So my girlfriend/myself and her (platonic) partner have a lot of different viewpoints. For starters, the partner, “Alex,” believes that undocumented immigrants are “illegal” and breaking the law, but my girlfriend and I think that immigrants of any kind make countries better. Alex hates ICE because Alex thinks they are at least too brutal, and Alex supports LGBT as a non-binary person but is a Christian with a lot of more “conservative” views (Alex isn’t COMPLETELY conservative, but their views could be considered that).


Cultural-diversity PROVABLY increases patent-rate: immigration is, done right, economic gold.
https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum5811/files/2025-07/Posch%2BSchulz%2BHenrich%2B-%2BSurname%2BDiversity%2BInnovation.pdf
Notice I said “done right”: Sweden’s doing it wrong, & getting highjacked.
Years ago, I read that in Germany, homeschooling was illegal…
& my animal-reaction against that was: “that is WRONG”.
through the years, though, seeing how cults use “education” as a means of highjacking countries … finally I understood the rightness of their position, ON CONDITION THAT the state-education was being done right.
( which it isn’t, here in the Americas, no idea how well the EU people are doing it )
Now I understand how excellent education is what is required, & it has to be state provided, & NOT dumbing-down, & not disempowering, & not one-size-fits-all ( obliterating diversity-of-potential for sake of institutional-comfort/establishment )…
Understand that Leninism & fascism both eradicate critical-thinking for sake of … imprint-reaction programming “education”, & that identifies the required-standard for education: 80% of the population NEEDS to be competent in critical-reasoning, consistently, XOR you’re sinking, as a country.
In the US, that isn’t doable: it’s a lost cause.
Now consider what’s required to deal with disagreements:
Ideology/prejudice holds that it is the PERSON that is the problem, & conforming/obedience is the only “right” way…
Critical-thinking, however, is issue centered, & it works best when the issue is diagrammed, visual-spacially, this-depends-on-that, this-choice-decides-between-these-2-paths, etc…
until the people considering the meaning can SEE the Pattern of its implications & consequences, see?
Issue-diagrams are THE required means for civilization to survive The Great Filter.
Get the animal-reacting programming out from the process, XOR we’re DarwinAward’d as a whole species, this century.
The evidence I linked-to, above, shows that cultural-diversity increases economic generation-of-inventions … but ideology doesn’t care what evidence says.
What makes some person “illegal”?
The fact that some legalism decided they’re illegal?
XOR their values?
XOR their religion?
XOR their skin-color?
XOR their gender?
XOR their ancestry?
XOR their location?
Here’s a question that your conservative friend will be dealing-with, soon:
Trump put-in-place a 2-sided “coin”, to activate later.
1-side of that “coin”, ICE, is nearly-completely in-place ( though the incinerators aren’t yet being built: those will begin being built when dictatorship’s instantiated ).
The de-naturalization law, however, he’s been just leaving alone…
Once dictatorship’s established ( probably the Insurrection Act, possibly Martial Law, if any terrorism hands him “jutification” ), then he’ll de-naturalize all non-Republicans.
Suddenly, ALL Democrats become “illegals”.
How does your conservative friend feel about that?
Right there, you’re going to face the difference between thinking vs ideological-programming.
I hope they think, but … it’s their choice.
All the Trump-supporters who have been deported ( US Citizens, green-card people, & illegal-immigrants too ) all are evidence that their view isn’t objective: they believed that the harm wouldn’t touch them, then it did.
Objectivity & correct-reasoning both are required, but so is worldview-adapting-to-evidence, NOT worldview-fighting-off-evidence-that-won’t-obey, right?
Try issue-diagramming, so the entire Pattern of each issue is visible, simultaneously, & see if better-quality communication can happen then.
Pencil & paper’s fine.
Each node/decision having “pros” closer to the goal, & “cons” on the other side of it, away from the goal…
& see how the decisions form a structure, complete with dependencies.
Maybe that’ll help clarify things…
_ /\ _