Michelle Bridges falsely accused of "fat shaming" by social justice slebs

Every day there's another nasty campaign waged by social justice warriors against some poor individual who has dared to express a politically incorrect point of view. The latest beat up involves fitness expert Michelle Bridges, who has been taken to task (to say the least) for some comments on Australian Story:

"It might be seen that I have this agenda on people who are overweight or people who are deemed fat," Bridges said on the program, during which she also spoke about becoming a mother and her fight against the sugar industry.

"Honestly, if you are happy where you are, more power to you.

"But I can tell you, I'm yet to meet someone who is morbidly obese and happy."

Gawd. You've really gotta have a bloody great chip on your shoulder if you arc up about a comment like that ...

It wasn't a wild generalization crudely expressed such as "all fatties are miserable". She was only talking about her own experience. Also, note the way she prefaced the offending line. Hard to think how she could have been more tactful while still getting her point across.

And she used the specific phrase "morbidly obese". Only a fool would argue that this is not a very bad state to be in health wise. I don't wanna sound insensitive (jeez, now I'm qualifying my comments) but how could you be truly happy knowing what all that extra weight is doing to your body's ability to function normally? It's just common sense.

But as we all know, common sense -- particularly if it is plainly expressed -- makes social justice warriors go howling at the moon mad. It gives them a chance to form a pack, point and shriek. They have to do this at least once a week just to know who they are, it seems ...

Michelle Bridges wasn't "fat shaming" anyone. But the hefty slebs who attacked her on social media were definitely trying to shame her. Some nasty stuff from Chrissie Swan and others. And Ajay Rochester really turned things up a notch, sharing a shot of her "fat happy ass" on social media.

Such malicious, obnoxious, attention seeking behaviour. Just the kind of thing that happy people tend not to engage in. Which kinda validates Bridges point if you think about it ...

Well, I just hope that these chunky chicks don't decide to take their bullying offline. If they're ever all in the same place at the same time (at the Logies, perhaps?) and they spot the fitness expert they might decide to tackle her en masse! (Still, if that does happen I'm sure Bridges will be able to outrun them.)

The term "delcon" requires five levels of severity

About a month or so back our vocabulary was enriched by a new term: del-con, (or delcon). It's a contraction of "delusional conservative" and was coined by Miranda Devine.

I like the label because it's catchy and a bit humorous. You can wear it in a tongue-in-cheek way. As a bonus lefties can use it too -- although I'm sure many think it's redundant because they believe all conservatives are delusional! (It's a bit like righties using "leftard" in that regard.)

Needless to say the term is general and self-explanatory, so it can be applied to many individuals, groups and organizations for various reasons. But the way Miranda Devine uses it specifically is in relation to the fall of Abbott, and the bitter rift now entrenched in the Liberal Party. She believes that Abbott was the author of his own demise, and you're a delcon if you think he could have won if not knifed by Turnbull and intend to punish the present government by voting for Shorten.

Well, I doubt I will vote for Labor. The thought of BS being PM makes me wanna puke, laugh hysterically and burst into tears all at once! But I still believe what Turnbull and his acolytes did to Abbott was vicious, dirty and completely unnecessary. Of course we'll never know what would have transpired had Abbott not been so cruelly betrayed, but I (along with many others, I'm sure) believe he could've pegged back Shorten's lead and ultimately prevailed ... So, I suppose that makes me somewhat, er, delconnish.

Given there are levels of conservative "delusion" I think some sort of official gradation is necessary. That's why I suggest the US Army's similar-sounding DEFCON (defence readiness condition) as a template. In that alert state the least severe is 5, with the most being 1.

So, as a delcon I would place myself at about DELCON 3 -- somewhat "delusional" but not determined to punish the Liberal Party at all costs.

If you are a delcon also, what level would you be?

UPDATE: Check out the comment from "The Nuclear Option" below. All five levels comprehensively described. Worthy of inclusion in Macquarie Dictionary, it is!

Andrew Denton, Bob Hawke push voluntary euthanasia legalisation

I'm showing my age now, but I can vividly recall that stoush in the Northern Territory over voluntary euthanasia back in the nineties. It was very emotional.

It looks like it may well end up on the political front burner again thanks to the efforts of Andrew Denton and Bob Hawke.

I've long found the Left's passion for euthanasia -- along with abortion -- more than a tad creepy. After all, they're forever banging on about how "life affirming" they are. So why be so passionately in favour of ending life both at the very beginning and end of it?

As is so often with socialist crusades, the push from Hawke and Denton seems to be quite a personal one. Lefties, thinking themselves superior to others, believe that whatever conclusions their own life experiences bring them to must be followed by the rest of the population.

If they stop eating meat, well, everyone has to! If they feel oppressed as women then so are all the other chicks out there! Same with this issue, it seems ...

Denton's commitment to the cause stems from his harrowing experience of watching his father die in an agonisingly drawn out way. I sympathise with him for having gone through that. It must have been one hell of an ordeal. And it's a depressingly common occurrence, no doubt.

In the case of Hawke, it's clearly got a lot to do with his fear of "losing his marbles" as he ages. After all, he was PM for years and he did nothing about the issue back then. He may have sympathised privately with legalisation but he certainly didn't act on it. And I suspect that's because death was very far from his mind at the time. Now that he's in his eighties he's much more focused on the issue.

Hawke and Denton are intelligent men with good intentions. But I'm still not convinced that we should go down the route taken by other nations such as the Netherlands. There are too many strong arguments against euthanasia in my opinion.

AHRC: Gender identity should be a matter of personal choice

Just when you thought the politically correct Left couldn't get any sillier, they outdo themselves. Now they're pushing for people to be able to legally, officially define their own gender.

Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious people, but gender is directly related to sex, no? And there's nothing more real and basic than sex, okay. Ponder that point next time you're shagging, or watching a video of a woman giving birth. I think you'll find it hard to disagree.

So call me old fashioned, but I just can't accept all this "I am what I believe I am" nonsense. If you've got a dick you're a male, even if you have it lopped off.

That doesn't mean you have to be like all the other males out there, mind. Hell, they're all different to each other anyway. You should not be forced to conform to some arbitrary gender role. And if you want to believe you're not male, fine. Go for it. We should all be allowed to indulge a fantasy as long as it doesn't hurt others. I won't say anything to debunk your delusion to your face -- I'll actually be respectful and polite -- but don't expect me or anyone else in the reality based community to genuinely believe and accept it.

I've often heard the phrase "we don't get to choose our parents" -- usually in discussions about family abuse or discord. That's a sobering line because it's true. Your mother and father -- with all their faults and gifts -- are yours for life, like it or not. You didn't have a say in who they were because you weren't friggin' there! If they didn't bring you into this world you wouldn't bloody well exist! Family is a fact. You can't change it. Same with gender (and race for that matter).

So, work with what you're given is my advice. (Hell, think of all the wisdom literature that exhorts us to strive for self acceptance. You can only move forward when you know where you are, right?)

But now, thanks to the right-on fluffy wuffies and their campaign to completely stuff reason by throwing the, er, codger out with the bathwater, such a common sense view is deemed bad, eeevil and wrong. They wanna turn gender into something you can choose on a whim, like you're on a shopping spree or something. FFS!

Yeah, well, they should be careful what they wish for. Their PC insanity could turn out to bite 'em on the arse big time, as it often does.

This is because, as usual, they are spectacularly hypocritical. Notice how those who zealously advocate people choosing their own gender are also often the most likely to abuse you on the grounds of your (non-chosen) gender (and race) if you're an eeevil white male.

If the Australian Human Rights Commission gets its way and it eventually becomes illegal to presume to define a person's gender against "his", "her" or "its" wishes then what's in store for the hateful hipsters who spend all day tweeting abuse at prominent white blokes, eh? What if some of these hate objects become so sick of the misandry aimed at them that they decide to legally redefine their gender and sue anyone who doesn't keep up with the change? The leftie-feminist trollective could be in for the mother (or father, or legal guardian, etc) of all class actions then.

Sure, it's not likely that conservatives will do this. But given that lefties have been eating their own with increasing ferocity and frequency of late, the odds that the odd fellow traveller with a phallus might do this are actually quite high.

Mark Latham endorses Donald Trump

Amazing how lefties have radically changed their view of Mark Latham. Didn't seem so long ago that most of them saw him as their one great hope of toppling JHo. Then he totally blew it with that notorious handshake, and finally crashed and burned.

Many of his supporters deserted him after that. And boy did he ever spill the beans on his former friends and allies! Hard to know what enraged them more. Was it that he let them down, gave 'em a spray, or just stopped playing the role of the "working class hero" so clearly laid out for him? Probably due to a combination of all of these factors ...

In any case he didn't sit around feeling sorry for himself, or shuffle off to the Halls of Quackademe like Jules did. He reinvented himself as a commentator. He's certainly said and done some very unwise things. But I do admire his courage in remaining true to himself and calling it as he sees it without compromise.

That's a very traditionally Australian thing to do -- though because of the toxic effects of political correctness it's seldom seen in our right-on, hand-wringing meeja. But you will find many people like Latham himself in western Sydney, where he hails from and resides. He knows that area well and doesn't look down on its inhabitants like the sneering hipsters of Fairfax and the ABC do.

So when he says that he is aware of Donald Trump's shortcomings but still admires him you can be sure he actually means it. You can also be sure that he speaks for a lot of his fellow westies, along with millions of other Australians who've had a gutful of being lied to and taken for granted. That's why the political establishment here has every reason to be packin' death, just as they are in the USA. Unless they start genuinely respecting the electorate an antipodean version of The Donald is almost certain to rise.

Be afraid, local latte lefties. Be very, very afraid.

The radical feminist vs "The Radical Feminist"

You've probably heard of Clementine Ford. She's one of the Australia's most high profile "feminists". Now, the reason I use sneer quotes there is because I -- like many others, no doubt -- would like to think the term was still worthy of respect. Hell, if it retained its true meaning I'd even even define myself as one.

Am I a feminist? Gender rights equality? Yes. All the rest? No. This nails it perfectly. RT @HPluckrose @CHSommers pic.twitter.com/wpNsOHRz5o

— Michael Shermer (@michaelshermer) February 28, 2016

But thanks to the asinine antics of our snarling Clementine and her infantile ilk the word's pretty much busted, innit? Right-on Clem is forever ms-ing the point, scoring own goals with her Twitter shenanigans. Usually she's a hoot. But sometimes she can actually be quite, well ... sinister.

Take the time she actually got some bloke fired coz he called her a slut on Facebook. Now he shouldn't have done it. It was a nasty thing to do. But his punishment was way OTT -- even more so when you consider how abusive Ms Ford herself has often been to other women on Twitter.

As well as being sinister, she can also be just plain sad. Take her recent outraged reaction when a bloke (or maybe it was a woman?) merely used her own obnoxious tweets against her in a funny way. The parody account "The Radical Feminist" clearly scored a bullseye because "courageous" Clem the "feisty" "feminist" promptly exhorted her followers to report the heinous hate-crime to the cyber-plods.

Us feminists only use words like 'harassment' when warranted. We'd never dilute the meaning of such serious words. pic.twitter.com/OaZ0wwn9wj

— The Radical Feminist (@thirdwavefem) March 28, 2016

Talk about life imitating satire! (Hell, it was also satire irritating the life -- if you could call Ms Ford's miserable existence of perpetual victimhood a life, that is.)

Crikey! Does this woman not realize how friggin' totalitarian seeking punishment for mere mockery is? Sure, we can laugh at her instructions to her arsehat acolytes. But imagine if she had real power. Gawd.

Really, women (and men) who demand such a surreal level of respect for their precious fee-fees should just grow the far cup. The solution is quite simple: If Clementine Ford can't bear social media satirists taking pot shots at her she shouldn't give them such a lavish smorgasbord of ammunition to choose from.

Malcolm Turnbull's narcissism on show in Lateline and 7.30 interviews

Malcolm Turnbull's interview on Lateline the other night got pretty snippy in parts, with the PM clearly annoyed with Snowcone Tone's line of questioning. Turnbull didn't lose his cool entirely, but those little moments of snark said a lot about his personality IMO.

Basically he went on the show with a whole bunch of stuff that he wanted to say, and he was indignant that Tony Jones wouldn't let him do that. It was quite revealing.

Of course all our elected representative see interactions with the meeja as opportunities to get their message out, so they will keep trying to go back to that. The journos are usually well prepared for this, and patiently try to get them to answer the bloody question.

But in almost all cases the pollies will at least pretend to respect the main convention of the political interview. That is that the journo gets to choose the subject discussed and ask the questions he wishes to. This is because one of the main functions of journalism is to shed light on political machinations. Needless to say, this is crucial for the health of democracy.

It's a ritual as much as anything else. In it, the interviewer represents the people. And in a democracy, the people have the power. So if you don't at least pretend to respect the one asking the questions you're showing an implicit disdain for the people. That's a big no no for obvious reasons.

This is why pollies will put up with such amazing crap in interviews -- and from broadcasters who don't even qualify as journalists, too! Take that notorious on air stoush between Barnaby Joyce and Kyle Sandilands. Sure, Joyce made an official complaint about it. But he still endured heaps of putrid abuse from the vile Kyle.

So, pollies will at least pay lip service to the interviewer's authority. They may be intransigent or evasive but they won't actually jump over that line and say: "I'm sick of this shit. I'm the boss of this little convo, mate. This is what we're gonna talk about, alright!"

Yet that's pretty much what Turnbull did the other night (in a much more genteel and restrained way, of course). And he's done it before, too.

Take this interview with Leigh Sales on 7.30 in December last year. Sales is obviously on his side. But he's still indignant that he has to respect the conventions of the interview. Look at the pitched battle that goes on because he wants to talk about his pet subject "innovation":

LEIGH SALES: OK. Let's whip through a few other things. Your minister, Mal Brough, ...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You've lost interest in innovation, have you?

LEIGH SALES: (Laughs) I haven't lost interest, but there's a lotta things to get through and there's limited time.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Aunty ABC loses interest in innovation.

LEIGH SALES: I wish we had unlimited time.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, well, there you go.

LEIGH SALES: Your minister Mal Brough misled the Parliament last week and he's also contradicted himself publicly about whether or not he asked staffer James Ashby to procure information from the diary of Peter Slipper, the former Speaker. Have you asked Mr Brough to clarify his position?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Mr Brough certainly did clarify his remarks in the Parliament last week.

LEIGH SALES: What about the contradictory yes/no answer about did he try to get that information?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well he's - look, he set out his version of events and he's - and there is an investigation going on.

LEIGH SALES: I might be a bit obtuse, but - so do you understand that he did or he didn't ask James Ashby to do that?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well he says that he did not. He says that he did not ask James Ashby to copy the - to copy Mr Slipper's diary. That's what he says.

LEIGH SALES: He previously said that he did.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Leigh, he has set out to explain that. I really don't want to go into the ins and outs of Mr Brough's remarks, but certainly it's an issue that we're all very keenly aware of, but there is an investigation under way and it will take its course.

LEIGH SALES: Has he offered to step down from the frontbench?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I don't want to go, with great respect, into discussions between myself and ministers on this or any other matter.

LEIGH SALES: Is there a risk that this issue could turn into a running sore for you the way that, say, Craig Thomson turned into for Julia Gillard?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Leigh, again, I'm sorry you've lost interest in innovation and it is ...

LEIGH SALES: There's lots of issues. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: But, no, well, the problem is we can't. You see, we can't chew gum at the same time because ...

LEIGH SALES: Well we can, actually, because if - look, I - look, if every guest on the program came on and they only got to talk about what they wanted to talk about, it would be a very different program. Now listen, ...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Do you - let me ask you this question: how interested do you think your audience are ...

LEIGH SALES: I ask the questions on this program. I think they're very - I think they're very interested, frankly.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Do you think they're more interested in innovation and jobs?

LEIGH SALES: Let's - I'll tell you what I think they're interested in. One of your colleagues resigning from the Liberal Party to join the National Party, Ian Macfarlane. A number of your colleagues have criticised him, including the Attorney-General George Brandis, who says it's left a bad taste in people's mouth. How do you feel about it?

So he definitely has form on this. And it's confirmation of his strongly narcissistic personality IMHO.