Category Archives: Gender Politics

Tyler Robinson: A Mind Destroyed By Hatred

1 Reply

The dust hasn’t settled yet, but I’m going for it, anyhow. The feature of the latest installment of Throw Life Away Over Stupid Bullshit, Tyler Robinson.

There’s something that I like to do with people who become especially infamous, and that’s give them a fitting and derisive nickname. One of Tyler’s bullet casings had a message inscribed upon it, which reads, “notices bulges oWo what’s this”. Tyler expressed in a text message the fear that the message would be discovered, as though it were something he would be ashamed of. And because he’s furry-adjacent, a critter term would be somewhat fitting.

Therefore, his new name is Bulge Rat.

Bulge Rat would be the fuck belch who assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of his family and thousands of event attendees. Much to the profuse denial of leftists everywhere, this is yet another example of extreme left-wing violence inspired by left-wing ideology.

I suspect that most of the people who say that it was a case of a MAGA chud killing another MAGA chud don’t actually believe it, but as for the ones that do, they are simply pitiable. The world must be a confusing place for someone so gullible. It’s confusing for the rest of us, but more so for them.

You couldn’t be blamed for wondering why the left lies so blatantly against overwhelming evidence that is against them. It actually goes together with why leftism is so attractive for the slow-minded and middle-of-the-road thinkers: leftism is less concerned with whether a matter is true, and more with what furthers their own causes. This makes it easy to advocate for, because it doesn’t require moral consistency. People who are insincere about their professed beliefs usually have to at least try to remember what they said, in the event that someone may try to hold them to it. Leftism’s lack of moral consistency means less concern for the truth of a matter, freeing up mental resources for deceptive rhetoric that’s designed to catch people unprepared.

Also, did you really think that leftists would take accountability for the violence caused by their ideology? Particularly the social media influencers and pundits who have built their entire careers on the lies that they push?

Back to Bulge Rat, he came from a conservative household and once wore a Trump Halloween costume, and the bullshitters stop right there and just use that to say that he was a right-winger who killed another right-winger for not being right-wing enough, because apparently they believe that that’s what right-wingers do. Except they don’t, no one unironically believes that.

Okay, truth payload, coming in at your six. Ready? People who are in their twenties often have different views than when they were twelve. Yeah, shocker, right?

I mean, when my age consisted of a single digit, I thought that a fair world was when free stuff. But then I learned that stuff has to come from somewhere, so the world is more fair when you earn it. Like anyone who didn’t go on to become socialists.

Bulge Rat was a scholarship student with a 4.0 GPA, which goes to show that smart people are not always great people. In fact, when smart people go insane, their own substantial intelligence becomes weaponized against their own mind, and their human capacity for self-deception becomes magnified to terrifying extremes.

Initially, Bulge Rat had a bright future ahead of him. But then the mental destruction began. He was indoctrinated by left-wing politics, which convinced him to hate conservatives more and more. His family took notice. He even got himself a boyfriend, an MtF transgender who would be his roommate.

Then, his own destruction would become complete.

I’ve been completely honest with you until now, and I’m going to keep this up: There’s a lot that’s infuriating about this kid. The bombastic nature of his crime, which he carefully planned out, the reckless disregard for the people in attendance who were not his target, his indifference, not just for his target, but also his family who was in attendance, including his daughter who wanted to go to her daddy for comfort because she was afraid of the loud noise.

Bulge Rat’s execution should be televised. I had to see Charlie Kirk get shot on social media because of him, and now I want to see Bulge Rat take his medicine in front of a firing squad.

But the greatest revenge is seeing Bulge Rat’s attempt to destroy conservatism backfire spectacularly. For one thing, people are taking notice of Bulge Rat’s left-wing convictions, and they are disgusted by them. And not only that, people are taking note of the ghouls who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and are disgusted by this, too. And because they’ve gone mask-off, employers are discovering that these are not the kind of people that they want around.

Consequence Culture at its finest.

But better still, a passion has been ignited for conservatism. To the point that, from what I’ve heard, church attendance has come way up!

If Bulge Rat had intended to destroy conservatism, he couldn’t have made a stupider or more self-defeating move.

When it comes down to it, we no longer live in an age where assassination is an effective strategy for defeating an ideology. For one thing, it’s nothing new that martyrdom can magnify a message. But now, in this age of social media, it’s trivially simple for a person to learn about the ideology of the one martyred, and for that ideology to gain new adherents. Social media further expedites this process by greatly expanding the potential reach of the ideology’s message.

What’s more, people today see assassination as an infuriating crime against intellect, a failure to effectively refute the martyr’s ideology in a marketplace of ideas. Assassination of a martyr signals desperation on the part of a competing ideology, one with less expectation to win an argument, so it instead chooses violence. And when it comes to that point, it becomes obvious that the assassin’s ideology and its adherents don’t have a sincere interest in a safe and stable society.

And when it comes down to it, leftism is a carefully constructed denial of reality. I mean, come on, they actually believe that men can become women. What more needs to be said? And when one of their own turns violent because he can’t win with reason, they’ll lie right to you and tell you that it’s right-wing on right-wing violence, in spite of the evidence that comes pouring out against their claims.

Which is exactly what they did when Jawvious shot up a Catholic school just last month, which was an act of transgender violence. Which itself was reminiscent of an earlier attack against another Christian elementary school in Tennessee. Why does this keep happening?

It was only days prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk that people were outraged over the senseless murder of a Ukrainian refugee on a train. While the murder itself wasn’t motivated by politics, the revolving door justice system favored by left-wing judges and DAs certainly made the macabre scene possible.

Then there’s the George Floyd riots, when the left went ballistic over the overdose death of a junkie as he was being arrested. Or there’s the ironically-termed “Summer of Love”, which saw the looting and fiery destruction of businesses.

Or there was the “CHAZ” or “CHOP”, which was an attempt to secede from the United States, an attempt which pretty much fell apart within weeks, because leftists don’t know how to run an organized society, even when enabled by a parasitic relationship with the surrounding society.

The Russians and the Chinese must have been laughing so hard.

“Er, bUt, uHM, aKcshULLy…”

What, that the right commits violence, too? That the right needs to turn down the temperature, too? As though the right is just as responsible for the violence that is committed against them as the leftists who are committing it against them? I suppose next you’ll try saying that a rape victim is just as guilty as a rapist. Considering how much leftists coddle Islamists who actually believe that, I wouldn’t put it past them.

Or are you going to bring up the January 6th Capitol protest, a demonstration that got out of hand, and no one outside of the demonstrators themselves were killed during the demonstration?

It’s been five years since, and the left hasn’t come off it. That’s because it’s all they have to fuel the myth of the violent right, outside of falsely attributing left-wing violence to the right, which they have shamelessly and desperately have attempted to do.

People are pissed that Charlie Kirk was killed, especially considering that he was the nice guy, the one who went up to his political opponents to talk. That was his thing. The event he was killed at, the entire idea was that anyone could go up to him and talk to him. He was killed for that, because he was so effectively vilified by his enemies.

He was actually discussing transgender violence when he was shot. By a transgender-adjacent homosexual. I know that coincidences happen, but if someone had the idea that the shooting was timed for such a question, I could understand that.

Sobering as it may be to think about, I think that more violence is likely to be committed by those taking up the cause for the transgender movement, and left-wingers in general. The left-wing radicalization pipeline is just way too effective to realistically expect otherwise. As for when it might happen, it’s difficult to say. But considering that about 2 weeks separated the assassination of Charlie Kirk from the shooting at a Minnesota church, it might not be long before the next leftist lunatic goes murder ‘tard.

And if those who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk are any indication, there may be many, many more who might. And they apparently number in the tens of thousands.

But as for Bulge Rat, the guy was one of many whose mind was destroyed by the left-wing radicalization pipeline. Though he accused his political opponents of hate, Bulge Rat would prove that his own hatred would surpass anyone who he ever vilified.

However, Conservatives are motivated by something far more profound: Love. The real kind. The kind that realizes that there are things worth protecting and defending.

To leftists like Tyler Robinson, love is a word with strong emotional connotations with many definitions, which they equivocate between in an attempt to justify their own agenda. However, the leftist idea of love is tainted by deviance. This is why they don’t properly comprehend it.

They don’t understand hate, either. To them, it’s yet another emotionally charged word that they falsely attribute to their political opponents. But if they understood it, they would understand that it applies well to leftists.

Think about the things you love and cherish, those things that are worth fighting for and protecting. Those are among the things that give life its joy.

Another old Simpsons episode is now surprisingly relevant

Leave a reply

I know that cartoons like The Simpsons are only fiction, and that because of this, using it to illustrate a point isn’t always helpful. The person writing them can write in any lesson that they want, including those that may not work in reality, but can work in a fictional setting anyway, by nature of being a fictional work.

Still, an old cartoon can make a point that puts things into perspective, and that perspective might be much needed.

Also, using cartoons to illustrate a point is fun, and can hold the attention of those who grew up with the same cartoons.

You may remember an old episode of The Simpsons, titled Itchy and Scratchy and Marge. In the episode, an infant character Maggie strikes her father Homer with a mallet, leaving the child’s mother Marge perplexed as to why Maggie would do such a thing. Later, she sees an episode of a cartoon, Itchy and Scratchy.

Itchy and Scratchy is an in-universe parody of a real-life cartoon Tom and Jerry, but with a stronger emphasis on graphic violence, and airs as part of a program called Krusty the Clown, which is enjoyed by Marge’s other children, Bart and Lisa. Interestingly, while Lisa normally abhors violence, she adores Itchy and Scratchy with the same enthusiasm as Bart.

Having watched the cartoon for herself, and seeing little Maggie attempting to stab Homer with a pencil, Marge makes a mental connection, and decides to take action.

As the episode progresses, Marge eventually builds a coalition, which successfully convinces the writers of Itchy and Scratchy to write a non-violent episode. Predictably, this causes viewers of Krusty the Clown to lose interest, resulting in them playing outside, instead.

For Marge, this appears to be a victory. However, the episode doesn’t end there. The curators of a famous work of art were on a tour which would take them through Marge’s home town of Springfield.

Marge believed the work to be a masterpiece. However, the coalition she was previously a part of objected to it, by reason of it being a depiction of nudity. Thus, there was a new conflict driving the plot, as Marge contested the coalition she herself was instrumental in forming, while being criticized for her alleged hypocrisy for opposing the artistic depiction of violence, while defending an artistic depiction of nudity.

In the end, Marge won out again, and Marge and Homer got to see the statue for themselves at an exhibit, where they expressed a desire for their children to also see it for themselves, possibly through a school field trip.

There are numerous takeaways that a person could come away with after watching this episode. But the one I would like to focus on is the main theme, which concerns the freedom of expression in practice.

Due to the ironic nature of how the characters in The Simpsons are written, it can be difficult to determine whether the characters learn lessons which may be apparent to viewers.

Marge initially disregarded the principle of free expression, apparently taking a position which favored her own interests. Rather than properly instructing her own children, she opted for convenience, insisting on  entertainment media which she saw as having less potential for negative influence.

But when a work of art was to arrive in town which she regarded as a masterpiece, she defended it, against the objections of the cadre she had previously sided with.

The undertone of the episode illustrates to viewers that protecting free expression doesn’t just mean protecting expressions that one prefers, it also means tolerating the presence of expressions that may not appeal to one’s sensibilities. Otherwise, one risks being seen as hypocritical, as Marge did.

Also relevant to today, one can notice that the coalition that Marge helped form didn’t stop with the art she didn’t like, it continued with the art that she did like. That’s how it often goes with such collectivist groups, they can develop in ways that’s difficult to predict, and they often develop desires which are well beyond what they may have initially expressed.

We’ve found the absolute fastest way to undermine your own cause.

Leave a reply

The race is over. We have a loser. She wasn’t the last one to reach the finish line, no. Before the starting gun even sounded, she was going full sprint in the opposite direction. Her desiccated corpse has been found, and it’s been drained of all fluid by reason of the many nicks and scratches she accumulated in her determined push through the dense bramble of abject failure.

I’m talking about Sammy Sludge, the dirtbag who went on a killing spree in a Christian school before personally ending any possibility for any redemption arc for herself.

And no, Sammy Sludge wasn’t her real name. As I see it, if anyone commits her category of crime, they should lose their real name, and instead be remembered by a demeaning monicker that they’d have been certain to have hated. Sure, she called herself “Sam”, but she also called the people she hated “sludge” in her manifesto (if her writing could be called that), so she’d probably hate to be remembered as “Sammy Sludge”.

So, Sammy Sludge, it is.

So, what did she do? She turned a gun on a few children in a Christian school, before turning it on herself. Why did she do it? Because she hated men. You know, half of all people who exist. A biological sex that is necessary for the continuity of humanity.

I’m not accusing her of thinking this through.

Her “manifesto” indicated that she was a TERF, a form of feminist which rejects even trans women. And her social media footprint indicates that she was interested in mass killings, particularly the Columbine shooting.

She was a TERF-orrist.

So, can we as a society address the brain-rot that drives people like Sammy Sludge to commit the kind of crime that she did, at just 15 years old? Maybe it’s about time that we admit that certain ideologies, when believed in with sincerity, turns people into bad people. Do we need more evidence?

Sammy Sludge, with her final act, undermined her own cause. Is there anything else a person could do to make it look worse?

Obviously, she doesn’t represent everyone from her own cause. I get that. But that doesn’t mean that she can’t undermine it. And that’s just what happened.

If Sammy Sludge was a victim in any sense, it’s that she was fed a completely one-sided argument in favor of a pile of bullshit, which she then believed in with sincerely. Her mind, as defective as it evidently was, was unable to mount a sufficient defense against the assault against her intelligence that turned her into a foot soldier for a debased cause.

What Sammy Sludge left behind was a world in which men continue to live, nearly all of whom are more virtuous than herself.

Least Attractive Bar Graph on Social Media

Leave a reply

Okay, is anybody actually falling for this? Let me know.

What I’m talking about is a graph that started trending on X, which shows a bar graph of what is supposedly the most unattractive hobbies for men, “according to women”. The chart is as follows:

I ignored it at first glance, but seeing as people kept giving it attention, I’ve decided to take it behind the shed. Spoiler alert, it’s coming back with some teeth missing.

First of all, Online Trolling is listed among the hobbies. That should be a powerful indicator of what’s going on, here. Hopefully, I don’t have to spell this out. Okay, I’ll do it anyway, because no reader left behind.

It’s bullshit. Someone came up with this graph just to mess with people. And it worked.

But it’s not the first indicator that someone is messing with you. That would be the fact that there’s no citations. And if there’s no citations, this means that there’s no study, no survey, no polling, or anything of the sort. If someone wanted their study to be at all respectable, there would be a citation, so that a person could look into the methodology to ascertain that the data has any value. There’s no citation, so there’s nothing of value.

Instead, every indication is that someone just pulled all this information straight out of their ass, and posted it on social media knowing that it would push some buttons.

Notice something else about the data? Conveniently, every data point on the bar graph decrements by five. Sure, it’s possible that if you survey thousands of people, it’s possible for the data points, when arranged in the form of a bar graph, would form a neat decrementation by fives. But it would be strongly unlikely.

Having said all that, the point that really pushes people’s buttons is the one about playing video games. I call BS, because women I’ve met play video games. In fact, the last woman I was with played video games. She had a big stack of them. But she hid them from me, even though she didn’t have to, and I ended up finding them accidentally.

Look, I remember a time when video games were the pastime of hobbyists who frequented Radio Shack. Back then, I would’ve understood if someone regarded them as some nerd hobby. But a lot has changed since then, and now it’s something that pretty much everybody does. It’s been decades since it’s been regarded as a nerd hobby, and if anyone today said that they didn’t play them, I wouldn’t believe them.

People need to stop falling for this stuff.

Star Wars cannot be salvaged.

Leave a reply

Normally, when I want to write a review, I try to avoid other people’s opinions of what’s being reviewed beforehand, because I want my review to be my genuine opinion. For anyone who has set out to write a review of Star Wars’ The Acolyte, this has become just about impossible, because the “creative” decisions made by Disney has proven to be a greater threat to the franchise than any Sith could manage to be, and as a result, social media is dragging it across nails.

Don’t get the wrong idea; I had no intention of reviewing The Acolyte, because I had no intention of watching it. While I was aware of it, it largely escaped my notice as it came around, because I don’t even bother with Star Wars, anymore.

I used to be a fan of Star Wars. I was introduced to it as a kid. At that point, Star Wars was a story that George Lucas wrote with the intention of making religion more interesting for children, which he evidently did with a reimagining of the story of David and Goliath. Except he showed a kid who wanted to be a pilot being radicalized into joining a terrorist organization by a religious zealot, then the kid went on to destroy a military base, killing millions.

But since Disney took over, their creative decisions have proven more disastrous than when George Lucas noticed that people were actually paying attention, and he decided to stop plagiarizing Dune. I gave the franchise a chance to change for the better, but I’ve since decided that I don’t really need it, and I’ve discovered that anime is better at avoiding identity politics and narcissistic power fantasies.

Based on what I’ve been hearing, I thought that the dumbest thing about The Acolyte would be the scene which showed a fire burning in space, without oxygen. Considering that Star Wars was the series that originally gave parsecs as a measure of time, not distance, it would have been a whatever moment.

But then, it turns out that it featured a sect of lesbian space witches who willed themselves pregnant, probably because their fertile years ran out as they furthered their educations and careers. So they became intersectional feminists because it’s easier to blame men than to confront their decisions to run out their biological clocks on pursuits that women don’t ultimately find meaning in, anyway. Then, after having tried everything but dating, they turned to magic. One can also point out that scissoring doesn’t work, there’s that.

Disney has written vomit. Star Wars was once a hero’s journey style of story, which nearly always involves a lesson that there are things outside of your own interests and pursuits. What Disney has written instead is blatant intersectional pandering and wish fulfillment, which actually overwrites some of the most important features of established canon. If the idea of a space witch achieving pregnancy through force of will sounds familiar, it’s because that was supposed to have been an innovation of Darth Plageus, the master of Emperor Palpatine. Did Disney forget about this? Or are they having as difficult a time keeping the source material straight as the average fan?

I’m not of the thinking that entertainment must necessarily teach a lesson. After all, entertainment is largely made-up, and the authors can insert an arbitrary moral in an attempt to justify the existence of the product to a concerned fundamentalist, and can make the moral anything that they want, including stupid nonsense that has no chance of working when put into practice in the real world. As such, I don’t expect Star Wars to contain some deep, existential meaning, especially with Disney writing it. Star Wars is not going to contain the meaning of life, especially with Disney writing up a fantasy about lesbian witches wishing themselves pregnant.

About the meaning of life, I personally think it’s pretty obvious. Life is about increasing the living mass, and increasing consciousness. You see this in nature, when you see a simple protein taking matter and free energy, and using it to create more simple proteins like itself. From a biological point of view, for us to produce progeny is the most important thing that we can do. And we have the means to do so without having to join a cult which attempts to bring it about with magical thinking. And, when it comes down to it, lesbianism is a subversion of the process.

Star Wars is supposed to be entertainment, but it’s failing miserably at that. That’s to be expected, when Disney is looking to score DEI points with intersectional pandering which alienates the vast majority of people. After all, less than 2% of all people are homosexual, and the rest are likely to be alienated by something that they don’t care to be associated with.

In fact, there’s more at stake than it not being interesting. Do you know what women in general think of homosexual men? They don’t respect them. Because women by nature tend to be more agreeable, they aren’t likely to say as much. But most women don’t want to date a man who has engaged in gay sex. This is because women care whether men have put their features in places where they do not belong. Women view gay men as having an ick on them that cannot be washed off. When heterosexual men are aware of this, it’s natural that they’d want to distance themselves from anything homosexual.

When you have the theory of mind that permits an awareness of this, it’s abundantly clear that writing in homosexual wish fulfillment is counterproductive to a brand whose objective is to have as broad an appeal as possible. I don’t wear the Star Wars logo for the same reason I don’t drink Bud Light: the image associated with the brand is something I’d rather avoid.

It’s because of this that I haven’t bothered with Star Wars in a long time. So when I hear that Disney attempted another spin-off that spits right in the faces of those who are still involved, all that really is to me is a spectacle for me to behold, pointing and laughing.

Other than that, Star Wars doesn’t mean anything to me.

Antivirus For Your Mind: Recognizing the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

2 Replies
A motte-and-bailey town configuration, from castlesandmanorhouses.com

We know that computers can be hacked. It usually has to do with a third party installing software on your computer without your knowledge, which can then make your computer do as the hacker wants, which often has to do with collecting your data because they can somehow profit off of it.

But what about you? Can you be hacked?

The answer is yes. But while a computer can be hacked through code, you can be hacked through rhetoric. If this rhetoric has the desired effect on your mind, you can be made to perform as the hacker wills.

To prevent this, you need a defense. And usually, there’s no better defense against malicious rhetoric than to understand when it’s being employed.

It’s because of this that I’m thrilled that more social media personalities are expressing awareness of the motte-and-bailey fallacy, and are passing this knowledge on to their audiences, making them less susceptible to this tactic.

In spirit of this desire for understanding, I’ve decided to explore this topic, for to pass on this information to my reading audience. You can think of it as antivirus for the mind.

To understand the motte-and-bailey fallacy, think of a well-fortified town. This town is divided into two sections. One is a large common area, where the general population does business, which is called the bailey. The other is more strongly fortified, and is called the motte.

The idea is that, on typical days, most people will go about their business in the larger, less-fortified bailey part of town, but in the event that the town is attacked, the people will retreat into the motte part of town, for their own protection.

With this mental image, you’re in a much better position to understand the motte-and-bailey fallacy.

In debate, a motte-and-bailey is a statement that’s framed in such a way as to further a particular end, but in the event that it’s challenged, it’s defended according to an interpretation that’s easier to defend.

Once you understand the motte-and-bailey fallacy, it’ll become much easier to recognize it when it’s in use. You might even have seen it used by your own tribe. Once you know what it is, you’ll be in a better position to avoid using it, yourself.

To assist in understanding, here’s an example of the motte-and-bailey that you may see in the wilds of social media:

Zionism is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Beardy McMoonface

Decrying Zionism is a frequent rallying cry of those who promote antisemitism. So, one can easily call Beardy McMoonface out on it. But if you do, he’ll have a defense:

I didn’t mean all Jews. Just the Zionists.

Beardy McMoonface

To see through this rhetoric, it helps to understand what Zionism is. Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism that asserts that the Jewish people must have their own homeland, and that that homeland must be their ancestral homeland according to the Scriptures. While there is a greater overlap of Zionism with Judaism, not every Jewish person is a Zionist. While it shouldn’t be a problem for Jews to have their own homeland, there are people out there who have a problem with it.

Beardy is falling back on a stricter definition of Zionism when making his defense, making his initial claim seem more reasonable. While he would have been happy to have reduced Judaism as a whole with his initial statement, he has another interpretation of his statement to fall back on to make his initial assertion seem more reasonable.

So, in the case of Beardy above, the bailey is to further antisemitism by framing Zionism as a problem that the whole of Judaism must answer for, without specifically saying so, while the motte that he retreats to is that he didn’t say that he had a problem with all Jews. When it’s explained this clearly, his deceptiveness is easy to see.

At first blush, it can seem as though the best way to handle the motte-and-bailey fallacy is to directly answer the claim. However, this can be tricky to do, because depending on how you answer it, the person making the initial claim can easily make you seem unreasonable, and accuse you of jumping to conclusions.

It’s tempting to call out the motte-and-bailey for what it is when you recognize it. But this has its own issue: it often takes a lot more time, space, and effort to refute a fallacious claim than it does to make it. This can be an issue in a structured debate format, or on a social media platform with a character limit, where a person can easily Gish Gallop, then claim victory, which is another form of deceptive rhetoric to watch out for.

By the way, if you were to scope out Beardy’s social media footprint and find that it’s heavily characterized by scathing criticism of Israel, it’s not going to be hard to guess what he’s really about.

In the next fictitious example, see if you can spot the motte-and-bailey:

Stop the genocide against trans people!

AstolfoFan1978

Did you get it? The bailey is that AstolfoFan1978 wants you to believe that there’s a genocide against trans people. The term genocide connotes a rounding up and systematic destruction of an entire group of people. If it can be established that this is taking place, it’s far easier for you to see them as victims, and you’d be far more likely to sympathize with them.

Thus, your mind would be successfully hacked!

But suppose you were to call AstolfoFan1978 out by saying that there is no trans genocide. After all, it’s not like trans people are being rounded up onto trains and shipped to concentration camps where they’d be worked to death.

But if you were to call him out by challenging his claim that a genocide is taking place, then he’d (?) retreat to his (?) motte, and present Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide, and then make the case that the genocide against trans people is on its third stage, saying that they’re being denied full civil rights. Whether this is true or not, it remains that this is a claim that AstolfoFan1978 would pivot to, because it’s easier for him (?) to make his (?) case based on Gregory Stanton’s scale.

Of course, AstolfoFan1978 is being overly dramatic in insisting that any opposition to policy positions equates to genocide, because by that same reasoning, any politically-involved faction can claim that there’s a genocide against them if their policy positions face any amount of opposition. Welcome to politics.

Basically, the motte-and-bailey is a form of equivocation, a category of fallacy that includes the likes of doublespeak. It’s considered deceptive because it relies on rhetoric to manipulate, rather than on reason to convince.

When you understand when it’s used, you’re in a much better position to resist a hacking attempt on your mind.

My Opinion of the Keffals/Chris Chan Interview

1 Reply

Just this morning, Keffals has uploaded an abridged version of his interview with Chris Chan. For those who care to view, the following is the video:

I may have indicated as much already, but when Chris Chan trails off into pseudo-spiritual babble, I mostly just trail off, assuming that he’s adding nothing of value to the discussion. But I have noticed some amount of consistency in his delusions, which indicates that he has given them some thought. Whether he sincerely believes his own bullshit, there’s at least some amount of premeditation in his spouting-off.

Having said that, when someone has a guilty conscience and therefore a motive to obfuscate, and they’re not making sense, it’s not a bad idea to ask whether their statements are truly designed to be understood.

During the interview, Chris said something revealing in a way that he probably didn’t realize. While he still vehemently denies committing the crime with his mother that he previously gave an unprompted and disturbingly detailed confession to, he stated that the crime was committed by another Chris Chan in another dimension. But this was considered important for Chris Chan to bring up, even though he denies that that other-dimensional Chris was actually himself.

For one thing, this sounds like a form of dissociation, an obvious way for Chris to cope with the guilt of committing a crime by convincing himself that the crime wasn’t really himself, but instead a different version of himself in another dimension.

What’s more, this explanation opens the gateway to potential gaslighting on the part of Chris, where Chris can attempt to convince people that their memories of Chris’ crime, and his confession to it, are actually memories that leaked from another dimension, causing us to remember things that, according to Chris, didn’t actually happen with the Chris Chan of this dimension.

Remember that Chris Chan has previously stated his belief in a “dimensional merge”. Whether he believes in it or not, it still is something that he can view as a tool to exonerate himself.

Also, at some point in the interview, Chris pivoted to talking about Donald Trump, for whom he clearly has disdain, even though nothing about Trump’s presidency or political career has had any noticeable impact on Chris, himself. Another example of how parroting left-wing talking points can melt an already weak mind.

Chris Chan also brought up Russia, making them out to be a modern-day Babylon, and in the process, sounding like so many false prophets of days gone by. He said that Putin would “fall by his own sword”. As I see it, Russia has a high likelihood of facing a collapse for some reason or another within the next few years. But the idea that Chris has any amount of special insight about it is laughable.

By the way, Chris Chan really needs to drop the whole schtick where he pretends to be Jesus Christ. Anyone of Christian background would find this grossly offensive. What’s more, Bible prophecy indicates that, when Jesus does return, the coming would be with great glory, and the entire world would become aware of Christ. This doesn’t sound like what’s happening with the author of Sonichu.

I’ve suspected previously that Chris Chan’s messiah complex was some form of malingering, an obvious attempt to further an insanity defense. Chris Chan’s insistence long after his trials indicates a sincerity in his delusion.

Chris Chan did a lot to attempt to capitalize on the discussion, wanting to convince those who block him on X that they were just going to get harassed anyway, whether they block him or not. This is, of course, shitty reasoning, as anyone aware of Chris Chan is aware that he’s the kind of guy you want to stay away from, as he tends to bring with him some unwanted attention.

Of course, Chris Chan still sees himself as the victim of his own bad reputation, which he himself did plenty to cultivate. He brought up Bluespike, even though Chris could’ve easily handled him by not responding to him. He brought up the gal-pals who were actually trolls, when he could’ve been skeptical of anyone claiming a strong interest in him in spite of never meeting him, and being scammed by multiple people with the same routine in the past.

Like many predators that have been outed, they want people to just leave the past in the past, and just pretend that they never did what they did. Because Chris can’t identify with normal people, he doesn’t comprehend how normal people handle forgiveness. If someone has had a career in grand larceny in their history, and we all collectively decide to not punish him, that doesn’t mean that we’d consider him just the same as everyone else for a position as a bank teller.

Chris Chan committed incest. While he may have avoided punishment, most people would still prefer that he not attend conventions. Especially considering that he continues to deny that he committed the crime, in spite of the evidence. We don’t want him near our kids, we don’t want him near ourselves, and we don’t want him leaving replies on our X updates.

If you’re interested in one transgender asking another transgender softball questions, the interview doesn’t disappoint. That aside, it’s plain to see that, between Chris Chan and Keffals, it’s Keffals who is operating with more intellectual horsepower. It just so happens that that horsepower is directed towards degeneracy.

The Collab Between Chris Chan and Keffals Makes Kiwi Farms Easy To Justify

Leave a reply

Apparently, Chris Chan is planning a collab with Keffals. This was according to Chris, as he posted the following on X:

You may know who Chris Chan is, as he is considered the most well-known of all lolcows. A couple years ago, he committed a sexual offense involving his own mother, becoming a case study in true crime, and ascending to horrorcow status.

Keffals is a bit more obscure, but perhaps far more enraging. He became known for making HRT drugs at home to sell to minors without their parent’s knowledge or consent, and ran an infamous “catboy ranch”.

The packaging for his bathtub-made HRT contains the phrase, “Keep out of reach of parents.”

Both persons are males who pretend to be women, and both hate Kiwi Farms with a passion, so it wasn’t terribly unlikely that the two would have eventually found each other.

If you’re unfamiliar with Kiwi Farms, it’s an online message board that initially focused on discussing Chris Chan, but has since pivoted to discussing the ridiculous things that social media personalities do. It’s often made out to be a hive for online bullies, and while it’s true that many of its members are unsavory individuals, I think the board as it is now can be justified. In fact, I’ll go ahead and do that now.

Suppose that arson was legal. As in, you could do it, and the law wouldn’t lay a finger on you. Would you do it?

If you’re like most people, your answer would be, “No!”. This is because most people would see arson as immoral, regardless of what the law allowed.

But suppose that, not only was arson legal, it was actually incentivized. Five dollars for each house destroyed. Odds are, most people would still refuse to do it, and would be outraged at such an incentive, if it were to exist.

However, some people would jump at the offer. “Five dollars, per? Hells yeah!” they’d scream, before getting to work. We would call such people “sociopaths”, because what little they’d have to gain is something which, in their minds, outweighs the suffering that they’d cause.

But suppose that homes were being destroyed, but rather than by acts of arson, instead through influence. Suppose that a level of abstraction separates the act that destroys the home from the home being destroyed, in such a way that allowed for plausible deniability on the part of the influencer.

The influencer might influence people to drink base liquids, eat laundry detergent, dive from moving speedboats, take prescription drugs without a prescription, idolize dangerous terrorists, make self-destructive lifestyle choices, and many, many more acts which, if people were to try them, the likely outcome is that families could be torn apart, property could be damaged, and even lives could be lost. And while all this is going on, influencers are financially rewarded just for the attention that they get.

If this were to happen, and if it were financially incentivized, would you see that as a problem?

Let’s drop the hypotheticals. After all, you probably knew what I was getting at when I brought up the influencers. The fact is, influencers do encourage destructive behaviors. These behaviors have caused damage that these influencers didn’t have to face consequences for. And yes, these influencers are being financially incentivized to accrete attention to themselves, even if the attention is through the promotion of destructive and socially corrosive ideologies and activities.

These influencers are the sociopaths who don’t give a damn what damage that they might cause for you or for anyone else, so long as they’re getting the attention that they want, and the money that they really care about.

These sociopaths are among the many influencers on social media.

They don’t have to believe what they’re saying. And they usually don’t. They don’t have to see the communities, families, or individuals whose lives they are destroying. And they couldn’t bring themselves to care. They might even convince you that they’re your friend, when in reality, your mere attention only slightly enables the transaction that is their sincere desire.

By now, you’re probably wondering what can be done about these influencers. The answer is to shine a light on them, and subject them to the ridicule and satire that is richly merited.

That’s where Kiwi Farms comes in.

If it weren’t for Kiwi Farms, deviants such as Chris Chan and Keffals would have a much easier time being the predators that they are.

And now that the two have found each other, it’s become much more important that an eye is kept on the two. Because if the two are the miscreants that they are independent of one another, just imagine what they can come up with working together.

I could hardly focus.

Leave a reply

Forgoing a decent attempt at an intro, here’s the madness:

Honestly, I struggled to keep focus. When someone starts spouting metaphysical pseudo-spiritual psycho-babble in the same way that Chris Chan has been lately, I have a hard time staying engaged. At that point, I just assume that they don’t have anything of value to say, and my mind drifts to something I’d rather be doing. Such as playing a video game, or modifying a recipe, or even something as normally dull as watching some soap opera that my mom liked, which goes to show how long the list of things I’d rather be doing can get when I’m stretching what politeness that I have to wait for them to just finish talking so I can say, “Hey, that was something. Thanks for sharing that. Bye.”

At some point, I caught that she didn’t quite understand how to explain the gender she felt like, which sounds like she’s under-qualified to do as much as exercise simple metacognition. Because of this, I wonder whether she was really successfully stringing her sentences together, or my mind was somehow filling in the blanks in a hallucinatory manner, similar to how holes in a wall can disappear when they are covered by a blind spot.

Now, here I am pondering whether this wonder of a person can so much as operate a microwave unsupervised, or whether this task is delegated to a handler in an institution. In either case, it’s clear that she’s not wanting for something to eat.

What I did get out of the video is that some woman out there doesn’t know how to explain a gender that’s a product of her own imagination, but she’s so cocksure that she’ll assert that she still knows it better than you.

Whatever drugs she’s taking to make her happy, they seem to be working a treat.

The Trannifesto Has Leaked. Here’s What It Says.

1 Reply

The Trannifesto, the final writings of Audrey Hale, the Covenant school shooter, has just been leaked through Steven Crowder’s website, louderwithcrowder.com. The guy is a true patriot, please pay his site a visit.

The shooting, committed by a transgender person (who was in reality a woman), occurred over 8 months ago. Though law enforcement had obtained the shooter’s final writings, its release to the public has been repeatedly delayed, with perhaps no plans to release it, at all.

As has been stated previously, the Trannifesto is not so much a manifesto as it is a set of journal entries.

If you’re as skeptical as me, you might wonder whether the pages were a scam made by someone abusing AI. I ran the images through an AI detector, and the likelihood of the images being AI generated was 2.1%, 3.8%, and 34.2%, according to Illuminarty.ai. So by the looks of it, these are legit.

Now, let’s give these a look, and I’ll give my opinion.

I’ll say first of all that Audrey Hale sucked fuck at handwriting. Also, nothing conveys a psycho middle-school mindset quite like doodles of guns shooting at targets in a margin of a page. And then there’s scrawling out “DARK ABYSS DEATH DAY” as the title of the entry, as if to drive home the teen angst that she was way too old for.

I’m absolutely not surprised that Audrey’s broken, defective mind could not perceive that there is such a thing as an innocent person, which was evidenced by her choice of targets. What does surprise me is how far back that Audrey contemplated the crimes that she ended up committing, which goes at least as far back as the summer of 2021, when her plotting was nearly discovered.

Audrey Hale’s crimes were not a crime of passion, they were deliberate.

Audrey planned out her final crimes meticulously, planning out her last day alive down to the minute. One might wonder what was covered by the sticky note, and based on the marks that are showing, it looks like part of the sentence, “Spend time w/ stuffed animals and possessions” was obscured. So yeah, in her last day alive, right before committing mass murder, a psychopath prioritized spending time with her toys.

This entry, dated the previous month, gives a window into the mind of the killer, and tells us what motivated her. It was basically a racist and classist tirade packed with expletives and ranting about what she perceived as indications of wealth and status.

It pretty much comes down to Hale hating a bunch of children whose parents worked hard to ensure that their children had a brighter future, and hating their parents for having things that they either worked or taken on debt for. Like many of Hale’s ilk, hers was a highly superficial perspective that assumed that disparity in outcome must necessarily be a product of factors that she felt she could rightly resent another for.

It’s obvious why there was such hesitation to release this to the public, because it’s an indictment against the political ideology which, when taken to its extreme, would motivate a sick individual to lash out in the way that Audrey did.

I’ve often heard it asked what it is that motivates mass killers. After all, the targets are seldom someone that the killers knew personally. The reason why mass killers try to end as many lives as possible is because their target is society. They want to cause as much damage to society as possible. Oftentimes, it’s because the killer supposed that society has failed them.

By reason of Hale’s transgender identity, it’s reasonable to infer that she wasn’t in touch with reality. Such a person would certainly be considered a vulnerable individual, prone to manipulation. Thus, when Hale was presented with the idea that a difference in outcome is intrinsically related one’s immutable characteristics, combined with Hale’s lack of empathy, and her belief that children are valid targets, together with the ease with which Hale could be manipulated, it becomes easier to see why she could be influenced to commit murder.

As disturbing as all this is, what’s particularly disturbing is that much of her hatred was directed towards children. She hated them for their race, and she hated them because the decisions that their parents made were to the end of ensuring that those children would have a bright future ahead of them. This is no reason to hate anyone, for one thing, because a person’s race is something that they cannot control, but also because to ensure a brighter future for one’s own children is one of the strongest driving motivations for one to work hard in today’s world. That Hale could bring herself to hate someone for these reasons goes to show just how damaged her mind was.

Because Audrey Hale was once a student at the same school where she would eventually die a murderer, it’s hard to say that she was motivated by envy of what other children had. But it seems apparent that she was motivated by racism, and I think it would be interesting to find out from whom her racist ideas came from.

As disturbing as all this is, it gets worse in context. While Audrey Hale’s thinking is aberrant, it’s far more common than it should be, to the point that it’s all but guaranteed that the tragedy that it resulted in will happen again.

And with her thinking being fed into by academia, the pharmaceutical industry, banking cartels, the Biden administration, and more, it’s not so much a question of whether it will happen again, but when and where.