I think a large part of what y'all are banging on about the last couple of pages boils down to a question of persuasion. There are a large number of thoughtful, intelligent posters here, originating from both sides of the aisle, who are completely appalled - in my view rightfully - by the Trump faction. There are a few obvious Trump supporters, and a few other posters who claim to be above it all and that they don't support either side, but always seem to argue either in favor of the Trumpist position or against the anti-Trumpist position. Those in the latter two categories are, apparently, immune to persuasion - any combination of facts, logic, appeals to humanity, aversion to being lied to continuously, or simple common sense rolls right off, and the retort is a Trumpish collection of fact-free mocking and name-calling.
This understandably leads to some frustration, and that came out in the Brisket post under discussion. How do you get through to people when facts, logic, appeals to humanity, and common sense don't work? You might be tempted to resort to a mirror of the arguments that apparently sway these people: shocking personal attacks that target the emotional lizard brain. Make them think about how they would feel if the policies they advocate were directed against them; they don't get it any other way, so paint a picture of them or their loved ones bleeding out from a madman's fusillade of bullets. Maybe Brisket's post connected on this level; it certainly seems to have struck a nerve. It's a shame that that's the only way to construct an effective argument these days, but I guess some of us follow the thought leaders of our tribe, and the top-down rhetoric of the Trump side has become disturbingly pervasive.
tl/dr: maybe fire is the only way to fight fire.