How the Radical Left Dehumanizes the Right

Summary

In the video titled 'How the Radical Left Dehumanizes the Right,' creator Remnant777 discusses the tactics he believes are employed by the radical left to marginalize and vilify their right-wing counterparts. The video highlights how radical leftists are purportedly conditioning their audiences to refuse civil discourse with right-wing individuals, using dehumanizing language to isolate their followers and nurture hostility. Remnant777 explores various examples and argues that this behavior prevents genuine dialogue and understanding, warning viewers not to succumb to similar tactics themselves. The video concludes with a call for honest political engagement without resorting to divisive methods.

Highlights

• The video argues that dehumanizing rhetoric is not aimed at persuading the opponent but rather at hardening the resolve of one's supporters. 👥
• Both left and right are shown to use similar tactics to paint their opponents as evil, highlighting a cycle of dehumanization. 🔄
• Remnant777 stresses the importance of maintaining open channels of communication to avoid further polarization. 📞
• There is a significant focus on how language is used to radicalize rather than engage in constructive dialogue. 🗣️
• The creator calls for a return to debate and understanding, suggesting that current tactics are leading to societal division. 🕊️

Key Takeaways

• Radical leftists allegedly aim to isolate and radicalize their audience instead of fostering civil discourse. 🎯
• Dehumanizing language is used as a tool to prevent meaningful conversations between opposing viewpoints. 🗨️
• Remnant777 encourages viewers to seek honest political engagement without falling into divisive tactics themselves. 🤝
• Examples of how both sides employ similar strategies to dehumanize their opponents are discussed. 🔄
• The call for revolution over discussion highlights a shift in political strategy, according to the video. 📣

Overview

In 'How the Radical Left Dehumanizes the Right,' Remnant777 dives into the contentious waters of political rhetoric, presenting a case that radical leftists use divisive language to polarize their followers against right-wing individuals. He asserts that by labeling right-wingers as irredeemable and evil, these leftists prevent genuine dialogue and create an atmosphere of hostility and misunderstanding.

Remnant777 explores instances where both the radical left and right employ dehumanizing language to stigmatize their opponents, suggesting that this is a common tactic employed across the political spectrum. The video stresses that such strategies only serve to deepen divides and eschew potential understanding and progress.

Ultimately, Remnant777 advocates for a more honest and open political discourse, urging viewers to avoid the temptation of vilifying the opposition in a similar manner. He emphasizes the significance of fostering respectful conversations and pursuing political change through transparent and fair means.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Opening and Introduction The chapter opens with a provocative statement accusing someone of being a horrible person who deserves insults and attacks rather than civil conversation. This opening serves to set up a discussion about the confusion and the narrator's love of debates, regardless of political orientation. The narrator expresses puzzlement over such accusations and defends the stance of valuing respectful discourse.
• 00:30 - 03:00: The Purpose of Insults and Radicalization The chapter discusses the futility of insults and personal attacks in convincing others of a viewpoint. The author reflects on the purpose of such behavior and concludes that it is not aimed at persuading the accused but rather at radicalizing those who already share the accuser's beliefs. The chapter suggests that insults serve to reinforce group identity and cohesion among like-minded individuals, rather than encouraging open and respectful dialogue.
• 03:00 - 05:00: Examples and Implications of Dehumanization In this chapter, the conversation revolves around the concept of dehumanization, particularly in media commentary and social discourse. It highlights how some commentators focus on polarizing and radicalizing their audience rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. An example is given where a commentator insults women by calling them useless and weak, using a minimal weight difference as a justification for why women can't serve in the military. This is shown to be an example of arguing in bad faith, which contributes to dehumanization by undermining respectful and constructive conversations.
• 05:00 - 09:00: The Role of Fascism and Communism in the Narrative In this chapter, the role of fascism and communism is explored within the broader narrative, particularly in the context of political discourse. The text highlights how political sides dehumanize one another, focusing specifically on how the radical left might view and criticize the right. It suggests that these criticisms often involve portraying the opposition as unreasonable or evil, making meaningful dialogue challenging. Examples are mentioned to bridge understanding across political divides. The narrative ultimately aims to analyze the polarizing effects that political labels such as fascism and communism have on communication and perception among different ideologies.
• 09:00 - 12:00: The Hypocrisy of Certain Left-wing Figures The chapter discusses the issues of extreme rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum, particularly highlighting how some statements are designed not to persuade but to silence opposition. It points out the dangers of polarizing tactics that discourage communication and discourse. The chapter implies criticism towards certain left-wing figures for employing such strategies, possibly leading to increased isolation among differing groups.
• 12:00 - 17:30: Fear of Opposing Ideas and Control of Narrative This chapter delves into the dynamics of conversations where opposing ideas are met with extreme, unfounded accusations, rather than constructive engagement. It uses a hypothetical dialogue about pro-choice advocates to illustrate how individuals promoting women's rights are sometimes wrongly labeled as promoting harmful ideologies. This serves to show the fear and polarized nature of current discourse, where narratives are often controlled by those who divert genuine discussion into emotional or moral attacks.
• 17:30 - 19:30: The Danger of Radicalization and the Call for Honest Dialogue This chapter examines the challenges and dangers of radicalization on both sides of the political spectrum. It discusses how extreme beliefs can prevent meaningful dialogue between opposing groups. The chapter points out that the portrayal of individuals with differing opinions as extreme or evil can hinder understanding and communication. The author emphasizes that such narrative tactics are meant to eliminate dialogue and exacerbate division, rather than foster a productive exchange of ideas. This is highlighted by the example of the 'Satanist' label placed on those who are pro-choice, which is identified as an extreme mischaracterization. The chapter calls for a more honest dialogue that acknowledges the diversity of beliefs without resorting to demonization.
• 19:30 - 20:00: Conclusion and Final Thoughts This chapter discusses the current state of American politics, highlighting a strategy used to radicalize audiences. It mentions that the goal is to push audiences away from open communication with opposing viewpoints, promoting a more revolutionary mindset instead of encouraging critical thinking. The author breaks down the typical thought process of radical leftists, beginning with the notion that Nazis are bad because of their historical atrocities.

How the Radical Left Dehumanizes the Right Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 You are a horrible person. You deserve to be insulted and attacked. You are not deserving of a civil conversation. This always confused me because I love debates. I love listening to debates online, whether that be from left-wing people or right-wing people or simply when I watch left-wing commentators. And when I hear somebody say this, it always puzzled me. Why would you say this? You're a horrible, evil person. You don't deserve common respect or courtesy. and I'm not going to entertain a conversation with you.
• 00:30 - 01:00 You're not going to convince anybody when you're accusing them of something that they don't believe and that is obviously untrue and you're just calling them evil and you're attacking them. You're just insulting them. What do you hope to gain from this? And I thought about this for weeks on end. It bugged me to no end. But I figured it out. And unfortunately, I came to a very grim conclusion. You see, those statements, you're not worthy of respect or courtesy. We cannot have a civil conversation. None of that is designed to persuade you. It's designed to radicalize the people who already agree
• 01:00 - 01:30 with them. If you had two commentators and they're discussing and they're talking things out and one of them says that to the other, their goal is no longer to talk things out with you. Their goal is to simply radicalize, polarize, and isolate their own audience. Going to argue in good faith with you. I'm not You're not arguing in good faith at all. You're over here insulting women, saying they're useless and weak, and then saying the difference of five pounds is going to make it so a woman can't be in the military. You're one of
• 01:30 - 02:00 the most embarrassing, pathetic pieces of [ __ ] that I've ever encountered. Why are you so mad? Because you are pathetic. It's to paint the other person as an evil human being that cannot be talked to or reasoned to. This video is designed for people who are right-wing. Title obviously says how the radical left dehumanizes people on the right. But for people who are left twin who just so happen to click on this video, I'm going to try and give examples that you can also relate to and understand. If you had two people and one person said, "I care about these kids who claim to be trans, but I don't think they're trans. I think that they're simply
• 02:00 - 02:30 confused. I think that they need to get some help." And the other side simply says, "You want trans kids to die? You hates them because he said those things." He's not aiming to convince that person. That's not going to convince him. The right-wing person doesn't believe any of those claims that are being made against him. The sole purpose of those statements are to make it so that people no longer interact with or communicate with people who make those claims. It kills discourse because you can better isolate people and polarize people if they no longer communicate. And for my leftwing audience, let me give you a right-wing
• 02:30 - 03:00 example so that you can relate to this. If you're talking to a person and you say you're pro-choice, you say, "I'm in favor of women's rights. I want them to have access to women's healthcare. It protects women and it also gives them freedom." Imagine you said those things and the other person instead of engaging with anything you said, they simply claim against you. Actually, you're a Satanist. You simply want to sacrifice babies to Moolak or Satan. You're a Satanist right now. You hate life. You want to kill innocent babies. That's all you want at the end of the day. You just hate
• 03:00 - 03:30 babies. How can you talk to or communicate with a person like that? People on the right, if they truly believe those things, how could they possibly ever have a rational conversation with you? They can't. You're an evil Satanist. we can't talk to you. And it basically has the exact same effect. It's intended to have that exact same effect, but for the other side. Especially considering you don't believe any of those things. I guarantee 99% of my audience who's pro-choice, they're probably not Satanists who want to sacrifice babies to Moolok. Okay, can we agree on that? I think so. Yet, I'm
• 03:30 - 04:00 sure this is not the first time you've heard that talking point, right? That's what's happening in American politics today. And the exact purpose behind this is so that they can radicalize their own audience because that pushes them away from honest open communication with the other side and pushes them towards taking action. We need revolutionaries. We don't need people who can think and I've broken it down to what literally every radical leftist does in our train of thought. We start off with Nazi. Nazis are bad because they killed
• 04:00 - 04:30 innocent people. They killed quite a few if you know anything about history. And we don't talk to Nazis. Instead, we should make them feel uncomfortable. In fact, good people will do bad things to Nazis. We're supposed to punch Nazis. But you know what Nazis are also? They're fascists. Nazis are fascists. But what is fascism, you may ask? Well, we're not really going to specify that. We're going to leave it nice and vague because we're simply going to talk about what fascism means to me. And what fascism means to me is simply whatever I
• 04:30 - 05:00 disagree with that infringes on my freedoms and rights. If you disagree with women's rights to abort children, you're a fascist. If you disagree with trans rights to mutilate themselves, you're a fascist. That's how their train of thought goes. And who exactly is fascist again? Literally everybody who voted for Trump. Half of the American population. That is fascist. But wait, if you're fascist, that means you're a Nazi. And if you're a Nazi, it's good if bad things happen to you. You see what I'm getting at? These are the mental
• 05:00 - 05:30 gymnastics they go through in order to justify violence against you. These people literally have more sympathy for child, murderers, abers, and than people who vote rightwing. And again, I want to make it clear. I literally have nothing against people who are leftwing. I enjoy talking to them. I think they're fun people. We disagree on practically everything, but I still like them. I still can be friends with them. I don't have a problem with people who are leftwing. I want to clarify that we are simply exploring the radical left which
• 05:30 - 06:00 is becoming much more prominent these days. Yet take note of this. They don't overtly condone violence. They don't. That would get them banned off of YouTube or worse, they could possibly be imprisoned because that's illegal. And the left is not known for being brave, mind you. Instead, they like to play it safe. If somebody they disagree with dies, they don't condemn it. They don't care. In fact, they're going to laugh at it. That's all they can do. That's as close to the edge they're willing to go. Cory Comparator was a horrible person. Dying for your child does not mean that you love them or take good care of them.
• 06:00 - 06:30 Uh the Trump supporter that died was a lunatic. He was most likely a fascist. And I mean he was at a Trump rally, man. What do you expect? Like he probably wanted trans people to die. When a Trump supporter dies, who cares? He probably was a fascist. In fact, let's laugh at him. Let's dance on his grave. After all, you shouldn't be made to feel safe. His son, for example, he overtly hates white Christians. He hates us so much that he flat out admits it would be better if they got raped than other groups. Henry College is like doing one
• 06:30 - 07:00 good thing, which is that like if you have these millionaire, billionaire, Wasp, fail sons, um, at least taking them out of other colleges so they can only do day to other billionaire millionaire failed daughters is like in some respects a little bit better. So, let's recap. It's not only better for us to be. They also don't care when we die. They also get pleasure out of it. They'll laugh on your grave because you deserve it. After all, you have an evil ideology and there's no possible way
• 07:00 - 07:30 that you could believe those things and not be evil deserving of death. Do you still not believe me when I say those things? You're going to. Not only do they laugh when we die, but Hassan openly admits that people should landlords. Well, my understanding is that the property owners who have properties there choose just not to rent it at all. Yeah, kill those [ __ ] in a video game. Sorry. Holy [ __ ] Those [ __ ] in the street. Let the streets Let the streets soak in their [ __ ] red capitalist bloods, dude. Oh my god. In a video
• 07:30 - 08:00 game, of course. Because he's a communist. He's a cryptocommunist. But Hassan, he's not a man of principles. He doesn't care about morality, especially when it comes to telling the truth. Being honest is a disadvantage to these people. Now instead, he needs to spread the good holy Marxist spirit, even to landlords podcasts where he shares his beliefs. And he does not hesitate to lie to their face about what socialism is. It it is about equity instead of equality. That's what people misunderstand about socialism. It is not
• 08:00 - 08:30 about equity instead of equality at all. We don't have material equality as a baseline in this country. We don't have that at all. I'm advocating for a baseline of material equality and I'm advocating for better worker protections, better worker rights and more and less alienation. That's all a lie. That's aing lie. What he's talking about can happen in a capitalist system and it is explicitly not what socialism is about. It's not about materially equal conditions. That's called welfare or redistribution which capitalism can
• 08:30 - 09:00 do. Right? You are talking specifically about getting rid of or eliminating the profit or at the very least redirecting the profit to workers. You want to destroy private ownership because owners that don't work shouldn't be collecting money off of people that do. That's fundamentally what your belief system is. And that's not even like this is what Marxist believe. This is what you believe. You said this on stream. His idea of socialism is what Republicans called socialism in 2005. Socialism is when you pay your taxes. They socialism is just when government does more stuff, not at all when we execute you. Keep in
• 09:00 - 09:30 mind, this guy's channel is literally dedicated to teaching people how to become landlords and to become millionaires. He actively teaches people to become the things Hassan hates and advocates for the death of those people. Yet, he's perfectly fine sitting down having a cup of coffee with these people as long as it means getting the good message out there. Because again, these aren't men of principles. You call it selling out your principles. I call it [ __ ] winning. And that's my principle. To win as a socialist, not to
• 09:30 - 10:00 lose as a socialist. That's not my principle. I don't give a about principled failure. Principled failure is worth dog [ __ ] These people don't care about truth. They want power. They only care about winning in their own words. And being a man of principles means you got to tell the truth at least, right? But that only holds you back because these people, they're not honest with you about what they believe. you have to advocate for a much lighter form of uh propaganda if you want America in the way that I feel about it
• 10:00 - 10:30 and if you want America to get out of the way for uh places with more revolutionary potential to do what they would normally do. I think that one thing you have to do is is is advocate for uh a a lighter form while simultaneously still doing agitated propaganda that goes beyond uh you know social democratic idea. That's what these leftists are taught to do. That's what they actively do. They don't reveal fully what they believe. No, we got to water it down first. Make it easier for people to digest. We water down the
• 10:30 - 11:00 information so that they can be set on the right path of radicalization, which should be really concerning for you, even if you're a centrist. Because if this is the watered down message where they think it's better for you to be and they don't care when you die, what do they really believe? I mean, this is what they're totally fine openly admitting and showing to people. They have no problem with this. This is not the most radical part of their message. It's not just, "Haha, it'd be funny if you die." It's they want you dead. They're actively working towards that goal. Look at what they're doing.
• 11:00 - 11:30 They're proactively taking steps to make their own audiences not communicate with people who disagree with them. They're supposed to be rude, disrespectful, simply call you a Nazi and an evil person, and call it a day. We can't talk to these evil subhumans because at the end of the day, this is language designed to dehumanize you. You're no longer a person who simply has different views or opinions on what's best for the world. No, you just are evil and you hate people. No longer do you simply believe that, hey, I think abortion is murder. I value the life of a child. No,
• 11:30 - 12:00 it's you hate women. That's what these people unironically believe. If you think that transitioning children is wrong, you want trans kids to die. If you're against welfare and you think that's wasteful spending and there are better ways to help the homeless, no, you just hate the homeless and you want them to suffer. That is what these radical leftists unironically believe about the right verbatim. It's because they're not even just leftwing because a left-wing person, maybe they have the ability to interact and talk to people on the right. Hey, they understand that we don't agree, but we both want what's best for the world. Not a radical
• 12:00 - 12:30 leftist, though. No, they don't talk to you because their own audience decided to isolate you from them. They want them to hate you because if they hate you, it's going to be a lot easier to lead a revolution where they execute you. They make it a point to sympathize and empathize with criminals. Murderers more than you. Which side is in favor of the death penalty? Not the left. They think that murderers, they're simply disturbed or unwell human beings. No. People who actually murder, they're not evil. We
• 12:30 - 13:00 got to help them. We must advocate for rehabilitation for these people. Unless you say the N word. No. If you say the N word, you're actually just a horrible evil person. And there's no possible reason for it other than you're just evil. For the we got to extend sympathy and empathy. For the racist, none is given. No. When it comes to Shiloh, because she said the n-word, they justify doing horrible evil things to her. If you say the n-word, it is good to dox you, to steal your social security number, to swat you, to harass you, to try and ruin your life, to try
• 13:00 - 13:30 and get you fired from your job so that you can't feed your children because she's racist just like all white people are racist according to them. Because remember, being killed is a good thing in these people's eyes. That's what they believe. If there was a situation where a woman, she was being murdered by a man and that woman just so happened to call him the n-word right before she died, people would say she deserved it. In fact, people would be happy it happened to her. That's how these people's moral compasses operate. Look at these videos. Keep in mind, she literally just said
• 13:30 - 14:00 the n-word, and this is what they have to say for her. My mama would have went to that house, knocked on her door, dragged her by that skinny little blonde ponytail, and turned her every which way but loose, and then she'll be like, "Go get my bail money." I feel like it is time for us to start turning the other cheek. And I mean their cheek, not our cheek. Okay. I think it's time for us to start showing them who the we are. And the fact that you did that when that little boy's parents were not around, they were not present. What kind of person are you behind closed doors? Like
• 14:00 - 14:30 I'm fearful of your children and I hope that they get removed from your care. That lady Shiloh Hendris, whatever the name is. People like her, they deserve a bullet. They really do. Ooh, theinging way I would have rearranged that [ __ ] face if I was in front of her. But I hope and pray that they find your location. And I hope they dog walk your stupid ass. And when you good and gone, I hope somebody finds your grave and piss on that [ __ ] Again, these people
• 14:30 - 15:00 think that if you say one word, you deserve to be raped and murdered. When it happens to you, they will be happy and gleeful. They hate you. And look, this is negative information. Really negative topic for this video. But I'm only saying this because I truly believe that this is the case. I'm never this strong or stern with what I say. And the only reason why I'm saying it right now is it's because it's the truth. And you need to hear this. These people are trying to polarize their audiences so that they hate you more and they're more
• 15:00 - 15:30 willing to do evil things against you. Because again, when they call you an evil monster that doesn't deserve courtesy or respect, it's not to change your mind. It's to isolate their own audience and to radicalize their own side, which is really ironic if you think about it. This is the side of quote unquote democracy. But the reason why they want to isolate their own audience and to radicalize them is because they are genuinely fearful that if they heard the other side, they would be convinced and leave them. Like cancelling these people or preventing them from showing up and pushing their
• 15:30 - 16:00 message when most people don't have the ability to like push back. I think that does more good than it does harm. Nobody knows how to handle that. And I wish I wish they did. I feel like that's very idealized. But yeah, but this what we're at college. This is a place for ideals, right? Don't you all have dreams? You guys aren't old enough to have your hopes and dreams crushed [ __ ] You should still be idealistic, right? Used to be the opposite. I used to feel like, oh yeah, we should have every idea bad or good on the marketplace and then people should debate it and bad ideas will fall to the bottom. Good ideas will come to the top. But instead, we had
• 16:00 - 16:30 like four years of like half the population of America and that's paring what Trump said on Twitter. If their own audience could think for themselves, if their own audience was genuinely exposed to the other side, they wouldn't be a radical leftist. They fear this. They don't trust honest discourse. If you could actually have an honest conversation with a Nazi, as they say it, they genuinely fear you would become one of them. It's very funny. They're not in favor of having a democracy that is actually informed on what the other
• 16:30 - 17:00 side thinks. No, no, no. We must have a democracy that is controlled with isolated followers who are radicalized and only know to hate the people that they disagree with. Democracy where you only know one thing. Democracy where you can't hear the other side out. democracy where you only know to hate. I mean, look at the Ethan Klein situation. Ethan Klein is your standard lefty. He engages in all of the left-wing talking points, but he only disagrees slightly with the Israel and Palestine situation. He doesn't even deny 90% of their talking
• 17:00 - 17:30 points when it comes to Palestine. Yet, they still hate them. They hate him so much that they literally called child protective services on him. The same guy that says that Steven Crowder is a right-wing extremist. That's how left-wing he is. Yet, they still hate his guts. They hate him and his family. They want the worst for him. If his family got raped and murdered, they would be happy. And they make that clear with their words and their actions. And if they want to do that with Ethan Klein, who's practically identical to
• 17:30 - 18:00 them, what does that say about you, if you're even a centrist? In most revolutions and purges, even the people who are the strongest advocates of that movement, tend to fall to the guillotine themselves. Because after all, if anybody disagrees with them, they're a fascist. And fascists are evil Nazis. And we don't respect or show common courtesy to Nazis. We don't even talk to them. Which means not only will they remain silent when violence happens against you, no, no, no, no. They're going to enjoy it. That's what they're looking forward to. So, at this point,
• 18:00 - 18:30 if they call you a sexist, homophobe, racist, whatever, who cares? They're going to anyways. They don't want to engage in logic and reason because they're afraid of it. That's why they isolate their followers. That's why they're polarizing people. They're fearful of real conversations. Yet, I want to make this clear. The point of this video is not to make you feel the exact same way towards them. Don't fall into the exact same trap. This video is not created with the purpose to isolate people, to polarize them, to kill conversations. No, I think those things are really important. And we need to
• 18:30 - 19:00 call this out for what it is. That's what you need to do. Call out what they're doing. They're radicalizing their own audiences, and this is how they're doing it. You need to understand this. I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking or gaining political power. That's what we should do, but I don't think you should do it through dishonest means. There's absolutely nothing wrong with voting in the laws and principles that you hold into this country, especially as a Christian. They hate you, and they view you as this cartoonish villain. Don't fall down that same path yourself. Do what is right.
• 19:00 - 19:30 And that is it for this video. I really hope you enjoyed it. And if you enjoyed this, be sure to like and subscribe. And as always, have a good