Can you fight hate and intolerance with hate and intolerance for hate and intolerance?
No. Adding additional poison to the stew only makes it more toxic.
The most successful way to change someone's mind is to reframe the issue. Think of you and the hater you want to change and your relationship, as a pie. You largely agree on things, and the differences are only a tiny slice. You may think you disagree on everything, but that's not true. You both believe it is safe to step onto an elevator after the doors open, you both believe you need to breathe air, you both believe that life is better if you are kind to others. The only part of the pie on which you disagree is the tiny slice, such as you're from the party that believes in science and the other fellow is from the party that you believe doesn't.
First, acceptance beats understanding eight days a week.
Second, your values are largely the same. You both want the same things to happen, everybody respects everybody else, everyone wants peace and love and universal prosperity. The only way in which we differ is how to accomplish the same goal. That is a belief, not a value. And, it's OK for people to hold different beliefs. If you want to change someone's beliefs, you need to reframe the issue. That means agreeing that you want the same I'm an INTJ, and the INTJ forum is a cesspool of hatred and intolerance.
When the ACA was proposed, I had objections on technical grounds. First, the underlying statement of truth, 43 Million Americans without health insurance, was the headline on a Department of the Census Report. Look into the content and you discover that the real number is about 11 million people do not have something called health insurance. The others third-party payers for their healthcare needs available, but chose not to take it. That included the self-employed with income over $75k/year, people eligible for employers health insurance coverage but chose not to use it, and several other categories. The need was for 3% of the population, not 15%. I supported raising my taxes and moving heaven and earth to get that three percent good health care. That means a squad of sharpshooters, not a nuclear bomb. We used the nuclear bomb.
The primary causes of increased healthcare cost are improved diagnostic tools and therapeutics. Your kid's arm hurts, you demand an MRI. The doctor knows there's little chance of anything wrong except a stressed bone, but you insist. Cost: [imath]3K. Cost of X-ray:[/imath]7. But, hey, insurance is paying for it, so it's free, right? There is no free lunch.
Your wife has a problem and you diagnosed it for her using Google. First, you're an idiot. You've seen advertisements on TV and her symptoms are consistent with giardititis (caused by bacteria.) Her BP is in stroke range, which tells the doctor something serious is wrong, but it's not girditis You present the doctor your expert diagnosis and demand she begin antibacterials. Preferably, the latest one. The most expensive one. He suggests gas-x and a bland diet for 24 hours. You get louder and louder, you're sure he's wrong. Eventually they run an MRI of your wife's stomach (useless). What they needed to do was get a CT scan of her intestine, she's probably F.O.S. Give pain medication immediately to bring down the BP, admit her overnight for observation. Nurse starts an IV and your wife is singing the Theme Song to the Mickey Mouse Club. Yup, they gave her a diluted dose of Fentanyl, which brings down BP extremely quickly; your wife's on a trip. Just try to get a video of her; she'll eventually appreciate it, as soon as her sense of humor returns. Oh, and the antibiotics? They'll play hell with your wife's gut biome, leading to making her sicker for a longer period. So, second, you're a really big idiot.
Educating parents and other patients about what is panic-worthy and what isn't is needed. But, heck, you know how to use Google, and Doctors don't know everything, right? Give it up, idiot.
There were many more technical objections, such as the Netherlands study that was released in the middle of "first we have to pass it, then we can read it." The study followed 2,000,000 patients over twenty years with the goal of determining whether smoking or obesity is the greatest contributor to lifetime health care costs. Turned out it was neither. It was lifespan. Thin non-smokers had the highest lifetime healthcare costs, so preventive care was the wrong solution to saving money. I'm not smart enough to know what to do about it; I am smart enough to know that the only choice guaranteed to be wrong was to ignore the study results. Congress ignored the results.
I was pilloried. I didn't want poor people to get healthcare! I wanted to push grandma off a cliff! I was an evil person who should be shot, then hanged, then drawn and quartered.