>Start getting redpilled, about one year ago >always considered

>>36894900
Don't even try.

A lot of my friends are like this and the election seemed to have ruined a few good connections I had. I used to hang out with a lot of art kids and "punks" but now they are just mouthpieces of corporate-sponsored government.

>>36894900
Your friend may be very intelligent and well-spoken, but he has an emotional bias in this. He is using everything he can think of to justify his bias rather than look at the information and come to a conclusion.

He is going to use the CIA as a credible source? The CIA is responsible for the collapse of governments around the globe and he doesn't think they would try to protect their own self-interest.

It also sounds like you are talking about way too many subjects at once. I usually focus on one subject and really dig deep. You are never going to "redpill" anyone. That is a journey they must take on their own.

>>36894900
If they don't want to learn, they won't. In his mind your views are as stupid as his are to you.

>>36894900
you guys are fucking faggots. is your definition of "redpilled" spouting "muh blakk man statistics" that are publicly available? you're a goddamned faggot more obsessed with proving to yourself that your views are "special" and "woke" by arguing with your friend, just like most of you retards.

>>36895108
I'm considering it, but it just seems like a huge defeat for me. I made some points, and he ignored them, points that i, just one year earlier would've been just as opposed to as he is.

>>36895281
>Your friend may be very intelligent and well-spoken, but he has an emotional bias in this. He is using everything he can think of to justify his bias rather than look at the information and come to a conclusion.
I guess he is, i mean, when i first asked him why he thinks Trump is so terrible his response was "Hillary has experience" "She said she's going to reveal any information the government has on UFOs" and "Trump said he's going to use nuclear bombs".
PS: i never found a source for the nuke part, and neither did he

>He is going to use the CIA as a credible source? The CIA is responsible for the collapse of governments around the globe and he doesn't think they would try to protect their own self-interest.
When i questioned him about CIA, saying they're not reliable he just mocked my distrust
He also seems to be a-okay with collapsing governments, see the point about Assad
He also wouldn't even concede an inch that maybe Gadaffi shouldn't have been overthrown, as things are just worse now.

>It also sounds like you are talking about way too many subjects at once.
Keep in mind that this is taking place over one whole year. For the most part i stick to the topic at hand, but every topic keeps bringing up two new ones. And as i said, when it gets to a point he doesn't like, he seems to just go silent

>You are never going to "redpill" anyone. That is a journey they must take on their own.
Fair. Which is why i recommended he check out alternative media last time i saw him. He didn't even know what it was.

>>36895417
I get that, but this guy keeps giving the impression that he knows a lot, when it really seems like propoganda


>>36895502
I brought up the statistics because he seemed to think white-on-black murder is an epidemic in USA

>>36895623
You're trying to have a semi-serious discussion with someone who clearly forms their opinions based on their Facebook newsfeed. I despise redpilled politics or whatever you want to call your beliefs, like I support the boot on your neck IRL, but even I won't stoop to arguing nonexistent points or claiming ridiculous things like Pepe the Frog is a hate symbol. It's like if I tried to argue with my grandmother about Obama's birth certificate, or whatever other silly shit she keeps sending me in these chain emails. That's not a discussion that's going anywhere.

It's partly because nobody reads anything anymore, they just look at a headline or skim the top of an article and make a judgment. Oftentimes when people argue about these tired topics (e.g., race and crime stats), there's truth on both sides but that gets totally lost as idiots (or people purposefully polluting the dialog) twist or misstate things until someone gets offended. Then the discussion is over.

If you want to engage with people on the other side of issues that you're interested in, you have to pick really, really carefully. I work in govt and have worked in politics, so I'm really interested in this stuff, but I assiduously avoid discussing it with all but a tiny few very close friends (and work colleagues).