Oprah for President

Oh, 6, 6, 6...(that was rather Satanic). Cheerleading isn't about beauty. I'm actually disappointed that you went there. I cheered with girls who were---how do I put this?--less than perfect physically. I mean, they were all beautiful in their own ways and would be considered attractive by plenty of people out there, but didn't meet that societal beauty standard. One girl I knew was pretty hefty. If I had to guess, probably around two hundred pounds. I don't know. I'm not good at guessing people's weight just by the site of them, but she was a big girl. Like, a size 16. Very pretty girl, but she was fat. And she'd squeeze herself into a skirt and tank top and go out there full of energy and a big smile on her face. And I thought that took a lot of balls. Because of points of views like yours: that cheerleaders are supposed to be beautiful (regardless of the fact that that is a completely relative term).

It was never a beauty pageant anyway. We are around all these sports and all of these other athletes. It was fun, it was exciting. We were also liaisons between our school and the community. But, mostly, it was a sport. We pushed ourselves. We trained. We got hurt. We competed against other squads. I knew a girl who cheered through kidney stones. Girls broke or twisted ankles. Bases sometimes broke their wrists. We'd run miles on the track as punishment for letting a dropped flyer actually hit the ground.

So, to me, your statement is akin to saying that all the men in the NBA should be handsome. Like, WTF does that have to do with the sport?

This, on the other hand, I totally agree with.

 

Nuancation: the radical left.

 

Perhaps you, Balbus, and I may never come to an agreement on the fat shaming versus fat coddling argument. But perhaps we can come to a compromise.

I think it's wrong to tell people who are making lazy and unhealthy lifestyle decisions that nothing is wrong with them. But at the same time I can agree with you that it's possible to be too mean about it. If you imply that a person is fat, gross, and irreversibly ugly because of it. Then that's just the same as telling them that they're incurable, and that nothing they can do will can fix the problem. At what point does it become rude to tell someone they need to shape up?


I also think it's very wrong to put fat people up on the pedestal and make them a protected class, just like the social justice warriors do for Muslims and transgenders. Possibly even worse. As I've explained earlier, fat people are usually more unhealthy, and there are a ton of obesity related illnesses that kill the overweight before they reach retirement age. They are even more likely to die in car accidents than lean people.


Today, we have body positivity activists who pressured universities in teaching Fat Studies classes.

The Fatuity of Fat Studies

Also thanks to this body positivity culture, they've perpetuated this myth that you are healthy and beautiful at any size. Most people are not attracted to the overweight, and it makes finding a partner more difficult.

Body positivity activists are also pressuring Disney to come out with a fat princess.

Disney told 'we need a fat princess' by body positive bloggers

Many young girls see these Disney princesses as role models. Should obesity be something merit worthy, and something to aspire to become?

We have an obesity epidemic in the country. More measures need to be done to fight it. I think politicians are coddling fat people to collect more votes for themselves, rather than improve society.

I think it's unethical to be very mean to someone who has a weight problem, but they shouldn't be admired like they are nowadays.

Please read my post carefully. I didn't say you ARE dense. I said you can't be that dense. I know you're smarter than to assume that the government and "aliens" are what lead every cultural movement.

LOL, Mr. Breitbart died long before the alt-right was even a thing.

You don't have to like Andrew Breitbart to at least acknowledge and maybe agree with some of the things he says.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses," is my favorite Karl Marx quote. He is spot on with this, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. But I also believe he is amongst the worst of people in human history.

In a sense, yes.

What I'm saying is that you're going to have a hard time changing any laws to improve society to how you see fit through politics alone. If the culture disagrees with you, you're fighting an uphill battle against many people who will disagree with anything you propose. Change the cultural attitude first, then policy will follow.

 

LOL

It wasn't my intention to imply cheerleading with superficiality, Neo. Sorry if it came across that way. To what I've seen, it's one of the only sports a girl will doll herself up for. That's where the beauty perspective came into play. Hope you understand.

In both high school and college, I've seen both sides of the "cheerleading is/isn't a sport" argument. The way I see it is that if gymnastics is a sport, then so is cheerleading. My big sister hated cheerleaders in high school.

 

As long as you understand that wealth is privilege, not skin color.

Unless runner X is a clumsy screw-ball who trips and falls, or doesn't take the race of life seriously. Then the more talented Y will catch up. Just because you're born into wealth, that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to be more successful in life. There are wealthy people who've lost it all; some go as far as killing themselves.

Yes because gender is not a social construct. Men and women brains think differently. They have different priorities, which generally leads to different interests. Deal with it.

Nice try, but where did I say women are crappier engineers than men?

I said that men and women generally seek different careers due to different interest levels. That's what leads to male/female dominated professions.

If I were a hiring recruiter for the engineering position, I'd assess both male and female applicants to see which one had the best credentials, and which would bring the best personalities and work ethic to the company. There are outliers to everything. I don't think a girl with a tomboyish personality who preferred manly activities and professions would be any less suitable than a regular man doing the same thing.

Nice try in framing me as a sexist though.

If a company gets revealed for race-selective hiring practices, it will reflect negatively on the consumers who buy their product or service.

What do you think about the BBC and Buzzfeed hiring everyone except white men?

BuzzFeed Wants A Writer. One Condition: No White Males.

BBC bans white people from job - but workforce already reflects country's ethnic make-up

 

There's almost a full chapter on gender and how gender is a social construct, 6-eyed Shaman. From Social Problems: Continuity and Change. I'm sorry to break the news. Maybe you mean biological sex isn't socially derived? I don't know but here's some literature...

on a side note i'm listening to sphongle's Codex VI album and it's definitely likable, though I think I'm more of an Infected Mushroom fan than a Sphongle fan! Good stuff!

 

Gimmie that old time religion! Let's hope for your sake She's no longer in charge!

 

6

LOL - But it seems your instinct on see someone, you consider overweight, is to instantly think of them as lazy (and beasts).

‘too mean’

Your standard mean is just fine

Oh yes and your instincts on see someone, you consider overweight, is seemingly to iunstantly think of them gross and ugly.

Honestly old man, you seem to have no problem being rude

Black or white

If you are not ‘fat-shaming’ you must be ‘fat-coddling’ if you’re not been ‘mean’ (but not ‘too’ mean) you’re must be putting them up on a pedestal – just like those horrible horrible social justice warriors do for those (just as bad as fat people) Muslims and transgenders.

But is been mean and abusive (but not ‘too’ much) to such people like calling them lazy ugly beasts etc likely to improve the situation?

This is not about trying to improve society this is about causing division and spreading hatred and through scapegoating.

There are good people and bad people.

And again your true colours for you it’s about what’s ‘attractive’ and from what you’ve said earlier its seems to be about what you see as attractive.

*

Thing is that I don’t think anyone here is opposed to prompting healthy lifestyles, and I think most people would support publically funded education (to counter interested parties adverts) alongside regulation to have proper labelling and for example, to curb things like sugar and fat content in some foods especially those aimed at children.

The problem is that you seem more interested in wanting to insult people you don’t seem to think of as attractive as fat, gross and ugly.

 

6

Again for you is black and white, either politics or culture but the reality is that they are blurred

But as pointed out the dominant ‘culture’ in the south of the US at that time when segregation and Jim Crow was being struck down was white and racist, many of the regulatory changes had to be imposed and often against the wishes of the dominant culture.

Black and white and untrue, political movements can change attitudes and bring about change, you seem to assume that cultures change in a vacuum they don’t.

So imagine you lived in a culture that was racist would you go ‘I have to accept this because it is the dominant culture’? But the thing is that if you fought against it that is a political act, even just voting not for the racist candidate but for one that wasn’t racist and wanted to change racist laws, then that is a political act.

The problem for many people is that they equate ‘politics’ with ‘government’ (and in the US this has been definitely been pushed by wealth sponsored propaganda). But the thing is that may acts done by normal people are ‘political’ this forum is a politics forum and we are being political.

Voting is a political act, signing a petition is a political act, talking to mates about politics is a political act, politics is part of the culture and cultures are political.

 

6

People are born with a range of talents but inequality can mean that some have a lot better chance of fulfilling their potential that others. Someone could be born with a great deal of talent but a huge number of social and economic disadvantages while someone else can be born with medium talent but a great deal of social and economic advantages. Let’s take a race in which there are two runners – one (let’s call them X) is a very good runner but is forced to begin on the 100 yard line and the other (Say Y) is a reasonable runner but is allowed to begin on the 20 yard line, however well X runs they are never going to catch up Y. Basically the left want to level the plain field and make the race fairer while the Social Darwinist and neo-liberal economic ideas you push would actually make inequality worse by further entrenching the advantages of the already advantaged.

Again can you not see that it’s an insight into your thinking that on reading this you instantly start thinking about skin colour.

Where to begin…

Well you would have to be extremely bad to not win from the 20 yard mark but the thing is that reality is often worse with people beginning from the 5 yard line or less.

The thing about being born into advantage is that it doesn’t just open up more opportunities it also gives you the luxury of being able to have trips and falls without meaning they have great consequences, while if you have a just one trip from a disadvantaged position than can bring about disaster.

Two people invest in the same thing and needed to raise X amount of money. One put their life savings and their house as collateral (100% of that person’s wealth) and raises the X amount another person put in the same X amount but it is only 3% of their wealth. Now through no fault of their own the venture goes belly up. One is completely ruined the other can shrug it off.

I can suggest some books but you would need a bit of grounding in economics first (not just a bad sci-fi) have you looked up the books on economic I suggested?

(oh and you say you have read Karl Marx which things have you read?)

 

6

LOL Somehow I get the impression you are having problems ‘dealing’ with a modern world were women want equality of opportunity.

*

Because certain men (like you) are always going to think she is not really suited for that job and will never be as good as a man, because men are just better at some jobs.

You’ve said and repeatly so, that you think men are better suited to some jobs - that means you think the vast majority of women would not be as good (crappier) at that job.

Its seems to me that because you believe they are ‘different’ and ‘wired’ differently they are and should be in different types of jobs as the comment about ‘different interest levels ‘ seems to indicate?

Which leads on to

But as pointed out that could just as much be about the bias of a society that says men and women should be in different jobs and the recruiters to those jobs.

So when it comes down to recruitment and there is a man and women going for the engineering job and you are the man in charge and the type of man that think men are just naturally suited to certain jobs then it’s likely, in fact probable, that you will recruit the man.

Yes of course you would….you have shown no bias LOL in believing men would be better at that type of job.

As I said - Same if you are the type of person that while probably not thinking of themselves as being racist but does think that black people are, you know, more lazy, more likely to be troublemakers or just not as intelligent as white people then it’s likely that you’ll employ white people – many studies have shown that people with ‘black’ sounding names are less likely than their white-sounding ones to get called in for interviews even when the resumes where exactly the same.

And again you prejudices are on display - to you only ‘tomboyish’ girls (my wife joked that it was surprising you didn’t just say ‘butch lesbian’) would want to or go for a ‘manly activity’.

I mean come on man LOL

Thing is that I’ve met a couple of female engineers and neither was ‘tomboyish’ (or butch or a lesbian) I’ve also meet male kindergarten staff that were not ‘feminised’ (or gay).

Then stop coming out with what are clearly sexist views.

 

6

Sorry but I really think you need to think about how you think.

You still seem to think in black and white – you go too often for the simplistic easy answer (often based on prejudice) than do the harder work of looking into something or thinking about it from different angles and in other areas you show a lack knowledge.

And there seems to be a deep seated lack of self-awareness, your prejudices seem to be so entrenched you can’t see them as prejudices - it’s a matter of – ‘that is how it is’ rather than asking yourself why do I think that is how it is.

 

True, I think self-insight and deep-thought don't seem to be among of Six's notable characteristics, especially when he says his fat-shaming is motivated by humanitarian tough love. The self-serving ideology he's cobbled together from Ayn Rand, Milo and Breitbart probably gets him by as a fledgling small businessman in a world where self-reflection is often a liability rather than a asset. And that's the problem. At first, short-sighted solutions often seem to work, or the long-term repercussions aren't clear, and so we find ourselves in a dialectical rut trying to break into to a closed system. As things begin to fall apart and life ceases to go well, people then may begin to wonder why, and breakthrough is possible. Wait for Six to deal with his mid-life crisis. When it comes, it could be a learning experience. Unfortunately, I think our larger western societies are dealing with theirs by desperately trying to turn back the clock. And that never works.

 

Another thought: if you're a real egalitarian you're also a feminist. You don't have to identify as one to be one. And making up your own definition of present day feminists doesn't change that either

 

Cheerleading is hardly ever a sport because schools refuse to classify it as such because of money and politics. (With the exception of these US states, and only at the high school level: Is Hs Cheerleading Recognized As A Sport In Your State? )

The result is, we lacked the same funding as football teams (we had to raise money to go to competitions and represent our school because the school we represented wasn't going to pay to send us), lack sufficient regulation and safety standards, and can, legally, be denied treatment for an injury sustained--whether in competition, practice or at a game--by our school athletic trainer.

Despite flips and tumbles, pains, sprains, jumps, stunts we went out with no helmets, no padding, nothing but spankies and a short skirt. Why? Because there were--still are not, nor never have been--regulations in place to keep girls safe.

Cheerleading ISN'T a Sport (And What it Means for Cheerleaders) - Omni Cheer Blog

Proof That Cheer Is No Joke: Catastrophic Sport Injury Report - Omni Cheer Blog

 

You know what I notice about America. Or the liberal America. The re-branding or the constant blending of logic to make all things equal or the same. They use all sorts of fancy words to try and convince the other is that they don't know how to think about something.

It isn't anti feminine if you point out that some jobs are better suited and better done by men. Yes women can do many jobs better than or equal to men and vice versa. Doesn't mean ALL or EVERY. And America has had to cater to the minimal fringed of a problem in order to make all equal. Example. Lets say I own a cement factory. In that factory we package cement into 80 lb sacks. Are there women that can handle 80 lb sacks of concrete? Sure. And they should be entitled to the position if they can demonstrate they can do so. But now we make the cement company re-package concrete into 40 lb. sacks in order to allow more women to qualify. Thus raising handling cost. Takes twice as many movements to move the same amount of concrete. Hence raising my cost as the owner of the cement. Thus we raise the price to the rest of the world, so we can accommodate the idea that woman must be made equal to be in the concrete business.

If a man or a woman wants to be considered equal in all jobs then they should equally qualify for ALL jobs instead of making the workplace cater to them.

Now lets move on to Obesity. Forget how we feel about it personally. Some people like large people. Some people do not. This isn't about personal taste and preferences.

The reality is, obesity is an epidemic in America. Its cost more to care for an obese person than one that isn't. That is based on science, the AMA and all the insurance industry standards of cost risk. Its not a personal bias, its a fact. Obesity in America is bought on by a lot of circumstances. 98% of those circumstances is calories in vs calories out. Basic science. There is a very small portion of obese people that have valid medical circumstances that will make them obese (Thyroid etc). For the rest its a simple we take in more calories than we burn. It isn't fair to say that if someone is fat they are lazy because then you have to define what defines lazy. I have to work a lot harder now than I did 20 years ago to burn calories. Noone would ever consider my lifestyle as lazy. Its simply up to me, to take in less to make up for that shift in metabolism called aging. Its no one elses fault but mine if I gain weight. This is the same for the rest of the 98%.

And yes this is to some extent a social problem here in America that needs work. When a liter bottle of soda cost less than a gallon of water or milk, and you don't have the money for extra, you buy what you can afford. Its far cheaper to eat junk food than quality food. However, noone is forced to eat that Big Mac when they could also buy a salad at the same time. Or drink that soda when water is available for free. The vast majority have the ability to control the calories in calories out formula. Just means they may not like doing so. Its a lifestyle that dictates the outcome. And we as a country contribute to it by making crappy options cheaper than good ones and by assimilating obesity as an OK thing to be in society.

And I see NOTHING wrong with imposing the cost where the cost exist. To those that are the offenders. Smokers can't get cheap health insurance if they smoke or they should pooled together with each other, rather than making those that are making healthy lifestyle choices pay for their purposeful damage to their health. If you are obese, and it isn't a medically predisposed reason, why should we as a whole be forced to absorb obesity as OK and simply pay the higher cost because of it?

Like everything else that has been liberalized, its about not taking responsibility for reality, but rather forcing it down the throats of everyone that its about diversity as a way of shaming us into shutting up because we are being too insensitive to the plight of the obese or the women that can't lift 80 lb sacks of concrete. I can and will be sensitive to anyone that is medically pre-dispositioned to weight gain, but don't make the facts that exist be an excuse to make the remaining 98% a medical condition.



America is getting killed by lowering our bar of standard to make more and more people acceptable. It doesn't work.

 

Except that it isn't. When we decided the BMI was the end-all be-all of obesity measurement, tons of people were suddenly reclassified as "obese." Remember, the BMI takes into account height and weight. That's it. Doesn't matter if your weight is pure muscle or pure fat.

In fact, according to our current indexing of obesity, Michael Jordan is obese.
The Real Deal on Your Body Mass Index Chart

I won't argue that there are certainly a lot more fat people than there used to be. But we also have to accept the fact that we changed the definition of obesity, skewing any numbers that highlight an obesity epidemic. Because numbers don't lie; only the people manipulating them. So we need to stop pretending this epidemic is a "fact" because the truth is, we don't have any actual numbers on it. Unless, of course, you count the numbers that include fatsos like Michael Jordan, George W. Bush, and every bodybuilder on the planet.

It is true that healthcare costs skyrocket for those with Type II Diabetes, Hypertension and other ailments associated with obesity. But...wait...what??
Weight isn't the absolute indicator of health

That's right: people who exercise regularly are healthier than those who do not. Fact. And since, as show in the Michael Jordan case above, people who build muscle are virtually always considered obese by the CDC's reliance on the BMI (Fucking government), pretty much anyone who exercises regularly can be classified as obese.

And this doesn't take into account naturally large people who are in great shape, like the beautiful Amanda Bingson (https://www.shape.com/sites/shape.com/files/amanda-bingson-lovemyshape.jpg). This girl is considered morbidly obese, yet she's an olympic athlete, further illuminating how the "obesity epidemic" may very well be absolute bullshit. But if we shed light on that, what becomes of these poor people: how much money does the diet industry make a year - Google Search

Hey! No we're getting somewhere. After a bullshit definition of obesity, suddenly a diet industry springs up worth 60. Billion. Fucking. Dollars. If you don't think that's a factor, you're kidding yourself. I'm sure they give hefty (pun intended) amounts to the CDC to keep telling us we're all a bunch of fatasses. You know, despite facts saying otherwise...

I love combining science with the internet!

According to Gary Taubes, who has three different degrees from three different Ivy-League schools, you're wrong. Oh, as well as 10 other experts on the subject: 11 Experts Demolish the “Calories-In-Calories-Out” (CICO) Model of Obesity

While I applaud your personal accountability, that statement, like a lot of what you've said, simply isn't true. People like George McGovern and Ancel Keys share a lot of the responsibility.
The Men Who Made Us Fat

And then, there's big government (fucking government) trying to force you into eating what they wanted you to eat.
United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs - Wikipedia

And don't even get me started on the USDA (fucking government) food pyramid that tells us to eat 11 servings of the same foods we use to fatten cows and pigs for slaughter.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OeuDze_WL...AAAH4/UU-_3_iKrcc/s1600/USDA+Food+pyramid.jpg

Yeah. By about a $1.50 a day. Healthy Food Costs Vs. Unhealthy Food Costs

And there is the true crux of the issue. This is a free society. McDonald's is both allowed and encouraged to sell us Big Macs. And we're both allowed and encouraged to eat them. It's supply and demand. It's a free market.

But that's the thing: Freedom comes with consequence. Freedom combined with mass production has produced a society where food is easy and cheap. And that's okay. And if you don't want it to affect you, then maybe a free society isn't your speed. I am not picking on you here. At all. But obesity, alcoholism, smoking, pornography, as well as other unhealthy vices, are simply byproducts and living in a free society. We cannot escape them.

 

I think BMI is more accurate than you guys are saying. The CDC seems to feel that high BMI and being overweight are moderately correlated (thus, I see what you're saying, but...)

I also should mention that these aren't the first comments I've heard about the inaccuracy of BMI. I had a personal trainer at the gym I used to go to who would tell me to ignore BMI for some of the reasons Neoprene_Queen has mentioned. He said that it fails to factor in some key elements. That said, I'm pretty sure my primary care physician still uses BMI in making determinations about healthy weight.

Neoprene_queen has a point, though I don't think Americans have been labeled as overweight because of a misinterpretation of BMI; and I think fat shaming is horrible. I forget what we were talking about now.