😅I mean, I spent quite a lot of time writing about persuasion, so I think it's fair to say that I didn't suggest "compassion alone" gets people out of hate groups. I also don't agree that it's important to acknowledge that people don't need to be compassionate to their aggressors.

I think showing compassion should always be the aim. Obviously, being human, we're going to fall short sometimes. But if people like MLK can go through the civil rights movement holding love and non-violence (in the fullest sense of the term) as their primary values, I don't think there's any justification for us not to at least try to do the same. Too many people want to use their "oppression" simply as an excuse to be cruel and vindictive. It only ever makes things worse. Especially for them.

I think Picciolini and Phelps-Rogers mention persuasion and conversation because it was a key element of their deradicalisation. Again, I've never heard a deradicalisation story without them. Yes, people aren't always good at understanding how their minds work. But that doesn't mean your beliefs about what really made the difference are more valid. Given that neither of us have spoken to them, I think it makes more sense to take their word for it.

Yes, emotion, love, relatability, these are all key. As you say, maybe this is more a difference of framing than anything else. Changing an emotional belief requires emotional engagement. I might be able to change your beliefs about some factual matter simply by presenting you with new information. But if you believe you hate something (or somebody), I need to engage you on an emotional level too. Because hate is obviously emotional.

Again, persuasion encompasses all of this. Any skilled interaction does. We choose our words, we consider the emotional impact of our tone, we try to find common frames of reference. Compassion and emotion are baked into any genuine attempt at persuasion. These concepts aren't siloed off from each other because in the end we're all human.