Stridently, obnoxiously “queer” online newsragazine Them whines like a little bitch.

Lady Gaga Stands Up for Dylan Mulvaney: “Hatred Is Violence”

And so, right out of the gate we know how utterly full of horseshit of the purest ray serene they are. Wanna learn how stark the difference is between “hatred” and violence is, fucktards? Go on Fucking Around as you are and you’ll surely Find Out sooner or later. Get the hell out of our faces, on the other hand, and we’ll be perfectly happy to stay out of yours.

On Monday, March 11, Gaga shared a post of her own featuring a photo of herself and Mulvaney, writing, “It’s appalling to me that a post about National Women’s Day by Dylan Mulvaney and me would be met with such vitriol and hatred.”

“When I see a newspaper reporting on hatred but calling it ‘backlash’ I feel it is important to clarify that hatred is hatred, and this kind of hatred is violence,” the singer-songwriter continued. “‘Backlash’ would imply that people who love or respect Dylan and me didn’t like something we did. This is not backlash. This is hatred.”

Gaga noted that while this response is unfortunately “not surprising,” she feels protective of Mulvaney and the larger trans community “who continues to lead the way with their endless grace and inspiration in the face of constant degradation, intolerance, and physical, verbal, and mental violence.”

“May we all come together and be loving, accepting, warm, welcoming,” she added. “May we all stand together and honor the complexity and challenge of trans life — that we do not know, but can seek to understand and have compassion for. I love people too much to allow hatred to be referred to as ‘backlash.’ People deserve better.”

Anybody else besides me good and goddamned sick of being endlessly lectured about what hard-core Leftists think they “deserve”? Of their intentional, casual distortion of the sun-bright distinctions between “hatred,” “violence,” and “genocide”? Divemedic spells it out clearly and concisely, in such a fashion as permits no misunderstanding whatever.

So if a man says he is a woman, and you use objective reality to disagree with him, you have just committed violence against him. Why are they saying this?

So they can justify the actual violence that they are about to use in eliminating you. Make no mistake, this is the attitude that they will use to come after you, to unperson you, deny you services, and place you into reeducation camps. You will deserve it in their minds, because you called Dylan Mulvaney a ‘he’ instead of a ‘she’ while not allowing him to celebrate being a woman.

Annnnnd bingo, there you have it. Jump back and get over yourselves, you stupid, lying sissymarys. Scree scree scree as you will about what you do and do not “deserve”; we see through your silly game, and aren’t gonna dance to your shrill, rancid tune anymore. Period, full stop, end of fucking story. You, along with every other hoomon on Earth, “deserve” exactly, precisely nothing whatsoever you haven’t worked hard to earn, and that’s flat.

If you don’t believe it, try this little experiment: shag your sorry ass on out to the middle of the Gobi desert, sit down on a dune, and wait for a benevolent, caring universe to present you with all those wonderful things you insist you “deserve” thanks purely to being another useless eater and little or nothing else besides. Assuming you survive—PRO TIP: you won’t—you’ll emerge from the experience knowing at long last all about what you “deserve”—a real FAFO lesson you won’t soon forget.

Update! In his magisterial Starship Troopers, the peerless Robert Anson Heinlein explicates the basic principle at issue here far above my poor power to add or detract. From Chapter Eight’s recounting of the course of classroom instruction under the redoubtable, unforgettable COL DuBois:

“The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand — that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their ‘rights.’

“The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature.”

Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. “Sir? How about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?”

“Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called ‘natural human rights’ that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

“The third ‘right’? — the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.”

Far as I’m concerned, nobody’s ever said it better, either before or since. Yet another reason I’ve always maintained that anybody who hasn’t read and closely considered Heinlein’s stuff really, really needs to.

Updated update! Since they bear such uncanny relevance to our situation today, it would be grossly remiss of me not to include Chapter Eight’s penultimate ‘graphs.

“Mr. Dubois then turned to me. “I told you that ‘juvenile delinquent’ is a contradiction in terms.

“‘Delinquent’ means ‘failing in duty.’ But duty is an adult virtue — indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a ‘juvenile delinquent.’ But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents — people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.

“And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’…and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.”

And so, unsurprisingly to Heinlein devotees, it hasn’t.