TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2024
But not always totally wrong: Last evening, viewers had to wait until 10:29 to enjoy their first Lizzo joke.
The theme of the joke was required by law. Delivered by a fellow named Tyler Fischer, the joke went exactly like this:
I was one of the idiots that didn't wear the glasses when looking at the eclipse about four hours ago. And fun fact, I just found out—it was actually just Lizzo standing in front of the sun.
It's hard to believe what devoted throwbacks these Gutfeld! regulars are! Eight minutes later, in the next segment, this same fellow went there again:
Actually, fun fact, another fake news conspiracy. It wasn't an earthquake the other day, it was The Rock and Lizzo landing at Newark Airport.
Fun fact: The children on Gutfeld! were upset with The Rock because he didn't endorse Candidate Trump last week. (He also didn't endorse President Biden.) You could tell this one fellow was very upset because he said The Rock has "little rocks" if he can't really say what he thinks.
(He was pounding away with the Lizzo "fat jokes" because those are the jokes this program's male children love. Women panelists get paid to sit on the panel and act like this makes perfect sense.)
If nothing else, the Gutfeld! program is an anthropology lesson. It's amazing to see how hard some masculine children will fight to resist even the simplest advances in simple courtesy respecting the basic dignity of certain groups of others.
They'll fight and claw to maintain the right to party in the way they've always enjoyed. The fat jokes aimed at liberal women come thick and fast on this "cable news" show. Along the same lines, the host had started the program at 10:01 with this, his second sally:
Nancy Pelosi also watched the eclipse, but she had no choice. She has been unable to close her eyes since 2004.
There followed the usual clutter from the host of the show, including two photos of Hunter Biden from his stoned super-addict days. One of the photos showing him in his white underparts (and nothing else), though there was no explicit reference to the Hunter penis this night.
Anyone who has worked in the comedy world knows about these people. As audience members, they tend to dominate the Friday night late shows. They want to hear a bunch of dick jokes and not a whole lot else.
That doesn't mean that they're bad people; many are surely very good people. That said, we'd be slow to offer such routes of escape for the children who go on "cable news" TV shows and insisting on behaving this way.
All in all, this program's devotion to fat jokes aimed at disfavored women demonstrates the way a certain kind of undergrown male resists any give-back of the braindead gender status that dates all the way back to the days when men fought over possession of Helen, radiance of women, on the wide plains outside Troy.
These boys just can't quit their advantage! And how deeply throwback is this gang of droogs? Two minutes into the show, one of the host's jokes actually journeyed all the way back to this amazing groaner:
A Kentucky man has admitted to faking his own death to avoid paying over a hundred grand in child support. Man, was his sister pissed!
Does Henny Youngman's grandfather write this guy's jokes? Really and truly, good God!
The boys and men who people this show seem to love their throwback entitlements. (Eyes Wide Shut, come on down!) That said, it was the blinding stupidity of last night's "subject matter" monologue which made the program such a remarkable anthropology lesson.
The host of the show went on and on about the alleged differences between liberals and conservatives. We can only tell you this:
The analysis got dumber and dumber the further it went. Soon, it was just tragically stupid. We won't attempt to transcribe or critique the volumes of Stupid the product contained, but the host was soon trafficking in the land where liberal men are controlled by their wives and lack "the upper-body strength" to help women change their flat tires.
Inevitably, producers had ransacked the vineyards of TikTok to find a liberal engaged in a loud, silly diatribe/screed. This was played to convince Red America's mistreated viewers that this is what The Others are secretly like.
As we've mentioned in the past, our own high school—San Mateo's Aragon High—is one mile up the Alameda de las Pulgas from the termagant's Serra High. As a freshman at that very school, we took its one journalism class.
In the textbook, we were told to avoid certain logical errors. We remember one by name:
Avoid the "glittering generality."
We've mentioned the teaching of that bromide in our freshman year once before. At the time, it seemed to refer to denigrations built around race. That said, the basic concept was easy to grasp even then.
Last night's program was brutally stupid. That said, it was also built, at times, on a certain measure of truth.
At this point, it's hard to be totally wrong for a full hour on the Fox News Channel! Have we denizens of Blue America escaped out own attractions to madness to such an extent that we are able to see the truth in that unfortunate statement?
"Has our team possibly played some role in this truly remarkable fail?"
ReplyDeleteShort answer: No.
Longer answer: Nooooooooo.
Question (NOT rhetorical):
DeleteIn an education structure almost entirely run by liberals, blacks lag whites and Asians by around 4 years. In cities long governed by liberals, blacks are homicide victims far more often than whites or Asians. In view of these failures, why does Quaker maintain that his team is without fault?
My answer: It's the "see not evil" approach. Pointing out flaw like this is deemed to be racist. It's not allowed to be said. Look at the censure "The Bell Curve" got when it accurately mentioned the difference in average IQs. Liberals tend to forget these failures because their not discussed in the media that liberals rely on. YMMV
A “Power Law” distribution is also known as a “long tail.” It indicates that people are not “normally distributed.” In this statistical model there are a small number of people who are “hyper high performers,” a broad swath of people who are “good performers” and a smaller number of people who are “low performers.” It essentially accounts for a much wider variation in performance among the sample.It has very different characteristics from the Bell Curve. In the Power Curve most people fall below the mean (slightly). Roughly 10-15% of the population are above the average (often far above the average), a large population are slightly below average, and a small group are far below average. So the concept of “average” becomes meaningless. (Above from Forbes.)
Delete“an education structure almost entirely run by liberals”
DeleteWhere do you get this, DiC? Do you think the majority of schools in red states are “run by liberals?” What does “run by liberals” mean? Can you point to a time period in US history when the education structure was “run by conservatives”, and tell us how the outcomes were/are different?
You do realize that scores on the naep test, as discussed by Somerby for years, have increased over the past 50 years for all racial and ethnic groups? Is that because of or despite the education structure being “run by liberals?” Do conservative states show better outcomes?
Dickhead in Cal thinks blacks are too dumb to vote, that's why he endorses a racist candidate and republican voter suppression of blacks. It's because he cares.
Delete@4:37 the "80-20 rule" or the " Pareto Principle" is a sort of opposite to the bell curve. It is also popular in management. circles.
DeleteI’m abnormally distributed.
Delete"Look at the censure "The Bell Curve" got when it accurately mentioned the difference in average IQs."
DeleteThe Bell Curve has been so soundly and repeatedly debunked, I wonder why DiC has bothered to cite it here.
Perhaps he was once again fooled by expert manipulators.
"...the "80-20 rule" or the " Pareto Principle" is a sort of opposite to the bell curve"
DeleteAbsolutely wrong. Pareto is an application of normal distribution. Do stop before you injure yourself.
Yes, Quaker, TBC has been '"debunked", but based on misreadings and falsehoods. The book six separate times points out that there's no reason to believe that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is genetic. Yet, it has often been "debunked" by critics claiming that the book says just this. No, the real reason it's been condemned by the left is that it addresses the IQ gap head-on. PC or woke requires not mentioning this difference.
DeleteYour comment about Pareto is incorrect. My whole career involved long tail distributions. Insurance claims are not Normally distributed. Enormous hurricanes and earthquakes cause a substantial share of dollars of loss. At one time, actuaries used the pareto distribution to model the size of natural catastrophes.
BTW, I mentioned "Pareto" because that name is more less considered synonymous with the name "89-20 rule". Not by mathematicians, but in business writings. They both mean that extreme events are more significant than under the Normal distribution.
Wiki says "The Pareto principle or "80-20 rule" stating that 80% of outcomes are due to 20% of causes was named in honour of Pareto, but the concepts are distinct, and only Pareto distributions with shape value (α) of log45 ≈ 1.16 precisely reflect it. Empirical observation has shown that this 80-20 distribution fits a wide range of cases, including natural phenomena[5] and human activities."
"The statistical state for the empirical Pareto’s 80/20 rule has been found to correspond to a normal or Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation that is twice the mean. This finding represents large characteristic variations in our society and nature."
DeleteSource: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378437118308872#:~:text=The%20statistical%20state%20for%20the,in%20our%20society%20and%20nature.
Charles Murray himself wrote:
Delete"For the record, what we said about genes, IQ, and race in the book is that a legitimate scientific debate is under way about the relationship of genes to race differences in intelligence; that it is scientifically prudent at this point to assume that both environment and genes are involved, in unknown proportions."
Source: https://www.aei.org/articles/the-bell-curve-and-its-critics/
That can be said about anything. It is an empty statement.
DeleteIn cities long governed by liberals, blacks are homicide victims far more often than whites or Asians"... so we are to assume that cities replacing liberal mayors with conservative ones have seen a decline in black homicide rates. That's your point, DIC, no? Your opinion is based on documented empirical study lest it be labeled racially tinged right wing intellectually lazy meandering. So let's see the data. No data? Just something you've had etched in your brain by constant self-referred exposure to right wing media outlets? And of course Trump said it so it must be true. Here's an idea: don't come here spouting your uninformed opinions on subjects that have been rigorously studied.
Deletescholar.harvard.edu/files/jdbk/files/localpartisanshippolicing.pdf
So go ahead and show us your data to refute this.
Delete
It's impossible for one person to be an expert on all of the topics DIC so self-assuredly sounds off on. There are people who spend their lives trying to master just one of these topics (economics, for example). I only have more than a superficial knowledge of very few of these topics. But regarding the ones I do, DIC has a terrible track record. So when he starts spouting off about a massive subject like race, IQ, and our educational system (which I know almost nothing about), I can pretty safely assume there's a healthy dose of one-sided bullshit involved. He repeatedly seems to imply that blacks have lower IQs. I have no idea if that's true. For all I know, it's possible that, on average, they do. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they do -- on average. And? What follows from this? Why would someone feel the need to repeatedly point this out? If it serves some actual useful purpose to keep repeating it, that would be one thing. But I can't see any. I can see, however, how it could be demoralizing for the black community to be "officially" deemed intellectually inferior. And it seems a pretty bizarre thing to be fixated on. Imagine someone coming on here and repeatedly saying that, on average, blacks are athletically superior to whites. Not just once. But over and over again. You'd start to wonder if the person was racist against whites. Also, notice that DIC is shoe-horning this pet topic of his into a conversation that had nothing to do with it. Bob was talking about how dumb and retrograde right-wing "cable news" has become, and asked if liberals could be partly responsible. QIB said "no." And DIC immediately chimed in with his most cherished topic of blacks' educational performance and IQ. What?
DeleteAdditionally, DIC always seems to ignore the negative impact on intellectual development the uniquely horrific treatment of blacks in American history undoubtedly had. Imagine how stunted a child's development would be who was deliberately kept from being educated, under-nourished and malnourished, mentally and physically abused, possibly separated from her parents, kept from thinking for herself or having any real agency, regarded as not a part of normal society, etc., etc., etc. Now imagine that stunted child growing up and having children of her own. The second generation not only would be subject to the same horrific conditions (forced illiteracy, malnourishment, etc.), but their development would be stunted even further due to having parents who are themselves mentally underdeveloped (through no fault of their own). There would be a compounding effect with each generation. Even after slavery was officially ended and, later, the worst features of American racism were gotten past, the effects on educational achievement and intellectual development would persist for many generations. Could this maybe, possibly have a little something to do with the gap we see between white and black educational achievement (and any difference in average IQ, if one actually exists)?
"I can see, however, how it could be demoralizing for the black community to be 'officially' deemed intellectually inferior."
DeleteI should add, there are obviously other, more substantial ways this could be harmful. For one, it would likely create even greater bias against blacks than already exists. And it would create a stereotype that could take many decades to overcome.
The general dumbing down is not limited to party lines. That said, could you sell a show as stupid as Gutfeld to liberals? Sorry David, probably not.
DeleteBob probably does not follow his podcast, but Bill Maher had Gutfeld and at least one of his untalented cast of zanies on and they received high praise if not the ass kissing Bill reserves for the insipid Elon Musk. Maher sprinkles his show with zingers aimed for the enjoyment of right wing dunces. Maybe not on the level of Gutfeld, but knocking on the basement door.
That is exactly why my liberal friends and I stopped watching Maher. We find him unwatchable.
DeleteMike -- I agree with you that the IQ difference is due to culture, not genetics.
DeleteTargeting urban areas for scrutiny is another right wing ploy that has racist connotations, insofar as urban areas more commonly have densely populated ghettos. Why that choice instead of examining murder rates by state, you know: red vs blue? Why is it that violent crime is so rampant in states that vote republican, DIC? Highest murder rates, most recent compilation, by state: Mississippi>Louisiana>Alabama>New Mexico>South Carolina>Missouri>Illinois>Maryland>Tennessee>
DeleteArkansas
So why are these so called law and order Southern Republican politicians so ineffective at controlling violent crime in their states?
I could say that the Jews are responsible for a disproportionate amount of white collar crime in the financial services industry, and DIC would nod in agreement, as he has done recently. If I made it my theme to harp on, irrespective of the topic at hand, at a certain point DIC would stop nodding and start wondering what it is that makes me so preoccupied with announcing this repetitively in a comments section. So it is with DIC and black homicide rates.
Quaker -- interesting article. Thanks.
DeleteUnamused -- as you may know, I am a big supporter of black advancement. In my youth I took a bus to Washington D.C. to hear MLK speak. I've donated thousands of dollars to black advancement groups.
The black murder rate is roughly proportional to the black murder victim rate, since most murders are intraracial. Inner city blacks need better police protection. Yet, some on the left promote weaker police protection in the name of helping blacks. That's infuriating. It's not that these liberals are racists who want more blacks to be murdered. But, in their ignorance, they're favoring policies that do just that.
@9:23 -- The book also says that the genetic component may not apply to blacks, because of their unique history.
DeleteDIC, if you care to do the reading, which you obviously don't, you would understand that police staffing has been studied and has not been shown to vary statistically whether a given city is under the control of a Republican or Democrat as mayor. Likewise, it is a partisan ploy to choose an outlying group, suggest that it is representative, and use it as a straw man. I, for one, am infuriated that some on the right are so unlawful as to have stormed the capital. It would be inappropriate to credit the larger group of Republicans with this level of contempt for our government. Then again, their leadership choice calls these people hostages, so perhaps that is not the best example.
DeleteDavid's calls to de-fund the police are being taken more and more seriously by Conservatives every day.
DeleteAT 1054, well I feel your pain, but just tuning out gives the likes of Maher a kind of victory. He has become a revoling sponser of Trump era racism, which he endorces by looking away from it. We will pay a price if we don't call him out on it. Yes I know, he is just a comic....
DeleteActual Republican officials and the party as a whole support defunding the ITS and the FBI. Actual Democratic officials and the party as a whole support their local police.
Delete10:39 Facts don’t matter here.
DeleteThe IDF shoots Palestinians trying to get flour:
ReplyDeletehttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/09/middleeast/gaza-food-aid-convoy-deaths-eyewitness-intl-investigation-cmd
ReplyDelete"That doesn't mean that they're bad people; many are surely very good people."
Come to think of it, it's been a while since I read about certifiably "good decent persons" in this blog.
Are there any still around? Are they too dull to pay attention to?
I disagree that people who come to comedy clubs to hear dick jocks and fat jocks can be "very good people." At the very least, their view of other people is warped and it is hard to be a good person without understanding that it is hurtful to mock fat people and dick jokes are at best juvenile.
DeleteSomerby's understanding of the nature of misogyny is warped too. He seems to think there has been a straight line of male domination from ancient times to the present (which he calls "anthropology") when actually the role and status of women has changed from society to society and time and place to time and place.
There have been cultures where women are dominant. There are matrilineal cultures where inheritance and kinship pass through women not men (that mean's wealth and status too). There have been cultures where women were healers and religious leaders. There have been recent cultures where women were authors, historians and political leaders. I quoted the book Feminia lately, which chronicles the position of women in medival times, which was much better off than the 1950s. That book describes the suppression of women's accomplishments in later centuries, until men in the present (such as Somerby) believe women never had the chance to do anything important.
This ignorance about how misogyny works and how times have changed for women, is why men need to take Women's Studies courses in college, or read a book occasionally (something besides Homer or Wittgenstein).
"Femina: A New History of the Middle Ages, Through the Women Written Out of It" Kindle Edition
Deleteby Janina Ramirez
"A groundbreaking reappraisal of medieval femininity, revealing why women have been written out of history and why it matters
The Middle Ages are seen as a bloodthirsty time of Vikings, saints and kings; a patriarchal society that oppressed and excluded women. But when we dig a little deeper into the truth, we can see that the “Dark” Ages were anything but.
Oxford and BBC historian Janina Ramirez has uncovered countless influential women’s names struck out of historical records, with the word FEMINA annotated beside them. As gatekeepers of the past ordered books to be burned, artworks to be destroyed, and new versions of myths, legends and historical documents to be produced, our view of history has been manipulated.
Only now, through a careful examination of the artifacts, writings and possessions they left behind, are the influential and multifaceted lives of women emerging. Femina goes beyond the official records to uncover the true impact of women, such as:
Jadwiga, the only female king in Europe
Margery Kempe, who exploited her image and story to ensure her notoriety
Loftus Princess, whose existence gives us clues about the beginnings of Christianity in England
In Femina, Ramirez invites us to see the medieval world with fresh eyes and discover why these remarkable women were removed from our collective memories."
In many cultures and time periods, including as recently as the Renaissance, fat was considered a sign of wealth and status because poor people didn't have enough means to get fat, and if they did, their hard physical labor burned off the calories that people of leisure accumulated.
DeleteMen seem to believe that thin women are innately more attractive but there are many men who do not, in their heart of hearts, agree with that stereotype. They like some padding, or big butts, or are imprinted on their mother's shape as the feminine ideal. It is our culture that has foisted this thinness requrement onto women in order to sell things by evoking anxieties about sexual attractiveness. Ideals have changed -- being blonde used to be a liability in Victorian times when dark beauties were preferred. Curly hair was thought unruly. Pale skin was preferred over sun-tanned appearance or rosy cheeks (ruddiness). These things are not innate but cultural.
The point for men like Gutfeld and Somerby himself is that saying hurtful things about women is a way to dominate them and make themselves feel more powerful. Somerby assumes Joy Behar IS too fat -- that is perhaps the germ of truth he keeps claiming appears on Fox shows. He hasn't wasted any space today defending any of the women maligned by Gutfeld. They are human beings, but you'll never hear Somerby say so. Only Gutfeld appears to matter to Somerby.
Good dick jokes are hilarious. (Of course bad jokes aren’t.) The penis is a funny part of the body, and it offers interesting opportunities to the talented comic.
DeleteFreud says that people laught at things that give rise to anxiety. Men who are anxious about their sexual performance or the size of their dicks (in comparison to better endowed men) are more likely to laugh at dick jokes.
DeleteSomerby's disdain for dick jokes arises because it is so easy to get laughs by telling them. There are very few men (at least in comedy clubs) who are confident about their dicks (and their ability to please women). Look at Tucker Carlson's ability to get men to tan their balls simply by suggesting they are insufficiently manly to be Republicans! Men will spend any amount of money on penis-stretchers if you just suggest to them that women are laughing behind their backs (as all women do laugh at Trump with his tiny hands and obsession with paying for sex -- because when you pay, they can't laugh in your face without jeopardizing their tips). So, no talent required. Just a certain mean-spirited attitude toward women and the willingness to exploit men's insecurities.
Women know this about men. Why don't men know it about themselves?
DeleteThe easiest way to get yourself beat up or killed is to laugh at a man during sex. Notice that female comics tend to make jokes at women's expense (or their own expense) NOT by mocking men, whereas the same is not true of male comics, who are generally playing to the men in the audience, with jokes at women's expense.
This kind of stuff always leads to more pile-ons. It starts with the people who originally piled-on someone and expands to the people who then pile on the piler-oners.
DeleteIt moves from fat jokes to dark character analyses.
Greg Gutfeld is 5’5”. Nuff said.
We don't know how tall Somerby is. Your theory that short men hate women is undermined by actors like Tom Cruise and Robert Redford. Tucker Carlson is also short, but he supports your theory, with his obvious inferiority complex about his insufficiently tanned balls and waning testosterone.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:03pm, I don’t hold the theory that short men hate women. In order for me to think that, I’d have to jump to the sort of conclusions that are typical of lame-brained people. People such as you.
DeleteMy point is that Gutfeld is not the societal “ideal” either. Pot and kettle.
I'm short and I love Cecelia.
DeleteAnd yet that isn’t even close to what you said.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:51pm, show me where I said that short men hate women, rather than saying that Gutfeld has his own problem related to size (no pun intended).
DeleteBased upon some life experience, I can categorically tell you that short men generally do not hate women and they generally are not adverse to tall women.
You barged into a conversation in progress. That means YOU do not determine the context of your remark. You suggested Gutfeld’s height was relevant.
DeleteAdverse doesn’t mean the same thing as averse.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:19pm, this is a public comment board. There are no private conversations.
DeleteI didn’t address my comment to anyone in particular. I made it to everyone who reads it today or in the archives years from now.
I made a statement about Greg Gutfeld’s physicality just as he did with Lizzo. YOU responded to my post by reading in things that I never implied.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI talked about men’s sexual anxieties, you said Gutfeld is 5’5”, now you say you didn’t mean anything by it. You don’t fool anyone with your denials.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:24pm, I am directly addressing you in this post.
DeleteCan you show me where I directly addressed you or anyone in particular in my first comment about Gutfeld’s height?
You joined a thread already in progress. That created a context.
Deletei don't mind a little junk in the trunk. neither does Anonymous @8:45
DeleteAnonymouse 10:52pm, i didn't join a “thread”. I made a comment about Greg Gutfeld and Gutfeld! pile-ons because he was one of the subjects of today’s blog. I addressed everyone and no one in particular.
DeleteYOU, then, directly addressed me.
BTW- if I had addressed you, how would that have been out of line?
DeleteThis is a public board, it’s not your table at Panera.
Stop making Right-wingers, like Cecelia, out to be victims. That's his job.
DeleteStop persecuting Cecelia and David. They’re my dear friends.
Delete"In our view, Blue America should be asking itself how he ever got that way. Can it really be because Joy Behar is way too fat?"
ReplyDeleteCan it really be that Somerby is entertaining the notion that anyone's body size can affect the stupidity of others, such as Gutfeld? That is nearly as stupid as believing that the sins of people walking around this week caused the earthquake in NJ or the eclipse yesterday.
Somerby perhaps thinks that if he convinces readers that Lizzo truly is big, then they will wake up and say "Maybe Gutfeld is right about other things too?" Maybe Biden does poop his pants. And then they'll become Republicans and Somerby can redeem a bounty offered on the heads of former liberals.
Anonymouse 7:30om, where do you live? The appearances of people affects other people all the time.
DeleteNot just stupid people, but smart and sophisticated people with acid tongues.
The rule used to be that such sentiments were relayed in private conversations because they were insulting and therefore had the power to wound.
In the past, even amongst friends, the commenter might be reprimanded for his/her cruelty. Now days, people do it right on tv or in the NYT style section or via Maureen Dowd.
My body, my choice means every person has the right to determine their own appearance within the limits of their physicality. Gutfeld reveals his stupidity with every mean-spirited “joke”.
DeleteEverybody has the right to expose themselves, too.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:50pm, we love people of every shape and size. We love them and we see them as beautiful because we love them.
DeleteHowever, we don’t love them because they are morbidly obese. What sort of love would that be? You’re killing yourself and we love it!
We may love someone who has marred their face with awful tattoos or with scars by cutting themselves. We love them despite this things.
Loving them because of their self harm is not love, it’s a kink. It’s making that person a talisman to our own societal dissatisfaction, pain, and rebellion.
Being judgmental about other people’s illnesses is right up there with judging people for being gay or trans or different in other ways that they didn’t choose.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:48pm, I didn't judge anyone over their weight. I judged the sort of person who would tell someone it’s beautiful to be morbidly obese. “We’re fans because you dare to be fat”.
DeleteThat’s not love or the acceptance that comes with loving someone no matter how they look.. It’s the use of this person as a means to thumb your nose at societal norms.
Still judging…
DeleteAnonymouse 10:04pm, indeed, and you are found wanting.
DeleteNo one gave you or any other asshole the right to judge and impose your beliefs on other people. That is the essence of authoritarianism and bigotry. Live and let live. No one is forcing you to call Gutfeld or Lizzo beautiful.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:09pm, I haven’t imposed my judgements on you simply by posting on a blog comment board.
DeleteOn the internet, the blogger gave me that right via his open commenting policy. In the actual world the Constitution affords me this freedom.
If you think it’s judgmental to say my that love and acceptance of other people shouldn’t include our calling unhealthy things healthy, then you have a strange idea of love. Not to mention a strange definition of duress.
I never mentioned love at all. I said people have the right to bodily autonomy. You are judgmental and apparental give or withhold love based on your judgments of other people’s choices. I believe that is the essence of bigotry. If you disagree, have the courage of your convictions—the right to hate fat people because they may have medical issues.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:29pm, and I took your rather fatuous statement (made on a public board) a step farther and said that although we do love, dearly love people in our lives despite their self-destructive patterns, we don’t love them and champion them BECAUSE of those self destructive tendencies.
DeleteIf we are doing THAT it ain’t about love, it’s about OUR issues.
It isn’t your place to love but to allow others freedom, the right to make their own choices. Withholding love because you disapprove is emotional blackmail, manipulation and when done by authority figures, tyranny.
DeleteCecelia is demonstrating that it is about control not love.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:(9pm, I said nothing about withholding love from people over their appearance. I’ve said the very opposite. In fact, love propels that opposite reaction. If we love someone we can’t stop loving them even if they’re making terrible choices.
DeleteHowever, we don’t celebrate “body autonomy” by applauding that people have the right to put themselves into an early grave. That’s not love. That’s just you trying to look broadminded.
It is me trying not to be controlling.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:04pm, it’s too late for that, you couldn’t even walk on by a statement that I addressed to no one in particular.
DeleteEven if I commit indecent exposure, even if I expose myself to her, Cecelia will not love me any less. She won’t agree with my idea of bodily autonomy, but her love for me will not diminish.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:39pm, if bullshite was electricity you'd be the Grand Coulee Dam.
DeleteThat’s “bullshight”.
DeleteIf ignorance was dynamite, the Right would be a powerhouse.
DeleteDynamite is not a good fuel for powerhouses.
DeleteRight-wingers are not good people.
DeleteRight-wingers are good decent people, bless their hearts.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSomerby dominates me. I spam Somerby's blog. And I sniff my fingers.
I am Corby.
Fake.
DeleteThe woman stole Ashley Biden’s diary has been sentenced to a month in prison.
ReplyDeletehttps://apnews.com/article/biden-diary-aimee-harris-fa1081c11b34a18f7d216f9cac8bf4e6
Ashley said in the diary her father used to frequently draw a soapy bath in a wash basin and proceed to scrub her from top to bottom. This is when she was 18.
DeleteNot from top to bottom. Top and bottom.
DeleteI much prefer Stephen Colbert speculating about a woman with cancer.
ReplyDelete