You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Ethics’ category.
The Tesla backlash of March 2025 and the Bud Light controversy of 2023 both ignited swift, ideologically charged consumer reactions amplified by social media. Bud Light’s woes began with a Dylan Mulvaney ad, sparking a conservative boycott that cratered sales by up to 26%, while Tesla’s stem from Elon Musk’s Trump ties, alienating liberals and moderates as its stock plummeted over 40%. Both cases show how fast brand loyalty can erode when politics collide with commerce.
Yet, the responses differ sharply in tone and tactics. Bud Light faced a peaceful, effective boycott—think Kid Rock’s viral gunplay—focused on wallets, not violence, with sales dipping hard but stabilizing later. Tesla’s backlash has veered into chaos, with arson and vandalism targeting cars and dealerships, reflecting a rawer fury possibly fueled by Musk’s outsized persona and Tesla’s physical presence as a punching bag. The right shunned Bud Light; the left now torches Tesla.
Bud Light retreated, tweaking its image to appease critics, while Musk doubles down, flaunting Teslas at the White House amid Trump’s support. The beer brand took a hit but survived as a commodity; Tesla’s premium status and Musk’s defiance make its crisis more existential, blending economic rejection with a destructive edge. These sagas reveal how political tribalism can punish brands—one with a cold shoulder, the other with Molotovs.
“I Investigated the UK’s Most CENSORIOUS Campus (4K)” delves into the atmosphere of one of the UK’s universities known for its restrictive policies on free speech. The video, by journalist Andrew Gold, investigates how this institution has become a focal point for debates on censorship, examining incidents where speakers have been banned or events canceled due to their potentially controversial content.
It discusses the tension between ensuring a safe space for all students and the traditional university ethos of open debate and inquiry, highlighting specific cases where academic freedom has been challenged by student activism or university policies.
The narrative captures both the perspectives of those advocating for more censorship to protect vulnerable groups and those who see it as an erosion of free expression.
The Liberal government supports the corrosion of the basis of our society – a stable family structure is under siege as usual under the guise of “progressive” values.
On Aug. 7, Quebec researchers published an article on “Children’s views on the romantic partners of their polyamorous parents” in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, a federal grant-giving body that distributes taxpayer funds to academic projects.
SSHRC communications advisor Nicole Swiaterk confirmed to True North taxpayers paid $70,662 between 2019 and 2021 for the study. Funds were awarded via the Insight Development Grants competition.
Researchers interviewed 18 children between the ages of 5 and 16 years old. Three of the children in the cohort lived in households with their parents’ multiple sexual partners. Nine of the ten households interviewed included adults who identified as LGBTQ+.
“We found that the participating children generally appreciate their parents’ romantic partners,” researchers concluded.”
–Hat tip to the The True North
One of the main drivers of the transgender movement is male paraphilias. This abuse of children in the name of perversion must stop.
Children are being harmed because medical practitioners are either ideologically captured or too scared to speak out against the grotesque medical experimentation undertaken in the name of transgender ideology.
The transgender debate revolves around thought terminating clichés being flung at people rather than actual arguments based on facts and evidence. “No debate”, “TWAW”, and of course “you don’t want trans people to exist!” are all meant to emotionally manipulate and coerce people into agreement or at least silence on the the matters of gender affirming care specifically, and transgender health care in general. This is why (trans) activists almost always take this route because the facts (and medical evidence) DO NOT support their position and said evidence often indicates a risk of significant iatrogenic harm for children and adults.
When talking with the gender religious another dodge they will use is puberty blockers are just being used in a small number of cases. Replace ‘puberty blockers’ with lobotomies or thalidomide treatments to see how well this argument holds up…
This tragic medical scandal is what happens when we allow medical decisions to be made on the basis of feelings and activism, as opposed to evidence based medicine.
GAC is being halted in the UK and across Europe – Canada needs to get its head out of the sand and rejoin the medical community that follows evidence based medicine instead of the strictures of transgender activism. Children’s lives are being ruined because of this quackery and it needs to stop.
The article quoted below by Maria Maynes describes the content of the study. Read the full article here.
“A new study has suggested that damage done by puberty blockers is permanent, casting doubt on claims by trans campaigners that the hormone drugs simply “pause” puberty and provide time for children who question their gender.
The preprint study from the Mayo Clinic, a world-renowned leader in medical research, found mild to severe atrophy in the testes and sperm of male children on puberty blockers. The authors of the groundbreaking study have expressed doubt about the “reversibility” of such blockers, a claim made by campaigners who promote the use of the drugs for gender dysphoric children.
Scientists at the world-renowned clinic who carried out the study found that puberty blockers can lead to fertility problems, withering testicles, and even cancer among children who take them. Authors found that puberty blockers hurt the development of testicles and sperm production in ways that cannot be fully reversed, with problems including impacting users’ ability to have children in adulthood.”
[…]
“The recently published preprint came ahead of the long-anticipated Cass Review in Britain, released on Wednesday, with the independent review warning that healthcare professionals felt afraid to discuss their views on transgender services for children. The report also found that there was no evidence that puberty blockers or hormone drugs “buy time to think” or reduce the suicide risk in children suffering from gender dysphoria.
The publication of the review by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass has confirmed the NHS in England’s shift away from the medicalised treatment of children struggling with their gender, to one focused on talk therapy and support.
The Mayo Clinic preprint, although not yet peer-reviewed or published, suggests that some of the effects of puberty blockers on testes and sperm may not be reversible, sparking concern from leading medics.
Prof Ashley Grossman, a University of Oxford endocrinologist, has pointed to the study as proof that there is ‘no good evidence’ showing puberty blockers help children.
The endocrinologist highlighted the study, saying that the drugs are too risky to be given to the “greatly increased” number of adolescents who identify as transgender.
“Routine puberty blocking treatment for this use has not yet been adequately studied, and many of these children may have other problems for which they need help,’ he added, hinting at a growing body of evidence showing gender confused youngsters often have other, underlying mental health issues,” he said, as he pointed to the early data released by the Mayo Clinic in the preprint last month.
The UK last month joined the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Norway in a growing list of European nations to have either placed restrictions on or banned medical interventions for gender dysphoric children.”
We need to act now to stop this reckless experimentation on our children.
Cutting to the heart of the matter as usual, J.K. Rowling on single sex spaces.
Unfortunately male socialization and the violence that is inherent with it remains the problem. This isn’t a plea to ‘sensitize’ men. Nothing of the sort, males, in the process of their socialization need to be taught to respect the boundaries and rights of others. They need to be taught to be cognizant that other people experience and act in the world differently than they do.
I am all for a rough and tumble socialization experience for both sexes, we need to seek environments for our children that encourage the adoption of anti-fragile attitudes and strategies. Our lives are filled with challenges and hard tasks that require the habits physical and mental resiliency to be in place before reaching maturation. We need to steer away from male and female socialization and more toward “good people” socialization – in which people are raised to be assertive, creative, and respectful of themselves and others.
“Good people” socialization is an end goal though, first we must deal with the sex stereotypes that harm both women and men – that is the first step.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…