@crushedoranges's banner p

crushedoranges


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

				

User ID: 111

crushedoranges


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 111

And for most people, that borderline is a wake-up call, yes.

I personally suffer from depression. Being fat didn't help with that. But for some people they look in a mirror and they think to themselves "I'm already fat, I might as well let myself go all the way" and that leads to all the pathologies of personality I just mentioned.

Right now, I'm going through a water fast, and it's difficult and uncomfortable. Losing weight is, in general, difficult and uncomfortable. The avoidance of discomfort and the pursuit of pleasure is the Western zeitgeist and I'd be damned if I let down my ubermenschian will to power by obeying the fickle whims of a decadent body.

Me personally having mental illness makes me profoundly unsympathetic to others in that regard. I admit it is a personal flaw that I judge such people without the characteristic liberal softness: I have seen too many people get away with baldly unsympathetic behaviour because of trauma and I never feel more sympathy when it is brought up.

Even with the caprice of reality TV, the shit they do boggles the mind. (Stranger than fiction comes to mind.) And the food addictions on display (even when they know they are being observed and filmed, like in Secret Eaters) are so shameless, it is depicting the real thing, baldly and unsympathetically.

I recently (and by recently, I mean two weeks ago) started water fasting, and to displace the constant feelings of food cravings I started watching food-related videos, most notably: TLC's 600lb Life. It is extraordinarily trashy TV, but illuminating.

Before I describe the negative observations, here's the positive ones: A) All of the successful patients had a good attitude to begin with (they wanted to lose the weight, and were willing to commit) B) They followed the doctor's instructions (important.) C) They had friends and family who were supportive and were generally affable individuals to begin with (likeable!)

As a representative slice of the people who get really, really fat, they're about 5% of the population. The rest that follows is the generalizations of everyone else.

Now. For the hot takes:

THE OBESE ARE IGNORANT

Do you remember the much-maligned food pyramid from your health classes, the one that put way too many grain carbs at the bottom? At the very least, it puts vegetables on the second tier, and fast food at the very tippy top. And these people don't even know that. The very concept of CICO they stubbornly defy. They don't seem to know anything about basic nutrition that even a kid would know. And it's not like they're getting fat off good cuisine, either. (A fat gourmand with a diverse palette would be, at the very least, a good friend to have to ask for recommendations.) They're just eating fast-food slop paid by their welfare checks. And speaking of...

THE OBESE ARE ENTITLED

There is a certain childlike narcissism that accompanies each and every one of these patients, that demands the world bend around them: that they should be fed, bathed, and cared after without giving anything back in return. They frequently manipulate their family members and spouses to look after them, hand and foot, even their children. They're rude and throw tantrums, and their ignorance only strengthens their stubbornness. (They even disagree with their own doctor, a man they're self-selected to seek out!) They continue their bad eating habits - even in the hospital itself! - and have food snuck in for them to eat. This inevitably leads to...

THE OBESE ARE STUPID

In wrestling, where the tiers are segmented by weight class, in order to hit the weight limits, athletes often go to extraordinarily lengths to temporarily lose 5-10 pounds before weigh-in to get as much of an advantage as they can. In the show, in order to qualify for bariatric surgery, patients need to lose a certain amount of weight so that it is safe for them to go into surgery. Now, admittedly, going to 1200 calorie diet when you're used to 10k+ is pretty hard, but even going to 5,000 - twice the amount of a healthy adult - would guarantee weight loss without significant dietary changes, other than portions.

Do they do this? Of course not.

In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't even weigh themselves beforehand. It's always a surprise and a shock when - surprise of surprises - that eating the same amount as you did before would maintain it. (In fact, some of them even gained weight.) The tantrums, the lies, the threats - all are laid bare before the uncaring measure of the livestock scale.

Of course they don't get the surgery. And they're always left wondering why, the poor buggers.

So, in conclusion, I have come into belief that you should judge people for being obese. Not to say that all fat people are ignorant, entitled, and stupid. But they definitely have at least one of these traits, and should be avoided at all costs.

Did yah call ya mothar? She gets so worried sick about you, and you nevaaaah call!

Did ya turn off the stove before you left the house?

Clumsily. (Like krogans.)

I really don't want to get into definitional arguments, because they don't get anywhere.

I am using their terminology. You can argue it as much as you want that it is vague and nebulous, but it doesn't matter, because it describes a real subset of people that do exist that push policy and active goals. I don't have to go back to the Kievan Rus to explain it. What am I, Putin?

Don't dive into generalities. I am addressing a very specific movement (the woke, the intersectionalists, the crt) who can be described as cultural marxists. I am intentionally limiting the scope of the discussion here because there is where an argument can actually be had.

But if you want to continue down this path, please, provide your definitions of these things.

Sovereign is he who defines the exception, or so it is said.

Then what is, exactly, the strength of the person who is allowed to make the definitions?

Let me short-circuit the definitional arguments: imagine that we are gesturing at a horse... and I call it a horse. No, some obnoxious college activist emerges, it is a four-legged ruminant ungulate!

Okay, I concede. It's a four-legged ruminant ungulate (bad). We take a step forward on the euphemistic threadmill.

You horrible, horrible person! The college activist says. It's actually an equine monodactyl animal of herding!

And so on. At no point is the discussion is allowed to proceed beyond what identifying the horse is.

Cultural Marxism is identifiably so because it uses the oppressor/oppressed dynamic but replaces the class structure with a whole assortment of intersectional replacements. No, it is not orthodox Marxism. But it very succinctly describes what it is. You are falling for a psy-op, a plausible smokescreen of academic confusion. Strip out decades of cold warrior rhetoric and it is still an accurate description of what they're trying to get at.

There is no distinction between cultural and economic marxism in the end because it all leads to redistribution of wealth from oppressor to oppressed. If you don't recognize that basic fact, you don't really want to fight the SJWs at all: merely moderate their excesses.

His name is 4chan.

Well, of course it is.

But your non-participation only entitles and empowers a potential Caesar, who similarly believes that the systems and institutions are a corrupt sham and shell. And when you go to hide behind said institutions, suddenly made aware of its values, it will collapse upon itself. You will be left naked and trembling before a new, populist God.

Unless, of course, that is your desired end goal.

You don't need to believe in democracy, only give sacrifice to the civic gods. The Roman analogy is apt. I'm not asking you to sacrifice a fatted calf or a firstborn child: I'm asking you to stand in a line for two hours in some public place. It doesn't matter what you believe or what you think is true, only that the proper forms are observed.

Let me make an analogy.

One prays to God, not out of a naive desire for divine intervention to manifest one's wishes, but as an affirmative call to one's own virtuous goals. Whether or not it comes to good or ill is divided into two parts: the mortal - which is in our control - and in the divine - which is ineffable.

Which is to say, go vote, because it is good for the soul, and then do the necessary things in your community anyway.

You should vote because it is a holy ritual that strengthens your household and girds your soul. You are not voting just for yourself, but you are linking the fire of American democracy, from your father to his father unto infinitum. As the Romans would say, it is a matter of religion, not politics. All the votes are rigged anyway, the candidates pre-selected, but that doesn't change the necessity of the act. So as long as you vote, the sacred institutions of the republic are preserved.

I apologize. I've got a bad habit of making hot takes.

To expand on that pithy statement, I can't see her as anything but a worse version of Hillary Clinton. She, at the very least, had experience in government and political wrangling. What does Kamala have in comparison?

It doesn't work that way anymore because the very concept of a 'mainstream media' was shattered into a hundred thousand screaming fragments by the bale curse of social media. 'respectable' media like NYC and ABC may capture the lib normies but that audience is growing smaller by the year and more out of touch by the moment.

No one even remotely in our reality would think Kamala is a strong candidate.

Childbirth being painful is a universally known fact. The fact that women do it anyway is one of the many miracles of our biological condition. Such is the power of hormones and the genetic compulsion to reproduce.

What I suspect is happening here is that she doesn't want children, began that as her conclusion, and intellectualized herself into her preferences. And that's fine. Many people perform the backwards scientific method all the time when it comes to core beliefs. But if her reasons become mainstream - well, our species would soon cease to be.

We are all descended from either careless women, who had babies by accident, or feckless ones, who were brave enough to do it anyway despite the danger. I remind everyone to thank your mothers the next time you see them.

I'm sorry, which set of partisans coined the term 'stochastic terrorism' and used it on speech they didn't like? Schmittian dynamics aside, splinter in my eye, log in yours. Even now, after excerpts from her diary saying she fantasized about her imaginary penis to fuck a black woman in the ass, you still hear the calls to respect 'his' pronouns.

Of course this damages the Narrative™️. If the left were more strict about policing autogynophiles and penis-envying school shooters, maybe people on the right would take the self-affirming takes more seriously.

Personally.

Communism sucks because it will be run by the people who run the DMV. Every would-be communist imagines that the bureaucrats who run the command economy will be intelligent, capable, and moral. Angels, in other words. The simplest diffuser of Communism is asking if whether or not they want the people who can't get children to be literate or lead out of their drinking water to be responsible for the entire economy.

The moment the Israelis exchanged one hostage for a thousand Palestinians created a terrible precedent of which Hamas seeks to repeat.

I am not sure why the Israelis, knowing that their enemies were digging tunnels, did not dig tunnels of their own. Surely with modern equipment and a lack of a need for secrecy they could dig beneath to undermine them. Why hasn't this happened?

When you stop on a bike - a commuter bike, with a high saddle - you have to swing your leg to anchor on the concrete, which has the side effect of crushing your testicles. The desire to avoid this at all costs is like, half the motivation of attempting to keep the bike moving.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention or not, but conspiracism and crackpot theories has become mainstream for years, if not decades at this point. Old, genteel conservatism that is happy to be a principled loser voters are tired of. There is nothing more American than winning, because Americans love winners. Even returning to 2000s liberalism is a conservative direction to Western culture's current trajectory.

I would gesture vaguely at Lee Kuan Yew for the ideal of conservative paternalism, or the Bismarckian creation of the German welfare state. There are certain situations which allowing free markets and individuals to make bad decisions is harmful to the nation, and interventionism can be worth the loss in efficiency.

As such, paternalism's policies are not set in stone and are highly specific to the region the politician comes from.

The caveat is that conservative paternalism's aim is to enact reforms to prevent communists, socialists, and progressives from gaining power, to keep the status quo. The latter's aims with reform is to enact revolutionary change unmoored from economic realities.

I mean, to be fair, no taxes on tips acknowledges a de facto reality: who reports their tips in their tax returns? Enforcement would be impossible. As a handout to Nevada, it makes sense politically.

Harris's proposed policies make Trump look like the king of austerity. Considering how spendthrift he is, that's an accomplishment.

I find Shadman's depiction of Hillary Clinton to be one of the classics of all time.

Uh huh. Funny that you should use the Buran as an example, because it was a bad copy of a bad idea.

There's a lot of nuance hidden in the 'proper market reforms' and 'mature and sensible way'. Sensible to who? Who would bring about these sensible reforms, when the temptation to just copy the West - what they have always did - would have been omnipresent? By the time the Soviets could manage a few hundred creaky clones of IBM mainframes, people were playing Wolfenstein. They were twenty years behind in silicon, in the defining technology of century, and they had neither the time or the capital to catch up.

All of their existing industrial base was old. The tooling was bad. The workers were unproductive. It could not make enough to satisfy the domestic market, much less compete with the west. They could not export their way to prosperity because the only thing the West wanted from the Soviets was their raw, material resources. You could say that the average Russian worker removed value from the steel and aluminum they worked. No one drives Ladas anymore, do they?

All of this capital misallocation happened because they were communist. The reforms that hypothetically, pie-in-the-sky would have saved the Soviet economy would have made them not communist. No one could have saved the Soviet Union, because the time for saving it was 10 years before Gorbachev ever came to power. They had no Deng, and they had no American technology transfer. The Soviets knew that they needed to reform but were unable to do so until it was far, far too late.