RemyBrown

->If someone then identifies as a woman and that's all that it takes to become a woman…

No one is saying this. Have you paid attention to anything I’ve written?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_chIcrf7DU. She's a politician with power; she's not fringe.

->Exceptions that ensure TW do not have an unfair competitive advantage.

What exceptions are those?

->An expert is someone who has spent a significant amount of time devoted to studying or implementing a particular field

Drug dealers know more about running a business than business professors. That's how useless degrees are (especially because Chat GPT just does the work for you at this point).

->If you believe America should have troops, but no trans troops, you’re discriminating against trans people. Not complicated.

I agree; if I wanted a military, then I would be fine with trans people being in it because of freedom. But I'm anti military; war is mass murder.

->If one thinks TWAM, then they kindof have to either call a TW a man or lie about their opinions.

This makes no sense.

Then what else are they supposed to do? Stay silent on the trans issue? That's societal censorship.

->We’re talking about open mindedness and I gave you very specific criteria on what it is and how it’s tested

So then essentially, open minded people operate on "facts" and logic whereas close minded people don't? If so, then that is a standard that I accept. I put, "facts" in quotes because facts don't care about your or my feelings, but they care about the feelings of the people who fund the CDC because the CDC produces the facts.

100% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them. Because of this, I don't trust the CDC. I don't care about facts; I care about logic; they are different.

->I would be very unlikely to change my mind about Trump because I know what my values are and Trump is the antithesis of pretty much all of them.

By, "very unlikely", you mean, "virtually 0% chance within the next year". It's not immoral to say that, but be honest. I have maybe a 10% chance of liking Trump in a year from now. I don't like him now and I hated him in 2024. I agree on annexing Canada, but I hate his racism and calling Haitians pet eaters.

But we are both anti Trump.

The right believes that anyone who is anti Trump is a communist (until 2028, then it will be anyone who is against the republican nominee then). Alright, then the majority of the country is communist right now and a sizable part of the country will be communist in 2028.

I am a proud communist simply because I'm anti Trump and that's enough to make you a communist according to republicans.

-> Fascism, like any other political ideology, is broad so it cannot be established by any individual example. 

This is a euphemism for, "I can't define it but I'm going to use the term anyway to disparage the right because it's scary". Scary but legal labels don't matter anymore.

->While there was plenty of evidence available in 2018 that Trump was a fascist, that is irrelevant. 

What was the 1st piece of evidence that Trump was a fascist?

->Along with everything else, he went far, far beyond being a sore loser, that’s trying to steal an election.

Fair; we can say militant sore loser.

->Do you dispute Trump is an authoritarian? Yes or No?

I do not, BUT I think every politician is at least a little bit authoritarian. I mean, they are authority.

->In a democracy, you’re supposed to challenge your leaders, hold them to account, and demand results. Trumps cult following couldn’t care less about any of that, they defend him no matter what he does. 

They defend him no matter what (and they shouldn't). But this would be an issue with Trump's base, not Trump himself.

->Obama didn’t instruct ICE to go grab illegals working on farms and at Home Depot’s. He didn’t grab them right out of their immigration hearings. He didn’t pretend abuelitas were part of MS13. He didn’t send people to foreign prisons in blatant and egregious violation of their due process. He didn’t ignore court orders. He didn’t build concentration camps to store all of these people, many of which have done nothing wrong. And he didn’t pretend every illegal immigrant was a violent criminal as an excuse to carry out all of this.

All deportations are equally bad. If someone murders, then just kill them. If someone doesn't have their papers and is minding their own business, then let them be.

Numbers matter; stories don't; everyone has a story.

->One of, if not the core feature of fascism is turning a society against itself through scapegoating.

So it's mere rhetoric then, not actual policy. Rhetoric is only useful on people that don't do their research and operate on emotion/stupidiy (synonyms).

->Even if you had a point here and there were not tons of examples pre Jan 6th we could use, your argument is at best that we were eventually proven right.

What my point was trying to hint at is that the left basically, "cries wolf" at fascism to where I can't believe them if they are genuine about it. They called Trump a racist over a border wall (when it was built by Bush and they didn't label him a fascist over it). It's billionaire media hype. That's all that it is.

->

1. Do you believe Trump is a fascist? Yes or No? I'm unsure if he is a fascist. I'm not trying to dodge, but I'm just not sure.
2. Do you accept my criteria as a good representation of what fascism is?

I'm guessing your definition is:

1. Authoritarianism - Trump doesn’t believe in any check on his power and literally tried to steal an election
2. Charismatic leader with a cult like following
3. Demonization/Scapegoating of the “other” (perhaps MAGA’s most prominent trait)
4. Glorification of force (pardons J6 rioters, celebrates “being tough” on everyone from criminals to illegals i.e. ‘Aligator Alcatraz’, loves watching ICE smash windows of illegals, military parades)
5. Suppression of dissent (sues 60 Minutes for a routine edit, locks up students for protesting or writing an unfavorable editorial, withholds funding from Harvard and other universities who don’t do what they say, gleeful about getting Stephen Colbert fired, fires the BLS commissioner for reporting unfavorable job numbers)

.

You could argue Christianity and Islam are fascist for this. So because of that, I don't think your definition of fascism is good unless you would argue that Christians and Muslims are fascists. Jesus and Mohammod were charismatic leaders. They were also pretty authoritarian, they demonized and suppressed dissent, and both were spread violently (glorification of force) when the religions were in their purest form.

This is a really big dick right here:

Dick Pic (it's a really big one), 1st image; I got an article.

Apparently, people get very scared of actual dic pics (for reasons that make no sense to me. It's just a 2 dimensional image), so because of this, I will make this disclaimer.

The picture is of someone who acts like a dic. It's not an actual dic. I don't want to get banned for this.

You are correct.

1. Authoritarianism: Basically, being an electoral sore loser and getting violent with it. The left called Trump fascist before Jan 6, so it's not the reason they were calling him fascist in 2018.
2. Charismatic leader and cult following: What's wrong with being charismatic and having a cult following as if Trump can't control the IQ of his base? If Sanders had a cult following (and some people are Bernie all the way), then you don't blame the politician for having low IQ supporters; Trump just happens to have a lot of low IQ supporters.
3. Demonizing the "other": How does MAGA do this to left wingers where it's not vice versa? The closest thing I can think of is immigration; but Harris and Obama deported more people than Trump did (more harmless people without papers as well). Trump is the honest deporter.
4. Glorification of force/suppression of dissent: The left called Trump fascist before Jan 6 and before he got a Harvard professor fired over her being anti Zionist.

I'm not a Trump supporter. But people called me fascist over supporting Israel (not on genocide, but because they built desalination plants). The person that called me fascist over something with Israel wasn't angry at Israel for killing kids like a normal person, but they were mad at them for building big devices that clean water.

I am pro clean water; if that makes me a fascist, then get me a Mussolini flag at Wal mart.

You don't force that policy legally on others; so it's not a policy, it's a goal.

My copy and paste feature is broken for some reason, so all quotes are paraphrased.

->How do you define a woman?

I have a definition, but it's not approved by the trans lobby (defined as Samantha Lux), so I took it down (and I don't want to post it because I don't want to help out Samantha when she's kind of an asshole.). She blocked me because I said the word, "Mutual" and referenced a study. There's a reason she has 700k subs and on her X account, she usually gets 10 comments; she's very quick to block people. I don't help people like that out if they lead a movement.

->Being anti trans rights means being against treating trans people like the gender they identify with.

So then I guess virtually everyone is against trans rights to at least some extent. If someone then identifies as a woman and that's all that it takes to become a woman (with no hormone requirements), then they can compete with the cis women with no hormone requirements.

->refusing to use their chosen gender

Pew Research said that 60% believe gender can't be different from sex (86% for GOP; 38% for DEM) and this exact % is against TW competing with ciswomen in sports (same along party lines) minus room for error. So if you ask, "Should TW be allowed to compete with cis women in sports if enough effort for transitioning takes place?" anyone that answers no would also answer no for if TW are women and vice versa (60% of the US population in 2017 according to Pew, and it's grown to 79% in 2025 according to Ipsos).

->I generally think TW should not be allowed to compete with ciswomen in women's sports

What exceptions would you make? Because if you think a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman, then TW should be allowed to compete with ciswomen solely by identifying as women.

-> I will leave it to the experts

Who are the experts? The head of the DoH? That's RFK. The head of the CDC? That is somebody selected by Trump, who will make policies in accordance with the president's goals (as ANY CDC head would make because their funding comes from the POTUS). If the POTUS is neutral on something, then the private sector provides the funding for the CDC head to collect for results in the favor of private companies. 100% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them. It's the golden truth; whoever has the gold makes the truth.

->gender

If one thinks TWAM, then they kindof have to either call a TW a man or lie about their opinions.

->name

Name changes usually are complied with as they would for if someone changed their name from John to Jack.

->bathrooms

Make all bathrooms gender neutral for practicality pourposes; less lines.

->military

Every country worldwide should spend $0 annually on the military budget; this means no more troops.

->Christianity -> atheism

This is because atheism is left-coded and so are you. A lukewarm Christian that's right coded is more open to evangelism than to atheism.

->right wing because of McCain

It's very easy to change your mind before Trump; many did. It's a lot harder during the Trump era because he polarizes virtually everybody. You were probably very young during McCain's time (I'm guessing teenage or 20s).

->Yeah, that’s what happens when you demand simple answers to complex questions

How is it a complex question? This sounds like a dodge.

-> No one is saying this. 

Then what does it mean to be against trans rights then?

-> I, as a lefty have never taken the position trans women should be allowed to play in woman’s sports and I don’t know anyone on the left in real life that ever gave this much if any thought til it became a political talking point on every right wing network and podcast. 

Alright; so things changed. What is your current position then on this?

->The reality is, the right focuses heavily on this one issue not because any of them really think this matters, but because this is the one subtopic where the right is in the majority, so they have to keep the conversation here while ignoring every other aspect of trans rights. 

What other subtopics exist? There are others where the right is in the majority (prisons).

->The goal is to pretend the sports issue is representative of the greater issue.

Then what issue is representative of the greater issue?

->Quite arrogant of you to presume you already fully understand opposing viewpoints, but you’re entitled to that.

I am arrogant; I'll own that.

->If you think it’s all pointless regardless then why are you here?

Because I think arguing is fun. Pointless fun.

->I joined DDO as a theist and left an atheist, so yeah.

Alright; so you started out left wing and then become more left wing? Alright. I meant have you (by yourself, not with the party at large) went from having a left wing stance to a right wing stance on an issue? I used to be hardcore conservative, but that's changed.

That makes you a fascist then according to the modern left. Embrace it.

I mean, I could go to a random trans person I don't know, ask them for their pronouns, tell them transwomen are women, wait 5 minutes, tell them the US should annex Canada, and they will think I'm a fascist over it. I ran this experiment 4 times and 100% of the time, this is what happened.

And you believe only the Trump supporting side has the true and correct answers 100% while a large part of the country fundamentally disagrees with you 100% of the time.

The left believes that anyone who has at least one right wing or indifferent opinion on any of the following issues:

1. Police brutality
2. Reparations
3. Trump
4. Abortion
5. Immigration
6. Transgenderism
7. Annexing Canada
8. The CDC
9. Censoring Palestinian Activists
10. Being an Adolf Hitler supporter
11. Free speech for Fascists
12. Giving Hitler credit on any controversial opinion Hitler had.
13. Edgy humor

Is a fascist.

I guess then I'm a fascist (I have 6 of these beliefs).

I'm anti reparations, I want to annex Canada, I don't trust the CDC, I want free speech for fellow fascists like myself (which means I don't think their speech is a big deal).

I also give Hitler credit on some opinions he had (ex: vegetarianism, as I'm vegan). Because of the Holocaust (which happened, millions of people got killed, they weren't all Jews, and it was horrible), it is enough that Hitler was horrible because of the Holocaust. But I liked his vegetarianism.

I also like edgy humor.

All of these things make me somewhat fascist. I'm left wing on every other issue I have on the list.

How fascist are the people here?

First, it was, "transphobic".

Next, it was, "worse than a bear".

Now, it is "evil".

What do you think will be next?

->Most people back then couldn’t really fathom the idea of an adult being sexually turned on by a photo like that, so we all just thought it was funny. 

Fine.

->To the extent there is any truth there, it’s that the left believes people can in fact be rehabilitated. Nothing about that idea though would apply to Trump because the first step to rehabilitation is admitting you were wrong, something Trump would never do.

People have admitted to being wrong previously (Rogan over the N word). The left smelled blood and they pounced like piranhas. They didn't go on his shows anymore; they gave JRE to Trump.

->Left wingers take a much more nuanced view on the question of what a woman is than their overly simplistic right wing counterparts. 

No; they say a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman.

->TWAW is a statement regarding the treatment of TW by society, that has nothing to do with what the person who supports that basic human right 

If saying, "I don't agree with the statement, "A woman is anyone that identifies as a woman" " violates transgender human rights, then 60% of the country violates trans human rights according to Pew Research (and so do I). Buzzwords and buzz phrases like, "human rights" don't mean anything anymore.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ said 60% of the country thinks TWAM in 2022 (38% for DEM and 86% for GOP). The % that want to ban them from competing with ciswomen in sports is 58% (37% for Dem and 85% for GOP).

Saying you want to ban them from sports is saying TWAM which the left argues violates human rights (the % are roughly identical with sampling size being the difference).

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/republicans-and-democrats-rare-unity-79-of-americans-say-transgender-athletes-don-t-belong-in-women-s-sport-survey/ar-AA1xvndn?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1 now says it's 79%.

79% of the country thinks TWAM and 79% doesn't agree with human rights. The left wing issue here is now in the, "Defund the police" territory.

-> I carry no expectation of that, I do it for the exercise in spotting logical fallacies and the opportunity to learn more about opposing viewpoints.

Fine. But for me, it's pointless because I already know of the opposing side's viewpoints and you probably do as well. It's like a 1st grader learning about 2+2=4 when they learned it last year; it's pointless.

->If I’m right, the conversation validates my position further, giving me more confidence in what I believe. If I’m wrong, even better. Now I can rid myself of previously held false or fallacious positions and become more in tune with reality.

Has this ever happened with you in the years that you have debated? If not, then you are as closed minded and pro Left party as MAGA is with the right wing party.

Are you left wing on any issues that Trump is right wing on?

Then what does solve something?

Are there any Trump policies that you would call out from the left (ex: his tough on immigration policy to which you would be anti ICE, his anti trans policies to which you believe TWAW, or anything else)? If not, then you are a member of the republican religion and don't have the guts to deny it out of the fear of sounding stupid to your group (even though they all agree).

Alright, so then are you a policy hypocrite in any way?

So in 2016, you were anti Trump and in 2020 and 2024, you were pro Trump.

You don't like the word, "hate"? Fine.

You oppose all anti Trump politicians in 2025 and support all pro Trump politicians, correct?

->He was a Democrat, though no Democrat today would accept his credentials.

That is correct, because democrat = anti Trump, republican = Pro Trump. Just like you wouldn't accept Liz Cheney into the republican party because she is anti Trump.

Your girl telling you to not piss in public is her opinion; that opinion is vastly different than, "legalize mass shootings" (and I've met women who have defended legalizing mass shootings). I've also met men who did this and it's equally crazy.

I am simultaneously fine with a woman having an opinion against public pissing and not fine with a woman having an opinion in favor legalizing mass shootings. If this take is controversial, then I have no clue why.

Coercion would be if we told the persons that hated arguing, "Wear this or you go to jail".

I'm advocating for a, "Wear this or you will be argued with by random strangers on the street".

To act like those are identical is loony.

->i'm make our minimum wage correspond ot the illegal immigrants maximum wage.

There are undocumented immigrants that get paid $200k/year. Unrealistic.

You hate anti Trump politicians, and anti Trump = Dem while Pro Trump = GOP, so yes. I stand by that statement.

RFK is a republican.

Republican = Pro Trump.

Democrat = Anti Trump.

Me saying, "You will hate the DEM nominee regardless"="You will hate the anti Trump nominee regardless".

Maybe there should be a sticker that says, "Don't argue with me; I voluntarily forfeit my right to vote." that women and men can get to spare themselves from arguments they don't like in exchange for their voting rights. They all got to wear it for their freedom from unwanted arguing.

What's that?

They are both good looking individuals. If the guy says this statement, then people (rightfully) say that he's a crazy loon that should end up in the mental hospital.

People wouldn't treat the woman like that for saying the exact identical statement.

That is a societal problem that needs to be addressed. I think men and women fall for this roughly equally.

So what I do is every time I look at a woman, I don't care how beautiful she is, I ignore all of it when she talks.

If women want equal voting rights to men, then they need to be equally scrutinized for what they say.

What I would recommend doing is every point I make you disagree with, signal out the quote so I know what you are referring too. Another point I forgot to add:

The guy that started this thing is all off of the following:

1. A strange dude
2. In the woods
3. Says his statement with a smirk.

He's not a male feminist; he's an edge lord. Men have a very strong tendency to be edge lords and assuming this edge lord tendency benefits women, then no matter how ludicrous it is, women will latch onto it.

That's why men that want to control women will say edgy statements like, "Men should be the breadwinners, women should be taken care of" because anybody that depends on you to survive, you control them to an extent.

Men that are more capitalist will say, "Gender equality! Men should work; women should work, and neither gender should be emotional!". Women latch onto either of those edgy statements.

Because women are smaller, they agree to give up on being leaders in exchange for being agreeable to the people who are bigger.

There is probably a very good chance that the original creator is a secret Trump supporter; he probably knew women operated like this and wanted them all to say something stupid like this (while he knew there would be very little actual real life consequences for it) so it makes the liberals look crazy and then despite how crazy Trump was to normies, the immigrant races (Hispanics and Asians) who are overwhelmingly motivated by logic and morality, ended up shifting right because a lot of the logical people saw that neither party was logical; the GOP was saying Haitians were eating pets and the left endorsed, "Man vs Bear", so in 2024, the voter turnout among the immigrant races was less than in 2020.

Where I live, it's plausible that immigrants and 1st generation people make up a majority of the population of my city. These people are logical to the core. My Spanish teacher once even went so far as to brag about Spanish because it's a logical language (she did this to elementary schoolers).