[re-thc]

> They know enough to understand which way should their ignorance be pointed to support their worldview.

Again, you assume or are you god? Did you mind read everyone? Otherwise there's no way to really tell. Are the votes public? What people say might not be what they vote for.

> I've seen this countless times

As in you've looked at everyone in existence?

> Ignorance is not the root cause. It's a protection mechanism.

Again how do you draw this conclusion that 100% or at least >70% are like this. It's like you decide for them. So even if they're ignorant you're going to rule otherwise.

> It's fascinating to watch at first

This is worse than stereotyping. What's fascinating is listening to your reply.

[ajuc]

The discussion started with

> That's not what people voted for (agreeing with the government)

I could play your game (asking at every point how do you know). And we will get to the point that we both agree it's just our interpretations of facts.

Now that we established that - can we return to a regular discussion?

I live among such people. They are my family and my neighbors. We talk about this. My uncle has a company distributing pig feed. He's doing it for 20 years. He pays taxes. When our Polish MAGA introduced a tax reform that they reverted next month (becuse it was self-contradictory) - he defended them and argued his taxes will be lower when it was mathematically false.

He's not stupid. He have choosen no to understand something he's good at - because he wanted to preserve his political beliefs.

My father is a teacher. He argued previous government "never raised teachers' salaries" and that his beloved MAGA government did. In reality (and I know that because my wife also was a teacher at the time) - it was the other way around. I've googled the data on the official government website. He did not changed his mind.

These are 2 examples out of dozens.

It's like talking with flat-earthers. It's not that they never encountered anybody to teach them science. They did, and they actively choose to ignore it. In fact they have to know the mainstream position at least well enough to know what not to believe.

[re-thc]

> And we will get to the point that we both agree it's just our interpretations of facts.

You're trying to prove something with a much higher requirement than mine. Where are the facts to begin with?

I'm saying it's "not" what they voted for, the equivalent of trying to prove "not guilty". So as long as there are suspicions that's easily done.

What you're trying to prove is that everyone is "guilty", which is a lot harder, e.g. you'd need a high majority in court.

> I live among such people. > These are 2 examples out of dozens.

i.e. your reply is you live potentially in a bubble that might not even be statistically enough to prove any point and because of that you've concluded.

So if my friends at school all buy the same game, somewhere this game is popular in my country or even the world? For all I know it could only be my school or my state. E.g. many US states swing differently.