Necrachilles wrote:
Everyone has problems. Everyone is different.
False. A lot of people live idyllic lives (i.e., sheltered), and a lot of people have a total absence of individuality.
Necrachilles wrote:
Actually, bullying graviates towards people who either A) Draw attention to themselves and are seen as a threat to another person's status B) The people who do stand up for themselves. I can't really recall any bullys who bullied people more than once or twice if they didn't defend themselves. It was always the ones who got upset or tried defending themselves.
It's just like ganking people in WoW. Not many people will sit there and gank a lowbie over and over again for no reason. No one even wants to watch that. However, if you have the illusion of a challenge, whether it's real or not, said person will continue trying to gank/bully whether for his/her own delight or in looking for acceptance from those around themselves.
That is why bullying, and the ways schools handle it, is a social evil. It teaches people to be pussies.
Necrachilles wrote:
I personally believe that the basis for a desire to change should be because you want to be healthy or generally better. Not because you feel bad. I'm not saying that it can't motivate you but you should strive to improve yourself everyday, not just when you feel bad or get hurt.
Be better, or be able to make the argument you are better? Why do the former if the latter is easier?
That's what this is all about. Worthless women who subscribe to a dogma that tells them they ARE better and therefore don't need to be.
Necrachilles wrote:
I haven't really delved into the world of obesity being genetic/etc vs a choice but I'm sure not everyone chooses to be obese just like some people DO choose to be obese. If being overweight is a moral fault than so is being underweight. It's that simple. I'd argue that being 50 pounds overweight is better than being 50 pounds under.
The number of people who are congenitally fat is very small. Not for nothing is obesity a contemporary Western problem and particularly bad in America. The fat person who eats a well-balanced diet does exist but they are the extreme minority, proof being in communities where that is the rule they are rare.
Being obese is a moral fault because it's the result of gluttony and a lack of basic self-respect. To be obese makes one lazy and slovenly. To be obese is to be burden on oneself and everyone around. One need not be a chiseled figure but to be grotesque impaired in daily life because one cannot control ones drives is as sick as being a compulsive gambler, womanizer, or drug addict. It's a bad condition, and guilt and social pressure exist to encourage people to do better.
The fact that being severely underweight is also wrong doesn't diminish the perversity that is obesity - nor the fact that one is a serious social problem and the other is not.
Necrachilles wrote:
As someone who was bullied in Elementary, Middle School and High School I can tell you that the claim that being overweight is a source of wrongful bullying is true if only partially. In reality, most bullying is against kids that are different (fat, glasses, acne, wheelchair, etc). Unless you want to tell me that there are no fat kids out there who have been made fun of for the sole reason that they're fat.
I'm sure there's such a kid somewhere. But really none of the things you listed are ever the cause of bullying
except insofar as they make the kid different.
This show is not about being tolerant of people who are different, or stopping bullying thereof, it's about aggrandizing a certain very narrow group of people (fat white women) who have good reason to feel bad about themselves - and who are already treated far better by society than they deserve.
Necrachilles wrote:
I will mostly agree with your statement about the media. I don't however think that it is the ultimate cause of "all" bullying. I think human nature is. Bullying happens everywhere, not just in places that are chocked full of "media".
Greed, murder, demagoguery, ignorance, bigotry, thuggery, infidelity, happen everywhere, with or without media. That those human evils are universal does not change the reality that the media has done much to foster them to gross excess here in America.
Necrachilles wrote:
I honestly don't even know who Rush Limbaugh is or why he's relevant. I have heard of him though.
He's a disgustingly fat far-right wing shock jock. A lot of what he says and writes betrays personal issues and sexual frustration driven by his figure. People take digs at him all the time.
Necrachilles wrote:
Moving right along, had a man given this same "schtick" I would feel the same. I don't know that a man (let alone many other women) could handle it as well as she did. She didn't come out guns blazing nor did she cower and hide. She voiced how she felt as objectively as I think she could have. The only thing I didn't approve of were the few times you could hear the pain in hear voice but I disregarded that...
...I must have missed the part where she said "I'm fat and I'm proud and I make no effort to improve myself.". My mistake. The way you start this statement sounds overly biased with regards to your views on feminists and women in general.
She didn't handle it well at all. She bitched on TV about how hurtful it was to be told something she doesn't like to hear. To deal with it would be to just move on with one's life...or to find the strength to better her condition.
Men deal with crap every day of their lives. That is why they are men. They don't get to stand there and say don't be mean to me. To say that a man couldn't handle as well as she did is to turn reality on its head.
Necrachilles wrote:
I feel as if this video hit a sore spot with you. Your words got porgressively more negative and brazen. Almost as if the more you thought about it the angrier you got. I can safely tell you that when you think of something with negative connotations that harder it is to objectively discuss that same thing.
Your observation is completely correct. And there is nothing wrong with being angry or negative. To characterize something as negative does not mean that the characterization is not objective, and to be angry about something for good reason is neither irrational nor pointless. Jubber is right on when he says the disdain for anger and negativity is the "Pussification of America".
Necrachilles wrote:
Now then, all that being said, I feel like the initial letter she recieved was nothing more than a well played troll or at the very least the person who wrote it wasn't truly trying to bully or sound condescending.
I'm not convinced the alleged letter was even real, any more than the alleged Romney leak.
The media is entertainment, and entertainment is all about showmanship. To think that anything that appears on TV is as it seems is as fool as thinking that anything that happens at a magic show is because they're exactly the same thing, staged entertainment.
Necrachilles wrote:
The main thing to take from all this is not to let bullying define you or rule your life. To teach your kids and/or those around you to treat others better. I personally don't care because it has no impact on me but you're somewhat one of the people she was talking about.
If you are crying on TV that someone said something unkind then you have already lost.
Necrachilles wrote:
Imagine you had a son and you're sitting there talking about "fat, lazy, disgusting, entitled, self-obsessed women", A) What would your son take from that? Nothing positive I assure you and B) Maybe you're right. Perhaps though, maybe it isn't ALL women. Your son isn't going to necessarily have the skills to distinguish those who truly are "fat, lazy, disgusting, entitled or self-obsessed" from those who truly are trying or have other reasons for why they are the way they are. Your son would simply see another fat person without looking deeper than that.
Why son? How about daughter?
You see, your thought processes are being manipulated without your even realizing it. The implication of what you say is that daughters are virtuous by default but sons grow towards any darkness.
What skills are we talking about? Orwellian self-monitoring of thoughts? Although you do not realize it that is exactly what you mean and it's the same game, whether it's watching brainwashed people like Jubber or Eturnal invent rationalizations to justify their brainwashing, or the radical left-wing equivalent of PC unto unreality.
If I called the military a bunch of self-interested, self-righteous, bigoted, anti-democratic, America-hating thugs, would you consider that an assault on all men? Then why consider similar remarks that apply to a group of women an assault on all women?
As with Jubber and Eturnal, you're resorting to nihilism to justify the unjustifiable. These people are despicable human beings and it's not in spite of "trying" or for any "other reason" (what does that even mean? sumo wrestling?) that they engage in the selfish and passive-aggressive behavior that they do.
Necrachilles wrote:
tldr: She's handsome.
Objectively, she is NOT handsome. She's a fat disgusting bitch and the only person being bullied here is you. Your low self esteem is being exploited through social pressure and guilt-tripping to turn reality on its head.