I found the link to be very poor in details. The study itself is available here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/735630. It seems to be behind a paywall though. If someone has the pdf/link to a non paywall, please provide it.

The most important paragraphs from the link OP provided are these:

The results showed the most successful persuaders bridged identity divides, were able to view another person’s perspective and utilized personal narratives and the highlighting of common ground.

“What matters is meeting people where they are. Persuasion is most likely when the would-be persuader can see the issue through the other person’s eyes,” Naunov said. “The most effective arguments bridge identity divides through personal narratives and a respectful acknowledgment of the recipient’s perspective, which lowers defensiveness and increases openness to the persuader’s viewpoint.”

The least successful approach, the researchers found, was when would-be persuaders emphasized their political knowledge and engagement, traits that can be seen as off-putting and lead to negative results. Similarly, bombarding people with facts to prove them wrong was not effective.

“We tend to feel less hostility toward out-party citizens than out-party elites. Unlike political elites, ordinary citizens aren’t running for office, they’re not paid to advance a partisan narrative, and their careers don’t depend on toeing the party line. This makes them come across as more authentic, less strategic and ultimately more persuasive,” Naunov said.

Importantly, the study also raises big questions about the kind of divisiveness that is so common in the public space and social media platforms.

“However aspiring authoritarians and techno-feudalists might benefit from this kind of divisiveness, ordinary people do not,” said Naunov. “On a practical level, we should be asking what specific platform features shape whether people can even attempt persuasion in the first place. And how can we create alternative spaces that encourage more respectful and constructive political engagement?”

Perhaps a good framework for this sort of rhetoric is Marshall’s Non-Violent Communication (NVC).

Ya… I just lose any remaining faith/hope after seeing this kind of statistics. How is it possible, after all that has been happening under the Trump name, to still think that the country is “ok”.

I am in the EU, but we have Trump apologists here as well. And every time I try to get some sense into them, I just find out that that is not possible. They just live in a completely different reality. Their brain is not receptive to facts and truth and any sort of empathy. They are highly emotional people, and their emotion is hate. They hate all groups of people that are not them. They are homophobic, they are transphobic, they are sexist, they are racist and they are xenophobic. They have no principles other than hate. They are not coherent in their beliefs, only hate. They are tribal.

I just don’t see a way forward. I think we have to go without them. Maybe some of them, the ones that are not quite yet lost, can be reasoned with. Maybe the way to get them to change is to show them that their personal lives would improve under a leftist government. But convincing them of that is just so hard to do. You have to turn off their hate, which I have not been able to do it yet.

I use my own domain. I do not host my own email myself though. For email providers, you have several options, Migadu being one of them. But pretty much all premium email providers nowadays allow you to use your own domain.

For aliases, I would recommend something like Addy. It is basically a forwarding service, that hides your real email address. It is really cool. Spamgourmet used to do this back in the day, but nowadays it is mostly dead.