Against Persuasion

There are ways to "picking the lock" however, as another part. That's the basis of marketing and sales. The processes are very well defined though the results are stochastic rather than deterministic. Hence marketing and sales are "number games".

But such techniques are merely tools without specific morality or ethics - never give the human a free pass on morality or ethics because only humans can make such decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/do-as-i-d... (paywall)

Whereas books by prominent conservatives tend to have titles like "Demonic : How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" and "Liberal Fascism : The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change". (Not that the left doesn't produce books with similar titles, but they don't get wide distribution, while you've heard of Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg).

Your statement is probably true, but it's as a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy. If one side insists long enough that that the other side is literally evil, they won't be understood no matter how hard their opponents try.

Every time liberals lose elections, there is hand-wringing about understanding the other side. But I've never seen the equivalent worry about how conservatives can understand liberals. Instead, the response is usually to do the same thing even harder -- which works, because it generates enthusiastic support from the far right and grudging support from the center, while compromise bores everybody.

It eventually resulted in Trump, whose primary skill is in being deliberately offensive. And it would have worked again, had a literal pandemic not intervened. He remains incredibly popular with the right -- not because he tries to understand liberals, but because he specifically rejects the notion that there's anything there to understand.

This conclusion is repugnant, and I rejected it for a very long time. But it seems inescapable. And I have no idea what to recommend, because it seems clear that no amount of me trying harder to understand is going to help. I do believe, however, that additional calls for equivalence are detrimental. They deny the reality that the split is asymmetric, and therefore shunt us into lines of thought that will continue to prove ineffective.

He chose to remain faithful to speaking truth (or what he believed to be true and asking questions to humbly discover it) rather than acquiesce to a bunch of manipulative tyrants. Such actions not only commit you to stand by the truth in thought, word, and deed, but they inspire others to do the same and thus disperse the evil of the world. It was a blow to the systemic lies of myth and sophistry employed by the powerful of the world.

Socrates did not choose death. He chose truth while accepting that he would be killed by those in power. Big difference, except for a utilitarian.

Now whether he should have chosen exile, I don't know. In some sense, what he chose is heroic and more inspiring than skipping town. Christian martyrdom is like this. A Christian remains steadfast in the truth even to the point of death. This is a faithfulness to Truth that cannot be destroyed by evil men who would use fear to part us from the truth and toss us back into the darkness and slavery of lies. In remaining faithful to the truth, the martyr truly lives and is truly happy no matter what pain comes his way, whereas some men spend decades rotting in the misery of lies. The martyr loves the truth to the point of the extinction of self. He also dies in anticipation of the Beatific Vision. This is the greatest fulfillment of a rational being wherein the doors of the soul are flung open to the infinite fullness of truth. In the vanity of the City of Man, on the other hand, men love themselves to the point of the extinction of truth and thus live in death and misery.

The truth will set you free and so in a sense Socrates died as free of a man as you might have reasonably expected a pagan to be in his position.