The fact that Republicans wouldn’t do that doesn’t change the fact that there are undecided voters that would do that. If you think non-whites aren’t capable of being as conservative as republicans, you’re going to be disappointed time and time again.

I guess the main thing is that if you’re going to argue for something very unpopular, rather than arguing for the sake of your opponent as they are today, argue for the sake of uncommitted onlookers and for the sake of the opponent a week from now after they’ve had time to calm down and reprocess. Respond to their arguments, of course, but do it in a way that illustrates to less polarized people that you’ve got a point, rather than trying to convince your opponent or finding specific errors in the opponent’s reasoning/self-justification.

When an issue is as polarized as this, people very rarely switch sides publicly (unless they’re shilling and they didn’t hold the original position to begin with), but people can cringe from the side making bad arguments, quietly distancing themselves, and a few months or years later show up on a different side.

If you want that side to be your side, it’s nice to present a pipeline that does that. People who cringe from bottom-of-the-barrel leftist discourse can fall into alt-right pipelines, which you presumably don’t want, so ideally you would want to have examples of (leftist) influencers whose takes you find reasonable, ideally on the case itself. For example, LegalEagle (“it is plausible that the jury was right that murder under Wisconsin law was not proven beyond reasonable doubt”).

The hate is not really avoidable except by forgoing this venue or not arguing your point, but like with the hate thrown towards peaceful climate activists, it is not a sign that you’re doing a bad job.

Your original comment is passive-aggressive. You decry that people aren’t doing their due dilligence but don’t actually provide your perspective on the story or give any indication that you’ve put in any effort of your own. Unless you believe that legal definitions and jury trials are simply right, in which case, wow, you’re such a leftist.

If you want to have a fact based conversation, it would be nice if you came with facts instead of just claiming they exist.

If you want to discuss about what kind of killing is worth calling murder, it would be nice if you explained your position.

Your original comment is incredibly passive-aggressive.

I put together this gif for a side-by-side comparison. The picture was taken from a slightly different location, so it’s not perfect, but the difference is obvious.

Your mistake is seeing them as Democrat voters. Maybe if the Republicans had a brown candidate they would vote for them instead.

ASML is basically a strategic asset. Breaking them up to have a more level playing field inherently threatens the West’s economic-political position. If ASML abused their position, it wouldn’t be the regulators so much as the CIA that showed up to tell them to reconsider.

That’s the neat thing about workers’ rights. Workers have more interest in making good products than investors, especially in artistic fields. Investors will gladly sabotage a product’s quality for the sake of personal gain and move on to the next company with goodwill to exploit, but for workers a job well done is inherently rewarding.

Unionization directly leads to better games with more artistic merit.