J’ai l’impression d’écouter le son de toutes mes personnalités. L’enchaînement Peppa Pot / Mini skirt / Pendulum a failli m’envoyer à l’hôpital.

They probably won’t change their mind, but I find this quiet entertaining when bored at thanksgiving dinner.

Then land this simple question :
“If a policy only works when we ignore the people it harms, is it really a good policy?”

Stay calm, stay factual, stay surgical.
The quieter you are, the louder their contradictions sound. (Also I’m a woman so people think I lose all credibility when I get loud)

Name the trade-off explicitly.
“So your position is that comfort outweighs someone else’s dignity, ‘ is that correct?”
→ Most people won’t claim that out loud. Some of my family members would. But they’re not worth my energy.

Shift from abstract to human.
“Okay, but how does that play out for a real person in a real situation?”
→ Convenience arguments collapse when faced with actual stakes.

Ask for the principle, not the opinion.
“What value are you prioritizing here?”
→ Forces them to justify the idea, not the feeling.

But if you’re like me and can’t let go, here’s how to politely dismantle any “convenience-first” argument in a human-rights debate :