What is the plan?

I very much like your pointers in here. I will make sure to include this point of view on my analysis. @vanidackp

@enduser So let me get this straight. Your solution is treat everyone else as children and psychologically assault them until they agree with you. Do I actually have to explain how that is not progressive at all?

I am not sure if you can claim anything on that list is a conservative cause they champion. Sure they may not oppose things but is that the same thing as collaboration?

Also everything on that list that promotes a productive direction seems to be a long championed progressive causes.

Many things on the list seem to have consensus building around the fact a problem exists. I don’t find that useful or productive. Many see the problems.

Lastly I would like to point out the header:
Antidepressants work
It may seem that a lot of Americans distrust big pharma — the opioid crisis hasn’t helped — but most of us, at least, believe that antidepressants are always (6%) usually (26%) or sometimes (40%) effective at treating depression.

Do you realize how maniacal it is to publish opinion of medicine when the research is very clear on the dangers these drugs are?

Also then asking for data to back up claims seems a bit off. Bring some data to the table and we could discuss it.

Did you read that post…?

@enduser I did read your post. As far as I can tell, the gist of your post is: Everyone else is children, psychologically assault trumpers until they agree with you, women suck at fighting, and here’s books on war.

Are you actually telling me to keep facts, legitimate research, and logical reasoning out of my arguments? Do you just want me to take your word for what you say, without such? Do I understand that right?

As a data driven person you would then provide the part of my argument that would cause you to draw that conclusion.

This sounds like you’re accusing me of something pretty slanderous. What would give you that impression?

Sure, yes believe me that you’re wrong, but if you want to grow you will question your own beliefs. Then do your own research.

If your offering that list you linked as data, I applaud your attempts. I suggest going back to the drawing board.

@enduser Psychological: of, affecting, or arising in the mind; related to the mental and emotional state of a person.
Assault: a strong verbal attack.; or attack or bombard (someone or the senses) with something undesirable or unpleasant.
Imprint: a lasting impression or effect.

In the definitions I provide, I am going with the specific dictionary entries that fit the context of your post.

At first, in the paragraph where you say “They need to be imprinted on,” it seems that you are advocating exposure of TYT and OP’s ideas and values to “imprint” them on OP’s aunt, but you aren’t. You are literally telling OP to become a linguistic shogun.

Linguistic: relating to language or linguistics.
Shogun: the title applied to the chief military commanders from about the 8th century a.d. to the end of the 12th century, then applied to the hereditary officials who governed Japan, with the emperor as nominal ruler, until 1868, when the shogunate was terminated and the ruling power was returned to the emperor.
War: a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.

Immediately before you tell OP to become a linguistic shogun, you claim “Women don’t naturally pick up the war mentality that men seem to grasp like second nature.”, making it pretty clear that you expect OP to imprint on OP’s in a war-like manner. Then two of the books you suggest for reading center around the topics of war tactics, martial arts, and “the way of the sword”, reinforcing the idea that you want OP to imprint on her aunt in a war-like manner. I do not think one can interpret your post as anything except imprinting on someone else in a war-like manner, or essentially psychologically assaulting someone.

Slanderous: (of a spoken statement) false and malicious.
Question: a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.

Most questions, by their nature, cannot be slanderous, because they usually lack a statement. If my question infers that it seems that I believe that you do not want me to bring facts, legitimate research, and logical reasoning with my arguments, that is my right to do. You do not instill confidence to me in your position by outright dismissing the article I used as an example. In every post you made so far, I find it very hard to believe that your ideas are based upon fact, research, or logical reasoning, so I am not actually sure you know what you mean by “Then do your own research.”

@enduser By the way, YOU are answering MY question, in the topic I started. It is perfecty reasonable for me to expect YOU to explain your position, and explain how your answer satisfies my question. The only thing I want in this topic, is an ANSWER to my QUESTION. If anyone answers my question, I am going to (among many possibilities): ask for clarification when an answer is confusing, incomplete, or defective in any way; ask for justification as to the viability of the ideas proposed (facts, research, or logical reasoning); present a summary of what it appears that one is saying and ask for confirmation that you meant what you said; confront anyone trying to hijack the topic for their own purposes; and any other reasonable action towards getting a proper answer to my question.

I have very clearly communicated what I think your plan appears to be. Either tell me how I am wrong about what you are saying, explain what you actually meant to say, or remove yourself from the topic if all you want to do is wage linguistic war.

You missed my qualifier of “sounds like”.

If you can’t address my critique of your ‘data’ then we are at an impasse. Know I don’t seek your approval.

You seem to love / suffer from the good old pretend I made a straw man argument then eviscerate them.

Golf clap no cookie for you.

I guess this is data and persuasion?

You’re laboring minutiae that has been well explored.

You seem to want me to pretend this a dialogue.

When you start a topic you gain no fief over how I address it.

We are at an impasse because you answered my question, and you will not explain yourself. My data is irrelevant because I am not the answerer. This topic is “What is the plan?” You have answered. I want an explanation. “Is your solution to treat everyone else as children and psychologically assault them until they agree with you?” Clearly, you are not required to explain yourself, but if you have no interest in doing that, you are not contributing anything useful to this topic. You can say anything else you want, but those are the facts.

So you seemed to missed the persuasion part. I think you may want to formally study persuasion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKAfKprBXQc&ab_channel=TheTravelHunts

I suggest a good start is insisting on mischaracterizing others statements.

If someone tells you over and over something and you don’t listen you may appear as hostile.

I would love to address any actual data in that link you posted.

@enduser I really do not know how to explain any better. You are either being obtuse, or you have difficulty understanding me. As far as I can tell, your plan is: “persuade others to become progressive,”. As far as I can tell from the post you claim is how to do so, the way you plan to accomplish this is by treating everyone else as children and psychologically assaulting them until they agree with you. There is no mischaracterizing if I am giving you the opportunity to correct my understanding of what you are saying. All you have to do is clarify if your plan is to treat everyone else as children and psychologically assault them until they agree with you.

If you read my post, and that is what you got, I am not sure I would have any reason to explain any plan.

Reading comprehension isn’t a gift to everyone. I struggle with it myself and often have to reread things many times to fully understand them.

Maybe that is what is happening here?

I think you must have missed my points about persuasion and conflated that to child rearing. I am talking about philosophy at the root.

I find it is better to give the benefit of the doubt lest you become easily misguided.

I have very clearly explained that I came to my understanding of your plan by the analysis of the “war-like” framing you have applied to the language of your post. So either: A. You did not mean to apply a war-like framing to the language of your post, so you did not realize you were advocating psychologically assaulting others until they conform to your views, or: B: You did it on purpose, and your idea of “persuasion” is psychologically assaulting others until they conform to your views. Again, there is no requirement that you explain yourself, but the fact that A is very trivial to explain, and B looks REALLY bad, because it is, leads me to think that I might very well have characterized your plan correctly, because you do not seem to want to go with A.

So there is no C? I love this idea.

So what war am I waging, who do you suspect my target is?

I love the idea you are data driven and you linked a CBS article you will not defend.

If you had a C, which is very possible, it is up to you if you want to share it with us. I have no idea what war you are waging, if such is what you are doing, and I have no idea who your target is. Again, there is no need for me to defend the CBS article. fourthwall_dragon has already accepted it a useful piece of information for something they are doing, it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, and it is not relevent to the question that is the subject of the topic. If you continue to raise it up as a barrier to refute anything unrelated to the idea of bread and butter politics, you are raising a straw man argument.

So then if the argument is the label progressive and not the fact but in name. Persuasion is the answer to the identity issue.

No one has to call themselves progressives and that seems to be the frame you cannot escape.

Can you explain what you mean by: “So then if the argument is the label progressive and not the fact but in name. Persuasion is the answer to the identity issue. No one has to call themselves progressives and that seems to be the frame you cannot escape.”