And it's clear to me that a decent amount of the most vocal people here just read headlines, usually from the same kind of sources, and take it as gospel truth. There was just a topic about something, and people were overtly saying "X person should be imprisoned" based on the headline, but if you looked at the article it was clear that how it was being interpreted was not in alignment with what actually happened.
But after I pointed that out there were no responses.
There's a good Obama quote I like, which was "If I watched Fox News all day, I'd hate me too."
A lot of people, and this is a very much "both sides" thing, just read headlines that validate their perspective, take the headlines as gospel truth and react accordingly. And well, basically, if I took all the same headlines as gospel truth, I'd hate me too.
So even if I think such people are wrong, I at least can kind of understand it.
But what I can't do is get through to people who legitimately say "I ain't reading that" to anything more than a few sentences. If somebody is completely not operating in good faith or even reading anything that challenges them, you by definition can't get through to them.
I'd be open to calmly talking to just about anybody here, and I think we could make some progress, and both learn from each other. But first you'd have to find a person here willing to have such a discussion, and I think many such people have been driven away, and some of the most vocal people aren't interested in that kind of thing at all.
But I think there are still plenty, and probably more than you'd think. It's just unfortunate that the least constructive people on the internet are often the loudest.
Jesus you didn't need the red glowy eyes in the pic