Whether it's accurate is immaterial -- if we insult people who are moving in our direction, or who might be convinced to move in our direction, we're going to hinder that movement or drive people away. Everybody knows someone who may have a good point here or there, but is such an asshole about it that no one ever wants to give them the satisfaction of agreeing.
It's extremely easy to explain the problems of social democracy (namely, that in practice it's relied heavily on imperial exploitation) without calling someone who just came around to the idea of Medicare for All a fascist. There's no reason to shit all over people who we're going to need to work with.
In my experience socdems do not move left unless harassed into it. The ones that actually say socdem and know what it means anyway. They have taken that position because they seek to uphold capitalism, understand what demsocs are and reject that consciously. They have literally taken an anti-communist position which for anyone who understand what fascism actually is makes it clearly a fascist reaction, although moderate variant. I convert more republicans through friendly conversation than socdems.
The terminology is not very useful rhetorically though I agree. It makes the eyeballs of libs pop out and could use some updating to fit a modern way to present it. This doesn't matter a huge amount here though at least not at the moment with no clear growth source occurring, I was generating a bit of traffic before but have been incredibly busy up until very recently.
In my personal experience you need to use both positive and negative reinforcement. I always cheer on my friends when they come around to some idea, like when they recognize the problems with police departments or something similar. On the other hand if they say something lib I don't hesitate to call them out on it. I would never call them fascists though, I would say that their thought process is similar to fascists' at the most.
Whether it's accurate is immaterial -- if we insult people who are moving in our direction, or who might be convinced to move in our direction, we're going to hinder that movement or drive people away. Everybody knows someone who may have a good point here or there, but is such an asshole about it that no one ever wants to give them the satisfaction of agreeing.
It's extremely easy to explain the problems of social democracy (namely, that in practice it's relied heavily on imperial exploitation) without calling someone who just came around to the idea of Medicare for All a fascist. There's no reason to shit all over people who we're going to need to work with.
In my experience socdems do not move left unless harassed into it. The ones that actually say socdem and know what it means anyway. They have taken that position because they seek to uphold capitalism, understand what demsocs are and reject that consciously. They have literally taken an anti-communist position which for anyone who understand what fascism actually is makes it clearly a fascist reaction, although moderate variant. I convert more republicans through friendly conversation than socdems.
The terminology is not very useful rhetorically though I agree. It makes the eyeballs of libs pop out and could use some updating to fit a modern way to present it. This doesn't matter a huge amount here though at least not at the moment with no clear growth source occurring, I was generating a bit of traffic before but have been incredibly busy up until very recently.
In my personal experience you need to use both positive and negative reinforcement. I always cheer on my friends when they come around to some idea, like when they recognize the problems with police departments or something similar. On the other hand if they say something lib I don't hesitate to call them out on it. I would never call them fascists though, I would say that their thought process is similar to fascists' at the most.