They both look like freaks because they surgically mutilated themselves.
With Madonna we say “ew, why do that, we loved you for your incredible talent!”.
But with Dylan we cannot say that because 𝙬𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙢𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚.
Had we lived in an era without the trans influencer fast track to stardom (narcissistic supply), Dylan would not be pretending to be a woman. He would be seeking accolades and affirmation some other way (such as he previously was in musical theatre).
Dylan has real talent, he’s a good looking guy, he’s charismatic, articulate & persuasive. He seems nice & a little bit needy. When people don’t affirm him, he plays the part of a naive, hurt child very convincingly & he makes you want to just be nice & protect him. That’s human.
But the inner child that Dylan Mulvaney is on the inside, that we see in his genuine seeming hurt, naïveté & emotionally immature innocence, is the extent of who Dylan Mulvaney is. He knows not what he does - politically. He is a child. Emotional arrested development.
There are other autogynephiles who lurk in the dark, for whom a distinct strain of sadomasochism and darkness is far more palpable. Dylan is at the top of his game, he has a non stop source of narcissistic supply. He is content. Take that away, you’d see the sadistic side emerge.
Most of the girls and boys being psyopped into surgical and medical mutilation are not good looking and successful narcissists with a 10 million plus platform, a line to the Whitehouse, and product endorsements up the wazoo. They’re confused, depressed, alienated kids.
When they get indoctrinated into this cult by happy, successful, charismatic people at the top of their game, it becomes easy to believe that changing their gender, getting surgery and “redefining” yourself is the path out of confusion, depression & alienation.
But it isn’t. Most men are going to look far uglier and less attractive than Dylan, if they attempt to remake themselves into a woman. Hearing an ornery old fella like Matt Walsh point out how creepy Dylan looks as a woman, may snap them out of that trance.
Surgical mutilation will never make you happy. Pretending to be something you’re not, will never make you happy. Fulfilling your duties within social relationships with real people who love you for you—not for your propaganda utility to their cult—is the true path to happiness.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
They’re only doing this after they purged how many normal journalists and terrorised the entire newsroom into conformity for how many years? This is an illusion of freedom. The fact that JOURNALIST union intervened FOR trans cry-bullies & against journalistic freedom says it all.
NYT trans coverage was five years too late. And yet their union is still running Maoist struggle sessions to push transexual cry bully censorship. The fact that any pushback is seen as a win is revealing. A union claiming dissent from trans agenda = “hostile conditions” is absurd
Media unions exist to enact horizontal ideological discipline (terror) in media workplaces. If you disagree with radical leftist orthodoxy in any way whatsoever, you’re creating a hostile work environment and making your comrades unsafe. You need to be fired for solidarity!
Apparently this man said “assassinate AOC” in a twitter comment, and it was an aggravating factor at sentencing. When AOC complains about death threats, and being a victim, it’s this kind of empty nonsense from powerless dorks, who are made to rot in federal prison for years.
I’m not joking, people write lunatic nonsense to me constantly, the thought of locking them up for doing so makes me sick. Lashing out at a hoe that makes you mad online is a gesture of futility & powerlessness. I feel bad for them, I block or ignore, it doesn’t impact me at all.
I do not think he “threatened the life of a congresswoman”. I think there’s a first amendment argument to be made that it did not constitute a “true threat” and that this constitutes an unlawful overreach on the part of the government.
Acceptance/affirmation fetishism is the longhouse’s preferred mode of governing re complex political problems. Just pretend the bad thing (like obesity, or disability, or high crime neighbourhoods) are good, and anyone recognising reality is a no good very bad bigot.
The beauty of this ideology is that it not only fails to solve real world problems, it denies their existence & redirects moral intuitions of its adherents toward discourse policing, scolding, cancelling anyone who speaks out about a problem in an effort to do something about it.
The reason why you’d want that, as a lefty = by denying existence of problems that impact right wing more (eg small business/parents) or have rw solutions (eg police) then you prevent adherents from straying beyond lefty groupthink mind meld, so they remain on democrat plantation
Anyone online is playing on the same territory where clicks and subs and whatever else are the currency of the realm. But assuming that your opponents are “cynics” just saying what they say for “clicks” is idiotic, because it applies to you just as much as them.
Some people are concerned more with making a point, whether popular or otherwise & will take the hits without aiming for mainstream/virality (as long as they can maintain a steady platform). Others aim for high reach, & that will mean wait until an issue is close to saturation…
point, edgy but still just on the cusp of acceptability, and that will mean they can translate an issue in a way that a much larger audience ready to grasp it. Lots of my stuff is stoic autism that only makes sense in 12 months when issue clear enough to see what I’m on about.
It’s easy to make an issue digestible, package it down into a civilised, market friendly, easy pill-to-swallow, once the political stakes have expired and the battle is over. This is what a great many pundits do, after the fact, when the rewards are great, and the stakes are low.
There is some utility to these types, who can often be a more palatable face & voice, marketing an issue to a normcore mainstream audience. The problem is when they delude themselves into thinking the downstream market friendly product that they produce, would be possible without
the obnoxious, deranged, uncivil, conspiracy theorists etc. at vanguard of an issue, the activist types (be they irl or online), the ones who “talk shit, get hit” at frontier of a contentious issue, before it’s market friendly—when talking about it has only costs, not benefits.