In a democracy there will be persusion in the form of arguments.

But in a democracy the demos is not actively or low-key campaigning to give away their power, to put the interests of economic royalists ahead of their own.

In other words, the quality of energy is not defensive when someone tells you to be more proactive, faster, more zealous in defending your own interests.

The first functioning democratic governance was practiced by the pirates. Why? Each pirate could kill half the crew at night. And they all knew this fact about each other. So they did the rational thing: nobody's voice can be ignored, or there are dire consequences.

The only way democracy works is if most people will want to govern, make policy, make and change the rules of the game, own the game, and are not content merely passively playing the ruleset they inherited from their ancestors.

Once you encounter someone who lacks that hunger to be an administrator, and not merely a passive and reactionary player, more arguments is the wrong way to go. These passive people cooperatively bind to economic royalists and their entire view of life is not 1, 5, or 10000 arguments away. The enablers together with the economic royalists are an obstacle, not some harmless loyal opposition, but basically a team (mutually supportive and cooperative group) of rapists and their enablers. The passives/reactionaries and the economic royalists are one indivisible team.

To successfully adapt to a position of servitude is not trivial. It's 1000's of adaptations all woking as a unit. You won't argue such people off the ledge.

Get the getables. Leave the rest behind.

That's fair. Then to me you are neutral at best, assuming you are largely apolitical.

That's the kind of thinking that lead to the world we live in now, where anyone is free to collect and sell any data they can scrape.