In a discussion with progressive libs talking about all the virtues of being a democrat supporter and being opposed to fascism and the current state of affairs with ICE and I reply by telling them that the dems have supported ICE at every turn and they have taken every opportunity to increase their funding so how is that leaning away from fascism by their own reasoning? I also said that if a Nazi promised to do 50% less holocaust, would that also qualify as leaning away from fascism (which is incredibly charitable given that the democrats absolutely do not even come close to reducing their support for ICE to 50% of the GOP.)
Someone replies with "they managed to do it with a lot less shooting of people and a lot less assaulting of people unwarranted". (Apparently assaulting people is cool if you have a warrant??)
I tell them exactly what you'd expect. "So you're not opposed to fascism as long as it minimizes shootings and ICE only assaults people when they have a warrant?"
Look at this reply of theirs:
Respect. Proceduralism. Fascism is cool with me if it's a few notches below the current fever-pitch level. Even though the dems have been willing collaborators in walking this path every step of the way, it's pretty silly to both sides the issue (no I will not elaborate). There are only two options: ICE and open borders.
...this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that progressives are worse to deal with than conservatives. I know that there's this trope about MAGA supporters being brainwashed and it's not untrue but if anyone can explain to me how you can call yourself antifascist and "pretty heavily anti-ICE" while defending the party that increases ICE funding every time they get into power then I'd love to hear it because as far as I can tell if you're acting like ICE has always existed, that it's a necessity, and that you're opposed to ICE while defending it and defending your support of the party that throws its full weight behind ICE then how is that not being so deep in the trashcan of ideology that your roommate is Oscar the Grouch?
Libs are meant to be subjugated and used for political aims. Convincing them into cooperation is nice as a common courtesy but it’s like a parent trying to argue with their toddler that oreos aren’t a good breakfast, or like a lion giving a powerpoint to sheep about the benefits of being eaten.
Were you born with Capital in your hands? I know most of us weren't. Viewing libs as fundamentally children is counter-productive to any political project that extends beyond being smug at how you supposedly stand above the herd.
Obligatory: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/
I mean lol….
Where do you think i got this big brain
It was snarky of me but in response to that part I said that they are probably older than DHS, and thus ICE and CBP. Then I asked if they remember how the US ever managed to survive this era of open border policy for the majority of its existence.
Point being that if someone is gonna be real disingenuous with me then I'm comfortable matching their energy and calling them out on their ahistorical take while using their own framing against them - either they eat shit and they admit that the US survived just fine without DHS (and that the dichotomy between open borders and the existence of ICE is completely false) or they agree with their initial premise and acknowledge that the US both had an open borders policy for most of its existence (lol) and that it survived just fine, thus undermining their initial premise in defence of the "necessity" of ICE.
Either way, they're completely snookered in their argument.
Usually with this sort of gambit they are at least vaguely aware of the jaws closing in around them and they shift to insults or special pleading or redefining words but you'd be surprised at how common it is for them to double down and argue that the US had open borders or that it only worked became of some imaginary cause, like the New Deal or low housing prices or some shit. They usually go quiet when I hit back with "And what about before FDR?" or something like that. (Obviously this is just an example but it's fun to respond to ahistorical, logically inconsistent takes like that by agreeing with the premise and doing a little judo with it. Idk if it's any more effective than just yelling at them or quoting historical facts at them but I do feel like it might be.)
Good work, the person you were directly replying to may be hopeless but with any luck there was a curious observer reading what you wrote and saying to themselves ... "you know this person might be onto something..."
Doubt that's your intent... and I certainly don't claim such a thing has value in and of itself, but if you're blowing off steam anyway and a few seeds happen to fall out of your pocket and take root, maybe that's OK.
Exactly that. I have held to the idea that online debates are a spectator sport - you're hardly ever going to convince the person you're replying to but if anyone happens to be reading the thread and you put forward a good argument then you're much more likely to convince them.
(Although there's no quantifying that so it could be pure cope too hahaha)
If it's cope, I share it... having been on either side of that dynamic myself many times over. I lack the time for such exercises anymore... though I do keep an eye on my local subreddit and I gotta say, I've seldom been as tempted to get in there and start agitating as in the past week. Soooo many libs that need a-scratchin.