This is where the root of the disagreement is. There isn't a meaningful distinction between the general public and antis. The general public are antis, so from my point of view you're trying to get the general public to turn against itself.GregoryBayclark wrote: Sun Aug 18, 2024 10:58 pm I'm curious about your definition of 'people' here, because it seems oddly broad. Additionally, I'm not interested in convincing antis of anything. They are too far gone.
The issue is a matter of whether we have a choice of getting the public on our side, or not. There is likely no other way but to get the public to turn against antis, and towards us and minors.
Again, it has to be imposed against the will of the general public/antis.Considering my points on why societal opinion must change to allow many points on this list to succeed, how could the list possibly succeed without such a shift in thought?
I haven't given up on changing the hearts and minds of the public/antis, I just don't see that happening until the laws change. Choosing to try to change antis minds the way you are trying is fine, but I see it as talking to a brick wall.That said, it's important that we don't give up on thinking about different means of influencing the public. Despite every attempt I have made to defeat that view I hold, I don't think we have a choice but to change hearts and minds.
tl;dr Trying to make a distinction between the general public and antis is wishful thinking in my opinion. They have to be forced not to be allowed to express hatred or aggression towards us by law. Over time, as MAPs can live more openly the prejudice would reduce as people get more used to us. Even laws that are low in effectiveness would move us in that direction.