This builds on Part I and Part II, which mainly focus on my own past experiences, to introduce new concepts. I use these. Hopefully, these give you some conversational/rhetorical ammunition for your own efforts.
And please note – in the comments I will comment. If you have added suggestions with links, reply to my root comment and if I get enough I’ll fold them into a fourth one.
Before I plunge in, let me relate two additional parallel events from my past – things that started to gel my objections to large numbers of immigrants into the US. And I say this as the son of an immigrant mother, and the husband of an immigrant wife.
GETTING LOST & GOING TO MEET FRIENDS
Whilst in college I told my parents I wanted to try scuba diving – something I’d always wanted to do since I became enamored with the ocean thanks to Jacque Cousteau. Their response was to say it was dangerous. I replied that it was that or skydiving, to which they said, “Enjoy the fish”.
Heh.
So on a trip to the Florida Keys I flew to Miami, threw my gear in the rental, somehow took a wrong turn and got lost, and found myself in a foreign country. Nobody, anywhere, spoke English – or would admit to it. I also got quite a few looks that I interpreted as What are you doing on our turf, gringo? (In retrospect I was probably in bigger danger than I thought at the time.) After several convenience stores with no results a friendly clerk, who still didn’t speak English, took a city map and showed me where we were, and where I needed to get to road-wise, and that plus some sun-based navigation got me straight.
But it struck me then and there, and stuck with me, that the whole point of America was assimilation. The melting pot. And the need for a common language.
Years and years later I took my then relatively new wife to meet some friends back in the Midwest where I’d worked for years. Now – understand that my wife is nominally a Muslim though, growing up in the USSR, she’s really an atheist. But Dearborn shocked her, and me as well despite having worked near there and went there many times back when I did work in that part of the country.
Store signs in Arabic. Men in Arab robes. Women in burqas or niqabs. My wife looked at me and asked if we were still in America. I was not sure… I mean, I’d known it had a large Arab population but this was functionally a section of any Arab city transplanted to America.
(Image source)
Thought Splinter: Aren’t immigrants to America supposed to assimilate? And if they don’t, what will happen to America?
=+=+=
Now, to some hopefully-useful Thought Splinters.
Trans children:
Let me be clear: if someone – as an adult – wants to do this, that’s their business. I think they’re nuts, but they’re adults and can make that choice. But when talking with someone who is in favor of young kids “transitioning” – which includes chemical and then physical sterilization through surgery:
Them: <Some form of support for this.>
You: I’m curious, what do you think of castration for rapists?
Them: Of course not!
You: Even just chemical castration or sterilization?
Them: Of course not!
You: So you’re willing to permanently sterilize children both chemically and surgically, but you’re not willing to sterilize or castrate a rapist?
(HT ballseyeboomers)
=+=+=
Taxes:
I had a column on my old blog about the whole “fair share” thing and raising taxes on those eeeeevil rich. Speaking of the rich (by one of my long-time favorite commentators, Bill Whittle):
Anyway, two things flow from this ENVY. First is that “the rich” need to (cue snarl) pay their fair share. OK, so whenever someone spins this off, casually reply with this seemingly simple question:
OK, great. What’s a fair share?
Odds are good that they’ll look at you funny. Maybe they’ll repeat “You know, their fair share”!
Fine, great. What is it? What’s the number, what’s the percentage, what’s the formula that defines fair share? What is a “fair share” aside from “more than they’re paying now”?
And assuming they haven’t stalked off in fuming fury, follow up with:
And since everything is relative, right, what makes your fair share right and mine wrong?
Just be prepared to have an answer to what your idea of fair share is. Now if they actually name a number, one more punch:
If we raised taxes to that, will you commit to never coming back and wanting more?
Second, in parallel, I remember hearing adds for Imperious Barackus Rex and his tax plan that included this marvelous phrase (emphasis according to my memory) “… and the rich will be asked to pay a little bit more”.
If they’re being asked, can they say no?
“Of course not”!
Then they’re being asked to pay more the same way a woman with a knife at her throat is being asked to partake in a back alley romantic interlude.
=+=+=
Gun Control:
One of the standard arguments we use is “Look at gun-controlled Chicago”, to which they always say something to the effect of “But guns come in from places where there are lax gun laws and guns can be bought easily”.
Your reply is simple. So guns are so much more easily available in other places?
“Yes”.
So then why don’t those places have higher murder rates than Chicago if guns are so more readily available there?
You can almost see their brains lock up with this.
(Image source)
Then you hit them with these, rapid-fire:
Did you know that interstate sales of handguns by non-licensed people is a federal felony? And that straw-man purchases of guns by one person on behalf of someone who can’t buy a gun is a federal felony? Did you know that for a felon to even touch a firearm is a federal felony? So you want to make these illegal things double-secret illegal and you think that’ll solve the problem?
If possible, refer them to this Bill Whittle video:
Also, regarding the recent shooting in California:
- California already bans ghost guns.
- California has required background checks for all gun sales since the 1990s.
- California has banned “assault weapons” since the 1990s.
- California bans “high capacity” magazines.
- Additionally, California has a red flag law,
- gun registration requirements,
- A 10-day waiting period on gun purchases,
- A “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance,
- A ban on campus carry for self-defense,
- A ban on teachers carrying on K-12 campuses for classroom defense, and a limit on the number of guns law-abiding citizens can buy each month.
- California also requires would-be purchasers to pass a background check before acquiring ammunition.
So to the shootings in CA and NYC one could comment:
So you want to re-pass laws that already exist and didn’t work because… why?
=+=+=
Abortion (specifically from rape):
Let me be clear on my own position: I am pro-life and believe that the baby has nothing to do with the rape itself. But I can also see – and in full disclosure still somewhat wrestle with – the argument that:
- For a woman to be forced to carry a rapist’s baby to term, as opposed to doing so voluntarily, I can see the cruel and unusual thing applying.
- Do we really want to let the rapist’s genetic legacy move forward into the future?
So this is a point with which I am still struggling. Nevertheless, one can ask someone on this particular topic:
Do you believe in the death penalty?
No!
Then why are you so eager to apply it to a person who didn’t even exist at the time of the crime?
Now if they say YES, ask:
So what crime did the baby, who wasn’t even alive at the time of the crime, commit that’s worthy of the death penalty?
And if they come back with “it’s just a clump of cells” – have them look at this picture (article linked, not shown, in case there are the squeamish about) and say:
This eight-week old “clump of cells” has arms, legs, a head, a torso, and a face.
=+=+=
On being called a racist/sexist/whatever-phobe:
I have two general approaches. IMHO both work best when surrounded by people, especially people whose opinions they value. By using these you’re costing them face. Because to a Leftist what others think of them is often more valuable than what they think of themselves (link and bolding in original):
Liberals are constantly checking their views against those of their fellows because, deep down, they’re not sure of their own. I think that it’s one reason they slide to further and further extremes.
…
Ultimately, for the Leftist, it’s not about what they think, it’s about what others think about them. Read this essay by a psychologist whose work and essays I really like; alas, she’s gone dark after Obama’s re-election. And then READ IT AGAIN – it’s that good. They’re not strong enough to stand on their own convictions.
So, laugh and say sneeringly:
Is that the best you can do? Gee, here I was expecting a cogent and reasoned argument backed with facts. Instead, I get child insults. What’s next, calling me a poopy-head?
Come back when you can have an adult discussion.
OR
Giggling, almost child-like laugh laughter:
I win!
When they look at you oddly, and they will:
You threw the <racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever> card. Which is what losers throw when they have no rational argument. I win!
And walk away.
CONCLUDING
Again, if you have other suggestions, please reply to my comment and if I get enough I’ll fold them into a Part IV.
