Category Archives: Gender Politics

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.

Leave a 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.

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.