As close as I'll get to a political post

I believe social media is hardly ever an appropriate place to sound off on politics.  All it does is spur people to say things more vicious than they would ever say in person, and, without an in-person connection, no opinions are ever swayed, defenses go up higher and stronger, and little of substantial, interesting intellectual conversation can take place.  Political posts on Facebook seem to inevitably dissolve into a string of comments where one person says "LOL" and "ROFL" a lot because they can't think of an intelligent reply, and the other person keeps saying "clearly you can't actually read what I wrote" -- and both throw out insults.  This benefits no one (and is the LOLer ever really laughing? Because I get the feeling it's more likely that his blood is boiling...)

The other day I saw just such a comment thread on Facebook.  The principal argument was between the original poster of a "If you believe such-and-such unfriend me now" post and a commenter, but a third person chimed in calling the original poster indoctrinated (and announcing that he would do as asked and unfriend the poster, since he disagreed with him on the issue in question).  So the poster posted a new Facebook post calling that third person "one of the most indoctrinated people I know."

Frustrated, saddened, and angered by the original poster's continued intolerance and (increasingly throughout the years) demonstrated unwillingness to consider other points of view as anything but dumb, I was tempted to chime in.  I decided not to... but not before writing the following.  So I suppose instead, I will post it here, as food for thought in this extraordinarily vicious political era, and particularly for anyone of either side who unfriends those who disagree with them rather than have a conversation, who considers those who disagree with them politically automatically stupid or evil, who vehemently jumps on a bandwagon without being able to explain why, and who resorts to name calling when they discover not everyone thinks the same way they do:

Hi *****,

As someone who's never had a real conversation with you, your post makes me curious about your perspective on several issues.   I would love to know your thoughts on:

- What is your working definition of "indoctrination?"

- Do you consider yourself to be open-minded?

- Do you ever listen to someone who disagrees with you completely and deeply on an issue, but you nevertheless listen to them respectfully with a consciousness and willingness that you might at the least broaden your perspective and understand where they are coming from? 

- Do you consider a sheltered life to lend itself less to indoctrination or more? I.e, is the strength of several small, unchallenged positions working as a force on a person more likely to indoctrinate, or are varied, unfiltered, wide-ranging opinions more likely to indoctrinate? Which more accurately describes your life at this point?

 - Do you consider a respectful discourse to be a hallmark of an open-minded person or of an indoctrinated one? Can a person be well-informed and form opinions based on independent thought without respectful discourse with those who differ in opinion?  If so, what is that process?

- And the dictionary definition of "indoctrinate" is not actually subjective.  It carries no judgment with the word, though in common vernacular, the word connotes a lack of independent thought.  Would you rather someone be indoctrinated to think like you, or disagree with you through independent thought?  Which do you consider more dangerous?  Which creates a more enjoyable, easy conversation?  And how do you decide if someone who disagrees with you has reached their position though indoctrination or through independent thought?