“Okay. That’s cute. But you don’t. You know that you don’t. I know that you don’t.”
This feels way too much like the hardcore Clintonites’ dismissal of those of us who said we had no problem voting for a women, just that we’d never vote for their woman. It’s a weak rebuttal to criticism, which generally means the criticism is valid.
Michael Cernovich is a legitimately vile, disgusting person. Those Counterpunch pieces, though pretentious as hell, have a point—collaborating with someone like Cernovich does more harm to your argument than good. Any firepower he (or someone like him) would bring to the table is immediately rendered impotent by stuff like denying date rape exists, trading in conspiracy theory nonsense like Pizzagate, reflexively shouting “PEDOPHILE!!!” at those he sees as opponents and quotes like “diversity is code for white genocide.”
It was a bad example, perhaps born out of the flattery of a retweet. Better to just admit that and refocus the discussion on your point, which was a fair one: If someone is anti-establishment and willing to push back on the false narratives constantly regurgitated to keep the American political elite in power, then game on.”
But there have to be limits; there always are.
Very little in real-life is absolute and certainly not mentalities like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”