Well the defense is that she is not "transphobic", which is still knifing the trannies in the back since they need to destroy JK in order to flex their political and social power, and the NYT is directly opposing them in that effort.
The whole game the trannies play is to exaggerate to manipulate, calling everything violence and targeting everything that they dislike as no different than calling for trans genocide. It turns out a decent number of libs (who end up as the trannies primary targets) are sick of their bullshit.
Well the defense is that she is not "transphobic", which is still knifing the trannies in the back since they need to destroy JK in order to flex their political and social power, and the NYT is directly opposing them in that effort.
Disagree. Suppose I said that Ron DeSantis is a communist infiltrator who loves trannies. And the New York Times wrote an article saying "no, no, Ron DeSantis is actually a great guy, he opposes communism and is anti-tranny". That may be a defeat for my delusion, but it's definitely a victory for the right.
The maximalist, orbit-position enables the 'moderate' position to be far more skewed in favor of the bad side than otherwise.
The whole game the trannies play is to exaggerate to manipulate, calling everything violence and targeting everything that they dislike as no different than calling for trans genocide. It turns out a decent number of libs (who end up as the trannies primary targets) are sick of their bullshit.
They're still surrendering 95%. So while I'm glad to see infighting, and I support "libs" who are courageous enough to stand up to this vicious lobby, and it's good to show the true nature of the troon lobby, the war is not going to be won with the JK Rowlings of the world.
It's Zelensky syndrome. When you've got a guy in a t-shirt demanding nuclear war, or close to it, and always being unhappy, even the most escalatory steps become the moderate, compromise position. Quite crafty really. The right should learn from this. Maybe Stormfags can be deployed to that end. "OK, no segregation, but blacks will get only the rights others have, no more".
You seem to be confused about something. I'm not suggesting that the NYT are somehow heroes of the Right, they're still libtards.
I never said the NYT aren't being good libtards. I'm pointing out libtard infighting. Of COURSE it's better for the Left that the trannies get shut down. Of course the NYT wants to do what's best for the Left.
Up until now, the NYT and other bastions of libtard elites have refused to fight the trannies out of fear of being the 1st one into the breach and getting torn apart. The fact that the NYT published a feminist Op ed in direct conflict with the trannies is a watershed moment in the Left's tranny civil war between the trannies/intersectionals and the TERFs.
None of this is good for the Right except as entertainment. I never suggested that the people at the NYT are becoming right wing or would vote republican. Those things are impossible.
I never said the NYT aren't being good libtards. I'm pointing out libtard infighting. Of COURSE it's better for the Left that the trannies get shut down. Of course the NYT wants to do what's best for the Left.
So we want liberals to be less unreasonable so that when they do gain power, as inevitably they will (assuming I were to accept your ideas about 'democracy' and all that), so they'll do less damage, right?
The fact that the NYT published a feminist Op ed in direct conflict with the trannies is a watershed moment in the Left's tranny civil war between the trannies/intersectionals and the TERFs.
I also want the GC to win, because they are less crazy.
None of this is good for the Right except as entertainment. I never suggested that the people at the NYT are becoming right wing or would vote republican. Those things are impossible.
Sure, but I'm just saying that this may not be the defeat for the lobby. Make extreme demands, settle on a 'compromise' that is grossly skewed in your position, that is actually brilliant "strategery".
So we want liberals to be less unreasonable so that when they do gain power, as inevitably they will (assuming I were to accept your ideas about 'democracy' and all that), so they'll do less damage, right?
Yes, if liberals realize their ideas are unpopular so they back off, that is how democracy works to maintain balance and stability. Trump & BLM/Covid caused the libtards to get so worked up that they began to act against democracy by pushing too aggressively. They SHOULD have been dealt a punishing defeat in the 2022 election, but Trump saved them from that by promoting retard candidates who lost what should have been easy pickups.
Sure, but I'm just saying that this may not be the defeat for the lobby. Make extreme demands, settle on a 'compromise' that is grossly skewed in your position, that is actually brilliant "strategery".
Not in this case. This is about internal power struggles within the Left, and the radicals were indoctrinated to be uncompromising. The more radical the Democrats are, the more elections they will lose.
Well the defense is that she is not "transphobic", which is still knifing the trannies in the back since they need to destroy JK in order to flex their political and social power, and the NYT is directly opposing them in that effort.
The whole game the trannies play is to exaggerate to manipulate, calling everything violence and targeting everything that they dislike as no different than calling for trans genocide. It turns out a decent number of libs (who end up as the trannies primary targets) are sick of their bullshit.
Disagree. Suppose I said that Ron DeSantis is a communist infiltrator who loves trannies. And the New York Times wrote an article saying "no, no, Ron DeSantis is actually a great guy, he opposes communism and is anti-tranny". That may be a defeat for my delusion, but it's definitely a victory for the right.
The maximalist, orbit-position enables the 'moderate' position to be far more skewed in favor of the bad side than otherwise.
They're still surrendering 95%. So while I'm glad to see infighting, and I support "libs" who are courageous enough to stand up to this vicious lobby, and it's good to show the true nature of the troon lobby, the war is not going to be won with the JK Rowlings of the world.
It's Zelensky syndrome. When you've got a guy in a t-shirt demanding nuclear war, or close to it, and always being unhappy, even the most escalatory steps become the moderate, compromise position. Quite crafty really. The right should learn from this. Maybe Stormfags can be deployed to that end. "OK, no segregation, but blacks will get only the rights others have, no more".
You seem to be confused about something. I'm not suggesting that the NYT are somehow heroes of the Right, they're still libtards.
I never said the NYT aren't being good libtards. I'm pointing out libtard infighting. Of COURSE it's better for the Left that the trannies get shut down. Of course the NYT wants to do what's best for the Left.
Up until now, the NYT and other bastions of libtard elites have refused to fight the trannies out of fear of being the 1st one into the breach and getting torn apart. The fact that the NYT published a feminist Op ed in direct conflict with the trannies is a watershed moment in the Left's tranny civil war between the trannies/intersectionals and the TERFs.
None of this is good for the Right except as entertainment. I never suggested that the people at the NYT are becoming right wing or would vote republican. Those things are impossible.
So we want liberals to be less unreasonable so that when they do gain power, as inevitably they will (assuming I were to accept your ideas about 'democracy' and all that), so they'll do less damage, right?
I also want the GC to win, because they are less crazy.
Sure, but I'm just saying that this may not be the defeat for the lobby. Make extreme demands, settle on a 'compromise' that is grossly skewed in your position, that is actually brilliant "strategery".
Yes, if liberals realize their ideas are unpopular so they back off, that is how democracy works to maintain balance and stability. Trump & BLM/Covid caused the libtards to get so worked up that they began to act against democracy by pushing too aggressively. They SHOULD have been dealt a punishing defeat in the 2022 election, but Trump saved them from that by promoting retard candidates who lost what should have been easy pickups.
Not in this case. This is about internal power struggles within the Left, and the radicals were indoctrinated to be uncompromising. The more radical the Democrats are, the more elections they will lose.