alt Hacker News> her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation.
I hope this is not what you think my position is.
If you want to change someone's mind, you need to understand it. If someone believes false information, and if they are driven my emotion due to everything they've heard, then giving them a bullet list of facts will not change their mind 95% of the time.
You've probably heard of the term "steel manning" when arguing with someone. If you cannot state the other person's argument in a way that they agree with, then you are just talking past each other. If you can state their position as well or better than they can, now you in a better position to change their mind.
If your goal isn't to change their mind, then go ahead, just keep calling them stupid and making no progress with them.
Given a population of people, you should aim to change some peoples minds. Indeed in a democracy it is important to get a majority or plurality in agreement.
But you cannot hope to change everyone's minds, and so that should not be a goal. A system that depends on that won't work. Typhoid Mary is a counterexample.