Young people are open about voting based on “vibes.” They are not informed on, nor are interested, in policy. It’s a popularity contest. It’s about proximity to their favorite celebrities and the “good feels” they get believing they’re voting for social progress.
Top comments on the above viral TikTok post:
“The dnc was like a class that got a pizza party in school while the rnc took a test”
“the RNC honestly could’ve been an email”
“the rnc looks like bingo night in a retirement home”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵There’s an Instagram creator I follow called “Mister Mainer” who makes really funny dog videos. He puts wigs on his dogs, gives them voices, and creates characters—one of them is a realtor named Karen Bark.
The videos are very entertaining, and he’s built a large following—close to 2 million on Instagram, and over 20 million on TikTok.
Lately, though, he’s been posting nonstop leftist political content—“trans rights,” “No Kings” (promoted as protesting fascism), and anti-deportation videos.
He recently lost two sponsors because they have policies against working with political creators.
He framed it as being dropped for supporting human rights.
I’m sure he really believes that. I did too, for a brief period back in 2020, when I got swept up in the same social justice rhetoric. I had only a very superficial understanding of politics, but being part of a group gave me undeserved confidence in my views.
This isn't about human rights at all. It's about a narrow, far-left worldview that employs dishonest framing and childish tactics—claiming that if you don't agree with their approach, you oppose human rights. That kind of social pressure works on a lot of people.
🧵A key claim behind medical interventions for minors is that being transgender is innate and immutable—something you're born with and can't change.
In Skrmetti v. U.S., the Supreme Court addressed that claim. “Immutable” appears 19 times in the ruling.
In the Opinion of the Court, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s judgment, which declined to treat transgender status as a protected class—partly because it is not “defined by obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics.”
Justice Barrett wrote that transgender status isn’t immutable like race or sex. It can’t be identified at birth, develops at different ages, and some people detransition. For that reason, it doesn’t qualify for heightened legal protection.
Paris Hilton says it’s her mission to shut down the “troubled teen industry.” Youth residential treatment serves kids in deep psychiatric crisis. She suggests parents try grounding them or taking their phone.
She helped pass 12 state laws—and the fallout is already visible. 🧵
Residential treatment isn’t for teens who miss curfew.
It’s for kids who’ve made serious attempts to harm themselves or others, experienced psychosis, or cycled through multiple hospitalizations.
For many families, it’s the last hope after everything else fails.
Paris Hilton went to Provo Canyon School, a psychiatric residential facility, in the late ’90s. Her expanding, uncorroborated story of abuse has helped pass 12 state laws and a federal bill. I went there a few years later. It wasn’t abusive. It helped me.
A pro-pedophile group is training mental health providers to implement “affirmative MAP therapy”—a framework explicitly modeled on LGBT-affirmative therapy, aimed at affirming pedophiles’ attraction to minors and integrating that attraction into their identity.
Researchers and therapists who work with pedophiles to prevent child abuse are doing difficult but important work. In order to get them to participate in research or seek help, they must create a nonjudgmental environment—something the public may misinterpret as condoning abuse.
Researchers typically distinguish people with pedophilic inclinations from those who act on them, and believe that such impulses can be effectively managed with cognitive-behavioral therapy, medications that lower sexual drive, and structured support groups.
The studies used to support that claim rely on biological evidence of gender nonconformity—traits linked to same-sex attraction or intersex conditions—and are misrepresented as proof that being trans is a biological condition.
In Talbott v. Trump, Judge Ana C. Reyes asked both parties to brief the court on “questions of biology,” prompting plaintiffs to submit a 5-page brief arguing that transgender identity is both innate and immutable, and constitutes “a discernible class.” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
The brief cited studies on brain structure, twin concordance, genetics, and prenatal hormone exposure to claim that gender identity is “innate,” “deep-seated,” and “impervious to change,” and that a “scientific consensus” supports the biological basis of trans identity.