you either destroy them utterly, or they win by outlasting you
A fundamental problem of good fighting evil: good can't or won't take the same actions that evil will, no matter how effective they are.
If we could get randos fired for saying "men in dresses are women" I know I would because I have a clear understanding of the kind of war we are fighting, but most of the people on our side wouldn't. The gay commies have no compunctions about causing us harm.
Our side thinks their side is retarded, their side thinks our side is evil. Thus they feel justified in any harm is done to us regardless of proportionality or "justice."
The tactical problem we face is is that while physical harm is illegal, social and economic harm aren't and are dealt with in the much more "squishy" civil system if at all. There is a law against reaching into someone's pocket and trying to take their wallet as well as a common understanding that a physical response is reasonable. There isn't any law against contacting someone's employer and calling for them to be fired and a physical response wouldn't be considered reasonable, even if the result would be potentially much more personally harmful than a stolen wallet.
Many people are still infected by negative beliefs that pull them down and limit what they can actually do. Things like idolizing freedom, democracy, civil rights, anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc and thinking that they are anything other than moral cudgels meant to push people into complacent slavery.
They think that isolating themselves and putting away their weapons (or desire to meaningfully use those weapons) means they are principled instead of brainwashed into being weak and ineffective.
One large problem is everything reinforcing their propaganda. The education system, entertainment, mainstream media, etc. Everybody knows that some of it is a total sham, but very few understand the extent of just how much is designed to be pure mental poison.
And so they get stuck fighting small nearly meaningless battles uphill. Instead of fighting for actual freedom they are stuck fighting for paper freedom, which is all but pointless when that paper holds no actual value besides satisfying their complacency.
Also why the "centrist 'liberals'" are powerless to stop them. the only difference between the two is the latter doesn't see themselves as having as much a "divine right to rule" (notable exceptions like enforcing de-segregation at gunpoint aside). But they ultimately want the same things.
So when the "centrist" tells them "hey shouldn't we debate this before it gets imposed on everyone?" the answer is one of genuine bafflement. "Why shouldn't we? 'We might be wrong'? What kind of answer is that? Do you really believe that? What is gained by 'debating' something so obviously correct?"
A fundamental problem of good fighting evil: good can't or won't take the same actions that evil will, no matter how effective they are.
If we could get randos fired for saying "men in dresses are women" I know I would because I have a clear understanding of the kind of war we are fighting, but most of the people on our side wouldn't. The gay commies have no compunctions about causing us harm.
Our side thinks their side is retarded, their side thinks our side is evil. Thus they feel justified in any harm is done to us regardless of proportionality or "justice."
The tactical problem we face is is that while physical harm is illegal, social and economic harm aren't and are dealt with in the much more "squishy" civil system if at all. There is a law against reaching into someone's pocket and trying to take their wallet as well as a common understanding that a physical response is reasonable. There isn't any law against contacting someone's employer and calling for them to be fired and a physical response wouldn't be considered reasonable, even if the result would be potentially much more personally harmful than a stolen wallet.
Many people are still infected by negative beliefs that pull them down and limit what they can actually do. Things like idolizing freedom, democracy, civil rights, anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc and thinking that they are anything other than moral cudgels meant to push people into complacent slavery.
They think that isolating themselves and putting away their weapons (or desire to meaningfully use those weapons) means they are principled instead of brainwashed into being weak and ineffective.
One large problem is everything reinforcing their propaganda. The education system, entertainment, mainstream media, etc. Everybody knows that some of it is a total sham, but very few understand the extent of just how much is designed to be pure mental poison.
And so they get stuck fighting small nearly meaningless battles uphill. Instead of fighting for actual freedom they are stuck fighting for paper freedom, which is all but pointless when that paper holds no actual value besides satisfying their complacency.
Also why the "centrist 'liberals'" are powerless to stop them. the only difference between the two is the latter doesn't see themselves as having as much a "divine right to rule" (notable exceptions like enforcing de-segregation at gunpoint aside). But they ultimately want the same things.
So when the "centrist" tells them "hey shouldn't we debate this before it gets imposed on everyone?" the answer is one of genuine bafflement. "Why shouldn't we? 'We might be wrong'? What kind of answer is that? Do you really believe that? What is gained by 'debating' something so obviously correct?"