In my opinion, that's almost but not quite the way it works. It isn't that the people who shout bias are biased, but rather that they have invested a lot of time and energy into learning about the solutions and dynamics of their particular pet issue. Having invested all that time and energy, they assume that other people 'obviously' know these things that it took them quite a lot of time to learn. From that viewpoint it seems to them baffling that anyone could disagree with them. They assume that something other than intellectual honesty motivates their detractors - since after all, everything is simple and obvious, is it not? The information is easily available, is it not? The problem with this should be obvious.

A lot of the cries of "BIAS!" stem not from some guilt complex. Instead they stem from a simple fallacy. People tend to think that their opinions and beliefs are 'obvious', even if those opinions and beliefs stem from a great deal of work that others haven't done. As a result they assume hidden agendas (motivating the ignoring of 'obvious' answers) are present when at worst, the issue is sloth. Often the target isn't slothful at all - they've been diligently working on other matters, or never knew their knowledge was deficient in the first place.

There are a great many diligent people in the world who hold a great many ignorant opinions. Time isn't unlimited, and education takes time. An expert in one field may be a dunce in another. Never assume villainy where ignorance would have the same effect.

That's a very simplistic view of grassroots conservatism, and not accurate. I enjoy reading pamphlets and propoganda and so forth. The only area in which I've seen that used as a serious and consistent rhetorical device is in the Second Amendment movement. More persuasive methods are generally (thankfully) preferred by groups in other areas, and by the more reputable Second Amendment groups. (The NRA may still be wealthy, but it's not very reputable anymore, and has perpetrated its fair share of 'us versus them' rhetoric itself.)

The only facet of the conservative movement I can't say I've ever closely studied is the anti-abortion groups. They tend to be disgusting in my experience as well as deeply disrespectful of the philosophical underpinnings to their own position. It's repelled me thoroughly from their propoganda and stances.

Now, all that said, a lot of individuals on the 'ground floor' of any movement seems to take the tribalistic viewpoint of us versus them. One of the most basic things people seem able to comprehend is 'us versus them'.

It's very frustrating. No matter who 'them' is, there's almost always something you can learn from them. In politics, there isn't properly any 'them' at all, merely people who either don't understand your point of view and/or have a superior one themselves. The correct method is to approach your opponents with peace, persuasion, and appeals to shared interest.

Part of the problem is that the 'infodensity' is very low. It takes a lot of skill and effort to dredge up quality sources of information contrary to one's own beliefs. (Whereas with one's own beliefs, one has usually already got the necessary skill as well as a starting corpus of information, for having done those searches long in the past.) You're asking people to put a lot of effort into the task of sparking cognitive dissonance within themselves. It's a high order!

If you want to change someone's opinions, one of the good ways to go about it is by lowering the barrier to entry. Do the work for them and supply them with high quality, well-written sources. Maybe even condense some of it yourself as long as you provide your sources too.

People stop once they get an answer that reaffirms what they already believe because it doesn't cost them much energy to do that. If it doesn't cost them much energy to go farther, they're more willing to, and become more flexible. This is a lot of the purpose behind political activism.

Of course, political activism costs time and energy itself! Most people can't be bothered or wouldn't know where to start. I could use a few lessons myself. The only time I worked for any political campaign, I spent the entire time sending out mass-mailers. It hardly seemed like it would be effective!

The parent post definitely deserves a better rating than a 1. It's quite blunt and unusual. Perhaps it's flamebait indeed, but it's a valid viewpoint as well. Doesn't 'flamebait' imply that the author is being somehow dishonest, that they're trying to spark a fight? What if someone is merely espousing a controversial viewpoint? Is that flamebait as well?

Uh, don't make that particular challenge. It's not that I disagree with your POV, but there's an abundance of examples of free armed people being subjugated. Some of them were already made up-thread. You kinda made one yourself. The Warsaw Uprising is inspiring, it really is. Yet although it lasted some time it did eventually fail.

Not to discount your contribution of course. The US Revolution is a pretty strong counterpart to the 'Guns Are For Slavery' argument, and the Deacons of Defence are also valuable to mention. Arming blacks in past times is very similar to arming GBLT individuals in modern times. The Pink Pistols spring to mind. Being armed is a solid deterrent to hate crimes.