The answer is probably not, because I doubt I'm going to have any response that deflates a lifetime of American culture and propaganda, but I'd like to know if y'all have made any success.
I ask because earlier today a person I know came to me, asking if I knew about what's going on in Cuba. I answered there's a kind of small anti-government protest alongside much larger pro-government demonstrations. This was immediately flipped as proof of Cuba's tyranny, since a large pro-government demonstration means everyone's afraid of being jailed or executed. I tried mentioning Cuba has a pretty popular government, the vote on the constitution seems proof of that, but that also just gets flipped as proof of tyranny.
I don't know, it was frustrating and I otherwise respect this person. Have y'all been having trouble?
You can't, because you can't understand Cuba in a vacuum. To actually understand reality there, you also have to understand Xinjiang and Iraq and Nicaragua and Iran and Grenada and Haiti and Chile and Vietnam and Korea and Gladio and Paperclip etc etc.
The reality is simple: US foreign policy serves the interests of capital, and always has. But Americans are the most deeply propagandized people in history, so literally everyone other than the left (and even then...) believes very strongly in unreality. This unreality is that US foreign policy - despite the occasional oopsie-doopsie - is generally good and well-intentioned because the USA is a good country. And because we're a good country, when wer'e told by the government and media that someone else is bad, we believe them. And if America is good, then on some level that makes me good too.
So you're not going to convince someone of the truth about Cuba unless you get them understand the broader strokes of US foreign policy. Unless someone is shaken from their belief that the US is generally good and the government and media is trustworthy, nothing you say about Cuba (or China for that matter) will stick.
Welcome to Communism. To understand it here's a library of books, a masters degree in macro-economics, a masters degree in history, and a bunch of mostly-unsolved problems in the field of resource allocation and socio-political organisation.