As problematic as the "groomer" smear is, I hope it's at least understood that it is also a product of many years of every nuanced, reasonable expression of concern over gender-affirming care being ignored, gaslit, and ostracized as bigotry while medical professionals and academics (plus all sorts of recruited activists from the normal world with no domain experience) ran full steam ahead with their fingers in their ears.
It is not my first preference to 'go there' with hyperbolic and catastrophizing language when discussing these issues, partly because I do have a worry about its spillover on regular LGB people who don't support giving puberty blockers to children. But since the smear seems to be the only thing that has drawn blood, forced my opposition to ocassionally pause or walk things back, and has produced a swelling of support from a subset of 'normal folk', I would be an idiot to urge for its retirement.
The investigations that ultimately ended up clearing Trump were treated as de facto proof of guilt by the media, Dem politicians, members of their investigative committees, and various NatSec officials in positions of seniority. Even with the Mueller report, the common refrain in its aftermath was "Trump may not have been proven guilty, but he wasn't proven innocent either". Even today, it is nigh impossible to get any plurality of Trump opponents to admit the accusations were bupkis, and there remains a substantial minority that still believes them outright.
As many here are fond of saying, "the process was the punishment". The investigations were blatantly weaponized, leaving a stench even if the shit didn't stick.
The CIA and its affiliates may be totally sqeaky clean and above-board behind closed doors. But since nobody has visibility into that apparatus, and history would indicate that's not particularly likely, I'm giving them zero deference.
I have no idea who Pence or Biden may have exposed their documents to while they were sitting in their garages. So maybe indict them any way well after the fact.
In cases where characters are raceswapped, it seems like most of it these days is trying social commentary, even if on a meta level. To my eyes, at least.
Turning a character that was long considered white in the original text and all of its adaptations may not have have anything in-universe turn on it. But you can just go ahead and read the press release or the creator's Twitter page to figure out why this is happening. They may even say something like "I only did this because I thought this was novel and interesting!", but then quickly reveal that what makes it novel/interesting is pushing back against white male patriarchy or whatever.
My default assumption, but I can also see current-day writers avoiding it because "I feel icky just even writing the word". Part and parcel of modern writing being unble to write anything outside of its own perspective, and coming up with ridiculous (yet strangely gimped) caricatures when it attempts to.
I am reminded of Stormfront from The Boys. In a show that revels in trashy awfulness, and really wishes to impress on you the irredeemable bigotry of her character, its remarkable which areas the creators refuse to go. When we have the flashback to her horrific murder of an innocent black man, they can't even muster the bravery to have the N word (or anything similar) leave her mouth. Instead you get childlike utterances like "you black piece of shit" and whatnot. As if her lines were written by a teenager that really really wants an uber-racist villainess, but is mindful to not cross the line and get scolded by his teachers.
I suddenly realized that this show - despite all its outward appearances - does not have any balls.
Is Fasnacht all that spicy? Some bizarre imagery and some grotesque caricatures, but not really Love Parade circa '99 (RIP). More of a colorful brass instrument party that occasionally invites itself into your pub, killing any attempts at conversation without yelling.
A single individual writing an email about how they "don't need anymore useless black men" would trigger a virulent autoimmune response from everybody within reach of it. So much so that even if the writer truly felt those words, they would self-censor them knowing full well that their livelihood would be terminated as a consequence. The individual who writes such a statement in professional context with their full name attached to it doesn't exist, given the aforementioned. And even if they did, excusing a lack of reproach from their surrounding peers because "it's just one person" would not be sufficient in the eyes of most people. Correctly or incorrectly, we expected full-throated condemnation and ostracization to signal to everybody else they're on the good pages and do not tolerate bigotry.
If we have reached the point where describing whites in this fashion is just some modern-day faux pas that oblivious people can just innocently and accidentally stumble into - without any forerunning mental checks that would usually trigger the "Wait, does this sound racist?" moments of introspection people have had cultivated over the last half century, then that is quite telling. The negative space around people who write emails like those in the OP is instructional precisely because it doesn't trigger all the same fiery noise and ra-ra that would never fucking end if skin tones were inverted.
"Bud Light is throwing their weight behind the idea that a natural born man can transition into a woman - an idea that is harmful in its consequences, disrespectful to reality, and is quite possibly the most ridiculous development in our political arena in ways I could have never foreseen."
If you believe the above, I think this is a decent enough reason to boycott? This isn't an argument over some sprawling, poorly-understood topic like the pros/cons of taxes or immigration policy. This is more like a company telling you that the color green is no different from red, without a trace of winking, Millenial irony attached, except worse given the subject matter.
Some hack writer burning a Trump effigy in his show is dumb, but mostly just eyeroll-inducing. The psychology behind such a person and their behavior is completely legible to me, even if it's idiotic. But for trans issues, it does feel like many on the left are downloading their views from a heretofore undiscovered alien planet. I can break bread with or let bygones be bygones to some extent with somebody who really likes socialism. It is increasingly difficult to do so with people who are being absurd on an even more fundamental level - if not the most.
The Bud/Mulvaney controversy was likely sprung from a critical mass of people already predisposed towards being unfavorable having an "Oh, come the fuck on" moment, particularly attenuated by having this come from Bud Light of all brands.
On your 2nd point - did they really?
If the marine restraining Neely was in the wrong and jumped the gun, intervening on Neely's behalf would have made it less likely that he dies. Instead, they enabled the marine.
I'm very much on the side of the marine and the men who assisted, but you cannot so neatly excuse the 'extras' from culpability if you see Neely's death as a grave injustice. If you're going to be pissed at the marine, you should be pissed at the others.
Saying "Actually, the other two men could have potentially saved Neely's life by helping restraining him" is a disingenuous redirection from the obvious racial dynamics at play. That may have pull with you, but I'm betting most people who are even aware of the incident don't even know there were others involved.
We could investigate the reasons behind that state of affairs as well, but the answers will also lie in that general direction.
pain4 iirc
When Bud Lite gives somebody a commemorative can to celebrate their personal milestone of fake womahood, I would say they've sailed past bland ol' marketing and are deliberately pandering. And while I have a degree of tolerance for pandering, I have grown incredibly tired of the relentless affirmation of falshehoods and poor understandings woven throughout the trans phenomenon.
You want to put a rainbow flag over a six-pack? I think that's cringe, but I'm fine with it because I understand that symbol to be vague and open enough for people to read what they want from it. You want to personally celebrate a weirdo with their farcical, unconvincing transition into womanhood? Well... why? Could you imagine Bud giving commemorative cans to Dolezal for her inspiring journey into 'blackness'? And what would the reaction from the hoi polloi be? Sure, it wouldn't affect me personally. But it would be such an opportunity loss to not criticize it as abjectly stupid, or to question what the hell Bud was even thinking when they greenlit this stunt, and to also point out this pattern in marketing is increasingly ubiquitous from all major brands.
No, this doesn't affect the taste or quality of the product. But the cultural assumptions and messaging being baked into media and ads - now coming from your 'classic degenerate US beer company' - are absolutely obnoxious and demanding a pushback. What specificially is Bud celebrating here? What values are they displaying when they treat Dylan's transition as some legitimate thing that isn't to be questioned? Does the average employee even believe it? Or are they just going to continue ramrodding this shit, and once cornered default to "Hey guys! We just want to be nice and inclusive, no big deal! Choo choo", as if there isn't
a festering sociopolitical rat's nest of unexamined assumptions and contradictions roiling underneath?
"I just consume what I like and pay no attention to the marketing" is very much where I'd like to be, and probably where I still would be if this was the era of non-political Budweiser Frogs. Unfortunately, I have learned that I 'live in a society', and wokeness is intent on appropriating and weaponizing everything it can get its hands on; 'forcing' consensus through pop culture while skipping over every serious deliberation that could undercut it.
The Mulvaney cans are one of the biggest flexes I've seen, in many ways because of Bud Lite's preexisting image of a low-class red tribe beer. As if to say "even this territory can be conquered and made fabulous and gay, and boy aren't you the dysfunctional non-nice weirdo if disagree with any of this". One wonders why this whole performance - separate from the beer itself - might piss people off.
But does it work? I find it just as plausible that messing with the dynamic by adding a 'novel' member could also lose you some of the existing audience. And if that thought occurs to me, I'm sure it occurs to anybody whose livelihood depends on those analytics. And if a popular podcast or show were to still increase on popularity after the new member's addition, is that vindication or irrelevance?
Popularity is a fickle thing, and I have no idea how you would be able to tease an assessment from all the available data, given the number of factors blowing around in the wind. But I have always found the 'common sense' argument of "Duh, add a woman to grow the audience!" lacking in demonstration. It's so 'obvious' that you wonder why so many companies didn't snatch the free money earlier.
They thought all of that, and more, and worse well before Jan 6th. That event was just the closest thing to an actual legitimate concern they could latch onto at the last hour, validating all prior fears that never came true - at least the one's they bother to remember.
I think I do understand why Democrats think the way they do; what animates their 'shrill hysterics'. It just has precious little to do with their stated reasons.
The most recent 'moderate Dem' to clinch the presidency has presided over a turbo-charged progressivism that's become even more expansive and normalized than even during the 'crazy' Trump years. A development that I was assured would not occur, because said President is old, boring, vanilla, and 'doesnt look or talk like an extremist'.
What on Earth makes you think a DeSantis nomination would force moderation of anything? I would like somebody to actually explain the mechanism that will force the temperatures to die down, because so much of the rationale on offer has proven to be naive or a lie.
Fair.
What if he's just right, though? What if all of that is an honest-to-god explanation for the change in public approval? I undertsand we expect a level of charity, rigor, and definition for arguments in this space, but we are now talking about John Q Public "normies", and they are not beholden to any such considerations when they reach their verdicts, imperfect as they may be.
Maybe those seemingly disparate things are all sinking each other because they are not being offered piecemeal for individual assessment, but as a total package that needs to be accepted or rejected wholesale - an ultimatum I certainly didn't bring to the table, nor did most conservatives.
Sure, you and I could break it apart and evaluate the merits of any given piece as an intellectual exercise. But I don't live here on this forum. My online presence is spread across places and platforms beyond TheMotte, and I can see what an average person may be bombarded with just from opening a new tab in Microsoft Edge
If WhiningCoil is being uncharitable, perhaps it's because the population we're discussing (those switching from supporting to resisting GAC) have run out of charity. That's as real and honest an explanation as anything else.
I feel like being kind and compassionate works better with IRL acquaintances. Although IME they too have a persistent habit of just turning off their brains the moment the arguments get more detailed than anything they've gleamed from an activist's TikTok video.
But in the public sphere, there is observable value in being mean. The Left has been really good at employing mockery and mean-spiritedness to their own ends. It makes hay for the true believers, and cows fence-sitters into snapping into the cool, trendy orthodoxy of the day out of fear of being embarrassed. When I was a younger man on the Left, it was a popular sentiment that to really destroy bad ideas, you had to ruthlessly mock and ridicule them (with facts and reason on our side, but of course!).
Admittedly, I don't think this breaks any cycles. Grudges will be held, vengeance may be enacted further down the line. It's not lost on me that that much of the progressive zeitgeist is a reaction to some conservative Christian status quo ante. This ain't exactly stable.
But maybe being an uncompromising, loudmouth fucker is the only way you stay in the fight.
Then the game has been laid out very clearly. My enemy must be totally vanquished before they do the same to me. Reconciling with the opposition is a fool's errand; at best providing a minor speedbump, at worst enabling my opponents to snag a few more miles out from under me. It's not like being patient and reasonable was slowing anything down.
It should be said that I really hate this, and that I write those words with some measure of guilt and shame. I'm not even 100% sure "this is the way", but I am frantically looking for another path and coming up empty. Trans activists have boxed in this debate with such immense dishonesty, with no effective antibodies to push back with.
I'm far from pleased to have Matt Walsh and various other SocCons being champions for my views. But this displeasure is starting to feel like a prissy holdover from a prior era. On some level, there is still a well-honed instict that conservatives have cooties. It's probably in my best interest to fully get over that at this point.
You know full well I'm talking about media outlets twisting themselves in knots over how to gender a mass shooter - or in many cases trying to dodge it altogether by just not mentioning it.
You only find yourself in this bind if you've swallowed trans activists' prescriptions, but now find yourself having trouble fully digesting them.
I'm assuming people who have a lifetime of experience swimming in testosterone manage better than those who dose up later.
The levels of aggression and horniness seems to catch many FtM by surprise.
They willingly waded into the no-win scenario that I'm sure many people warned them of. Sympathy seems unnecessary.
It actually rings true to me, because I guess it's how I thought for a bit. And it rears its head even in interpersonal affairs. Somewhere during my youth it got instilled in me that being judgmental was an inherently negative trait - a sentiment I attribute entirely to the pop dissemination of therapy talk.
I remember expressing to a friend my concern over some obviously bad and harmful decisions they were making, and was defensively accused of being judgmental with a real finger-wagging tone. A couple other instances of things like that eventually broke the spell, but god knows why I didn't see the absurdity of that thinking earlier.
KMC brought up the Spider Man example, and another more recent one was a mod that altered the voice of a trans character in the new Harry Potter game.
I feel like a decade ago the culture would have said "If you don't like it, don't download it". But apparently region switching your game to the Saudi version in order to remove pride flags is too much of a moral affront. It should not just be deleted, but shamed in a public statement.
And nowhere in this controversy does anybody stop to wonder if maybe the devs should catch some flak for even making this an option within the game's own code. Just burn the guy who pointed it out.
Regarding trans children at least, I don't know how many parents take their cues on child-rearing from online porn. I think there's a general heuristic that the internet is a crazy place, and whatever hot new fad or kink that is expressed from online spaces is just "that weird meme crap my kid ocassionally references that I don't understand or feel like understanding, because the 'net is crazy". It's hard to separate it from "The Grimace Millshake Challenge" or whatever bizarre FOMO meme is being reported on, and you can see your Mom's face screw up in judgmental confusion as you attempt to explain it.
If this is just crazy internet shit, you can hold onto the hope (somewhat reliably) that the fad will pass and all you need to do is hold down the fort as the storm moves past you. Codifying it into education sanewashes and perpetuates the phenomenon, because you can't so easily dismiss an army of smart-sounding educators who supposedly knows what's best for your child and are 'experts' on teaching kids - since you're just some dummy that has the humility to understand some things are beyond your understanding and intellect, so might as well to defer to your betters even if it makes you uncomfortable
I think many people are wising up to the idea that this trusted dynamic has been utterly abused. And resisiting the trans push into education is 'holding down the fort'.
More options
Context Copy link