Subject: Re: STOP ENGAGING WITH FASCISTS
Have you found that in your discussions IRL with people towards the other end of the political spectrum that you’ve been able to persuade at all, or change a viewpoint about a particular issue? If so, what issue(s), and what were the arguments you have found possibly more effective than others?

Sure! Ignoring legal questions, I've had persuasive discussions with IRL people on all sorts of matters: the necessity of a strong social safety net (like welfare and Medicaid), the benefits of gun control, pollution regulation, and a bunch of other matters.

The most effective approach consists of two prongs: i) distinguish between "is" questions and "should" questions; and ii) recognize that the person you're talking to has a different set of value priorities than you do, and you're not going to change that.

To illustrate with an example from this board, everyone's been bashing their heads against a wall arguing with LurkerMom on immigration enforcement. But if you were going to try to do that effectively, you'd want to recognize that LM has a different set of "rankings" for legitimate values, and take that into account. Wanting existing laws to be followed, law enforcement to be able to do their jobs safely and efficiently, and maintaining order and stability are not bad things to want. Where LM differs from posters on this board (and where conservatives frequently differ from progressives) is valuing those goals vastly higher than other goals that will often conflict with rigid enforcement of legal rules. Goals like compassion, mercy, and proportionate justice.

Within that value system, though, there's an argument against what the Administration is doing. Namely, that even if your main goal - above all others - is to enforce safety and law-abiding and security, the current approach is a bad way of doing that. If you're worried about the dangers posed by people here illegally, going after targets indiscriminately is a waste of resources. Or at least a misallocation of them. If you're genuinely concerned about people being killed by illegal alien gang members, it's a poor allocation of resources to send ICE agents to the courthouse to collar some middle-aged mom who has no connection to criminal activity whatsoever. Those agents should be spending time finding and catching people who are more dangerous.

Similarly, it's a bad idea within this value framework to send Border Patrol into the middle of the country. Border Patrol are law enforcement, but they are not cops. They don't have a lot of experience or training dealing with United States citizens. Their primary role is dealing with foreign nationals who are here to meekly beg for something from the U.S. government, usually at the border and far away from ordinary civilian residents. Not being in the middle of a suburb with "Don't Tread On Me!" U.S. citizens who are loudly protesting and insisting on their right to do so. CBP agents aren't prepared for that, and it's going to go badly.

Now, that's not going to work with LM here on this board - there's years of acrimonious interactions that make it impossible for anyone to change anyone's minds here. But IRL, I have found that even fairly conservative folks will respond to arguments if you understand that they have a different point of view on what's important, that these value judgements are "should" questions that won't be changed by calling them names, and try to point out within their value system why these are still bad policies.

Plus, one major metaphor. I've found that IRL, one point that seems to get a lot of traction is the "Javert Is Not The Hero" observation. Granted, I'm old. An "unk," as my daughter puts it. So a lot of my age cohort is very familiar with Les Mis. So when they point out that all illegal immigrants are criminals, I don't usually push back by arguing that's not true (close to a majority of them entered the country without committing a crime). I just point to Les Mis as an effective illustration that just because someone has done something wrong, that doesn't mean maximally punishing them is just. There has to be proportionality. The central theme of the whole Javert arc in Les Mis is Javert coming to realize that even though Valjean was a criminal, the way he was being treated by the law was unjust, because Valjean was a good person who had done something wrong, rather than a bad person. No one roots for Javert in Les Mis - so I invite the other person to think about why that is, in the context of immigration (and other criminal justice issues).

Anyway, that's way too long - but I hope it answered your question.