standard where one side gets to be abusive but the other gets punished for the same behaviour.<p>If we look at the recent case of James Damore he was fired for his views. How many people at Google who support him are going to change there minds on the issue just because The management decided to take a side and silence any opposing views?
The issue is scalability though. That's why it's preferable to consolidate your base of people who understand the issues, push for logical policy changes that protect people's rights, and hope that over a generation or two, people realize that those rights are important and valid.<p>That's how the US Civil Rights Movement and most anti-colonial movements worked. Things aren't perfect now, but imagine how long it would have taken to go door to door and convince every person that poll taxes were racist. Given the state of voter id laws, I don't think we'd have gotten to equitable voting by today if we tried courteously convincing people.
Convincing people takes time -- and actions speak louder than words. If you think being "polite" is not working, it is probably because people are merely talking and not doing. If you are doing and polite, it seems to actually make inroads.<p>/2cents
Most people don't change their minds about more than just a few things after some early age - barring some life-changing even. I think it's rare that any number of [books, movies, conversations], or amount of time exposed to same, causes change.
It would be healthy for HN moderators to ingest this article. Even well mannered and well intended messages that do not necessarily agree with progressive dogma, are consistently down-modded. That's a shame.