You said it works well for them, that is what needs a citation.

4/14/2026 12:40:59 PM

what’s with these kinds of Very Online Dudes being unable to comprehend being against multiple things at once?

this isn’t an either/or scenario

4/14/2026 12:47:21 PM

^^ how many worker protections and bring the jobs back shit have we got? Other than bullshit tax breaks for projects that probably won't see the light of day (stargate). We got a lot of anti woke stuff at colleges though so winning I guess.

^ I'm not totally online I just play one on TV. Most of my hobbies are outside.

[Edited on April 14, 2026 at 1:25 PM. Reason : A]

4/14/2026 1:23:05 PM

I'm gonna be honest I've lost the thread of your argument/point so I'm gonna bow out

4/14/2026 2:08:22 PM

I also frequently don't understand his points.

4/14/2026 2:13:30 PM

Republicans use social issues (trans) so the political conversation stays around whether a 50 year old dude should be in a girls bathroom and not, why is housing and college education so much more expensive relative to the median income than it was 30 years ago.

They don't even have to win the argument of trans, just deflect it away from cost of living. They win by Fox News running trans stories instead of #occupy stories.

4/14/2026 2:13:43 PM

Quote :

"I was making a meta point about the phenomenon of pearl clutching. I'm not really interested in the topic or validity of whether it's racism. More that someone uses it to frame the most asinine behavior and alienates basically everyone and becoming so insufferable Trump becomes attractive."

....makes it sound like you think it's appropriate to ignore racism, because calling it out might offend racists.

Do you think that 99.99% of all refugees coming in are white South Africans is just a random sample, and not indicative of a racial bias?

I would concede your point were this an example of faux racism. You act as though you want to attack ALL accusations of racism, because it might hurt somebody's feelings.

4/14/2026 6:26:28 PM

Quote :

"....makes it sound like you think it's appropriate to ignore racism, because calling it out might offend racists."

Yes, getting called racist when you're just trying to watch a kids show or play a video game is annoying. It also doesn't make the said person watching it a racist--just annoyed. Being insufferable and putting race and politics into every activity is what alienates people. Not just the few actual racists.

Don't be a...

https://media1.tenor.com/m/xkByoEMyqGkAAAAd/naggers.gif

[Edited on April 15, 2026 at 6:30 AM. Reason : a]

4/15/2026 6:20:41 AM

Your response and the quote have nothing to do with each other

4/15/2026 7:14:28 AM

Quote :

"They’re clearly related. The quoted person is saying that calling out racism shouldn’t be avoided just because it might bother racists. The responder is pushing back on that premise, arguing that the problem isn’t racism being called out — it’s that race and politics get injected into casual entertainment (kids shows, video games), and that people who find that annoying aren’t necessarily racist, just tired of it. It’s a direct counter-argument: one person frames the issue as “don’t ignore racism,” and the other reframes it as “not everything is racism, and treating it like it is drives people away.” Whether you agree with either side, the response is clearly engaging with the quote’s point"

[Edited on April 15, 2026 at 7:28 AM. Reason : Slop]

4/15/2026 7:26:53 AM

Quote :

"I would concede your point were this an example of faux racism."

Try again, Cael. And this time make it relevant, please.

4/15/2026 10:49:57 AM

“let me ask my robot friend real quick” is some real loser shit

4/15/2026 10:55:23 AM

I could not imagine how he didn't see the connection. If he added some context perhaps I could have understood why he thought it wasn't related.

I also can't imagine why any of you would disagree with Republicans using social issues to deflect economic concerns from their base. Which was all I was originally saying.


[Edited on April 15, 2026 at 11:17 AM. Reason : a]

4/15/2026 11:12:56 AM

There is no relevant connection between real racism and faux racism here. You are confusing the two, but I am not.

4/15/2026 11:21:16 AM

Quote :

"why any of you would disagree with Republicans using social issues "

Because when Republicans use social issues, they usually do it to foment anger and division.

Why would any of us agree with that?

4/15/2026 11:22:58 AM

^ Bingo that's all I'm saying. Republicans use social issues to direct attention of the base away from economic issues and towards social ones. "Don't look at the housing prices and wall street policies, look at this man in a dress"

[Edited on April 15, 2026 at 11:25 AM. Reason : a]

4/15/2026 11:25:21 AM

Quote :

"If he added some context perhaps I could have understood why he thought it wasn't related."

Are you saying posting this....

Quote :

"I would concede your point were this an example of faux racism."

wasn't enough to help you see how I was distinguishing between the two??

4/15/2026 11:25:40 AM

^^You're saying you were trying to say you were wrong?

I just said you were wrong...and you said that was your point.

Okay.....

[Edited on April 15, 2026 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ^]

4/15/2026 11:26:41 AM

^

One of my first quotes:

Quote :

"I was making a meta point about the phenomenon of pearl clutching. I'm not really interested in the topic or validity of whether it's racism. More that someone uses it to frame the most asinine behavior and alienates basically everyone and becoming so insufferable Trump becomes attractive."

I had this line later:

Quote :

"The reason the bathroom bill and issues like that work so well for republicans is it sucks the air out of conversation for combating real bigotry."

"Works well" was meant as a way to fire up and direct their base. Men in dresses and girls getting beat up by an XY male plays well with the base.

That was BY DESIGN of the lobbyists in the Republican party. They lost the overall gay marriage debate, also people were starting to care about economic issues. They needed some way to make sure the people were motivated to vote republican. Those lobbyist and think tanks realized that these issues could motivate people to think democratic party was full of people like thegoodlife3.

4/15/2026 11:33:42 AM

full of people who want equal rights for all and to end the discrimination of minorities

oh the horror

4/15/2026 11:58:57 AM

Everyone is confused by what you write, AI doent help

Quote :

"he added some context perhaps I could have understood why he thought it wasn't related."

You were asked how felt about real racism being called out and your response was about a video gamer being falsely accused of racism? How is that an answer to the question you quoted?

4/15/2026 12:00:34 PM

Quote :

" I'm not really interested in the topic or validity of whether it's racism. More that someone uses it to frame the most asinine behavior and alienates basically everyone and becoming so insufferable Trump becomes attractive. "

4/15/2026 12:05:18 PM

Yes and cabbage asked a clarifying question about one scenario and you did not answer the question and instead answered another scenario.

"correct, I don't think racism is a big enough problem in 2026 to make it worth the issues caused by false accusations" might state your (bad) opinion whole responding to his question

4/15/2026 12:09:40 PM

^^^^^

I was referring to this quote just then:

Quote :

"I also can't imagine why any of you would disagree with Republicans using social issues to deflect economic concerns from their base."

Did that come out backwards from what you intended to say? Because it is ridiculously wrong. I can't imagine why any Democrat/liberal would *agree* with Republicans using (hateful, as always) social issues to distract from the real issues.

Why the fuck would we want to agree to that? Was that simply misstated, or did you just legit go full retard with that sentence?

rwoody just responded the way I would've responded to the rest, but I just wanted to add by asking:

It looked to me like you were saying that accusations of racism have become so offensive to Republicans that we should not even make such accusations against real racists. Is that your position? I still don't know.

4/15/2026 4:44:57 PM

^

Quote :

" The responder is misreading the sentence. The original quote uses “disagree with” to mean “dispute the observation that” — as in, “surely we can all agree that Republicans use social issues to deflect from economic concerns.” It’s an appeal to common ground "

4/16/2026 2:54:06 PM

So democrats just need to find better ways to market the benefits of DEI for all Americans, without triggering the fragile MAGAs. Can you ask ai how to do that

We need to be Removing barriers so everyone has a fair shot to succeed.

Ensuring hard work pays off for everyone, regardless of their background Is valid politics.

Government should encourage Building a culture of respect and opportunity

We make better decisions when we have more perspectives at the table. This will get us to a community where everyone feels they belong and are respected.

Empowering more people doesn't mean fewer opportunities for the rest of us; it means building a stronger engine that creates more opportunities for everyone.

[Edited on April 16, 2026 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2026 3:16:47 PM

^^Your AI is clearly misreading the sentence. You wrote:

"I also can't imagine why any of you would disagree with Republicans using social issues to deflect economic concerns from their base."

when apparently you meant

"I also can't imagine why any of you would disagree with the notion that Republicans use social issues to deflect economic concerns from their base."

Two entirely different meanings, and you worded it the wrong way if you intended the latter meaning.

I will acknowledge there may be some context from previous posts that I missed that implies your intendend meaning, but the words by themselves say exactly what I interpreted them to say.

Who are you claiming was blind to the fact that Republicans do this? It's obvious that they do.

[Edited on April 16, 2026 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ^]

4/16/2026 3:37:41 PM

^^

Lead with shared values instead of labels. Focus on fairness, equal opportunity, and merit—ideas most people agree on—rather than using terms like “DEI,” which can feel loaded.

Emphasize practical, everyday benefits. Show how policies improve access to jobs, strengthen local economies, and create better workplaces, instead of relying on abstract language.

Keep the tone inclusive, not adversarial. Avoid framing issues as “us vs. them,” and focus on common goals that benefit everyone.

Reassure people about fairness. Make it clear the goal is expanding opportunity, not lowering standards or excluding others.

Use relatable stories and trusted voices. Real examples from workers, business owners, or community leaders connect more than statistics.

Finally, keep it simple. Avoid jargon and explain ideas in clear, straightforward language.

4/16/2026 3:38:39 PM

Quote :

"So democrats just need to find better ways to market the benefits of DEI for all Americans, without triggering the fragile MAGAs."

Being in upper level corporate America with endless DEI initiatives like, "Ensure you review 20 resumes from PoC or Veterans for every white man" and the social groups and clubs. Forced trainings to review DEI related scenarios and train you on the updated corpo-dei speak. It turns it into a shibboleth that seems like navel gazing for upper middle class people to feel better about themselves. The way blue collar dudes on the job site communicate is not at all corpo-speak. You'd have to find a way to be authentic.

https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/snl-uneek-kutz-barbershop-mens-therapy-sketch

Quote :

"Who are you claiming was blind to the fact that Republicans do this? It's obvious that they do."

No one, I was just pointing it out as a meta point. The thread started with calling TGL's left beliefs "a mess".

I was just noting that the mess, how I see it, is this fighting in the mud over culture issues. It was started by forces I mentioned, right wing think tanks realizing they needed somewhere for the gay marriage loss to go. It worked for elites of both parties because there was some alignment between a Bernie bro/Occupy voter and Trump voter. As evidence I pointed to 12% of bernie bros going for Trump in 2016. They wanted the culture war issues to distract everyone from guillotines.

The culture war narrative has driven politics instead of focusing on the absolute shit show of our currency, foreign policy, and that techbros/NAFTA people want to remove any possibility of earning a decent living. Namely because both parties (democrats and wall street, lawyers) and republicans (oil and gas, old money, and now some tech) like the culture war narrative better than "middle class being squeezed and eliminated so I can buy my kids a gulf stream".

4/16/2026 4:03:24 PM

Quote :

" It turns it into a shibboleth that seems like navel gazing for upper middle class people to feel better about themselves. "

This is what it is intended to be in part. It takes at least half a generation of this to be embedded into culture— there’s evidence we might have crossed that threshold with DEI (ie Trump might not be able to stop it). The critical path is that when people are treated unfairly they’re empowered to speak up for themselves and their complaints are taken seriously, the boilerplate discrimination statements And corporate platitudes are what enable this, beyond that it’s all interpersonal And Americans are pretty good about not being racist face to face. It would be nice but it doesn’t actually matter policy-wise if Billy Bob believes trans rights are human rights.

[Edited on April 16, 2026 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2026 4:13:28 PM

Quote :

"No one, I was just pointing it out as a meta point. The thread started with calling TGL's left beliefs "a mess". "

Oh, so I guess there was no context to clear up your mangling the meaning of your sentence by wording it wrong, after all. Okay.

4/16/2026 4:52:32 PM

^ There were 3 posts starting on the last page (last post) where I said "Republicans are think tanking trans issues to detract from economic issues"

On the top of this page, I said again "how many worker protections and bring jobs back." It should have been clear most of the points I was blaming republicans and conservatives (in the party/the lobbyists) for driving that. I'd just add that the left plays into it (and that's what the party wants).

Quote :

"It would be nice but it doesn’t actually matter policy-wise if Billy Bob believes trans rights are human rights."

The supreme court doesn't believe it either (maybe you didn't mean it in a strict legal way). Protected classes have to be immutable, that's fundamental. If you can change your class at any time it undoes the entire basis of the Civil Rights act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Skrmetti

Quote :

"In identifying whether a group constitutes a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the plaintiffs stated that the courts should look to four criteria: The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma. They possess an immutable or highly visible trait. They lack political power. The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society. The plaintiffs argued that transgender people as a group met all four criteria."

Could have been a flub but one of the attorneys defending it brought up non-binary and gender fluid and the line of questioning aroudn the immutability of transgenders.

The legality of le Trans falls along this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

There are classes, quasi-suspect, that allow some forms of discrimination (women don't get drafted and statutory rape laws would be an example). I actually listened to this when it was argued on C-SPAN and it was pretty fascinating.

[Edited on April 16, 2026 at 5:17 PM. Reason : a]

4/16/2026 5:16:54 PM

relevant



and since y'all postin in rahm emanuel thread he was on recently too



[Edited on April 16, 2026 at 5:50 PM. Reason : liberalism won. I hope some of you will stop rebelling against it]

4/16/2026 5:48:46 PM

I’ll never forget that one time that Sam Harris got schooled by Ben Affleck

4/16/2026 8:24:19 PM

I argue Harris stayed analytical and fact-based, while Affleck reacted emotionally, mischaracterizing his position and avoiding nuanced discussion about extremism versus broader Muslim populations.



(Sorry, I am unfamiliar with sam harris so I had to ask gpt)

4/16/2026 8:29:43 PM

discrimination is bad and there is never an excuse for it

4/16/2026 9:55:06 PM

When I left Twitter Harris was one of the good guys. Haven’t seen anything from him since

4/16/2026 10:04:47 PM