"I didn't know that! That doesn't sound true." which is the typical normie response which actually requires shoving a huge amount of information in their face.
I know from personal experience that the normies will be scared off by the massive information overload required to explain even a tenth of the shit going on. The response will range from thinking you are a crazy conspiracy theorist, to outright hostility.
Their brains can't handle their worldview being absolutely shattered, so they go into fight or flight mode, and either try to leave, or start shouting at you. If you do get into an argument, they usually pull the old "source? SOURCE?" thing, and if you do remember a source off the top of your head, if it isn't one of the establishment sources they are comfortable with, they default back to the old "oh you're just a right wing nutjob" angle.
It's very rare that you can actually deprogram these people with the truth.
I don't see this among normies. This is because even if you tell them something like, "Simone de Beauvoir's 'Second Sex', page 127, paragraph 4"; it's not actually going to mean anything. Most actual normies, already know ... that they don't know anything. They'll basically make an appeal to ignorance and say something like, "I don't know anything about that, I haven't heard that before, but it doesn't seem like what I've heard [hint: from their indoctrinated sociology professor], who told them that 'feminism is fully defined as thinking women are human'."
What you're talking about isn't really normies, but "center-leftists". They are the "default liberals" that are already hyper skeptical of anti-Leftist narratives or positions. These are the people that laughed at the idea of tampons going in girls bathrooms in elementary school because 'that isn't happening, you got that from some podcast'. No different than when Miriam Williamson went on Tim Pool's podcast and saw a CRT book that explained that whiteness was inherently evil. It shocked her so much she almost cried.
Most normies are going to understand their ignorance, so you have to basically appeal to common sense with follow-up questions early. "How can you have diversity and equality? Equality would require some kind of sameness, but diversity requires difference." Then as they are searching for an answer, give them one. They're actually not too bad at reasoning in abstraction if they simply have no knowledge to base off of, or are already intimately familiar with a topic. The calling card of leftist indoctrination is mid-wittery that only gives people enough knowledge to form a sense of over-confidence.
With the default Leftists, that is really their primary sphere. You can only get around that with probing follow-up questions. They've never actually introspected their own beliefs, so it's best to actually walk them through what they believe. Question them so that their answers give them some "left and right lateral limits" (basically the maximum extent where their beliefs on a subject lie), and then ask them follow-up questions to what they believe, and how to respond. They like hearing themselves talk, so play into that and allow them to explain themselves. Then show them where they start to clearly rationalize stuff they don't understand.
"Okay, so you think we live in a white supremacist country. Do you think we are ruled by the KKK or that we're a Nazi party ruled country?"
"Well, no, I mean we are white supremacist because the outcomes of society favor white people."
"Okay, so it's white supremacism because of outcome, not because of ideology. So you don't think that the explicit ideology of white supremacism is what's guiding policy makers."
"Well, maybe some republicans, but for the most part, no, it's just outcomes. It's the inequitable outcomes that stem from a legacy of white supremacy and slavery."
"Okay, well, why do you believe that these outcomes are are the result of the legacy of white supremacy and slavery? Couldn't those groups just be engaging in different behaviors? Like, say, for example: there are a lot of jews that work law. That's not because of a jewish conspiracy to put jews into law school, it's instead that jews tend to be from highly literate backgrounds and childhoods, and so pursue law disproportionately. Couldn't some of those outcomes simply be the result of people's choices, rather than some kind of institutional act?"
"Well, maybe, but okay, what if jews had to pursue law to get around white supremacy?"
"Okay, but is white supremacy so common and powerful today that jews are regularly oppressed for their religion?"
" ... "
"Wouldn't it make more sense that their kids just picked up law just like their fathers did? They could just carry on the family practice."
"Sure but the reason they were there was from the legacy of white supremacy."
"Yes, but not because there is white supremacy. Only that there was and you're looking at historical momentum."
"Sure, I guess."
"Which means it's not that the country is white supremacist, it's only that there was a time that it was."
Her silence is deafening, and this is only a minor CRT example. It's not even egregious. There's worse Washington Post articles.
The whole podcast was them basically educating her on just how bad the book stuff has gotten with progressives. Mix this with her explaining that the whole "crystal lady" thing was entirely manufactured by the media to slander her.
I know from personal experience that the normies will be scared off by the massive information overload required to explain even a tenth of the shit going on. The response will range from thinking you are a crazy conspiracy theorist, to outright hostility.
Their brains can't handle their worldview being absolutely shattered, so they go into fight or flight mode, and either try to leave, or start shouting at you. If you do get into an argument, they usually pull the old "source? SOURCE?" thing, and if you do remember a source off the top of your head, if it isn't one of the establishment sources they are comfortable with, they default back to the old "oh you're just a right wing nutjob" angle.
It's very rare that you can actually deprogram these people with the truth.
I don't see this among normies. This is because even if you tell them something like, "Simone de Beauvoir's 'Second Sex', page 127, paragraph 4"; it's not actually going to mean anything. Most actual normies, already know ... that they don't know anything. They'll basically make an appeal to ignorance and say something like, "I don't know anything about that, I haven't heard that before, but it doesn't seem like what I've heard [hint: from their indoctrinated sociology professor], who told them that 'feminism is fully defined as thinking women are human'."
What you're talking about isn't really normies, but "center-leftists". They are the "default liberals" that are already hyper skeptical of anti-Leftist narratives or positions. These are the people that laughed at the idea of tampons going in girls bathrooms in elementary school because 'that isn't happening, you got that from some podcast'. No different than when Miriam Williamson went on Tim Pool's podcast and saw a CRT book that explained that whiteness was inherently evil. It shocked her so much she almost cried.
Most normies are going to understand their ignorance, so you have to basically appeal to common sense with follow-up questions early. "How can you have diversity and equality? Equality would require some kind of sameness, but diversity requires difference." Then as they are searching for an answer, give them one. They're actually not too bad at reasoning in abstraction if they simply have no knowledge to base off of, or are already intimately familiar with a topic. The calling card of leftist indoctrination is mid-wittery that only gives people enough knowledge to form a sense of over-confidence.
With the default Leftists, that is really their primary sphere. You can only get around that with probing follow-up questions. They've never actually introspected their own beliefs, so it's best to actually walk them through what they believe. Question them so that their answers give them some "left and right lateral limits" (basically the maximum extent where their beliefs on a subject lie), and then ask them follow-up questions to what they believe, and how to respond. They like hearing themselves talk, so play into that and allow them to explain themselves. Then show them where they start to clearly rationalize stuff they don't understand.
"Okay, so you think we live in a white supremacist country. Do you think we are ruled by the KKK or that we're a Nazi party ruled country?"
"Well, no, I mean we are white supremacist because the outcomes of society favor white people."
"Okay, so it's white supremacism because of outcome, not because of ideology. So you don't think that the explicit ideology of white supremacism is what's guiding policy makers."
"Well, maybe some republicans, but for the most part, no, it's just outcomes. It's the inequitable outcomes that stem from a legacy of white supremacy and slavery."
"Okay, well, why do you believe that these outcomes are are the result of the legacy of white supremacy and slavery? Couldn't those groups just be engaging in different behaviors? Like, say, for example: there are a lot of jews that work law. That's not because of a jewish conspiracy to put jews into law school, it's instead that jews tend to be from highly literate backgrounds and childhoods, and so pursue law disproportionately. Couldn't some of those outcomes simply be the result of people's choices, rather than some kind of institutional act?"
"Well, maybe, but okay, what if jews had to pursue law to get around white supremacy?"
"Okay, but is white supremacy so common and powerful today that jews are regularly oppressed for their religion?"
" ... "
"Wouldn't it make more sense that their kids just picked up law just like their fathers did? They could just carry on the family practice."
"Sure but the reason they were there was from the legacy of white supremacy."
"Yes, but not because there is white supremacy. Only that there was and you're looking at historical momentum."
"Sure, I guess."
"Which means it's not that the country is white supremacist, it's only that there was a time that it was."
"..."
Link to the Williamson thing?
Here you go.
Her silence is deafening, and this is only a minor CRT example. It's not even egregious. There's worse Washington Post articles.
The whole podcast was them basically educating her on just how bad the book stuff has gotten with progressives. Mix this with her explaining that the whole "crystal lady" thing was entirely manufactured by the media to slander her.