> The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves.

That's probably the most succinct description of rhetoric using the Socratic method I have seen to date; highlighting the way its used in effective discourse is as a guide to a conclusion rather than an argument. Very well put.

> Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen.

Agreed. But even in Plato's time this was rare, too. Which is why The Republic was written the way that it was: a Philosophical discourse approached with this method in mind told via (hypothetical?) dialogue(s) amongst other Philosophers and eventually members of the State to reveal a premise that most could arrive on their own with enough inquiry as to the onerous Nature of the State--even in it's ideal portrayal of the coming Golden Age of the Hellenic Era ushered in by Alexander--and 'good.'

It could have been written merely as proofs with the elucidation of its applications and usecases, as was typical of the time, but instead it took the time to navigate the reader on the likely rebuttals and discourses one may encounter when exploring the Nature of the topic.

To this day I think it stands the time as the most seminal work(s) on Anarchism, it took me 5 readings of all of the books: the first being when I was a sophomore in High School still exploring the ideology and the last being after the death of Grothendieck. Which is probably contrary to what Plato wanted as he himself was an aristocrat who benefited greatly due to his status and standing in Athenian Society that was only possible because of the centralized power of the Athenian-Polis.

All of Plato's work before or since were not comparable and Diogenes, who Plato referred to as 'Socrates gone mad' but also one of the most dedicated Moral Ethicists to have ever existed in my view, was there to remind him of the futility of it.

For sure. If you genuienly want to convince someone of something, you must be willing to engage them in the details.

Trivilizing the disagreement is a defense mechanisim. If I am unwilling to engage with someone, I'll still be polite to them. If one is so sure they are misguided, trivilizing it will re-enforce their position. It's counter-productive; we all live in the same universe.

Text breaks this a bit, often it's clear to one of the participents that there will be no reply, and you are not really speaking to them. But IRL, in person, and especially in private, it really matters.

That sounds like a good method, given the time. But I'd like to argue that some people are simply not smart enough to have enough reflection and thoughts about anything. They need someone else to feed them a theory that fits their view on the world. And that's that. No going back from it.

...obviously this isn't scalable to do one-on-one. That's why it's better to broadcast it. Have a televised debate where you convince someone with this method - so you can link-share to anyone online you meet with the same idiocy.

I agree, that would be a better way. This is more like fighting fire with fire.