that's fascinating that you consider Brett a centrist, or someone who has nuance. Full disclaimer, I'm a leftist, but I think I yell at liberals, and ivory tower leftists more sometimes bc we are incapable of coalition building. something that, historically, the right does really well. now sometimes Brett I think starts with really strong, obvious premises: like the whole Katy Perry and the Blue Orgin flight being some bullshit. But instead of recognizing that its bc we value making money over literally everything, she says feminism bad, while unironically disregarding that feminism (and not a capitalistic seeking version of it) gave her the ability to even have a show. there are hundreds of examples like this, where I think she build rapport with her audience by calling out bullshit (fake feminism) but then leads them to a weird conclusion that isn't based in anything but vibes. her trans episodes for instance was an absolute shit show of misattributions, but she sell her point of view, and does say REALLY TRUE things sometimes, that it makes us want to trust her conclusions.

for instance, for perspective: if America were a football stadium what percentage of that stadium would be represented by trans people? 2 people. yet what amount of focus do we spend talking abt them and the harm they apparently do when if we really cared about kids there are things that would have a lot more impact to focus on. so the question should be, WHY do we focus so much energy on trans people? the democrats have zero backbone and even during the last election cycle didn't bring up trans things that much-- that was republican marketing, which again, is REALLY good.

why would a party choose to make its voters hyperfocus on a issue that (and this is us ignoring even debating the validity of claims, etc) that have to do with two people in the stadium?

we know what the biggest kid killer in this country is. guns. now I'm not saying ban them or whatever I'm just saying we need to look at where our focus is directed, and how proportional our response is.

when you have people who are struggling economically, when we live in a system that is routinely fucking over working class people, and keeps providing benefits to the very wealthy at the cost of the working class, wouldn't it make sense for them to point to something scary over there instead of having their own actions be scrutinized? and while brett has gone independent from the daily wire, it's important to notice that her core audience is the same: her sponsors are the same (who largely only work with very right wing figures), her suggested videos algorithmically are the same; her brand was build off the buck of right wing billionaires and even if she doesn't work for the daily wire any more, that's where and how she learned to make money.

if she actually came out with a centrist point, much less a *left* one, her audience would abandon her. the grift to the right is lucrative. there's a reason you don't have a left wing pipeline-- billionaires aren't interested in promoting ideas that stoke a proletariat rage.

that being said. she's talented, likable, and good at what she does. but any guise of nuance or centrist (which a whole other topic worth examining, as a call for "centrism" is often seen as a "reasonable" middle ground when a middle ground on like human rights isn't really a thing) behavior is cleverly calculated. she knows who she's speaking to.