I guess it mostly invalidates what he said previously. Like we can agree that the US government will take away people’s rights if left unchecked by the people, but then he will say that the government needs to deport all immigrants without care for due process, lock black and brown people for protesting, and to keep women out of leadership positions.
I point out the contradictions, but he says it still makes sense to him.
First of all: kudos to you for still not having given up talking to that guy. I think I can imagine that frustration.
Maybe, instead of pointing out the contradiction, you can try to make him realize how the lack of due process, locking up protestors and keeping groups of people out of leadership positions will hurt him in the end.
How does it invalidate the things you agree on? Or does it make you not want to talk to him nnymore?
Because you can explain why sexism/racism/whatever is counterproductive on a tactical/logical level without bringing morals into the mix.
I guess it mostly invalidates what he said previously. Like we can agree that the US government will take away people’s rights if left unchecked by the people, but then he will say that the government needs to deport all immigrants without care for due process, lock black and brown people for protesting, and to keep women out of leadership positions.
I point out the contradictions, but he says it still makes sense to him.
First of all: kudos to you for still not having given up talking to that guy. I think I can imagine that frustration.
Maybe, instead of pointing out the contradiction, you can try to make him realize how the lack of due process, locking up protestors and keeping groups of people out of leadership positions will hurt him in the end.