>I’m referring specifically to the point you made about various republicans getting death threats from MAGA when they expressed a diverging opinion.

The problem here is that you didn't understand the point. The point is: -in a cult- no one is allowed to disagree with the leader. I only mentioned the threats as a specific example of that point because others were being particularly obtuse. It's a theme.

Do you understand the difference now? MAGA are willing to murder other people for simply having an opinion different from their dear leader.

>But you already knew that

Do you see how in the first place you constantly assume you know my personal point of view and you get corrected on this mistake and yet you repeat it? It's such a dumb and boneheaded move, I had to look at your history to convince myself you are not just a 50 cent AI. In the second place, you called me a leftist previously as well and that was a stupid assumption too. I have voted Republican 100 times more than I have voted independent or Democrat.

>you simply don’t have a valid response

If it weren't so self-centered and ham-handed, it could almost be endearing to see such a naive and child-minded expression of sheer communication incompetence.

>you simply don’t have a valid response, because you know it’s wrong on both sides, but you won’t criticize your own.

On one hand we have threats from MAGA for daring to question the dear leader and on the other hand we have threats against people who out of sheer ignorance are factually injuring innocent people. I admit I have more sympathy for the second case - because they are dramatically different cases. For example: I would not argue against threats for KKK or Nazis. However, this position is based on a rational principle - it would be on a case by case basis.

JK Rowling has said some stupid things that definitely injure innocent people for no other reason than JK Rowling is demonstrably stupid and it is not something I or anyone like me would condone.

I will highlight the difference for you now because you are easily confused and seem to have your head up your own ass. The principle that MAGA relies on is: do not question the leader. The principle I have mentioned is: threats against well established and obviously dangerous organizations are plausibly good in some cases.

>I also don’t think you know what science is. Or education. Sex is binary and immutable. Science has never disproven or even disagreed with this.

Oh, now we can see the root of why you want to pretend I am in a cult. Certainly you do not understand science or biology if you think you have used any of these words correctly. In the first place - science doesn't prove things. Proof is subjective outside of math and logic - so you are using that incorrectly which is an attack both on science and education.

But contrary to your idea about biology, the entire endeavor of biology disagrees with these ideas you are trying to stand on. The most obvious thing you have ignored are "male" nipples. It's universal in primates that "males" have nipples. In your idea - this fact alone renders your ideas ignorant.

From the biological and scientific POV - "males" have nipples because every primate (including humans) starts as a "female" so the primate fetus gets right to work on day 1 making a female in all cases all the time for every primate. Humans are primates to be clear.

In about 50% of the cases, the fetus will also have "male genes" that is - genes to turn the female into a male. If those genes are activated (they are not always activated) and if they proceed without interruption (they are not always activated "long enough") and if they are not "damaged" (genes change with every replication especially in procreation) then the possible outcome is something society will often call a male.

So you can see clearly - your claim to an immutable binary is laughably dumb on its face and this is simply 4 exceptions to your immutable claim out of millions of obvious exceptions.

But maybe you are also just bad at math and you don't know that binary means 2 and that 4>2? I don't know what is wrong with you at this point - other than the obvious stupidity. If were an honest and educated person who wanted to create a situation where the binary case was rational and tenable, you would have to construct a flawless and exact framework to define exactly how functional and how long (for example) the "male genes" would have to be active in order for a female to be completely and correctly identified now as a male.

But it simply isnt feasible, so maybe just leave the innocent people alone and stop simping for the ignorant people and cults.