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

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)"

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


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."


"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?"


"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."

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.

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