Rather than the tongue-in-cheek fun I thought it was when I read the Slate article, it seems this is an actual left-wing campaign.
It seems liberals literally have a campaign going to try to turn holidays into a political indoctrination session. What kind of Orwellian nonsense is this?
Not a single article in the first four pages of the google search was a right-wing guide, although, there were a fwe right-wing sites pointing and deriding the left-wing guides.
Are liberals really so alienated from their loved ones that they have to plan in advance how to debate them on the holidays? Is arguing the greatness of Obamacare really their reason for the season? Are they so intellectually vacuous and uninformed that they need a guide to hold their own in a political debate?
You always here liberals whine about the right-wing relatives picking fights at the holidays, but it seems that is mostly just projection.
No wonder they’re liberal. If I was so alienated from everything good in life, that my thoughts of the holidays were about winning political arguments and surviving the holidays rather than enjoying time with my family, I’d probably choose a self-destroying ideology like progressivism. At least if I became a new socialist man, my life wouldn’t be this pathetically empty.
Sometimes I wonder if liberals should be pitied more than anything. What a dreadful and empty life they must lead.
Post-script: I should note that I do enjoy a good political debate if it comes up, but I don’t really think about, look forward to it, or try to start one and I certainly don’t plan one in advance.
A good essay on the history of divorce in the US. No fault divorce might not have been as drastic a change as previously thought. Has a little bit on the puritans, the enlightenment, and the interaction of elites and the masses for the reactionaries as well.
“Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.”
News editors regarding Obama: “We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers.”
Related: Obama describes himself as “not a particularly ideological person.”
I never noticed this before, but Slate actually publishes the time it takes to read an article on the side bar. Most are in the 1-2M range. You can tell the level of intellectual quality they’re shooting for.
I think the arguments in the post is rather stupid. Aurini outlines why you should not date a girl with a dating order. Essentially, she is a disordered, self-destructive person who will destroy everything around her, including your relationship with her.
This is not a defence of the article, rather it is a short analysis of the response to this article and the response to a previous RoK intitiative, #FatShamingWeek.
Yet, when RoK shames the former self-destructive lifestyle, RoK is decried as evil, but when RoK preaches acceptance of the latter, RoK is also decried as evil. As usual, Jezebel best exemplifies this lack of logical thinking
How can both acceptance of self-destructive eating habits and shaming of it be evil?
Or, to turn it around on the social justice types, why is it acceptable for people to body-shame anorexics?
This is perplexing to me: how can being unhealthily skinny be worthy of shame, while being unhealthily fat is not?
The best answer I can find comes partially from here:
Easy: change is hard.
It is a lot easier to come to accept (and possibly overcome) your self-loathing mentally than it is to overcome the pain of diet and exercise. Self-loathing is vague and amorphous, pain is immediate and direct.
Self-loathing can be reasoned at, self-justified, denied, and overcome by other emotions. There is no reasoning with, denying, or ignoring pain: pain is.
Instead of facing the pain, it is easier to accept the self-loathing.
Being obese is easy, being anorexic takes willpower and self-control.
The social justice war for fat acceptance and against anorexia has nothing to do with health, nothing to do with proper eating, nothing do do with a balanced life; it has everything to do with self-control and responsibility.
What the modern social justice warriors hate more than anything is personal responsibility. They do not want to be held responsible for their choices, they do not want to have to accept the consequences of their actions, they do not want to have to change, and, above all that, they do not want to feel shame or have anyone to judge them for their failings.
But how can they avoid shame when they are fat, which is shameful?
They can try to make obesity seem good, which they try but fail at because nobody can deny the disgust they feel at seeing a morbidly obese landwhale and the landwhale can’t help but notice the poorly-hidden looks of disgust often directed her way.
The second method is to deny people, themselves, agency; they have to deny that people are capable of controlling themselves and their destinies. How can they be responsible, how can they feel shame, when they have no control over their situation?
But, the anorexics show this for the lie it is: the anorexic takes complete personal responsibility for her weight, to a disgustingly unhealthy degree.
The anorexic shows extreme, unhealthy levels of self-control and self-discipline.
So, for the social justice warriors to maintain the lie that people become fat (or poor, or unsuccessful, or failures in other manners) for reasons beyond their control they have to pathologize the anorexic.
They can’t pathologize normal levels of self-control, because most would see through that, but they can pathologize unhealthy extremes of it.
To the social justice warrior, the fight against anorexia is a fight against the concept of self-control.
The health aspects of it are only secondary.
This is the only reasonable explanation I can think of as to why being morbidly skinny is somehow much worse than being morbidly obese.
