link to original reddit post by /u/Deldris
Unfortunately, I can not for the life of me remember the man who said this.
But they're entirely correct. We go on and on talking about how the left is emotional and they just want to feel good about what they're doing without any real thought for the consequence. The right is overly reactionary to the left and will also act on impulse just to get at them. This is a strategy I almost never see tried. Arguing in the same way they do, appealing to emotion. It's the only way I've ever made ground with anyone.
I had a friend who was a die hard leftist. Healthcare, UBI, minimum wage, the environment, whole thing. I tried explaining how all of the policies they advocated for wouldn't work. I tried explaining why the private sector can out produce the government. I tried explaining the invisible hand of the market, how government is an ineffective middle man and how the policies they wanted would actually hurt the people they wanted to help.
None of that worked. But you know what did? My arguments on free association. When I talked about how it was wrong for prostitution to be illegal because people should have autonomy over their bodies he found that agreeable.
I asked him if he really agreed that people have a right to their own bodies. He said, "Well I think they should, obviously."
So I asked him if he thought there was anything more important than one's right to their own body. He responded by saying he doesn't think people should be allowed to kill anyone, which I obviously agreed with. He then said he thought ensuring everyone's rights (what he considered "rights") were important.
At that point I stopped him and asked which was more important. He asked me to clarify, so I said "Hypothetically, if we could only preserve either everyone's right to their own body or everyone's rights to those other things which would you pick?"
"I don't see why we can't have both?"
"Because those ideas conflict with each other."
"How?"
"Because making people, for example, provide a service to someone they don't want to is making them do something with their body they don't want to do. Even if you disagree with their choice, you're still taking their bodily autonomy by forcing them."
He really paused on this. He actually asked me if I minded holding the conversation for now and let him digest. So I did.
When we spoke again he told me what he had thought about. "I still think healthcare and stuff should be given to everyone but I can't deny your point. I think people should have a right to their bodies and what they do as long as they're not hurting anyone else."
This was a big turning point in our conversations. I'm not going to claim I converted him to Ancapitalism or anything, but he definitely was far more receptive to my ideas of alternatives for some of his ideas. He even came around on gun control.
You need to appeal to these people in the same way Democrats do, playing in to their emotions. If you can make them feel "wrong" about what they think they will be open to changing their minds. I would advise you to give it a try.