I believe that the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
I believe all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of kinship, love and tolerance.
I don't believe in distinction of any kind, such as
- race, colour, ethnicity, nationality
- sex, gender identity
- sexual orientation
- language, culture
- religion, spirituality
- political opinion
- any opinion
- origin (social, national or any other kind)
- age
- weight, size
- looks, beauty or lack of it
- disability or illness, visible or invisible, of mind or body
- property, wealth
- birth
- other status or identity

Friday, December 30, 2016

Taylor Swift

 5 Important Reasons I Can't Love Taylor Swift Anymore

You feel what you feel. None of my business. But I don't think those reasons are valid... perhaps you express them in a way I don't understand, being a white European woman. Our cultural reference frames are very different.

1) "Her Music Videos Are Full Of Cultural Appropriation"

Firstly, she has made 38 music videos. You talk about two.

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture.

Was there any of that in "Wildest Dreams"? No.

I can see how it was insensitive, inappropriate and just wrong, but there was no cultural appropriation.

So, was there that in "Shake It Off"? Perhaps. But there were many different dance styles presented and Taylor was relating to them all equally, so I don't think you can say it was racist or "perpetuating stereotypes".

Let's compare that to Nicki Minaj's Anaconda. It shows black women as twerking bottoms and the message of the song is "it doesn't matter if you are kind, smart, funny and loving, all that matters is that you have a big butt.."
Also, how do they justify placing the video in the middle of South American jungles? And not one Native American in the video... but that's OK, because Nicki isn't white?


"This time, I couldn't find any excuses on her behalf."
OK. What about this:
Someone else made the casting?
The director didn't want any black people on the set?
That's the way Africa is presented in Bogambo, African Queen, Out of Africa and English Patient, which was their intention with the video.

The profits from the video go to save and protect the African wildlife shown in the video.


I'm not saying those make anything OK, just that there are excuses.

2. She Constantly Displays White Feminism

With other words "she doesn't seem invested in the struggles of nonwhite women". Fair enough.

But - there was no squabble between Swift and Minaj. People accuse Taylor of "derailing" Nicki's "important issues", and say that Nicki was trying to speak for black women and against the sexism of focusing on skinny as beauty ideal. In my mind Taylor's reaction is very understandable. When a black woman's video was nominated, and when Taylor was the only woman in the nominated videos with "a very slim body", it's hard to see how Nicki was NOT saying "Taylor was nominated only because she's a skinny white woman, and it should have been my video there". I suppose it's even harden when one is a skinny white woman...
And she invited Nicki to the stage if she wins, and she won. Did Nicki take the opportunity to get on stage to speak about how non-white people and especially women are being exploited?
Nope. Why?

3. Her Use Of "Squad" Is Also Cultural Appropriation

No, it's not.
1) Squad is an existing word that has been existing for hundreds of years, and within white culture it is nothing more than a synonym to "group", "team", "pack".
2) How long has the "black youth culture" used the word, and how probable is it that the white culture is even aware of this usage?
3) Who do you think is more "mainstream"? Taylor Swift or Waka Flocka Flame and Gucci Manet?
I suppose it's not a surprise to you that I have only heard one of those names.
I also assume you don't want me to tell you how "Gucci" is cultural appropriation.


Seriously, that your culture has one meaning to a word, it doesn't mean that another culture can't have another meaning to the word.

4. And The Demographics Of Her "Squad" Are Problematic

A white girl born in Pennsylvania, grown up in Tennessee, who has been famous for some 10 years, has friends who look just like her. Most black singers are also shown with black women.
She also told Nicki to come up to the stage with her if she wins, and she won. But I suppose if she had done that, people would accuse Taylor of tokenism.

It's kind of ironic that people are making it HER problem that her "squad" reminds them of the popular girls. Taylor was bullied at school by the popular girls, too. She was too tall and too skinny and looked weird and liked country music, when everyone else loved something else. 

5. She Refuses To Acknowledge Her Privilege

Ok, so she is a rich, white girl, and also tall, skinny and pretty. What would SHE know about obstacles and difficulties?

Of course she has had it easier than 90% of people. But that doesn't mean she is lying about the hardship. One thing with first world problems is that they are so difficult to take seriously. We are spoiled rotten. But to us it's the norm. It's all we know. Just like every other human being on this planet, you included, we believe the world is like it is to us for everyone else.It's not "refusal to acknowledge our privilege", it's failure to understand. But when one is spoiled rotten, what is a wrinkle to you, is a mountain to me. Because it IS the "worst" that has ever happened to me. It was painful. It was hard. It was an obstacle. It's totally subjective, so it cannot be compared.

For example, I have fibromyalgia, which means that my body aches more or less all of the time. I can't even remember what it was like not to be in pain. The last time that happened was when my doctor ordained new painkillers and they kicked in. It lasted for a week, I think it was march 10 years ago. I remember standing on the bus stop and wondering what was wrong because I didn't feel like I used to... and then I realized... the pain was gone. I felt "normal". OMG, it was wonderful! Why don't healthy people understand how invincible they are!
Being in pain 24/7 has also its benefits. I can function with migraine. I can function when smells make me want to vomit, and I can't deal with light, and the pain is splitting my head. I have learned to ignore it. I can walk on sprained ankle. No problems. That's just a little more annoying than what I usually have.
So when I see someone sprain their ankle and fall on a sniveling heap and crying - CRYING - because the pain is SO BAD, I roll my eyes and think they are making a lot of noise over nothing. Just get up and move, and whine about the ankle when you're done.
But who am I to laugh at someone's pain? Maybe that IS the worst they have ever experienced? Maybe that is crippling to them.
And maybe there are people who live with worse pain than I do, and to whom I am the sniveling wussy. Like children with cancer... and I'm pretty sure they don't judge me.

So, please, don't compare journeys. Just because there are people who have a harder journey than others, others' journeys aren't easy.

And, sure, she could use her fame and influence better. What about giving her ideas? Write her a speech? Give her suggestions on how to make a video that is NOT offensive? How she could be more inclusive of the non-white population?


Friday, October 14, 2016

Guess what? You've made a feminist of me!

Not really. It turns out I have always been a feminist.

Some things have happened this week.

1) Some people seriously think women shouldn't have rights.

2) There's this... person, who brags about how she and other women like she started "#repealthe19th"

3) I came here to comment these two things, when this happened (Ketutar says so: I have been watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit - comments), which lead to that I saw the show about 12 steps, and I reacted the same way I did the first time around. "But that's not what it means!!!" But I was reminded of why I like the show, and I wanted to see more, so I saw the Cheerleader episode.
And that one is so horrible I find it hard to believe.

These young women, girls, are being treated like shit just because they are girls. They are expected to do highly advanced physical stunts without any safety precautions or covers, which makes cheerleading more dangerous than ice hockey.
CHEERLEADING IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY GAME THEY CHEER.

People look at this picture and see an athlete and his pretty little girlfriend.
When in reality it's she who has the more physically demanding and dangerous job
and he who's wearing all the protection.

And even though cheerleading has become more and more demanding and dangerous, and is practically something totally different than what it was in the 70s when it was decided it's not a sport, the status of it hasn't changed.
No, I don't think it's a sport, but it MUST be classified as sport to protect the girls! All these injuries, especially to the head and spine, will have serious medical consequences when they are older!
And people just think it's "basically just being pretty".

"Perhaps you should just keep your mouth shut and stay in the kitchen where you belong."

"Women should be in the kitchen. If they aren't in the kitchen then how am i supposed to live? I can't feed myself, I'm a man." 

Now, that's just pathetic. Adult people who can't even feed themselves.

"You can't expect a guy to spend all of his time in the kitchen unless he is better than a women, which never happens"

I agree. It never happens that a guy is better than "a women".

"Yes, save civilization and repeal the 19th!"

What civilization is that?

This? "The Latest Trend In Christianity: Beating Your Wife For Jesus"

If I can beat you up, that means I'm right?
Guess what, guys...

I don't think women are better than men. I think people are equal.

But this:

If a woman has told you "you can't hit me, I'm a girl", that means that you have wanted to hit her... and do you know what that makes of you?
Pathetic. What's the victory in beating someone weaker than you?

I have never said to anyone "you can't hit me, I'm a woman!" Because the second you hit me I know you are a pathetic loser. So you want to hit me? Go ahead and prove me right.


Frankly, all the "feminazi" memes are so damn stupid. 

I don't expect you to pay more for stuff, I don't expect you to get paid more either.
So if you think it's OK to pay another person less than you for the same job, because this person is of different gender, it's you who are the Nazi here.

I don't expect you to pay for dinner. I'm fully capable to pay for my own food. 
I am also fully capable of filling my fridge and cooking my food, too. 
I expect you to be able to do the same. 
Every time you say things like "women belong to the kitchen" I think you're a pathetic loser who can't even feed himself.

I don't expect you to open doors to me. I expect you not to barricade the doors either.
If you do, I know you are afraid of me.

I don't expect benefits because of the gender, I expect no disadvantage because of the gender either. For either of us.

I don't hate men. I don't think all men are this or that. I don't think women are better than men. I expect the same from men when it comes to women.
I expect people to not hate women, or think women are this or that or think men are better than women.

"I just don't think they should have equal rights. Because (no offense) they're not equal."
If a woman would say that about men, you'd call her feminazi.


I oppose objectifying of all people, men and women. 

I don't think my looks have any relevance to any of this, just as little as your looks, so if you start saying things like "they are just ugly old maids" you have obviously nothing intelligent to say.

On the left is a cartoon of what idiots like to think suffragettes were. 
On the right a real suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst. 
She got married at the age of 21 and had 5 children. 
People who cannot separate cartoons from real life are a bit... special. 
People who prefer to believe cartoons over historical facts are idiots.

"All things valuable to mankind were created by men only, thus only men can have rights to use them."

You use the household appliances, I use the medicine. Also, I preserve and cook my food. You hunt and eat your meat raw.
Any objections? Women were gatherers, men were hunters.
The gatherers gathered the herbs used as medicine.
The gatherers processed food for storage. Among other things, they invented fermenting, which is how beer became to be.
The gatherers prepared the food for eating.
The gatherers invented agriculture. 
The gatherers invented fire, pottery and basketry.
The gatherers invented yarn and fabric.

The hunters invented how to make things to hurt and kill others.

Hunters might have domesticated the animals, though it's more likely women who did that too.
Come on. You are a hunter and find a wolf pup. Would you think "oh, how fluffy and cute that is!", or would you think "that's going to grow up and eat my prey and probably my kids, too. Better to kill it now".
Or you see an orphan lamb. Do you think "oh, so cute! I want to take care of it!" or do you think "oh, food! I want to eat it!"


But seriously. All the references to history and how "all the inventors and influential people have been men!" claim. That just shows an incredible ignorance and understanding of society.

Firstly, women were seen as objects to own for several thousands of year, simply because we are physically weaker. Men have been writing women off the world history, diminishing our impact and influence and taking credit for our work and inventions. It's the same thing with every person not a white male.
For a very long time women weren't even allowed to study. Still in the 60s women in Universities were told they are stealing a place from a "better deserving" male, a person who would not just get married and become a mother, but would actually work. Through the whole 20th century women had to fight to prove that they are just as intelligent and capable at work as men are. But still there are people who don't believe this, without understanding the consequences of the 2000 years of slavery.
There are still people who should know better who say things like "women shouldn't be working with science, because they are too emotional and distracting men". Total bullshit!
Women weren't allowed to do certain works. Not because they couldn't have done them, they do them today with no difficulties, but because "it was believed" women couldn't do these jobs. Not even when women HAD to do these jobs - because all able-bodied men were at war - did people believe that they actually could do these jobs. Women put together all the planes and tanks and guns and bullets used to win the war, and were rewarded by people telling them they did nothing, just let men fight for them.
There were a lot of things women weren't allowed to do.

One could ask why there were no female Leonardo da Vincis, then? Or Galileo Galileis?
Actually, there were, but most weren't allowed to engage in such "manly things". Those who did it against the society were ostracized. Some were even killed for daring to do "things only men should do". Some got their work and contribution stolen. After all, who would believe a woman? Even today we have people who claim Marie Curie was "just an assistant".
These are just the women we know of. How many brilliant women were killed or forced out of the field before they managed to do anything? How many brilliant women got their work stolen by a man the society today believes is the "father" of the invention or idea? They thieves wouldn't most certainly tell. Considering today's field I am certain of that there were a lot more resources there. And just the thought of that we have been wasting all those resources because of a brittle male pride... Makes me sick!

But, I know. You can bend it from wire and paint it with fire, and people still don't get it. More stupid people.
On a Plate - a great comic strip about equality of opportunity


You just don't get it.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Fat shaming vs Skinny shaming

I found out that some idiot created #FatShamingWeek.

I wanted to know if there's #SkinnyShamingWeek. There is. I found four tweets with that hashtag.

What I also found was this:

The stupid bitch writes "Don't tell me I'm "shaming" because if you didn't want to be shamed you would look after your body and not eat your heart out and do nothing. (That is if obesity was your choice)"

What?
She also describes herself "Orla Kelly Savage, memer, degree in offending people"
Which means: "Orla Kelly, Idiot, Sheeple, Bully and a Crybaby.
Motto "Don't do to me what I do to you, because it's mean and hurts my feelings".

Sorry, Ignoramus, but you lost your right to object to people telling you both this and that when you chose to start "shaming" people. If you didn't want to hear the truth about what you are, you would look after your actions and not open your stupid mouth in public.

Later she says: "I just feel like if you know the consequences of over eating/lack or exercise i feel like you shouldn't complain about being "fat""

I am not complaining about being fat. I know I am and why I am. But you are not saying "You're fat, and that's none of my business". You are saying "EEEEW, YOU'RE FAT AND UGLY AND GROSS AND DISGUSTING YOU SHOULD GO AND FUCKING DIE STOP EATING YOU ARE JUST LAZY AND UGLY AND STUFFING YOUR FACE AND WAAWAAWAA!!!" 

Also, you have no guts to have photos that YOU actually took on Instagram, or a photo of YOU, so I am going to believe that you are really seriously envious to fat people who don't go hiding in shame and kill themselves, which is what you would do if you had the guts.

Also, this is the original image. Her sign isn't even saying "fat is beautiful".


Then there was this:
Apparently this rant appeared in Cassi Van Den Dungen's instagram.

Are the people telling you you are bony, ugly, anorexic, telling you to gain weight and "eat a cheeseburger" overweight? Or just "people"?

You are what you are "naturally" and you "eat what you want". Aren't we all? Even the anorectic and over-eaters?
You say you don't starve yourself. Hmm... Maybe. Maybe you do. But isn't it your choice? Just as it's my choice what I decide to eat or not eat?

You say you think you are beautiful. You are a model, so obviously you are not alone thinking that. For some reason not even that is enough. You are demanding that the whole world "allows" you to think what ever you like about yourself. How is it any of anyone else's business?

Why am I allowed to love my curves? Am I?
Are you aware of that there's a "Fat Shaming Week"?

And are you not allowed to love your bones?
Must everyone love your bones for you to feel you are worth loving?
Then how can't you understand how difficult it is for me to realize that I am worth love and feeling beautiful, NOT FOR BEING BIG BUT IN SPITE OF BEING BIG, when most of the world tells me I should be like you? How many colleagues do you have who are plus sized? How many of your colleagues are even the national medium size? How many of your colleagues are as much above the national medium as you are below it? The national medium is 12, and if you are size 2, how many size 22 models are you walking the runway with? How many of your colleagues are about your size?

Are you aware of that anorexia is a serious illness. Obesity is not illness. They are not antonyms.
Are you aware that people call people fighting to survive anorexia "brave" and "courageous" and have all the sympathy in the world for them, but people who fight to survive their overeating are called gross, disgusting and needing to blame themselves for the consequences of their illness, they are told to have some self-discipline and "just" exercise and diet and stop whining and complaining about "fat shaming". Because "if they seriously didn't want to be bullied, they'd change themselves".

So - when I'm calling you anorexic, on one hand I'm pretending to be a doctor, but on the other hand I'm saying I fear you are seriously ill and it's high time to do something about that before it gets worse.

When you are calling me fat, it can be just stating the facts. That it's totally irrelevant, uninteresting and a fact I'm well aware of, doesn't make it any less true. But it is also possible that what you are actually saying is "you are ugly and gross and disgusting and I believe you are lazy, dirty and unhealthy, and you will cost me money and how dare you to show yourself in public and promote obesity! You should get fit and skinny and stop hurting my eyes!"

It's really not the same thing, is it?

If I tell you to gain weight, you can tell me to lose weight.

What do you even know about being fat and how "easy" and "just do it" it is to start exercising and dieting, and all the complex physiological and psychological issues involved in losing weight? You say you are "naturally long and thin", which means that you have always been "long and thin" and never anything else. You have never worked one minute for your body to be "model size". So next time someone tells you to eat a cheeseburger, tell them "yes, please, just bring it!".

Now, Cassi... When it comes to human beings, we are kind of programmed to think "a woman cannot be too thin". But we are not programmed to think like that about pets. Are you aware of that there are these pictures showing how to see if your pet is too thin or too fat? We could talk about emaciated and obese.

Are you aware of that this goes for all animals. Even human animals.
"In humans, the overall physical appearance of emaciation includes a thinning of the limbs, upper body and buttocks to an almost skeletal-seeming state with an apparent absence of fat and muscle tone. The face is thin and drawn with a hopeless, vacant and distressed demeanor; the eye sockets are sunken, giving the eyes a bulging appearance. The scalp is bony with dry, withering hair that is lacking. On the torso, the collar bone, chest bone and ribs are quite pronounced"
The following is a visual demonstration of this using photos of emaciated women.

If your shoulder joint, elbow joint and wrist joint are the widest parts of your arms, you are too thin.
The same way, if you knees and ankle joints are the widest part of your legs, and the inner curve of the thighs goes inwards creating the "desirable thigh gap", you are too thin

If your buttocks go in and not out, you are too thin
If your scapulae, ribs and backbone is visible through your skin, you are too thin
If one can see your sternum, you are too thin. Visible collarbones and ribs are not worrying, but the sternum is.

Women's face doesn't show it as well in the early stages, as can be seen in the concentration camp victims... maybe we are just used to see the slightly emaciated face as "normal"... But this is Rachael Farrokh, a very brave woman, who had the courage to go open about her illness. In the picture left she is of normal weight, very beautiful. Something made her believe she was fat and needed to "lose a couple of pounds". In the picture right she weighs "40-something pounds"...
But there are some signs to look at. The "dimples" on your forehead. The visible eye socket. Sunken cheeks. Narrowing nose. The area around your mouth "dries up".

So, let's look at some famous women.

Angelina Jolie. Too thin.

Keira Knightley. Looks totally fine to me. Yes, she's skinny, but not too skinny.


Rachel Zoe. Too thin.

Nicole Richie. Not too thin.

Isabelle Caro. Too thin.

Isabelle and Angelina are great examples of this, because both of these women looked very different earlier. 

Calista Flockhart - not too thin

So... Cassi...
In this photo you look a lot skinnier than in the earlier photos.
I can see sunken cheeks. I can see the changes on your face. I can see your large elbows and knees. I can see how the inner curve of your thighs is "wrong".
I'm not saying you are anorectic. I hope not. But you look too thin in this photo, and being too thin is just as bad for your health as being too heavy.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Funny...

A person wrote a list about time management tricks. She put on the headline "5 Time management tricks I learned from years of hating Tim Ferriss" and a lot of people got "offended"...

This happened 2009 and the comments have been closed for years now, but there are some of the comments I'd like to comment :-D

"Here’s a quick a fast rule on who to listen to:
I come to this blog and read tons of negativity supporting more negativity.
I go to Tim’s blog and there is endless positivity supporting more positivity.
Tim strikes me as a likable guy."

I'm sure. Like most narcissists.
But what you ARE saying that to you it's more important that a person is charming than what he says.
I do hope you stop saying that you appreciate honesty and hate liars, because you don't.

Likability is not a good thing to use to decide whom to listen to.


"Tim is positive. Penelope is often negative. Shoot by adding this comment I am probably increasing her readership. This article wasn’t that good about saving time, I’ve read better."

Perhaps that blog entry wasn't about "saving time"... but about what Penelope has learned about time management from hating Tim Ferriss... Maybe you might need to pay more attention to the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE?

"I suppose there is a market for negativity – which is a shame."

Looks to me you attract more idiots with positivity :-D

But... you have read two articles by Penelope and both were defined by you as "negative"... and so you decide she's "negative", and she's being negative to get more readers...
while you agree with people bashing her for her "negativity" - which indicates that you - among other people - find "negativity" as negative :-D
And then you are assuming that your very negative assessment of Penelope and her reasons to be "negative" are correct, and state it's a "shame"... which is a very negative thing to say :-D

"there is diminishing value and return in spending time on stuff like this"

Try to remember that. There's usually a storm in a waterglass going on. And that storm is not Penelope's... it's those people's who are reacting "rebuttingly" to the "hatred" and "negativity"

"Firstly, Would you say, Penelope, that this was an efficient use of blog space and personal time?"

I think she wouldn't have written it otherwise.

"To what end?"

To people who actually reads what she writes and are not "offended" by her "hatred and negativity", she gives five very good rules on time management.

"one thing he certainly does not seem to spend much time on is criticism of particular people"

His life, his choice. Nothing to do with Penelope.

"What does anyone gain from ‘hatred’?
That’s a strong word, used too lightly here.
Hatred? Really?
Not ‘dislike’? Not ‘my issues with Tim’s views’ but YEARS of HATING?"


Perhaps she really hates him. Who are you to call her a liar?

"I’ve heard Tim debate and criticize, but ‘hate’ is NOT a word I can recall him using."


Again, what does that have to do with this?

"It’s not even necessary for it to be a part of your common usage."

Perhaps, but maybe it's the best word to correctly describe what is going on.

"At the request of Tony Robbins, I began eliminating many negative words like this I used often."

Good for you. But do you know you are namedropping?

"Humans are flawed, we are not yet perfect."

Aha...

"I don’t hate you"

good for you.

"Tellingly, an above linked similar article has disappeared from that blog, (‘why I dislike Tim Ferriss’)
Change of heart?"


How would Penelope know why a blog entry Shelley Delayne linked in her comment has disappeared? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the whole blog has disappeared? Perhaps that has nothing to do with anything related to this, as there are several reasons to why blogs disappear? Perhaps some Tim Ferriss fanboy hacked and hijacked the blog to remove all negativity about Tim Ferriss from the ether? Considering that you comment FOUR YEARS AFTER THE COMMENT?

"What a shame people don’t spend as much effort spreading what they do love rather than what they hate."

What a shame people can't see beyond their own attitudes to recognize the good in something.

"On the subject of posters claiming Tim avoids criticism and champions devotees - Who the hell doesn’t?"

Penelope.

"How many people expend effort communicating with haters, other than to defend themselves or return that hate in kind?"

Quite a lot, actually. Most of them try to tell the "haters" how wrong and negative they are for hating and how they really don't have time responding :-D 

Frankly, one of the comments was very good:
"When I see or hear someone going on about positivity and negativity, I pay attention only long enough to confirm my suspicion that they thereby avoid any discussion of the content of whatever they’re judging to be positive or negative.
Haven’t been disappointed yet."

"Tim is all about time management for achievement and winning. But there are not trophies or measurements for relationships. There is only that feeling that someone is kind. And good. And truly connected."

"I might beg to differ about not having measures for relationships…having relationships (unless you’re using the term loosely) is the measure."

The one with most relationships wins? I personally prefer quality over quantity.

"So most weeks Tim probably has a 100-hour workweek. It’s just that he’s doing things he likes, so he lies to you and says he only works four hours. He defines work only as doing what you don’t like.
It’s childish. It’s a childish, semantic game. And it reminds me of him winning the Chinese National Kickboxing Championships by leveraging a little-known rule that people are disqualified if they stop outside the box. So he pushed each of his opponents outside the box to win.
He is winning the I-work-less-than-you game with a similarly questionable method: semantics."


"Actually, this just shows he had a better understanding of the competition than did his opponents. If his opponents were so great, then they should be able to stop some amateur from pushing them around. Not being able to do so only speaks to their lack of skill. A champion fighter would not make excuses, but would instead figure out a way to beat Tim’s pushing tactic.
Remember when Indiana Jones shot the guy with the swords? Same deal – Indy was just plain smarter."


So he's smart. And? That's not being discussed, though. Penelope is not telling anyone not to like Tim or not to like his books, or not to buy them, or not to be his fan boy. She's not saying Tim is stupid or anything of the sort.
So if you want to cheat your way to victory, go ahead. I appreciate people who win fair and square more than cheaters, how ever intelligent.

Nevertheless, "Prior to his writing career, Ferriss claimed that he became the national champion in the 1999 USAWKF Sanshou (Chinese kickboxing) championship through a process of shoving opponents out of the ring and by starving himself before weign in to compete several classes below his actual weight, although this has never been verified and no public record of this event exists. In fact, the news and results section of the 1999 USAWKF webpage reveals no mention at all of Tim Ferriss competing in any of their tournaments. Likewise, an extensive archive of results in a variety of Chinese kickboxing disciplines, dating from 1999 to present, reveals no mention of Tim Ferriss."
Oops...

Wikipedia claims Marvin Perry was the 1999 USAWKF San Shou National Champion

"I don’t think he’s tried to pass himself off as a GREAT guy, (he lambasted himself over outsourcing his dating life) but this article doesn’t do him justice. To be honest lady, Tim Ferriss is the ONLY REASON I FOUND YOU.
Hater."


This whole article is about Penelope hating Tim. Calling her a "hater" is sort of superfluous, don't you think :-D

Also, she didn't say even once that Tim tries to pass himself off as a GREAT guy.  
She is explaining why SHE hates Tim.
She isn't telling you to hate him, or not read/buy/like his books, or that Tim isn't saying anything worthwhile.
 
This is what she says about Tim:
She hates him.
"how difficult he is"
"Tim is great at accelerated learning"
"Tim was brilliant to start this book marketing trend" (even though some of his tactics are questionable)
"I knew Tim, sort of" (well enough to have his phone number and being in talking terms)
(he's full of sh*t and self-centered)
(he's a spammer who doesn't respect other people's time)
"Tim got to where he is by being an insanely hard worker. I don’t know anyone who worked harder at promoting a book than he did."
"Tim does not excel in [relationships]"
"Tim is all about time management for achievement and winning"
"Tim is not [kind], [good] [And truly connected].

So, how well do you know him? Through his books and blog? Have you had a cup of coffee with him? Do you have his telephone number?


"to stumble upon a professional who I am supposed to trust, personally and publicly slating another only highlights the reasons why I wouldn’t work with you or trust your professional judgement"

Ok, that's your choice. Again, don't say you appreciate honesty :-D

"This post isn’t even comparable to a professional disagreement that has gotten out of hand"


It's not supposed to be, because this is not about a professional disagreement, and it has not gotten out of hand.

"it appears that this is a post thrown out there as a result of your own insecurity and upset"

Doesn't appear like that to me at all. "Upset" perhaps. Now, you need to ask yourself the question, why is Penelope upset? And so upset that she decided to write this blog entry she has avoided writing for TWO YEARS. This is not a question of insecurity, professional envy and jealousy.

"I do not know why you dislike Tim"
Funny, as that is what this blog entry is about. Perhaps you need to read it?

But to tell you what she says: she hates him because he doesn't respect other people's time or plans, he is an a-hole, full of sh*t and self-centered, he's focused on winning and doesn't mind bending rules, finding loopholes and lying to win, and he uses time management to win more and he doesn't care about people. She's not angry, she hates him. She uses the word "hate" several times in the post, it's OK to say she hates him.

"There is nothing brave nor admirable about this negativity."

Why should there be? But considering that quite a many commenters are whining about "negativity", and you are saying you would not hire her because of her "negativity", it is very brave and admirable for her to speak her truth. Her message is not to bash Tim Ferriss, but to share the time management tricks she learned having Tim as her acquintance. She's not talking about his books or what he is telling people.
She is saying:
1.Don’t hang out with people who don’t respect your time
2.Cut to the chase: Tell people who are full of sh*t that they’re full of sh*t
3.Self-centered people are more likely to waste your time
4.Productivity is about meeting your goals, not getting out of doing work
5.Time management is about making time to connect with people
That was made very clear by her stating her intention in the subject line and bolding these five time management tricks, so that you can get straight to those without being bothered by her hatred of Tim Ferriss.
But I suppose you missed that.

"I hope you feel better soon and learn to turn your anger into a more neutral, less hormonal teenage like state, for your sake."
Passive aggressive :-D So you're not negative, Elle?


"His methods are different than just about anyone else’s and his ethics surrounding those methods may be different than yours, but does that mean that what he teaches is worthless?"
Did Penelope say it is? No.

"Even if he was a “do as I say, not as I do” type of person, does that mean we shouldn’t listen and tease out what works for us?"
Did Penelope say you shouldn't? No.

"Even though I don’t live my life or agree with some of the choices Penelope makes or has made, does that mean I don’t have something to learn by reading her work?"
Did she say there's nothing to be learned by reading Tim's work? No

"While we would hope that someone who writes work that helps people does so selflessly and has other very positive attributes, why can’t we just take the work at face value and let the guy be who he is."
Is she trying to change him? No. Is she telling he shouldn't be the way he is? No. She is saying she hates the guy and why. She isn't telling you to hate him.

"His ideas have been pretty thoroughly argued against by people who disagreed with them already, but his personality is not really relevant to that process."
Agreed. But Penelope isn't talking about his ideas. She is talking about what she learned about time management by HIS PERSONALITY. And his personality is pretty relevant to that process.


"Tim Ferriss certainly has a lot of time to make sock puppet accounts. It must be because of his four-hour work week."

You need to reread this blog entry. Penelope isn't talking about sock puppets. She said "...told him to tell his employees to stop spamming my blog. First he implied it was his fan base..."
His employees and fan base are real people. Not Tim Ferriss pretending to be someone else. Perhaps you aren't really aware what a sock puppet is?


"...you are finding inspiration in this low ball writing, that does not speak well for you.."
"This is the most worthless piece of writing that I have ever seen"
"but then you did mention that we should call things for what they are. This is b**t"

Actually, it speaks well for Mark for actually getting what Penelope is saying. Reread the article and ONLY THE HIGHLIGHTED PARTS OF IT.

And your comment is still on... I suppose Penelope IS just as fair and open as she seems to be. But I won't expect you to acknowledge that :-D

"a post by a blogger who has dedicated a post to her personal hate that stemmed from admitted jealousy"
Er... her hate doesn't stem from "admitted jealousy".

"...also, his book, The 4-Hour Workweek, was a bestseller and mine wasn’t. So I figured people would say that I’m jealous. And really, what author is not jealous sometimes? I mean, every author wants to write a bestseller. But at this point, two years later, my hatred goes way beyond jealousy".
All the things she says about him are about him and not about his popularity or work. Her personal hate stems from Tim Ferriss being a selfish a-hole. And this post stems from that admitted hatred, not jealousy.

"Dude – you’re clearly jealous that his books is way better than yours."
Have you read her book? I don't think you have.
Being a best-seller is not synonymous to "better than". Just think about Twilight, 50 shades of grey and Da Vinci Code.



"Well, interesting. I’m amused by how many commenters, not knowing Tim, nor having read his book, are judging him on the basis of your OPINION."

Well, firstly, she is telling her opinion as someone who knows the man. That counts higher than an opinion of someone who has read his book. You learn more about a person by having a cup of coffee with him than by reading a book he's written.

Secondly, most of us know who Tim Ferriss is and have formed an opinion on him already. Based on what HE says and does and claims. Which can be seen by some people saying "I agree with you" and some others saying "you're just a jealous, hateful, negative bitch", totally based on their opinion on the man.

Thirdly, quite a lot of us have actually read his book. The majority, actually. Which is expressed. So "many commenters" is a bit of an exaggeration... "Some" might be more accurate.

Of course this blog entry - just as your comment - says more about the author than the object :-D

This blog entry tells me that Penelope doesn't appreciate aggressive marketing using any means available, and she doesn't appreciate people using other people as means. I agree with her.

Your comment tells me you think you're smart, and you think everyone else, especially people who disagree with you, are gullible sheep. You have difficulties in understanding what you read and you are not very good at expressing yourself, even when you read a lot and have quite a lot to say, mainly because you think you're witty and sarcastic, and think everything you can think of is too brilliant to leave unsaid. Which makes your opinion hard to understand.
And you created an opinion on Penelope by this blog entry, even though you haven't read her book, her blog or had a cup of coffee with her. :-D

Saturday, February 28, 2015

How to critisize Israel without antisemitism

Because that's what it's really about, isn't it... It's not that there are people who would call any critical said about Israel antisemitic...

1)  Don't use the word "Jew" or "Judaism" in any form or shape. Don't refer to the Jews or anything Jewish at all.

(But then I can't speak of Israel!)

Of course you can. All that takes is understanding that Israel is a country. Just another state among the dozens of others. Not a Jewish state. A state. As simple as that.

When a state violates human rights, people's religion, ethnicity or identity is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they identify themselves as Jews or Palestinians, or Muslims, or Arabs. The main point here is and should remain so - that a human being is violating another human being's rights.

2) Avoid generalization.

3) Don't start referring to history and historical events, especially events of which veracity is questionable. You might be 100% convinced of that one version of history is the right one, but if there are several versions of the same history circulating, avoid it. After all, if the violation of human rights is a violation, it will stand on itself, and doesn't need backup from similar events in history. In fact, referring to something like Sabra and Shatila makes your story less credible.

4) Don't speculate about their motifs, or intentions or possible agenda.
Even if you are convinced of that the Jews are trying to take over the world, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a true documentary and a warning to the world about Jews, even if you believe that there is a Jewish block or Israel Lobby, or Zionist agenda, even when you are absolutely certain of that Israel is trying to kill all the Palestinians, or at least make their lives a living hell, so that they will give up and go die somewhere else.

5) Avoid the use of inflammatory words like murder, genocide, torture, terrorism, concentration camp, etc. Even if you are 100% certain of that a crime has been committed, one of the Western civilization's ground pillars is "innocent until proven guilty".
Also, it is much easier to actually listen to people who say "1000 children have lost their lives in the Israel-Palestine conflict" than "the murderous Zionist bastards have slaughtered 1000 innocent Palestinian children!!!"
In the first case I can focus on the horrible fact of 1000 lives being lost, and start working toward finding solutions to that not one more child needs to die.
In the second case I think "Oh, it's those people whining again... I'm sure there's not even one real victim, and if there was, that was probably killed by his/her own people." and have no whatsoever inclination to discuss with you.
Try to say something similar but about the other side. How much would YOU listen to a pro-Israeli saying "those dirty little terrorists have again caused the death of 1000 children" compared to a person saying "1000 children have lost their lives in the Israel-Palestine conflict".

In the Israel-Palestine discussion some words have become code words to include all the antisemitism, and should thus be avoided in order to avoid misconception (here being, that you are an antisemite), and those are Zionism, Israel lobby and IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces. The correct name of Israel's army is Israeli Defense Forces. You don't need to agree, just use the correct abbreviation.). (I can't remember more right now, but I will add them, when I encounter them.)

If you cannot say what you have to say without using these words, then what you have to say is probably not worth saying - or it's antisemitic... >:->

6) Say what you have to say by changing the words you use of states, nations, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc. from Israel, Jewish, Israeli, Jew, Judaism to something that you are very passionately for. Like Palestine, Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and see how you would feel if someone pro-Israeli would say the same about Palestine and Palestinian. If you would feel OK with that version, OK with the chosen words etc. then say it. If you feel any uneasiness or suspicion, change some words.
Really, if you could say what you say about Israel-Palestine conflict about any other conflict on this planet (and there really are several going on all the time) without feeling that that way of saying things sounds prejudiced or bigoted or racist, go ahead. It probably is all clean of antisemitism.

But if you think the Israel-Palestine conflict is DIFFERENT than the rest of the conflicts on this planet, or that Israel is in any way DIFFERENT from all the other states on this planet, then you probably are at least somewhat antisemitic.  

If you STILL find it hard to understand how to criticize Israel without antisemitism, here's more pointers: How to Criticize Israel Without Being Anti-Semitic

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Some things I don't understand...

I have been taught that when two parties fight, the blame is on both of them.

I have been taught to doublecheck, verify, question everything, search for more information, and not just believe everything I read on the internet.
People have agendas. People use propaganda. People lie. People deceive.
Some do it intentionally, some unknowing.
People share stories they have heard the way they understood them.
People share snippets of information and try to understand the world using these pieces as pieces of a puzzle.
People have theories and try to fit the data to support those theories.
People have beliefs, people have triggers, people have shadows, memories, baggage, filters.
People are wearing, if not pink glasses, then some kind of shades or glasses, that color everything they see, and make some things invisible and some things claring.
People make conclusions and then share these conclusions, and they might be correct and they might be not.
That sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes wrong. That the fact that "everyone says so", doesn't say anything about the veracity of the claim.

I have been taught that everyone is innocent until proven guilty; that it's better to let a crook walk than hang an innocent; that nothing is simple and self-evident - that we cannot know why people do things they do, because we are not those people, and we don't even know why WE do the things we do. That in order to be able to judge someone, one must walk in that person's boots. I have been taught that everything is connected. EVERYTHING is connected with everything else. We cannot just lift up one event in the history of mankind or individual human beings and use that to explain anything.

I have been taught that all the people are people, equal, react the same way, have the same principal values etc. That human brains are hardwired to work in a specific way, and they do, in every human being. I have been taught that this human quality is stronger than any cultural, ethnic, religious or other form of conditioning. That there might be individual differences, but as a group, humans are alike.
For example, most parents love their children, and children love their parents.
Life is precious.
One may not harm living beings that are weaker. A child's life is more precious than an adult's life.
People do what they think is the best for the group they belong in, and the size of the group starts with this planet and everything living on this, and then gets smaller and smaller, from humankind and nation to family and oneself.

Now, what I cannot understand is, how do people who agree on these theses to be true in most other events and circumstances, suddenly stop believing in this when the even and circumstances is Israel-Palestine conflict? So much so that they would rather stop talking to you all together than trying to understand how you see the situation.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

More whining

When you "repurpose" furniture - take something old and give it a "face lift", "make-over", restore it, what ever you call it, the idea is to take something that isn't very nice - perhaps never were - and make it useful, beautiful, nice.

There are hundreds of crafty ladies out there, taking something old and making something new and nice from it. I think it's wonderful and amazing, really, that these women take something worn out, with chipped veneer, broken bits - or something boring and rather ugly, like pine furniture from 70's, when "rustic" made "baroque and not in a nice way".

I like most of the things done here: reuse, repurpose and upcycle

Like this one:

It's a real pity that who ever had the side board before, didn't take care of it, but in this case, the renewing has succeeded, and one can still enjoy the beautiful woodwork.

But when these ladies take something that has only the fault that it's old, or that it's wooden, and the lady in question wants to paint everything, and that means that she covers beautiful wood intarsia or grain with thick layer of paint - or even worse, practices all kinds of painting techniques, like fake wood grain or marble; cracking paint or "aging", "antiquing", "distressing" with different methods... 

Here are some of my favorite NO! moments.

Take a rather beautiful wooden coffee table, paint it cobolt blue and add fake - and not especially nicely done - wood graining in black in the middle. Yikes.

 This just makes me really, really sad. :-(

This one... well... she didn't ruin anything beautiful, but the outcome looks pretty awful, I think.

This makes me angry.
Sure, the veneer is chipped, rather badly in one place, but there are ways to fix that. The wood grain is really beautiful, and the color is wonderful.

Rocking chair - what bothers me with this is that when she ripped off the old upholstery, she didn't bother looking carefully how it was done, so her new upholstery doesn't look neat. Also, I hate the use of burlap. The paint job isn't that well made either.