Most people who hate Katherine Heigl hate the actress because she seems like a bit of a diva, or because she keeps appearing in annoying rom-coms, including one with Ashton Kutcher that hurts my head when I even think about it. The fellas at Register-Her.com have another reason: she hates balls. As in, testicles.
Well, not really. What the Register-Her fellas are worked up about is a PSA she did for Funny or Die in which she claims to be in favor of neutering pets not because she loves animals but simply because she hates balls so much. At one point she declares, tongue firmly in cheek:
I can’t cut the nuts off human men … yet. So, I’ve dedicated my time to the neutering of dogs, cause that’s legal.
The joke here, as any rational person can plainly see, isn’t that cutting off balls is inherently hilarious. The joke is that an actress with a reputation as a diva is basically doing her critics one better by portraying herself as a deranged, narcissistic, supremely creepy ball-hater. And she’s spoofing her own bad reputation for a genuinely good cause: reducing cat and dog overpopulation and therefore the number of unwanted animals that are put to death in our nation’s animal shelters.
Of course that’s not how the fellas at Register-Her.com see it. And so they’ve put Heigl on their faux “offender registry” as a “bigot.” Their explanation?
The actress’s willingness to endorse male targeted sexual mutilation betrays a bigoted indifference to sexual violence, and justifies her inclusion on this registry in the category of bigot.
Presumably the fellas at Register-Her will next go after the people who have posted the more than twenty thousand YouTube videos that feature dudes getting hit in the nuts. Surely these videos, which feature actual violence against actual human balls are a far graver threat to the balls of the world than even Katherine Heigl.
The Register-Her Action Squad might start by tracking down the (admittedly quite ingenious) ball-hating dudes involved in this video.
And then move on to all the ball-hating bigots featured here:
And here are 50 more:
Better track down the ghost of Scott Joplin, too, for providing the music to the last one from beyond the grave.
“forgot to add to two posts above: at least the author didnt propagate that embarrassing meme that ruth bader ginsburg is a eugenicist”
-HAH! Yes. Sadly, that is a point.
zhinxy, i know your a lefty, but do you ever read the more libertarian parts of the american conservative, and if so what do you think of it? i read larison pretty religiously, but i tend avoid the rest because in my experience it gets bogged down with lame randroid shit.
I do sometimes, yes I’m with you on Daniel Larison, and Thomas E. Woods is a pretty good author, though a VERY traditionalist Catholic (Also, I have no idea why but he follows me on twitter!) I get scared off a lot, too though. It’s had some good issues, (and a really great article on left libertarianism once http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/libertarian-left/ 😉 – But unless it’s a topic I’m really into I usually don’t bother.
Is this a common thing, where even libertarians dislike Rand followers?
CassandraSays – For non-Rand-fan libertarians, it’s VERY common. Often not only because we disagree, or because they get really annoying, but because we get lumped in with them and assumed Rand fans. Which makes us madder.
There really are some quite decent variously happy with Rand folks, but they tend to be scorned by the true believers, and very questioning of the Objectivist “orthodoxy” – EG the wonderful Chris Sciabarra.
its also worth mentioning that rand was, above all, about maintaining her personality cult, and she often leveled scathing commentary against libertarians who werent randianss
What is it about the Randian folks that grates, specifically? I mean from the perspective of other libertarians.
(Other then the turgid prose, which I think everyone with any taste in literature would find annoying.)
And even given that… Yeah, their tendency to expell the saner and reformist from their midst makes them even more frickin’ annoying so… Yeah, libertarians who don’t like rand throw randroid around with contempt a LOT.
(Other then the turgid prose, which I think everyone with any taste in literature would find annoying.)
It is!
Well, her general contemptuous attitude, her defense of a state, the fact that she was VERY dismissive to libertarianism as a movement that didn’t WORSHIP her enough, her sloppy philosophy, her cultishness, (To quote the initially sympathetic Rothbard –
“The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.” – We’re still waiting for the strain to run out, Murray…), her claim that
“”The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office.” Oh, god, I can go on all night…
What is it about the Randian folks that grates, specifically? I mean from the perspective of other libertarians.
randianism is about orthodoxy. if youre the kind of sane person who believes in using dialogue to develop new ideas, randians are going to be a huge headache and a detriment to your movement.
@Ullere
Nah it’s not. Actually the book I was talking about was Economics for Dummies lol. Sad I know, but I bought it mainly so I could understand political debates better and just to learn basic economics.
Anyway those stats you listed just make sense. When you deny half the population education and career freedom, that’s a lot of untapped potential going to waste.
Economics for Dummies lol. Sad I know, – Oh, the For Dummies series tends to be excellent! Read with pride! (Well, I don’t know about that one, but I have a huge collection, and love them!)
zhinxy i just googled chris sciabarra and now i have some reading to do
Sharculese – “randianism is about orthodoxy. if youre the kind of sane person who believes in using dialogue to develop new ideas, randians are going to be a huge headache and a detriment to your movement. ”
-And yeah. That. We would agree to disagree, but they won’t let us, or shut up.
Wow, she was arrogant. I can see why adolescents find her so eternally appealing.
Sharculese – Yes! He’s done some really great stuff, and his notion of “dialectical libertarianism” is hugely influential on all the lefties! I still have a lot left to read of him myself.
“Wow, she was arrogant. I can see why adolescents find her so eternally appealing.”
-Amen.
@zhinxy
Really? I thought they were regarded as not so great. Maybe it’s the “dummies” part lol. Well so far I’m enjoying it anyway.
Also regarding Rand, I find her philosophy selfish. And while it’s important to think of yourself I don’t see how it benefits society as a whole. Overall though it’s her followers that bug me more, because none of them care for freedom as much as they say, only for themselves. I’d have to read her books to get a better understanding, but my list of books I need to read/am reading is long enough as it is and get first priority (hell my manga gets first priority over her 😛 )
Quackers – Well, I dunno, I’ve heard good things about them and I love them, so h8ers gonna h8!
“Also regarding Rand, I find her philosophy selfish. – She considers that A WIN!
– Yeah, skip the Rand!
This isn’t specifically why I hate Rand, but it does sum up everything that’s wrong with her: She idolized a child-murderer. Rand had this to say about a guy (or a character she based on him, to be specific) who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl, held her for ransom, and then cut her in half, drained her blood, dismembered her, sewed her eyes open, and propped her body up in a car for her father to see while he collected his ransom: He “is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness — [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people … Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should.”
I had to read The Fountainhead in high school (part of our grade was based on entering the Ayn Rand Institute’s essay contest), which is only part of the reason why I tend to roll my eyes when people start talking about liberal indoctrination in public schools …
Most modern western economics (and most pre-modern, but post renaissance) tend to take a certain amount of capitalism as a granted for premises, which make them extremely tiresome for Marxists to read. Complicated theories built on false premises are only interesting as a thought experiment or to analyze how the opponent thinks, so I tend to find most works on economics boring as hell, because they tend built upon a set of basic premises that I would strongly dispute. Certain presumptions about value, ethics, capitalism, etc. that are almost universal are things which I do not accept.
Though I have two things I find annoying about most writings about eugenics and progressives. First, the failure to distinguish between mainline progressives and the actual left (this is common in discussions of politics in general, but pretending that progressive capitalists are the left is rather asinine, you’ll also not uncommonly see conservative people called progressives when modern conservatives which to use them against progressives, conflations of economic “progressivism” with social “progressivism”). Really, a huge mess of a failure to define what progressivism and progressive ideas are before naming people as them. This can get tricky in the US too as economic conservatives in the early 1800s tended to be anti-corporate whereas economic conservatives by the late 1800s were extremely pro-corporate…because the industrial revolution had caused massive legal and economic changes. Secondly, the failure to establish proper cultural context. There is a tendancy to blame progressives extra harshly for things which were widespread attitudes throughout the entire culture. So when the conservatives and the progressives by and large have mirror image ideas about a subject, with only a few details varied, progressives tend to be blamed more than their comparable conservative counterparts. Not that it isn’t fair to criticize progressive fuck ups, but the double standard is certainly unfair.
Really, a huge mess of a failure to define what progressivism and progressive ideas are before naming people as them. ”
“So when the conservatives and the progressives by and large have mirror image ideas about a subject, with only a few details varied, progressives tend to be blamed more than their comparable conservative counterparts. Not that it isn’t fair to criticize progressive fuck ups, but the double standard is certainly unfair.”
This so very much. Plus not only marxism gets left out, but a general and wild ignoring of just about all forms of radicalism in history, the left being simply the managerialist progressive left, and that’s all she wrote. Not even the Catholic Workers get much of a note, for heaven’s sakes.
I had to read The Fountainhead in high school (part of our grade was based on entering the Ayn Rand Institute’s essay contest), which is only part of the reason why I tend to roll my eyes when people start talking about liberal indoctrination in public schools …”
HAH! And this is why we need to move away from the factory schooling model and promote self directed supervised learning! Right there! You wouldn’t have to read Rand unless you needed to include it in your self-directed study plan and wanted to learn mor… Oh god, I need to rethink the self directed learning model after all
Bee: Seriously?? What high school did you go to?