Some commie faggot who does react videos and chair streams from his mansion on Twitch. Seriously he'll pull up a video on a stream to react to, then walk out of the room to cook or something and leave the video playing. And people give him millions of dollars for that. Then he calls his audience losers.
How is obesity progress? Look, if you like big women then fine. If you are obese and happy fine. Stop trying to push the idea that being overweight is normal. There is a reason there are stereotypes of beauty. Doesn’t mean everyone finds the same thing beautiful but notice who gets hired to model products in a non woke world
The fashion industry is run by women and homosexuals and their target audience is women and homosexuals. As such, their marketing is designed to appeal to female insecurity and woke trends, and since most modern woke women are average looking at best and in many cases downright ugly, this marketing works by appealing to their vanity and making them feel better about themselves.
Nobody in the fashion industry actually cares about what men find attractive. If they did, the covers would look very different and they wouldn't use fashion models that are either malnourished stick figures or obese slobs.
Until recently, there were two institutions that defined real peak beauty: Victoria’s Secret ads and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition. Both featured fit young women with large and perky breasts, pleasing hip-to-waist ratios, long and naturally colored hair, and feminine facial features.
These beauty standards have not changed. The women who dominate instagram, TikTok, and only fans still follow these standards completely with the sole exception of the hair stuff. Our institutions reject and replace these standards because leftists have deliberately subverted our culture.
Women on Instagram, TikTok and OnlyFans depend on male viewers for their income, so it makes sense that they'd go where the money is.
On the other hand, our institutions consider masculinity toxic (because men are naturally less gullible, more independent and more skeptical of authority) so they do everything in their power to marginalize men. One way they do this is by promoting beauty standards that do not appeal to men.
Yet another example of how the Left is in denial of reality.
Think about it. Male models are genetically constructed to become assassins. They’re in peak physical condition. They can gain entry to the most secure places in the world. Most important of all, models don’t think for themselves. They do as they’re told. Just think about any photo shoot you’ve ever been on. You’re a monkey. Dance, monkey, in your little spangly shoes! Mash your cymbals, chimpy! Dance!
Humans evolving into The Blob is evolution, certainly, but not all evolution is necessarily "progressive", and there's no such thing as an "evolutionary ladder", either. Knowing that, however, doesn't make one any less disgusted at human evolution's current trajectory.
Thankfully, freedom of association comes with freedom FROM association, right? Right?
I can't look at a Chihuahua and say, yap that is progress. Although it probably made them a lot more adaptable, I still don't like them.
You just can't compare a Czechoslovakian Wolfdog to a chihuahua and say, yap that rat dog thing is progress.
That's what I mean. It's evolution, but it isn't necessarily "progress". It just works for Chihuahuas for now, because they are human symbionts, and as such, are more likely to be found in human habitats than big ol' wolfdogs (though there is one in my neighbourhood, lovely fellow.)
But take away the humans, and chihuahuas will have to compete with actual rats in order to survive, and will probably lose.
You also have mental evolution, but that's pretty much invisible unless you see the behavioural changes happening (see the difference between urban and rural raccoons.)
Yep, they were huge where I'm from (city used to have a rat problem, before the skunks moved in; at which time the city decided it was best to just live-trap and rabies-shot the skunks and let them handle the rats. They're territorial, so would keep out unvaxxed rural skunks.)
And rats are smarter than chihuahuas. Hell, I'm not entirely sure that NYC rats haven't figured out how to use electrical fires for to herd humans. It would be interesting to see if rat-caused fires don't happen more often in places with lots of food. But then, you'd expect rats to be where the food is, so. The point is, it's a way to clear out the humans while they collect what they can. Kind of like hunter-gatherer humans setting fires to the woods to flush out whatever they can catch.
It had popular support. At least skunks warn you when they're around, and the passive smell isn't so offensive. Well, I guess it depends - you find out who the weed smokers are, by who can tolerate it. :) And it's better than big angry ROUSes.
The cognitive dissonance of dog mommies is staggering. They can clearly see the heritability of behaviors, physical characteristics, and IQ, all in a carefully controlled long term experiment we call dog breeding. And yet these people refuse to acknowledge any such dynamic in human evolution.
One of my professors once said that it's a huge mistake to believe that evolution is progress or that evolution produces a "better" creature. Evolution is simply the process by which living things become more adapted at living in their particular environment. See the example of the naked molerat that has basically lost its vision. Does that make it a "better" creature? No, it's just highly adapted to its environment.
So what does it say about our environment that we're evolving into sickly blobfish with mental health issues?
In the past, smarter people had better odds at keeping their legs closed to avoid deadly STDs ( monogamy ), and a stable couple keeps enough of their kids alive to help around the farm to have happy, balanced lives.
They had a big medium term incentive ( help on the farm ) and a long term one to have people care for them in old age, often the one or two kids that stayed single among the 4+ kids who survived infancy.
I saw this in many families in my grandparents generation. The forever single ones ( either socially anxious ou closet gays ) maintained the family farm, cared for their old parents and sometimes watched over nieces and nefews, one of which eventually getting the farm.
Now those incentives are long, long gone, so smart people have it in their interest to not have kids, leaving a sense of duty or future fear of loneliness as motivations to reproduce. So 0, 1 or 2 kids, because more gets in the way of all the distractions of modern life people now focus on.
While stupid people who have no sense of delaying gratification are the ones having more kids ( when they don't abort them all ).
Predilictions - including behavioural ones - are evolutionary. It's just that "fat and lazy" has been allowed to express itself better, with less fear of being cast out, physically or sexually, than ever before since the advent of the car.
See the difference is the 1992 people will make each gender question their sexuality at least once, the 2022 will be first to die, viruses, heatwave, a small ledge, an incline of 20 degrees take your pick.
If you're at the point you're promoting both sexes wear sports bras, you deserve extinction.
How the hell is this progress. Aren't progressives typically humanists? Why the hell would you think it is progress to normalize the degradation of the human body.
I'm pretty sure the one on the right is a man. See, the weight is in the gut where it should be in the bust and ass on a woman. Plus the theme is clearly trans.
Hasan Piker energy.
They're rebranding as Calvin Deklein
Who is that?
Some commie faggot who does react videos and chair streams from his mansion on Twitch. Seriously he'll pull up a video on a stream to react to, then walk out of the room to cook or something and leave the video playing. And people give him millions of dollars for that. Then he calls his audience losers.
That dude's profile pic and the tweet made me think of him. I only know him via Mauler and also The Candyman is going to kill him IN REAL LIFE.
Well he's not wrong there.
He also said the US deserved 9/11 and fucks that retard Pokimane
Ohhh. Ok I’ve heard of him but forgot the name. Thanks.
What did mauler say about Hasan?
https://youtu.be/7jkk0z5HC94 Here is where most of it can be found. There are labeled chapters for you to navigate. Strap in.
How is obesity progress? Look, if you like big women then fine. If you are obese and happy fine. Stop trying to push the idea that being overweight is normal. There is a reason there are stereotypes of beauty. Doesn’t mean everyone finds the same thing beautiful but notice who gets hired to model products in a non woke world
The fashion industry is run by women and homosexuals and their target audience is women and homosexuals. As such, their marketing is designed to appeal to female insecurity and woke trends, and since most modern woke women are average looking at best and in many cases downright ugly, this marketing works by appealing to their vanity and making them feel better about themselves.
Nobody in the fashion industry actually cares about what men find attractive. If they did, the covers would look very different and they wouldn't use fashion models that are either malnourished stick figures or obese slobs.
Until recently, there were two institutions that defined real peak beauty: Victoria’s Secret ads and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition. Both featured fit young women with large and perky breasts, pleasing hip-to-waist ratios, long and naturally colored hair, and feminine facial features.
These beauty standards have not changed. The women who dominate instagram, TikTok, and only fans still follow these standards completely with the sole exception of the hair stuff. Our institutions reject and replace these standards because leftists have deliberately subverted our culture.
Women on Instagram, TikTok and OnlyFans depend on male viewers for their income, so it makes sense that they'd go where the money is.
On the other hand, our institutions consider masculinity toxic (because men are naturally less gullible, more independent and more skeptical of authority) so they do everything in their power to marginalize men. One way they do this is by promoting beauty standards that do not appeal to men.
Yet another example of how the Left is in denial of reality.
They'd all look like slightly slimmer Ivy Lebelles
Well put. I never looked at it that way. But you are right
Is that Marky Mark on the left?
Yes. He was a male model in the 90s.
I remember hearing this, but never saw him is an ad.
But why male models?
Think about it. Male models are genetically constructed to become assassins. They’re in peak physical condition. They can gain entry to the most secure places in the world. Most important of all, models don’t think for themselves. They do as they’re told. Just think about any photo shoot you’ve ever been on. You’re a monkey. Dance, monkey, in your little spangly shoes! Mash your cymbals, chimpy! Dance!
. . . . But why male models?
For women. "Hey ladies, your man could look like this if he wears our underwear!"
I came here to ask the same thing, lol.
When did CK begin making clothes for fat people?
Maybe they still don't. That stuff on the right looks pretty ill-fitting.
What are we progressing to?
Humans evolving into The Blob is evolution, certainly, but not all evolution is necessarily "progressive", and there's no such thing as an "evolutionary ladder", either. Knowing that, however, doesn't make one any less disgusted at human evolution's current trajectory.
Thankfully, freedom of association comes with freedom FROM association, right? Right?
I can't look at a Chihuahua and say, yap that is progress. Although it probably made them a lot more adaptable, I still don't like them. You just can't compare a Czechoslovakian Wolfdog to a chihuahua and say, yap that rat dog thing is progress.
That's what I mean. It's evolution, but it isn't necessarily "progress". It just works for Chihuahuas for now, because they are human symbionts, and as such, are more likely to be found in human habitats than big ol' wolfdogs (though there is one in my neighbourhood, lovely fellow.)
But take away the humans, and chihuahuas will have to compete with actual rats in order to survive, and will probably lose.
You also have mental evolution, but that's pretty much invisible unless you see the behavioural changes happening (see the difference between urban and rural raccoons.)
City rats are huge and vicious. They would eat those chihuahuas as snacks
Yep, they were huge where I'm from (city used to have a rat problem, before the skunks moved in; at which time the city decided it was best to just live-trap and rabies-shot the skunks and let them handle the rats. They're territorial, so would keep out unvaxxed rural skunks.)
And rats are smarter than chihuahuas. Hell, I'm not entirely sure that NYC rats haven't figured out how to use electrical fires for to herd humans. It would be interesting to see if rat-caused fires don't happen more often in places with lots of food. But then, you'd expect rats to be where the food is, so. The point is, it's a way to clear out the humans while they collect what they can. Kind of like hunter-gatherer humans setting fires to the woods to flush out whatever they can catch.
That was a great idea. Props for the city for doing that. Most would just throw money at it with no change.
It had popular support. At least skunks warn you when they're around, and the passive smell isn't so offensive. Well, I guess it depends - you find out who the weed smokers are, by who can tolerate it. :) And it's better than big angry ROUSes.
"ROUSes? I don't think they exist"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bYHg8vJSz-Q
The cognitive dissonance of dog mommies is staggering. They can clearly see the heritability of behaviors, physical characteristics, and IQ, all in a carefully controlled long term experiment we call dog breeding. And yet these people refuse to acknowledge any such dynamic in human evolution.
You're just not on the Right Side of History.
One of my professors once said that it's a huge mistake to believe that evolution is progress or that evolution produces a "better" creature. Evolution is simply the process by which living things become more adapted at living in their particular environment. See the example of the naked molerat that has basically lost its vision. Does that make it a "better" creature? No, it's just highly adapted to its environment.
So what does it say about our environment that we're evolving into sickly blobfish with mental health issues?
In the past, smarter people had better odds at keeping their legs closed to avoid deadly STDs ( monogamy ), and a stable couple keeps enough of their kids alive to help around the farm to have happy, balanced lives.
They had a big medium term incentive ( help on the farm ) and a long term one to have people care for them in old age, often the one or two kids that stayed single among the 4+ kids who survived infancy.
I saw this in many families in my grandparents generation. The forever single ones ( either socially anxious ou closet gays ) maintained the family farm, cared for their old parents and sometimes watched over nieces and nefews, one of which eventually getting the farm.
Now those incentives are long, long gone, so smart people have it in their interest to not have kids, leaving a sense of duty or future fear of loneliness as motivations to reproduce. So 0, 1 or 2 kids, because more gets in the way of all the distractions of modern life people now focus on.
While stupid people who have no sense of delaying gratification are the ones having more kids ( when they don't abort them all ).
It's not evolution. If you raised the same people, genetically, in a different environment they wouldn't be obese.
Predilictions - including behavioural ones - are evolutionary. It's just that "fat and lazy" has been allowed to express itself better, with less fear of being cast out, physically or sexually, than ever before since the advent of the car.
I can't tell if you're arguing that behaviors evolve or that the obesity has made it to our genes
That behaviours evolve.
See the difference is the 1992 people will make each gender question their sexuality at least once, the 2022 will be first to die, viruses, heatwave, a small ledge, an incline of 20 degrees take your pick.
If you're at the point you're promoting both sexes wear sports bras, you deserve extinction.
if this is "progress", then consider me for regress.
Progressively worse advertising
How the hell is this progress. Aren't progressives typically humanists? Why the hell would you think it is progress to normalize the degradation of the human body.
I see they've "progressed" beyond covering up their FUPA's
I'm pretty sure the one on the right is a man. See, the weight is in the gut where it should be in the bust and ass on a woman. Plus the theme is clearly trans.
God bless 1992. Damn the contrast says so much about what went wrong.