Whenever we have discussions, friendly or otherwise, it is important to always define terms first. Unfortunately, ideologues have no interest in debate, let alone discussion, for any reason beyond target practise. For the socialist, those who support free markets must, by necessity, be lumped in with corporatists and fascists for appearances' sake.

"Perception is more important than reality" - Ivanka Trump

To which, the rebuttal is such:

"Style prevails over substance only when there is no substance." - Karel Janáček

We, in turn, should take every opportunity to use their own bad tactics against them, not in a serious manner, but for the purpose of making them look foolish. For instance, since fascism is, technically, a form of socialism, I love lumping self-described socialists in with actual fascists and watching their heads explode.

For the record, when I use the term "idealogue," I'm actually working with a slightly different definition in the context of this comment from usual. Up until now, whenever I've used the term "ideologue," it has included all those who are blindly married to an ideology, whether they have a vested interest or not. This has, traditionally, included the midwits of society (a.k.a. "useful idiots," despite their higher-than-average IQ), but over the course of my recent (and possibly still ongoing) discussion with @newexperience, I have decided that my current working definition is far too broad, and should be narrowed down to exclude the midwits, thus focusing on the much more intelligent and exponentially more dangerous individuals who devote themselves to propagating bad ideas (and, quite frequently, are the very people who invented these ideas in the first place).