“Fearless Girl” statue is an excellent monument to how stupid Feminism is

In lower Manhattan there is a famous bronze statue of a charging bull that symbolizes economic strength and courage during hard times. Seizing on the popularity of Victim Mentality, an opposing statue of a girl staring down the bull with her hands on her hips as her hair and skirt blows in the wind stands across from it was placed across from it to protest Wall Street not having enough women in it or something .

The statue was a Hedge Fund sponsored publicity play (specifically, it was released right before International Women’s Day to call for “more representation of women in corporate boardrooms” – presumably by the boardrooms who are supposedly denying qualified brilliant women to sit on their boards in favor of inferior males because I guess the thesis is that Wall Street dislikes females more than it loves money?), but that hasn’t stopped it from being lauded as a Social Justice icon for the marginalized…or something. I keep saying “or something” only because the purpose and message is so incoherent. A little girl isn’t afraid of economic strength? Why would she be? Or are its supporters praising it because they’re taking it more literally and seeing it as “girls don’t need to be afraid of giant menacing things that are about to kill them”? It just doesn’t make any sense.

But that vague incoherence is a key factor on why it’s receiving praise of course – the more minimalist the canvas, the easier it is for the audience to fill in the gaps with their own confirmation bias and ideology. It’s only the suckers like me who actually apply objective logic to the constant themes among the differing interpretations that ruin any chance of appreciating this publicity stunt as any kind of meaningful art.

The history of the bulls presence is a lot more interesting than the story of the Fearless Girl. Sculptor Arturo Di Modica, an Italian immigrant, just made the thing without direction or permit with $350,000 of his own money used to cast the 7,100 lb bronze bull and just dropped it off in front of the New York Stock Exchange in December 1989 as a gesture to lift the spirits of American traders after the stock crash of a few years earlier. That’s a uniquely American story of positivity, where as the addition of this girl staring down the bull is multi-levels of nonsense victim propaganda.

Nicole Gelinas points out that the support by the mayor of the city only sets a dangerous precedent:

That’s because the mayor has set an arbitrary precedent — this statue can stay because I like its politics — that’ll be used against the city in court. What if Black Lives Matter protesters want a statue of police brutalizing a black man in front of One Police Plaza?

But the bigger problem with Fearless Girl is that it casts stereotypes in bronze: Men do important things, and women get in the way.

The bull is the primary actor: He is charging. The girl’s job is to impede him. This is how Wall Street has long worked — and it’s changing, but slowly.

Take the management committee of State Street’s parent company. Of its 14 members, two are women. One, the chief administrative officer, is a top regulatory official. The other is the human-resources chief and “citizenship officer.”

On Goldman Sachs’ 33-member management committee, five of our women — at least four of whom are in similar, growth-restraining positions.

Yes, growth-restraining: These are great jobs and require deep skill. But they’re bureaucratic rather than entrepreneurial. If a department head — a man — wants to start up a new unit, it’s the regulatory experts who will say, no, you can’t.

Similarly, a trading head may want to hire someone — but the human-resources chief nixes it.

Indeed, the area of “compliance” — which sounds like an S&M activity but has to do with ensuring that the bank and its employees don’t launder money, steal or do other bad things — is where women have done well.

Di Modica is rightfully annoyed by the addition of the girl to his art piece, and while he is being mocked for noting that it violates his rights as an artist – he’s obviously correct. The addition of the girl is akin to that SNL skin where then Mayor Rudy Guiliani says that he will stop graffiti not by removing it from the city but by adding the word “sucks” after peoples nicknames. That’s all this dumb girl statue is: piggybacking on someone else’s art (a MANS art, no less – real feminist message there…) to flip the original message into a new and negative one. That’s a jerk move.

Slate’s Christina Cauterucci elaborates:

Before Fearless Girl came on the scene, the bull was an encouraging representation of a booming economy. Now, charging toward a tiny human, it’s a stand-in for the gendered forces that work against women’s success in the workplace. This isn’t the same kind of contextual shift that might result from a curator’s juxtaposition of two works; the girl is derivative. Di Modica meant his bull to stand alone—now, it’s as if Visbal and New York City have made a solo piece a diptych without his consent.

diptych is a a painting on two hinged wooden panels that may be closed like a book, and that’s exactly what has happened.

So much for Artists’ rights though: Mayor Bill de Blasio has already extended the permit to allow Fearless Girl to remain on display until next year. Last week he tweeted a link to a Newsweek story about Di Modica’s complaints with a message suggesting any rejection of Fearless Girl was misogynist:

This idiotic strawman of course feeds exactly into the Victim Propaganda message that looks past any examination of logic about the message and boils it down to the most basic of false premise’s: that women are oppressed and hated and persecuted for “taking up space”. At the time of this writing, 42 thousand people Liked that Tweet and over 20 thousand retweeted it – presumably non-ironically. That makes tens of thousands of people who sincerely believe this insane premise.

In the New York Times, Ginia Bellafante points out the elitism at play via the False Feminism of Fearless Girl

Corporate feminism operates with the singular goal of aiding and abetting a universe of mothers who tuck their daughters in at night whispering, “Someday, honey, you can lead the emerging markets and sovereign debt team at Citigroup, and then become a director at Yahoo.” The point of “Fearless Girl” was to advertise a State Street initiative pushing companies to include more women on their boards. Although the firm has said it is working to improve the number of female executives in its own ranks, it hasn’t been close to exemplary in this regard: Of its 28-person leadership team, only five are women, according to the company website.

Gavin McInnes puts it’s more bluntly: The statue only proves that feminists are dumb…

Why Gretchen Carlson is probably going to hell

Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the network for $20 Million over a single comment she decided she didn’t like and a nebulous tone with her morning show co-host she found to be displeasing to her. The lawsuit cost the networks founder and Chief Executive Officer Roger Ailes, the accused party by Carlsons lawsuit, to have to resign from his position and the company.

Getty images

Gretchen Carlson seems like a nice Christian woman so it is my hope that there is more to this story that for some reason her and her lawyers decided to keep secret from their public filings because otherwise she is a horrible human being that almost surely is going to hell. Whatever anyone thinks of Fox News or of Roger Ailes and regardless of whether he is a nice guy or a jerk (I have no idea so I have no non-profession-related opinion on him), his deposition from the network he built over Carlsons stated accusation is a reprehensible mortal sin and extreme miscarriage of social justice.

When I first heard of the lawsuit I erroneously assumed that Carlson was alleging something that actually happened… Nope… The lawsuit makes no claim of Carlson being touched, sexually propositioned, or harassed in any way whatsoever. This made it odd that she received $20 Million in a settlement of a “sexual harassment” lawsuit when no harassment, sexual or otherwise, was even alleged. Instead, the allegation in the lawsuit that falsely masquerade as being of “sexual harassment” (bringing shame to her and her lawyers for cheapening the serious charge and term) is just one big conspiracy theory based on one alleged inappropriate comment her boss Roger Ailes allegedly made, one alleged time, 9 months before her contract wasn’t renewed at Fox…

The single comment in question was Ailes allegedly saying to her “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better.” That’s it. and that ain’t harassment. That comment might be rude, it’s almost surely not wise, and it might even be wildly inappropriate – but it ain’t “harassment”, it isn’t a demand or threat, and it for damn sure isn’t worth $2 let alone $20 million. To think otherwise, you have to believe that that sentence is so damaging to ones ears and psychological stability that they would pay 20 million dollars in order to not have it said towards them. Since no one anywhere, ever would ever think that – Carlsons pay day becomes not a vindication of an abused woman who wouldn’t take crap from a lecherous corporate jerk abusing his power but rather a scam that ruined someones livelihood for the personal gain and obscene enrichment of an individual who wasn’t harmed and suffered no damages to justify such a payout. Don’t Christians believe that to be a sin?…

Of course, Carlson didn’t bring the lawsuit over that one sentence alone – she claimed the lawsuit was justified because her contract with Fox News Channel was not renewed this past June and she says that lack of renewal was because of Aile’s comment and the implications she drew from it (evidently only 9 months later and not at the time) that she was fired. She doesn’t specify exactly what implication she drew from the alleged comment but presumably she interpreted “we should have had a sexual relationship years ago” to mean “if you don’t have sex with me, I will fire you in 9 months if your ratings do poorly”. Or maybe “even if your ratings AREN’T a huge disappointment to the network”?. Idk. But a good way to avoid the gray area in this situation would have been for Ailes to have not made the comment and for Carlson to have been a better on-air Talent because then the contract renewal wouldn’t have poor ratings or a verbalized sentiment that “we should have boned back in the day” as the culprit.

Unfortunately for Carlsons eternal soul, the evidence supports the Roger Ailes side and depicts her to be a vindictive greedy lying liar. Ailes claims that she was let go because her “disappointingly low ratings were dragging down the afternoon lineup” and that the lawsuit was just petty retaliation for FNC not taking on her drag. Carlson claims that her ratings were great and the real reason she was fired was in retaliation for rebuffing her boss’ sexual advances.

Okay then… lets examine those claims…

Carlsons lawsuit claims that she was fired from FNC despite her show doing well in the ratings in contrast to Ailes saying that her ratings were “disappointing”. The reality? Her ratings were in fact disappointing. Her show, The Real Story, didn’t completely flop by every standard – just by the standards of the network she was employed by – i.e. – her shows performance disappointing. My personal take on it was that it was one of the weakest most dull pieces of programming that Fox News had to offer, but my opinion doesn’t matter – the collective’s does. Well, SURPRISE – the collective agreed with me: Gretchen Carlsons show trailed nearly all of Fox News Channels other programming. Carlson tried to spin this as a good thing because the time slot improved over last year, but so did all of cable news because it is an election year. Also don’t forget the part where regardless of the time slot improving along with the rest of the network and the rest of all cable news – her show remained one of the least watched shows on the whole network… Fox is held to a higher standard with its #1 position in the cable wars and it shouldn’t be a surprise when the weakest link is excised from the chain. Further, Carlson didn’t just lose to her above-average performers at her own network, but she actually lost to the competition. “CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin” beat “The Real Story” by 2% in the eminently important 25 to 54-year-old demographic in June (the month Carlson was not renewed).

As stated above, Gretchen Carlson filed her lawsuit over losing a show that was one of the worst rated on her network and lost to the competition in the key financial demo due to a conspiracy theory and unspecified tone of not being appreciated (she claims, because she is a woman). Her entire case against Ailes was the “we should have had a sexual relationship years ago” line that she found so wildly distasteful and offensive that she… continued working for him, thanked him in her book for all he’s done for her, and wrote him hand written notes with smiley faces thanking him for his support and asking to be put on the air in prime time more – which Ailes granted her, presumably without any sexual requirements.

Gretchen Carlson further alleges that her co-host Steve Doocy wasn’t nice to her, or something. In what sounds like an entitled 7th graders attempt to get a teacher to reprimand a boy she doesn’t think is giving her the attention she deserves, Carlson alleges her Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy of “attempting to put her in her place by refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful female journalist rather than a blond female prop.” Notice there is no actual allegation – just nebulous whining with no example to support the claim whatsoever. Not even a single quote of Steve Doocy ever saying anything that would even hint at anything resembling the sentiment she alleges (“blonde female prop” are her and her lawyers words, not anything Doocy is alleged to have ever said. Sounds like a personal self-worth issue to me). Just a completely irresponsible unsupported smear.

If Carlson really thought that Roger Ailes was demanding that she have sex with him to keep her job, why did she stay at that job? If Carlson thought that her cohost Steve Doocy didn’t respect her then why didn’t she ever bring it up with him? and if she thought that she was being treated in a sexist fashion towards Doocy off-air, why did she think it was okay to treat him in a sexist fashion ON-air, including the time she made small-penis and erectile dysfunction jokes about him in a segment on Fox & Friends in where she surprise gifted him “Turkish Viagra”?

Given the evidence, and lack thereof of anything being alleged, you might be asking “how the hell did this phony get away with a $20 million settlement and why did Roger Ailes have to leave his position at the network in seeming disgrace?”…

Because of the bad press and damage to the company. I’ll once again note the possibility that an internal investigation found something improper that Carlson didn’t even allege in her legal filings and by pure coincidence Ailes got caught Al Capone style in this mess and deserved the outsting – but from the available public evidence, it merely looks like Gretchen Carlson complained publicly and loudly (and legally) about things entirely un-complaint-worthy (as evidenced by her own action at the time and afterward) and put the company in a situation where they had to either suffer millions of dollars worth of bad publicity in an election year when everything else is otherwise going great only to spend tens of millions in a legal battle that some idiot judge might actually award against them anyway – OR – usher Ailes out and pay off Carlson $20million for no reason other than she blackmailed the company for it. Remember: she alleges no harassment, no physical contact, no improper solicitation, and no evidence to support unjustified non-renewal of her crappy show on the network. Her accusations amount entirely to (paraphrasing) “Roger Ailes [whom I had a great relationship with, was friendly with, wrote hand written smiley notes to, and publicly thanked for giving me great opportunities] said a crass remark one time and then 9 months later when my show lost to the competing one on CNN in the ratings and did so poorly that it drug down the rest of the shows around me, my contract wasn’t renewed. Also, another on-air talent, Steve Doocey, didn’t appear to respect me very much. Give me $20 million dollars because I’m a victim now”.

People, me included, typically think that if a settlement like that takes place and the person in question resigned from their position, they must have been wildly guilty – and i’m shamed to even add the caveat (unsupported by any current evidence available) that that may be exactly the case for all I know – because “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.

Know where there’s also allegedly a lot of fire? In hell, where vindictive liars who make tens of millions of dollars off of fabricating grievances to assassinate peoples characters and end their careers in revenge for their own professional failures.

Why the people criticizing Obama for complimenting a woman are so stupidly wrong

Recently, President Barack Obama was doing the only thing he seems to be capable of not screwing up (see: getting people to give money) and still managed to step in it with his base of totalitarian hippie supporters somehow.

At a fundraiser outside of San Fransisco, the President included in his remarks that attorney general of California, Kamala Harris was “the best looking attorney general in the country”. The hippies got angry and used it as an opportunity to peddle their speech-policing about what is and isn’t okay.

What isn’t okay about noting that someone is attractive? Nothing, obviously. Which is the only thing that makes this a noteworthy story. The articles and social media praise for those scolding the president don’t even make an attempt at logical arguments. They just forbid and demand and seek to bully and shame those who don’t adhere to their thought and comment codes and it’s gross.

The definition of “political correctness” is forbidding truths inconvenient to the political Left, which is rooted in Marxist ideology seeking “sameness” but usually masking it under the more palatable but flexible term of “equality”. This strive for sameness requires a lot of social engineering that no un-brainwashed person would find at all appealing, so pressure tactics need to be employed under the guise of pleading on behalf of a victim class.

In this case, the social engineering the hippies desire is the 1960s version of “feminism” (the attack of femininity in the pursuit of women being seen, thought of, and treated no different than men in any way) which is the opposite of feminism (embracing the feminine and observing it as different but equal in respect and legal rights to masculinity and other typically male traits). Hippie feminism demands the suppression of the fact that men find women attractive, so thus it demands that references to this fact be banned. Media using attractive women are demonized as “objectifying” women and comments on women’s attractive appearances are labeled as doing the same thing. This is because that under an ideology of sameness-worship, the observation of differences debunks the end goal. So their solution is just to ban it. Call these things offensive.

It doesn’t matter that there is no logical basis behind keeping quiet over obvious observable truths and it doesn’t matter that there is nothing insulting, degrading, inappropriate, or out of context about polite notation of such obvious observable truths. The argument is merely “we said so. the end”.

Harris was already noted by President Obama as being “brilliant” and that “she is dedicated and she is tough” before he added that she was also “the most attractive attorney general in the country” so there is no argument to be made about any kind of denial of her non-physical attributes. Instead, the presidents comments are just being called inappropriate and offensive by the usual suspects of hippies stepping in front of someone who was neither victimized nor offended and broadcasting about victimizaiton and offense.

Mika Brezinski on MSNBC said “It just divides women and it just divides people up to separate them by looks and probably was a little ham-fisted. I just think the whole thing, the whole dynamic about women and their looks puts women under a lot of stress that they don’t need.” I like Mika and don’t want to beat up on her, so i’ll leave it to you to decide if she really believes that hippie talking point and/or if it is congruent with pictorials like this:

Katie J. M. Baker asks in a Jezebel post that uses an unflattering photo of Kamala Harris, “was it wrong of Obama to call Harris “the best looking attorney general” while listing her many other attributes?” and then immediately answers herself with “Yes”, because, she says “Women put up with enough unsolicited attention as it is; the president of our country doesn’t need to legitimize the practice by piling on.”

Robin Abcarian in the LA Times had to admit the statement is “accurate” and “stating the obvious” but still asks if it was “sexist” (inadvertently admitting that truth is sometimes “sexist” which un-defines the word sexism). She concludes that making obvious statements about a womans attractiveness is predatory and problematic by saying “More wolfish than sexist, I’d say. And this may be a little problem he needs to work on.” In an attempt to justify this potential “problem” that needs “working on”, Abcarian says:

As Arlette Saenz of ABC News pointed out, Obama got into some hot water a while back when he addressed a reporter as “sweetie.” That was obnoxious, and demeaning, and Obama rightfully apologized. In 2008, he told Hillary Clinton she was “likeable enough” during one of the primary debates, which turned off God knows how many women, who heard the smug judgment of an arrogant upstart.

2 more bogus examples as the reporter didn’t express any offense at the “sweetie” remark, which isn’t inherently obnoxious or demeaning and the “likeable enough” comment was a joke in response to a question about whether Hillary “is likeable” (so in other words, he was using the language of the question in the debate to make light of the question in her defense – not decreeing to Hillary that he, as an elitist, had dubbed her to be adequate).

Amanda Marcotte at Slate wrote an article titled “Sorry, President Obama, but Complimenting a Colleague’s Looks Isn’t Harmless” but forgot to include in the article, any “harm” inherent in such an action. Instead she just points out that dumb hippies on twitter rebuked the President, and lauds that many were male and dismissed columnists debunking the lunacy as “unsurprising defensive whining”. At least she is unsurprised that when cry-bullying over fake victimization stories in service to illogical dogmas are used as offenses, the defense is expected. Her laughable evidence that complimenting women “isn’t harmless” is a statement by a social scientist who quoted a 1996 paper in where researchers discovered that – gasp – passive-aggressive behaviors exist. Marcotte should get with the 21st century and realize that this isn’t news. Yes, it’s true that people can say nice things in manipulative ways for negative outcomes – thanks for that professional citation to uncover that obvious point literally everyone is already aware of. Sorry, Amanda, but the potential to be negative by paying people compliments doesn’t make the act of making a compliment in itself “harmful”.

Joan Walsh at a Salon.com  titled “Kamala Harris deserves better” un-makes her point in nearly every line of the first few paragraph by admitting the details that contradict he phony claim of sexist oppression (Obama and Harris are close allies; the compliment was intended as such and not as an attack; that it was preceded by calling her “brilliant”) and then says “but my stomach turned over anyway”.

And that’s the perfect summary of this situation: “Yes, there was nothing wrong whatsoever about this comment that had good motives, was well received by the person it was directed to and was objectively accurate…but I hated it anyway” – Hippie Feminism in a nutshell.


To review: President Obama says something nice about a friend and supporter at a fundraiser and no one there complains and the friend and supporter expresses no problem at having been publicly complimented by the President of the United states on her brilliance, toughness, dedication, and good looks. Leftist crusaders, however, step in to say that’s not okay in a variety of outlets, but to recap the 5 covered here:

An MSNBC host says that complimenting women on being attractive adds “stress that they don’t need” and “divides” them, even though she adds to the division with 90% more hair and makeup vamping and 100% more leg showing than her male co-anchors.

An LA Times columnist says that it is “wolfish” and “a problem” to compliment a women on her looks, even though she admits herself several times that the woman in question has complimentary looks (ie: a compliment).

A Slate.com columnist claimed that a 1996 paper someone wrote said that nice things could potentially be used in bad ways and dubiously concluded that that is proof that complimenting a womans appearance is “harmful”.

A Jezebel columnist said that the president was “piling on” the plight that women already unjustly suffer when they look attractive by saying so.

And a Salon.com columnist claimed that she became physically sick when she heard that the President had complimented a woman.


Blame it on White Male Privilage

Here’s a fun Facebook encounter I had:

?”According to the C.I.A.’s own ranking of countries by INCOME INEQUALITY, the UNITED STATES is MORE UNEQUAL a society THAN either TUNISIA or EGYPT.”

Richard: well duh. if you accept that a percentage of people will always choose poverty and shit lives and another percentage will always not choose but still not have what it takes to climb out of a poverty stricken shit life – then the country with the most millionaires and billionaires automatically becomes the one with highest inequality in income. the most communist nation will have the most equal and the most free nation will have the most unequal.

Sarah Polen: Yes, because we all know that poverty isn’t generational or anything. It also isn’t a result of white male privilege. We don’t have anything called an ol’ boys network. And we are clearly putting our dollars into programs (education, healthcare, etc.) and NOT things like the military/financial bailouts so as to give people who do live in poverty the opportunity to succeed. And when we have an President like Obama who wants to close this gap, we’re all behind him 100%.

Sarah Polen: Also, on a completely unsarcastic note, who in the fuck thought Egypt (or Tunisia for that matter) was a communist country?

Richard: lol. bravo! Sarah’s satire of what an ignorant hippie would say is spot on! your sarcastic illustration of the foolish thing they believe is perfect, but unfortunately there are people stupid enough to actually believe those things and what is worse – they flaunt their ignorance instead of investigating the nonsense they preach.

they think generational poverty is an answer to anything, as if millions didn’t climb out of it and become middle class, upper class or millionaires. they actually think that “white male privilege” and good ol boys make people poor because they don’t understand how economies work and they think there are limited pieces of a pie so if the privileged have access to large chunks then that leaves just small pieces and crumbs for everyone else. they studied socialist propaganda instead of economic reality so they dont even know or begin to understand the limitlessness of the pie. you may joke that people dont know we spend $800 billion on education and are ignorant, stupid and intellectually incurious enough to never find out – but they exist! They have no clue (and dont care) that we spend 4% of our GDP on defense and 5 to 7%% on education.

There are actual Marxists out there that believe money is the answer to every problem and if we have a problem then spending more [of other peoples] money on it will fix it. Unfortunately, though you and I may mock the ignorance of these people through sarcasm, there are actually a large number of them who exist and earnestly believe (evidence be damned) that government should pulling people back who are producing too much will help poor people.

Richard: In response to the unsarcastic part: your reading comprehension is a little off, but I suspect you’re still fooling around and are still satirizing what a dumb hippie would say (very clever. very dry!). While ignorant but passionate leftists believe every issue is black and white and fail to notice nuances – smart people like us are able to understand things like a sliding scale and when they read “freedom” and “communism” at opposite ends of a spectrum, they are unable to think within the parameters of the two. People “in the fuck” who thought Egypt and Tunisia had economically leftist/socialist governments are the people who know what they’re talking about (though the other part of what I said that you conveniently ignored is most likely more to blame for their state of affairs).

Sarah Polen: A few notes/links:

Sarah Polen: USA Government Spending as required by the new act for transparent spending: http://www.usaspending.gov/ Dept. of Education = 59 billion; Dept. of Defense = 263 billion. Study on the good ol’ boys network as prevalent (as explained by those uneducated “liberals” in higher education): http://uga.academia.edu/LauraBierema/Papers/290194/Exploring_the_Nature_of_the_Old_Boys_Network_In_the_United_States_Using_Electronic_Networks_of_Practice_to_Understand_Gendered_Issues_In_HRD_ Information on the governments of Egypt and Tunisia – founded on similar principles as those of the USA: http://www.state.gov/http://www.state.gov/ I just want to make sure I’m not being confused for a “dumb, ignorant” hippie.

Richard: So you’re not dumb and ignorant, you just play it on facebook? how else do you explain ignoring 100% of what i said? lol. this must still be performance art. i get it… you’re illustrating how dumb people argue things by showing what they do is ignore what you say but use words that you said to make different points that they are more comfortable talking about, is that it? excellent job! its almost as if youre fooling anyone. almost.

Richard: Tip for the future though: be more subtle when trolling. its better when you walk the line of “is she serious??” instead of giving it away with crazy things like Egypt and Tunisia being founded on similar principals to the US. where as you might fool some people with the first half of changing the subject from GDP to raw dollars to both undermine your silly claim that we dont spend enough on education and ignore the one that was made in response to it – its too obvious that you’re mocking people who think these things when you go “full retard” with things like the leftward government of Egypt or socialist party of Tunisia being close to american principals. its better to dial it back a tick so you dont give yourself away and people are left to ponder what you said instead of realizing that you ignored the direct challenges made against your previous false claims. practice makes perfect!

Richard: ?”hey random guy on the street: why are some people poor?” – “white privilege.” – haha. that part is my favorite. the follow up of an obtuse article about the existence of good ol boys is just precious. how long have you been satarizing leftists like this? youre good.

Jessica Schneider: Hey Richard, I don’t care what your viewpoints are, don’t talk to Sarah like that. Your opinions don’t make you right, they simply mean you have a different ideology that you would like to see shape this country than Sarah. And being degrading and name-calling because you think you’re smarter is just more of the bullshit of the exact male privilege she just described. And another reason that compromise and cooperation continue to be pushed aside in favor of a static democracy (you know, those governments that are supposed to represent more than one viewpoint) that can’t progress. Name calling like a child says more about you than it does about Sarah. Seriously, you have more to learn about how to have a respectful dialogue than Sarah has to learn about political economy. It has nothing to do with what your opinions actually are, but how you express them. So far, I don’t know anyone who has ever heard of Richard Bushnell, but I know a lot of very famous and highly respected intellectuals who espouse similar ideologies to Sarah. So once again, having different viewpoints doesn’t make someone dumber than you, it just means they have a different value system. At least Sarah’s includes respectful disagreement. So yes, you actually could learn a thing or two from her. Grow up, Richard.

Richard: Hey Jessica, I don’t care what your viewpoints are, don’t be an elitist jerk and tell people they’re not allowed to respond to snotty sarcasm with factual sarcasm. No ones opinions make them right. the facts they’re based on do. Are you a performance artist too? Calling a response to baseless put downs, “male privilege”, sounds like more satire. HINT: Free speech is not a female privilege, babycakes. All sexes are allowed to exercise it, so if your outrage that someone didn’t just shut up and take the abuse they were dished isn’t satire then that’s pretty pathetic.

What “names” are you claiming I called anyone prior to babycakes? If you’re referring to “full retard”, thats a quote from Tropic Thunder that references the way a person acts (ie: is not calling someone retarded). If you’re just referring to a general tone that you cant pinpoint and thus is why you provided no examples (because you cant) then…lol. So is this part of the satire where you make things up to show how to act foolish? or are you falsely calling legit responses to silly claims “name calling”? Again, I think you’re making a mistake like Sarah in going overboard with the trolling because it’s too obvious. When you say things like “name calling like a child” (ie: hypocritically chiding someone for name calling in the same sentence you call them a name), it just gives the whole thing away too soon.

Where exactly can I learn how to have a respectful dialogue? From your free speech stifling name calling hypocrisy? or from Sarahs sarcastic bullying and eloquent use of phrases like “who in the fuck thought [what you just said]”? Why don’t you lead by example? Wanna take a poll on how many people have heard of me vs Sarah? or do you want to abandone that Appeal to Authority fallacy on account of it being total nonsense? No one said a different opinion makes anyone dumb, so it’d be awesome if you didn’t use strawman fallacies as the basis for your attacks either. I still can’t learn anything when you fail to provide any details though so I don’t know what I am to learn from Sarah via respectful dialogue since my replies were mirrors of hers in tone. Was it that I didn’t mock her understanding of a subject by saying “who in the fuck would think XYZ”? That must be it, cuz I got her sarcastic dismissal down pretty well. I will try harder to use “fuck” more often when baselessly attacking people I disagree with. ?

[Original Poster of the link]: Dance puppets, dance!

Richard: any time! puppet shows are my favorite!

Richard: wait… im still doing it wrong. Jessica says I should take my que from Sarah on proper responses so scratch that last reply and lemme try again:

*clears throat* “yes, because we all know that we’re puppets. we’re not human beings or anything. we don’t have anything called an ol’ boys network. and on an unsarcastic note: who in the fuck thought i (or anyone else for that matter) was a puppet?” — hope that is better 🙂

The bikini chick from American Idol was hated on for looking good

American Idol contestants try to get noticed by things other than their alleged talent like costumes or signs or costumes. It usually just serves as a way to mock the attempt but this is clearly the best attention getter stunt of the series.

Of course the new chick on the panel had a problem with it but bikini girls talent was just as good as any of the others and her sexable body was slightly more appealing to watch than Ruben Studdard or Justin Guarini’s so I approved of the fluff that makes this otherwise mediocre talent show a predictable slog. The lady judge had an immediate problem with the stunt because of the innate sense within the chick brain that desires to “nest” and seek safety. A younger, attractive female is a threat to this safety and her youth must be mocked and her attractiveness derided in order to neutralize the perceived threat. In this case the threat is psychological, as her presence and the inevitable attention it gets shifts the power dynamic away from the hippie core of the feminist-with-something-to-prove mindset. It’s an interesting case study in gender psychology and the sociological reactions to evolutionary defaults. Plus bikini.

UPDATE: Katrina Darrell, the bikini girl, returned to Idol for some…thing. idk. but now sporting a new set of boobs (breast implants). What a heart warming lateral-moving Cinderella story. or something.

Sorry body-shamers, but this move was a definite improvement.