It all starts with calling out hypocrisy. "But GetCynical, we've tried that, it had no affect!" Hear me out. What happens every time we call them out? Assuming they don't ignore it, which means we win by default, what then? The last card in their deck, besides outright censorship, is what? They scream either "nazi/racist/bigot/fash!" (and we win because everyone following the argument is further alienated from them) And when that fails, they trot out the final method: "That just what-about-ism!" Don't be discouraged, because when they do this, know that you have already won. Heres what happens. From there they'll explain "just because we/our allies did x, doesn't make y right!" And all you have to say in response is: *and I'll agree with you when you fully walk back and apologize for your previous support of x.* They can't. If they don't, they look like bigger hypocrites and completely reveal their position on the matter as hollow morally. If they *do* walk back their beliefs ("okay, it was wrong to force vaccines on people, but removing abortions is wrong too!") then they invalidate their own beliefs entirely to anyone watching. They essentially side with you and people immediately tune them out. Finally, just keep this pattern up. And be on guard. They will attempt to respond with "yes xyz was wrong" but follow it up with "buuuuuut heres why it was actually ok/necessary/not bad compared to abc like you're advocating!" This is what we call a non-apology apology. It's a sham or temporary rhetorical retreat, to get you to agree with them. They're not giving up any real ground here. Basically, they think you're stupid. Or else they are willfully blind to the fact they're pretending at conceding. When they do this, hold them to the line. Say "no buts. When you agree what you endorsed/demanded/did was wrong, then and only then will we agree with you on what you support." Try it. "When you agree abortion is murder *and utterly wrong*, then and only then will we agree george floyd's death was wrong." "when you agree disarming ordinary citizens or making it harder for them to access firearms, then and only then will we agree that the prison industry is out of control." (it is, and the solution to that is to let them all loose, and arm everyone, lol). x Sometimes at this point they will try to go off on a tangent, or take issue with specifics, in order to argue that your entire premise is bad or wrong or flawed. When this happens, remind them "no we're talking about xyz, not abc. We're not getting into the weeds. I'm not gonna let you salami slice the debate. Answer the question and apologize. Do you or don't you apologize for supporting/endorsing [insert issue]?" And just keep repeating that. The minute they unequivocally give you a straight answer, fight fire with fire by cutting off the conversation, and refusing to honor the agreement that you would agree with them *if only they agreed with you first*. Give them nothing, at all. Train them like dogs to give up ground, and then leave them hungry. Speaking to the crowd, follow it with "see, there you go folks." You may at this point walk away or stay and follow it with telling *them* to "now walk away." And put that on repeat as well. They've already lost for anyone that cared to listen. The arguments over.