#stevemini

In the kaleidoscope of modern culture, where truth bends like light through a prism and authenticity is a curated act, a peculiar trend has taken hold: the quiet assumption that everyone is, in some way, queer. Not merely in terms of sexual orientation, but in a broader rebellion against fixed categories—gender, desire, identity itself. I myself indulge with posts that intrigue: "Ladies: DADDY WOULD" (even though I wouldn't). This isn’t about everyone claiming an LGBTQ+ label; it’s about a cultural tide where “straight” or “normal” or even "monogamy" feels like a faded map, useless in navigating the terrain of who we are. Why do we default to this assumption? What fuels this post-fake era where queerness seems the starting point? Let’s explore.

The Collapse of Categories

The old scaffolding of identity—male or female, gay or straight, one or the other—has been dismantled. The internet, with its sprawling subcultures and digital megaphones, shattered the notion that life fits into tidy boxes. For Gen Z and younger Millennials, weaned on Tumblr, TikTok, and X, gender is a gradient, sexuality a mosaic, and selfhood a work in progress. Labels like “man,” “woman,” “straight,” or “gay” feel like hand-me-down clothes—stiff, ill-fitting, and out of style.The numbers tell the story. A 2023 Gallup poll revealed that 19.7% of Gen Z adults in the U.S. identify as non-heterosexual, nearly twice the rate of Millennials and four times that of Gen X. More striking is the rise of “queer” and “pansexual” as preferred terms, signaling a rejection of rigid definitions. On X, posts championing nonbinary identities or polyamorous setups garner thousands of reposts, turning the marginal into the mainstream. The upshot? Assuming someone’s straight feels as quaint as assuming they’re tethered to one partner.

The Post-Fake Vibe

We’re deep in the “post-fake” era, where the boundary between real and performed has dissolved into irrelevance. Social media demands personas—each of us a chameleon, crafting a vibe, a brand, a fleeting aesthetic. Queerness, with its defiance of prescribed roles, is the perfect fit for this game. It’s bold, slippery, alive. Straightness, meanwhile, feels like a beige suit—functional but uninspired. This isn’t about inauthenticity. The post-fake world simply rewards those who embrace ambiguity. Consider Harry Styles in a dress on a Vogue cover or Billie Eilish sidestepping sexuality queries with a sly grin. These are more than personal statements; they’re cultural beacons, signaling that queerness—or its aesthetic—is the new currency of cool. Even those identifying as straight dabble in the playbook: posting flirty same-sex selfies, tossing around “queer” slang, or winking at “gay panic” memes. It’s not pretense; it’s a nod to a world where fixed identity feels like a relic.

Still, not everyone subscribes to the “everyone’s queer” ethos. Some hold fast to traditional lenses—whether for comfort, conviction, or skepticism of trends—yet even they often embrace practices that defy the old norms. Polyamory, now explored by 10% of U.S. adults per 2024 surveys, rejects monogamy’s monopoly. Dominance and submission, once whispered about in shadows, are now destigmatized through pop culture and X threads that frame kink as empowerment. And same-sex intimacy, even among those who don’t claim a queer label, is quietly normalized if a partner perfers a lqqk — and therefore straight-identified folks might be experimenting with partners in private: untethered by public declarations. These choices, made outside the post-fake queer aesthetic, still echo its core truth: the rules of desire and connection are up for reinvention: we can only assume our partner(s) would do so.

The X Effect

X is a mirror and a megaphone for this shift. Posts like “everyone’s a little bi, change my mind” or “why are all hot people queer?” rack up likes not for their accuracy but for their alignment with a culture that shrugs at certainty. X’s algorithm thrives on audacity, and queerness, with its middle finger to convention, is pure engagement fuel. A celebrity’s vague “love is love” tweet can ignite a speculation storm, not just as gossip but as proof we’re wired to see queerness everywhere. This has its shadows. The “everyone’s queer” assumption can dilute the weight of actual queer lives, reducing a hard-fought reality to a chic trend. X users often clap back, noting that this casual vibe can trivialize the pain of coming out or facing bigotry. Yet even these critiques feed the loop—arguments over authenticity only cement queerness as the lens for identity debates.

The Political Undercurrent

Politics plays a role, too. As conservative movements push to reinforce traditional gender roles—through anti-trans laws or “woke” education bans—assuming everyone’s queer feels like a subtle revolt. It’s a way to whisper, “Your boxes can’t hold us.” But this rebellion is uneven. The post-fake queer aesthetic flourishes in liberal enclaves—cities, online hubs, campuses—where fluidity is a badge of honor. In places where being openly queer carries real risk, the assumption feels less like freedom and more like a luxury.

Why the Assumption?

We assume everyone’s queer because it’s the easiest way to navigate a world that’s outgrown its old skin. Categories are crumbling, authenticity is a performance, and queerness, with its boundless elasticity, feels like the only language supple enough to capture the chaos of who we are. It’s not about everyone being queer in practice—it’s about a culture that sees “queer” as the closest we’ve got to a universal grammar for identity. This lens has its cracks. It can overshadow real struggles, commodify marginalized voices, or pressure people into performances that feel forced. But it’s also a kind of liberation—a refusal to be confined, a celebration of the wild, untamed sprawl of human possibility. As Walt Whitman wrote in Leaves of Grass, “I am large, I contain multitudes.” In the post-fake era, assuming everyone’s queer isn’t just a trend; it’s a nod to our multitudes, a way to honor the vast, contradictory beauty of being alive.

---

Stephen Miniotis is a polyamorous straight person living with a disability: he hears voices: "emulations of real people, dead or alive, or fictitious ones; calculating probabilities in my mind which may never occur. But what if they do? Therefore I am ill, paranoid and schizophrenic."

Stephen Miniotis is a part-time undergraduate studying literature who takes just one course per year at the University Of Toronto. Status: 10k/yr. Disability. The government considers him "a poor persons living with a disability, below the poverty line" and allows him to raise another 10k/yr in donations! Despite all, he writes for free and streams for fun.

Tryin raise 3$ drinkable meals online.

Patreon: DonateAMeal.ca Paypal Donos: FreeMeal.me Sub for free with prime: twitch.tv/NeutralG

The High Warlord Warlock of Havlelock, ON "6ix Minions four shores". "Beating Up All The Creepers in Diamond" etc. "Please endorse all these products that never pay me: contact: SteveMini.com"

Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

"I'm primarily a Hearthstone streamer. All the decks I've streamed with, along with codes and win rates, at: Hearthstone.lol"

Thank you to my sponsor (my family's restaurant): HappyHavelock.com

In a world increasingly defined by influence, emotional intelligence, and adaptability, women are emerging as the superior sex—outpacing men in leadership across every domain and dominating social media with a magnetic blend of charisma and allure. From corporate boardrooms to Instagram feeds, women are redefining power, and collecting cheques, while men, including those like me who are adapting by embracing polyamory and avoiding commitment to a single partner, are left striving to keep up and often simply fall back to struggling for their attention. As men, our voices are fading in a culture that seems indifferent to what men think or say, as we focus on impressing the ladies. This article explores why women are better suited to lead, how they’ve seized control of social media, and the provocative possibility of a future where men become largely obsolete, with only the rare “perfect specimen” holding relevance—while men like me navigate this shift through non-monogamous lifestyles.

Women as Superior Leaders

Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration:

Women consistently excel in emotional intelligence (EQ), a cornerstone of effective leadership. A 2019 Harvard Business Review study found women outperform men in empathy, relationship-building, and self-awareness, fostering trust and team unity. Men, by contrast, often rely on top-down, authoritative styles that can alienate modern workforces.

Leaders like New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, who navigated the Christchurch mosque shootings with empathy, or Germany’s Angela Merkel, who steered the Eurozone through crises, showcase women’s ability to blend compassion with decisiveness—a balance men rarely achieve.

Multitasking and Resilience:

Women’s brains are better wired for multitasking, with stronger inter-hemispheric connections, according to a 2013 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study. This allows them to juggle complex responsibilities—budgets, teams, crises—more effectively than men, who tend to focus on singular tasks.

A 2021 McKinsey report highlighted female leaders’ resilience during COVID-19, noting they prioritized employee well-being alongside performance, outshining male counterparts who often favored results over people.

Adaptability and Innovation:

Women thrive in ambiguity, a vital skill in today’s volatile world. Their inclusive decision-making, which draws on diverse perspectives, drives innovation. A 2020 Boston Consulting Group study found companies with female CEOs generated 20% more innovation revenue than male-led firms.

From tech’s Ginni Rometty (former IBM CEO) to finance’s Jane Fraser (Citigroup), women adapt swiftly, shattering glass ceilings and reshaping male-dominated industries.

Women’s Domination of Social Media Social media has become women’s ultimate platform, where their influence—often amplified by lewds, photos, and curated aesthetics—captivates audiences in ways men can’t match. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and OnlyFans are female-driven, with women wielding their image as both art and power.

The Power of Visual Appeal:

Women have perfected self-presentation, using photos and videos to amass huge followings. Influencers like Kylie Jenner or OnlyFans creators earn millions, monetizing their allure in ways men rarely replicate. A 2023 Statista report noted women comprise 70% of top-earning content creators, many leveraging suggestive content to dominate engagement.

Men’s efforts—think fitness influencers or crypto bros—fall short. The algorithm favors the male gaze, and women have mastered it.

Cultural Relevance:

Women’s content, blending vulnerability and confidence, builds communities that men struggle to infiltrate. From body-positive posts to lifestyle vlogs, they resonate deeply, while male influencers often seem preachy or irrelevant. A 2024 Pew Research study found 65% of social media users follow female-led accounts for entertainment or inspiration, while male-led accounts lag.

Nobody’s scrolling for men’s opinions; we’re all just trying to impress the ladies. Men like me, adapting through polyamory, are diversifying our attention across multiple women, aligning with this female-driven cultural shift rather than resisting it.

Economic Dominance:

Women’s social media empires generate serious wealth. OnlyFans reported in 2024 that its top 10 earners—all women—grossed over $200 million combined. This dwarfs male-dominated platforms like YouTube, where men lead but lack the same cultural grip. Women’s ability to turn followers into fortunes highlights their digital savvy.

Men’s Adaptation: Polyamory as a Response

Men like me are already adapting to this female-led world, embracing polyamory and sidestepping traditional commitment to a single woman. This shift reflects both a pragmatic response to women’s dominance and a recognition that the old rules no longer apply.

Polyamory as Liberation:

By pursuing multiple relationships, men are mirroring women’s social media strategy: diversifying influence and avoiding reliance on one partner. Polyamory allows us to engage with the female-driven culture on our terms, seeking connection without the constraints of monogamy, which feels outdated in a world where women hold the reins. Monogamy seems so last century in this fast paced pragmatic world. It just feels like a lawsuit waiting to happen: with up to 40% of marriages in the US ending up in court and divorce.

This lifestyle also acknowledges women’s growing independence. As women lead in career and culture, they’re less tied to traditional roles, and men are following suit, forming fluid, non-exclusive bonds that suit a fast-evolving social landscape. Keep your money ladies: Only Love!

Cultural Alignment:

Polyamory aligns with the digital age’s emphasis on choice and flexibility, traits women have mastered online. Men adopting this approach are learning from women’s playbook, building networks of relationships that mirror the interconnected, community-driven ethos of female influencers.

Yet, even in polyamory, men are still chasing women’s approval, competing to stand out in a world where female attention is the ultimate currency.

The Future: A World Where Most Men Are Obsolete?

As women solidify their leadership and digital dominance, a radical future beckons—one where most men may become unnecessary. Biology and technology are converging: one man can impregnate many women, but only women can bear children. With artificial insemination and genetic selection, a single “perfect specimen” could father thousands, rendering most men redundant, even as some of us adapt through polyamory. I expect only for there to be 2 or more women for every man some day, if genetic selection plays any outsized role. We simply prefer women at all times already.

The Perfect Man Archetype:

Women and media increasingly fixate on an ideal man—flawless in looks, intellect, and charisma, like a lab-perfected Chris Hemsworth. Social media amplifies this standard, with women reserving attention for elite men, while average guys, even polyamorous ones, fade into the background.

Sperm banks already prioritize exceptional donors, and technologies like CRISPR could streamline this further. One man’s DNA could inseminate hundreds, meeting reproductive needs without requiring a surplus of men.

A Two-to-One Future:

If women continue to dominate leadership, culture, and reproduction, the population could tilt heavily female—perhaps two women for every man. Women’s indispensability as leaders and nurturers makes them essential, while men’s traditional roles (provider, protector) are obsolete in a tech-driven era.

A 2025 Nature study suggested selective reproduction could skew sex ratios within decades, especially as cultural preferences elevate women and minimize men’s necessity.

Men’s Fading Relevance:

Beyond the “perfect man,” most men are losing their audience. Social media ignores our voices; women don’t need our opinions when they’re setting the agenda. Even polyamorous men like me, while adapting, are still playing catch-up, our relevance tied to impressing women rather than shaping the narrative.

Conclusion

Women’s superiority in leadership—driven by emotional intelligence, resilience, and adaptability—positions them as the natural architects of our future. Their social media dominance, fueled by visual allure and cultural savvy, has sidelined men, whose voices struggle to resonate. Men like me are adapting, embracing polyamory to navigate this female-led world, but our efforts pale against women’s cultural and biological indispensability. As technology reshapes reproduction, a day may come when only one man—a perfect specimen—is needed, leaving most of us obsolete in a world of two women for every man. As Simone de Beauvoir wrote, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” In this new era, women have become the standard-bearers of progress, while men must evolve or risk fading into irrelevance.

Stephen Miniotis is a part-time undergraduate who takes just one course per year at the University Of Toronto. He's diagnosed with hearing voices or Paranoid Schizophrenia. Status: 10k/yr. Disability. The government considers him "a poor persons living with a disability, below the poverty line" and allows him to raise another 10k/yr in donations! Despite all, he writes for free and streams for fun.

Tryin raise 3$ drinkable meals online.

Patreon: DonateAMeal.ca Paypal Donos: FreeMeal.me Sub for free with prime: twitch.tv/NeutralG

The High Warlord Warlock of Havlelock, ON "6ix Minions four shores". "Beating Up All The Creepers in Diamond" etc. "Please endorse all these products that never pay me: contact: SteveMini.com"

Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

"I'm primarily a Hearthstone streamer. All the decks I've streamed with, along with codes and win rates, at: Hearthstone.lol"

Thank you to my sponsor (my family's restaurant): HappyHavelock.com

The uproar over Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury 2025 performance, where they led chants of “death to the IDF” and “free Palestine” during a concert that likely spiraled out of control, highlights the growing intolerance for certain protests, particularly those tied to fraught geopolitical issues. The fallout—U.S. visa revocations and a UK criminal investigation—shows why such expressions are increasingly unwelcome, while raising questions about the Trump administration’s punitive response. In a prior article at TheMutant.net, I noted how Trump often headlines bold opinions only to backtrack within days or a week; this pattern may repeat here. Below, I’ll explore why these protests face resistance and argue why Trump should reconsider visa bans and criminal inquiries.

Why Protests Like Bob Vylan’s Are No Longer Welcome

Perceived Incitement to Violence:

The chant “death to the IDF” has been slammed as incitement, crossing legal and ethical lines. Avon and Somerset Police are probing the incident as a “public order offense,” potentially under UK hate crime laws. The Israeli embassy argues that such slogans threaten Israel’s military and, by extension, its security, fueling calls for accountability.

What began as a passionate concert likely got out of hand, amplified by Glastonbury’s West Holts Stage and BBC livestream to millions. In the post-October 2023 climate, such rhetoric is deemed inflammatory, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Glastonbury’s Emily Eavis condemning it as “hateful” and at odds with the festival’s ethos of peace.

Geopolitical Tensions and Antisemitism Fears:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a powder keg, and protests targeting Israel’s military are often seen as antisemitic. The Board of Deputies of British Jews called Bob Vylan’s performance “antisemitic incitement,” arguing it risks alienating Jewish attendees. This reflects a broader trend where criticism of Israel is scrutinized for crossing into hate speech, especially in Western nations allied with Israel.

Institutions like the BBC, which expressed regret for airing the set, and regulators like Ofcom face pressure to curb divisive rhetoric. A concert veering into political chants is now viewed as a liability, particularly when it catches organizers off guard.

Cultural Shift Away from Radical Expression:

Glastonbury, once a haven for counterculture, now balances its legacy with corporate sponsorships and global scrutiny. Eavis’s swift disavowal and the festival’s statement rejecting Bob Vylan’s views show a preference for inclusivity over radical activism. This mirrors a wider cultural fatigue with protests seen as disruptive, especially after years of polarized movements.

The U.S. visa ban, tied to Trump’s pro-Israel stance, reflects how concerts that spiral into controversy are treated as security risks, justifying harsh measures to deter future incidents.

Why Trump Should Reconsider Visa Revocations and Criminal Inquiries

Safeguarding Artistic Freedom:

Bob Vylan’s chants, while provocative, likely stemmed from a concert that got out of control, not a deliberate call to violence. Visa bans and criminal probes risk stifling free speech, especially when the target was a military institution, not a civilian group. Trump, who has railed against censorship, could champion artistic freedom by restoring the band’s visas, aligning with his anti-“woke” rhetoric while avoiding overreach.

As I wrote in TheMutant.net, Trump often makes bold moves—like visa bans—only to walk them back when backlash mounts. A reversal here would let Bob Vylan engage U.S. audiences, clarifying their message and defusing tensions.

Avoiding Diplomatic Fallout:

The visa revocation, driven by Trump’s Israel alignment, risks straining UK-U.S. ties, given Bob Vylan’s UK fanbase and political support. Dropping inquiries and restoring visas would project restraint, avoiding perceptions of cultural overreach. This fits Trump’s “America First” focus on prioritizing domestic interests over foreign entanglements.

A quick reversal, as seen in past Trump flip-flops, could turn a diplomatic misstep into a win, appealing to free speech advocates and UK allies alike.

Bridging Cultural Divides:

The incident exposes deep divides over Israel-Palestine, with Bob Vylan’s supporters framing the chants as anti-war, not antisemitic. Pursuing harsh penalties fuels polarization, alienating younger audiences who see the band as voicing legitimate grievances. By de-escalating, Trump could appeal to these voters while maintaining his base’s support, a tactic he’s used before when retracting controversial stances.

A concert gone awry shouldn’t lead to permanent bans. Restoring visas would foster dialogue, letting Bob Vylan’s music—rather than their politics—take center stage.

Conclusion Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury performance, a concert that likely got out of control, has ignited backlash due to fears of incitement, antisemitism concerns, and a cultural shift against radical protests. Yet, Trump should reconsider visa bans and criminal inquiries to protect free speech, avoid diplomatic missteps, and bridge cultural divides—especially given his history, as noted in TheMutant.net, of backtracking on bold stances. A reversal could prove prudent, echoing Oscar Wilde’s wisdom: “Many lack the originality to lack originality.” By choosing dialogue over punishment, Trump might surprise critics and affirm the value of artistic expression in turbulent times.

---

Stephen Miniotis is a part-time undergraduate who takes just one course per year at the University Of Toronto. He's diagnosed with hearing voices or Paranoid Schizophrenia. Status: 10k/yr. Disability. The government considers him "a poor persons living with a disability, below the poverty line" and allows him to raise another 10k/yr in donations! Despite all, he writes for free and streams for fun.

Tryin raise 3$ drinkable meals online.

Patreon: DonateAMeal.ca Paypal Donos: FreeMeal.me Sub for free with prime: twitch.tv/NeutralG

The High Warlord Warlock of Havlelock, ON "6ix Minions four shores". "Beating Up All The Creepers in Diamond" etc. "Please endorse all these products that never pay me: contact: SteveMini.com"

Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

Jeff Bezos, the Amazon titan worth $224 billion, is set to wed Lauren Sánchez in a garish Venice spectacle this week, dubbed the “wedding of the century.” But as he prepares to repeat his 2019 marriage mistake, the real question isn’t whether he’s learned from his costly divorce from MacKenzie Scott—it’s why he’s clinging to an outdated institution like marriage at all. In 2025, marriage is a relic of past centuries, a bureaucratic trap that shackles personal freedom and invites financial chaos. Bezos’ story, past and present, proves it. Instead, polyamory—open, fluid relationships—offers a modern alternative where no one needs to be anything but free. Let’s dismantle the myth of marriage, revisit Bezos’ 2019 divorce, and explore why a second split could underscore the case for abandoning monogamy’s dusty vows.

The 2019 Divorce: Marriage’s Inherent Flaws Exposed

In 2019, Bezos and MacKenzie Scott ended their 25-year marriage, a union undone by his affair with Lauren Sánchez, then married to another. Tabloids, led by the National Enquirer, splashed lurid texts and photos, turning Bezos’ private life into a public circus. Without a prenup, the fallout was seismic: Scott walked away with 4% of Amazon’s stock, worth $35.6 billion then and $165.3 billion by 2025, making her a philanthropy powerhouse. The absence of legal protection wasn’t just a personal blunder; it revealed marriage’s structural flaw—binding wealth and emotion in a way that invites ruin when (not if) things unravel.

This wasn’t just about Bezos’ billions. The divorce showcased marriage’s rigidity: a one-size-fits-all contract that assumes lifelong monogamy, ignoring human complexity. Scott’s windfall was a fluke of no prenup, but the public shaming, emotional toll, and loss of control over Amazon stock were textbook marriage penalties. Why sign up for a system that punishes change? Polyamory, with its emphasis on consent and flexibility, sidesteps these traps—no single partner holds your fortune or heart hostage.

The Sánchez Wedding: Doubling Down on a Dead Institution

Now, Bezos is diving back into marriage with Sánchez, a former journalist with a $30 million net worth. He’s armed with a “hefty” prenup this time, reportedly shielding Amazon, Blue Origin, and his global properties while securing his four kids’ inheritance via trusts. Smart, right? Hardly. The prenup admits marriage’s risk—why else fortify against divorce?—yet Bezos still buys into the fantasy of “forever.” The $48 million Venice bash, complete with 200 A-listers and a private opera, isn’t love; it’s a flex, a nod to a 20th-century script that equates commitment with spectacle. Locals protesting under “No Space for Bezos” banners see through it, and so should he.

Even with a prenup, a divorce could get messy. Legal challenges—claims of coercion or hidden assets—could crack its armor. Spousal support for Sánchez’s billionaire lifestyle might cost millions yearly. International assets, like Blue Origin’s operations or Bezos’ European estates, could tangle jurisdictions. Marriage invites these headaches because it’s a legal cage, not a love story. Polyamory, by contrast, thrives on agreements that evolve with relationships, no courthouse required.

What a Second Divorce Would Prove: Marriage’s Obsolescence

If Bezos and Sánchez split, the fallout would hammer home why marriage is a losing bet:

Financial Fiasco: Prenups aren’t ironclad. Sánchez could contest terms, potentially exposing Bezos’ $224 billion fortune. Even if the prenup holds, legal battles and spousal support could bleed millions. Polyamory avoids this by rejecting legal entanglement—partners share what they choose, when they choose.

Corporate Chaos: A divorce could rattle Amazon investors if it threatens Bezos’ shareholder clout. Blue Origin, his private passion, might face asset division if the prenup falters. Marriage ties personal drama to professional stakes; polyamory keeps them separate, letting love shift without destabilizing empires.

Public Humiliation: The 2019 divorce made Bezos a tabloid punchline. A second would cement that image, especially with Sánchez’s media flair and Hollywood allies like Kim Kardashian. Marriage amplifies breakups into spectacles; polyamory normalizes fluidity, reducing stigma when connections end.

Family Fallout: Bezos’ four kids and Sánchez’s three face emotional strain in a blended family under scrutiny. Marriage’s “all-in” model heightens the stakes of failure; polyamory’s openness fosters networks of support, not rigid family units that fracture.

Sánchez’s Power Play: Sánchez’s public persona could turn a divorce into a media war, unlike Scott’s quiet exit. Marriage hands partners leverage via courts and headlines; polyamory’s informal bonds diffuse such power struggles.

Why Marriage Is a Relic—and Polyamory Is Freedom

Marriage, born in eras of property swaps and patriarchal control, is a dinosaur in 2025. It assumes monogamy is universal, ignores divorce rates (over 40% in the U.S.), and chains love to legal and social expectations. Centuries ago, it secured alliances or dowries; today, it’s a status symbol that often ends in court. Bezos’ 2019 divorce and looming remarriage scream this truth: marriage is a gamble with lousy odds. Even his prenup, a concession to its risks, can’t erase the institution’s flaws.

Polyamory, meanwhile, is the future. It’s not about chaos but choice—relationships built on transparency, not exclusivity. Take my life: earning $10,000 a year, I’m in a polyamorous bond with a Chinese woman who’s my heart. She encourages me to find a younger partner if I want a kid, no jealousy, just love. We swap coffees, call it a date, and live without rings or registries. No courts, no contracts, just us. This fluidity lets us evolve without breaking. Bezos, with his billions, could afford such freedom but chooses marriage’s chains instead.

The literary voice of Anaïs Nin captures this shift: “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naïve or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” Nin, a polyamory pioneer, saw love as boundless, not boxed by vows. Marriage cages that courage; polyamory unleashes it.

The Case Against Bezos—and Marriage Itself

Bezos’ 2019 divorce should’ve killed his faith in marriage. It cost him $35.6 billion, his privacy, and a chunk of Amazon’s control. Yet here he is, staging a Venetian circus to recommit to a system that failed him. A second divorce, even with a prenup, would prove marriage’s futility—financial hits, corporate tremors, and tabloid scars aren’t worth the fairy tale. Nobody needs to be monogamous or married in 2025. Polyamory offers what marriage can’t: freedom to love multiple people, shift connections without lawyers, and live authentically.

Bezos’ story is a warning, not a romance. Marriage is a 20th-century artifact, irrelevant to a world where love can be plural, fluid, and free. As Nin knew, true courage lies in rejecting old scripts. Ditch the altar, Jeff. We all should.

Sources: Fortune, AOL, Inkl, The Times of India, Daily Mail, The Independent, Yahoo, @IKE_DEVJI on X

--- Original post on his blog SteveMini.com https://bio.link/neutralg/p/bezos-big-mistake-the-failed-institution-of-marriage-why-not-poly

--- Produced by: Stephen Miniotis Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 23, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

By Stephen Miniotis for TheMutant.net and SteveMini.com

TORONTO, June 23, 2025 — I’m Stephen Miniotis, a UofT English Lit student and League of Legends, Hearthstone and World Of Warcraft streamer (NeutralG on twitch, Live nights 10pm EST). I'm a secular atheist who’d rather vibe with watching Solo Leveling anime on CrunchyRoll than buy into divine mandates IRL and pray. The notion of the divine right of kings—that monarchs are God’s chosen—feels like a plot twist from a fantasy story of mine or a plot twist out of the Dungeons and Dragons campaigns that the voices in my head conjure up, not a governing principle of a modern nation. As a Canadian who treasures our lakes and loons, though, I’m sold on our constitutional monarchy’s value. It’s a bedrock for our economic and social stability, and I’m keen to keep it around, even if I scoff at some of these archaic heavenly claims. Here’s my take, with a nod at Americans dreaming of crowns.

Divine right? Total myth. As a secular atheist, I don’t buy that a deity hands out thrones like esports trophies. My X posts, packed with climate rants and sonnets from Bluffers Park, lean on logic, not faith. The voices I hear, part of my journey as a self-described paranoid schizophrenic, spark poetry, not prayers for royal legitimacy. Divine right propped up kings like Charles I until rebellions showed they weren’t so holy. It’s as plausible as me hitting Challenger in League without even grinding.

Canada’s monarchy, though, with King Charles III as our symbolic head, is a practical win. Our economy, with 1.5% GDP growth in Q2 2025 (per recent data), thrives on stability. Unlike republics with polarizing elections, our monarchy offers continuity—a figurehead above the fray. This steadiness bolsters our banking sector, keeps corruption low (12th on the Corruption Perceptions Index), and attracts investors. From fur trades to energy exports, the Crown’s presence ensures markets don’t jitter with every political shift. It also knits our diverse nation together, from Indigenous roots to new immigrants, under a shared symbol. At $1.55 per Canadian yearly (per the Monarchist League), it’s a bargain for economic confidence and cultural unity, projecting soft power globally. That's less than a cup of coffee a year for stability, in my opinion.

Reflecting on Queen Elizabeth II’s 70-year reign, her words in 1973 resonate: “In an age of change, the monarchy can be a point of continuity.” Her steady presence was an economic boon for Canada. Decades of her reign saw Canada’s GDP per capita rise from $2,000 in 1952 to over $55,000 by 2022, fueled by consistent trade policies and investor trust in our stable system. Her global stature drew tourism and business, with events like royal visits boosting local economies—think of the 2011 tour’s $50 million economic spike. Her apolitical role kept Canada’s brand strong, a quiet force behind our prosperity.

Unlike the U.S., where political drama rattles markets, our monarchy’s calm is enviable. Some Americans, half-joking, want in. Take Donald Trump, whose gilded swagger screams “king vibes.” Bet he’d trade MAGA for a scepter and rule via divine might and his very own twitter if he could. Our monarchy, though, is about duty, not power, letting us tackle issues like climate change, which I champion on X. The Ol' Boy agrees, and yes to him, too. So why keep these things around? Not for divine nonsense. It’s whatever works. Critics call it colonial, but a president could and would divide us. I’d stick with our setup over a risky meta shift. As I stream WoW or write love poems, I’m grateful for Canada’s steady hum of diversity united under one banner, Crown and all. Besides, who doesn't want a little tradition? Everything doesn't have to be born anew again. As Shakespeare’s Henry V nails it: “O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend / The brightest heaven of invention!” No divine spark needed—just a monarchy that keeps us stable. And hey, besides which, it's always an out: If you hate anybody: hate our King and "the system": and don't hate me at all: i'm an artist without a degree, pending graduation and publication. I understand you that, which, and according to you: you may be opposed! See my other works about why, like my "Opposition Theory" on the blog, for what I might think you might think, and more! Drop me a message let's chat! I read the comments below.

Stephen Miniotis is a Toronto-based University Of Toronto student, gamer, and writer. Follow him on X: @StephenMiniotis

--- Original Post at SteveMini.com https://bio.link/neutralg/p/on-the-divine-right-of-kings-yes-to-a-little-tradition-a-canadians-perspective

---

Produced by: Stephen Miniotis Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 23, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

Back in 2005-2006, I was a force to be reckoned with. At 24, I clawed my way to High Warlord as a Warlock in Vanilla World of Warcraft, a feat that demanded not just skill but an unholy dedication to grinding battlegrounds, mastering rotations, and navigating the brutal social politics of Azeroth. It was a badge of honor, a digital crown forged in sleepless nights and endless Alterac Valley stalemates. My guild revered me, my enemies feared my Shadow Bolts, and I felt like I’d conquered something eternal. Fast forward to 2025, and here I am at 44, a grizzled veteran of virtual wars, barely able to muster the energy to log into WoW’s latest expansion. The nuances and intricacies of modern WoW—its sprawling systems, layered mechanics, and relentless content churn—feel like a foreign language I once spoke fluently but have since forgotten. Instead, I’ve traded my felhound for a deck of digital cards, semi-retired as a Hearthstone professional, where the stakes are lower, the matches are quicker, and the mental load doesn’t feel like running a marathon in plate armor.

This, my friends, is the reality of being a millennial gamer in 2025. We’re the new boomers, not because we’re out of touch, but because we’ve been through the wars—literal and virtual—and we’re too damn tired to keep up with the kids. The gaming landscape has changed, and so have we. Millennials, once the bleeding edge of gaming culture, are now the ones shaking our heads at the complexity of modern titles, reminiscing about simpler times when a 40-man raid was the pinnacle of ambition. We’re post-Boomer, carrying the weight of nostalgia while grappling with the fact that our reflexes, patience, and free time aren’t what they used to be.

Let’s talk about Vanilla WoW for a second. It was raw, unforgiving, and gloriously imperfect. Becoming High Warlord wasn’t just about skill; it was about obsession. I spent hours theorycrafting, memorizing talent trees, and coordinating with my team to outsmart Horde zergs. The game’s depth was immense, but it was manageable—contained within a framework that rewarded persistence and cunning. I understood every tick of my DoTs, every resist chance, every soul shard’s purpose. That version of me thrived on the grind because it felt like a frontier, a place where I could carve out a legacy.

Now? WoW is a beast I barely recognize. The game has ballooned into a labyrinth of systems—covenants, conduits, mythic-plus affixes, and gear scores that require a PhD to decipher. I tried dipping back in a few years ago, lured by nostalgia and a free trial. Within an hour, I was overwhelmed, drowning in tutorials and tooltips. The game I once mastered had outgrown me, or maybe I’d outgrown it. At 44, with a career, a creaky back, and a dwindling attention span, I don’t have the bandwidth to relearn a game that feels like it’s trying to be everything to everyone. And I’m not alone. My old guildmates, now in their late 30s and 40s, have mostly scattered to less demanding pastures—some to Final Fantasy XIV, others to single-player RPGs or, like me, to the cozy simplicity of card games.

Enter Hearthstone. It’s my refuge, my semi-retirement gig. I’ve carved out a modest career streaming and competing in Blizzard’s digital card game, where a match lasts 10 minutes instead of 10 hours, and the meta shifts fast enough to keep things fresh but not so fast that I feel like I’m chasing a runaway train. Hearthstone scratches the strategic itch without demanding the encyclopedic knowledge or lightning reflexes of modern MMOs. I can build a deck, outsmart an opponent, and call it a day before my coffee’s gone cold. It’s not the adrenaline rush of leading a raid or sniping a rank 14 rival in Stranglethorn Vale, but it’s enough. It’s sustainable. And at this stage of life, sustainability trumps glory.

This shift isn’t just personal—it’s generational. Millennials grew up with gaming’s golden age: the SNES, the PlayStation, the rise of PC gaming, and the birth of MMOs. We were the ones who defined esports, who turned LAN parties into cultural touchstones, who made gaming a lifestyle before it was mainstream. But now, as we hit our 40s, we’re the old guard. The zoomers and Gen Alpha kids dominate Twitch and TikTok, speedrunning games we barely understand, while we’re out here waxing poetic about EverQuest corpse runs or the original StarCraft meta. We’re not irrelevant, but we’re not the vanguard anymore. We’re the ones buying retro consoles, firing up emulators, or settling for games that respect our time and aging joints.

The irony is, we’re not even that old. At 44, I’m still sharp enough to hold my own in Hearthstone tournaments, to read a meta and counter it with a rogue deck that catches opponents off guard. But the hunger for dominance, the drive to conquer every system and climb every leaderboard, has faded. I don’t need to be High Warlord anymore. I don’t need to prove I can master WoW’s latest raid tier or memorize a 20-button rotation. I’ve been there, done that, and got the epic mount to prove it. Now, I’d rather play a game that lets me log off without feeling like I’ve abandoned a second job. As T.S. Eliot once wrote, “We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time.” So yeah, gamers are the boomers now—at least, millennial gamers are. We’ve explored the frontiers of Azeroth and beyond, only to return to simpler games like Hearthstone, where we can savor the familiar thrill of victory without the weight of a world on our shoulders. Let the kids have their mythic raids; I’ll be in the tavern, shuffling my deck, content to know this place anew. HappyHavelock.com, dad! Redirected this for ya! Thanks for the sponosorship, bruh! Yours to discover, NeutralG on Twitch tv. Live nights, Hearthstone or League Of Legends, 10pm EST. The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON! By the way, there's a micro or mini generation, pre-millennial. that's where 1980 kids belong: we were the ones who grew up with books into our teenage years: without computers until later. Lit TO: UofT! The Mini Generation! SteveMini.com

--- Original Post on Blog SteveMini.com https://bio.link/neutralg/p/we-teh-boomerz-now-gamer-millennials-post-boomer

--- "An Opinion Piece. Biographical". 1.0

Produced by: Stephen Miniotis Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 19, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

Britain’s Path Back to the EU: A Case for Rejoining and Its Transformative Benefits

Nine years after the seismic 2016 referendum that led to Brexit, a palpable shift is sweeping across the United Kingdom. The once-fervent opposition that fueled the decision to leave the European Union has waned, replaced by a growing consensus among Britons that rejoining the EU could restore economic stability, cultural connectivity, and global influence. Recent polls underscore this transformation, showing a clear majority now support reversing Brexit, with many yearning for the benefits of EU membership. Rejoining the EU offers Britain a chance to reclaim its place in a unified Europe, promising economic revitalization, enhanced security, and renewed opportunities for its citizens.

The Tide of Public Opinion

Public sentiment has shifted dramatically since the Brexit vote, when 51.9% opted to leave the EU. By May 2024, YouGov polls revealed that 55% of Britons believed leaving was a mistake, with only 31% still supporting Brexit. This trend has only strengthened, with a June 2025 YouGov survey indicating that 56% would vote to rejoin the EU in a hypothetical referendum, and 67% favor a closer relationship with the bloc, even without full membership. The regret is palpable: 62% now view Brexit as more of a failure than a success, a sentiment echoed across social media platforms like X, where users lament lost opportunities and call for a return to the EU fold.

This shift reflects a sobering reality check. The promised “Brexit benefits” have failed to materialize, replaced by economic stagnation, trade disruptions, and a diminished global presence. The public’s growing acceptance of rejoining signals a rejection of the divisive rhetoric that once dominated, replaced by a pragmatic desire to restore what was lost.

Economic Revival Through Rejoining

One of the most compelling arguments for rejoining the EU is the economic boon it could deliver. The EU’s single market, encompassing over 450 million consumers, offers unparalleled access for UK businesses. Brexit introduced bureaucratic hurdles and border checks, costing £27 billion in EU trade in the first two years alone. Rejoining would dismantle these barriers, streamlining trade and boosting exports. Membership in the single market and customs union, supported by 48-50% of Britons, would eliminate tariffs and regulatory discrepancies, fostering job creation and economic growth.

Moreover, rejoining could restore access to EU structural funds, which once supported infrastructure in the UK’s remotest regions. Programs like Horizon Europe and Erasmus, curtailed post-Brexit, would reopen, driving innovation and educational opportunities. The economic argument is clear: reintegration with the EU would reverse the self-inflicted wounds of Brexit, positioning Britain to thrive in an interconnected global economy.

Security and Global Influence

Beyond economics, rejoining the EU would bolster Britain’s security and geopolitical clout. The EU’s robust mechanisms for counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and law enforcement cooperation are critical in an increasingly volatile world. With the US security umbrella wavering under recent administrations, Europe’s collective defense strategies are more vital than ever. Rejoining would allow the UK to strengthen ties with European partners, enhancing national and regional security.

Brexit diminished Britain’s influence across the Channel and the Atlantic, leaving it sidelined in global discussions. Rejoining would restore the UK’s voice within the EU, amplifying its role in shaping policies on trade, climate, and international relations. As France and Germany propose associate membership models, including single market access, the path to reintegration appears viable, provided Britain commits to shared values and contributions.

Cultural and Social Reconnection

Brexit severed cultural and social ties that enriched British life. The Erasmus program, which enabled thousands of UK students to study abroad, was a casualty of the exit, limiting opportunities for young people. Rejoining would revive such initiatives, fostering cross-cultural exchanges and broadening horizons. The free movement of people, supported by 57% of Britons even if it means resuming EU migration, would reconnect families, workers, and communities, reversing the isolation imposed by Brexit.

The social fabric of the UK, strained by post-Brexit immigration shifts and economic pressures, could heal through renewed EU ties. Programs like the Taith exchange in Wales, praised for accessibility, show the potential for inclusive reconnection. Rejoining would reaffirm Britain’s place in a diverse, cooperative Europe, restoring a sense of shared identity.

Conclusion: A Call for Vision Over Vice

The case for Britain rejoining the EU is not just practical but moral—a chance to correct a historic misstep and rebuild a future rooted in cooperation and prosperity. Polls reflect a nation ready to turn the page on Brexit, with a majority embracing the EU’s promise over the divisive legacy of 2016. Yet, this aspiration faces resistance from a political class often mired in self-interest. Those who ignited the Brexit vote—figures who stoked division for personal gain—have long since faded from the stage, leaving behind a fractured Britain grappling with irreparable damage. The economic scars, social divisions, and eroded global standing are a testament to their opportunism and charlatanism, fueling public distrust in politicians as little more than self-serving deceivers. In former times, such betrayal might have seen them hanged in the public square or shot for their recklessness. Today, their legacy is a nation paying the price for their hubris. As George Orwell warned, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” It is time for Britain’s leaders to heed the people’s call, shed their cynicism, and chart a bold path back to Europe—one that promises economic renewal, security, and a rekindled sense of belonging. And this time, with a guarantee: never exit again!

Sources:

YouGov, May 2024 and June 2025 polls

Social Europe, January 2025

Reuters, November 2023

Hansard, UK Parliament, March 2025

--- Original post on blog SteveMini.com https://bio.link/neutralg/p/what-the-people-want-the-case-for-britian-back-into-europe

---

Produced by: Stephen Miniotis Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 19, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates:

Writing for TheMutant.net; blog and contact info at SteveMini.com

Some Halarious Donald Trump Walk-balks: Should Everyone Just Ignore him? Should he just golf for three more years?

Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States, has mastered an art form few politicians dare to attempt: the rapid-fire walk-back. Like a verbal trapeze artist, he swings from bold proclamations to clarifications (or outright retractions), often in under a week, leaving supporters, critics, and the media dizzy. His statements often spark firestorms, only to fizzle out as he pivots, leaving everyone wondering: does anyone take him seriously until the inevitable flip-flop? And if not, should we just let him golf for three more years while the world waits for his next script revision? Let’s dive into the hilarity of Trump’s walk-back antics, explore why his word seems to carry an expiration date shorter than a carton of milk, and ponder whether ignoring him is the ultimate power move.

The Walk-Back Whirlwind: Hilarious Examples

The Tariff Tango (June 2025) Trump loves tariffs like a kid loves candy, but his commitment to them is about as firm as a melted popsicle. In early June 2025, he announced sweeping global tariffs, declaring, “We’re gonna make America rich again!” Markets quaked, pundits panicked, and China fired back with retaliatory measures. By Friday, as posts on X noted, Trump was spotted golfing, and by Monday, he’d dialed it back, saying, “Tariffs are off… for now.” The world blinked. X users had a field day, with one quipping, “Trump: ‘Tariffs on!’ 20 minutes later ‘Tariffs off!’ Good luck, world!” It’s less a policy strategy than a game of economic whack-a-mole, leaving investors and allies clutching their pearls.

The “Two Weeks” Time Machine (April–June 2025) Trump’s promises of “in two weeks” have become a running gag, rivaling the best sitcom catchphrases. In April 2025, he teased a mysterious plan, saying, “Big things coming in two weeks.” May 19? “Two weeks.” June 11? You guessed it—another “two weeks.” X user@Tendarchronicled this like a weary time-traveler, posting, “Today on June 11 another two weeks have passed.” What’s the plan? A healthcare overhaul? World peace? A new Trump-branded phone? Nobody knows, because by the next week, he’s onto a new topic, leaving “two weeks” as a punchline for the ages.

The World War III Whoopsie (June 2025) Never one to shy from hyperbole, Trump mused about a “little WW3” in June 2025, days after assuring the world, “No WW3 on my watch!” X users erupted, with @RoninD0je87 mocking, “Trump: ‘No WW3,’ a day later… ‘Ok just a little WW3.’” Within 48 hours, JD Vance was dispatched to clarify: “The President was joking, obviously.” The global sigh of relief was audible, but the whiplash was real. It’s as if Trump’s foreign policy is scripted by a sitcom writer who loves cliffhangers but hates resolutions.

The Roe v. Wade Rollercoaster (2024) During the 2024 campaign, Trump bragged, “I alone got rid of Roe v. Wade!” to cheers from his base. But as suburban women voters clutched their ballots, he sensed trouble. By the next week, he was backpedaling, insisting, “I want states to decide, not a national ban!” X user @GrandpaDennisP called it out: “He KNOWS he’s in trouble with messaging.” It’s a classic Trump move: toss red meat to the crowd, then swap it for tofu when the polls shift. The result? A policy stance as clear as mud.Why the Walk-Backs? And Does Anyone Care?

Trump’s walk-backs stem from a mix of impulsiveness, media savvy, and a knack for reading the room—after he’s already set it on fire. He thrives on attention, launching trial balloons that dominate headlines. When the backlash hits, he pivots, often with a shrug or a “that’s what I meant all along.” His supporters cheer the audacity, seeing it as proof of his anti-establishment streak. Critics, meanwhile, cry hypocrisy, but their outrage often fades as the news cycle churns. As @Cent_training_ noted on X, “Everyone freaks out… then forgets the next day.”

This raises a tantalizing question: if Trump’s word is less reliable than a weather forecast, why don’t we just ignore him until he changes his mind? The media, hooked on his soundbites, struggles to resist. Allies and adversaries alike parse his every tweet, knowing he might reverse course by brunch. His golf outings—like the one after the tariff kerfuffle, flagged by @implausibleblog —suggest he’s unbothered by the chaos. Maybe the world should take a cue: let him swing his clubs for three more years and golf while we wait for the “clarifications.”

But ignoring Trump is easier said than done. His statements, however fleeting, move markets, sway voters, and rattle diplomats. The tariff flip-flop tanked stocks before they rebounded. The WW3 quip spiked anxiety in global capitals. Even his “two weeks” mantra keeps people on edge, waiting for a reveal that never comes. He’s like a magician who promises to pull a rabbit from a hat but keeps switching hats for some unfathomable reason.

The Golf Course Gambit: Three More Years of Tuning Out?

Imagine a world where we treat Trump’s pronouncements like background noise, checking back in a week to see what stuck. It’s tempting, given his track record. X users like @EdwardRayne lament his lack of “convictions or principles,” but maybe that’s the point: Trump’s fluidity is his superpower. He’s not bound by promises, only by the moment. Letting him golf—his happy place, per @ScarredTissue72’s jab about hitting the links after a G7 flop—might spare us the whiplash. But it risks missing the rare moments when his words do stick, for better or worse.

Conclusion: Trump has the Showman's Trait

Trump’s walk-back waltz is less a betrayal of trust than a performance art piece, a chaotic dance that keeps us all spinning. Perhaps he has the showman trait: maybe he was born with it. He walks back bold statements sometimes within moments, often within a week. Does he even carefully think about what he says or does he leave it to the shitstorm that lays in it's wake? To understand Donald Trump: think like him: think to yourself: What do the pundits and polls think? What does his base think? Are they upset? What will they think a week from tommorow? Because that's exactly what Donald Trump will shortly think. So why not ignore him entirely, like a bad weather forecast, only to plan around it until it's sunny again? And hey: as the great American writer Mark Twain once quipped, “If you don’t like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes.” Trump’s statements follow suit, changing faster than loud thunder. Whether we ignore him and send him golfing, golf scorecards in hand, for three more years, just to ignore what he thinks and decide for ourselves, or hang on every word he thinks he means and watch the markets fluctuate until he declares: Nevermore! One thing’s certain: the show goes on, and the next walk-back is just a few moments: or a week or two, away. And if you know the man: please quote him from a week or two ago, pre-walkback, to his face.

Produced by: Stephen Miniotis Writing from his desk. THE BOROUGH: Scarborough, Toronto Ontario, Canada June 19, 2025

writing for TheMutant.net; A desktop-only publication (tumblr on mobile). Charity: ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

1.0 Might be edited.

Who am I? A League Of Legends & Hearthstone Streamer, Night Time EST: The Late Show: 10pm EST+. Troll/Budget decks to Legend. Usually in the top 10k somewhere for fun.

All the decks I've streamed with at:

Hearthstone.lol/Decks

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

###

NeutralG on Twitch tv!

The High Warlord Warlock of Havelock, ON

Mister SM of SM College & Havelock, TO

Lit TO: UofT.

6 Minions fo' sho'. Where my 6ix at? Well Ima light this Canon, yo.

Stephen Miniotis "Steve Mini" from the 6ix.

I take home about 10k/yr. Disability: Paranoid Schizophrenia. Therefore, I welcome all donations: 3$ per meal:

DonateAMeal.ca

Twitter:

SteveMini.com

Writings and contact info:

CrappyBlog.com

Over 3,000+ Anonymous questions answered for free:

AskMeAnything.bet

Live nights 10pm EST:

twitch.tv/NeutralG

sub for free with Prime!

Charity: Where I was diagnosed:

ParanoidSchizophrenic.ca

camh.ca

All Decks I've Streamed With and Win Rates: