By David Futrelle
Pity the poor Nazis, who are evidently having a difficult time dealing with the fact that Taylor Swift is never ever, ever getting back together with them, even though she was never ever, ever together with them in the first place.
Swift recently broke years of silence on political issues by endorsing two Democratic candidates, crushing the hearts of countless Nazis and alt-right fellow travelers who had convinced themselves that she was secretly one of them. There was a bit of an irony here: for several years, as I noted in a recent post, alt-right trolls spread assorted memes designed to dupe liberals into thinking that Taylor Swift was an undercover Nazi, but evidently the only people duped by the campaign were far-right saddoes who longed to have Ms. Swift as their Aryan Princess.
Apparently many on the far right are having a really hard time giving up their Swiftian fantasies — as evidenced, perhaps most clearly, by a succession of sour-grapsey posts on The Daily Stormer insisting that she was a bitch anyway. And fat. And possibly a trans woman, though the Stormer phrases it a little more rudely than that.
In a half-dozen posts published since Swift came out as a Dem, the Daily Stormer has denounced the singer as a “Fat Whore,” a “Fat Election-Meddler ,” “just another stupid whore,” “completely used up,” and someone who “isn’t a goddess because goddesses never go full-Dale Earnhardt.” (I’m not sure what that last one is even supposed to mean.)
In one post, Daily Stomer head boy Andrew Anglin — the author of five of the six attacks on Swift — offers a faux “eulogy” for Taylor Swift’s legs, which he claims are now way too chunky to be attractive. “Where these majestic pillars of heaven once were, there are now disgusting, jiggly Christmas hams,” he declares, evidently misremembering what exactly Christmas hams look like.
And that is at the root of this political pivot by Swift to the far-left.
She is now completely used up.
She did not use her beauty to secure a man and have children, and now must join the war of the wasted to turn America into the kind of hell ugly things are comfortable in.
I will not be surprised if she cuts off all her hair and starts doing videos with Nicki Minaj. Actually, I will be surprised if she doesn’t do that.
Rest in peace, Taylor Swift’s legs.
Yes, Taylor Swift’s legs are definitely very sour.
But even stranger than Anglin’s post on Swift’s legs is a post today from Daily Stormer contributor “Octavio Rivera,” who sets forth at great length a dubious case supposedly proving that Swift is no “Garden Variety Whore” but rather a “Secret T**nny Manwhore.”
“I don’t get a warm tingle in my belly when I read one of my guys unironically lamenting the loss of Taylor Swift,” Rivera writes — because, he insists,
Taylor Swift is probably a tr**ny.
Mr. Swift now acting like a soyboy would make perfect sense, if he is a soyboy. … it’s … possible that “she” was born with a penis and a pair of testicles.
Even those once-super skinny, now not-quite-as-skinny legs of Swift’s — the ones Andrew Anglin was only yesterday eulogizing as “majestic pillars of heaven” — could well be man legs, baby! (At least according to Rivera’s transphobic logic.)
Rivera takes his readers on what he calls “a short crash-course in tr**ny identification.” (In what follows, I’m going to largely set aside the question of whether or not anything he says has any scientific validity; the point is that this is what he thinks is true.)
Rivera starts his course off by suggesting that the best way to tell if a woman is really a woman (at least in his transphobic mind) is if she looks like a child — that is, if she has “neotenous” features.
Women, Rivera contends,
have evolved to look more like children. This is called Neoteny. They are physically and mentally closer to babies than they are to adults. Women looking like children is useful for men because they know not to take those creatures seriously, and it is useful for women because looking and acting kinda like a toddler makes men want to protect and coddle them. …
[N]eotenous features make women more attractive to men because we want young and fertile womb-machines, not used-up old hags.
Alas, Rivera warns his fellow extremely straight dudes,
Tr**nies work very hard to simulate neotenous features, and they have a decent array of tools at their disposal to achieve that illusion. From surgeries and hormone therapy to makeup and clothing. Just like fat chicks become masters of picture angles, tr**nies become masters of costumes and posing.
But, he adds, there are ways that extremely straight men can circumvent these tricks in order to tell who’s really a lady and who’s not. First, you gotta look at the forehead: real women have vertical foreheads, while those of real men slope backwards.
“When was the last time you saw Taylor Swift’s forehead?” he asks. “She’s always covering it.” (Bold in original.)
Rivera goes through a long list of physical features — from Adam’s apples to large hands s to narrow hips — that are generally markers of what he sees as real dudeness. He posts pictures of Swift in which she seems to display all of these dudely attributes — never mind that none of these things are actual proof of anything, gender-wise — and invites his readers to draw what he sees as the obvious conclusion.
You may wonder why is it so important for REAL EXTREMELY STRAIGHT DUDES to protect themselves from lusting after a woman who (in Rivera’s mind at least) is “really” a man.
Because, Rivera insists, if a dude accidentally lusts after a woman who isn’t “really” a woman, “you could get infected with the gay.”
Apparently Rivera is so eager to cure his fellow alt-rightists of their Taylor Swift crushes that he is willing to suggest that their former (and perhaps still existing) lust for her is GAY.
Those are some pretty sour grapes there, boys, that’s all I’m saying.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, questionable evo-psych … basically the only thing missing here is their usual bread and butter, racism.
There’s even some accidental misandry, since the forehead myth if true would mean men had smaller brainpans than women, like Homo erectus had smaller ones than H. sapiens.
A shocking coincidence that she went from being a flawless Aryan goddess to a fat used-up whore at the exact same time she revealed herself to be left-leaning. Almost suggests that alt-rightists’ standards of beauty aren’t so objective after all.
As usual, these guys are so boringly transparent. She’s hot, hot, incandescently HOT, an Aryan goddess…until she makes it clear that they have no chances with her, ever, because she loathes their whole racist, sexist, everythingophobic ideology. And then suddenly, she’s a fat, ugly slut.
It’s almost as if this is a pattern or something.
No wonder women won’t even talk to them.
These grapes are so sour your face will pucker into a black hole if you try to eat them
I think someone from the Law and Order writer’s room lurks here. Every episode this season thus far has been ripped from WHTM headlines. 1. Toxic masculinity leading to a school shooting. 2. Trump’s horrific family separation policy. 3. Incels. Anyone want to take bets on what’s behind door #4? Ten’ll get you one it touches on either Trump policies, right wing violence, or the manosphere in some way, or more than one of those at once.
It’s true. When I want to impress an attractive alpha male, I throw my Cheerios on the ground and poop my pants. It works every time.
Seriously though, does this guy realize that he’s saying he finds two year olds sexually attractive? I mean, we all knew that Nazis have pedo tendencies, but this is just fucked up on a level that’s hard to even comprehend.
OT: This is hilarious. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/arizona-republicans-communists-democrats-donation-attempt
Hillery Clinton, Michelle Obama and now Tyler Swift, its like to nazis accusations of being trans is the ultimate insult to women,
of course I have not seen them accuse men of being trans they just go with accusations of being gay.
@Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
I would not be surprised David has been cited in news articles on inceles and such so I could see them lurking for inspiration.
@Law & Order guy
You can de-lurk and talk to us you know!
You would probably be more interesting then the drive by trolls we get.
I guess that explains why every February the guys on 4chan compete in the Make a Valentine for Your Valentine contest.
Sigh.
Some of those 4channers write the dreamiest verses.
I’m reminded of that time Emma Watson made a feminist speech, and was instantly transformed from goddess to fat and ugly whore. Science should study this phenomenon: the power of words to immediately modify BMI and bone structure could have powerful applications.
Based on a fairly limited set of observations, I’d say that women are waaaaay more likely to want to “protect and coddle” small children than men who are more likely to be disdainful, nervous, irritated or disgusted (and generally a combination of the above) in the presence of babies and toddlers.
Therefore, broscience shows us that neoteny evolved to attract lesbians. Um, checkmate feminism, I guess?
Just the usual level of absurd demands over women having the exact perfect body shape. Apparently Taylor Swift is both a “fat whore” and so rake thin that she has the narrow hips of a man. There’s no way to win here.
But when was the last time you saw Taylor Swift’s forehead, people? We have a right to see it!
https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-gif-you-can-never-use-it-too-much-very-useful-in-many-situations-rfskmSvktqSoo
@Pie
Yeah, from my personal experience, us women are way more likely to care about and care for children. Just as men are way more likely to punch, rape and murder.
“Hit the wall.”
My thoughts on this:
a) That’s not how neoteny works.
b) The word “possibly” is doing a hell of a lot of work there, chum. It’s possible I’m a green lizard from the planet X, but everything else suggests I’m not. It’s possible the cat in the box is both dead and alive. but from the cat’s point of view it is going to be one but not the other.
c) What the hell? I mean, what the ever-loving brain-aching nonsense-spewing actual hell???
I’d never heard of it, so don’t know how much of it is good science, but a look on wikipedia (which that Daily Stormer slice of rambling nonsense actually links to) suggests that research on neoteny in humans points to how:
In other words, the wikipedia article linked directly from the Daily Stormer “article” suggests the absolute opposite to this bs in Rivera’s “think piece”:
It’s bad when your own sources are arguing the literal opposite of what you are!
Okay, now they have got to be trying to top each other in sheer apparent stupidity as part of a “who’s the best shitposter” contest…
Right?
RIGHT??
Dale Earnhardt spent his entire career going to the left.
Amazing how he frames neoteny in a way that not only infantilizes women, but makes him sound like an actual pedo. Fuckin’ eww.
@ Alexisagirlsname
I am no scientist, but from what I’ve read in the popular science line, scientists regard neoteny as one of the features which encouraged brain (and cultural) development in homo sapiens when we began to separate from our primate relatives.
Juveniles of any species that learns, learn better and faster than adults of the same species. Retaining some juvenile features in adults may make make us better at learning.
That’s a very rough thumbnail sketch of what I understand people who know about this stuff think about it.
So, rather than women being neotenous in order to attract sinister pedophile right-wingers (and fool them into sharing their precious genetic heritage!), if women were really more neotenous than men we’d likely be brighter.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/being-more-infantile/
Of course, as we actually inherit features from both parents, it’s a nonsense to think women can be more neotenous than men anyway It’s a species-wide effect.
It’s kind of bullshit to invoke neoteny when you’re literally talking about teenage girls who haven’t even finished maturing yet. “Children are attractive because they resemble children.” Thanks, Uncle Fegg.
And wow, the lightning suddenness with which Taylor Swift fell down the HB scale is breathtaking. It’s almost as if their beauty standards only exist inside their heads, not on some scientist’s clipboard.
Yeah, I’m absolutely sure Taylor Swift will grow old alone for lack of other options.
My eyes rolled so hard I got a good look at my own brain.