that I suspect something Freudian is going on. Transgender people are doing something that the haters yearn to do but cannot. It might be as simple as taking control of one's life. Or it might be something as kinky as sneaking into the little girl's room to see what you can see.

The Authoritarian argument is also valid and does not really contradict my theories.

I cannot come up with support for on short notice, but at the least basis of it is based on things I've picked up over the years. I guess you could say I've formed sort of a theory about what (mostly) screws up politics.

Statistically speaking, we know that if there are two (or three) sides to any given story, a person is most likely to believe who ever speaks to him first. That has been confirmed not just been once many, many times.

Some people use critical reasoning more often then others. It is in fact, something of a habit. People who do it a lot will get somewhat better at it, which certainly doesn't mean they can't make mistakes. But there is a huge difference between people who develop the habit somewhat, and who never develop it at all. There is also a reason why some people never develop that habit. This one isn't scientific at all, but man it sure seems confirmed lately.

Look back over your own life. Have you ever developed a strong emotional desire for something to be true, then been given really hardcore evidence that it wasn't true, and refused to accept it? Maybe months or years later you finally accepted it? I bet you have. If you can't remember such a time, it means only that you aren't remembering one.

We develop that emotional desire usually because it's what you call a foundational idea. Meaning, you made that assumption on some given day, and then later you made a decision based on that original assumption.

For instance, every time you watch television, you see blacks committing crimes. Therefore you presume that most crimes are committed by blacks.

Now, if I tell in the next day that black crime is much better reported, I can probably do something to combat that prejudice.

But lets say some time goes by, and you see a black kid in your store and you throw him out based on the fact that he was probably up to something because well, he was black.

Then you see the news again and see crime, and you say something ugly while I'm in the room. "Damn blacks busting up the neighborhood all the time."

I tell you the actual statistics. If you accept I'm right, that makes you kind of a bad person, doesn't it? If you accept my response, you will probably feel guilty about that at some point. You might be able to do that though.

But, what if this conversation happened three years later, and you have thrown many kids out of your store for the same reason?

The more often you've acted on your assumption, the less likely you are to accept what I say, no matter how much evidence I give you.

Eventually people like this like to believe the "all media is the result of a conspiracy theory idea," as stupid as it is, because it allows them to protect a foundational assumption they made very long ago, and have kept reinforcing. If someone has done terrible things to black people, there is almost nothing that can change his mind. Unless, of course, there are other foundational ideas at war with it. (Which is unusual.)

I have been able to get past foundational ideas before, but it doesn't happen in a single conversation, and it helps if you understand exactly what the assumptions are. They stack on top of one another, one after the other. If you know how they support one another, you will understand what they do better, and you have more of a chance of gaining traction as you argue with them.

Known Minnesota loons.

including the comments.

Another thing it makes me think about, is the visceral (and theological) outrage of some, at the idea of evolution. And before that the visceral (and theological) outrage over a heliocentic, rather than earth-centered, cosmos. All ideas that bear on our "place" in the universe being fixed. On personal status...on a religious world view that keeps everything nice and neat and reassuring. The very concept that our ideas might be modified in the course of a lifetime, that our neat little catogories might actually be slippery, that we really have only a limited notion of WTF is going on and therefore very limited control is way too scary for a lot of people. Plus, most people are deeply motivated to agree with their neighbors. Finally, they so want to believe that there is a big Daddy up there in the sky, taking care of us. To have these certainties undermined because one's neighbors publicly cease to agree is terrifying. So much more comfortable for some to posit, in the words of a friend's father: God said, I believe it, and that settles it.

Plus, it is such a money spinner for thousands of clergy, who might otherwise have to get another job.

I feel kind of sorry for anyone whose education did not show them that different ideas can be entertained, without bringing the end of the world. But these bigots are dangerous.