Oh, I don’t have the answer :)

Liberals tend to be much better at relating to people than conservatives or independents. They’re very successful at advertising, arts, manipulating minds, and applying psychology.

This a problem for other people that tend to come from more analytical logic-based backgrounds (mathematicians, engineers, etc.) that can offer empirical evidence, which isn’t well-received.

When people can be persuaded by the image of ideology and the bonds of a relationship, over objectivity of logic and reasoning, it presents a problem.

On Medium, I tend to talk at people, rather than really engage with them. It’s more for venting frustration and raising awareness that a confrontation exists, that what someone is saying is not widely accepted by everyone — the whole stop it at the source bit in the previous comment.

Approach: Rough Draft

For people that are open-minded, I think the best way would be to not assert, but to ask limited questions around the assertion, in several back-and-forth interactions (drawn out process). Here’s a rough draft that I haven’t really thought through, which I’ll pre-emptively send because I have a lot going on right now:

• “I understand you feel that blacks are being targetted by police. I can sympathize with you — I don’t think any innocent person should be wrongfully killed. I’m curious how you arrived at that conclusion. Would you be willing to discuss?” 
  If they’re open to discussion, hear them out..
• “I’m curious how you feel about the FBI data. Do you think that’s a source we can use?” 
  Hear them out, even if you disagree..
• “I haven’t looked into the details, have you seen how many non-blacks have been killed by police? Could you tell me?” 
  Getting a person to actually get into third-party objective data is the best of both worlds. 1) It shows a willingness that they wish to cooperate 2) It allows them to discover the truth on their own; instead of from what is seen as a threat to their way of thinking
• Continue on with the other points that reinforce your understanding. It’s important to keep yourself open as well to the fact that you could be wrong — if your analysis is sound, it won’t matter — after all, we’re after the absolute truth, not trying to apply trickery

If they aren’t open to any objective sources, like FBI data. Try another source. It’s more helpful if you can find something in a source that they trust, once you discover what that is.

At the end of the day, some people pretend to be open, but they’re more-or-less bigots and dogmatists. In which case, just have to cut your losses and say, “I tried to have a conversation with you, but you won’t accept any of the well-accepted data sources, which even your sources depend on. That includes, the BEA, FBI, Census Bureau, Federal Reserve, MIT, etc.”

Perhaps, someone else will follow in your footsteps and have similar conversation. Sometimes it takes time for an idea to resonate. Sometimes it takes repetition.

All I know is that being confrontational like in-your-face, exact, and precise; comes off as pompous, which is generally blocked without any notion of reception.

I’m going to read a few psychology books and have better ideas about persuasion in the weeks to come.