Category Archives: Culture War

Is Starbucks Ditching Pride Decor?

Leave a reply

Pride month isn’t halfway over yet, and we’re getting news of yet another corporation that’s ending the rainbow-colored festivities early, if Starbucks Workers United is to be believed.

Yes, Starbucks. As in, the company that’s in a race with Dunkin to make the most overpriced sugary coffee that adds something like 300 calories to your to your daily tally.

Apparently, Starbucks locations, particularly unionized stores, are taking down pride decorations in an apparent effort to avoid controversy. As you could probably imagine, the professional victims are not taking it well.

Now, if this turns out to be the case, one might imagine that I’d be up for rewarding them with a few purchases for making the decision to ditch cynical activism and pivoting to profit. But Starbucks still comes off as hella shady.

The fact is, coffee is one of the least expensive beverages that one can make from home. So, why spend a few bucks on a cup from Starbucks?

What’s more, Starbucks is typically in a Target store. And even putting aside Target’s current controversy, shitty public image, and that they overcharge for low-quality merchandise, the fact is, a caffeine high makes a person prone to spending more money. When you know that, you see putting a Starbucks in the front of a Target as shady AF.

For a long while, it seemed like corporate entities were powerless to resist the power brokers of the banking cartels which have been pushing ESG and DEI in an effort to force behaviors. But as the Bud Light effect and the Target effect have proven, the consumers actually do have power. And if the people decide that they’re sick of the bullshit, they’ll just take their money elsewhere, and a higher ESG score won’t be enough to keep mega-corporations afloat.

Before we get too carried away, Starbucks corporate have denied banning pride decorations:

In a statement, a spokesperson for Starbucks told Newsweek that “We unwaveringly support the LGBTQIA2+ community. There has been no change to any policy on this matter and we continue to encourage our store leaders to celebrate with their communities including for U.S. Pride month in June.

“We’re deeply concerned by false information that is being spread especially as it relates to our inclusive store environments, our company culture, and the benefits we offer our partners. Starbucks has a history that includes more than four decades of recognizing and celebrating our diverse partners and customers – including year-round support for the LGBTQIA2+ community,” the statement said.

Wow, that alphabet slop acronym gets longer and more jumbled as a function of time. It’s almost looking like a password that would make the NSA proud!

I suppose we’ll find out with time just how much sway the union has over the Starbucks brand, or whether we’ve been fed misinformation (that falsehoods come from the professionally offended must be taken into account). If true, then we might instead find out just how much sway Starbucks corporate has over unionized stores. The nature of the relationship between Starbucks corporate and unions I profess I don’t understand.

One bit of advice that I can give to Starbucks (as though they’ll listen) is to not pick any unnecessary fights, and play it safe by getting out of culture war battles, and staying out. Especially if joining would mean siding with fringe groups at the expense of the majority.

After all, straight people drink coffee, too.

Pro-LGBT Church Struck By Lightning, Goes Down In Flames

Leave a reply

Just last week, a pro-LGBT church in Boston was struck by lightning, and subsequently burned down!

Now, if someone bases their faith on the words of the Bible, it should be plain to them that the Bible does not speak of homosexuality in a favorable light. In spite of this, there has been an increase in the number of churches that have been welcoming of those in the LGBT community.

If someone’s perspective of their religion is Biblical, they might come to the conclusion that the Boston church has been struck by lightning in an act of divine intervention, due to the popular idea that those who do wickedly enough might be struck by lightning.

It was nearly two years ago that a similar occurrence had taken place when lightning struck a George Floyd mural in mostly clear skies, avoiding the telephone poles, street lamps, and taller buildings to go right for a mural made of brick, and apparently directly struck the image of George Floyd’s face!

This occurred after months of riots over the death of the drug addict who was slain by a police officer, and many spoke of Floyd in a way that elevated him to the status of an idol.

I know that some folk might write these occurrences off as coincidences. And, to be fair, sometimes lightning strikes. But sometimes, lightning strikes in such a way that might inspire pause for thought.

Perhaps it’s time for certain people who claim to be Christian to reevaluate what they stand for, and think about just how well their church holds up to Biblical standards.

Target Hiding LGBT+ Outfits Out Of Fear Of Backlash

1 Reply

Legacy media doesn’t want you to know that the boycott of Bud Light is having a drastic impact on the brand. This is because they don’t want you to know that you have the power to make a difference, and that you can influence culture.

It would seem the ripple effect of the boycott is extending well outside of Anheuser Busch, as Target is now taking measures to hide pride-themed merchandise in fear of backlash. This news comes after conservative commentator Matt Walsh called for a boycott of Target in consideration of their “tuck friendly” swimwear, and other merchandise targeting cross-dressers.

It would appear as though Anheuser Busch has proven to be quite the head-on-a-stick.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t think the threat of a boycott against Target would get much of anywhere. Personally, I seldom set foot inside of Target. There isn’t much to Target besides a pseudo-vaporwave vibe, and the opportunity to pay way too much for low-quality merchandise. Pride-themed merchandise isn’t really much of anything new for Target, but it’s still strange how in-your-face they are with their endorsement of the various flavors of sexual deviancy, considering that such merchandise would only appeal to less than 2% of the population.

I don’t claim to understand the logistics behind appealing to just a few on the fringe for the sake of an ESG score while running the risk of alienating nearly everyone else. But then again, I’m in a business that actually produces value, rather than grifts by manipulating the value produced by other people.

It’s mainly stores in the southern states where Target is hiding its pride-themed merchandise, so if you live in the north and still see pride-merch, that goes to show how little Target thinks of your values. Think that assessment is too harsh? You probably didn’t know that Target hired a Satanist clothing designer to design their pro-LGBT clothing line.

What Anheuser Busch should have known is what Target may end up learning the hard way: Most people don’t like when their sexuality is questioned. Therefore, if your brand can cause someone’s sexuality to be questioned, then people will be more likely to avoid your brand. Currently, men don’t want to be seen drinking or even purchasing Bud Light. It’s gotten to the point that the mere thought of drinking Bud Light disgusts them. In the same way, if people were to start viewing Target as a “gay store”, that would be a disaster for Target.

Sure, the cheap seats might view such thinking as “bigoted” and “close-minded”. But the fact of the matter is, sexuality plays a significant factor in people’s thinking. And that thinking is going to continue to play a role in the backlash phase of the woke ideology, before the woke ideology takes its rightful place in the dumpster of bad ideologies that have been tested and failed.

Hey WaPo, Do You See What I See?

Leave a reply

The Washington Post has published an article acknowledging the results of a poll that shows that 57% of Americans favor the GOP’s general policy positions regarding the trans agenda, favoring their work to protect children from the transgender ideology that is being foisted upon them from multiple sources.

As you might expect, their article is still teeming with buzz-words used in the typical leftist word salad. So, if this article represents a pivot on WaPo’s part to reconcile with America’s moral majority, it’s a slow pivot.

But slow progress is still progress, even if we’d prefer that it accelerate.

An old expression among journalists is to “side with your audience”, which implies that if any bias is expressed, it would preferably be the bias of the publication’s expected audience. It would seem as though WaPo has just learned something about their own audience. The poll they cite would be a Washington Post-KFF poll, so it might be accurate to say that the results would represent the views of their audience, which I would have imagined to have been left-wing enough to tolerate their historical bias. Considering that, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a greater percentage of Americans would side against the trans agenda than what would be represented by the poll.

According to the article:

Most Americans don’t believe it’s even possible to be a gender that differs from that assigned at birth. A 57 percent majority of adults said a person’s gender is determined from the start, with 43 percent saying it can differ.

For one thing, the use of the phrase “assigned at birth” suggests that a person’s gender is arbitrary decided upon by the delivering doctor, as though it were a determination that would be independent of the reality of a person’s biological sex. The fact is, most people view a person’s gender as a communication of their biological sex, and therefore, if a doctor determines an infant’s gender in a manner inconsistent with their biological sex, then that doctor is incorrect.

The fact is, a biological sex is a reality, which exists independent of anyone’s perception of it, and a person’s gender is an intellectual expression of the reality of the matter. If the expression is inconsistent with the reality, the expression would be incorrect. This is how most people view the reality of gender and sex. If WaPo intends to side with their audience going forward, they would do better to express this understanding.

And some Americans have become more conservative on these questions as Republicans have seized the issue and worked to promote new restrictions. The Pew Research Center found 60 percent last year saying one’s gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth, up from 54 percent in 2017. Even among young adults, who are the most accepting of trans identity, about half said in the Post-KFF poll that a person’s gender is determined by their sex at birth.

A six-percent jump is pretty significant, especially in just a few years, and indicates that public sentiment is shifting drastically against the trans agenda. As one might expect, Pew’s poll showed a greater majority than the Post-KFF poll, which indicates that there’s still a divide between WaPo’s typical readership and the general population.

Of course, this indicates that there’s a greater potential readership to be had for WaPo if they were to side with the majority in this regard.

In a step in the right direction, WaPo presented a viewpoint critical of the trans agenda who had recently changed her mind. According to the article, behavioral therapist Alyssa Wells had the following to say:

“At first I was on the side of acceptance, like using the pronouns and stuff, because I want people to be kind to each other. I don’t want people fighting all the time,” she said. But she has come to see things differently. “My concern with transgender is mostly with the children.”

She has a lot more to say, and I recommend reading the article to see what else she has to say. But she brings up a solid point when she points out that, considering the legal ages for voting, drinking, and smoking, children are too young to be making choices that could permanently change their bodies.

Considering the fact that the human brain is not fully developed until about the age of 25, the case can be made for 25 bring the legal age for many things, such as voting and drinking. I wouldn’t want public policy determined by people whose brains are not fully developed. What’s more, it’s not reasonable to expect a person with an underdeveloped brain to fully comprehend life-altering decisions.

And, while we’re at it, can we just let children be innocent? If someone’s age consists of a single digit, they are way too young to be gaslit and misled about sex, gender, and sexuality.

One of the big unanswerable questions is whether public opinion around transgender issues will shift over time as it did around gay and lesbian rights. Some experts see parallels between the two issues, particularly as conservatives center their efforts on children and schools. Early backlash against gay people also focused on allegations that children would be harmed.

“Some experts” is one of my favorite phrases in journalism, up there with “industry analysts” among game journos. It’s a phrase that’s used to make an opinion appear to be a product of careful deliberation by educated professionals, when there are few to no scholarly examples to cite.

It’s obvious what’s going on, and this is different from the issues surrounding gay and lesbian rights. As more people are learning more about what’s going on, more people are turning against the trans agenda. Especially considering that children actually are being harmed.

People without children of their own might not be fully able to comprehend this, but when you mess with people’s children, that pisses them off.

Continuing, the article points out that more than 6 in 10 adults oppose biological men exploiting the trans movement to enjoy easy, slam-dunk victories over biological women in women’s sports. From that point, it has this to say:

In that vein, 21 states have passed laws that bar transgender athletes from participating in sports that do not match their sex assigned at birth, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a research group that supports LGBTQ rights.

It’s pretty much W after W for those opposing the trans insanity, and this article doesn’t even bother to deny it. Whether grudgingly or not, it seems like WaPo isn’t doing much to obfuscate the reality of the matter.

For the rest of the article, it’s basically the same: most oppose so-called “gender-affirming care” directed at children, by about 6 or 7 to 10. The rest are likely intellectual dead-ends who are suckered by buzzwords and newspeak. When it comes to discussing trans identity topics with children, 3 out of 4 are opposed. As for the remaining fourth, it’s probably nuanced, but I’d rather keep children away from them, to be safe.

It’s fascinating to see a biased outlet like Washington Post come out with so much data that goes against a typical left-wing talking point. But considering the overwhelming and increasing opposition to the trans agenda that this data represents, it would have been hard to altogether ignore.

Is this article evidence that WaPo is having a change in heart, and is starting to side with the moral majority over the banking cartels? Perhaps, though it’s also possible that they’re just grudgingly presenting data points from a study they were involved in. But in any case, it does express that they are at least cognizant of public sentiment on the topic of the trans agenda, which is solidifying against it as more about it is known.

Anheuser-Busch Finally Distances Themselves From Dylan Mulvaney (Too Little, Too Late?)

Leave a reply

The entire debacle started on April 1st, when TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney showed off a special can of Bud Light, sent to him in celebration of his “365 Days of Girlhood”. Because of the timing, many suspected that it was just an April Fools joke.

But as time went on, it became clear that the marketing partnership was sincere. And the result was perhaps the most effective boycott of all time, the full effects of which still remain to be seen.

Now, over a month after the initial video, in a meeting with investors, Anheuser-Busch finally begin to distance themselves from Dylan Mulvaney:

Most of corporate media has been downplaying the boycott for weeks. They want you to believe that it hasn’t been having an effect. This is because they don’t want you to know that you have power, and that you can make a difference. Sure, they have no problem with making people think that they can effect change when they can be influenced into furthering their pet causes. But when you’re furthering traditional values and non-establishment causes? That’s the kind of power that they don’t want you to know you have.

From Fox News:

Anheuser-Busch CEO Michel Doukeris addressed the Bud Light controversy on an earnings call with investors Thursday, downplaying the brand’s partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney that prompted a boycott from conservatives. 

Doukeris told investors there is “misinformation” spreading on social media about the company’s team-up with Mulvaney. 

“We need to clarify the facts that this was one can, one influencer, one post and not a campaign,” Doukeris said. 

According to Michel Doukeris, the “partnership” was only intended to involve that one video, and that one can, only one of which was made, and was only sent to one guy.

By the way, that can is going to end up becoming one hell of a piece of beer memorabilia. After all, that can with Dylan Mulvaney’s face is the can of beer that ended up costing a beer empire billions of dollars, and may even end up costing it it’s long-held spot as the number one beer company.

Anheuser-Busch did claim positive growth for the first quarter of this year. However, the boycott didn’t begin until early in April, when the second quarter would have begun. So the true extent of the damage of the boycott remains to be seen.

As I see it, the damage from the marketing stunt could end up costing Anheuser-Busch for years to come. The image of the Bud Light brand has been damaged, perhaps permanently.

Speaking for myself, I don’t drink beer very often. I’m something of a fitness enthusiast, counting calories and working out, and spending oodles of money on protein shakes. As I see it, a beer is a fun thing to drink once in a great while. But as far as fitness goals are concerned, they’re almost absolutely worthless.

Why do I put so much effort into physical fitness? There are many reasons. One of them has to do with image. I know that some consider it vain to put a lot of effort into image. But when it comes down to it, image does matter. It’s an outward sign of one’s virtues.

So then, if a person puts a lot of effort into being a manly man (and it does take a lot of effort), why would a person destroy their image by doing something completely counterproductive, such as drinking a beer with a bad reputation?

But the thing is, I’m not terribly consequential as far as beer marketing is concerned. After all, I’m just a guy who has one once in a while. The people who are the real gold mines as far as beer companies see it would be the people who frequently buy cases of the stuff, and drink a few cans a day.

But those people don’t want to drink Bud Light, either. And the reason why is because image matters to them, too. The typical beer drinker is usually a man, aged from around 21 to as late in life as they can get away with drinking the stuff. And the thing is, they don’t want to be seen as effeminate, or be teased over their choice of beer. And, as it so happens, Bud Light is infamous for being sponsored by an effeminate man who became famous for pretending to be a woman.

But that’s not all there is to it. The fact is, beer drinkers are pissed, because since the controversy got started, a video of Anheuser-Busch marketing VP Alissa Heinerschied surfaced, claiming that she had a “clear mandate” to replace Bud Light’s current base, which she described as being “fratty” and “out of touch”. (Also surfacing was her old college photos, doing fratty shit like drinking out of a rubber. Classy.)

Obviously, this is scandalous. Any fanbase would be pissed if they heard an official representative candidly stating their disdain for that same fanbase, coupled with a desire to replace them with a different fanbase. What she said could be reduced to, “Screw our current customers, I’d rather we had some different customers.”

Of course, there’s another problem with the fact that she wanted to market to younger people. Dylan Mulvaney is a TikTok influencer, and the typical TikTok user is younger than the legal age for drinking alcoholic beverages.

TikTok should be banned, by the way.

Fox News continues:

The CEO said Anheuser-Busch is “providing direct financial support” to the frontline workers impacted by the boycott, naming delivery drivers, sales representatives, wholesalers, bar owners and servers. Doukeris said the brewing giant will triple media spending on advertising for Bud Light over the summer, confirming reports that the company is planning a major marketing push to recover its brand. 

Oh yeah, how’s that for solving a problem? Just throw money at it. I think it’s too little, too late. Too much damage has been done to the Bud Light brand, and I doubt that it will ever recover. And what are they going to do, make more smarmy, pseudo-patriotic horse commercials invoking memories of 9/11? Fuck that horse, except don’t.

But there is one thing that I think would get them back on track. It’s unlikely, and I don’t expect it out of Anheuser-Busch. It would take a huge, massive, abundantly plentiful pair, but if they do it, they might see their brand recover. It might even bring it beyond pre-boycott sales.

Here’s what they do: They adopt a new marketing pitch. It would be simple, and the words would be as follows:

Fuck Woke.

That’s all there is to it. Just those couple words would communicate loud and clear that not only are they distancing themselves from Dylan Mulvaney and anything that has anything to do with him, but that they have the values of the typical beer drinker, and a growing number of Americans.

Don’t expect them to do it? Neither do I. But that would pretty much send the message, wouldn’t it? Of course, there’d be more to it than just saying the words, there would also be the follow-through. Subsequent advertising spots would have to echo the sentiment, showing that they mean it. Of course, there would always be some doubt as to their sincerity, considering that it wasn’t until they had lost tons of money that they arrived at that determination. But still, it would be better than remaining on their current trajectory.

But if they can’t bring themselves to say it, then the Bud Light brand is probably going to fall into oblivion. If it came to that, they’d serve as an example of what can come upon any corporate empire that considers the same mistake. But that’s an outcome that I’d also consider acceptable. They can either denounce woke, or crash and burn. It’s their choice, and I’d enjoy the show, either way.

After the partnership went viral, Anheuser-Busch lost some $5 billion in market value amid calls for a nationwide boycott, and bars and distributors across the country reported significant drops in Bud Light sales.

That special promotion has already cost Anheuser-Busch a lot of money, and by the looks of it, they’re going to continue to lose money.

I know I’ve said it before, but Dylan Mulvaney has a lot of power in his creepy hands. Just through the act of simple endorsement, he has the power to bring multinational corporations to their knees. If Dylan Mulvaney was an X-Man, his superpower would be ruining brands.

Doukeris said it was too early to tell how the boycott affected Bud Light sales but was bullish that Anheuser-Busch will quickly recover from any setback. He reminded investors that the company has navigated global challenges including temporary bans on beer sales in certain countries and shutdowns of bars and restaurants across the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

“We believe we have the experience, the resources and the partners to manage this. And our four-year growth outlook is unchanged,” Doukeris said. 

I understand being macho, which involves pretending that everything is okay, even while you’re in pain. But Doukeris isn’t expressing a proper comprehension of the kind of trouble that his brand is in. I know that a CEO would want to express confidence to investors, but it doesn’t seem like he has any plan that would be effective in reversing the damage done to the Bud Light brand.

The fact is, most beer drinkers don’t want to look like an effeminate, preening wussy. Therefore, they can be expected to avoid Bud Light. Anheuser-Busch chose the wrong spokesperson, and all they have to show for it is a hole in their foot.

Matt Walsh Is Problematic

1 Reply

It goes without saying that liking someone doesn’t mean agreeing with everything that they have to say. When it comes to trans activism, Matt Walsh usually hits it out of the park.

But when it comes to culture as relates to entertainment, he usually lets out some pretty bad takes.

There are various degrees of out-of-touch. Not paying attention to politics is not the same as not watching TV, which is not the same as not following culture.

But then there’s the absolute extreme: saying that anime is demonic, that video games destroy kids minds, and that grownups should not watch cartoons.

It’s those kinds of takes that make me appreciate just how cool my dad really was. He knew that a person’s entertainment doesn’t make them who they are, which probably has something to do with why I have a similar perspective. But even if that wasn’t the case, I’d like to think that I’d have been able to figure that out on my own.

In a world where entertainment is being corrupted in an attempt to fit it in an agenda, it’s hopeless to think we can fight back by withdrawing ourselves and our children from the culture. That’s just not realistic. It’s vastly superior to instead teach our children that entertainment can be enjoyed, but not be the primary influence of their worldview. And, at the same time, we can work to take back culture while contributing to it.

That’s how we win: Not by running from battles, but by participating in them.

It should be obvious how stupid it is to paint anime with one broad stroke by saying the whole of it is demonic, because there are many, many different anime out there with many different genres. Some anime out there is great for children, because they’d be intended for them. Some anime is geared towards adults, and is intelligently written by writers who take their audiences seriously. Of course, some of it is really weird and of limited appeal. But the great thing about anime is that there’s something for everyone.

And really, conservatives should be getting behind anime, because Japan is a conservative society, which doesn’t have western leftist ideals, and whose entertainment options are free from woke influence.

In spite of this, there are some on the fringe who are attempting to make the case that anime is pedophilia, using fringe examples that are not mainstream in obvious acts of the cherry-picking fallacy.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Lean in close, because this is totes a secretly-secret secret. Are you listening? Okay…

Child abuse is illegal in Japan. In fact, it’s illegal anywhere that Sharia is not the law of the land. The existence of drawings which may be protected as free expression does not indicate the legality of the acts depicted.

Something similar can be said about video games. In fact, I don’t view them as simulations, even if that’s what some of them are going for. I view them as games.

I don’t play Grand Theft Auto. But if I did, I’d know that playing it doesn’t make me a carjacker. Similarly, playing Cooking Mama doesn’t make me a chef, playing Guitar Hero doesn’t make me a rockstar, playing Cave Story doesn’t make me an android, and playing The Legend of Zelda doesn’t make me a legendary hero. They’re games. That’s all they are. Even the ones that I play don’t inform my worldview, because I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

Matt Walsh is also of the opinion that men should not own plushes. He probably never heard about Fumos. But he did make an exception in the case of his own merch, a plush of Johnny the Walrus.

Sample of Johnny the Walrus taken from Amazon.

It’s obvious that Matt Walsh is proud of Johnny the Walrus. But let’s be serious here, how many kids are going around saying “Yay, I love Johnny the Walrus!”?

Probably exactly none of them.

And I shudder to think that Johnny the Walrus is the only entertainment option for Matt Walsh’s poor kids. Even The Adventures of Lil’ Chad looks better than this sub-DeviantArt tripe. Is this really what Matt Walsh thinks will build culture?

Conservatives have been pretty good about getting behind anime as a non-woke alternative to the ESG-influenced garbage that we’ve been seeing out of Disney and western comics lately. If companies like Disney want our business back, the companies should return to the values held by Americans, and most of the world, for that matter. The woke movement as we see it today is a product of algorithmic manipulation, and is a misrepresentation of the values that people actually hold.

But as for the fringe group who views anime as “brain waves coming from Japan”, they’re little more than the Satanic Panic from the 80’s, but with a few word-swaps. But this time around, they’re not going to amount to anything, because their language alienates and their vilification is easy to see through.

If that’s the kind of thing Matt Walsh is getting behind, then Matt Walsh is limiting his audience. And it’s obviously very important to him, considering that that’s how he measures his success as compared to other content creators, like The Quartering.

What is your philosophy as a content creator? Is it to maintain your integrity, even if it means having limited appeal? Or is it to maximize profits by maximizing your audience, saying whatever you have to to get there? For a while, it seemed as though Matt was doing the former. But if he’s going to boast of the size of his following compared to creators like The Quartering, then that’s harder to say definitively, isn’t it?

Of course, if someone is trying to rack up shock views by feeding into a Neo-Satanic Panic, then a larger viewership doesn’t seem like an accomplishment in which one can take true pride.

Matt Walsh does pretty well when it comes to confronting the extreme elements of the trans movement. But when it comes to most other things, he would do well to keep his mouth shut.

Looks Like the Trannifesto Is Delayed, Again

Leave a reply

Last week, social media lit up with the news that the manifesto of the Covenant school shooter, Audrey Hale, would finally be released to the public.

Great, we finally get to read it, right? Well, we got an update just this week:

It’s disappointing that we can’t yet read the words of the deviant behind the shooting, as doing so would allow us to better understand the motive behind the act, and put us in a better position to understand the nature of the deviancy that is plunging our society into moral decline.

But let’s be honest, here. None of us are likely to be surprised by the contents of the manifesto. The motives of the shooter are obvious on their face, just by the nature of the shooter, and her chosen target.

A tranny flipped out, and decided to attack a Christian school. The fact that the trans community has something against Christians is not a secret, especially considering that Christians are usually outspoken about the trans movement.

Even from a philosophical perspective, uncorrupted Christianity is incompatible with the trans movement, as both movements are characterized by a different paradigm of mind.

A central tenet of Christianity is its call to repentance, which carries with it the implication that, because a person may be wrong about their outlook, there is a reality outside of one’s own understanding, and that a person can and should change their thinking to be better in touch with the reality which exists independent of whatever a person may perceive it to be.

Such thinking is at direct odds with the notion that one’s mind determines one’s own reality and one’s own truth, which is a characteristic of the post-truth mindset that supposes that the reality of a matter is determined by one’s perceptions, and therefore any successful self-deception successfully creates a new reality. Transsexuals tend to ascribe to a kind of magical thinking where they determine their own reality, which they can change through force of will.

Audrey Hale targeted a Christian school. For one thing, it’s evident that her sick mind perceived a child as a valid target, and could not allow them to simply be innocent. But it’s also obvious that she hated the fact that Christians voice opinions that challenge her worldview, which intrinsically challenge the magical thinking that is a characteristic of her movement.

What’s more, she likely also hated the fact that Christian thinking had an impact on public policy. Just prior to the shooting, her state of Tennessee has passed legislation that protects minors from some of the more egregious excesses of trans culture, joining the growing number of states that are doing the same. If Audrey thought like the typical extremist of her movement (and the fact that she was willing to murder over it shows that she did), she viewed this legislation as a form of persecution, or even genocide, as the more radical among them often do, and therefore saw her behavior as justified.

In the absence of more information, we can speculate as to why the trannifesto is being kept from the public’s eyes. It’s likely the case that someone is using lawfare in an attempt to keep it from people’s sight, because it’s hard to imagine that it could do anything besides damage the trans movement. The language in the tweet above would seem to suggest that this is the case.

Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone were to leak it. That seems to be how it goes with this kind of thing, nowadays.

Bud Light Debacle Intensifies: Alissa Heinerscheid On The Way Out

Leave a reply

The debacle with Bud Light since hiring Dylan Mulvaney to represent their brand is 100 times worse than you know. On Friday, their VP of marketing around which this controversy has been swirling is on leave.

In times past, when there was an announcement that an entity grudgingly had to report, it was made on Friday. This was because it was the end of the work week for many people, when people preferred to wind down, and any announcement would likely be buried by the weekend itself. Thus, Friday was once considered the time where news stories went to die.

But that’s not the age we live in, anymore. In this connected world, the people can be well-informed, regardless of when an announcement is made.

The VP of marketing for Anheuser-Busch, Alissa Heinerscheid, is on leave. We all know what that means, because the same language was used by Project Veritas with James O’Keefe, before he quit and went on to form O’Keefe Media Group.

Only, because Alissa Heinerscheid is only a household name for the wrong reasons, if at all, she’s being processed into unemployment.

We know how it is with companies like Anheuser-Busch: They have shareholders, with whom they want to project confidence. It’s because of this that if you were to ask anyone representing Anheuser-Busch in any official capacity, they’re going to insist that “Everything’s fine, everything is just fine, why do you ask?” even as they’re bleeding out all over the market, and distributors are struggling to find shelves willing to take any more of their product.

If you remember, this whole mess started when TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney announced that he had been hired by Anheuser-Busch to represent their Bud Light product line, a move which alienated typical beer drinkers.

Since then, a video featuring Anheuser-Busch VP of marketing Alissa Heinerscheid has surfaced, explaining her personal belief that she had a “mandate” to change the Bud Light brand from the image she had of its current base, which she described as being “fratty” and “out-of-touch”, and replace that same base with younger drinkers. Images of her college adventures have surfaced, showing her to have been fratty in some of the worst ways, which includes at least one picture of Alissa drinking out of a rubber.

I’m no marketer, but I suspect that one thing a marketer should never say under any circumstances is that a product’s established user base needs to be replaced with a new user base. After all, these are the people who have demonstrated a loyalty to the brand, and it’s usually this customer base that a company would rely on for its continued success. To attempt to throw them out in order to roll the dice on a hypothetical new base would seem an unacceptable gamble, as such a move would demonstrate disloyalty to the established base, and any hypothetical new base would have a low expectation of loyalty towards them, considering the loyalty that the company demonstrated towards their previous base.

Or, at least don’t upset your customers. Oldie, but goodie.

I know that some people are looking for an apology from Anheuser-Busch. Such an apology might be an admission of wrongdoing, and a commitment to do better going forward. But I don’t have my hopes up.

Besides, even if Anheuser-Busch and its ex-CIA chief were to apologize, I doubt that the Bud Light (Bud Lick, LOL) brand would actually recover. It’s gotten to the point that no one wants to be caught drinking a Bud Light, or they’ll be made fun of, with the guys asking them when they plan on getting their “bottom surgery”. No one wants to risk that kind of embarrassment, so no one wants to drink a Bud Light.

But for a moment, can we appreciate the kind of power that Dylan Mulvaney has in his creepy hands? As much as we may hate to admit it, he has the power to destroy brands, costing them billions of dollars (if they even have that kind of money to lose), by just endorsing them. That’s a terrifying thought.

In any case, with ESG losing ground, it’s hard to imagine that Anheuser-Busch has very many options for reducing the damage done. The fact is, they need to push product in order to be worth anything as a company. And with stores not buying many cases, it’s going to be interesting to see the sales numbers when those come.

I know that not everyone out there takes pleasure when someone reaps the rewards of stupidity, but I think that there’s comfort to be had in a predictable universe that still operates according to the principles of natural law, and of cause and effect. Especially when someone has deliberately chosen to malign those who effectively provided for them. We don’t always get to see the out-of-touch city dweller who makes fun of the people who makes his food for him go without. It’s more amusing still when it comes upon a corporate type who can’t identify with the typical working man. There is mirth to be found in this.

I think an appropriate accompaniment to such mirth would be with a nice cocktail, like an Old Fashioned, or a Gin and Tonic. Or maybe a Pina Colada if you’re feeling particularly festive. There are lots of choices as far as cocktails go. And if a hard liquor goes woke, it’s easy to replace.

Buzzfeed To Shut Down

Leave a reply

The internet is about to become far less cancerous. BuzzFeed News is going in the dustbin.

BuzzFeed was a website that drew in tons of traffic through SEO optimization, gaming algorithms, and lots and lots of plagiarism.

It was originally a listicle website that posted braindead articles, like “12 Cat Pics to Get You Through Your Wednesday“, “6 Signs That You Are Like Raphael From the Ninja Turtles“, and “8 Lifehacks That Haven’t Been Working For You Because You’ve Been Doing Them DEAD WRONG!“

If you’ve been to Buzzfeed, you probably thought that those were actual headlines from their site, because they were stupid enough to belong. Fact is, I just made them up. But if those same headlines were in their site somewhere verbatim, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Many of their articles were bereft of words, largely consisting of pictures. Much of what’s on their site was lifted directly from other websites, often without attribution. In other words, it was like the Cracked.com articles that were written by the users. However, the MIT grad operator of the website knew how to turn the site into a money printer through SEO optimization.

But then they discovered rage-bait, and how that could draw in traffic. That garbage drew in mountains of rage-clicks that allowed the site to rake in a ton of money.

Eventually, they got into journalism, and no prize for guessing that they were lacking in ethics. They pretty much took a political side, and made things to appeal to their tribe. While just about every news outlet does this, Buzzfeed was noteworthy in doing less than most others to hide their bias.

Remember the guy who made the news for getting into a fight and getting killed over a chicken sandwich? That story originated from BuzzFeed. In reality, the fight wasn’t over a chicken sandwich, it was over a place in line. At the time, people memed over chicken sandwiches. So BuzzFeed, determined to game the algorithms for attention as they usually do, decided to season their coverage with bullshit.

Then there’s their tendency to push zombies into their stories wherever they can fit them in. It should be obvious why. Millions of dinguses are coping with their slow decent into mediocrity by fantasizing about how they’d survive a zombie apocalypse, and daydream about a hypothetical scenario where their video game knowledge actually makes them supermen. Because BuzzFeed knows the potential for clicks from the zombie crowd, they’ll randomly mention zombies here and there. Idiot clicks are still clicks.

BuzzFeed knows the potential for rage-clicks from injustices concerning racism and sexism, which is why they look for racism and sexism anywhere they could find it.

BuzzFeed has fried the minds of millions of gullible cretins, so you can imagine how much better the world of journalism has become now that BuzzFeed is shutting down.

Apparently, their bullshit isn’t profitable anymore. I suspect that there’s more to it, such as that venture capital running dry, and ESG is beginning to putter out. The company still has Huffington Post, which is another news site that few people actually take seriously. Hopefully, that one isn’t long out of the grave, either.

In any case, this is yet another sign that the culture war is turning around. I suspect that we’re going to be seeing a lot more like this in the days to come.

Twitter Quietly Drops Prohibition On Correct Gender Pronouns For Transgender Individuals

5 Replies

I’ve pointed out before that when dealing with horse-puckey of great magnitude it helps to have at least one foot in reality. If you agree, then I have great news for you today: Twitter has quietly dropped its prohibition against use of biologically correct pronouns when referring to transgender individuals from its hateful content policy!

291 replies to 163 likes. What a ratio.

In addition to use of biologically correct pronouns, users may also refer to transgender individuals with the names that they were given at birth, an action called “deadnaming” by transgender individuals who decide to change their names as part of the pretense of being someone they are not.

The majority has never at any point agreed with the transgender insanity. However, the fraction-of-one-percent who have furthered the movement have recently held disproportionate influence over institutions, appealing mainly to the political left who present the issue as a matter of social justice.

However, as the transgender movement continues towards extremes, such as exposure of children to the transgender ideology and actions such as of the deadly mass-shooter Audrey Hale, the public conversation continues to turn against it.

For a short while there, to speak against self-delusion and sexual perversity was to speak truth to power. But with Twitter coming around and becoming stronger as a free-speech platform, the public is enabled to honestly and earnestly discuss the matter, and the flow of the era continues to turn against the sexual deviants.

Personally, I suspect that the perverts are going to turn more towards extremes, particularly the dead-enders who understand that they’ve taken positions that will result in them becoming pariahs at a point when they’ll have lost the ability to influence public policy, and a lasting record of their deviance will remain on the internet for ages to come.

The side of the truth has always been the safest side to be on. For those who got on the side of the trans insanity, their best bet would be to jump ship and pretend that they’ve never been a part of it, wipe their social media as needed, and hope that no one remembers that they once pushed tranny bullshit.

Because at this point, the trans movement doesn’t have much of a bright future ahead of it.