I know because she told me about the totalitarian dangers from such narrow thinking.
I'm more with Orwell, seeing the totalitarian dangers from non-realism.
I don't know if you want to yank your Mom's chain, but I think it would be fun to deal with irrationalists of all stripes by gleefully hitting the gibberish ball back into their court. Contradict yourself, then say that you're "beyond" such limited thinking as logic. Claim "faith" in your nonsense. When she points out your claims are false, decry her totalitarianism.
And above all, do this when she has a practical purpose in mind and wants to get something real done.
A lot of people peddle this claptrap when they argue. Sam Harris has a catchy and appropriate term for it - playing tennis without a net. I think the only real response is to find where they want a net, and start playing without it, and see how they like it.
I'm more with Orwell, seeing the totalitarian dangers from non-realism.
Can you point to any historical examples of totalitarian regimes that adhered to an official ideology that contained non-realism (anti-realism, etc...) as a doctrine?
From Being a Realist (even if you believe in God):
My mother, who doesn't call herself a theist (I think she's agnostic), doesn't even accept realism. She doesn't even agree with this:
That's little more than tautologies here. Yet it elicited an impression of being forced to believe. I know because she told me about the totalitarian dangers from such narrow thinking.
I'm happy to have finally found the root cause of our ongoing disagreement, but now, how can I deal with that? It looks pretty hopeless, but just in case, does someone have a suggestion, or should I just leave it at that? (My ego doesn't like it, but giving up is an option.)
Now I'm relieved to know that in near mode, she's a complete realist. This craziness only shows up in far mode.