Thoughts
The problem with a lot of online arguments is that instead of trying to argue in terms of the other side's core beliefs, people will
condemn the other side's core beliefs.
Instead of arguing that trains are traditional forms of transportation, and convincing traditionalists to support a liberal agenda, Tumblr argues that all traditionalism is fascism. (This example references two recent popular Tumblr posts.)
I could write 1000 words here about whether or not traditionalism implies fascism (I don't think it does), but that's not my point. My point is that you're not going to be able to convince a traditionalist to not be a traditionalist with Tumblr posts. You might be able to convince a traditionalist to support voting for a train expansion on the next ballot. That's part of why political discussion, in particular online, is so frustrating: it's not actually about tangible issues. It if was, people would be making arguments that respect other people's intangible values. Instead, people are just insulting other people's intangible values for no gain.
("values tradition" is an intangible value; it doesn't have any fixed manifestation. "values trains" is a tangible value.
Political parties and candidates don't really have intangible values. Both parties say they care about the working class. Both parties say they value America. Republicans say they care about tradition, but as in the above example, you can argue in favor of progressive, liberal, policies exclusively using arguments based on traditional values.)