When I was way younger, I went to a bonfire party with a few of my buddies that had a lot of the typical lefty dipshits there. When we were sitting around the circle and drinking, the group was talking about the election and if they were going to vote (for John Kerry, of course). But the most hippy looking dude out of that bunch said, "no way, fuck Kerry. I'm voting for Bush." They were freaking out, especially the bitches, and were like, "HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR MUH EVUL REPUBLICAN?!" He was totally calm and said, "I hunt for my own meat because I don't trust corporations. If Kerry gets in, he'll take away my gun." That just made them freak out harder, but he just shook his head and refused to budge. I came to his defense a few times. I basically made them admit that Democrats were all about banning guns, and they had to admit it would be stupid for the guy to vote for the party that would force him to eat corporation trash, and eventually I made the case that everything the Democrats did, like welfare and taxes, was all to benefit to global corporations at our expense in the same calm manner as the hippiebro. I'm certain the guy was more libertarian than anything, but you can find redpills in the strangest places.
Speaking to SJWs
No
You can't reason with the unreasonable
It is less to do with shame, and more to do with status. I think status is a much more potent thinking framework against the left than shaming them, which is more like a tactic used to undermine their status. Their entire power structure is built on their perceived status and ongoing upkeep to make themselves look high status:
1. everyone that disagrees with them is stupid and needs to be "educated" and read the right kind of books, often by what they think are high status institutions like the media and academia.
2. media and entertainment consumption is all built on status, look at the type of soyboys that consume indie rock and watch late night tv comedy talk shows, and if you don't consume the right things you are low status.
3. scientism, march for science, internet atheists, and other similar social phenomena is all built on high status of not so much the scientific method, but science itself within academia with "rock star" scientists and ted speakers.
4. disagreeing with political and ethical thought is rarely done on rational grounds and more done on the fact that "progress" or whatever other buzzwords they are using is seen as high status. Look at the DSA or weird twitter guys, merely disagreeing with them makes you an incel, which is a move to make individuals low status ("if you argue with the left wing, you don't get pussy")
This is why I think a massive push to undermine media and academia as high status should be a major center of gravity in any meme war. Constantly pointing out how garbage journalists are and their lies is already why we make ground against our enemies. Undermining academia via dissident academics or hatefacts or other things is another avenue.
No. They're either jews or identical to them.
When someone has some SJW views you have to know which talking points will trigger (argh) them and those who won't. Hit a red button and they will stop listening. But if you present a point that is a right wing talking in a way that is not framed as such and doesn't triiger the alarm they may absorb it. Let them absorb it and their brain draw paralels.
To each battlefield a tactic. You don't talk privately to family in the same away you talk to some moking fag in a public debate.
For example, my sister. She gets triggered if I talk about race or jews. But she listened to me (security engineer) talking about risk.
No, even if you defeat them publicly with indisputable logic they'll just go back to their same tired deflections and blame gaming the next day. Just ignore them.
Don't they tend to travel in insulated hordes? A mobile echo chamber and hugbox?
Here's a series of articles about just this topic. Basically their minds can't accept certain facts and it affects them negatively.