Yea yea yea. Milo is a right-wing statist and has all the faults that go with being a right-wing statist. And there are many of them. Regardless of all that, watching him piss in the faces of left-wing statist social justice warriors makes my cock hard.
Almost as hard as volleyball chycks make it.
My view, of course, is that if you are obese, you should hate yourself. At least until you get better. Because fatness is a health problem, and shame works.
. . . . .
Today, I’m going to show you the substance behind those claims, so that you, dear reader, can go out into the world armed with the facts. And also armed with the knowledge that you can hurl all manner of abuse at fat people with a clean conscience — really, you’ll genuinely be helping them!
Firstly, if people feel shit about themselves, they’re more likely to change. A landmark study by obesity experts in 2014 found that a “desire to improve self-worth” was one of the most important motivating factors encouraging people to lose weight. What does this tell us? That encouraging fatties to “love themselves,” as the fat acceptance movement does, is the worst possible message you could send people if you want them to lose weight.
The same study found that obese people were more likely to lose weight around “life transitions,” like starting high school. In other words, people start to worry about how others will see them, especially when they need to make a good first impression. Fear of social judgement is key. So keep judging them.
A study from UCLA’s dedicated eating research institute concurred, explicitly recommending social pressure on the overweight as a remedy to America’s obesity crisis. Sorry Lindy West, but the experts agree: fat-shaming is good for you.
Notice the interviewer attempts to give the woman both the opening comments and the closing comments. Because women are equal.
Here’s a dirty secret feminists like to sweep under the carpet: there are objective standards for beauty, and some of them are shared by both sexes. Symmetry is the most obvious and the most commonly cited. But there are also differences in priorities between the sexes that seem to hold across cultures: men are more visual animals, for instance.
That means heterosexual men, even socially conditioned liberal metrosexuals with nice loft apartments in Brooklyn, are reluctant to approach even well-groomed women over a certain size, which is perhaps why Lindy West appears to have married a nancy boy.
. . . . .
Lena Dunham has styled herself as the entertainment industry’s high priestess of defiant ugliness, turning her laziness and mannish demeanour into a virtue. But ordinary women who take West and Dunham at face value, and let themselves go, chop their hair off, dress like a dude and stop bothering to depilate, find it nearly impossible to secure an attractive, well-adjusted, financially secure boyfriend.
Listen to the desperation of femistatism. Milo is attacked because he is on Twitter. She says Milo has no credibility because he has been “disverified” by Twitter. The obsession femistatists have with social media illustrates how terrified of the actual world they are.
The left has been at the forefront of campaigns against smoking and alcohol, so it’s weird that they’re now championing the self-destructive ideology known as “fat acceptance.” I like a good meal, a good drink, and a pack of fags as much as the next man— but it would be appalling to make a self-congratulatory ideology out of it.
Healthy at any size is a myth, like the female orgasm. This all comes from feminism of course, which is busily producing women who are suitable for nothing other than being part of a voting bloc, whinging on Twitter, and being the third wheel in a tragic (sorry, “empowering”) threesome with a man who’d never take them as his primary mate.
The facts about obesity can’t be denied. Obese women are more susceptible to diabetes, polycystic ovary syndrome (which is also linked to excessive body and facial hair – gross!), cardiovascular disease, lower back pain, knee osteoarthiritis, lower fertility and a cellulite-ridden fat ass.
Not that the sponging, doped-up lesbians of third-wave feminism care about fertility, non-lethal diseases whose treatments can be charged to the taxpayer or looking like total hogs.
. . . . .
More crucially, obese people are also more than 4,000 per cent more likely to disgust me than thin people. I don’t have a link for that statistic. The research paper is still in peer review stage.
Of course, feminists claim that most of the women in favor of “body positivity” are just “curvy,” not overweight. That’s unlikely— according to the latest statistics, over 60 per cent of women in the U.S. are overweight. More girls are very fat than boys.
Time for some honesty. Women are — and you won’t hear this anywhere else — screwing up the internet for men by invading every space we have online and ruining it with attention-seeking and a needy, demanding, touchy-feely form of modern feminism that quickly comes into conflict with men’s natural tendency to be boisterous, confrontational and delightfully autistic.
The fact is, women are more easily rattled by nastiness than men. That’s a stereotype, but it’s also true — in the landmark Pew study on online harassment, women were more than twice as likely as men to say they were “very upset” by online harassment. That’s why, despite the fact that men are more likely to face abuse online, it’s mostly women you hear complaining about it in the pages of The Guardian and on Buzzfeed.
Men have had enough of third-wave feminism’s incessant and pathetic whinging about everything from gender pronouns to this bizarre “online harassment” craze — or “cyber-violence,” as they sometimes bizarrely call it. Women are upset at men being rude to them, and feel “oppressed,” we are told, whenever they are treated on equal terms as men in the maelstrom of trolling that is social media.
. . . . .
Here’s my suggestion to fix the gender wars online: Women should just log off. Given that men built the internet, along with the rest of modern civilisation, I think it’s only fair that they get to keep it. And given what a miserable time women are having on the web, surely they would welcome an abrupt exit. They could go back to bridge tournaments, or wellness workshops, or swapping apple crumble recipes, or whatever it is women do in their spare time.
. . . . .
Transgender people won’t be able to use the internet at all because they won’t know which ethernet cable to plug in, but they’re generally too busy hacking away at their forearms to remember to check Gmail.
British readers will remember the hissy fit thrown by feminists Caroline Criado-Perez and Stella Creasy MP over “misogynist Twitter trolls” in the summer of 2013. After receiving abuse on Twitter for their inane campaign to put a woman on both sides of the £10 note, these feminists succeeded in getting two of their trolls jailed under the Malicious Communication Act.
Leaving aside the bizarre Orwellianism – yes, we live in a world in which you can be jailed for tweeting nasty things – the story had an amusing twist: one of the jailed trolls, Isabella Sorey, was a woman. She had sent some of the most graphic messages to Creasy and Criado-Perez, including, “kill yourself before I do” and, “I’d do a lot worse things than rape you.”
That put mainstream columnists in an awkward position. As with Kaitlyn Bristowe, the story had been framed as innocent damsels under siege by rapacious, hateful men. But when it emerged that at least one of these hateful men was in fact a woman, Criado-Perez lamely tried to excuse her female troll, telling the BBC that Sorley must have “internalised society’s misogyny.”
Translation? It’s still your fault, dudes!
As usual, the truth resists political correctness. Women are more likely to be internet harassers than men. And they have been calling each other all manner of horrible things for millennia. They’ve even come up with a name for it: “trashing.” It’s often a way for high-status women to bully and ridicule poorer or less attractive girls; as ever, it’s all about social status and attracting the best quality husband.
“Set yourself on fire.”
“You’ve made your bed, now get fucked in it.”
“Fuck your feelings.”
To most, these will sound like the words of an online troll, or at the very least someone with what in the 1990s we used to call “anger management issues.” And that’s probably an accurate assessment.
Yet these are not occasional, one-off outbursts, but rather part of a pattern of behaviour from perhaps the most darkly fascinating person currently causing grief on social media. They are the words of Randi Harper, an activist who runs a charity set up to prevent online abuse. Yes, you read that correctly.
Most hysterically, Whedon recently compared #GamerGate, a movement opposing feminist-led censorship in videogames, to the Ku Klux Klan. Whedon’s comment has been widely cited as an example of “Airport’s Law”, a maxim coined by infamous meme composer and internet personality “Airport” (warning – explicit language).
Every day another goony beard-man gets the impression that a rainbow haired she-twink might let him cum in her if he attacks #Gamergate
— Ａ ｉ ｒ ｐ ｏ ｒ ｔ (@cute_em_up) October 16, 2014
On the internet, men like Whedon are known as “beta orbiters”. This is the manosphere word for men with no game (dating ability), who oleaginously suck up to their female friends, hanging on their every word, hoping that their boring, unthreatening, nice-guy attitude will eventually get them laid. Is Whedon a beta orbiter?
Either way, you’d think feminists would be thankful to have such a high-profile lapdog. Not so: while women may initially feel flattered by attention from beta orbiters, they are also turned off by the constant deference. And, once an orbiter has been friend-zoned, the only question is whether he is useful or not. Can he carry your luggage? Buy your drinks? Fight your Twitter wars for you?
One of the most frustrating things about debating feminists and feminist academics is how readily they reach for words such as “abuse,” “harassment” and “safety” – particularly, it seems, when they are losing the argument.
Yesterday I debated Dr Emily Grossman on women in science and, sure as night follows day, she reached for the same vocabulary afterwards, claiming on Twitter that she was “absolutely reeling” from the “mysogynistic [sic] backlash” and that she “hadn’t quite realised the extent of #everydaysexism.”
“After running the experiment, we ended up with some rather surprising results. Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability).”
“If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women.”
That’s right. Their test, designed to provide empirical ballast to a feminist agenda, ended up completely torpedoing it. Worse, it suggested that employers actually discriminate in favor of women, choosing them in favor of men when they believe them to be competent enough.
“After the experiment was over, I was left scratching my head” concluded the report. “If the issue wasn’t interviewer bias, what could it be?”
The report also reveals that women are around seven times more likely to quit the platform after underperforming in an interview. According to a published graph featured in the report, men are more likely to continue, giving it more of a shot on the second interview as opposed to completely giving up like their female counterparts.
With their theories in tatters, the report’s authors had no choice but to admit defeat.
The overarching problem with Ghostbusters is that the script is a greater abomination to God than any of the demons and ghosts in the franchise. I’m sure they could have done a worse job, but they’d have to study Tobin’s Spirit Guide to summon a script from an even deeper circle of Hell.
Mostly, it’s a lack of intelligence. In the original movie, the bad guys weren’t actually the ghosts — everybody loves Slimer and the Marshmallow Man. No, the bad guys were the clueless bureaucrats in the government, who set off a supernatural crisis through bumbling and red tape.
In this film, by contrast, the enemy is all men, while the government ends up playing dad. Every man in the movie is a combination of malevolent and moronic. The chick ‘busters shame the mayor so much they end up getting government funding at the end. Like all feminists, they can only survive by sucking on the teat of Big Government.
Let’s consider some obvious facts. Even the strongest women cannot achieve the same physical capacities as men. Muscle mass, which is directly linked to strength, is anywhere between 60 to 30 per cent lower in the average woman than in the average man.
Women’s upper body strength – essential for carrying heavy objects or wounded comrades on the battlefield – is approximately 50 per cent weaker, on average, than men’s. Men also run faster than women, and have stronger grips — indeed, one study found that the difference between grip strength was so wide that 90 per cent of women in the test scored worse than 95 per cent of the men.
And the difference isn’t simply about strength and co-ordination. A study by the Marine Corps last year found that all-male units performed better than mixed units in 69 per cent of tasks.
The bottom line? In order to avoid reprimands from equality-obsessed politicians, the military has to lower standards to allow women to serve in combat roles. This has already had deadly results.
. . . . .
Alexis de Tocqueville warned that democratic capitalist societies would need to stress la différence between the sexes even more than aristocracies. Otherwise, he said, we’d end up with “weak men and disreputable women.” Well. Just look at Bill and Hillary — or your local gender studies class.