This post claims to understand how propaganda and manipulation work. Then it says that once someone becomes a grown adult, those same dynamics just stop applying. That is not an insight into human behavior. Research shows that social exclusion can actually push people toward more extreme beliefs and conspiracy thinking, because exclusion creates vulnerability and a need for belonging rather than reflection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31928312/
The idea that “they’ve had plenty of time” is not an argument. Time does not undo propaganda, social pressure, algorithmic filtering, or fear-based identity systems. People do not suddenly become immune to psychological and social forces just because they are adults. Online platforms and social networks actively reinforce beliefs by shaping what people see and who they interact with.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09759-5
Saying “the information is everywhere” ignores that access to information is not the same thing as trusting it or encountering it in a way that feels legitimate. People do not reason in a vacuum. They reason inside social environments shaped by identity, fear, loyalty, and perceived threat.
The post also quietly turns “redemption” into something impossible by definition. If someone is declared irredeemable because they have not already changed, then redemption is no longer a real concept. It is just a label used after the fact to justify exclusion.
The most dangerous claim here is that social exile changes minds. Evidence consistently shows that ostracism does not reliably cause belief change. It often causes people to double down, become more hostile, or lean further into conspiratorial thinking. Making someone “suffer a life of friendlessness” is not accountability. It is cruelty framed as strategy, and it mirrors the same dehumanization this post claims to oppose.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/02/20/social-exclusion-leads-conspiratorial-thinking-study-finds
There is also a contradiction in the idea that cruelty only ends when people lose power. Private friendships are not power in the structural sense. Institutions, laws, and state violence are power. Cutting someone off socially does not weaken authoritarianism. It just reduces the number of people who might ever reach them.
You are allowed to set boundaries. You are allowed to say “I cannot be close to someone who supports policies that harm me.” That is honest and reasonable. But turning personal boundaries into a universal moral obligation, and framing relational harm as political praxis, replaces ethics with purity tests.
If you believe people can change, you cannot set an expiration date on their humanity. And if you believe authoritarianism is dangerous, you should be careful about endorsing tactics based on social punishment and shunning. Research on polarization shows that cross-group engagement, when done intentionally, is more likely to reduce hostility than enforced isolation.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/polarizing-effect-of-partisan-echo-chambers/5044B63A13A458A97CA747E9DCA07228
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31928312/
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/02/20/social-exclusion-leads-conspiratorial-thinking-study-finds
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09759-5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/polarizing-effect-of-partisan-echo-chambers/5044B63A13A458A97CA747E9DCA07228