Fitbit and Starbucks feel the wrath of rabid social justice warriors
Corporate marketing execs clamour to catch the next big trend and run with it. They want to sell an image, a lifestyle, and look compassionate and caring while they do it. That’s what makes Fitbit’s latest move so surprising, and Starbucks’ approach so predictable.
Fitness tracker Fitbit’s failure to fabricate gender categories for nonbinary females using the “female health tracker” engendered a freakout from Twitter user Lilo the Autistic Queer. She wanted the app to facilitate period tracking but didn’t fancy claiming femaleness to do it.
The media’s efforts to glorify morbid obesity as “beauty” and the push for the so-called Health At Every Size (HAES) and body positivity movements have been met with resistance from fitness guru Jillian Michaels and others in the fitness scene. The latest influencer to take on the unhealthy lifestyle, Xiaxue, is now the subject of social media cancellation after she spoke out against the horrendous practice.
The popular Singaporean YouTuber and influencer, whose real name is Wendy Cheng, mocked the unhealthy standard after a post glorifying a morbidly obese model trended on Instagram.
“It’s one thing to be chubby or fat but this is way past that. Most morbidly obese people don’t live past 40. They gorge themselves with 30 burgers a day and when they inevitably get a clogged artery or diabetes taxpayers have to help foot their medical bills when their health conditions are entirely caused by their irresponsible behavior,” she wrote. “Disgusting. The morbidly obese (like this woman) should never have been seen as attractive because death and disease isn’t attractive full stop. Irresponsibility isn’t attractive.”
“Even when they die [they] need 3 [people] to carry the corpse please,” she joked. “Fucking stop glorifying this shit @instagram, shame on you.”
The post, which was widely reported by offended social justice activists, was deleted by Instagram for harassment. Fat activists are now mocking Xiaxue for undergoing plastic surgery and have called upon each other to report her account in an effort to suspend her.
Xiaxue has continued to call out morbid obesity in a series of posts and videos decrying the Instagram community’s double standards in enforcing its harassment policy. In screenshotted DMs, Xiaxue captured the vitriol sent to her by numerous social justice activists, many of which called her “fatphobic.”
“Skinny people die from stroke and diseases too lmao. I hope u die one day,” wrote one user named soft.sapphire.
Explaining herself, Xiaxue wrote that she wasn’t “fat shaming” anyone and that she was expressing concern about the glorification of morbid obesity.
“What concerns me is that the media is constantly glorifying morbid obesity, trying to say it’s perfectly attractive (which we all know it isn’t). It’s fine to have an eating disorder. But we don’t glorify anorexia as being sexy so why the other end of the spectrum? Both are really unhealthy,” she wrote. “If you see your friend get addicted to smoking which will slowly kill him will you tell him his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable and his behavior is beautiful? No, you tell him to stop or reduce. So why isn’t it OK to say that morbidly obese people should not obstinately be PROUD of their size and should do something about it?”
“It’s OK to love and accept someone whatever size they are, but being the rough size and shape of Jupiter should NOT be glorified,” Xiaxue continued. “If people cannot get the difference and think this is the same as fat shaming then so be it, I refuse to pretend that being so big you can’t even get out of bed and you can’t even wipe your own arse is fine and dandy because it’s disgusting and unhealthy.”
Xiaxue continued in a separate post: “Why is it my business and why must I be so mean? Why can’t I let these people be deluded and happy? Because I don’t think we should encourage obesity, which is a disease. I think people weighing 500lbs should go on a freaking diet instead of living in a delusion held up by enablers that the fatter they are the ‘braver’ they are and the more beautiful they are,” she said. “They need to know the truth and that is that people aren’t ‘fatphobic’ if they find obesity unattractive. It’s natural to want to breed with healthy people to ensure the survival of your kids. No matter how you try to drum the beauty of obesity into our minds, it will never work.”
“So stop lying to yourself. You are being selfish [because] you want to look kind online and feel good about being ‘nice.’ But your lies are harming people,” she concluded.
As I’ve previously written on Twitter, there’s no such thing as “fatphobia.” It’s just another one of those terms designed to pathologize the natural dislike of obesity as a form of mental illness—as if you’re abnormal for preferring fitness and health.
The postmodern left uses science-y sounding faux clinical terms designed to validate and normalize unhealthy lifestyles, degeneracy and inhumanity while disenfranchising decency as a “social construct”—as if what they promote aren’t social constructs from a counter-narrative.
There are firm biological foundations to preexisting social constructs—fitness primary among them. If you’re physically and/or mentally unfit, you’re a burden to society and everyone around you. Period.
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s personal troubles are celebrated by his detractors. After his daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, opened up about the difficulties her father faced during this past year, a torrent of ill-wishes were released to social media.
A data scientist, engineer and social justice activist had this to say: “do I think he deserves sympathy despite him not extending it to others? Also no.”
Peterson’s legacy is evident in just how many people have been helped by his work. His message is simple, to take charge of yourself and your life, to avoid being controlled by aimless desire, and if you don’t know where to start, begin by cleaning your room.
A professor of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa also prefers to show no sympathy. Here’s hoping he doesn’t teach ethics.
Peterson’s message is one that so many who hear it can relate to, and he’s travelled the world speaking to sold-out audiences. His views are rooted in western ideas, stem from our most ancient myths and legends, and embrace the Christian hero story of self-sacrifice as the ultimate strength.
A writer for the Toronto Guardian had this to say.
Some guy with the Twitter username “im nice” who fancies himself a comedian had this to say:
Peterson has been vilified by detractors in media and the public at large about as much as he has been praised. The reasons behind this are that people don’t like to hear that relativism is not the best way to live life. People who are mired in our contemporary driving philosophy of meaninglessness, that no one way to live is better than any other, that no one choice is a better or worse choice than another, don’t want to listen to someone who says that the hard work of life is worth doing.
Yet a podcaster, community organizer, and author from Quebec City wishes eternal damnation on Jordan Peterson.
Peterson says that the idea that we should accept ourselves as we are is misguided, because at our core, we’re all probably monsters. He brings up the genocides and massacres of the 20th century as proof, invoking the memoirs of concentration camp guards to show that any of us are capable of the most horrific of human actions. None of us are safe from our own worst, or best, impulses. He holds us all accountable to ourselves, to each other, and to the people we love. He speaks about marriage as a relationship that must be nurtured and tended, not abandoned. Peterson recommends that you don’t let your kids turn into unlikeable children.
Not everyone wished him harm, and some pushed back.
Through podcasts, books, speaking engagements, interviews, and YouTube videos, he talks about how essential it is that we each take on our own hero’s journey. He brings up the legend of King Arthur’s knights, recommending that we must seek our journey in the dark place—meaning we must face our fears, not so that we can overcome them, but so that we can know that we are afraid and act bravely in the face of those fears. One very real place where this approach can be made is in the face of addiction. There is perhaps nothing more difficult than kicking an addiction that has you in its teeth.
On addiction and physical dependence, Peterson can speak from experience. That he has this understanding makes his message that much stronger. How trite it is to hear from a teetotaller who has never touched a drop that we should give up the hard stuff. Where it has more power is coming from someone who has been there before us, whether they’ve beaten the addiction or not.
The calls for Peterson’s head on a spike came from the contemporary left, which is a movement that mirrors the heavy-handed vitriol that we used to see with the late 20th century right. This moralistic grandstanding on a foundation based entirely on narcissistic pleasure principles is eating itself. An ideology that purports to care for others only cares for those who adhere to the ideology. There is a growing intolerance for disagreement.
Peterson’s struggle to overcome benzodiazepines is so incredibly humanizing and real. It shows us that, in many ways, he is right. We are all capable of losing control, even those among us who are so great at guiding us how not to. Peterson’s all too human struggle can give the rest of us strength to know that we are not alone in ours. The identitarian, intolerant left could do well to face its demons, just as Peterson is facing his.
Joaquin Phoenix was praised for calling out the awards system and production companies for their lack of diversity at the recent British Academy of Film and Television Awards. But when he had the opportunity to make change, all he could do was talk about it. And he wasn’t the only one. Prince William also took to the podium to complain about the whiteness of the BAFTAs, and he should know because he’s been president of the thing for 10 years.
In his acceptance speech at the BAFTAs, Phoenix excoriated the attendees for participating in a white supremacist industry and accepted his own complicity within it. This harkens back to his Golden Globes acceptance speech, where he promised to do more about the environment by wearing the same tux for the entirety of awards season.
At the BAFTAs, his new target was diversity. He thinks the industry needs more of it. If anyone should know about the dangers of identity politics it’s Joaquin Phoenix. His Joker movie and character were both widely smeared as white supremacist/white nationalist dog whistles by the woke, establishment media.
In the days leading up to the movie’s release, politically correct scribes from all over were basically trying to make some sort of tragedy happen at premiere screenings by talking about its possibility endlessly. Think piece after think piece declared that the movie was emblematic of Trump’s America and that screening would attract white nationalist incels who would surely bring guns and mow down innocent civilians. Of course, none of this happened and both the film, and Phoenix, went on to win a ton of awards.
Yet Phoenix thinks that he’s part of the problem, and he used his acceptance speech at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) to say so.
“I feel very honoured and privileged to be here tonight,” he told the assembled crowd. “The BAFTAs have always been very supportive of my career and I’m deeply appreciative. But I have to say that I also feel conflicted because so many of my fellow actors that are deserving don’t have that same privilege. I think that we send a very clear message to people of colour that you’re not welcome here. I think that’s the message that we’re sending to people that have contributed so much to our medium and our industry in ways that we benefit from.
“I don’t think anybody wants a handout or preferential treatment although that’s what we give ourselves every year. I think that people just want to be acknowledged and respected and appreciated for their work. This is not a self-righteous condemnation because I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem. I have not done everything in my power to ensure that the sets I work on are inclusive, but I think it’s more than just having sets that are multicultural, I think that we really have to do the hard work to truly understand systemic racism. I think that it is the obligation of the people that have created and perpetuate and benefit from a system of oppression to dismantle it.”
Wait what? If he really cared about diversity, then why didn’t he give his award to a deserving actor of colour? If his award was granted to him because of his “privilege” then why would he accept it? Dismantle away, Joaquin. You had the perfect opportunity to dismantle the white supremacist heteropatriarchy that benefits you right there from the stage.
Instead, he curtseyed to Prince William, upholding the monarchist patriarchy and breaking down gender stereotypes in one fell swoop.
No artist wants to step back from their achievements and give their platform over to someone else. Phoenix had every right to stand there and accept his award for playing the Joker, and deep down he knows it. Maybe he thinks the part should have gone to someone else, or the film should have been directed or shot by another team. If so, why wait until he’s won all these awards to say so? It’s pretty convenient to suggest dismantling a system that has already delivered him so much success.
Prince William, president of BAFTA, had his own virtue signalling “concerns” about the process: “In 2020, and not for the first time in the last few years,” he said, “we find ourselves talking again about the need to do more for the ensure diversity in the sector and in the awards process. That simply cannot be right in this day and age. BAFTA takes this issue seriously and following this year’s nominations have launched a full and thorough review of the entire awards process to build on their existing work and to ensure that these opportunities are available for everyone.”
The question becomes which thing is more important, that the judges are free to vote for the films they think are the best films or that they vote for films with the right number of skin colours on the production crew? The result that Phoenix and Prince William seem to want is that there should be more people of more backgrounds winning awards and making the content that is nominated. But the problem is that there is no truly fair way to achieve this goal. Every avenue toward creating the desired end results in a process that entrenches censorship and places a higher value on backgrounds of those making the art than the art itself.
Will Prince William seek to uncover unquantifiable, unconscious bias? Or is it just all pandering? If Prince William wanted more awards to go to films helmed by non-white people, why wasn’t that a condition of the awards process? Wouldn’t that be the most effective way to do it?
Wanting something to be different and trying to reverse engineer the conditions so that it will be so is not going to create a fair awards process or equity in production hiring. Seeking out new talent doesn’t require dismantling entire industries, or callouts, it just takes looking around, seeing the good work being done by lots of different people, and bringing them on board. It doesn’t take quota systems or excoriations. It doesn’t even take demands by famous actors or princes who want everyone to know how compassionate they are.
A big problem with the concept of injecting diversity is that it’s not about individuals, it’s not about art, it’s about appearances, it’s about pats on the back for people who want to run awards shows and collect prizes while not feeling bad about their success. Unless, of course, all of this intersectional, identity-politics obsessed virtue signalling isn’t actually about change. Art isn’t about quotas. It’s about conveying essential truths about the human experience. White people bashing themselves for their whiteness won’t open any doors, but at least Prince William and Joaquin Phoenix feel better about giving and receiving awards now. There’s a better way forward. It’s called intellectual honesty.
HBO late-night host Bill Maher shredded Elizabeth Warren’s latest woke antics as “crazy stuff,” asking if she’s running for president of the United States or “running for president of Berkeley.” The liberal comedian’s well-deserved rebuke of Warren shows that her identity politics obsession is reaching such absurd levels that even her own side is rolling their eyes.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate faces this widespread mockery after stating on Jan. 30 that she would delegate her selection of education secretary to a transgender child. Yes, seriously: This sounds like a parody headline in the Onion or the Babylon Bee, but it’s actually real.
Warren promised during a campaign event to select as education secretary “someone who’s taught in a public school,” and assured voters that her selection would be subject to the approval of a “young trans person.” She appears to have been referencing a 9-year-old transgender-identifying child, Jacob, who asked a question during one of the Democratic presidential debates.
She continued: “I’m going to have a Secretary of Education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf, and only if this person believes that our Secretary or Secretary of Education nominee is absolutely committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone will that person actually be advanced to be Secretary of Education.”
This is almost beyond parody.
Yes, Warren is slipping in the polls, and it’s not exactly shocking to see her grasping at straws as her bid for the White House looks increasingly bleak. But to literally promise that you will outsource your cabinet selection to children is a shockingly unserious position for the supposed “policy wonk” candidate to take.
Why not have trans children select the secretary of defence? The vice president? Better yet, Warren could just take a straw poll of her local kindergarten class and see who they think should fill her cabinet.
The transgender aspect of this is almost irrelevant. Transgender or not, trusting the management of the federal government to a literal child is absurd.
There’s also something just oddly inconsistent about Warren’s point. Do all transgender children think the same? Surely not. It’s likely that certain trans children would approve of a nominee while others would not approve of the same nominee. In what universe is the arbitrary chance that a particular token trans child approves of a random nominee at all worthy of being a decisive factor?
This is fantasy land nonsense, straight out of the gender studies department at Berkeley.
I still can’t believe an actual, leading presidential candidate for a major U.S. political party made this statement. Heck, we might as well just make the trans child president at this point. Even a child is likely to be much more sensible than Warren.