Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

Target Hiding LGBT+ Outfits Out Of Fear Of Backlash

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?

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, which 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?)

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.

Looks Like the Trannifesto Is Delayed, Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bud Light Debacle Intensifies: Alissa Heinerscheid On The Way Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buzzfeed To Shut Down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter Quietly Drops Prohibition On Correct Gender Pronouns For Transgender Individuals

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

291 replies to 163 likes. What a ratio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Few Thoughts About the Bud Light Debacle From Someone Who Doesn’t Drink the Stuff

If you’re in marketing, it’s your job to read the room. You have a customer base that you have to appeal to, and to understand their sensibilities comes with the position.

Beer is one of the most ancient beverages still consumed today. What’s more, it has a certain image associated with it. Today, it’s viewed as daddy’s drink, and you can have some once you’ve grown up.

Considering this, it’s understandable why a corporate beer brand wouldn’t hire an effeminate, shrill charlatan who pretends to be a little girl to be a spokesperson for their brand. Such a move would be entirely self-defeating, especially considering that the delusion that the guy represents goes against the values that the typical working-class beer drinker would be expected to hold.

Understanding all this, it should follow that the backlash against Anheuser Busch for hiring make-believe-girl Dylan Mulvaney as a spokeswhatever for their Bud Light brand would prove to be catastrophic for both the company and the brand. It just follows.

It gets even worse in light of a recently-surfaced video of their own VP of Marketing stating her desire to replace Bud Light’s existing customer base with a newer, younger base, as brought up during this boomer news spot:

Getting younger people on alcohol? What an interesting take. But considering that we live in a society that tolerates companies that want young people addicted to cigarettes and fast food, it’s not altogether surprising.

As much as the diversity hire hates Bud Light’s frat image, she seemed to be rather okay with frat behavior, as revealed in a batch of images of her partying in college, among which is a picture of her drinking out of a rubber. But hey, we all do stupid stuff in college, right? Right?

What kind of colleges are these clowns going to? I remember that when I was in college, most of the students studied hard because they were concerned with their grades, myself included. It’s bad enough that bullshit colleges will give their drunkass students passing grades, it’s a spit in society’s eye that they’ll have six-figure salaries to look forward to after they graduate.

Personally, I have little trouble avoiding Bud Light, because I seldom drink beer. I’m a bit of a fitness enthusiast, so I have trouble fitting a beer in when I’m counting calories. When I do go for one, I usually prefer an IPA, or something less corporate, like something from a smaller, more local brewery.

When I want something alcoholic, I usually go for a cocktail. Those are great, because you know what’s going into them, provided you make them yourself. Also, if a hard liquor goes woke, replacing it with a different one is a snap.

I’m not going to pretend that I have a thorough comprehension of the bar scene. I mainly went to bars because a friend of mine wanted to go. But I do know well enough that they tend to have a certain culture, where you don’t want to stand out for doing weird shit. Considering this, to have Dylan Mulvaney, a man known for pretending to be a little girl, as a spokeswhatever for a beer brand seems like an act of sabotage. Granted, not every bar is the same.

Again, if you’re in marketing, you have a job to read the room. You certainly don’t have a mandate to replace a brand’s existing customer base with the kind that you might prefer.

Anheuser Busch has one move which would be more effective than any other to reduce the damage done to their brand. No, it’s not to hope the problem goes away on its own. No, it’s not to release some smarmy advertising spot in the hopes that their original base ignores the fact that they didn’t back down.

It would be to issue an apology. To acknowledge that what they did was wrong, denounce the same wrong that was committed, and resolve to do better going forward.

And the best part is, it doesn’t take a team of marketers or PR consultants. All it takes is a few minutes on Twitter. And it’s free.

They might take a hit to their ESG score, but with major companies like Vanguard already dropping ESG, they’d be ahead of the game.

Or they can continue to writhe while pretending that everything is okay. Either way, I’m getting what I want.

Dylan Mulvaney Would Benefit From An Intervention

I know I’m not the first to say it, so I’ll just add to the noise. Dylan Mulvaney is not right in the head.

Here is a video of him pretending to be a 6-year-old girl:

As the pendulum continues to build momentum as it shifts from left to right, Dylan Mulvaney is going to be one hell of a loser.

Wokeness May Be Destroying the Global Economy, But Economic Hardship May Destroy Wokeness

The insolvency of Silicon Valley Bank has resulted in a run on the banks, which has resulted in more insolvent banks. The Red Pill community has pointed to SVB’s prioritization of DEI initiatives as being a significant factor in the bank’s collapse, and note with a sense of irony that wokeness may have knocked over the first dominoes that may result in a collapse of the global economy.

Of course, it’s also pointed out that SVB may have been targeted by Uncle Sam for having been friendlier to the crypto market. That sounds kinda conspiracy-theoryish, but if that’s the case, I’d say that that effort backfired, considering that Bitcoin shot way, way up in response to the SVB collapse.

More banks have since collapsed due to bank runs, and I’m seeing the more Red Pill types celebrating the accelerated collapse of the woke movement. While I can get behind that, it’s a little disturbing that there are people who seem to be cheering on the destruction of the global economy. It’s enough for me for the institutions to come to the realization that the woke movement is of no benefit for them to get behind. But considering how much harder it would be for everyone if the global economy were to collapse, I wonder what benefit it would be to anyone if things came to that.

Perhaps there would be some benefit, if only to slap more people awake to the true nature of the woke movement, and if people as a whole were to ditch the crutch of the victim mentality in favor of living on one’s merits. Which they may end up doing out of necessity, if things get difficult.

My foresight is not great. If I had better foresight, I would have understood the true nature of the global economy before majoring in Electronics. Live and learn, and all that.

But still, I can see what would come about if economic difficulty were to necessitate meritocratic living. It would mean that ideas such as wokeness would be viewed in terms of its virtues, which wouldn’t be much outside of its ability to manipulate algorithms. Even now, entertainment companies are slowly coming to the realization that woke messaging negatively impacts the quality of their products, which is part of the reason why viewers are starting to turn against subscription-based streaming services. And now, we’re seeing banks collapse after investing in numerous DEI startups.

While the pendulum is already shifting against wokeness, economic uncertainty would further push the general public into meritocracy as they seek out a way of life that actually, you know, pays the bills. Projecting victimhood seldom does as much, and is becoming increasingly evident as being the sport of the interpersonally manipulative.

When matters are difficult, people turn to merit to get by. It’s when motivated by survival that people look at themselves and other people in terms of what they have to offer. That’s the most practical course in challenging times. Because men tend to have greater upper-body strength than women, and the physiology that lends them more towards physically-involved labor, men tend more towards more dangerous jobs that usually pay better than clerical jobs. This means women would tend towards management of resources and maintaining relationships, in part because their relative lack of physical endurance would mean that this would be the safer option for them, but also because women tend to have minds that are better suited to such things. While feminists wouldn’t like it, more women would return to the trad wife life, even if only out of necessity and in consideration of what they’d have to offer in consideration of their innate attributes.

Considering this, what the woke movement shouldn’t want is challenging times, as woke pet causes tend to thrive more in the prosperous conditions that allow for the luxury of societal experimentation, erroneous philosophies, and the inflexibility of thinking that would result from the rigidness that is characteristic of the woke cult.

Yet, challenging times is just what one can expect, considering that it is the natural consequence of experimenting with ideologies such as wokeness.