There are numerable situations where there is an opportunity to discuss or engage with people with a different position. Since February, there has on the local FB profiles been debates about the conflict in Ukraine, and when these few people post on their page, there have often been others who just responded to repeat unsubstantiated accusations or attack the person posting personally without engaging in the discussion.
While some of these get blocked, depending on the tolerance of the page owner, others don't. In the comments to these posts, sometimes one can forward an argument or find additional evidence that supports the position of the post made, assuming it had some truth in it. In this way, the people who wish to understand the nuances are encouraged, just as a few other readers may learn something too. To take the idea from the mass psychosis videos, it can be important to speak up to help prevent the other side from going to the extreme. Unfortunately it takes time and attention, because what to say to whom, when, and how? Besides, there are sometimes questions of safety and strategic enclosure.
I for one have a weakness when confronted by an unreasonable argument, because I can become paralysed by the obtuseness or touched by an emotional attack and not know fast enough how to respond and remain silent. Fortunately, it seems to help to not give up, but practice engaging with people that I do not agree with.
Certainly there are cases where silence or indifference is the way. Besides, two situations can be identical in terms of content, but the response will need to be different. There are situations where there is time, in other situations there is not. And with whom am I communicating. Are they family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances or strangers? And have I already had a similar conversation with the other, or is it the first time?
For me a reply can vary between saying nothing or changing the subject, making an allusion, quoting a paper, an article, a person, present a fact, or making a counterargument, pointing out a fallacy, or sharing a joke. Or perhaps even a word of encouragement or consolation in case someone is excessively worried or even depressed about what is happening, but has no ability or is not in a state to understand a detailed argument.
What if it is more complicated. What if some people parrot what somebody else says in the media and government, because it gives them a feeling of being right and of belonging to the right group? Or what if somebody says something, not because it really matters to them, but because they are looking for an argument, or opportunity to rile you up. Such people not interested in the content of the argument, it is the emotional thrill.
That said, to the first and second, I might refer to Jordan Peterson. He is a psychologist and has spoken about Vladimir Putin not so long ago. Of course, they may attack Peterson too, but he is still a psychologist. You can also ask who says so, what is their source? Have they tried to read or watch source material, to get to know the situation and the man a bit more first hand? The third point could also be an opportunity to share how Russia perceives the West. I think one could quote the opinions of Sergei Lavrov, Maria Zakharova and Medvedev, the UN ambassadors etc. In addition, one could raise the point that much of the the global South actually supports Russia and Vladimir Putin, including China, India, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and countries in Africa. Turkey has been diplomatic and Saudi Arabia too. The isolation people imagine Russia has been put into, is less solid than people are led to believe.
To the third point, and although the conflict is not over, so there can be surprises, also the economy is relevant. To show the economy, an easy illustration for those living in the Western Europe who have been hit harder by the sanctions than the US, is to pull up xe.com and watch the 10-year currency trends of USD-GP, USD-EUR, USD-RUB, or GP-RUB. At this stage the impact on the economy is such that increasingly people will begin to take notice, no matter if they vote right, centre, or left, or what they think about Russia, Ukraine, or the US. And people do, because there have been protests. So for those still hardwired for sanction supporting, how long would they like to continue? The amount of money they have in the bank, may have grown, but for each coin the buying power is down. If that is hard to understand, what if the government had come a year ago and asked if they would give 15 % of their income to make Ukraine rich, while also cutting down on domestic comforts. Many would have said, no thank you.
