Liberals can occasionally say something correct while still being fundamentally wrong. That's inevitable.

If you have let's say, a guy who died of a disease he caught drinking from the river. An civilized man will reason that the water source isn't safe, and either avoid or purify it.

The primitives will say that it's because you made the water spirits upset and you need to avoid the water until the shamans can make it happy again.

The latter group of people are still wrong, even if they too avoid drinking from a tainted river. In this case, you're not going to fix their stupidity so I just nod and play along and chalk it up to something new to laugh about with my wife on the car ride home.

I don't necessarily disagree with Israel wiping out Gaza with all inhabitants, because, after all, Palestinians are all Muslim, and therefore by definition sworn enemies of the West.

My problem is Jewish influence making the US provide logistic support in doing so, and now Jews basically dog walking our government for their interests in the war on Iran, and the obvious censorship campaign to keep people from a) noticing and b) talking about it.

My reaction is to think that this is going to be a problem. Coming to the same conclusion for completely different reasons helps specifically with the conclusion but then outside of that conclusion, you're still going to have a problem. It doesn't help very much.

Leftists who dislike Israelis genociding Palestinians so they dislike Israel aren't going to side with you trying to exterminate jews in your home country to improve your quality of life. They'll just accuse you of genociding jews then take the side of jews. If Mexicans in Mexico become a huge problem such that the USA invaded Mexico to solve the Mexican problem, these leftists would side with Mexico against the USA in the same way they side with Palestine against Israel.

These leftists are not your friend just because they got to the right conclusion on Israel. That happens from time to time and perhaps it can be capitalized on like promoting ending all American foreign aid to Israel. Both sides can agree on this. But overall, their way of getting to the same conclusion is ultimately the problem and they'll still be your enemy once the dust settles on the one thing you got to the same conclusion on.

If their foundation of thought is incorrect then it doesn't really matter what their conclusions are because their judgement cannot be trusted. They are at best useful for the momentum they can lend to a specific effort but should not be viewed as any sort of ally or asset beyond that limited scope. Just because a rabid dog shows up in my yard to attack a burglar doesn't mean I'm going to adopt that dog. It's still rabid, it's still an active threat to me and those around me.

Take it as a win, in an “enemy of my enemy” kind of way? Can they be trusted to ever come to the “correct” conclusion again if their rationale is “wrong”?

Yes and no, respectively. If it's something that can be capitalized on, like office politics or pizza toppings, move fast while they're in your corner. But correct thought is all that matters. Having the correct conclusion without correct thought just makes you a living Chinese room machine: a novelty, but nothing real.

The New Testament is full of warnings about this: correct behavior without correct heart leads to damnation.

What Jews are doing to Palestinians isn't any different to what they would do to Whites if they had a numerical advantage on us. Hell, they do similar shit with their ghettos like Kiryas Joel.

Tolerate them if they're not actively destructive but never, ever actually trust them or let them into your inner circle. It's good to be able to be friendly with people who don't have the exact same politics that you do but you always have to assume all leftists are timebombs.

I suppose the reasoning at how they arrive to that conclusion matters more than the conclusion itself. You want to believe that "yes I'm fine with this because it aligns with my desires" but in reality I'm not too sure.

Years ago there was this whole weird segregation movement where blacks wanted their own space. Leftists wanted to accommodate them. A lot of people here and virtually everywhere would see this as a net positive. But the reasoning behind it was that blacks believed themselves to be victims and better than whites. People just let it go, but now years later we have blacks being treated with kiddie gloves when it comes to crime, and nobody's willing step on any toes.

It highly depends on their reasoning, and how broad the subject matter is. But more often than not, I find doing the whole "enemy of my enemy" crap doesn't really benefit anyone but them.

Everyone hates Israel except conservative boomers. But you still can’t name the jew anywhere.

it's called horseshoe theory and it's real

One of the maxims of maximally effective mercenaries: "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, nothing more."

Top reply implies a fundamental right and wrong situation, a broken clock analogy effecitvely. But it can also be true that both aligned interests in the one situation are entirely correct within their reasonings and beliefs AND the other side's reasonings and beliefs, just not on much else. For a meme example, look at the "Islam is right about women" campaign: Both Islamists and the more fundie Christians can look at the statement, but you won't see much cooperation or community beyond that between the two groups when the two groups are effectively in a 1500 year holy war.

Finding common ground is important, but in many cases, the similarities are either simply coincidental as a result of sharing an overall basic human condition, or there is some part of their doctrine that forbids true cooperation (because if there wasn't... they'd be doing it already.)

EDIT: One day, I'm sure we'll get a Redditor Atheist negotiating with an Islamist Imam, and saying "yes, we both agree women are just animals with no soul, you're halfway there, we're ALL in the order animalia, and souls don't exist. You'll get there eventually, so make sure you never forget that first half, knowing women don't have souls means you're halfway there, common ground!". One day, I'm sure.

My reaction is to think they're a double-fucked broken clock moron. I start with a positive (Western society and values) and multiply it by a negative (leftist ideology) to observe a negative outcome. Leftists multiply two imaginary numbers together to find a negative outcome.

Go deeper. Underneath both of your reasonings is a common thread. Expose that, or rather lead your acquaintance to say it themselves, and you truly have common ground; a bedrock that you can build upon. From there you can open their eyes to much more.

Reminds me of that old Daily Show skit where two guys debate Islam vs Christianity. They go at it for a few minutes with no progress, but they both agree the Jew is schemy.

Just accept that they have the right answer and assuming you need something from them go get it. Otherwise expect them to come up with the stupid answer the next time an issue comes up. You don't trust a broken clock even if its right exactly twice a day.

So if someone else comes to the same conclusion, but by a different path, that’s an incremental “win”. The correct thing to do, is to then “forum slide” them to the right incrementally by framing the Overton window relative to that conclusion. So, for example, if they are anti Israel because “my colonialism” don’t argue with them about the path to the conclusion. Instead, find the next closest agreeable point, and get consensus on that. For example, the war in Iran. And then repeat this incrementally to slide them to the right over an appropriate period of time.

This does not work with everybody but it works more often than you think. And if nothing else it can cause the subject to lose confidence in their core positions.

No they still hate you, you just have lower priority when it comes to Israel vs Palestine, they'll unite Muslims and jews to attack you when you're the focus domestically