Nero explains some of the rules of ideological alliances to a moderate:
Winston Churchill once said, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a positive reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” The logic of this should be obvious. Churchill recognized (rightly) that maintaining Britain’s liberal order was worth allying with the devil. No one went to war with the Nazis just because of the tactics they used. They primarily did it because they couldn’t stand the idea of living under a Nazi regime. I can’t stand the thought of living under what Cathy calls the “quasi-totalitarian” Social Justice regime. And I will pay any price necessary to make sure that quasi-totalitarian ideology is defeated and sent back to the urine-soaked faculty lounge from whence it came.
Cathy confuses what is prudent with what is moral when she says that rejecting certain far-right allies doesn’t count as appeasing the Left. Certainly, taking on allies who alienate the vast majority of people you’re trying to persuade is tactically stupid. But purging people when they have done nothing to damage your cause, but happen to have made you uncomfortable because of something unrelated, is simply cowardly. There is a very troubling tendency among many Gamergaters to believe that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is somehow “icky” or should be held responsible for the sins of Jack Thompson. This isn’t the early 2000s. Most conservatives have moved on from the stupid anti-video game craze, and the ones who are most loudly on Gamergate’s side generally never bought into that craze in the first place. Refusing to accept support from people who would destroy your ability to maintain your coalition is one thing. Simple bigotry against conservatives because you don’t like the idea of being on the same side as people you laughed at on the Daily Show is quite another.
I agree completely with Cathy re Nyberg, so I won’t respond to this prong. I will, however, only say that Social Justice Warriors take no notice of the difference between “combatants” and “non-combatants,” which is typical of fascists and terrorists. The only way to stop such people from targeting non-combatants is to make them afraid to do so, because they know the retaliation from you will hurt so much more than anything they could do. Mutually assured destruction requires the commitment of both sides to destruction if the other starts something, and it is why we have yet to see a nuclear war. If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.
As I have noted on several occasions, for reasons unbeknownst to me, moderates are always more focused on firing on their own side than on the enemy. They are also always more open to negotiation and dialogue with the enemy than with their own extremists.
This is one of the reasons why moderates never accomplish anything. Ideally, moderates would stay out of the way, let the extremists lead the charge, and then show up after the victory is won and handle the negotiations using the extremists as leverage.
“Do you want to surrender to me or do I stand aside and watch as my very good friend here follows through on his promise of no quarter?” Accepting surrender is the true and proper role of the moderate. Policing those engaged in positive action is not.