Skip to main content

Essay: Slurs Aren't Activism: Critiquing Natalie Wynn's Zionism and Her Critics Calling Her "Narcissist"

This essay, "Slurs Aren't Activism," was written to critique Natalie Wynn, aka ContraPoints, for her liberal Zionism, but also ableist critics like Bad Empanada calling her "narcissist" (affecting myself and my friends; i.e., being trans and/or mentally ill, including having various mental disorders). It remains part of my Sex Positivity series, albeit coming from outside the books, themselves; i.e., belonging to a disparate body of essays and interviews that fall under the same basic umbrella, but often will engage with more than the usual suspects: tokenism, but also bigoted allies.

For the Visually Impaired: I will also be reading the SFW version aloud on my YouTube channel.

Disclaimer Regarding Essay Contents: This essay is non-profit and provided for purposes of education, critique, and satire; i.e., as a matter of professional opinion against multiple other public figures and publicly available material during times of state crisis.

CW: classism, racism, transphobia, Zionism, ableism, genocide

Slurs Aren't Activism: Critiquing Natalie Wynn's Zionism and Her Critics Calling Her "Narcissist"

"People who talk about sex constantly and openly like it's their main interest must be dealt with. Make it taboo again." / "'BDSM doctor.' That's not a real thing, Jesus-fucking-Christ." —Bad Empanada, in a 2024 community post

A variety of people have responded to Contrapoints, aka Natalie Wynn; i.e., to her terrible breaking of silence four days ago, but also twenty-plus months into the Palestinian genocide… only to defend the two-state solution while calling anti-Zionist activism a "lost cause"—specifically on the Left, for punching up at Biden and Trump's funding of said genocide (the irony and hypocrisy here is off the charts, below):

(source tweet, Dexterontox: July 9th, 2025)

I want to respond to Wynn, herself, but also critics of Wynn—namely those calling her a "narcissist"; i.e., in ways that, whether those who use this slur mean to or not (or however tempting it may be to use in its harmful, colloquial sense), are doing so all the same while harming their own arguments; e.g., Bad Empanada—someone I've criticized in the past for their own bigotry despite their valid postcolonial stances—calling Wynn a narcissist to shoot his argument in the foot: "Contrapoints - Zionist Narcissism Personified." Slurs are bad and only contribute to genocide when used by those who can't reclaim them (e.g., calling Hitler the n-word when you're not black to "critique" genocide only furthers genocide). Zionism is wrong, but slurs aren't activism (nor a diagnosis), Bad Empanada.

We'll get to that. First, let's consider the many responses to Wynn.

In response to Wynn's hateful, self-important screed denying genocide, critics on the Left responded with rage, and quite validly—Wynn's a sell-out for the establishment and has been for years, whitewashing genocide when this was her moment to, if not shine (she's kept quiet for too long to do that), then at least save face. Instead, she stonewalls, making me think of a Frank Zappa quote that feels all too relevant: "At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater. It's better to have something to remember than anything to regret."

In other words, it's better to dismantle bigotry productively than contribute to Butler's gender trouble during multiple genocides; i.e., Palestine is one genocide, and the Trans Problem is another. You don't prevent them by using slurs in a bigoted way.

Furthermore, if the Palestinian Question requires American pushback to prevent, then I fail to see how punching down at GNC people and disabled folk (some of the more marginalized people in America) helps your case; i.e., we fags are just so self-centered, didn't you know? And if that were true, calling us names that dehumanize us won't be very persuasive; instead, it's coercive. This effect (and its praxial inertia) certainly isn't helped by Wynn, but also, as we'll see, those calling her "narcissist"; i.e., while failing to consider how doing so against one member of a group applies by virtue of collective identity (and punishment) to other members: regardless of intent on either side; e.g., I don't even like Wynn but am mentally ill, neurodivergent and trans.

Likewise, attacking a mentally ill/neurodivergent person who just so happens to be trans with language historically used to belittle the larger group will sour your larger point by making you look bigoted; re: like Bad Empanada does. Doing so is, for "rebellious" purposes, no different functionally than the r-slur, "p*ycho" or similar words with longstanding histories of abuse between them. Slurs are wrong and they historically don't work save to divide labor (which the elite want). Even if you get our attention, it only sows ill will between comrades and contributes to mentalities of animosity that only serve to demonize and divide: you're doing the state's work for it! Don't.

I digress. Wynn's stubbornness and privilege currently have many people acknowledging her own bigotry through direct responses

but also essays like overzealots' "'Palestinians Rejected Every Peace Offer' — An Outright Lie" and Bad Empanada's aforementioned "Zionist Narcissism." Due to a recent health scare (re: "Joy Under Fascism"), I haven't had time to directly respond, myself, but have acknowledged genocide denial from online communities before (re: "Hot Karl"); i.e., said denial happening despite increasing transparency surrounding it, versus the tactical solidarity seen during Vietnam (where information on the war was televised but not as accessible as the Internet) or even WW2 and Nazi Germany (where information was more limited—to the point that many Germans didn't know the Holocaust was going on).

To it, Wynn is very much playing dumb, a left-wing Zionist defending American dominion through a false equivalency (comparing Israel—an American puppet state—to America during 9/11, all while ignoring the neo-con, "peace through strength" approach; i.e., envisioned first by Theodore Herzl, theorized by Ze'ev Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" argument[1], and finally put into practice by David Ben-Gurion and his successors: through the IDF and Nakba, onwards; see: overzealot's "'Left Wing' Zionism: How to Sell an Ethnostate"). In doing so, she purposefully neglects the reality that America and 9/11 were conducted by an imperial "mother country" versus Israel acting as a puppet state with American backing[2]. These are two very different things, Wynn making all the usual arguments defending US hegemony while also exonerating Israel as much as possible (an effect comparable to PhilosophyTube's own betrayal of the Palestinians[3]).

Given all the information available, Wynn's actions stop at nothing short of genocide denial (with a giant double standard, below)—an incredibly disappointing state of affairs, but also one that shouldn't surprise anyone; re: Wynn sucks, and has for a long time: "Liberals are against every war but the one they're in right now, and every struggle but the one happening right now." They're projecting onto their critics, every statement a confession.

(source tweet, KlonnyPin_Gosch: July 9th, 2025)

We'll get to that, too. First, I'd like to acknowledge how calling her a "narcissist" doesn't help; i.e., it's a medical slur with ableist connotations and usage that damage any arguments critiquing Wynn; re: which Bad Empanada does to his own response. His postcolonial argument is solid on its face/doesn't need ableism to get its point across, but he uses the slur anyways:

Ironically enough, doing so demonstrates a sense of superiority from Bad Empanada that—while justified in his want to feel angry at Wynn—shouldn't explain away or apologize for using a slur like he does.

A slur is a slur by virtue of context. In doing so, he conflates what should be rather sample: Wynn is a traitor and should be condemned as one. But Bad Empanada drags mental illness into it, specifically by using ableist language. Not only does said language not apply to Wynn or explain her behavior in any convincing way (making it feel "tacked on"), it also promotes negative stereotypes against people with mental disorders/throws trans people more broadly into a bad light: "Look at that crazy asshole trans woman"; i.e., Bad Empanada—a straight white man—is critiquing a trans woman with all his usual lack of grace, shooting himself in the foot as a result (and other people, too). Like, just call her a token, self-centered, white-collar abuser, dude. The problem is, abuser = asshole and asshole is synonymous, in common parlance, with narcissist. Empanada's feeding into various moral panics through bigoted imprecise language.

Let's unpack that.

First, mental disorders can be abusive, aka "malignant," but these are two different things that don't automatically overlap; i.e., they're modular and that's important to recognize (which people in moral panics don't tend to do). Someone can have a particular disorder without being an abuser, and the congenital and comorbid factors at play shouldn't be reduced to the usage of slurs. Slurs aren't criticism, but demonization, and ableist slurs demonize mental illness (often applied to trans women, among other GNC groups; re: calling Wynn "narcissist" will more than likely harm other trans women and mentally ill people, not Wynn; i.e., for being what the Nazis called "useless eaters").

To it, Bad Empanada could easily critique Wynn's token moderacy and subsequent abusive tendencies without demonizing people with mental disorders, but chooses to ignore this danger and use the word "narcissism" in a slur-like way. He's panicking in such a way as to use language that feeds into harmful stereotypes that, when used like he does, don't help his argument; they just make him seem bigoted when he could easily avoid that. He's weakening his position while showing that moral panics aren't limited to people on the Right. This is called in-fighting (which, when extended to out-groups, is marginalized in-fighting[4]). In-fighting weakens resistance by dividing it; why give the powers that be (and their proponents) ammunition?

All this being said, it is possible to use narcissism in a clinical way. Theremin Trees, for example, offers a clinical explanation of "malignant cluster B" personality types: anti-social, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic, each with signature behaviors (dramatic, emotional, unpredictable and manipulative), and which the author—a practicing therapist—explains, "The behaviors can [emphasis, me] become intensely destructive both to the disordered individual and those around them, and [... how] narcissism refers to exaggerated ideas of superiority, specialness and entitlement." They add, "in practice, the clinical pictures for these disorders are complex, and the distinctions between them aren't necessarily clear-cut. [...] At the extreme end, there can be vast areas of trait overlap" (source: "my cluster B parent died and I felt.... nothing much (1/2)," 2023; timestamp: 4:27).

But Theremin Trees's usage denotes a clinical approach to the term, which they handle with care; re: as a working pro. Bad Empanada does not, falling into the same trap that many critics of abusers historically do: using a slur to "diagnose" their targets, describing them in ways that confuse what abuse is and where it is found, and generally at the expense of marginalized communities. Abusers and people with mental disorders are not one-in-the-same, and any critique worth its salt should distinguish between the two, not confuse them. And if Wynn is abusive and narcissistic, that distinction should also be made, emphasis placed on discouraging her abusive actions versus demonizing her for her alleged mental condition (an action, I would add, that Bad Empanada makes alongside his own history of moderate transphobia and veiled Stalinist arguments; e.g., "I, Sex Doctor" "Addressing ‪@BadEmpanadaLive's Relative Transphobia" from 2024 and 2025, respectively).

(source)

In short, it's important to check our own bigotries because they can bleed into and inform the opinions of others, but especially in the Internet Age where anyone can make a video decrying someone as "narcissist"; i.e., in ways that prohibit the medical usage of the word, leading to people with the actual medical condition to hide/disassociate from or fawn for their otherwise valid circumstances. Slurs induce ignorance and apologia for harm, generally by scapegoating or attaching slurs to people as a group, versus an individual; i.e., the usage of slurs won't stop at Wynn, and never should have started with her to begin with.

Furthermore, the usage of ableist slurs are often not seen as slurs for their medical nature; i.e., despite their medical misuse by non-practicing individuals. This can compound regarding genocide and moral panics. As things worsen in Palestine, the usage of slurs can lead to a harmful desire; i.e., to seek out blame and brand people as "narcissist," or to associate those who recognize their own mental disorder with those who were wrongfully labeled to begin with. Things confuse, the abuser and the patient conflating during various moral panics and genocides that—through the mechanisms of the state—rely on such destabilization, able-bodied bias, and in-fighting to divide and conquer workers, like usual. Slurs do nothing but harm, so don't use them; re: just call Wynn a traitor or abuser and you're golden.

All the same, these slurs (and their arguments) don't come out of nowhere. They're taught (often criminogenically). There is a mythological component within literary analysis, for example—one that speaks to the understanding of narcissistic behavior as a teaching device; e.g., Narcissist Eve in Paradise Lost (1667), and the various usages afforded by narcissism, under this particular context:

The correlation between creation and procreation illustrates the refractive nature of reproduction; the child is an imperfect reflection of the parent through genetic and environmental influences, yet the parent sees himself within his offspring. By identifying his children as images of himself, God's intentional reproduction of this likeness illustrates a narcissistic process of self-replication disguised as procreation. / The visual resemblance of Adam and Eve to their creator further exemplifies the narcissism imbedded within the act of reproduction. The text describes Adam and Eve as "Godlike" (4.289) and as "the image of thir glorious Maker," thereby depicting them as perfectly formed, visual reflections of their creator (4.292). Here, the child's visual resemblance to the parent implies God's tendency for self-reflexivity because, as the parent, God quite literally sees a likeness of himself when he looks upon his offspring. The pleasure gained by looking upon his own creations is reminiscent to Eve's story of her creation, which evokes the myth of Narcissus. Like Narcissus, Eve becomes enamoured with her own reflection, pining "with vain desire" as she looks at the surface of a smooth lake (4.466). Her reflection is a source of fascination for her, although it is an innocent interest given that she, like Narcissus, is unaware that it is her own image. Comparatively, God's interest in Adam and Eve is much more self-interested, for in his intentional act of imitation, their "divine" creation in his image reveals an awareness of his own superiority as the "Deity supreme" (7.142). His conscious replication of himself to balance the destruction caused by rebel angels suggests that divine creation is innately narcissistic; to reproduce beings in "the image of thir glorious Maker" to acknowledge that his own form and creative capacity is best suited to restore goodness to the world (4.290) (source: Rebecca Dillon's "An Analysis of Creative Narcissism within John Milton's Paradise Lost," 2019).

Here, narcissism has many different applications, not all of them bad; i.e., despite being written by a bigoted poet, Paradise Lost remains a useful gateway in critiquing state power while siding with state enemies. Also, I use Paradise Lost precisely because of its hypercanonical state—meaning to such a degree as to supersede many people's understanding (thus recognition) of the Bible regardless if they've read either (e.g., calling Satan "Lucifer," which largely stems from Milton's work, not the Bible).

(source)

Examining Milton's admittedly problematic text through a particular lens, Eve is no more a villain in women's eyes than Satan is, in British Romantic ones (from my PhD's "Notes on Power" essay, 2023):

Because of its allegory as having such awesome revolutionary potential, Milton was described by William Blake as being of the devil's party and not knowing it; or as Jamal Subhi Ismail Nafi writes in "Milton's Portrayal of Satan in Paradise Lost and the Notion of Heroism" (2015),

According to [Tesky] Gordon, it was Blake who expressed this view most emphatically by saying that Milton was of the devil's party without knowing it. He expressed this opinion chiefly in relation to the portrayal of Satan who, according to him, has been depicted as a character possessing certain grand qualities worthy of the highest admiration. Other romantic critics supported this view with great enthusiasm. [Percy] Shelley, for instance, reinforced this view when, in his "Defense of Poetry," he said:

"Nothing can exceed the energy and magnificence of the character of Satan as expressed in Paradise Lost. It is a mistake to suppose that he could ever have been intended for the popular personification of evil. Milton's Devil as a moral being is as far superior to God, as one who perseveres in some purpose which he has conceived to be excellent in spite of adversity and torture, is to one who in the cold security of undoubted triumph inflicts the most horrible revenge upon his enemy."

According to Shelley, it was a mistake to think that Satan was intended by Milton as the popular personification of evil. This argument is still very much alive and valid today (source).

The takeaway is teaching and my focus is on bigotry as something to avoid in any context. Slurs—and arguments that use them on purpose or not, mid-panic—do not emerge ex nihilo. Stereotypes spring from popular media, but also arguments about media that are classically misunderstood or appropriated; e.g., as Satan is, in the Bible, and later in Milton's work, which unto itself yields sexist implications—meaning towards Eve and its author's imperfect critique of the Devil, Original Sin, and political uprising that went on to inform Mary Shelley's 1818 Frankenstein (and many other works that followed; see: "Making Demons," 2025); i.e., us versus them (abjection), where in-groups and out-groups alienate each other using bigoted language with overtly fantastical but also medicalized flavors that have become "dead" in terms of those original functions: to serve a classically ostracizing flavor useful to capital! People who speak out are banished, banishment the entire problem faced by the Left, and caused as much among themselves lacking tactical unity and intersectional solidarity as through direct division sown by the Right. A good show of faith (thus solidarity and unity) is consciously avoiding these slurs[5] during genocide (and whichever moral panics are enflamed, at the time).

(artist: Gustave Dore)

I digress. The point being that us-versus-them argument can be used, however accidentally or on purpose, to divide people of different marginalities by themselves and their allies. Hence, an awareness towards the different usages of terms like "narcissism" involves knowing the context in ways that prevent such division (thus genocide) while knowing all of the uses a word could serve; i.e., that renders them a slur, medical term, or reclamatory device depending. Generally a slur is reclaimed from its abusive usage by a demonized out-group member bullied or otherwise insulted by in-group members, and which medical terms can assist in; e.g., "homosexual" and gay panic, versus queer people calling themselves f*ggot for ironic purposes (similar to people of color reclaiming the n-word to empower themselves, or whatever people with mental disorders use). Unreclaimed slurs are not ironic, they're harmful, and generally to varying degrees of ignorance and misuse. To address that ignorance, it behooves us to understand the exact history of moral panic (and misuse) surrounding narcissism. Sarah Z's "The Narcissist Scare" (2024) remains a good place to start:

To be clear, we need to excoriate Wynn for her bad-faith "activism," but not let fear and superstition feed into the very pogroms happening at home and abroad; i.e., to prevent making our own activism bigoted like hers (with Bad Empanada having his own bigotries to address). Token abusers like her and PhilosophyTube need to be outed and exposed for what they are, not what they aren't. And to do that, workers must unite. Allies to trans people must unite with trans people against all abusers, as well as trans people of different amounts of privilege and oppression coming together to help others under the imperial boot (Essence of Thought's "Dear White Trans People, Palestinians Are Not Your Enemy," 2025). American (and Western; re: Bad Empanada) workers must stand with our fellow oppressed, using intersectional solidarity to out abusers like Wynn but also any abuse that occurs when criticizing her betrayal (re: Bad Empanada), and push towards universal liberation; i.e., without resorting to slurs used by those who historically don't experience their original, intentionally harmful effects (with Bad Empanada neither being disabled nor trans).

To be transparent (and practice what I preach), I want to affirm my stances on Wynn, Palestine and Bad Empanada. First, I've critiqued Wynn for years, including more recently in 2024 (with an essay on Jordan Peele's 2019 Us)

Peele is commenting on the historical-material confusions that do arise during class war of a racialized neoliberal character. I, on the other hand, am already "dead" like Matteson's Commie Zombie-Vampires. I don't pretend to be something I'm not; Wynn is "legend," in that respect: the fabled "Merchant of Venice" something to assimilate and imitate capital while playing the rebel. Sometimes, her mask slips; others, its "slippage" is literally her costume: someone "from management" clearly got to Wynn along the way, souring her rebellious façade into a joke of itself. 

By flaunting her wealth and playing the victim, Wynn is blurring the line between herself and her character as part of her brand: Natalie Wynn, Marie Antoinette, Contrapoints. She's having her cake and eating it, too—is pinkwashing class war to claim herself the token trans victim; i.e., speaking about her own class betrayal through Peele's story as something to weaponize against impolite rebels [you know, us actual Communists and not whatever the fuck she's calling herself these days]. She thinks she's the Merchant of Venice—the Portia to castrate men, mid-exchange. Bitch, please—your victory is antiquated and overshadowed by my trans rebellion actually having teeth for capital as the ones to bite (source: "Preface: Inside the Hall of Mirrors").

but also in a 2022 essay (which I republished in my 2025 book; re: Volume Three from my Sex Positivity series, "Trans TERFs, NERFs, and Queer Bosses"):

queer bosses are moderately conservative in relation to their own trauma, gender-critical condescension and reactionary violence; they are privileged queer persons who, once token, use gender-critical rhetoric against people marginalized differently than themselves (which turns into prison hierarchy of the abuser acting more marginalized during vengeful, but also sanctimonious DARVO tactics). We'll explore so now featuring Natalie Wynn, aka Contrapoints. / Not always trans, but always centrist, people like Wynn usually attack non-binary people while acting better than out-and-out TERFs (their trauma, thus casus belli, is legitimate when deputized by the state into its monopoly on legitimate violence). Since non-binary people often identify as trans […] this makes binary trans enbyphobes specialized TERFs ...NERFs?. Whatever you call it, that's what Wynn is: a token cop-in-disguise (therefor traitor) whitewashing fellow fascists with moderate veneers; e.g., whitewashing Hillary-fucking-Clinton through trans cryptonymy glitz bandied about by a token SocDem:

(source tweet: Puppygirl Mao: July 3rd, 2024)

Second, I've stood with Palestine my entire life into my postgrad work:

Third, I've also critiqued Bad Empanada for being transphobic (re: "Relative Transphobia") and now, it would appear, ableist (and not just for myself; i.e., many of my friends are trans, disabled, and mentally ill to varying degrees, including having different personality disorders).

To conclude, the situation in Palestine is black-and-white, meaning "super simple" (re: Michael Brooks); i.e., despite what people like Natalie Wynn and Abigail Thorn like to say. It's also incredibly dire but shouldn't be an excuse to in-fight or muddy the waters; i.e., regarding parallel struggles for liberation educating people—meaning in such a way as to avoid all bigotries through language as the vector by critiquing critics, no matter how low the fruit they're needling hangs; re: narcissism is still a slur and Bad Empanada is still a bigot (re: a transphobe and ableist) regardless how good of a postcolonialist Empanada thinks he is or awful Contrapoints actually is. It's bad praxis to use slurs to make your point—an attitude likely stemming from your own hubris and unwillingness to think critically about popular media, but also people more/differently disadvantaged than you are. We need to "rewire" that, which takes time and conscious effort; i.e., to overcome an ancient problem: communicating effectively in times of state abuse pitting workers against each other in all the usual ways (e.g., men vs women, reason vs a perceived lack of reason; see: final footnote). Don't comport, do. 

So don't think just because you're smart, Empanada (which you are), that you automatically know more or better than trans and/or disabled people, but also artists and academics (which leads you to say some really stupid shit; i.e., with all the confidence taught arrogance [and privilege] affords; re: the epigram). Slurs aren't activism and cruelty isn't a virtue; all that glitters is not gold, and you're a philistine—one with a bigot stick jammed up his ass (which I've critiqued at length, before; re: "Understanding Vampires," 2024), and someone who enjoys the typical savior status generally upheld through force calling itself "reason"; i.e., to enjoy all the usual privilege that you, Bad Empanada, have: as a perceived man of reason acting exempt from criticism; re: for being white, straight, male, from Australia, etc. Success can go to your head like anyone's, "might makes right" leading to all the usual shortcuts cramming a square peg into a round hole. What starts with words classically ends in hatred, violence, murder and excuses, which genocide, as a structure (re: Wolfe), ultimately is; don't contribute to it, no matter how small you think your contributions are. Trans and disabled persons aren't historically colonizers, but victims:

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." Learn from your mistakes to liberate all workers at once. No slurs (save under ironic circumstances), just unity against all divisive factors that capital encourages to perpetuate genocide. The trick in thwarting genocide (and moral panic) is seeing ourselves as human by not using slurs; re: "Capitalism has no use for people who see each other as human; it wants us dehumanizing ourselves so capital can function as normal, moving money through nature at the cost of human life" (source: "Remember the Fallen: An Ode to Nex Benedict," 2024).

Footnote

[1] "We cannot promise any reward either to the Arabs of Palestine or to the Arabs outside Palestine. A voluntary agreement is unattainable. And so those who regard an accord with the Arabs as an indispensable condition of Zionism must admit to themselves today that this condition cannot be attained and hence that we must give up Zionism. We must either suspend our settlement efforts or continue them without paying attention to the mood of the natives. Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break down" (source: prologue for The Iron Wall, 1999).

[2] Similar to Nazi Germany having tacit American support, while also being a puppet state across the Atlantic:

For four years, numerous Americans, in high positions and obscure, sullenly harbored the conviction that World War II was "the wrong war against the wrong enemies." Communism, they knew, was the only genuine adversary on America's historical agenda. Was that not why Hitler had been ignored/tolerated/appeased/aided? So that the Nazi war machine would turn East and wipe Bolshevism off the face of the earth once and for all? It was just unfortunate that Adolf turned out to be such a megalomaniac and turned West as well (source: William Blum's Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, 1995).

[3] Aka Abigail Thorn, another liberal Zionist who explains in her video, "And I'm sure some of you will be drawing parallels between the process that the United States went through with the American Indians [aka genocide] and the process Israel has gone through with the Palestinians since it was founded in 1948: illegal settlements, crimes by settlers tolerated by government, American presidents saying they just want to move in and take over the land—our question for today is, why is America the way that it is? And today in America, many people are protesting the actions of the Israeli government. You may have heard people describe Israel as a settler-colonial state" (quoted in Quarantine Collective's "Why I'm done with PhilosophyTube"; timestamp: 18:24).

Like Wynn, Thorn is going to great lengths to gaslight her audience; i.e., to ignore history in favor of past American abuses, including those that foreign nations like Nazi Germany and Israel have followed to a tee. None of this is "new," but it is discouraged by the mainstream media apparatus that Thorn and Wynn are sucking desperately on the teat of. They're token traitors, through and through, making trans people look bad by punching down; i.e., not just at Palestinians, but also Americans protesting Palestinian genocide (which we don't want to add to; re: by using slurs that target said protestors, Bad Empanada). Also, tokenism isn't a mental illness, but a criminogenic effect of state force.

Furthermore, this current history is old history repeating itself; i.e., historical-materialism being history as predicated on material conditions, including various denials of state functions that left-leaning historians like Zinn and Parenti have talked about for decades: "Most people are never exposed to real history. In school we usually don't even read history, we read history textbooks—mainstream ones that avoid the underlying reality and propagate all sorts of myths that serve the powers that be" (quoted in Non-Compete's "The Dark Truth About America's Founding Fathers," 2025). America is the OG den of fascism that inspired the likes of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (re: Bad Empanada's "How the USA Inspired the Nazis - From Manifest Destiny to Lebensraum," 2021). So does pacifism become trafficking with the enemy (re: Eco's "Fourteen Points," 1995) but also intellectualism and a complete understanding of history things to replace; i.e., with badly cited and studied revisionism typically authored by traitors like Wynn and Thorn. Capital gentrifies and decays; both are gentrified, dropping their masks to decay before our very eyes.

That being said, similar myths that aid in their division include the ancient myth of Narcissus misapplied through modern myths (about mental illness and queer people); re: to Wynn by Bad Empanada—a bigot with an ax to grind, and whose "meat ax" approach often has collateral damage. You don't prevent bigotry by being bigoted.

[4] Bad Empanada is not marginalized; he's a white cis-het man from Australia—with some Greek ancestry if memory serves, but that still doesn't excuse bigotry from him; i.e., a bigotry for one is a bigotry for all, and bigotries overlap.

[5] Even if we think that people might intuit we're using medical terms in a mythical sense*, wherein we should stress a mythical usage (or a comedic one, which is still problematic; e.g., Steve Martin dropping the hard R in The Jerk (1979) while posturing as a black man despite his white skin (a white savior). But people who rely on ambiguous language loosely to generate harm are historically not careful about it. We're all victims under capital, but have to bond with others without using slurs; e.g., Dirty Harry using slurs against his non-white partners and victims alike; i.e., bullets are often delivered behind bigoted language (or language that works like bullets). The intent is to cause harm, which adds up; we need to take it seriously and acknowledge the oppression of others through our own without trivializing or weaponizing theirs. And if doing so feels confusing then good; that's the point. Bigotry is something to confuse: out of its own harmful modes of thought.

*The idea isn't really any different than dismissing someone for "talking crazy" (the classic fate of women in history [and stories] by men). In Gothic, words like "crazy" or "madness" aren't medical diagnoses any more than "narcissist" is, but spoken/written means of dismissal tied to alienation, first and foremost; i.e., the Cassandra complex, aka "ignoring the Oracle" or, in Gothic, the girl who cried ghost (think "Scooby Doo"; e.g., Emily St. Aubert vs Ludovico, in The Mysteries of Udolpho [1794]—debating about "ghosts" being in the other room when actually it's pirates. Emily was wrong about the presence being actual ghosts, but not about a feeling of danger occupying the room, which Ludovico—the man, in this scenario—was wrong about; i.e., rationality vs irrationality having a classic gendered component out of ancient times into the present). In Wynn's case, she's no oracle, and yet Bad Empanada's language is precisely the smug, knowing-better sort that would be used to dismiss people who are oracles; i.e., marginalized voices trying to communicate oppression to people used to getting their own way (white straight men): "you're stupid because I say you're stupid." It's not factual but forceful. Granted, there can always be a case for where a given word certainly fits (or where force is called for), but defaulting to force is a bad habit prone to misconception. In Wynn's case, for example, she's not crazy any more than the Nazis were; she knows exactly what she's doing. Better to address the banality of evil (acting out of material self-interest) than confuse things by framing her as stupid or insane, then hoping people "get it"; i.e., by virtue of how forcefully you say it, versus how accurate your statement is. Striving for accuracy is better than habitually being forceful and inaccurate (thus depending on luck), because accuracy avoids the inaccurate force (thus collateral damage) that slurs are known for (re: the abjection process). They lead to finger pointing that misses the point; e.g., "you're stupid!" versus "you're betraying workers!" It's a question of thesis, and communicating said thesis: through praxis by cultivating good habits; i.e., that get our point across without harming other people, directly or otherwise.

About the Author

Persephone van der Waard is the author of the multi-volume, non-profit book series, Sex Positivity—its art director, sole invigilator, illustrator and primary editor (the other co-writer/co-editor being Bay Ryan). Persephone has her independent PhD in Gothic poetics and ludo-Gothic BDSM (focusing partially on Metroidvania), and is a MtF trans woman, Tolkien and Amazon enthusiast, anti-fascist, atheist/Satanist, poly/pan kinkster, erotic artist/pornographer and anarcho-Communist with two partners. Including multiple playmates/friends and collaborators, Persephone and her many muses work/play together on Sex Positivity and on her artwork at large as a sex-positive force. That being said, she still occasionally writes reviews, Gothic analyses, and interviews for fun on her old blog (and makes YouTube videos talking about politics). To purchase illustrated or written material from Persephone (thus support the work she does), please refer to her commissions page for more information. Any money Persephone earns through commissions goes towards helping sex workers through the Sex Positivity project; i.e., by paying costs and funding shoots, therefore raising awareness. Likewise, Persephone accepts donations for the project, which you can send directly to her PayPal,  Ko-Fi, Patreon or CashApp. Every bit helps!

Comments

Post a Comment