Economics

Actually this is worth delving into a little bit.

This pattern is called Never Play Defense -- MotoAsh is throwing out repeated accusations and shifting the frame of the discussion so that anything I say to demonstrate that any given one of them isn't accurate just gets a response that's some new line of attack. It's a way to take a tremendously weak or specious argument (in this case, the idea that Biden's bad for labor) and make it look like a serious contender in the arena of ideas.

So take a look at what's happened:

• I highlight the shills who keep up a drumbeat of how bad Biden is for labor

• MotoAsh insults me and implies that Biden isn't responsible for what the NLRB is doing and that the idea he might have is stupid (sort of related to my point)
• I point out some citations for specifically why the current NLRB's actions are a direct result of what he did (outside the norms of a usual US president)

• MotoAsh ignores the point, and shifts the framing to say that anything that's good progress is worthless unless Biden singlehandedly gets us to a point above where we were after however-many years of backwards. That (1) isn't how it works, and (2) has nothing to do with my refutation of what he was saying.
• I disagree

• MotoAsh decides to shift away from anything factual at all and purely to accusing me of being a shill for Biden.

So at that point I have a choice. I can respond to the new accusation, or I can stick with the old point that I was making before the framing shifted, or I can just respond in kind to the personal insults. All three of these are bad responses. The video lays it out in a little more detail, but basically, we're now on the fourth iteration of a new thing to talk about, and just responding factually can actually make a winning argument look like it's "losing" because of the flow of conversation. A lot of times people who use this style are happy to continue it forever, because they know they're getting their points across and into the mainstream. For as dishonest an approach as it is, it's actually really effective.

Tell you what, MotoAsh: Usually with this kind of thing I like to just ignore the bad faith claims after a certain point and calmly lay out my own talking points for people to read, with the factual citations of why they are accurate. But if you want a real response, then sure. Lay out exactly what you're saying in full. I can tell you what you're wrong about with some citations, and we can call it a day. How's that sound?

(I somewhat anticipate they won't want to do that, which is fine from my side too.)