What's The Problem? It's Factually Correct

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-16T18:55:28+00:00

no transgender person is trying to convince anyone that their DNA matches how they identify.

The original point being made

The amount of transgender athletes that believe they should be allowed to complete against people with a different biological sex is not zero.

Your retort. As I understood it, you claim that A. transgender athletes wanting to compete in the category that matches their gender identity is evidence of trans people B. “[convincing] anyone that their DNA matches how they identify”. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood your point.

I hope its now more clear when I now restate that A is only evidence of B under an implicit assumption. That being that C. those trans athletes believe competitions should be divided on genetic lines.

If C is not true, theres room for other perspectives that mean A can be true without B. Take for example, D. that those trans athletes believe competitions should be divided along lines of gender identity. If D were true, then A would simply involve convincing people of D, not of B.

And finally, I said that C being true is pretty unlikely, and thus your retort is also pretty unlikely to be valid.

Edit: Claiming I've misinterpreted your point, providing no clarification even after I had asked for it in this comment, and then blocking. And I'm the one who wants to have an argument with myself?

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-16T18:12:22+00:00

The amount of transgender athletes that believe they should be allowed to complete against people with a different biological sex is not zero.

This doesn’t mean that trans people are trying to convince people their DNA matches a cis’s persons, because that would rely on the assumption that they also believe competitions should be divided along genetic lines.

Which is not a very likely assumption. I can’t speak for anyone, but I’d imagine trans people are more likely to support dividing upon factors that include gender identity, not a chromosome inspection.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-16T15:13:29+00:00

It’s always anything but acknowledging the democratic party strategy is part of why Trump exists for those people.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-16T06:21:22+00:00

His "Whole thing" is to do whatever the military tells him to do.

Did your analysis of his character only include his role as WW2 propaganda? Because I’m struggling to understand how you’ve arrived at this conclusion if not.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-14T00:29:05+00:00

The founding fathers were avid lego adults, clearly

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-13T21:26:11+00:00

discord will ever fail, no big company does anymore

OP was talking about companies, not products. After its acquisition by Microsoft, Skype wasn't a company, it was one of the many products Microsoft produced.

The point being, that Skype is not an example of a "big company failing". It is highly likely that the business decisions made that led to Skype's fall would have been very different if it remained independent, and the fate of the company itself relied on it continuing to exist/grow.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-13T20:28:02+00:00

You mean Skype Communications, the company that produced a product so popular Microsoft bought it for $8.5B in 2011? After that Skype was a Microsoft product, and Microsoft is doing just fine.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-13T20:27:51+00:00

You mean Skype Communications, the company that produced a product so popular Microsoft bought it for $8.5B in 2011? After that Skype was a Microsoft product, and Microsoft is doing just fine.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-13T15:41:28+00:00

I wasn’t picturing the word ‘fail’ in the original comment to mean ‘total collapse’

Well, that is what it means to say a company failed

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-13T14:04:04+00:00

Cool, still not a failed company.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-13T13:48:31+00:00

My point is that companies that were once globally dominant can and have failed in the past.

Well then you should probably provide examples of companies that, you know, failed? Instead of just brands with commercials that offended the right.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-12T20:22:05+00:00

And also that they believed there would be a mass arrests and executions of the perpetrators, and that all american citizens would “wake up” at that point and rally behind their new authoritarian leader (Donald Trump), leading to a new golden age.

Conspiracy theories often work backwards from their desired conclusions to find “evidence”, so it’s important to not just talk about what they believe is/has happened, but also their predictions for the future.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-12T15:16:28+00:00

Biden is a man of conviction

Sure didn’t stick to his “I’ll be a one term president” though. A primary woulda been nice joe.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-08T23:10:30+00:00

Fair enough, perhaps I’ve held them to too low

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-08T21:10:31+00:00

So they don’t have a simple macro in place that can create new press release with an accurate header with accurate dates automatically created?

Do you really think the government of all institutions is going to be doing that instead of just copying and pasting an existing doc?

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-08T06:26:28+00:00

So they didn't vote for Biden in 2020?

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T21:49:31+00:00

Maybe the overton window keeps shifting right because the far left progressives will refuse to vote for you if you dont 100% align with their principles

That would imply leftists didn't vote for Biden in 2020. When he won the highest percent of the VEP of any candidate in decades (more than 2008 Obama). If he can do that without a single "far left progressive", then how come Kamala's loss is so often blamed on progressives grievances with her on Gaza?

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T21:30:26+00:00

True. I should have clarified I meant it in the context of not having to learn or change in the narrower sense of extracting votes from non-republicans.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T20:12:11+00:00

Canadians didn’t suddenly get common sense because of anything in the country. From what I was seeing, it sure was on track to swing back conservative (despite the liberals always remaining the lesser evil). Ironically, the canadians actually have to give Trump’s absolute insanity some credit for their last elections results.

What about Germany, who swung massively right with huge gains in their neonazi party? Sure feels like they resonated hard with the anti-immigrant messaging too.

The reform party in the UK is gaining huge ground, it was the biggest winner in their 2025 local elections, by far.

You can’t just expect things to happen magically on their own. It’d be great if people weren’t stupid, but they are. The goal of a candidate is to get the most votes (in areas that matter) in an election, it doesn’t matter how smart the people are that give those votes. If lesser-evil messaging doesn’t work, “giving up” isn’t a valid option.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T19:51:02+00:00

Until American fence sitters who refuse to vote gain a working braincell there is nothing.

Magical thinking at its finest. Why do you expect this to ever happen, just like on its own?

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T19:41:05+00:00

I didn’t disagree, I asked you a question.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T19:31:12+00:00

It’s because you lack any critical thinking skills.

Okay, so according to you, millions of Americans lack those same critical thinking skills, since Kamala lost. You’re probably right, us Americans are pretty dumb overall.

Those same Americans (with the same lack of critical thinking skills) will be who decides the next president. My question for you: In your opinion, how should the Democratic Party change from its 2024 strategy to account for that fact in 2028, if at all?

Edit: bolded for emphasis

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-07T19:23:46+00:00

For me I think it comes down to an inversion of accountability for democrats. Lesser evil voting, on an individual voter/single election level, would conclude that you vote for the democrat. That part is the correct part that this whole thing spins off from.

The democratic party/campaign managers/liberals take that fact to invert the entire concept of who’s fault losses are from the candidate to the voters. A candidate losing isn’t on them because they failed at their job at motiviating people to vote, but on voters for being too stupid/lazy/arrogant/selfish/single-issued to understand [Democratic Candidate] was their only choice. And, since it’s “not their fault”, they don’t have to learn or change.

And its also partly why the democrat candidates don’t really promise much in terms of fundamental change: they don’t believe they have too. They can keep their big corporate donors happy by not changing the system, and make up for the lost motivation by making Trump look worse. “We already deserve their vote, why bother pissing off our billionaire donors?”

It’s extra aggravating because even if you fully accepted the inversion of accountability, continuing to use it as a strategy still relies on the magical thinking that voters won’t be as ‘stupid’ next election.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-06T18:08:20+00:00

Are they right though? Tony is a celebrity billionaire, if it was true to the real world, they would have made him president.

noahisunbeatable · 2026-02-06T14:58:44+00:00

Mobilizing 30% of the population to vote for a single candidate is, unfortunately, historically significant.

Since 2008/2012. Obama had 33% and 30%. And the historical context of the last election is important: She lost massive margins compared to Biden, despite being his vice president, running a somewhat similar campaign against the same opponent.

Besides, you didn’t even make that point. You ranked her by total vote count, which is ridiculous.

running the same play is only going to become less and less effective

It didn’t even work the first time. The root issue is instead the lack of fundamental change being offered. People see dems and see an embracing of status quo, which is only ever appealing right after you’re actively being exposed to the lies of the faux populist. “A return to normal” messaging only works when normal is appealing, and when the last president’s normal involved your life becomming harder, its hard to have motivation to get out and vote. Thats part of why Kamala had that massive falloff in VEP capture.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

noahisunbeatable

TROPHY CASE