Haha, I actually tried that for a little while because yeah, it bothered me how insincere the whole thing can be and I hate doing that whole dance. Thing is if you unload fully on your partner then it puts them in an awkward postion because they feel they have to reciprocate your full disclosure when perhaps they don't trust you sufficiently. At least thats the way I see it (and its why I stopped being a dick to people who were just trying to be polite )

The worst small talk? 1st year of university. You meet a lot of new people which I was mostly fine with. What bothered me endlessly was the same few questions. Where are you from. What course are you on etc etc. Maybe its selfish of me, but first I got bored of asking them and then I got bored of answering. Eventually I started asking people what their favorite flavour of icecream was (lemon sorbet btw) just to, you know, break routine. I guess you might call it an ice(cream)breaker and tbh, it worked quite well. Oh, and if somebody answers vanilla then you need to keep that person close. They are the best kinds of people (and there aren't very many vanillas). Maybe I don't really have a problem with small talk, I just have a problem with boring small talk

Interesting to note that "How do you do?" is traditionally reciprocated with another "How do you do?". I mean, its seems totally absurd, its almost like the question is rhetorical - it certainly doesn't expect an answer. Its just a polite courtesy and to do anything but show the same courtesy back would be considered rude - how self absorbed of you to actually answer! The conversation might evem bloom into discourse on the state of the weather (the last refuge of the unimaginative .

Oh, and it kind of is stupid though SveNitoR. Don't worry, I don't consider myself stupid or somehow broken in this regard, but I really can't see how anxiety serves any purpose. Obsessing over the tiny details of a conversation only serves to make me look stiff and robotic, like some sort of psychopath trying to remember how to smile with their eyes. I've heard theories that the reason alcohol is so embedded in our society is because on some level we actually sort of need it to overcome this inhibition. Unfortunately I don't drink, although I have found a sort of vicarious empathy - I inherit the same hibition if I am with people who are a bit buzzed, just none of the memory loss (a blessing ang a curse). Anyway, thats quite tangental. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm quite comfortable being an introvert and while anxiety certainly bothers me and stresses me out more than I'd like I don't let it paralyse me.

Comedy does seem to help loosen people up and remove inhibitions.

Good luck to you! Hope that does good things for you =).

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^draak13:
Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.
But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

>> ^draak13:

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.


and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.

But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).

Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.

Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.

In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.

>> ^criticalthud:

i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?

2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.

3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity

4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.

5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.

7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.

Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.

>> ^hpqp:

Words

You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter. >> ^scannex:

To be fair and clarify, I want to directly address your comparison too.
You say obesity is not like smoking because, unlike smoking you cannot simply inhibit being obese in an instant.
That is not a reasonable qualification for a behavior.
By that logic, a person with a meth addiction who simply doesn't smoke meth while on camera, but exhibits all the tell tale physical signs of smoking meth would be exempt from ridicule because he cannot 'stop looking like a meth addict'. That is not reasonable.
Smoking meth in this case is a behavior. One he does not do in the public eye. The behavior of smoking has a repercussion on his appearance after he stops smoking. Similarly the behavior of overeating/being idle (I have coined this state as a behavior leading to obesity in my argument) is similar in that way.
Hopefully that clears up my analogy for you.
The ability to stop doing, or being, a given way in an instant is not a measure of what constitutes a behavior.
>> ^hpqp:
3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant

To be fair and clarify, I want to directly address your comparison too.
You say obesity is not like smoking because, unlike smoking you cannot simply inhibit being obese in an instant.

That is not a reasonable qualification for a behavior.
By that logic, a person with a meth addiction who simply doesn't smoke meth while on camera, but exhibits all the tell tale physical signs of smoking meth would be exempt from ridicule because he cannot 'stop looking like a meth addict'. That is not reasonable.
Smoking meth in this case is a behavior. One he does not do in the public eye. The behavior of smoking has a repercussion on his appearance after he stops smoking. Similarly the behavior of overeating/being idle (I have coined this state as a behavior leading to obesity in my argument) is similar in that way.

Hopefully that clears up my analogy for you.
The ability to stop doing, or being, a given way in an instant is not a measure of what constitutes a behavior.

>> ^hpqp:

3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant

>> ^hpqp:


3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant


So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.

And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.

It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.

Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP

No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

I am appalled at some of the responses to this here on the Sift: "she should just take it and shut up", "yeah what's wrong telling someone they're fat" and @scannex's craptacular line of argumentation. This discussion took such a bizarro turn that even bobknight33 has more sense in his comment than a good half of the commenters!

There are several important issues at stake here:

1) Unethical behaviour should be called out, as done here, not silenced/ignored, no matter how "petty" it may seem. Silence (often enforced by shaming and/or interiorised guilt) is one of the main contributors to a culture of abuse of privilege, of bullying, humiliating, harassing, etc etc. I just wish stuff like this (the video) happened more often on TV and in the media in general. The more this kind of behaviour (be it sexist, ableist, bigoted, etc.) is called out as socially unacceptable, the less it will spread over the next generations.

2) Privilege: this guy thinks it is his place to tell a perfect stranger that she's too fat for TV, as if his small-minded opinion was worth anything. Even if it hadn't been so disgustingly condescending, he should know (lets hope that's now the case) that it's not his place to make those remarks. Even if he's a doctor, nutritionist, you name it. He's not her doctor, nor friend, and you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think you're illuminating someone on their hitherto unnoticed BMI, and even more fucking stupid to defend that as "doing her a favour".

3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.

I could go on, but I've ranted enough as is. Suffice it to say that I fully *support what this woman and her colleagues have taken the courage to do, and hope it is a situation we will see more of in future. We can't (and shouldn't) outlaw douchebaggery, but we sure as hell can make it socially stigmatising, and we damn well should. (and unlike obesity for some, douchebaggery and hateful/hurtful ignorance is something anyone can be cured of)

/rant

Was this part of the reason for the "Real Name" option in user profiles? To reintroduce some of the inhibition that's lost to anonymity?

Thank you Jesus!

Chris rewrote his letter with cleaned up language. His reasoning here:

http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbounds/2012/09/08/out-of-bounds-blog-no-8-inquisitive-kitten-pawing-at-yarn/


The letter here (former curse words in all caps):

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees”, more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a BEAUTIFULLY UNIQUE SPARKLEPONY. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-bogglingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. SAD PUPPY DOG EYES hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” DISAPPOINTED LEMUR FACE WITH SOLITARY TEAR TRICKLING DOWN TO CHIN. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a ten for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about DANCING CHUBTOAD? “ALACK AND ALAS MY TOP HAT HAS FALLEN. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that DELICIOUS STATE FAIR HOTDOG!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (unlikely, gay people enjoy watching football too)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero affect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful FROLICKING OSTRICH. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90% of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth SLIDE WHISTLE TO E FLAT you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

p.s. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. UNFORTUNATELY PHALLIC HEDGE SCULPTURE.

Guess I could of looked before hand. I just thought the generally lack of proper tags would of inhibited me of finding it.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cop-Refuses-9-11-Call-over-F-Bomb-Man-Almost-Dies

>> ^A10anis:

Don't get me wrong. I hate any legislation which inhibits our freedoms. But considering the horrific injuries sustained every year - especially to kids - surely it's time to stop selling explosives (which is, basically, what they are) to the general public. Sorry if I sound like a party pooper.


The interesting thing is, I live in Japan now where fireworks are easily accessible to just about everybody and you don't see anything like that kind of dangerous behavior here. And that's not because Japanese kids participate in less risky behaviors or anything--they get into their fair share of trouble. But I think growing up in a culture where fireworks are just normal and seeing adults using them safely all the time (it's a tradition to set them off in the summer), kids here don't see anything special about them and apparently don't even considering doing stupid and dangerous things with them.