This is indicative of a shitty rhetorical strategy. Really, the only way to hold someone accountable when they use this strategy is to insist on continuing to talk about your main issue, not whatever they want to say.

So, if they pivot to making a point against Hitler’s indoctrination of children, then take it back to their use of a Hitler quote that makes that point relevant in the first place.

I may be butting into a topic I don't understand. I don't know much about these Moms for Liberty except that I thing I've heard that they support trump.

The quote in question is: "He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future.”

It's pretty ambiguous in its meaning and intent. In the context where it was used: advocating for parents to have more control over their children's education: aka decentralize control of children.

But let me point you to a less catchy but far more horrifying quote:

I rarely agree with or endorse or agree with violence. But the rise of the far-right shitbirds has really led me to believe that perhaps General Sherman really should’ve gone all the way to the sea.

If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighboring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.

It has 2 upvotes and I'm the only downvote ...

You talk about bad faith actors using shitty strategy to derail the debate. They're affirming that parents should have more control over their children's education, they unwisely used a Hitler quote without enough context in one of their publication and now that's all you want to talk about.

I haven't looked into it but I'm pretty sure that the greater context here is that these parents don't want their kids to be taught that "it's ok to be gay" and "kill the trans" is a bad thing to say. They probably won't say it publicly, but that's what I suspect is really going on.

And if I see them on the fediverse making these kinds of statements I might call them out on it. If I see them accusing the other side of acting in bad faith by acting in bad faith themselves, I might call them all on it. And if I see them almost directly calling for armed conflict, you bet your ass I'll DEFINITELY call them out on it.

But guess who it is that I see acting in bad faith right now? You.

And guess who it is that I see kinda, "but really just joking", advocating for armed conflict / quasi genocide? Someone on this thread getting upvoted that I won't even give the respect of directly responding to.

You know there are entire instances devoted to people who love right wing pieces of shit, maybe join one of those and be happy

I can barely tolerate the unhinged comments I find here. I don't think I would survive over there.

Is it too much to ask to have people try and be sensible. Show some kind of respect for the truth. And not try to set the whole world on fire?

Show some kind of respect for the truth

Respect for the truth does not involve giving endless benefit of the doubt to obvious astroturf groups that spread lies and try to ban books.

But a group is composed of individuals. If you treat the misguided members of that group the same as their disingenuous leaders, especially if you're playing fast and loose with the facts, then you'll be pushing them towards their leaders and towards extremism.

That said, I also understand the value of discrediting an entire group as a whole. From a strategic and deterrence perspective where you're trying to reduce the effectiveness and power of the group and you're trying to cause people to second guess lending their support to that group by attacking their reputation. But also from a moral perspective if you're going to lend support to a group that has nefarious objectives and produces harmful results, you have some responsibility for that regardless of your intentions.

But again, I'm most upset about seeing so much support and no pushback to someone sorta kinda jokingly advocating for genocide.

But also the irony of a person B grandstanding about how it's not ok to derail a conversation. When really they're trying to keep it on the derailed topic of the group's original topic.

It's like "oh nos what bad faiths piece of shits these Moms for Liberty are! We derailed the conversation fair and square to this Hitler quote that we may or may not have intentionally misinterpreted and now they want to derail it back to talking about your original grievance, we can't let them get away with this kind of sneaky debate tactics"

I'm obviously exaggerating and paraphrasing here.