Now that my title got your hackles up enough to get you to open this diary, I can tell you this really is mostly about Republicans and how truth seekers might successfully combat Republican delusion as so accurately described in jbeach's excellent diary [http://www.dailykos.com/...].
It doesn't take very much experience to realize that Republican delusion cannot be effectively countered with facts and citations. I think the main reason for this is that most people of all political leanings don't like to be told what to think. And the truth is that all of us are told what to think by people and sources covering the entire political spectrum. Virtually all of our information regarding politics, economics, etc. comes from outside sources. When you're debating your Republican friends, you can be certain that both of you are making claims that you have no direct experience or knowledge about. Where delusional Republicans fail and where the debate quickly becomes futile is at the point where you realize they don't understand what it means to "know" something. The Republican "knows" something because he heard Sean Hannity say it. Perhaps I "know" the opposite because I read it in the New York Times. On a topic such as global warming, we could both cite facts from what we both believe are reputable sources. At that point, your only option seems to be to attack the conflicting sources which gets you nowhere.
During a recent "debate" with a drunk wing nut I tried the following. I asked him if he accepted that both of us could make opposing claims about global warming that were supported by what looked like legitimate citations. He agreed. Then I asked if he agreed that they can't both be correct and he agreed. Then I asked, "what makes you or me qualified to decide which of these sources is wrong or lying?" He agreed that neither of us have the experience or scientific knowledge to say for certain what the truth is. So then, my main point to this delusional friend was that he needs to think carefully about how he decides what he believes. One could possibly add here a brief point about how it's not against the law for newscasters, political commentators, politicians, or various "experts" to tell untruths (except when under oath).
In my experience, this is the best place to end the debate. At this point, the discussion has turned from a debate about "facts" into a personal issue. It's usually best to end the discussion at this point because if I continued, I would probably have to insult the other party. I would have to say, "I believe you continue to defend your position because 1) you are too lazy to consider the opposing sources that you know exist 2) you have ulterior motives such as racism or selfishness which make you morally inferior 3) you would be ashamed to admit that you have been wrong all along." The delusion party must come to these realizations on his or her own; the basic fear of losing respect prevents most people from being pushed by someone else.
Granted, this approach might only be helpful with a very small number of relatively intelligent and mature people, but it's better than nothing. With the number of elections decided by very slim majorities, I think every single conversion is huge!
This is only my second diary in many years, so thank you for reading!
mnguitar