Why do conservatves and leftists insist on fighting over the culture war instead of what actually matters?

[Deserter3]

The rich are not your friends, politicians are not your friends, corporations are not your friends. They want money, power, and dominion over you.

[goaded]

Because the rich pay a lot of money to keep it going.

[beefcakebradybatson]

AMEN, GOADED!!! These overlord a**holes want division so they can swindle more and more from the 99.999999%!!!

[beefcakebradybatson]

I know it, but some folk are born followers.

[Anonymous]

because politics is downstream from culture

if someone is living a certain lifestyle or wants to live a certain lifestyle or enforce others to live a certain lifestyle, their voting patterns will reinforce that

for example a hedonist slut will vote for the political party/candidate that promises them contraceptives, abortion, promotes sex work, banning DNA tests etc.

and someone who wants to raise healthy children and eventually grandchildren will vote for the political party/candidate that ensures their kids don't get transitioned, their kids don't get abused, their kids can eventually provide for a family of their own economically etc.

getting rid of rich people won't change the fact that half the country thinks the other half are racists, sexists, fascists, homophobes etc.

with or without rich people I still want mass deportations, reduced taxes, meaningful government spending and a merit based system in the workforce and the courts

[Deserter3]

Most of those things don't change regardless of who you vote for. Trans people are 0.1% of the population, you need not worry

[Opinion Owner]

they don't seem to change now because of population demographics

it's about proportionality of influence

small minorities can still have massive influence more than the majority

and when the minorities become majorities, opposing beliefs will be outlawed eventually

[Deserter3]

If it worked like that it'd be way more than 0.1%. I think you overestimate the power of propaganda

[Opinion Owner]

propaganda is designed for the long term and in the long term it will be way more than 0.1%

decades ago pro-abortion was the unpopular position. nowadays being pro-life is the unpopular position

South Korea currently has a birth rate of 0.6. it might not seem like an issue now but in the next few decades the country will see a huge drop-off in population rapidly

feminism wasn't an overnight project thus they tried to stamp out Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate and other anti-feminism movements early with cancel culture before they became too influential

Charlie Kirk was assassinated for this reason as well. even though Boomers try to downplay him, it was quite obvious to our generation he would become President one day

I'm not a fan of rich people or politicians but hierarchies do exist in reality and every group has their own interests whether it be pride parades or Shariah Law thus someone will always be in charge over others

[Deserter3]

Large swaths always thought that, they were just suppressed. Trans activism has not made more people trans tho

[Opinion Owner]

those large swaths didn't grow up with certain propaganda shoved down their throats hence it's often used to target children

in the UK there are schools literally targeting young boys on combating "misogyny" and "anti-feminism" and not targeting adult men. in the long run a large majority of those boys will become feminists who in turn will grow up to reinforce feminist propaganda on the next generation of boys and so on

in fact it's as simple as getting the right people in the right places i. e. trans activists as school teachers to really overturn a generation and couple that with lawmakers to distract the parents

[Deserter3]

Then why are gen z men more right wing?

[Opinion Owner]

because the male role models on the left are seen as losers compared to male role models on the right. male role models on the right aren't perfect by any means but gen z men would rather grow up to be them than a soyboy libtard of the left

not to mention commonsense shit like there are only 2 genders, fat positivity is unhealthy, racism can also exist against white people and sexism can also exist against men etc.

also reality tends to red-pill a lot of gen z omen out of their feelings. simps are reminded time and time again, women (especially feminists) have an inconsistent moral compass, that their fellow simps will backstab them during a false rape accusation and every man has a breaking point to how many abuse they can receive e. g. #KillAllMen

[Deserter3]

You're backtracking, first you said brainwashing works now you're adding all these caveats

[Opinion Owner]

brainwashing does work but there's a thing called reality that snaps you back. some either accept it or deny it. feminists are never held accountable because men shield them from reality thus they can continue to remain brainwashed

I never said brainwashing is 100% full-proof. if a group can be malleable one way, they can become malleable the other way with only 1 brave individual being enough to snap them out of it or a certain event to be proven true i. e. Alex Jones predicting Epstein Island or Nick Fuentes predicting US bombing Iran

[Deserter3]

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Is it a choice or isn't it? They can be held responsible and change or they can't. You can't have it both ways.

[Opinion Owner]

brainwashing doesn't fit within the category of choice because no one chooses to be brainwashed or not. brainwashed people don't know that they are brainwashed but people who break out of brainwashing know they are breaking out of brainwashing

if machines ever become self-aware, does that mean their initial programming was a choice?

if you were attacked by a dog and you decided to avoid being attacked by the dog did you choose to be attacked by the dog in the first place since you choose to avoid being attacked by the dog?

I do believe in personal responsibility but this idea that people need to take absolute responsibility for absolutely everything including the circumstances they were brought up in is an overstretch

[Deserter3]

Oh wow, can they be held accountable for actiond or not?

[Deserter3]

The brainwashed dont know it until they break it? No, they sinoly changed their mind and now assume they got it right

[Opinion Owner]

yes they can be held accountable

if a homeless mother stole food from my shop to feed her starving kids, I understand why she did it but I don't expect her to get away with stealing

in the case of brainwashing there's only one objective reality/objective truth. how people interpret that to be will vary but I guarantee most people think they are good people even if they don't measure up to the objective standard

[Deserter3]

No, either it robs them of their free will or it doesn't, which is it?

[Opinion Owner]

fine. let break it down to you very simply

do you believe God exists? why or why not?

[Deserter3]

Yes, I'm a Deist. Religion is stupid but a higher power makes more sense. Do you subscribe to blsnk slate theory?

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not religious but why do you say is religion stupid? is this from a scientific perspective or from a utilitarian perspective?

either way do you hold a non-believer responsible for not believing in God because they claim there is "no evidence" when undisputable evidence is suddenly provided to them later on?

no I don't subscribe to blank slate theory. there's too many psychological differences between men and women alone for that to be the case

[Deserter3]

It's clearly a tool for control. In the case of all but possibly one because they can't all be true, at most 1 can.

There isn't tangible evidence, just convincing arguments. Same with aliens.

[Opinion Owner]

even if it was, why does it matter if it's a tool for control? do you prefer chaos and lawlessness instead?

and you didn't answer my question. this isn't about whether there is actual evidence or not. I'm stating in this hypothetical scenario that there is undisputable evidence being shown later on.

that being said, do you hold a non-believer responsible for not believing in God given these circumstances?

[Deserter3]

That's a false dichotomy and you know it, religion has caused millions of deaths. We can have order without religion.

There's no such thing as indisputable evidence, not even in theory. Try to define it, I'll show you.

I believe you either find something to be compelling or you don't. Beliefs are not choices.

[Opinion Owner]

"That's a false dichotomy and you know it, religion has caused millions of deaths"

yeah like all those who died under Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and the millions of abortions every year, correct?

"We can have order without religion." possible? sure but it's highly improbable especially when there's nothing preventing selfishness amongst the populace especially given the laws are just a matter of preference of the majority

"There's no such thing as indisputable evidence, not even in theory. Try to define it, I'll show you."

for the sake of this specific scenario, there is. now answer my question. this is relevant to your idea of accountability for being brainwashed

"I believe you either find something to be compelling or you don't. Beliefs are not choices."

well, there you have it. yet you tried to accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too

[Deserter3]

Yes, chaos.

Secular countries are less violent. Does religion stop people from being selfish and committing crime or does it give them a justification and rationalization to do so? Look at history.

Your hypothetical isn't logically tenable, rendering it a nonsense question. Might as well ask me the square root of fish or if God can create something so heavy he can't lift it. The point you're attempting to make fails anyways cause brainwashing can't exist under such circumstances.

Yes, cause you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

[Opinion Owner]

"Does religion stop people from being selfish and committing crime or does it give them a justification and rationalization to do so? Look at history."

religion stops the vast majority of the population from selfishness and committing crime hence why those who are evil have to subvert religion first. feminism, LGBTQIAP+ and abortion was only made possible by misusing certain texts before.

this is why marriage/divorce today is still a fucked up situation despite marriage being a religious institution.

"Your hypothetical isn't logically tenable, rendering it a nonsense question. Might as well ask me the square root of fish or if God can create something so heavy he can't lift it. The point you're attempting to make fails anyways cause brainwashing can't exist under such circumstances."

no it's not because according to you, people either find a belief compelling or not

"Yes, cause you suffer from cognitive dissonance."

no I'm just repeating your own words back at you

[Deserter3]

No it doesn't, look at secular countries. If they want to they will, religion has killed millions. Third world countries, most violent, most religious. Feminism and the like have nothing to do with religion, it only got in the way of letting people and groups prosper.

Uhh no, it's the way it is cause of government and the courts and the fact that men and women alike have a natural bias towards women.

Yes, and according to you people can be brainwashed but also no they can't cause reality will check them. Cognitive dissonance, you can't make up your mind.

No, not at all. Let me break it down for you. If they're brainwashed they have no control, if not then they have control. Beliefs are not choices, yes? Therefore you cannot hold someone who is brainwashed responsible.

[Opinion Owner]

"No it doesn't, look at secular countries" yes I'm looking at secular countries like China and North Korea where they're killing millions every year. millions and millions of abortions are carried out every year under the banner of "freedom" and "choice" aka selfishness

"Feminism and the like have nothing to do with religion" not anymore they don't but they needed to infiltrate religion first to become popular

yes the secular courts do favor women over men

nobody chooses to be brainwashed but people do choose to snap out of their brainwashing and reality tends to do that. did you even answer my dog question?

"Beliefs are not choices, yes?" if they are believed to be facts, then no.

it's no different than in a court of law e. g. all the evidence points to a suspect committing a crime and you believe he is guilty based on the evidence because evidence is facts according to you, right? and then new evidence shows up that proves his innocence and you can either choose to accept this new evidence which conflicts with previous "evidence"

a choice at least has binary outcomes. brainwashing insists on a singular outcome. see the difference?

[Deserter3]

Nice cherry picking, still worse in 3rd world religious countries. Abortion may be selfish, freedom and choice are not.

It's religions fault for meddling with people's rights.

As opposed to the 3rd world way where they throw them off buildings.

What dog question? "Nobody chooses to drown, but they choose to die." See how ridiculous that sounds? As I said, you're trying to have it both ways. Either they havea choice or they don't. Either it overrides free-will or it doesn't.

All beliefs are believed to be facts, what are you on about?

Is all evidence equal/compelling, yes or no?

No, whether you wish to argue belief is a choice or not you take a stance regardless. If brainwashing is real why doesit work so selectively? Why will it work on some but not others or vice-versa depending on the topic? I'll tell you why, cause brainwashing isn't real. A predisposition to believe certain things is real and is subjective to the individual.

[Opinion Owner]

"freedom and choice are not" actually it can be when it includes violating the law or overturning laws that aren't meant to be overturned

"It's religions fault for meddling with people's rights" people's rights are a social construct built upon a majority of personal preferences

""Nobody chooses to drown, but they choose to die." that's not even the correct analogy. the correct analogy is you are out at sea and you either choose to swim or drown.

do you realize free-will can be distorted and manipulated, right?

"Is all evidence equal/compelling, yes or no?" objectively no. subjectively yes

like I said. brainwashing can be snapped by reality. unfortunately some people are protected from the harsh truth of reality and never snap out of their brainwashing. white liberal women will continue to protest mass deportations until one of them gets raped by a refugee and even then, her sisters whom never experienced it will try to silence her until they get hit by reality.

fine. if you say brainwashing isn't real, you should be ok with the media falsely accusing you of rape and creating fake evidence to show to the public. sure, not everyone will believe them but are you willing to take that chance against the number of believers?

[Deserter3]

So laws are objective but rights are a social construct, typical. Religion is a social construct. Social construct doesn't mean shouldn't be respected.

No, I was not referencing that. It can't not be a choice to get brainwashed but be a choice to break from the brainwashing.

How?

In both instances the answer is no. Unless you are arguing belief is a choice, and even then that's a belief so refutes the argument.

Why? Why are some immune and others aren't? You can't explain because you're making up rules as you go along. This unfalsifiableness is akin to the concept of internalized misogyny.

It isn't real, people will believe it due to preconceived notions they have about myself or just men in general. Like I said, they're predisposed to it. I can account for why "brainwashing" works so selectively, you can't. Why shold I be ok with people spreading lies that will affect me personally? You aren't making any sense.

[Opinion Owner]

laws aren't objective otherwise they wouldn't change all the time. there's no justification for respecting social constructs especially with "freedom and choice"

because being brainwashed only has a singular outcome which isn't a choice

this is the dog question I asked you earlier

if you were attacked by a dog and you decided to avoid being attacked by the dog did you choose to be attacked by the dog in the first place since you choose to avoid being attacked by the dog?

why don't you tell me why some are immune and others aren't immune, then?

brainwashing isn't real according to you due to preconceived notions, so why bother being upset at people spreading lies about you, then if people are predisposed anyway?

[Deserter3]

So you don't care about morals, you only care about might makes right.

What does that even mean? Being convinced of something only has a singular outcome, which isn't a choice. Explain the difference between being convinced and being brainwashed. Force has a singular outcome too, which you seem to have no qualms with.

You don't choose to be convinced by something or not, same with being attacked. The difference in your analogy is a brainwashed person DOESN'T KNOW they're even being brainwashed so how would they even break free of it or defend?

I already did, brain structure. A bicurious person can be convinced into gay acts cause the curiosity was already there, a straight man can't.

Cause I'm predisposed to be angry about it.

[Opinion Owner]

laws are based on might makes right otherwise they wouldn't change all the time

brainwashed is something forced upon. convinced is something that sways choices

they break free of their brainwashing when some of their beliefs begin to conflict e. g. if a simp who "believes all women" is falsely accused of rape, his beliefs begin to conflict

"I already did, brain structure" it doesn't explain reconversion. some people go back and forth between their beliefs all the time

[Deserter3]

Might makes right is dumb.

Forced how? Nobody is putting a gun to your head.

Not necessarily, you for example.

Yes, because part of them thinks X, another part thinks Y. It explains it perfectly, unlike your conception of brainwashing which is nebulous and logically inconsistent.

[Opinion Owner]

"Might makes right is dumb." whether dumb or not might makes right is the reality we live in right now as it's been throughout all of history and prehistory

"Forced how? Nobody is putting a gun to your head." I suppose you could say that to the kids being taught by teachers and liberal parents that Charlie Kirk is a fascist

"Yes, because part of them thinks X, another part thinks Y"

then outside of your personal anger, you shouldn't have issues with people spreading lies about you since people are predisposed to believe what they want about you anyway

[Deserter3]

Whatever, besides the point.

And what about ones being taught the opposite? Still not forced so you dodged.

Nope, I'm predisposed to be angered by lies. Ridiculous argument you're making here. A lion doesn't know any better, I'm still gonna be angry if one attacks me

[Opinion Owner]

depends on what's being taught and the accuracy of the facts being taught and how it's being taught

there's a difference between being taught how to think and what to think

"Nope, I'm predisposed to be angered by lies"

yes you already told me that. outside of your anger, what other problems would you have with them spreading lies? what if someone doesn't care about your anger and spreads them anyway?

[Deserter3]

Based on what? You'll just say it's brainwashing if you don't agree with it.

Ok and?

Are you done with these bad faith arguments? Someone that is fine with might makes right doesn't value truth and you're making that abundantly clear.

You brought up Nick Fuentes earlier. Nick Fuentes was at j6 on a bullhorn telling his followers to break down the barriers and disregard the police, no charges brought against him. Also had an event where entry required you take a pic with him. Does nothing but sow division in the right. Tells people not to vote for Trump, tried campaigning against Trump with Kanye. Is now saying Israel had nothing to do with Charlie Kirk's death. But you don't think he's a fed. Why might I ask?

[Opinion Owner]

"Are you done with these bad faith arguments? Someone that is fine with might makes right doesn't value truth and you're making that abundantly clear."

might makes right is a descriptor not a prescriptor. has nothing to do with truth

because Nick has been attacked and canceled since he was 18. banned off most social media platforms, bank accounts frozen, money seized by the government, no flight list, hacked, doxxed, harassed by leftists, had assassination attempts put on him, hated by the media, the government, almost no friends, no relationships, betrayed and multiple hit pieces down him

Chuck Schumer recently put forth a bill deliberately designed to target Nick

as far as his political beliefs are concerned, you'll have to watch his show to see why he has those beliefs but he's much further to the right of Trump and Charlie Kirk

[Deserter3]

See? Facts don't sway you, predisposition. None of that refutes what I said. Now let me debunk your points. At best that all means Nick wasn't a fed but is now an asset to them. Plenty of people in politics have had accounts frozen and put on no fly lists. It was years ago anyways, he isn't now. Now he's actively being promoted on Youtube and all these other sites and on big podcasts regularly. If you had 109 friendships broken who is likely to be the issue, you? Or everyone else?

Which never went anywhere.

I was a fan for years, he's a bullshit artist.

[Opinion Owner]

you'd have to prove Nick is an actual fed. accusations aren't enough

how are the feds (who are globalists) gonna use Nick who is a nationalist?

"Plenty of people in politics have had accounts frozen and put on no fly lists" plenty of people never went through what Nick went through altogether

"Now he's actively being promoted on Youtube" uh no. he made a YouTube account that got immediately banned within 12 hours. it's other people posting clips of Nick, most of whom have low numbers of subscribers

Nick has always been on big podcasts. this isn't a recent thing

"If you had 109 friendships broken who is likely to be the issue, you? Or everyone else?"

that depends. if 109 people are racist towards you, is the issue you? as you've said before, some people are predisposed to think certain ways

"Which never went anywhere." antisemitism and "hate speech" is being cracked down all over

"I was a fan for years, he's a bullshit artist." you don't sound like a fan. is having some disagreements enough for you to turn completely against him?

[Deserter3]

Which I did. But now you're moving the goalposts, when it comes to what you believe argumentation is enough. For this oh it has to be that he needs to be wearing cia id or whatever.

The feds don't have an ideology beyond control. Nick is in favor of digital surveilance, digital id, and a police state, he's said so.

Yes they have, stop treating him like he's the second coming of Jesus. He was put on a no fly list cause he got into an altercation with security or something at the airport, not even political.

Which don't get taken down and no, the podcasts have millions of views. He's astroturfed, if he was truly cancelled it wouldn't be up. Not this big.

Gimme a break, the common denominator is him.

Where is all over, the uk? Nick has been capitulating on Israel, clearly they were involved with CK's death but he insists otherwise.

Have some disagreements? He's a fucking fed you dope. I never liked his authoritarian stances but overlooked them mostly due to the other things I agreed with. But thanks for proving me right. Facts don't change your mind.

[Opinion Owner]

"The feds don't have an ideology beyond control. Nick is in favor of digital surveilance, digital id, and a police state, he's said so."

no otherwise he wouldn't be rallying hard against JD Vance and his connection with Peter Thiel's Palantir

"Yes they have, stop treating him like he's the second coming of Jesus. He was put on a no fly list cause he got into an altercation with security or something at the airport, not even political."

who's treating him like the second coming of Jesus? Nick has even admitted he's not necessarily a good person. there was no alteration at the airport and he was on the no fly list before going to the airport

because the globalists are finally learning that cancel culture backfires hence they backtrack on the cancelling otherwise it becomes too suspicious and cancelling makes him more popular

yes just like the common denominator would be you if everyone believed the false accusations of you committing rape. like you've said already, some people are predisposed to think certain ways

"Where is all over, the uk? Nick has been capitulating on Israel, clearly they were involved with CK's death but he insists otherwise."

how do you prove Israel is clearly involved if this were a court of law? do you know how dangerous this to throw around these accusations? given what they've done to CK already, what makes you think they couldn't do the same to Nick?

if we're wrong about Israel being involved, the globalists could easily you this as an excuse to crack down harder on free speech and plot more assassinations.

lol you don't have to be completely anti-Israel on everything. sometimes there are legit groups of crazy violent leftists who want you dead. there's been books and online chats leaked prior to CK's assassination from plans and details to methods

there's a leftist group called "Unfuck America" led by Destiny and other leftists that follow TPUSA around on purpose.

[Deserter3]

You really are a lost cause

[Opinion Owner]

how so? because I work backwards from a crime to find a suspect rather than like you finding a suspect and working towards them committing a crime?

even if we assume Nick is a fed for the sake of this argument, so what?

if you value truth over labels, it shouldn't matter whether he's a fed or not. the question should be is he right or is he wrong?

[Deserter3]

I explained how he's a fed and how he's wrong, you're just dense, now he's defending pedophilia.

Tell me genius, how is it that people that weren't even at j6 were arrested but not Nick who incited a riot which is a crime?

[Opinion Owner]

no he's not defending pedophilia. he's pointing out how no one would give a shit or at least make a big deal out of the Epstein files if there was no sex trafficking involved which is true.

had the Epstein files just been about money laundering the media and public wouldn't care so much

if you don't believe me, ask the average America what do they know about the Epstein files? how many are willing to bring up Israeli intelligence or anything to do with Israel?

the JFK, MLK, CK files aren't seen as important by the public despite potential Israeli involvement even though these were high profile assassinations. had sex trafficking been involved, then the public would have a more vested interest

Nick was arrested though and brought into questioning by the House Select Committee. those other people were more influential than Nick. either way Nick has been doxxed multiple homes and feds aren't meant to be doxxed otherwise they must leave e. g. Jonathan Ross

[Deserter3]

God you're stupid 🤦‍♂️

[Opinion Owner]

whatever makes you feel better

[Anonymous]

The left is way worse about this. There's absolutely nothing Trump could do to make a little real happy.