The marching malcontents have identified a new injustice they seek to rectify: Lookism.
The galloping injustice of “lookism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Beauty Bias,” lamented “the injustice of appearance in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Beauty Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of attractiveness, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unattractive. […]
Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.
None of these approaches will be a panacea, and to some aesthetes among us, even trying to counter the bias may sound ridiculous. But the reason to seek fairness for the less glamorous isn’t just social or charitable. Our preference for beautiful people makes us poor judges of qualities that have nothing to do with physical appearance—it means that when we select employees, teachers, protégés, borrowers, and even friends, we may not really be making the best choice. It’s an embarrassing and stubborn truth—and the question is now whether, having established it, social researchers can find a way to help us level the playing field.
Harrison Bergeron, please pick up the courtesy phone.
I have an oh so innocent question for the S-M-R-T SMART leftoid equalists pushing this latest load of reality transmogrification: If, as feminists and their consanguineous misfits (hi, fat acceptors!) are constantly telling everyone, beauty is subjective, socially conditioned, and in the eye of the beholder, how is it possible to make laws that punish beautiful people? If there is no innate biologically-based beauty standard (hi, Naomi Wolf!) that is fairly universally agreed upon in practice (if not in stated principle), then there is no way to know who is ugly and who is beautiful. That job applicant you think looks like a toad could just as well look like a goddess to another interviewer. After all, “you are a big, beautiful woman”.
Maybe the equalists want to gum up the machinery of civilization so badly because they harbor a self-annihilating death wish absent any strong authoritarian figure to dispense the discipline they sorely need? It’s as good an explanation as any. Leftoids are like emo Jesse on a meth bender acting out a “stop me before I hurt myself” tard tragedy.
Try to imagine a world where “lookism” laws were rigorously enforced. Will there be a “Caliper General” of the United States who runs the department assigned to measuring people’s faces for closeness to the golden ratio? Who will be qualified to serve as “Beauty Judge” if beauty is a matter of personal opinion, as liberals and fatties and liberal fatties have been swearing for generations? I can tell you if I were a hot babe I wouldn’t want a jury of jackal-faced feminists sitting in judgment of my pretty face. That’s enough psychotically bitter, self-loathing baggage projected onto me to make me persona non grata at any company afraid of attracting attention from malicious government operatives tasked with creating a better, fairer world.
The opportunity for gaming a lookism system created by liberals chin-deep in their self-contradictions is tremendous. Picture a handsome dude at a job interview or admissions office with a cadre of paid witnesses at his side to testify to his ugliness. “Ma’am, the dude is an ugly mofo. Just look at that jaunty cowlick. Have you seen a more repulsive deformity?”, “I wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole. And I know from hunkiness!”, “Ugh, I need a vomit bag. Go ahead. Measure my pupil dilation if you don’t believe me.”
Or maybe an ugly woman will be sitting in an EEOC anti-discrimination government office, and she has brought a penile plethysmograph and a male subject to make her case that his limp member proves she is the ugliest of them all, and she deserves recompense for suffering a lifetime under the cold gaze of looks privilege. Or maybe hot chicks start showing up to job interviews wearing potato sacks. (Won’t help. They’ll still look better than well-dressed fugs.) What will happen when master system gamers bring hard data to the table showing that beauty and smarts and charisma correlate, and thus there’s good reason why people naturally favor the beautiful? Or when the obvious logical connection is made that people shouldn’t be punished for an advantage in life they had no control over receiving? (hi, IQ denialists!)
You can see where this will lead: a mountain of lawsuits claiming reverse discrimination based on a misleading, subjective experience of beauty; an anti-anti-lookism argument, however tactically disingenuous, to which liberals who created the anti-lookism laws will have no counter, without transparently betraying their very own cherished beliefs and principles. Never underestimate the scope of the infinite logic traps into which equalists are capable of boxing themselves. You have entered… The Dissonance Zone.
The only way an anti-lookism legal apparatus could conceivably “work” — that is, operate long enough to generate substantial revenues for interested lawyerly middlemen — without instantly imploding from internal contradictions is if liberals admit that beauty is objective and thus measurable with precision instruments. Without that cave on one of the liberal core tenets — without that craven loss of leftoid face — an anti-lookism bureaucracy won’t last any longer than the first lawsuit filed by an aggrieved hottie which claims beauty is a personal experience that can vary depending on the person observing it. The platitudes and pretty lies that so entrance liberals will ring like a symphony in the Courtroom of Playing Field Leveling, deafening liberals with their own dulcet ear poison. Oh, the irony, it is delicious.
Even were liberals to happily and expediently kick out a major pillar girding their ideology and proclaim in the interest of wallet-fattening litigiousness that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but is an objective fact of biology and cosmic law, there would still be no way for “anti-lookism” laws to survive their intrinsic parodical nature. For as soon as liberals admit that beauty has a factual, objective basis they will be forced, by circumstance or by subversion, to also admit that other unequal distributions of favorable human traits have a sound, objective biological basis… and then the whole goddamn house of equalist cards comes crashing down in the ensuing rush for biological inequality reparations and anti-discrimination compensation. And once that path is taken, illimitable chaos must follow in its wake. The body politic will be bled dry, or it will seize a rationale for eugenics.
Coerced eugenics, if you think about it, is the logical end game of equalism.
I predict that the advocate of lookism laws in that article is a beautiful woman who feels guilty for catching breaks in life, and wants to atone for her sins. To satisfy my curiosity, I found her photo to see if I’m right.
Curses! Foiled again!
Equalists, I’ll make this very simple for you: Life is unfair. Deal with it.
there’s just no way to satirize it almost, it’s so absurd. and i have no doubt it will gain traction.
of course later it’d be ‘unfair’ that those that received no lookism equalization wore it as a badge of honor and reaped more reproductive rewards.
lzozlzlozo
hey heratre8stess!! HEARTITSEZ!!!
dis happend to me da GBFMZ!!! they ar eimplementing da new lawsz to level da playing fiendz!!!
i swear i was fired form my baristas jobz at starfufkcusz because of dis!!
nobodoy would beleievez me–dey tried to pass it off as teh fact i took a shot of epsressoesza for every shot i served a customerz, but hey, who deosn’t do dat???? lzozozlz
anywayz da GBFM was disctrimatedz againstz because of his lostas coksasz, in a supreme-court bound case of LOTSASCOCKASISM that was used to level the palying fieldz as da GBFMZ was socrking with all da hottie customers–swooosh 3 points every nite yo!!:
The galloping injustice of “lotsacockasism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, John Scalzi, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Lotsacockas Bias,” lamented “the injustice of small peckerz in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Big Cockas Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of a foot-long pekcerz, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unendowed. […] “It would seem those who are well endowed,” reflected economist Ben Bernanke, “have an easier time building an endowment. Whoudla thunk it? lzozlzzolzol”
Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions, without flushing the floaters. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating small cockasz menz as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for their inky-dinky-pinkies, or compensating disfigured, small cockas but otherwise healthy menz in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using dildos or technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind dates that take cockas size out of mate selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness/boner-raising has a role to play, too.
None of these approaches will be a panacea, and to some aesthetes among us, even trying to counter the bias may sound ridiculous. But the reason to seek fairness for the less glamorous isn’t just social or charitable. Our preference for lotsas cockasz people makes us poor judges of qualities that have nothing to do with physical appearance—it means that when we select employees, teachers, protégés, borrowers, and even friends, we may not really be making the best choice. It’s an embarrassing and stubborn truth—and the question is now whether, having established it, social researchers can find a way to help us level the playing field.
Stanford Economist Dr. Sally Bohner suggested returning to the age-old solution that had been tried from antiquity on down–using the bunghole as the gina hole. “As the sphincter hole is generally tighter than the ginahole,” Dr. Bohner explained, “small coaked menz get to feel they have more cockas, and are thus less discrimated against. This ties in nicely with our Brrnankificationsz programz via which we desoul women in secrrtely taped buttehxtcinings sessionsz, thusly making them more loyal to the Fed and the Feminism it funds, as opposed to, say, Man, God, and Family.” And too, the women gets to pretend her husband has a bigger wiener, in the same way Ben Bernanke can pretend he his creating wealth by printing money and collectively buttcockingz da commonsz mansz zlzlzoizzlzoz in secretly taped fed meetings zlzozizlzozl.
Heh, so when are we getting a status on how Dr. GBFM’s university literature courses are going? Any plans to stream them online for distance learning? I’d be curious to finally hear what it sounds like when he goes lllzzollozz …
lzozozzlzo
yes i am working at a unsiveirteyz!! an di hope to be a film directro tooz! lzozozoz
lzozozozo
AMERICAN ANTHEMZZ: A FILM OF HONOR, CHIVALRY, LOVE, AND VALORZLzozlzzolzozo
lzlzlzlzolzozozolozl
as many of you migt hve heard the sad sad news, da gbfm was fired form fromz his dream job of working as a baristsatst baristasz at a starabucckasta starfcucckz zlzozlzozozlzoozo
whata happenedz is dat 4 every shot of sespresso esproos i served a customerz, i took one myslefe to shar ein the joy and community and bortherhoodsz artististic broteherhodosz of da corporate cocfefe shops as i saw all da customers as fmailyz zlzlzozzlzlzozozo
so anywheoz da GBFM got firedz and had to enrollz in da local community colleegz (student debt hedge fund) so as to build up his skillz for his seocnd two career choices:
1. film directorz
2. collegez professor of lietrtaurez englsizh and shisztizn zlzozo
well in my online filmz class for which ben bernnake gave me twens thousnads of colleg loansz, our assignmengt was
“Film a short piece capurturing the zeitgeistz–da Spirit of Americasz”
well tcucker max rhemeys with goldman sax already shot da academy award oscarz scertive tapings of buttehxt which da dnecoctoncths womenz at da weekly stanatdard so love and ar eentrhalled iwthz
so da gbfmz went out and bougt a camerasz to shootz an epic story of love and heorismz, but then surf was up so
da gbfm went surfingzz
and then and tehrez da GBFM had good GBFM lucksz as tehre was check out what i saw!! in da water i spied sawz matt kingz KING MATTHEWZ king matthew and otehr churchianz commentersz from dalrock’s blog white knighztingz it up and tryinzg to win dem sa grilflriendz!
so i turned the cameraz on and fulfilled my community colllege (student debt hedge fund) assignmnetz of cpaturing da spirit and ZEITGIEST the SPIRIT OF AMERICA:
da GBFM presentz to you: DA SPIRITZ OF AMERICA: A FILM OF HONOR, CHIVALRY, LOVE, AND VALORZLzozlzzolzozo
lzozozzozoz
can’t believe I’m going to give you props, but that was pretty understandable!
by teh way, we expect some updates from your new job, not just regurgitations of your barista days…
> “we expect some updates from your new job, not just regurgitations of your barista days”
I wanna know whether GBFM ever worked at Starbucks with a girl named Charlene Peele.
Cause we need a new verb to go with “eBernankified”.
Something like “eZuckerererZZZZLOLOLZZZZified”.
That’s when one of Ben Bernanke’s kissing cousins fucks you up so badly that you’re left underwater on everything.
Kinda like the last we saw of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in Titanic.
“It was so sad when Leonardo DiCaprio’s character was eZuckerererZZZZLOLOLZZZZified.”
Mort Zuckerman totals single mom’s car
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3064710/posts
Billionaire New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman left the scene of a Hamptons accident after plowing his fancy Lexus into a parked Ford – and now his insurance company is sticking the stunned owner of the totaled car with the $4,000 tab.
Single mom Charlene Peele has been told by the media and real estate mogul’s insurer that she’ll get just $13,000 for her wrecked 2009 Fusion, even though she still owes $17,000 on what is now a heap of scrap metal.
“It’s outrageous,” Peele told The Post of her ongoing five-week fight with the media mogul’s insurance company. “It’s the principal of the thing. He hit me, but I’m the one running around like a crazy person, trying to sort out a mess I wasn’t even involved in. It’s the principal of the thing, and I’m the one left without a car.”
Peele, a veteran Starbucks manager, was at work when Zuckerman, 76, came tooling down Main Street in East Hampton Village on August 11 – a clear, sunny day – when he “looked away from the roadway,” veered right and slammed into Peele’s car, according to a police report…
GBFM is the Yeats of our time. Pure poetry combined seamlessly with social satire. Genius.
I laughed out loud.
Compensation for men with small cockas, why it fit perfectly with their bullshit nonsense.
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story 40 years ago about a USA where anyone beautiful is forced to wear an ugly mask so everyone is equal. This is where the equalist crazies want to bring us.
Story here: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
lzozozzol tanks aloztz zlzoziuiz
zlozozzozzo
Fking genius. Brings tears to my eyes.
When’s the dance remix version coming out GBFM?
Then again, it will just sell as feel good pablum for ugly people. If you look, most books complaining about social injustice are simply a complaint seeking an audience to sell books to.
looks like an albino chimp
Good place here to share my Thomas Cahill Irish saying:” We followed the rump of a misguiding woman. It is the usual thing for a herd led by a mare to be strayed and destroyed.”
No. She actually looks like a bucket of Chaz Bono’s vomit. .
There are no areas of life so trivial but that Progressives wants utter control of them.
The problem here CH is that the Left doesn’t mind self contradiction. In fact, they love keeping people off balance and constantly confused. As I’ve said before, Leftism is nothing more than the codification of the female mind upon society.
correct, they are not at all afraid of internal contradiction. they can gloss over it with yelling, projection, confusion, etc. no sweat.
” …Leftism is nothing more than the codification of the female mind upon society … ”
I came to the same conclusion a while ago, leftism has all the irrationality of the average female mind ( maybe 5% of women are not like that ), it is all about emotions and what feels good “right now” without any consideration or understanding of long term consequences, it is a rejection of logic or an inability to think logically, it is pathological altruism no matter at what cost, it is extreme naiveté etc etc
and last but not least it contains more contradictions than there are fish in the sea.
related fact; on Yahoo news last week, it was revealed that 95% of entries at Wikipedia are done by males…why do I mention this? because it shows that most women simply do not care about facts, simply do not care to know how things work, how things became what they are today. They do not want to understand the world around them they simply want to feel good. Most of them are not analytical, they simply follow their “heart” or their “gut feeling” or their ” intuition”
But when one does not understand how things work because they simply do not care, how good can they be at choosing what is best for themselves or for others?
an example;
It was a woman who managed to force the ban of DDT in third world countries many years ago. This made her and millions of liberals feel good about themselves because they were convinced they were saving the lives of children who as they believed were dying ( of cancer I believe ) only because greedy heartless capitalists ( who of course were all white males ) wanted to make millions selling useless but very toxic DDT…
but then it became obvious that without DDT the number of mosquitoes
exploded and since they carry and transmit deadly diseases ( I think it was cholera) the number of children sick and dying also exploded…
In the end the “feel-good” liberals caused the death of much —much — more children than the “evil capitalist white males” and their toxic chemicals did.
as with the proverbial tree, the liberal’s need for feeling good kept them from seeing the forest
This also explains why so many women voted for Obama; it was to feel good about themselves not about choosing someone who was qualified to run the nation.
Most women know nothing – zilch, nada, niet, zero – of politics, but voting for a black man felt damn good and that is ALL they wanted to know.
On top of that believing that voting for a black man would fix all the racial problems was extremely naive, or that it would absolve white people from the sin of slavery was extremely dumb.
but it felt good and that is what motivates women.
Giving trophy to every kid even if they accomplished nothing at a hockey game? liberals/females needing a fix of “feel good” and ignoring or being unable to understand the long term consequences.
A liberal or female telling you ; ” there is no such thing as race, race is a social construct’ ? that is him/her needing to to feel good
then him/her saying in the same sentence; ” we need to do more for non whites, we need more affirmative action” or ” white have white privilege and that is unfair to non-whites”? that is him/her not only needing to feel good (by giving themselves a good conscience) but it is them ignoring facts and logic and being incapable of realizing they just contradicted themselves.
and I could go on all day with examples of liberal/female behavior which are basically the same thing
Sorry for the long rant but it is a slow day for me…
“leftism has all the irrationality of the average female mind ( maybe 5% of women are not like that ), it is all about emotions and what feels good “right now” without any consideration or understanding of long term consequences, it is a rejection of logic or an inability to think logically, it is pathological altruism no matter at what cost, it is extreme naiveté etc etc”
Exactly! We’re reflecting the irrationality of the average female mind because the society has been feminized under the guise of civilized behavior. The culture can be civilized without being irrational female. And, the feel-good mentality shows how we lack discipline which is a male trait. Well, discipline is nonexistent now. We have chickified the culture.
.
And also right about the Wikipedia example. It’s not just that women don’t care, they’re just not wired that way. That’s a man’s domain, why tamper with it? Why compete with men? And right about the DDT example too.
.
“In the end the “feel-good” liberals caused the death of much —much — more children than the “evil capitalist white males” and their toxic chemicals did.”
Bingo! That’s why I say liberalism/leftism destroys everything it touches.
“under the guise of civilized behavior something something BettyFriedan GloriaSteinam blah blah blah wowjustwowjustwo…..”
“Bingo, it’s a FORGERY you’rejustbitterandjealousofoursuccesswowjus…”
Thanks Lily.
Here is more – somewhat anecdotal but typical – evidence, of an irrational “feel good” liberal/female,
it is an excerpt from someone’s review of Naomi Wolf’s book at Amazon
“… Among other highlights, Ms. Wolf claimed in the original hardcover version of this book that the number of American women who died of anorexia each year was roughly three times greater than the total number of American men who died in Viet Nam during that war’s twelve year course. (She had roughly 150,000 American women each year starving themselves to death. She was off by, at the very least, 149,600. Probably more. Any self-respecting scholar would have killed herself at this point. Not our Ms. Wolf.)
It gets worse. Soon after publication, Naomi did a lengthy photo spread where she posed and frolicked for pages and pages in a ‘women’s magazine’ sans irony. When the mind-boggling hypocrisy of this — posing for a fashion magazine when she was out berating the fashion industry for destroying the lives of young women — was pointed out to her she threw a legendary tantrum on the television news show ’20/20′….”
It felt good to her to publish a book where she complains about women being judged for their looks, but soon after that, it felt good to her to pose in a magazine and be admired for her good looks; HUGE contradiction and HUGE case of being Oblivious to the whole thing
Naomi Wolf’s tantrum is what the liberal sect ( it is now a cult and a sect ) and their controlled media do everyday to shut up those who disagree with them,
They contradict themselves, act irrationally and then when we point it out they use temper tantrums to shut us up.
their tantrums also help them ignore their own dysfunction/irrationality/immaturity; when no one is allowed to talk about it, it becomes easier for them to pretend it is not there.
just as the wife forbids the husband to even allude to the fact she gained weight since they met or that she ate a whole box of cookies and shuts him up by using the threat of withholding sex; the wife can delude herself into believing she is not that fat
Just like a 4 year old holding his breath until you do what he demands – usually an unreasonable demand –
that is how liberals and feminists have managed to take control of everything;; tantrums and whining
the 4 year old is controlling, manipulating the parent.
the 4 yard old is stirring the ship towards an Iceberg but our guilt keeps us from doing anything about it.
at some point we – the adults, the good men – fell asleep at the wheel and we let the spoiled immature brats take control
and we became weak, easy to manipulate, we became betatized ( not a word I know )
to avoid their tantrums we let women who can not lift a fire hose or can not carry an unconscious victim out of a burning victim become fire”men” … we let the gays walk around with their dick hanging out on pride day …we let young black men commit the vast majority of crimes…we let Muslims treat us as persona non grata in our own nations…we let illegal immigrant demand insane things from us…we even let liberals control what the right can say…
to avoid tantrums we are letting the 4 year old have candy for breakfast, lunch and supper hoping the problem will eventually go away fix itself
at some point we the adults, we the good men, we gave up
And we know what happens when good men do nothing…
the world becomes a liberal cesspool.
( my apologies to Edmund Burke )
Don’t forget the other feminine aspect of liberalism: fashion. Much of liberalism is nothing more than fashion in opinion, and many liberals go to great lengths to wear the right opinions and utter the right (brand) names, and they know when to change their outfit as they go from one hangout to another.
Good point, it was cool, it was ” in fashion” to vote for the black candidate, so most women simply did it so they would be “cool”
Women are much more influenced by hype, fashion and all of those silly things
Just curious as to Ms. Wolf’s ethnicity.
Humans reproduce on the genetic Prado Principle, but rather than 80/20 we are more like 80/40. Consistent throughout time, 20% of women don’t successfully reproduce. Either they are too ugly to secure adequate resources, not fit enough, or just simply unlucky. Their fate is really no different than the 60% of men who get cut out of the gene pool. There is no real reason to invest any resources on either individual or societal level for the surplus mouths. Attractive women who age out without having children are in the same boat as the unsuccessful Beta / Omegas no matter how diluted they are in thinking otherwise.
Spot on. And this is why a society must have the combination of material affluence, and universal female suffrage, in order to succumb to the cancer of progressivism. This is why “feminism” was invented: as a trojan horse to carry a virus that will destroy the West.
Well, in of defense those voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012, I must admit that the other main party candidate was pretty much identical except for skin color and country of origin.
“People are all the same”.
“We need more diversity.”
How can we have any diversity if people are all the same?
I no longer care to listen to, discuss or tolerate these pretentious collectivist retards. I no longer find any joy in mocking, deriding, or confusing them.
However, I cannot wait for the Culture War to go hot.
Won’t be long.
It’s already happening if you know where to look.
> “There are no areas of life so trivial but that Progressives wants utter control of them.”
They’re nihilists.
It took me so long, so many years – so many decades even – to realize that.
But once you do realize it, then suddenly it all makes sense.
Everything they touch turns to ruin and damnation precisely because ruin and damnation are exactly what they covet.
But unless and until you realize that these people are infatuated with Death Itself, you won’t be able to make heads or tails of it all.
This is even sillier when you consider how much can be done in modern society to improve your appearance: lose weight, hit the gym, get a good haircut, use makeup, drink a lot of water, dress nicely… plastic surgery if necessary, tooth whitening, dental work. There are a lot of options available to dramatically improve a person’s looks. And you don’t have to be perfect to get the beauty “edge”, either.
This isn’t about “protecting” people with imperfect facial features. It’s about placating people who are overweight or otherwise don’t take care of themselves, and shaming people for not being attracted to them.
I think it goes deeper than that. Hard leftists despise anything considered good, at a fundamental philosophical level. They are an ideology of envy and hate and power. O’Brians without the veneer of intellectualism. They hate ugly people as much as they hate pretty people, but if it gives them more traction to assert even more control over life, they’ll gladly play both sides against the other. For example, look at how they whine on about minorities and compassion, but are absolutely racist in their personal choices in life.
In context of playing blacks and whites off against each other I meant, wasn’t clear, my bad.
“Hard leftists despise anything considered good, at a fundamental philosophical level. They are an ideology of envy and hate and power.”
Boy, you really have them down to the nitty gritty. Well-said.
Them.
Thjewm.
Ya know, I don’t think Lily is a chick. It’s a dude
She is simply part of the 5% of women who would be likely to contribute and read Wikipedia instead of reading about their favorite celebrity’s new shoes
I’m sorry to be the jerk, but this is an instinct borrowed from a certain Tribe of very influential people all sharing a particular ethnicity.
@ Amy – It’s basically about hatred of reality for being reality. Reality is what it is no matter peoples feelings.
its about psychologically handicapping vulnerable people by turning them into feet stamping victims for profit power and lozozlolz
If liberals managed to make tax payers pay for the woman’s “pill”, then it is definitely possible that in a few years they will have tax payers pay for ugly people getting cosmetic surgery.
There does not seem to be limits to the insanity of liberalism/leftism.
If the normals still had balls there would certainly be limits. However, pensions are just too good to do what needs to be done. Bought and paid for.
Look at the spectacle of General Dempsey sitting next to professional degenerates Kerry and Hagel in the Senate hearing. His officer oath requires him to do something about domestic enemies, but I guess a domestic enemy is now anyone who doesn’t bow and scrape to darkies, homos, hebes and fat chicks. We are unprincipled as a collective whole at this stage in history, hence the lack of any limit to what will certainly be coming down the road in the near future.
They already do: Many military chicks get fat as rhinos – thus qualifying under Tricare for reductive mammoplasty, tummy tucks, along with the usual “service-connected” disability for the back pain related to their over-fed, pendulous, cow-tits.
Plus we get to care for their mulatto spawn! “I want Dartavius to get a good education so he can follow his dreeeeeeeeeeeeeams!!”
@ Canadian Friend – Well, they already do in Sweden.
They do in Israel as well. If you’re overweight, your drugs and/or surgery are covered in your health insurance.
I watched how things happened in the span of 12 years. First, the market was saturated with junk fats, and the cooking shows started all using them. There are actually many young Ashkenazi women here who don’t know what schmaltz is or how to make it. You couldn’t find coconut oil, vegetable ghee or real ghee except at health food stores.
The price of meat and vegetables shot up astronomically, and no longer adjusts to the wholesale market. The price hike is obviously fake, because if you buy from the farmers, the price is almost the same as it was almost 20 years ago. In fact, in some areas of the country, they couldn’t do the hike except in some supermarkets because if it is too high, people just won’t buy because they know where else to get food.
So many people got fat. Then there were the $olutions. If one wants, they can get on drugs or surgery, and insurance covers it, but mind you, taxes, including the health tax, are very high here. This is what is going to happen in the U.S. soon.
So those complaining about too many fat women, you shall not suffer long. Help is coming, but you are going to pay for it. You’re also going to pay for it socially if the culture doesn’t change. Prettier women who have paid a higher price to be so will just mean more women who think they are too good for you.
HIV-positives already receive facial plastic surgery paid for from YOUR insurance premiums. They get cheek implants and soft-fillers (eg, Restylane)
Wouldnt that cover up the fact that they have HIV?
Every time a person with bad genes manages to produce children because cosmetic surgery made them attractive enough that someone would want to have a kid with them, we make the species weaker.
Good looks have a purpose; in nature healthy animals tend to look better,( disease and bad genes usually have visible signs such as dull colors for birds feathers etc ) this is how animals know which one is better suited to share its genes with, which one has better chance of producing healthy offsprings
but cosmetic surgery is like false advertisement; you impregnate a hotty with a cute little nose and she produce and ugly baby with a huge nose
Or maybe she has some disability or disease, but modern medicine is hiding it from you, but then the children end up with those bad genes
Modern medicine in some ways is wonderfull, in other ways it is making the species weaker every day…
I have said it before; both modern medicine and liberalism are reversing survival of the fittest,
it is the theory of evolution in bizarro world
It is Darwin in reverse.
Lookism;
Harrison Bergeron;
Poe’s Law.
Aristophanes predicted this 2400 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen
The best translation is by Douglass Parker under the title Congresswomen.
(I note that “GBFM” apparently hasn’t read or perhaps even heard of it.)
Brilliant work, right there. Amazing how clearly truths haven’t changed despite thousands of years.
There is nothing new under the Sun. Our forefather’s forefathers were quite wise in what giving unchecked female authority would bring. We are reaping it now. Amazing that 2500 years of wisdom can be buried but men’s memories are short.
lzozlzozol
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/lzlozzo-idiotz-aholez-bill-bennet-kay-hymowitz-titz-sayz-man-up-man-up-and-marry-da-slutsz-slutz-slutz-zslutzz-lkzzuzzzlzozlzo-lzlozzo-idiotz-aholez-legem-benet-kay-hymowitz-titz-sayz-vir/
“Throughout the History of Western Civilization, the TRUE ALPHAS have ever been defined by HONOR. Jesus, Socrates, Achilles, Newton, Galeileo, Einstein, Smedley Butler, Moses, Mises, HAyek, Feynman, and da GBFM were never measured by how many pre-buttcoked, bernekekakfied chricks they also got to buttock agfter negging dem, but they were defiend by HONOR.
As women navigate chiefly by butt and gina tingslslsllzlzlzozo, instead of HONOR, the central bankers used them to deconstruct and destroy the family and civilization via the feminist movement. And thus the Fed created the PUA movement too, as the PUA and his churchian cousins are all slaves to women’s butt and gina tinglzlzozo, with every neg and consideration motivated with the thought, “how can i get her butt and gina to tiznzgzlzlolzozo so i can slide my peckerz into her bunghzozlo and sosodmize her as they teach us to do in school?”
Read the Gospels, Homer,Moses, and Mises–read Socrates and Jesus–and you will see no mention of the blowjobs, butt tinzgzlozlzo, and gina tinzgzlzlzo which pervade the churchian comment section of Dalrock’s blog, where Churchians try and recreate Christianity in their own fallen image, and then wonder why the family is being destroyed alongside fatherhood int heir churches, telling themselves that if only they demand more blowjobs from their wives, the family will be saved. You cannot make this stuff up folks. Instead of LEADING THEIR WIVES and showing HEADSHIP by teaching the GLORIOUS WORDS OF GENESIS, MOSES, AND JESUS to their wives, they throw the Bible aside, and advise one-another on how to demand blowjobs (Sodomy), thusly saving the Holy Family via buttehxt and sodomy. Instead of providing EXALTED CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN HEADSHIP, they ask WWJD and they demand HEAD, thusly bastardizing and corrupting the teachings of Jesus Christ.
All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:
0. THE BIBLE
1. Homer’s Iliad
2. Homer’s Odyssey
3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
4. Virgil’s Aeneid
5. Socrates’ Apology
6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
7. Plato’s Repulic
8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
9. Aristotle’s Poetics
10. Dante’s Inferno
11. The Declaration of Independence
12. The Constitution
13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
15. Newton’s Principia
16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
26. THE BIBLE
Please note that neither Dr. Helen Smith nor Michelle Malkin ever, ever, ever quote nor acknowledge THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN. Next time you see them, ask them why they never salute our EXALTED FATHERS and our NOBLE HERITAGE and the FOUNDATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS, THE FAMILY, FATHERHOOD, and NATURAL LAW.
For instance, in her book http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1594036756
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters
why does Helen Smith never quote Moses nor Genesis nor Jesus who DEFINE MARRIAGE? Why does Helen Smith never quote Genesis?”
Shakespeare’s Hamlet still getting two places 14&19. Not that it shouldn’t. Just sayin
ALF
lzolzozolzo I HAVE TOO HEARD OF DAT PLAY!!!!
There is a word from dat play which is tattooed on my lostas cokas–twice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen :
The play contains the longest word in Greek, transliterated as:
lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimupotrimmatosilphioliparomelitoaktakexhumenokichlepikossuphophattoperis-teralektruonoptopiphallidokinklopeleioplagoosiraiobaphetragalopterugon,
or, in the Greek alphabet:
λοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοκαραβομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττοπεριστεραλεκτρυονοπτοκεφα-λλιοκιγκλοπελειολαγῳοσιραιοβαφητραγανοπτερύγων. (1169–74)
Liddell and Scott translate this as “name of a dish compounded of all kinds of dainties, fish, flesh, fowl, and sauces.”[5] The Greek word contains 171 letters, which far surpasses that of Shakespeare’s 27-letter long word, “honorificabilitudinitatibus” in his Love’s Labour’s Lost V.I.
lzlzlozozlzozo
Just a little bit late.
these wacky cunts won’t relax until all humans are grey, genderless, docile worker drones.
No, they don’t harbor a self-annihilating death wish. They like living and think they are the most qualified to live.
It’s US they wish to annihilate. Oh, yes, they wish that very much.
Probably just a ruse to get more blacks a job.
They passed a law many years ago in France that only attractive women could go topless on the beaches of the Riviera. When the law went into effect, and the first woman was arrested for violating it, the judge that got stuck with the decision went into his chambers to deliberate. When he came out he said, “No gentleman would comment. Case dismissed.” And that was the end of that law. We will not be so quick to use reason in our time and our country.
Reminds me of the woman who was kicked out of the water park for being too big for her bikini:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ggrrgr-article-1.1396929
This is a perfect example of the pathetic crop of Gen X women that Gen X men have been saddled with. lzozlzozlozlzozolzlz.z Nice tats. zlzolzozlzozlz
It’s simple.
If you’re ugly enough that someone bothered to complain, it’s time to put the shirt back on.
And a great reality check.
“Maybe the equalists want to gum up the machinery of civilization so badly because they harbor a self-annihilating death wish absent any strong authoritarian figure to dispense the discipline they sorely need? It’s as good an explanation as any.”
One of my favorite, and most prophetic, quotes from Nietzsche, speaking of the various “liberation” movements of the 19th century: “the claim for independence, for free development, for laisser aller is pressed most hotly by the very people for whom no reins would be too strict. This is true in politics, this is true in art. But that is a symptom of decadence: our modern conception of ‘freedom’ is one more proof of the degeneration of the instincts.”
I know many ugly-looking people with good jobs. “Lookism” is nonsense.
LADY CAPULET: Speak briefly, can you like of Paris’ love?
JULIET: I’ll look to like, if looking liking move:
But no more deep will I endart mine eye
Than your consent gives strength to make it fly.
sound like this story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
Seriously? He literally put that book in the post.
As a 340 lbs gynoid, I can attest to the fact that – being “attractive” does take effort (i.e. hours spent sweating in the gym instead of ballsack-scratching while looking at utube inanities) – but somehow hasn’t prevented me from reaching the top 1% in compensation.
But who I am going to believe, our magnificent overlords, or my own lying eyes?
A hot chick in a potato sack. . . is still smokin’ hot.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OsDrDgRsMOo/S88mH2-39ZI/AAAAAAAAAGs/66SwRNdqX_E/s640/Marilyn+Monroe+in+a+Potato+Sack+Dress.jpg
I said once, a pretty woman can wear a sack and still look hot. Everything looks good on you when you’re thin. Although, Marilyn wasn’t thin in today’s standards.
Still, she looked sumptuous.
Wasn’t thin? That lie has been disproved time and time again. Bullshit, ten yards, loss of lookism.
“So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually? Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of. Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took. Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D. Her weight fluctuated a bit through her career, usually rising in times of depression and falling back to her normal thereafter, but her dressmaker listed her as 118 pounds and the Hollywood studios tended to list her between 115-120 lbs.”
She was a buxom, yet trim woman.
“As a direct example of her size, the white dress she wore in The Seven Year Itch was recently auctioned off and was put on a mannequin that was a size 2, but they were still unable to zip up the dress as the mannequin was too big.”
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-even-close-to-a-size-12-16/
Wow! Very interesting. I always thought she was a size 6, which isn’t thin. Also, in this picture she looks like her arms aren’t thin.
Those dimensions are size 6. It is not unheard of for size 6 to now be labeled 0 and 12 to be labeled 6. In the 80′s my ex, a bit smaller than MM, could wear a 6 without it looking like a sack on her. My granny with a 19″ waist couldn’t squeeze into a 0 to save her life. Now I’ve seen 145 pounders complaining they’re “anorexic” citing the fact they wear a size 0 as evidence.
Since the 90′s size creep has had the pedal to the metal.
You are right about that, I have read a couple articles that say exactly that; clothe labeled sizes of today have nothing to do with what they used to be 50 years ago.
what was a large back then today might be labeled medium or even small today
can you imagine if the 100 lbs weight at the gym were now labeled 150 lbs to please and appease weaker men? so they could walk around and brag they can curl a 150 lbs bar?
unimaginable right?
men are not that silly or that vain right?
well that is how society has adapted to women; a large is now call a small to please and appease women
yup women are THAT immature and THAT irrational, and somehow I am supposed to consider them my equal?
For men’s sizes too.
I’m a 170 lb, 5’10″ 43 year old male. I now buy boxers in the “small” size (found this for all brands) because they fit perfectly. It was not like this 10 years ago.
I get all my shirts and trousers tailor-made now. Would never go back to buying off the rack. American sizes are ridiculously large and made to conceal tubbies.
Actually, that’s not true. Marilyn was *tiny.* She was just exquisitely well-proportioned. When they auctioned her famous “halter dress,” they had to cut down a size-2 mannequin to fit it. Check it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/hollywood-auction-ends-myth-of-zaftig-marilyn-virginia-postrel.html
Yeah, I never thought she was a size 12. Who would have thought that? But, I did think she was a size 6. That’s not fat, but in my book it’s not thin either.
Fucking feminists! Using Marilyn to justify fatty as sexy.
I think that rumor got started because she was a size 12 or 16…in European sizes. And you’re right, her arms weren’t exactly “thin,” but that’s because the 50s aesthetic for women was that you really didn’t want to look muscular. She wouldn’t have been in the gym doing Nautilus or free weights.
“She wouldn’t have been in the gym doing Nautilus or free weights.”
There is a very famous picture of her doing free weights.
Lol.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mind-and-body-marilyn-monroe-s-diet-and-exercise-routines
We should look at the “raw” numbers; her waist in inches, her hips in inches etc…
sizes 0, 6 or 12 mean nothing as what they really are in inches changes every few decades
Simply Brilliant. In the not-too-distant future, should this great Republic endure the convulsions of this equalist era, these essays will be collected for the Library of America like the Federalist Papers.
Bless your optimism. More likely evidence at a hate crimes tribunal held before Al Sharpton, Tim Wise and Tina Fey (for comic relief).
But the contradiction can fly. It’s just a matter of using the same arguments the feminists have. Look at the idea of fat shaming and fat pride: if you say beauty is a social construct, and that if everything was fair, everyone would be beautiful, but the evil Patriarchy creates artificial standards, then you can legislate according to these standards. It’s the very definition of social engineering. “No, no, you’re beautiful, but society is unfairly persecuting you and calling you ugly. It’s not your fault, it’s *everyone else’s*!”
Common guys. That’s no sack.
Just the coif would cost 4 digits in today’s depreciated money. And the “dress” itself probably 5 digits. Add the earrings, the makeup, the photog.
You’re looking at a total cost of that picture of six digits even before Miss Monroe’s compensation is considered.
S-M-R-T….Simpsons references are always great.
I thought the main advantage was between attractive vs. UNATTRACTIVE. The difference between attractive and average seems less so.
That said, a lot of this is dumb anyway. Here’s a thought: look your best and stop being such a fatass. If you are healthy, people will just think of you as attractive.
CH, I hate to burst your bubble, but dissonance hasn’t stopped them from both claiming that homosexuality is genetic and that behavioral differences in the sexes are not — despite the fact that the sex you are attracted to is a behavioral difference between the sexes. All they do is punish heretics who point these things out.
I can hear them now, “Differences in looks exist, but are meaningless.”
There are so many such contradictions in leftism/feminism, it is mind boggling that we ever let them become the establishment
Yep. Dissonance has lived in harmony in the leftie world for years.
See: Women are strong and independent and better than men. Women need special preferences because they cannot compete with men.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Repeat enough times and people accept it. Orwell knew it.
And another one:
There should be quotas for women on Wall Street trading desks because they naturally have lower risk tolerance than irresponsible men (women are better). Women need special incentives and support to become entrepreneurs because they are held down and discouraged by “society”, not because women have lower natural risk tolerance than men.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Ah, one more.
Women should be arrested for choosing to drive drunk because women have agency and are responsible for their behavior and consequences even if under the influence.
Women bear no responsibility for choosing to engage in sexual activity when drunk (if you mention women’s agency I will shout at you until you stop) and are not responsible for their behavior when under the influence.
The hot chick wearing a potato sack got me thinking: a guy can evaluate a sexy girl by looking at a six square inch area of the nipple and breast- even through clothes.
I can analyze the pointyness, the angle upward or downward, the areola size, and the symmetry directly. And indirectly I can make accurate inferences to the age, artificiality, and sexual interest (boing!) as well.
Did I mention I can do this in 50 milliseconds? Unconsciously?
Just goes to show that to stop my evil gaze you will have to kill me or pluck my eyeballs out.
Vonnegut killed it, right down to the three-named bitch “Diana Moon Glampers”. Is that not Janet Neopoliwhatever and that disgusting she/male Kagan combined? I feel ill.
Seriously, once we reach the Idiocracy tipping point, soon, the smart and/or pretty ones will simply be killed. The evolutionary cul-de-sac.
I’m usually faux-pessimistic for propaganda effect, but no. Genes are simply too powerful. The beautiful and well-built got that way by force of nature, in most cases, and no liberal zombie–or gang of liberal zombies–is as powerful as warfare, famine or ice age.
The tide will turn, the meme will end, and the Saxon–whether he likes it or not–will start to hate.
Preenworthy CH:
“…the equalists want to gum up the machinery of civilization so badly because they harbor a self-annihilating death wish absent any strong authoritarian figure to dispense the discipline they sorely need…”
not only as good an explanation as any, but perhaps the best explanation
Bonus preen points for the BB Jesse slam:
“… emo Jesse on a meth bender acting out a ‘stop me before I hurt myself’ tard tragedy.”
perfect formulation for those of us instinctively rooting for the triumph of the anti-hero Walter White
damn good stuff
I know how to level the playing field: workout and dress better.
Pretty straightforward, really.
biology is guilty of lookism! biology is rude. biology never makes equality. tough:) & if we could social-engineer exactly equal environments for all,
then the only reason people would differ would be… genetic! bwahah!
short people also… get the short end of the stick! ha – i must remember that! & stupid people are discriminated against the most! (unless they look adorable — wait, that’s lookism – dohh!)
I used to point out that ugly people have a much worse life than good-looking people– as a means to show the absurdity of affirmative action-type policies. Looks like they are going the other way and doubling down on equalism rather than just accepting we are vastly different in countless subtle and non-subtle ways.
The beasts in society already try to level the playing field in a de facto way. On two separate occasions in my corporate career, I had monstrous fatties who had power over me. One was a closeted dyke, the other was married (to a man) but had to be a dyke too. Anyway, these monsters hated me, for no apparent reason. They seemed to take great pride in trying to humiliate me. I’m sure I lost out of promotions and bonus dollars because of them. All because I was a white, young, fit, attractive, heterosexual guy with a good education, and was happy and not self-loathing.
The one good suggestion that they make is blind interviews. If bias towards good looks is genuine, it would make sense to make sure that you are not affected by it when hiring for positions where looks could not help, not for sales or PR but for positions where only raw IQ is important.
False. In a free nation, you don’t have to kowtow to bureaucrats and politicians telling you as an employer how you must dispose of your money and whom you may hire. We have enough social engineering now and we’re dying as a culture because of it. No more. Not one more inch. Enough with entertaining the night,ares of the weak and inept and their political handlers.
Nightmares
You’re a straw libertarian if I’ve ever seen one.
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that both men and women can tell whether a man is attractive just by listening to him talk.
Good point ve, but it might be the “sound” of their voice, and the way they use words is what they find attractive?
and not the way they look?
I’m willing to bet that the author was, at one time, an attractive lady whose looks faded. It dawned on her that the attention she once got was missing, and is angry about the change.
http://www.russiaslam.com/2013/stories/company-fined-for-advert-that-offends-family-values.html
“The company in Chelyabinsk that decided to take out an original advert for their dental services were fined by the Federal anti-monopoly agency.
The advert showed a scene after birth, when a doctor is holding a black boy, and a woman’s white feet can be seen nearby, but the European looking father is cracking an embarrassed smile.
The slogan on the advert reads “Smile, even in the most difficult situations!”
The Federal anti-monopoly agency considered that the advert was offensive to family values. In particular, they say in a statement that “in a normal Russian family, the child has the same colour skin as its parents, that’s the accepted norm, but a dark skinned child being born of white skinned parents points to infidelity on the part of the moth. This type of situation would not make the father happy, but tension, which is evident in his drawn-out, unnatural smile.”
As a result the dentists from Veladent who wanted to show off their sharp wits will have to pay a fine of 100,000 roubles [£1950, 2,500€], according to Sostav.ru.”
Meanwhile:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/California-sends-bill-to-let-illegal-immigrants-practice-law-to-governor
“SACRAMENTO (Reuters) – A California bill to let undocumented immigrants become lawyers passed its last legislative hurdle on Thursday and will be sent to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature.”
at the rate things are going In less than 20 years an illegal will run for president and will win…
unless someone finds a way of stopping and even reversing liberalism
liberalism is a mental disease
Good to see that my Russian cousins haven’t caught the ” Western ” disease yet !
I think you guys will like this one – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/23-things-every-woman-should-stop-doing_n_3908151.html
I think people around here are numb to that kind of drivel at this point.
Ur kidding right? That is straight joo cathedral slut feminist advice. Every single item.
“…11. Judging other women’s sex lives. No woman deserves to be put down for who she sleeps with, how many people she sleeps with or how she chooses to express her sexuality. Next time you’re about to call another woman a “prude” or a “slut” just zip your lips. Even Miley Cyrus and her twerking shouldn’t be slut-shamed. …”
This is extremely bad advice
Sounds like jew mischief to me!
While reading the original article, I had to check twice to be sure I wasn’t reading The Onion.. It’s been a long time since I read anything even remotely comparable to this nonsense.
The problem as I see it is that today’s people will always, always, always want more than they already have, and as soon as they get it, they want something new and better. We are unable to remain satisfied for a longer period of time and to try to make the best out of the circumstances we’re in. Instad of asking ourselves – what can I do to improve the situation I’m in? -, we expect the circumstances to change on our whim, throw a temper tantrum when they don’t and always find someone or something other than ourselves to blame. Men prefer slim, fit girls? Real women have curves! I didn’t get the job I wanted? The employer discriminated against me! Etc, etc.
Looks do matter. And if I know I’m not good looking enough to get something that can be achieved almost exclusively with beauty (be it a movie role or a smoldering hot alpha male), I can either try to improve, or make peace with the rejection. That’s all.
[…] None of these approaches will be a panacea, and to some aesthetes among us, even trying to counter the bias may sound ridiculous. But the reason to seek fairness for the less glamorous isn’t just social or charitable. Our preference for beautiful people makes us poor judges of …read more […]
I have an answer for the liberal manjaws, its called a Burqa .
Props for the Harrison Bergeron reference- I remember vividly reading it for the first time in junior high. They ought to make it mandatory reading in middle school today- unlike the crap used to teach features in the post last week.
I was going to post a Harrison Bergeron link but CH beat me to it! Paging GBFM, add this one to the list.
Racisss, homophobes, and aesthetes! oh my!
What are you doing walking with that hottie on your arm? are you some kind of AESTHETES!? lozlolo
fwiw i did post a link to Harrison Bergeron on a CH article some time ago, something regarding equalism and blah blah. Glad we’re on the same page.
My parents ( may they rest in peace) used to say, “To make a better appearance, get rid of everything that is ugly.” In other words, remove the trash and litter and the lard-flesh and you are 3/4 ths the way there.
Since attractiveness, like gender, is something arbitrarily defined by society, and since these things are fluid and we can forge our own identities, I am taking a page from Bradley (excuse me, CHELSEA manning!) and have decided that I am as attractive as Channing Tatum (no homo), and must be treated as such. Like Chelsea Manning, I will not be undergoing any surgery or getting a legal name change, but I expect my wishes will be respected. This means that whenever women meet me, they must react exactly as they would when encountering Channing Tatum or else they are looksphobic oppressors.
Killer frame dude
I’m not sure if this is from Harrison Bergeron, but there was a dystopian science fiction story where they could use facial plastic surgery to give everyone the same level of attractiveness. Instead of making everyone beautiful, however, they made everyone plain.
If there’s one absurd but ubiquitous message that needs to die, it’s that women are under too much pressure to be thin. Anyone care to guess the relative prevalence of anorexia compared to obesity in American women?
ANSWER: 1 anorexic for every 120 obese is a very conservative estimate. The prevalence of anorexia for *YOUNG* women only is 0.3%, and the prevalence for obesity among all women is 36%. Now dilute that 0.3% since anorexia affects young women disproportionately, and you have at least a few hundred obese women for every anorexic.
Reminds me of ‘activists’ like Sharpton who complain that blacks have to fear for their safety around white people, when black-on-white violent crime is 39 times more prevalent than white-on-black.
The media has quite obviously chosen the wrong “epidemics” to harp on about… any guesses as to why?
The crazies now run the asylum…I do not see how else to explain it…
Burinator,
It is not a question of acceding to the law, it is just doing what is smart. Why would you want to let looks influence you ?
Even if you want to hire someone who is good looking it makes sense to do a blind interview so you can assess how good they are apart from their looks.
I volunteer to be the Sole and Sovereign Beauty Judge. If imagining you naked doesn’t give me a boner….you’re hired!
themaskandrose.wordpress.com
The best expression of the survival of Neanderthal genes is the Bugatti Veyron.
Eric Hoffer should be more widely known. He was a red-pill realist decades before the Wachowski bros coined that term.
In books like The True Believer and the Ordeal of Change, hard and beautiful facts jump off every page.
Chosen at random: “There is a deep reassurance for the frustrated in witnessing the downfall of the fortunate and the disgrace of the righteous.” Totally on topic. Another, “When people have absolute freedom, they most often choose to imitate each other.”
Plus he has the best curriculum vitae of any modern thinker. Much like Lincoln, he never spent a single day in classroom. Not one. Blind until the age of 15, he then read voraciously, before embarking on a vagabond life. Among his jobs – migrant farm worker, railroad hobo, short-order chef, gold prospector in the Yukon, longshoreman. He walked five miles to work as a stevedore each day from his home near SF’s Golden Gate Park to Fishermen’s Wharf, taking notes while he walked, and wrote most of his dozen or so books at the public library.
Not a Bernankified lozzlollzz HR make-work job among them.
https://socialreader.com/me/content/ulBIL?chid=4866&_p=trending&utm_source=wp&utm_medium=Widgets&utm_campaign=wpsrTrendingExternal-postpulse-opt&_monetaClick=eyJ3aWRnZXRfaW5zdGFuY2VfaWQiOiIyZGM0ODI0My1jY2U1LTRlYzktOThhNi0zZTRmNDYyOTQ4YTUiLCJjb250YWluZXJfaWQiOiJ3cC1tb2JpbGUtMSIsImVsZW1lbnRfcG9zaXRpb24iOiIyIiwibGlua19pZCI6ImYyNzU1YTkyLTFjZDEtMTFlMy1hMGY5LTEyMzEzZDFhMDE5MyIsImFkX2lkIjoiZjI3YWQxYjYtMWNkMS0xMWUzLWEwZjktMTIzMTNkMWEwMTkzIiwiY2xpY2tfaWQiOiI3OTdhYTJiZS1kNTlhLTQwNTgtYTcyNC02MWMxNDY2ZjIyYzUiLCJ3YXBvX3Zpc19pZCI6bnVsbCwid2Fwb19zZXNzX2lkIjpudWxsLCJ3YXBvX2xvZ2luX2lkIjpudWxsfQ–
Off topic but sorta on topic: I have somewhat of a twitter following and made some off handed comments about how pit bulls are dangerous animals. the number of rabid pitbull obsessed femcunts and white knighters who harped on me was incredible. i might as well have said “all niggers are retards” or something. some “professional” pet people chimed in and said there are no behavioral differences between breeds. my ass.
in america now, dogs=people, and pitbulls are a protected class
So…pitbull is the new nigger?
I thought this was too much; impossible then I tuned into you tube and saw the following. A fag proposing to his boyfriend at the Home Depot. Flashmob of course, (you have been warned)
I think I must secede from this world and society, find an island and a thin woman of any culture and wait until the mushroom clouds of insanity fade. Hmmm maybe we can create such a haven in cyberspace? What would be a suitable name?
“Pool Side”
I think my nuts shrank from watching this. May it stop. Please make it stop.
How about ‘frolicking in the lumber section’.
why you care who hump who island man runaway? You make big it not your business. Maybe people no like you hump Russia woman.
“I have an oh so innocent question for the S-M-R-T SMART leftoid equalists pushing this latest load of reality transmogrification: If, as feminists and their consanguineous misfits (hi, fat acceptors!) are constantly telling everyone, beauty is subjective, socially conditioned, and in the eye of the beholder, how is it possible to make laws that punish beautiful people? If there is no innate biologically-based beauty standard (hi, Naomi Wolf!) that is fairly universally agreed upon in practice (if not in stated principle), then there is no way to know who is ugly and who is beautiful. That job applicant you think looks like a toad could just as well look like a goddess to another interviewer. After all, “you are a big, beautiful woman”.”
Not gonna liem I always tried to explain why “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” was a moronic statement in one paragraph.
If that was true, women wouldn’t all feel unconfortable if a head turning 10 entered the room while they are there with their boyfriends.
If a good looking person enters, people just know.
50 year old hamster in full effect: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2417942/Im-single-50-Why-Men-hate-brainier-says-KATE-MULVEY.html
If a hot woman sues for discrimination, they better stack the jury with ugly feminists, because if they stack it with white knighting betas, they will trip all over themselves trying to please her.
Beautiful people will always retain their power.
As much as I agree with your article in general, I disagree that the left will have to admit to beauty being mostly objective. They will say society, and more specifically, an upper class white patriachy, created an ideal of beauty and promulgated it to the masses through media, etc. The masses then adopted it subconsciously. This is how they side-step biological reality regarding racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on. They’ll do the same with this “lookism” nonsense.
Can you imagine a person without any prejudices egalitarians want erased – a person without feelings of same-race preference, without stereotyped ideas about the opposite sex, without feeling that heterosexuality is instinctually healthier than homosexuality, and without a tendency to value beauty over ugliness, health over sickliness, youth over elderliness, and thinness over fatness? Such a person would be a meat robot, and a poorly programmed one too.
It doesn’t help that people think attractive people are smarter and healthier because they in fact are smarter and healthier, on average.
See our buddy Satoshi Kanazawa on this:
Intelligence and Physical Attractiveness
The main problem that I see with an attempt to end “looksism” is that there are too many ways to be beautiful, and well groomed people who take care of themselves will be among the penalized for this.
This is rather transparently one of the ways feminists are attempting to replace beauty with socioeconomic status, and punish not only the objectively and conventionally beautiful and handsome, but the charismatic and dashing.
When one sees a person whose appearance is striking in a positive way, one doesn’t know if this came naturally or if they worked very hard for it. If the former, then discriminating against them is as bad as racism, and if the latter, it’s rewarding someone’s hard work of improving themselves with rejection they’ve obviously had enough of, which is part of what sparked their improvement efforts.
On the bright side though, this kind of thing would also lead to official beauty classification. It might die in its tracks when enough women are rated 5 and below.
This guy has some serious game…
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=156366953
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/13/newlywed-accused-pushing-husband-off-cliff-released-pending-trial/?intcmp=latestnews
the judge who endorses freedom for a confessed husband-killer.
Jeremiah Lynch
Remember his name.
True beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. If a man really loves a woman he doesn’t care about the extra pounds or the changes that come with time. A real man looks beyond…
I fear you and most of the commenters here will never experience the beauty of true love.
If a man really loves a woman he doesn’t care about the extra pounds or the changes that come with time. A real man looks beyond…
———————————————————————————————-
Contra, you are correct, but what you are describing is essentially “masculine love”, AKA “agape”, or “Christ like love”.
Females can imitate it, but it is not innate in their being because hypergamy requires female love be CONDITIONAL.
All ancient cultures recognized this, and some religions still do today.
This is the source of all restraints and restrictions men have placed on female behavior; they know she cannot be trusted with power and control because being female, she cannot “look beyond” herself and her own selfish interests.
Only men have this capability.
We are “better” than them:
“If a man really loves a woman he doesn’t care about the extra pounds or the changes that come with time. A real man looks beyond…”
Gasp! It’s a femcunt with cookie cutter feminist shaming language. “A real man…” Fuck you you disgusting cunt. A real man would take it upon himself to sterilize you harridans to prevent you from procreation. Also, what kind of loser would allow a woman to deprive him of beauty? I mean, aging I get, it’s unpreventable, but being a fat slob? Go look at women back in the day. THEY were slim and genetically similar to women now.
Yeah, sure. Whatever you say …………………………
Judging from the violent imagery of your name, I fear you don’t respect women.
“Judging from the violent imagery of your name, I fear you don’t respect women.”
OHHH NOOOO!!!!!!!
Do you even read any of the discussions that go on here ?? Secondly, you sure are doing alot of personal projection on my nickname, seems suspicious.
You do realize that what you’re saying is that a woman with a few extra pounds or other defects can’t be beautiful, but love will make her appear to be so, don’t you?
This is far more damning than anything almost anyone here has ever said, barring the few extreme idiots we have commenting here.
What you’re missing is that beauty is objective, and wired in the eye of the beholder, but nobody here in their right mind ever said there is only ever one thing that is beautiful. Individual preference are very much taken into account here, just framed in social and biological realism.
If a guy prefers women with a few or more than a few extra pounds, or finds that exceptional big gal who just sets his heart aflutter, he must understand that her extra weight is not going to win him any social points, and depending on various factors, may lead her to an early grave or reduced quality of life. A man must face these realities consciously so that he can do his job and balance his visual preferences or tolerances with the consequences of them.
The same would be true of a man who prefers women with very small frames and feet. No mainstream publication today has any trouble with discussing the realities of life for such women, from osteoporosis to tendonitis to hypoglycemia to unconscious anorexia just from being low appetite. It’s somehow wrong though, to tell a man who likes big women that life isn’t a party for us either.
A real man may look beyond, but he also looks at every other angle as well. To ask him not to consider all the angles and possibilities within his awareness is to ask him not to be a man, or to be a very unreal man.
gay
Judging from your unrealistic expectations and presumptuous handle, you don’t respect men. Besides, you assume women bring something to the table worthy of respect. Very few develop beyond the utility of their pussies.
Maybe a man does not mind if they’ve had some good times, but tell me what kind of a man falls for a fat woman ?
Either someone who is a sore loser, or someone who is in love with some kind of abstract notions of love and beauty. There are some mistakes which only an highly educated person will make. Cheats betray others, but by lying to oneself for some ideology, one betrays oneself. I cannot think of a greater crime.
As long as it’s a fat whitegirl, the answer is: black dudes.
It’s this sort of misogyny that makes being a man so difficult for us “white knights” as you sneeringly call us. I spend half my time apologizing for the misdeeds of Bros and Dudes.
The myth of beauty has been used by the patriarchy to make life hell for western women. I know so many attractive, feisty women in their 40s and 50s who’re fooled into believing that they’re not as pretty as 20 year olds.
And that makes me sad
You forgot to say you “fear” something.
And that all the dudes here must have small penises. Heheheh…
We are not as pretty as 20 year olds, and this is why we should work hard to become and stay relevant. When you know the value of beauty, you know the value of relevance, and can strike a balance that will get you a partner who might be a keeper. Then you can also avoid or keep at a safe emotional distance, those who do not show the sort of values you need in a partner.
Why would you wish to cripple the male mind by rendering beauty a myth, when it is not and never has been the be all and end all in relationships?
Women’s obsession with beauty in terms of youthfulness and fertility beyond the years during which this is relevant is women’s fault, not men’s. The only reason this has even become an issue is that there are too many women who waited too long to start families, also women’s fault, not men’s.
If Harriet Tubman managed to find a husband 20 years younger than her back in the 1800′s, then for certain, no older woman with character would do without today. Perhaps y’all liberals need to stop obsessing about beauty yourselves, and let Nature do what it does best.
I do not need Nature to change for me. It is up to me to adapt to the realities of Nature…to let go of the things I can’t control, and stay on top of the things I can.
One theme you’ve missed is the “DC is Hollywood for ugly people” and power as compensation for not being first in line for looks. Just think: “If women ruled the world there would be no war,” and if humankind could abolish lookism, people wouldn’t have to compensate by wielding power over each other.
No war ? You must not know many women then.
Interesting blog post. Lookism isn’t that inherently something that we are genetically predispositioned towards anyway on some level?
For those not in the know ( I was one of them)
click on this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa
Again I say this blog is really helpful to my knowledge and grounds me in this mad world. The only problem is I have a lot of reading to do.
(Thanks also to Great Books For Men ! )
“Free Satoshi Kanazawa!”
bumper stickers anyone?
I read a story like that once it was terrible they handicapped everyone that was even slightly exceptional. I cant remeber the name of it but it sounded like hell
Yes, I read that same short story in high school or college. The protagonist of the story ends up being a black guy, who apparently is the best looking, smartest, and most athletic man on the planet, based on the literally massive handicaps with which he is visibly burdened. To make his ideas palatable to his colleagues and the limpwristed status-whoring self-anointed elitist world at large, the author had to make the protagonist black. Thus, it becomes an allegory about how whitefolk keep the blackman down, the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and all the usual sniveling bullshit. He’s murdered on live television when he gets uppity. The story is based on a great concept, but the execution sucks ape chode.
I am now in the habit of bailing mid-date if I discover something unacceptable or obnoxious about her – Occasionally leaving her entitlement-ass with the tab.
Think that’s what this guy should have done…
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/it-worker-hit-with-1200-legal-bill-after-first-date-row-over-who-should-pay-for-drinks-8808602.html?origin=internalSearch
She’s quite handsome!
Some interesting stuff here http://www.bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-digest-guide-to-dating.html
[…] isn’t all LOOKIST and if you don’t know what that is, you need a new download, dude! So this isn’t not a zillion reasons but I can’t like type them all, that would […]
how about a false-flag operation creating a term called “biologism”
Well, time to come out of the closet. I am a lookist. There, I said it. Especially if you are a slender redhead with small-ish boobs. I will look at you a lot in that case. Just so you know.
My turn;
I am a comfortablism;
I prefer comfortable shoes, comfortable chairs, comfortable temperature etc etc
guilty as charged
Fred Reed strikes again
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Coulter.shtml
Meanwhile:
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2013/09/14/time-covers-tell-the-story/
Another member of the Fourth Estate collects his reward for years of dedicated service to his masters.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/13/times-top-editor-quits-obama-cabinet-post/
“Time Magazine’s top editor, Richard Stengel, quit his position and traded in his private sector pin for a civil service badge as the newest member of the Department of State.
…
Time officials reported Mr. Stengel, who started at the magazine as a contributor in 1981 and was hired to the managing editor role in 2006, has been on leave since July. He took a year off in 1999 to serve as a speechwriter for Bill Bradley, who sought the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for a White House run in 2000.
The magazine has struggled in recent years with falling revenues and dwindling readership.”
Senator cunty mc cunt loses recall her excuse…”voter Suppression”
hahahahaha spin hamster spin hahahahah
This is simple, Really. Conservative-minded people are generally much more attractive, and the ugly lefties are all upset over it. Can’t compete, baby.
Women hate their kids. http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/2-children-found-dead-in-S-California-hotel-room-4815107.php
There are very few UGLY just downright UGLY people in the world. Most people are average looking, with a 20% of the rest being above average and 5-10% of most which are just astonishingly beautiful. And even int he above average a lot of thos epopele went from average to above average by making some small tweaks (not surgery) but like staying in shape, dressing stylishly/nicely, and other small things one can do to appear more attractive.
But here is what I don’t get about people who bark about looks mattering. Its not like one has to do a lot to be attractive! All a woman has to do is be feminine in how she carries herself and I GUARANTEE you even if her face and body are not HOT or beautiful or envy worth, she will still be considered pretty and attractive to most people. I see it all the time.
Disagree. Most girls are nasty to me. She’s gotta be a hottie for me to get interested
Did you know we can wear legwarmers again? The eighties are back!
#winning
Lol!!! God help us if this us true! The 80′s had the worse fashion sense. Now bring back 60′s and my favorite – the 70′s styles and I’m a happy chicka!
Oh, it be true. BOGO at Payless
(legs back for a limited time only)
Ah, you girls crack me up.
Looking pretty good, kiddo.–
Aw, shucks, you two
When you give up pants, you have to find a way not to freeze in winter!
You’ve got love to keep you warm.
Very true. I’m the luckiest girl in the world
“Its not like one has to do a lot to be attractive!”
The main issue is that most people are fat from processed carbs and sugar and are addicts to it. You can’t look good fat especially for a woman. That’s really what this ugly looks acceptance is about. It’s an offshoot of fat acceptance.
If you’re a fattie you simply don’t give a fuck about the other things because you will still look pretty bad so you simply let go. You’re a black chick with big tits, so you can get away with being chubby and still appeal to your target market with prettying yourself up.
Field report.
Went to a wedding of a business associate. Met a 25 yr old at the reception. A bit of flirty flirt. Went to hotel after party. Some douche was trying to holler at her I stayed back. She called me an asshole for not saving her. LOL. Took her back to my hotel. We chit chat for an hour. Then kissy kiss, let her get comfortable. Then banged her for 40 mins. Cuddled with her post bang (in spirit of ya really). Walked her out. Perfect body ok face.
Carouseler just added a notch. Me, I feel nothing.
Gold ….
but would be better if half as long
I enjoy MM’s long prose similar to how I’d enjoy a 25-minute live instrumental riff by a talented band.
That said, I have my differences with is worldview, which I pointed out on occasion. Nonetheless, a great article, if you read it slowly and with a critical eye. And there is payoff at the end.
Tangentially, MM can have an inadvertently pernicious effect on otherwise bright bloggers, when they fully ingest but not digest his writing. Being an uncritical fanboy acolyte is no way to go through life, I advised one in a more diplomatic way.
oops, wrong thread.