RemyBrown

They need to do the type of identity transitioning that republicans want them to do.

They need to transition from being democrats to being republicans.

All of their beliefs, they retain them.

But being perceived as a republican has power to it in ways that the democrat label can't replicate.

Those that identify as republican have more perceived charisma.

Democrats usually sound whiny; Republicans usually sound bold.

If CA implements Medicare for all, then the republican elites will caste it off as, "socialist". Imagine if Idaho passed Medicare for all; the republican elites will have a lot harder time calling it out because it's on their team.

CA and UT have very similar views on immigration for example. CA gets the heat from republicans; UT doesn't. CA gets called "woke" and Utah doesn't when their governor is a feminine sounding gay guy.

Bill Gates (Democrat) tries to vaccinate people, it's viewed as, "microchipping". Elon Musk literally advocates for microchipping people's brains, people want that done to them. Herschel Walker is a deadbeat dad, he gets a free pass. Tim Waltz wants to redesign a flag, all hell breaks loose.

If everyone identifies as republican, then policies can be studied for what they are instead of disparaged as, "socialist" for being associated with the democrats.

Republican privilege is stronger than white privilege.

Xenophobia encompasses:

1. Racism
2. Sexism
3. Misogyny
4. Transphobia
5. Homophobia
6. Islamophobia
7. Anti CDC (Xenophobia towards the CDC).

Anybody that is at least one of the following:

1. Anti reparations (so a racist).
2. Believes that abortion should be banned under at least some conditions (so a sexist and a misogynist).
3. Believes that you can't just identify as a woman and become a woman (so transphobe).
4. Believes that the religious freedom of a church to refuse to marry gay people is more important than the gay couple's right to get married at that particular church (homophobia).
5. Believes that Islam is a degenerate religion and it's followers should take the religion less seriously (Islamophobia).
6. Believes that the government CDC is a business that masquerades as an objective source and tells the students of America that they can be trusted using teachers paid for by the government to say that message (Anti Science and Xenophobia to the CDC).

I am Xenophobic on all of these 6 points, and I think Xenophobia should stop being viewed as an insult.

Here are some synanons with Xenophobia:

1. Incel
2. Weirdo
3. Creep
4. Evil
5. Nazi
6. Fascist
7. Hitler
8. Mansplainer
9. Ignorant

These words need a new definition, as the current ones are outdated.

New rule: All left wing insults should be sarcastically accepted because they abused their insulting power; their insults don't mean anything anymore. They cried wolf on it, and if a literal Nazi gets in the white house in 2028 and the left says that he's a Nazi, then we won't care.

The boy who cried wolf.

Like if you agree. Send a message to them.

->Common soldiers did the brunt of the work, yet the leaders get the credit. It's not about who did the work so much as whose seen as making the most significant decisions.

I was comparing the solviets to the Americans, not Stalin to Igor the Tanker.

->You're ignoring part of what I'm saying. Hitler killed more than he saved, FDR saved more than he killed.

How many did Hitler and FDR save and kill? The killing figure is easier to quantify than the saving.

-> Most people on all sides know deep down there is something off mentally with transgender and transvestites.

Watch the blue haired left cancel you for saying this.

->Even supporters wanted desperately to think the Kirk shooter was not a trans ally

And Kirk supporters wanted to think Kirk's shooter was a trans ally. People don't want murderers on their team unless they are crazy. Wanting a murderer on your team is different then thinking that a murderer is on your team.

A left winger isn't crazy if they say the shooter was a trans ally. They would be crazy if they wanted him to be a trans ally.

->Over the last ten years, only five out of 5,729 mass shootings in the U.S. involved transgender perpetrators, representing approximately 0.087% of all incidents.

I don't care; I don't claim trans people are generally murderers. The vast majority won't commit a mass shooting.

->Then that demonstrates that you don't care about actually being right, only being in power. 

The benefits of being right mean: The minority has to respect you out of sheer pragmatism or else they face irrelevancy. It means if you want the majority to become a minority, then it requires steelmanning rather than labeling.

->I don't care about being relevant, I care about being right. As in actually right. As in, in accordance with facts and logic. And by facts, I mean that which is in accordance with reality. Not my reality or your reality, actual reality. The one reality that we all share regardless of what we think or feel about it. That's my value, if yours is different then admit it loud and clear.

Mine is different because if I only cared about morality rather than practicality, then I would want to ban meat consumption because it murders animals and I would call all meat eaters people who were apathetic about animal death. If I was a meat eater, then I would happily agree that I didn't care about animal death. That doesn't win people over. Change your strategy.

What makes you so certain that you're correct as opposed to me? CDC articles? The right distrusts the CDC because they view it as a business (and so do you; that's why you say RFK is corrupt).

->I think you would benefit by looking up the definition of a bigot and educate yourself on what it means.

"Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

I guess then trans people meet this then. They are unreasonably attached to their belief and they are predijuiced towards members of MAGA based on their membership of that group.

->Half the country voted for that. That, by definition, means that half the country supported fascism. That's a fact, and it doesn't care how you feel about it.

Being a fascist is no longer a bad thing is the point because anyone with one right wing and authoritarian opinion qualifies as a facsist.

->it always amuses me to hear people who cannot offer any rational refutation of my arguments tell me I'm the one not thinking for myself.

It's not that; it's that your side always resorts to scary labels. 3 years ago, the right would deny those labels as strawmans. Once they realize that the left overuses the labels and they will associate, "facsist" or, "transphobe" with anyone that has 1 right wing opinion in practice, the right accepts it.

If with abortion for example, someone argues to ban abortion and you say, "well, you're anti abortion", then no debate is possible because you just described them and it's not an insult.

It would be a debate if you said, "The anti abortion belief is bad because ..." and they said, "The anti abortion belief is good because ...".

Replace, "anti abortion" with, "transphobe", and then you can debate with the right on the issue, because being a transphobe or a facsist is no longer an insult. They are just mainstream opinions at this point.

->When you get in a car do you put on a seatbelt? And if so, but you don't crash, does that make your seatbelt decision a "mistake"? No, of course not that's ridiculous. So looking back at it 5 years later and saying "we probably went further than we needed to" isn't a concession, it's reaffirming that we did what we did as a precaution. If you still don't understand this point than Google the definition of "precaution".

Bro just compared a seatbelt to a lockdown. A seatbelt is like a mask (which the mask mandates were fine). A lockdown is you slashing your tires to prevent a car accident.

->Soviets would have lost without lend-lease. Stalin admitted as much. Plus the early success of the Nazis was partly Stalin's fault.

But the Solviets did the brunt of the work.

->You can oppose something someone did while still holding them up as a symbol for the good they did. No one is morally perfect. Obviously killing people is way worse than the average person, but saving a lot of people is also much better than the average person.

Will you hold Hitler to that standard? He saved people from the great depression. No.

Fuck Hitler and Fuck FDR!

->Soviets would have lost without lend-lease. Stalin admitted as much. Plus the early success of the Nazis was partly Stalin's fault.

But the Solviets did the brunt of the work.

->You can oppose something someone did while still holding them up as a symbol for the good they did. No one is morally perfect. Obviously killing people is way worse than the average person, but saving a lot of people is also much better than the average person.

Will you hold Hitler to that standard? He saved people from the great depression. No.

Fuck Hitler and Fuck FDR!

->But the genocide he prevented was much bigger and not one he caused in the first place.

He did like .5% of the work to end the Holocaust; the brunt was the Soviets. If I save 1000 people and murder 1, then I'm not moral. Otherwise, we should let volunteer doctors get away with murder. They saved thousands of lives, they can kill 5.

->Or you'll be worshiped as a hero, depending on the situation and how people report it. Even Columbus was celebrated for a while.

But now he's not, because society evolved from that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTY3phfdlA.

Being pro Trump is being pro accepting of pedophillia. Conservatives should:

1. Own their pro pedophillia beliefs.
2. Hate Trump over pedophillia charges.

->With FDR, fighting Hitler didn't require the camps, it was a separate event. So it's easy to brush aside.

But FDR both helped to prevent a genocide and created one.

If I murder one girl and help to save another; I'm still insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTY3phfdlA.

Being pro Trump is being pro accepting of pedophillia. Conservatives should:

1. Own their pro pedophillia beliefs.
2. Hate Trump over pedophillia charges.

Trump supporters are about as likely to change their mind as you are to change yours.

Fine; I will give you this.

I don't understand the argument you're making.

FDR didn't help the Japanese in his concentration camps. If the US didn't face an attack on Pearl Harbor, then don't act like we would be all sympathetic with foreign Jews then.

-> I know DoubleR said people like this are "extremely rare" but you have proven that to be a false statement.

It's a tough pill to swallow, but if you swallow it, then you are more aware.

There are 2 types of left wing:

1. Steelman left (10% of the left; they convert the most amount of right wingers to their side, but they will also be converted often. Ex: Gavin Newsom, Kyle Kulinski, Dean Withers). A lot of people used to be here, and then converted to Trumpism (Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Andrew Cuomo, etc). They try and understand your perspective, and they refute it.
2. Labeling left (90% of the left; Vaush, Hasan, blue haired people, a lot of LGBT people, especially the transgenders). They find right wing views so offensive that they would rather right wingers keep their opinions to themselves than change their minds. This is because to them, all right wing views are hate speech and they don't want to deal with hate speech; they would want to outlaw it (and they may deny wanting to kill Kirk; but it's because they are afraid of backlash). The left wingers that preferred the bear to the man (or would respect women selecting that option) are in this group. They will go as left wing as the Overton window lets them.

If there was a poll that said that 58% of left wingers support Kirk's death, then they would be on board with it (openly). Everything the left hates about the stereotypical MAGA person is applicable to the labeling left for the other side. They hated Gavin Newsom for being a sellout until he started trashing Trump (and only then did they cheer). If Cenk Uygur did it first, then they would love Cenk Uygur. But they give a pass to Gavin.

It's a team sport to them. Actual policy thinking they find boring, so if the polls allowed for it, then they would advocate for killing Charlie Kirk openly because it's, "taking down the other side".

The labeling left would ban all right wing speech if they could get away with it. The steelmanning left wouldn't.

The labeling left likes the steelmanning left (assuming 100% agreement) but they will criticize the steelmanning left for reaching out to the right. They did this with Pete Buttigieg.

People on DART are going to be disproportionally more of the steelmanning types (I mean, it's a debate site); but even then; there are many labelers.

With your generic left winger, they get internally stressed out at someone with right wing opinions because they view them as regressive.

They conflate technological progress with progressivism (and I would be scared of right wing policies if I equated them with losing technological abilities because I love technology). What they fail to realize is 10 years in the future, our policies are going to be more progressive by 10 years. That might be more left or right wing; it might be a mix. Technological progress is not the same as progressivism; the word, "progressivism" is just there for marketing purposes that the democrats came up with in 2006 or so because when your election map looks like this:

(where bush arguably did better than Trump in 2024)

and the American electorate doesn't pay attention to politics much then, you become desperate to win. So what you do is you think:

"Hey, we want to change the status quo, correct? Well, then lets call ourselves anti status quo (aka progressive) to win younger and more gullible voters over because they will fall for nice sounding words".

They then get Obama to run for POTUS, marketing it as, "The first black POTUS" (Obama wasn't a race hustler so I'm not blaming Obama; but many of his supporters were) and he did pretty well:

Deep red states today like Florida and Ohio Obama won 2x.

The left sees the success; so they bring in Hillary in 2016 (who unlike Obama, made her identity characteristic a major voting reason). Trump had a message (which if you didn't agree, then at least Trump had something, Clinton just relied on her gender).

He won and lost in 2020 over COVID (if COVID didn't happen, then Trump probably would have won).

But in 2024, Trump won the popular vote, and the left (rather than conceding what they thought caused them to lose) decided to start expelling large groups of their party (mainly the steelmanning left wingers) to purify the party.

And because of the left base's desire to commit cancel culture to even people that voted against Trump in 2024, elections in NYC (between communist Mandami and right winger Cuomo (he said if he loses, then he's moving to Florida) ) are a toss up despite Cuomo's SA allegations (which if that's your reason for preferring Mandami over Cuomo, then you should know that SA is only a misdemeanor, so it's like refusing to vote for someone because they had a DUI).

The left needs to learn a very hard lesson about their cancel culture; Mandami does the opposite of cancelling people; but stereotypes of your party influence the candidate even if the candidate doesn't want them to.

No matter how Mandami acts, he's a trojan horse.

To stop the cancel culture from the labeling left, you should support Cuomo as an anti Mandami vote. Mandami is a trojan horse and should be treated as such. Cuomo winning is the cure to the cancel culture left.

-> people care more about policies more than the reasons behind them. 

If a living Jeffery Epstein releases the names of 20 sexual predators to get a lesser sentence, then we wouldn't approve of Jeffery Epstein as a whole because he had his own skeletons.

-> I don't know why you keep repeating this number or talking about majorities. 

Because majorities are harder to assilimiante than minorities. Might brings the benefits of being right. Analogy mode: A country where 82% of the population ate meat wouldn't shame those that do into becoming vegan. A world where that's 20% would.

If you get angry at a minority, then the majority might be sympathetic. If you get angry at a majority, then you become irrelevant.

It's the difference between somebody saying, "We don't serve gays at our restaurant" vs, "We don't serve straights at our restaurant".

The former might actually occur and would be contraversal. If the ladder occurred, then that place is getting burned to the ground.

Might brings the benefits of being right.

->I don't lay that charge on anyone based on their political views

Well, why would someone be conservative to begin with? It's because the right wing opinions the left believes are bigoted (transphobia, homophobia, Zionism, anti-abortion, anti-poor person, etc). People who are non-leftists have a reason for identifying like that. There is a reason for a label; it's not like a nationality that's out of your control. The label is a choice.

By the left's standards, America is a nation of fascists (and with their definition, that's ok).

->I lay that charge at those who pretend they don't understand what I'm saying in order to avoid having to address it the way you just did.

But if you know they are pretending, then why treat them differently than how you are treating me? Learn from your experience. Get educated through the world.

->Yeah, I'd really love to talk to Mr. Left to find out why he conceded these issues. 

Mr. Left is 100 million people or so. You are in a hive mind and don't realize it.

->As usual, you can won the debate so you strawman the opposition. 

How did I strawman you?

->"Believe women" is a slogan uttered by a small sememe of the left that didn't think their slogan through.

From Chat GPT:

COVID:

->And to the extent some on the left now say they went to far, that's hardly a concession, that's more like hindsight which is always 20/20. 

A hindsight mistake = A concession.

->German economy in 1945 wasnt exactly any good.

It was better than the great depression.

FDR didn't get involved in WWII to end the Holocaust; he got involved because of the Pearl Harbor attacks. If the Pearl Harbor attacks didn't exist, then America wouldn't have gotten involved.

-> Well "normal people" are what?

If you have a criteria that applies to at least 28% of the population, then you are normal. On a uniform distribution, 28% of the data is outside of 1 SD. This means if 177 cm is the average height for a man and the SD is 8 cm, then any man with a height from 169 to 185 cm is normal. Anything else is abnormal (which isn't immoral; it just means you are rare).

So then gays, autistics, mass shooters, Nobel prize winners; they are all abnormal. Abnormal doesn't mean bad or good; it means rare.

There are hundreds of questions you could ask someone. Nobody is 100% normal. On average, the average person is 72% normal (SD is unkown).

I can see right wingers hating Hitler (and I'm pretty libertarian, so I hate him too), but why would the left hate Hitler? He did a lot of positive stuff fiscally for the German people; he built a lot of highways and improved the German economy.

Sure, he did a massive genocide and horrible concentration camps, but FDR did the same to the Japanese, and the left loves FDR because he's fiscally left, so it doesn't make any sense why they treat FDR and Hitler differently.

Hitler's genocide was a deal breaker for the left; FDR's; not so much.

If you want the right to drop the transgender issue, then the left is going to have to claim the right was correct on it (ie, claiming that transwomen are men).

There is nothing wrong with conceding an issue to the right; it's happened before (believe women; vaccine mandates, etc). When the left conceded these issues, the right ended up dropping them (largely). It's why you don't see the right say with accused rapists "Give them a trial!" because everyone believes that now. You don't see the right accusing the left of supporting "Believe women" or lockdowns anymore because the left conceded.

Treat transgenderism the same way and the right will then focus on other issues. But a concession is required.

I agree; the US should get over 9/11. Forget it (or at least act like you did).

-> No, it didn't, the DoD was never deployed against the American people for political purposes.

But the DoW was, correct? And the only difference is a name change.

The 2nd image had more Latinos and Asians than the 1st.

Race can't be a factor; sexism also can't be a factor because the gender gap in both elections is identical.

The 1st image had a democrat who at the time, believed that XX=female, XY=male. The 2nd image's democrat didn't believe that. The republicans in both images did.

This video is a transphobic video (not an insult btw) made during Obama's presidency. Obama never called it out, implying that he doesn't strongly disagree with it.

The transgenders harm the democrat party whether or not they realize it.

The conservative stereotype of an SJW:

This person looks nonbinary.

If right wingers made these stereotypes about blacks, Hispanics, or even gay guys, then it would be deemed hateful to the American public. But if you do it to SJWs, then normal people don't complain because it's true.

If I posted random thoughts in my head, then I would be going into extremely graphic things that the white mind can't handle.

I'm glad that Trump is changing the name of the DoD to the DoWar. It's honest.

The military did the exact same thing while being called the DOD. If you don't like it, then maybe abolish the military worldwide. Defense is a euphemism for war.

Yes; taxation is theft (and it's justified theft). Without it, public schools don't exist and our kids become stupid.

I don't like dealing with stupid children that turn into stupid adults.

Taxation is justified theft to prevent kids from being retards.

How?