RemyBrown

Code:

1. Gay man's word: Straight man's word.

1. Preference: Discrimination.
2. Nurturing: Providing.
3. Helping: Assisting. Pandering also is a masculine word.
4. Need: Require.
5. Got: Obtained.
6. Sold: Solicited.
7. Bought: Consumed.
8. Self care: Matienience.
9. Mental Health: Mental Toughness.
10. LGBTQIA+: Alphabet
11. Leave: Depart
12. Come: Arrive
13. Intimacy: Fuck
14. Feminine gay guy: F*99ot.
15. Mentally challenged: Retarted.
16. Calling yourself a Queen: Arrogance.
17. Talking about oppression: Bitchassery.
18. Personal day: Lazy.
19. Women that think they're better than men: Sexist
20. Men that think they're better than women: Sexist

You are going to become old one day.

So will your wife.

If this is what you believe, then don't marry.

She said, "Babies are being murdered. And one day you will be next" or something like that.

She misspoke. She meant, "And one day you will die and have to answer to god".

You can disagree with her on religion or even abortion, but to act like she wants to murder pro choicers is a massive strawman, especially when Abigail doesn't call on Jay Jones to back down when he called for murdering conservatives.

Their counterargument is, "The 1st amendment merely states the government can't restrict your free speech. It says nothing of private individuals."

Alright; so then the left wants their government to be pro free speech, but the left personally isn't (with few exceptions).

They are allowed to hate free speech on the personal level and disassociate with people that are like 50% right wing and they can call this free association, but freedom of association has consequences. They piss off more and more normies, and the republicans win so intensely that the democrats will have to do what the whigs did in the 1800s; cease to exist as a major party.

But with Kirk, dead, tbh, there is nothing I believe the left can do to stop any right wing victories in VA, NJ, and maybe NYC. Here's why:

2020: NY State is D+20 in POTUS elections.

2022: Lee Zeldin gets shot at and lives. He turns NYC D+10 by virtue of him getting shot at.

2020: VA is D+10; NJ is D+15.

2024: VA is D+5; NJ is D+5.

2025: Charlie Kirk gets shot at and dies.

Here is the massive scale that Kirk vs Zeldin had with their assassination attempts:

10 day pre assassination attempt average for:

1. Zeldin: 1.7% of max
2. Kirk: <1% of max

10 day post assassination attempt average for:

1. Zeldin: 9% of max
2. Kirk: 16.4% of max

Zeldin had a 10 day retention multiplier of about 5.5 (9%/1.7%) and he benefitted in NY State by 10 pts politically. People say it was because of cashless bail; but nobody cares that much about cashless bail because it only applies to non-violent offenders. Kirk's multiplier (16.4%/lets say .1%) is 164.

This should be a red psynami that makes 2024 look like blood work (not calling for murder, but blood is red just like republicans).

You're probably correct.

That would be fine. Obama would probably go to JRE and defend what he believes in a rational way. I prefer Obama to Trump easily; but Trump was better than Harris.

These people can't riot and pretty much nobody now condemns them for it:

Black Lives Matter

These people can:

Stonewall riots - Wikipedia

White privilege; maybe BLM should join the republican party.

Donald Trump third term proposed as GOP rep pushes to repeal 22nd Amendment.

I don't see the issue with this; Canada has no term limits and left wingers don't care. But Trump is different because either they have a party to stick too or the status quo to stick too (which is conservative in the literal sense).

->Terms like sexism and racism were coined to describe top-down prejudice. While they can be used to describe bottom-up prejudice, such prejudice is toothless most of the time and never carries the same weight; punching up will never be as much of a threat as punching down.

If you distinguish between top-down xenophobia and bottom up xenophobia, then I can see that (as long as you call it what it is; bottom up xenophobia).

But then in some areas, it's tough to figure out:

1. Different definitions of more power. Financially, men have more power than women. With dating, the opposite is true. Beyonce could be broke and she could be married to Jay Z. The same is not true if Jay Z was broke. Men control the wallet; women control the sex life. Exclusive prostitution is essentially what a relationship is where it's mutually callable.
2. Group A vs Group B; Group A has less money per person but also way more people than Group B. Who is "above" the other? The left would say Group B if it's apartheid South Africa. They would say it's group A if it's trailer park rednecks vs the globalists (aka, liberal Jews). I talk shit about whites in SA controlling the media, the left cheers it on. I say that about Jews, the left gets mad.
3. Punching up = going after a right coded group (non FBANAs, men, straights, cisgender, etc) and punching down = going after a left coded group (FBANAs, women, LGB, transgender, etc). It sounds politically motivated (which if you want to operate that way, then right wingers can do the same). FBANA= Foundational Black American & Native American.
4. The punch is unequal. Calling someone a TW a man is nowhere in the same ballpark as calling them worse than a bear. Calling a TW a pedophile is in the same ballpark (which I'm opposed to doing).

->It appears you are against both men and women.

Yes, men and women both have major behavior problems. I notice with dating though, women have a very huge advantage and people with advantages tend to be assholes with those advantages.

->First of all, the Democratic party (I'm guessing that's the party you meant?) has no stance on man vs bear because it was an internet meme and a small blip on the culture war radar, nothing more.

1. They have no stance because it's political suicide if they did.
2. It's a blip when feminists concede the issue like the democrats conceded the vaccine mandates and the believe women movement. Although if they concede the issue, then it will feel like a lie to try and get voting rights back, so it won't be taken seriously even if they do concede because it wont' be interpreted as genuine.

->Second of all, women picking the bear does not mean men are worse than bears, it means those women fear strange men more than they fear strange bears.

Exactly, it's anti male sexism. Replace, "strange men" with, "blacks" and see how it works. All bears are strange.

->Third of all, women sharing this opinion is not an assault on your rights because it's just fucking social rhetoric.

Remember this claim the next time left wingers claim that calling a transwoman a man or a TM a woman is an assault on their rights. I'm cisgender, but I'd rather be called a woman than a bear. Women are better than bears.

I'm willing to claim that saying men < bears is not an attack on men's rights when you and the rest of the left do that for the claim TW = man and TM = woman.

->The phrase "man vs. bear" has been co-opted by the incel subculture and other parts of the "manosphere" to justify misogynistic views. 

Yes; because before then, misogyny rightfully seemed highly negative, but when you prove yourself with stupid responses, people start to realize why the misogyny is a good thing.

1. ->A bear's intentions are clear: Women explained that a bear's threat is an understandable, primal danger. If attacked by a bear, they would be universally believed.
2. A man's intentions are not: Conversely, they pointed out that a man's intentions are ambiguous. If attacked by a man, a woman might have to fight for her credibility. 

Compare this to, "Woman vs bear" where the man says, "At least the bear never falsely accused anyone of rape". If you cite extreme rarity for this, then the equal and opposite applies to men vs bears.

->misinterpreting the women's reasoning

Oh, I know why they say it; it's because they are extremely worried about getting raped. But imagine if I used the same logic to justify being falsely accused of rape. The women admit to being emotional, and emotional thinking = stupid thinking, so the women admit to being stupid.

->This reaction amplified the issue and made it fodder for the incel subculture's ideology of misogyny and victimhood. 

It just reveled what I was oblivious to 2 years ago; how stupid/emotional (syninoms) women are.

->

1. Further dehumanize women: They interpreted women's preference for a bear as a sign that women irrationally hate and fear men. This fueled existing incel rhetoric that women are cruel, shallow, and manipulated by a "feminist gynarchy".
2. Frame themselves as victims: Incels often discussed the debate as proof that society unjustly demonizes men. This fits their core ideology of aggrieved entitlement and self-pity, positioning themselves as victims who are unfairly left behind in the "sexual marketplace".
3. Justify their hateful worldview: The controversy became another data point for their belief system, particularly the "blackpill" ideology, which preaches that their situation is hopeless due to women's innate sexual preferences and that no self-improvement will help.
4. Condone or encourage violence: Some incels used the debate to reinforce their belief that violence is a justified response to their perceived oppression. The logic extends to the idea that if women are already terrified of them, there is no consequence for acting on their violent and misogynistic fantasies. 
5. Men say women are humans. Women say men are worse than bears. Women dehumanize men. They project and they don't care. They will say we shouldn't care about money and then only date a dude who has enough money to take care of her. I'd rather them admit to being capitalists and anti male sexists. I wouldn't hate them for it, but be honest.
6. I don't want sex with women. This is invalid.
7. "Hateful" is anything right wing according to the left, so because of that, why would any right winger care what the left says is and isn't hateful?
8. I think rapists should be executed without painkillers.

You really have to use Chat GPT to argue because you can't do it yourself. I win arguments against Chat GPT.

->The "man vs. bear" debate in the incel subculture is an example of how a mainstream discussion about gender dynamics can be absorbed and twisted by extremist online communities to advance their hateful narratives.

Hateful is just right wing in the democrat language, so it's not immoral to be hateful.

->Non-sequitur, you were expressing support for Pedophilia

I was saying to treat Trump's pedophilia the same way as the Catholic Church'es pedophillia (and my worship for Donald Trump is justified for a reason that I will DM you).

->over a quarter of users posted words associated with pedophilia such as “loli” and “jb” (short for jailbait), both of which refer to girls who are under the age of consent.

I just learned what 2 new words meant.

->Forum’s rules changed to permit the sexualization of “pubescent minors”. Analysis of discussions of pedophilia on the forum show that 53% of posters are supportive of sexual violence against children.

I'm in the 47%. I think sex is addictive, so I don't want kids exposed to it; that's like exposing them to tobacco. It's why I discourage people from having sex unless they want a kid; because I view sex as a drug. If you rape a kid, then you should be killed.

That definition doesn't describe me.

I don't find women hostile; I merely find them incompetent due to the lack of mental scrutiny they've been subject to based on their looks shielding them from criticism.

I don't find men who get a lot of sex hostile; I view them as addicts that might get STIs. Nobody looks at an 8 year old kid playing on his iphone 16 hrs a day as hostile; he's just an addict.

If a man gets a lot of sex, then I think he's spending a lot of money, but it's none of my business.

Chris Rock.

If the left hates him for it, then they are racist. He's a black guy that isn't talking shit about BLM.

1. The Good Men Project states that 61% of women refuse to prefer the bear over the man they don't know due to rape concerns from generic men (imagine if I said I'd rather be with a bear over a woman because the bear never falsely accused of rape). No matter the context; everyone would think I'm stupid. Women get a pass because they are hot with sweet sounding voices that work wonderfully with kids but not adults.
2. The majority of the 39% of women who selected the man are conservative native-born women (these people prefer the bear over the transgender person because the bear never groomed their kids). Yes conservative women; you are part of this too. You are just as emotional as the liberal women; conservative women can't think for themselves because they value tradition and want the man to do all of the thinking for them.
3. The exception I would grant to legal immigrant women. Immigrant women moved to America for free speech. Therefore, they don't make stupid comments like this because they think about things logically and morally, not emotionally.
4. Any native born woman that claims to be as logical as immigrant women on (insert human vs bear) will be assumed to be lying for voting rights.
5. No more women voting = Less votes = More power per remaining vote = more power for men and legal immigrant women (the non-emotional people).

->One is an imperfect church built around Jesus and the other is a cult of personality built around a rapist. One had bad members and the other has a bad leader.

Catholic Church: Founded by Jesus; Ran by pedos.

Republican Church: Founded by Lincoln; Ran by pedos.

->Also people are always going to go after whatever wrongdoings are most relevant to them. Sort of like how you marginalize the failings of conservatives to focus on railing away at liberals -- the human brain looks for what is useful to its identity politics, and the sins of groups that are not as useful to that end kind of fade into the background.

If we both do this, then there is no point in you responding to my arguments because any failure I present among feminists you will minimize and vice versa applies to Trumpian Christianity.

->Also, to be fair, I still hear the Catholic Church getting a ton of flak on both sides of the aisle for this.

And yet ... many people still affiliate with the Catholic Church; so the flak they preach about pedophilia being bad means nothing.

All religions are cults and religion isn't immoral. You can justify anything with a religion. Just treat MAGA the same way as Catholics, alright?

-> It's not like Mary was a rapist, just some priests for the Catholic church. 

Catholics don't look to Mary (dead person) for guidance; they look to the pope (living person).

->It's like comparing a shirt with Karl Marx to a shirt with Mao; just because their ideologies were somewhat similar doesn't mean their actions were.

They both killed a lot of people and were communists.

No. Being on Epstein's island is horrible for these women; it shouldn't have occurred, but it doesn't justify any special voting priviliges.

->Let the guy have his opinion. All this mocking you guys do is only proving his point to him.

They have no option other than to mock. It's a coping mechanism that used to be met with deflection, but the right has gotten immune to it. Normies like you and Shoresy

-> It would be easier to win this by conceding some women are crazy and that would be end of that topic.

They could try that, but the facts aren't on their side. The Good Men Project says that 61% of women either would choose the bear or are unsure. If you aren't even sure, then that's possibly as stupid as selecting the bear. "Some" would have to be interpreted to be a majority, so it would be proving my point. I appreciate and respect that you're trying to moderate them, but it's useless. The 39% only selected what they did because roughly 39% of women are republican voting; if you ask them would they rather be in the woods with a bear or a strange transgender person, then these 39% would select the bear which is equally stupid.

I think it makes sense to just not let women have the right to vote. Virtually every woman would either select the bear over the man (liberal women) are unsure (apolitical) or would select a bear over a trans person (conservative women). Don't pressure them with politics they hate; and take away their right to vote. Politics is too stressful for women; it's why the overwhelming majority of posts on Debatecraft is produced by men and when women post, it tends to be significantly smaller in size.

->So basically you can't distinguish between human rights and dumb culture war back-and-forths because you're an oversensitive drama queen

When your party says that (men are worse than bears) is not a violation of human rights and that (transwomen are equal to men (aka better than bears) ) is a violation of human rights, you sound like you're projecting.

Non-leftist men = incel men. What's wrong with that?

It takes a massive systemic concession for me to have a chance of letting it go. I've let certain things go before (ex: Believe women, vaccine mandates) but the left had to massively concede. This time is different because of how much the left preaches about, "human rights" but then performs this stunt.

Letting go = conceding unless the other side conceded first.

The left should not win on the Man v Bear issue (otherwise it means no human rights for men). But men are fine with being viewed as worse than murderous bears if it means free sex and a hot woman to look at.

But don’t do preemptive strikes.

Maybe 1% of men selected the bear over the woman they didn’t know based on false rape accusations. Vice versa isn’t true for women.

If a woman wants equal voting rights to a man, then anything she says should be subject to equal scrutiny as if a man says the exact same thing.

This does not occur. If a man says something stupid, then he gets called out. If a woman says something stupid, then her good looks shield her from criticism.

Think of, “Man vs bear” and imagine if men did something similar for, “Woman vs bear” citing false rape accusations. Who would get more pushback?

Voting should be treated as emotion free exercise. If you can’t workout, then you don’t get to vote.

If Trump raped kids with Epstein, then supporting him sounds pretty horrible … until you realize that the Catholic Church has been doing this for decades and people still stick to the religion and the average person gets way more mad at someone wearing gear from Trumpian Christianity (MAGA hat) than Catholic Christianity (Holy Rosary) even though the Catholic Church rapes more kids than Trump ever did.

Why is that?

I agree.

-> Lots of people voted Trump but are not necessarily Trump diehards.

I was using the terms interchangeably. If only 40% of the US voted for him in 2024, then you would do the same. You act different when it’s 50%.

But would you stuck up for the rights of the MAGA religious minority?