Emerald

Oh come on Leo! You know you wanna our super cool club, queen!!! Fine then!!!! Just one last attempt...

Out of the 73-million kids in the United States under 18... how many kids in the US do you believe are on puberty blockers? On HRT? Having top surgery? Having bottom surgery? I'll give you a hint. It's a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point. If you want the numbers... you can check out this Reuters article... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

The center of the American political system and the way we think about it in the government establishment is CENTER RIGHT because both Democrat and Republican politicians serve the interests of corporations. And the partisan way that people are conditioned to view politics in terms of Democrat = left and Republican = right... favors a CENTER RIGHT perspective because there is nothing more than a millimeter left of center in the establishment. (The same is true in other countries... only with different party names.) I forget who came up with the quote, but the reality is that the American government is a lame bird with two right wings. So, from the establishment's perspective... someone in the "center" is like Joe Manchin. So, that's what the establishment and news media call a moderate.. when his views don't actually reflect the actual will of the people. But politicians whose views do reflect the will of the people are quick to be labeled a radical socialist. And the center of the populace is CENTER LEFT in their values if you poll them on specific policies and viewpoints. But most in the populace are low-information, under-informed voters. So, they will often vote along party lines without knowledge of policies. And they will take as gospel the partisan characterizations as opposed to looking at actual policy positions. And even if 70% of the American populace agrees with the policies of someone CENTER LEFT like Bernie Sanders on paper, most people will view him as a radical leftist because he has been labelled that from the perspective of the establishment. Ultimately, it has to do with people not being very well educated about politics... and low information voters being conditioned to believe that candidates that are the most in agreement with the populace are crazy liberal radicals... while the center right politicians in the establishment like Joe Manchin are the moderate normies and "the adults in the room" representing the average person, even though their views are unpopular in the eyes of the people. When in reality, all these so-called "moderates" in the establishment want to do is to cut taxes for billionaires and slash Social Security and Medicare.

That's definitely not true. I'm bisexual and probably about half of my close friends over the years have been in the LGBTQ community. And none of them nor I want to force straight people into being gay. We just don't want the government controlling us nor do we want society making it a harder place to live. This should be obvious, and I'm genuinely curious as to why it's not. Are you just sheltered and haven't been around LGBTQ people before... and you're believing people who fear-monger about LGBTQ people trying to force straight people into being gay? Or do you feel like you'd personally be tempted to engage in homosexual behavior or tempted to transition if you put your guard down and accepted the existence of gay people and trans people? Or is it another reason?

They are both megalomaniacal. But I sense that Elon has justified the lying and doesn't see himself as a conman... while Donald Trump is okay with being a conman and knows that he lies. I see Elon Musk as unconsciously being driven to being a megalomaniacal conman out of a desire to redeem himself and be validated in the eyes of others. And the lies he tells, in his mind is a sort of Machiavellian "ends justify the means" desire to be the hero in others' eyes he imagines himself to be. And if he were to see himself as a conman, he would probably feel ashamed. So, he is unconscious to it. Conversely, I see Trump as consciously being driven to being a megalomaniacal conman out of a desire to achieve maximum power and that he values power and strength over a claim to goodness and honesty (which he may view as weak and therefore bad). And he doesn't mind the lying as he just sees it as a neutral tool of power acquisition and something that strengthens him. So... Donald Trump's guiding compass is more akin to... "More power is good... less power is bad." than "Honesty is good... lying is bad." So... my sense is that Elon has lots of moral justifications for his lies that make it do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid seeing himself as a conman because he is motivated along a moral self-identity narrative of saving the world. And my sense is that Donald Trump knows he's lying and doesn't care. So, he doesn't need to trick himself into believing he's not lying... as he motivates himself along a warlord-ish strength narrative. And the only bad thing is weakness from that paradigm.

I love the Dark Crystal! I actually just decided to re-watch the Age of Resistance series this past week. So, I have Skeksis on the brain. Such an apt metaphor for how those with the worst impulses often make it into power... while those with the best impulses end up ineffective and powerless like the Mystics before the Great Conjunction.

This is Donald Trump when it comes to relinquishing power...

Thank you!

Is this directed to me? If it was... yes! I'd still be absolutely batty about him!

So, you don't even have kids? And yet you're making up stories in your imagination about trans people's existence being a danger to your imaginary kids? And you're also playing through a movie in your mind of dying to protect your imaginary kids from trans people? Isn't that silly? As someone who ACTUALLY has kids, the only thing that the widespread acceptance of trans people (and the questioning of the absoluteness of gender identity) has done is to make them far more kind and conscious than I was as a child to those in the LGBTQ community... and far less boxed into notions of how they should and shouldn't be based off of rigid gender roles.

How would that put the US at an advantage to measure GDP in dollars? You could convert that into Pounds, Yen, Yuan, or any other currency... and you'd still get the same proportional differential. Less doesn't suddenly become more when you convert it into a different currency.

Not true....

What do your kids have to do with anything?

The real answer to this question is... 'Who cares? It doesn't impact your life personally. Let people live their lives in a way that feels good to them if it isn't hurting anyone.' Otherwise, we can get into the distinctions between sex and gender... and how those things interact with and inform social constructs. Really, in terms of the words man and woman... it's more of a socially constructed signifier that gets projected onto the genetic/phenotype of billions of human beings. But ultimately... stop trying to ask "gotcha" questions to invalidate someone's identity and personal sovereignty.

Is your fear that you personally would be influenced or forced to engage in homosexual behavior if the LGBTQ community is fully accepted? What is it about LGBTQ people that you PERSONALLY find dangerous? How do you believe it would impact you?

And being normal... and not weird is also values. That's why the weird attacks work.

That's just Devil in Spanish. If Devil is cool... Diablo is even cooler. It makes Trump sound like a legendary dessert wanderer in an old Western movie set in El Paso in the 1800s. The last thing we need Trump associated with is a challenging hot sauce you that your friends dare you to try... and bet you $20 that you'll chicken out and not follow through. It all emphasizes strength. But rhetorically... it's far more effective to emphasize weakness.

It should be pretty obvious at this point that most people DO NOT vote on values when voting for a candidate. Look at polling on an issue per issue basis... and support for abortion access, single-payer healthcare, universal background checks, and other progressive policy positions poll in the 60-75% range in the American populace. If people voted on values as reflected in policy, only 25%-40% of people would ever vote Republican because their policy positions only appeal to the minority and are fringe (or dare I say... weird) in the eyes of most Americans. The fact of the matter is that MOST people are low-information voters and vote along partisan lines and on vibes. They vote like they root for sports teams... or how they watch shows like "The Bachelor". If you don't believe me, go ask your average Trump supporter which policies that they liked of his. Probably 60% of them couldn't tell you a single policy. They really just like the tough guy act and how he "triggers the libs." And that a bunch of egg-headed, educated fool, indoctrinated libs like you and I are going around screaming about how dangerous he is... they take as something they like about him. It's like ambrosia salad to them! Ultimately, normies and low information voters tend to vote in ways that reinforce their desired identity. And LOTS of Trump supporters like the image of the dangerous rebellious renegade fighting fire with fire to trigger the libs and take the world back from the "cabal of pedophillic deep state elite" because they want that associated with their identity. But neither traditionalist conservatives NOR rebellious libertarian-type conservatives to be associated with weirdness. Traditionalist conservatives tend to be very attached identity-wise to normalcy. And rebellious libertarian-type conservatives tends to be attached identity-wise to cool devil's advocacy and contrarianism... which is only cool if it's done by someone who's rebellious in a normal-protagonistish way. So, if a candidate gets branded as weird and the label lands with normies and low-information voters (which it very much is) this essentially brand jams them in the eyes of some members of their base which can chip several percentage points off of their vote share.

First off, you wouldn't be voted for if you ran as a Democrat because your social values are extremely far right. Now, it is possible to run as a conservative. There are non-white Republicans that get elected. But I'll give it to you straight that there would be a lot of major obstacles and there probably would be a cap to how high you could climb in the Republican Party based on your demographic factors alone. But if you wanted to run as a conservative, one thing to understand about people who would tend to share your very strong anti-lgbt values to the point where they would vote on a candidate who MOSTLY promised that (which is probably about half of conservatives), is that most of them are very traditional and focused towards there being a right way and a wrong way to be. And that's why they have the strong anti-lgbt values in the first place. So, in their eyes there's a right race/nationality/ethnicity... there's a right gender... there's a right sexuality... there's a right religion... there's a right way to structure a family... and there's a right way to live your life. And in the eyes of many in that traditionalist constituency, anything that colors outside of the lines of those factors will be seen as either inferior (and therefore unfit for leadership) or an immoral aberration that needs to be outlawed or eliminated. And many with your anti-lgbt values would likely look at being anything other than pure white as inferior... and look at miscegenation with the same level of ire that you have for gay and trans people. They would unfortunately see you being mixed race as an indicator of degeneracy... and interracial couples as something they would outlaw if they were in a position to do so in the same way that you would overturn gay marriage if given the opportunity. So, it would be a tough path ahead if you wanted to run for office as a conservative because about half of the base (the half that would be most in alignment with your anti-gay values) would be turned off by your demographic factors and even outright hostile to them for the SAME EXACT reason that you have anti-gay values.... because they wouldn't want what they would see as an aberration to be normalized.

Nope! That makes him sound way cooler than he is.

The weird attacks are actually rhetorically brilliant... but only when followed up by how Trump, Vance, and other MAGA Republicans (in reference to Project 2025) tend to be busy-bodies who are obsessed with stuff that most normal people don't want and don't care about... like banning books, banning in vitro fertilization, tracking women's menstrual cycles, banning abortion without exceptions, banning birth control, banning porn, and other extremely authoritarian unpopular positions... many of which have to do with controlling women's bodies. Not to mention the fixation on trans people. Most normal people who don't get their politics from 4Chan, aren't fixated on all this sexual grievance politics stuff. And this is reflected in polling and in direct ballot initiatives as even red states vote overwhelmingly pro-choice. These fringe positions that MAGA focuses on aren't kitchen table issues. So, most people don't care that much about them... even if they do lean to the right. Many Trump supporters even have zero clue about his policies and just like the "tough guy" Trump image. And rhetorically... you'll also want to consider that people don't mind being associated with a dangerous candidate... as this adds to the "tough guy" appeal that Trump wants to give off. And the base LOVES when people characterize Trump as dangerous... because they like the image of him as a renegade who's upsetting the system. And even though you and I know that's silly. It's how a lot of low information voters and politically disengaged people can think... and what they can get drawn into. And those are the voting blocks that especially matter right now. And the weird attacks are doing something in the eyes of the normies, that's similar to the dynamic where conservatives started portraying anyone left of center as a weirdo ugly raving lunatic with blue hair.... screaming strangely at someone in the middle of the street. And this weirdo image has chased lots of people away from the left... simply because they don't want to be associated with weirdness and extremes. Even center lefties might fall into disavowing more leftward positions because they want to avoid being seen in that weird light. And that's what a great offensive political characterization that emphasizes weakness and patheticness INSTEAD of danger and corruption does. And most of all, normies don't want to be associated with weirdness. Normies want to be normal. And conservative-leaning normies ESPECIALLY want to be normal. If the weird characterizations stick, and they seem to be, then this could take some decent sized chips out of Trump's normie vote. Honestly, consider how a lot of people think... If he's dangerous, he's one of the cool rebellious kids. But if he's weird, he's just a lame kid and probably smells bad... and people won't want to get that smell on them.

My experience has been that having a relationship is helpful because it provides connection needs, which gives me energy and meaning and support. And I find that my productivity suffers if I feel like I'm disconnected. Mind you, my experiences have been with relationship partners that I've co-habitated with. So, it's not like I have to go out of my way to see them. It's more like the relationship partner just becomes the soil.

I didn't say a single thing about what women are attracted to or not. But thank you for volunteering that information. The other guy said you were cringe for saying that you're hot women's catnip. You told him "You're just jealous." And then I said... nope... that's definitely factually cringe.

Definitely not. Sex and the City can give you a sense of what kind of tv shows a lot of women tend to like to watch. But generally, female characters in movies and shows are typically written by men because it is a male-dominated industry. And they also tend to be very underwritten... though I can't speak to the dimensionality of the characters in Sex an the City because I haven't more than one or two episodes. But what you're seeing is a fantasy that's meant to appeal to women but that's usually crafted by male writers. So, it won't depict much in the way of accurate female behavior. It's similar to how you can't watch a James Bond film and understand very much about male psychology from the actual behavior that James Bond displays and the choices that he makes. It's a fantasy fulfillment character. And to a somewhat lesser extent, so are the women from Sex in the City. If you want a movie that's really good for understanding female psychology and experiences, the most relatable that I've found is the Disney movie "Turning Red" which is about the female adolescent experience. I watched it and I was like "hmmm... that is SOOO on the money." And that's because it was created by a woman who build the story around her actual experiences as an adolescent... with some extra magic flourishes added.

Let's just be really real here... The phrase "Hot women are cats, and I am catnip" is definitionally cringe. There's just no other way to slice it.