on the whole i would just say: be civil. discuss points of agreement and ignore the rest where you know you're going to go back and forth in circles. instead of trying to convert them, try to shift their position to be more agreeable on the margin. (e.g. have them hate the actually-existing retards who're doing un-libertarian things in office, not the basically irrelevant left.)
although my favorite libertarian type is Richard Hanania, who isn't really a libertarian as such, or who at least straddles the line having been a former Fascist. What redeems him is that he's willing to say what few others are, and to analyze it in depth: today's right wingers are stupid, joining the right wing will actively negate your innate intelligence and make you a total fucking idiot, and when you look in depth this is really, really obvious.
left wing people read more right-wing news publications than right-wing people (because right wingers don't fucking read! they watch tv/youtube/podcasts,
they do not read, they are
stupid! whenever you're wondering "why do they believe this patently false thing?" it's all well and good to go ah, manufacturing consent, ah, their class interests, but at some point you do have to lump on: because they are stupid and malicious.)
it's funny to watch someone reach a number of basic liberal positions (like abolishing ICE and prosecuting the people who worked for it) starting from very right-wing premises. it's funny to see a rightist who started as a racist autism score freak, then looked seriously at who was around them and went: hang on, the racial thing is overblown and (thanks to basic economics) irrelevant but holy shit there is a massive "human capital" problem on the right.
>>2677186this is partially true, but the wrongness of this position is overstated. a boot is a boot is a boot. two metaphorical half boots make a boot too. so long as there's stomping, the rest is just aesthetic preferences.