1.A piece I wrote for Good Men Project on the response to gold medal winner Greg Rutherford’s redheadedness.
2. More Hugo Schwyzer idiocy. This time he argues that this Olympics provides strong proof that women are sexual creatures in the same way men are. They like “himbos” like Ryan Lochte. After lauding women’s attraction to the himbo as an example of women’s biology escaping the shackles of society, he writes:
The himbo’s laziness lies in his sense of entitlement, his expectation that he can have sex anytime he likes by doing little more than lifting his shirt to display his magnificent abs. The message to women is unmistakable: “If you want equality, fine, but you get to do all the real work. I’m just gonna stand here and look hot.”
Example #1,276,902 of women wanting it both ways. Schwyzer just described bimbos – the female type – but doesn’t seem to know it.
4. I like what Ramesh Ponnuru says about bringing back the political TV show “Crossfire” but without the politicos. I made a similar argument about debate in general. We need to bring debates back to the forefront to fully expose and test ideas and arguments on society, culture, policy, and science.
5. Reading up on media manipulation and came across a 2007 exchange between Jimmy Kimmel and a Gawker writer. Kimmel lays waste to the Gawker writer who penned a self-indulgent piece for the New York Times shortly after about her travails as a blogger and Gawker writer.
Although the original format doesn’t sound terrible, I don’t feel like it would be a thing I’d be interested in. Debates are essentially about establishing social dominance, not about convincing people of the rightness of your ideas. Particularly in a televised format, how likely is it that we see any opinions which go against broader mainstream ideas like, “Women can do no wrong,” or “Everyone is equal.”
Why even bother listening to discussions between people whose worldviews are founded on obvious lies?
She was a silly little ditz who tried to laugh the whole thing off. The assertion that she could post erroneous things about celebrities without fear of legal reprisal was jawdropping.
Regarding your tweet about the article in Slate, I’d like to know when articles about who journalist want to sleep with became interesting to the rest of us.
Hugo’s ok with woman going after men purely for their looks, but not ok with those men KNOWING they can form relationships with woman purely on their looks.
He wants woman to be able to go after good looking men, with confidence that the men aren’t purely banking on their looks.
In his mind a double standard is ok as long as woman are the ones benefiting from it.
Although the original format doesn’t sound terrible, I don’t feel like it would be a thing I’d be interested in. Debates are essentially about establishing social dominance, not about convincing people of the rightness of your ideas. Particularly in a televised format, how likely is it that we see any opinions which go against broader mainstream ideas like, “Women can do no wrong,” or “Everyone is equal.”
Why even bother listening to discussions between people whose worldviews are founded on obvious lies?
That Gawker girl is so awkward and annoying.
She was a silly little ditz who tried to laugh the whole thing off. The assertion that she could post erroneous things about celebrities without fear of legal reprisal was jawdropping.
Gawker’s motives revealed at 5:04
Regarding your tweet about the article in Slate, I’d like to know when articles about who journalist want to sleep with became interesting to the rest of us.
Hugo’s ok with woman going after men purely for their looks, but not ok with those men KNOWING they can form relationships with woman purely on their looks.
He wants woman to be able to go after good looking men, with confidence that the men aren’t purely banking on their looks.
In his mind a double standard is ok as long as woman are the ones benefiting from it.