Sep 10, 2023·edited Sep 10, 2023Liked by Good Citizen
Ummmm… didn’t we boycott moderna GC? I mean I have, and the that other p-word, boycotted them too…
The seals and sheep love their vaids, let them have a go at it, as many goes as they can boost up with. It’s for the good of all the people after all….
Am I missing something here? I don’t watch yellow ball anymore, the grunting she-men and the grunting he-women are too much for my brain to handle while watching yellow ball.
As for me, I'm just ignoring everything and found a job cleaning litter boxes for the furries in our public school system. Hell, if you can't beat them, might as well just help support the next generation of absolute psychopaths. Meanwhile, "experts" continue to be baffled.... 🙄😉
"Where are all those “brave conservatives” canceling Bud Light for the custom trannybrew backlash and Target for their tranny child tuck-wear line?"
I would not say it was "canceling" Bud Light or Target. Cancel culture is not the same as boycotting companies or products for their actual products or marketing efforts, or other things that are related to the business the company is doing.
Bud Light and Target made a point of showing their fealty to the trans cult as part of their official marketing effort. They each made the move to bow to the cult and to affirm "trans" ideology, so customers made the move away from them. That's never been what cancel culture meant.
Other targets of conservative boycotts have done things like "debanking" conservatives for their viewpoints. These are official acts by the bank, and it is fair game to boycott banks who attempt such things. It is the bank that is taking part in cancel culture when it opts to give the boot to its own customers in good standing because it does not like what those customers have said somewhere unrelated to their business dealings with that bank.
In cancel culture, there's always an element of bringing in someone's political views when they are not otherwise related to the matter at hand, like when Twitter gave the boot to many people espousing conservative viewpoints, including the President of the United States, not for violating their rules (although they always tried to claim that it was), but for saying things they didn't like. Twitter had a set of rules about what was acceptable and what was not, and as long as a given tweet was not in violation of those rules, the actual content of the message is not supposed to be their concern (by their own rules). When they brought in the element that was unrelated to their business, which in this case was people's political statements, and booted people for that, it was cancellation. Had they actually been in violation of the rules, that would have been a different story.
The most classic example of cancel culture I can think of was that of Brendan Eich, creator of the script programming language that powers the web (Javascript), who was for a short time the CEO of Mozilla. Soon after, someone found out that years before, he had donated a small bit of his own money to a Prop 8 campaign in California (opposing gay marriage).
Because of this, OKCupid, an online dating site, started yelling at people who visited with Firefox, Mozilla's main product. People within Mozilla were threatening to leave if Eich remained. It became this whole big brouhaha, and when the dust settled, Eich was out.
That's cancel culture. Eich was canceled for something that had nothing to do with his job or the role at the company. Mozilla was canceled by OKCupid not for doing something that would be harmful to the web, like so many things that Google does in the development of their own browser, but simply for having a CEO who, one time, years ago, spent his own money on a political campaign OKCupid didn't like. This was not part of Mozilla's marketing... it had nothing to do with that. Eich had demonstrated less than perfect fealty to the leftist narrative at some point in his life (though at the time that Eich made that donation, Barack Obama was also claiming to be against gay marriage), so he had to be destroyed... which meant that anything he was associated with had to be canceled until they gave in and got rid of him.
When Bed, Bath, and Beyond dropped My Pillow not because it was a bad product or because of some political statement My Pillow made, but because its founder and CEO Mike Lindell made statements as himself (not on behalf of My Pillow) that they did not like, that was cancel culture. When conservatives boycotted BB&B, that was not cancel culture... they were boycotting BB&B for an official act of the company, which has always been fair game.
Years ago, when Sara Lee awarded Sarah Brady their "humanitarian of the year" award for her efforts to infringe on people's Constitutional liberties, I put the company on my "do not buy" list, and they remain there to this day. That's not cancellation. The only reason a company like Sara Lee even has a "humanitarian of the year" award is for the purpose of marketing, and I am simply responding to that marketing as an official act of the company.
I have never boycotted a company because its CEO one time many years ago donated money to a political cause I do not like. I am aware that many of the companies that I buy from have CEOs that hold political views I find repugnant. So long as that company does not make that a part of their business dealings with the public, I consider the personal political views of each person within that company to be their own business.
Famed (late) political commentator Rush Limbaugh was a big fan of Apple products, even though Apple is run by people with leftist views, and they have not always kept those views out of the business. But on the whole, Apple is about selling iThings, so Rush spoke highly of them, and often bought them so that he could give them away on the show.
I do not agree with Rush's view about Apple. I do avoid Apple products, but it is not because Apple is a leftist company. It's because I don't like Apple policies, and the effect those policies have on their products. I do not like how iPads and iPhones are so locked down, and how hard Apple works to keep people locked out of their high-dollar products. I don't like how Apple has long engineered its products to not be easily repairable, or how they brush off engineering defects as "you're holding it wrong," or how they blame users for any other of their engineering failures.
King Billie Jean is a tranny, just like all of the "women" tennis stars. Let me elaborate on this, a continuation of yesterday's "Trant". (Tranny Rant). One of the many linchpin differences between a biological male and female is the way we walk. Real women, because of their hips, pelvis and Q angle (quadriceps) in their legs, put one foot behind and in front of the other. Men stroll with legs slightly apart moving straight forward. It's called the "Toy Soldier Walk". Some years ago, before I was really aware of the ubiquitous transgender phenomenon, I read a letter from a father who took his 12 year old daughter to see the tranny actor Johnny Depp in his pirate movie. He said during the show his daughter exclaimed, "Dad, Johnny Depp walks just like a girl walks!" Perspicacious kid. The oligarchic Founding Fathers were Freemasons and as I've touched on, those creeps are really into gender switching as well as regular transvestite, cross dressing drag. I recently saw a large picture of George Washington's, "First Lady" Martha Washington, and if "she" was not a guy, I'm a Tasmanian yak. Clearly, a man wearing a woman's dress and bonnet on very short hair. I imagine Georgie called "her", Big Marty, like Bwack Obongo calling his "wife" Michelle, Big Mike. I mentioned that to my knowledge there have been no defamation lawsuits against the transvestigators. I recall from my days as a pro se litigant in the trenches against the most evil entity in history, the American legal industry, 50 AmJur 2d 268 (American Jurisprudence: The Canon of American Law)- "Truth is an absolute, affirmative defense to slander and libel." Perhaps some of the luminaries on the world's stage have spoken to their respective shysters about suing and they gently pointed this out. In a knock down, drag out courtroom battle, the defendant could prove his or her assertions thus nullifying your lawsuit prompting dismissal and leaving you wide open for a counter suit. And uh, you do have a lot more assets than they have. Plus, think of the bad publicity! So the trannys reconsidered. This is pure conjecture on my part.
Feminists are a sneaky bunch ...... the gender wage gap is actually proof of female privilege not male privilege. Here's why...
Men have to earn more because men are expected (and forced) to subsidise women (it is a natural hard wired tendency as well). Men subsidise women by paying more taxes, which are spent disproportionally on women's social programs and women's welfare. In fact if you do the math women (as a whole) don't actually pay any taxes, only men to.
Most women expect their men to earn more than they do, and men who earn less than their partners are generally frowned upon as slackers. Women are naturally hypergamous, which incentivises men to go for that big wage packet.
Men earn more than women by doing more dangerous and dirty jobs. Women earn less than men by choosing jobs which offer more benefits in terms of convenience, social opportunities, ease of commute etc at the expense of a lower salary. A man might choose to be a chef on an oil rig, whereas a woman is more likely to choose to be a chef in a school. Same job, vastly different pay.
Measuring privilege by how much people earn is silly. Privilege should be measured by how much money is being spent on you by other people. The flow of resources always goes from men to women. He for she.
For every dollar a woman spends she only has to earn 77 cents thanks to men subsidising her. For every dollar a man spends he must earn 1 dollar 23 cents, because his role is to subsidise women.
If we enforced strict gender equality in terms of pay, women's standard of living would actually go down, not up.
Novax Djocovid!! Love it. That has to be an instant classic in play on words. Good read as usual Linking today as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Novax Djocovid - that is funny. I would say the ball is green but a friend, an artist, always corrects me on colors. I see something like ugly pink-brown, she says mauve. What do I know?
Ummmm… didn’t we boycott moderna GC? I mean I have, and the that other p-word, boycotted them too…
The seals and sheep love their vaids, let them have a go at it, as many goes as they can boost up with. It’s for the good of all the people after all….
Am I missing something here? I don’t watch yellow ball anymore, the grunting she-men and the grunting he-women are too much for my brain to handle while watching yellow ball.
Fact- America would be a better, stronger, more free country if women couldn’t vote and stayed home to raise children. Less talky more sandwich.
Good work, love the hearse, mind if I nick that and use it for one of my future stories? Many thanks, Doc.
Novak has advantage they won’t admit - love the post - the US open was a total disgrace this year in even more ways than you mentioned:(
As for me, I'm just ignoring everything and found a job cleaning litter boxes for the furries in our public school system. Hell, if you can't beat them, might as well just help support the next generation of absolute psychopaths. Meanwhile, "experts" continue to be baffled.... 🙄😉
Ha! Just exclaimed to my wife an hour ago: "Novax just won!"
Brilliant minds. Brilliant article!
An elite athlete being told how to manage his health by beauracrats was a huge red flag.
"Where are all those “brave conservatives” canceling Bud Light for the custom trannybrew backlash and Target for their tranny child tuck-wear line?"
I would not say it was "canceling" Bud Light or Target. Cancel culture is not the same as boycotting companies or products for their actual products or marketing efforts, or other things that are related to the business the company is doing.
Bud Light and Target made a point of showing their fealty to the trans cult as part of their official marketing effort. They each made the move to bow to the cult and to affirm "trans" ideology, so customers made the move away from them. That's never been what cancel culture meant.
Other targets of conservative boycotts have done things like "debanking" conservatives for their viewpoints. These are official acts by the bank, and it is fair game to boycott banks who attempt such things. It is the bank that is taking part in cancel culture when it opts to give the boot to its own customers in good standing because it does not like what those customers have said somewhere unrelated to their business dealings with that bank.
In cancel culture, there's always an element of bringing in someone's political views when they are not otherwise related to the matter at hand, like when Twitter gave the boot to many people espousing conservative viewpoints, including the President of the United States, not for violating their rules (although they always tried to claim that it was), but for saying things they didn't like. Twitter had a set of rules about what was acceptable and what was not, and as long as a given tweet was not in violation of those rules, the actual content of the message is not supposed to be their concern (by their own rules). When they brought in the element that was unrelated to their business, which in this case was people's political statements, and booted people for that, it was cancellation. Had they actually been in violation of the rules, that would have been a different story.
The most classic example of cancel culture I can think of was that of Brendan Eich, creator of the script programming language that powers the web (Javascript), who was for a short time the CEO of Mozilla. Soon after, someone found out that years before, he had donated a small bit of his own money to a Prop 8 campaign in California (opposing gay marriage).
Because of this, OKCupid, an online dating site, started yelling at people who visited with Firefox, Mozilla's main product. People within Mozilla were threatening to leave if Eich remained. It became this whole big brouhaha, and when the dust settled, Eich was out.
That's cancel culture. Eich was canceled for something that had nothing to do with his job or the role at the company. Mozilla was canceled by OKCupid not for doing something that would be harmful to the web, like so many things that Google does in the development of their own browser, but simply for having a CEO who, one time, years ago, spent his own money on a political campaign OKCupid didn't like. This was not part of Mozilla's marketing... it had nothing to do with that. Eich had demonstrated less than perfect fealty to the leftist narrative at some point in his life (though at the time that Eich made that donation, Barack Obama was also claiming to be against gay marriage), so he had to be destroyed... which meant that anything he was associated with had to be canceled until they gave in and got rid of him.
When Bed, Bath, and Beyond dropped My Pillow not because it was a bad product or because of some political statement My Pillow made, but because its founder and CEO Mike Lindell made statements as himself (not on behalf of My Pillow) that they did not like, that was cancel culture. When conservatives boycotted BB&B, that was not cancel culture... they were boycotting BB&B for an official act of the company, which has always been fair game.
Years ago, when Sara Lee awarded Sarah Brady their "humanitarian of the year" award for her efforts to infringe on people's Constitutional liberties, I put the company on my "do not buy" list, and they remain there to this day. That's not cancellation. The only reason a company like Sara Lee even has a "humanitarian of the year" award is for the purpose of marketing, and I am simply responding to that marketing as an official act of the company.
I have never boycotted a company because its CEO one time many years ago donated money to a political cause I do not like. I am aware that many of the companies that I buy from have CEOs that hold political views I find repugnant. So long as that company does not make that a part of their business dealings with the public, I consider the personal political views of each person within that company to be their own business.
Famed (late) political commentator Rush Limbaugh was a big fan of Apple products, even though Apple is run by people with leftist views, and they have not always kept those views out of the business. But on the whole, Apple is about selling iThings, so Rush spoke highly of them, and often bought them so that he could give them away on the show.
I do not agree with Rush's view about Apple. I do avoid Apple products, but it is not because Apple is a leftist company. It's because I don't like Apple policies, and the effect those policies have on their products. I do not like how iPads and iPhones are so locked down, and how hard Apple works to keep people locked out of their high-dollar products. I don't like how Apple has long engineered its products to not be easily repairable, or how they brush off engineering defects as "you're holding it wrong," or how they blame users for any other of their engineering failures.
King Billie Jean is a tranny, just like all of the "women" tennis stars. Let me elaborate on this, a continuation of yesterday's "Trant". (Tranny Rant). One of the many linchpin differences between a biological male and female is the way we walk. Real women, because of their hips, pelvis and Q angle (quadriceps) in their legs, put one foot behind and in front of the other. Men stroll with legs slightly apart moving straight forward. It's called the "Toy Soldier Walk". Some years ago, before I was really aware of the ubiquitous transgender phenomenon, I read a letter from a father who took his 12 year old daughter to see the tranny actor Johnny Depp in his pirate movie. He said during the show his daughter exclaimed, "Dad, Johnny Depp walks just like a girl walks!" Perspicacious kid. The oligarchic Founding Fathers were Freemasons and as I've touched on, those creeps are really into gender switching as well as regular transvestite, cross dressing drag. I recently saw a large picture of George Washington's, "First Lady" Martha Washington, and if "she" was not a guy, I'm a Tasmanian yak. Clearly, a man wearing a woman's dress and bonnet on very short hair. I imagine Georgie called "her", Big Marty, like Bwack Obongo calling his "wife" Michelle, Big Mike. I mentioned that to my knowledge there have been no defamation lawsuits against the transvestigators. I recall from my days as a pro se litigant in the trenches against the most evil entity in history, the American legal industry, 50 AmJur 2d 268 (American Jurisprudence: The Canon of American Law)- "Truth is an absolute, affirmative defense to slander and libel." Perhaps some of the luminaries on the world's stage have spoken to their respective shysters about suing and they gently pointed this out. In a knock down, drag out courtroom battle, the defendant could prove his or her assertions thus nullifying your lawsuit prompting dismissal and leaving you wide open for a counter suit. And uh, you do have a lot more assets than they have. Plus, think of the bad publicity! So the trannys reconsidered. This is pure conjecture on my part.
Feminists are a sneaky bunch ...... the gender wage gap is actually proof of female privilege not male privilege. Here's why...
Men have to earn more because men are expected (and forced) to subsidise women (it is a natural hard wired tendency as well). Men subsidise women by paying more taxes, which are spent disproportionally on women's social programs and women's welfare. In fact if you do the math women (as a whole) don't actually pay any taxes, only men to.
Most women expect their men to earn more than they do, and men who earn less than their partners are generally frowned upon as slackers. Women are naturally hypergamous, which incentivises men to go for that big wage packet.
Men earn more than women by doing more dangerous and dirty jobs. Women earn less than men by choosing jobs which offer more benefits in terms of convenience, social opportunities, ease of commute etc at the expense of a lower salary. A man might choose to be a chef on an oil rig, whereas a woman is more likely to choose to be a chef in a school. Same job, vastly different pay.
Measuring privilege by how much people earn is silly. Privilege should be measured by how much money is being spent on you by other people. The flow of resources always goes from men to women. He for she.
For every dollar a woman spends she only has to earn 77 cents thanks to men subsidising her. For every dollar a man spends he must earn 1 dollar 23 cents, because his role is to subsidise women.
If we enforced strict gender equality in terms of pay, women's standard of living would actually go down, not up.
Novax Djocovid!! Love it. That has to be an instant classic in play on words. Good read as usual Linking today as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
The good news is that Novak Djokovic won. That energetically says "beaucoup."
Dean
Which imaginary country does Novax Djocovid come from?
Since you brought Moderna up, here is a little ditty I made based off of Tom Jones' "Delilah". Enjoy:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SfQMYWi3M4eb/
Novax Djocovid - that is funny. I would say the ball is green but a friend, an artist, always corrects me on colors. I see something like ugly pink-brown, she says mauve. What do I know?
The movies Idiocracy and Team America.
Oh so relevant today.