my interpretation, at least:

the trap is the government (the US’ in this example, perhaps) promising freedom of speech/unlawful search and seizure; but then terrorizing and inflicting violence upon those whose opinions they disagree with, but much more regularly and openly.

Those trapped think they are protected from such retaliation because they have ignored/permitted/trivialized the systemic violence against marginalized groups that has been prevalent for centuries. They ignore the signs of their country’s propensity for fascism, and its intentional increase of brazenly hateful rhetoric and policies.

But they are by no means exempt, and many won’t realize that until it’s too late.

interesting! I love learning about the different kinds of logic languages use. visually, Thai is one of my favorite languages (and Thailand has my favorite cuisine, too)!

Wait So Long - Trampled by Turtles

Mama - My Chemical Romance

Curses - Crane Wives

Your question is a little unclear.

If you’re talking about a debate, or needing to approach someone about something, it’s best to go in as prepared as possible and address any new arguments as they come.

However, the other person has to feel like they’re being heard, understood, and (often) validated in some form—even if it’s not completely genuine—if there is ever a chance of getting them to change their mind.

If this is a personal (or professional) conflict, though, be careful. To some people, it doesn’t matter what you say or how you say it, even if they’re in the wrong.

in addition to a lot of others already mentioned (there’s a lot of overlap)

History:

• Step Back History

culture/politics:

• Shanspeare
• FD Signifier

writing/education:

• Zoe Bee

media/ect:

• Tale Foundry (technically about writing fiction, but they also discuss media in general along with its themes, character archetypes, ect. it’s more interesting than it sounds)

• Pop Culture Detective

• Jacob Geller (mostly video games)

• My Little Thought Tree (also psychology)

• Broey Deschanel