I can’t refrain from looking at PuffHo. I no longer derive anything useful from that dreadful aggregator site, but I look anyway: the same way rubberneckers look at a traffic accident as they drive by. I’m fascinated by their obsession with hijabis, and by theircomplete abandonment of objective political reporting.
And so this week I’ll feature at least one dumb headline per day from the site. Actually, there are two today (click each screenshot to go to the article—if you must):
The life-giving illustrations below aren’t impressive:
I’m pretty sure you covered everything on this post. There is nothing useful to see here. Often your postings leave little room for addition and this is completely covered.
Kim K.’s opinion is not enough. What about the rest of the clan? And what about Paris Hilton?
In case you’re interested: PH: “My mom always told me not to talk about money or politics.”
Kardashian’s support will give Clinton’s campaign some bottom. (Sorry.)
Kardashian’s support will give Clinton’s campaign some bottom. (Sorry.)
That was not worth repeating.
Finger trouble. (Double sorry.)
Before or after her butt injections?
I don’t get it. Like bottom of the barrel or does it have to do with butt…which I surmise both probably apply.
Not to nitpick, but there’s a typo in your headline. The correct spelling, I believe, is: “Seven Epic Puff-Ho Posts Beyond Belief: Kardashians, Clintons, and Clits, With More to Come!”
Cheers,
b&
Or The Kardashians are coming for Clinton. Sorry I will leave now.
I would never just go to HuffPo directly. Yet, once in great while I will find something worth looking at that others have linked to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-road-ahead_us_57e03be4e4b08cb1409749f2?
I left this out by mistake:
The link is a short essay from Kirk Douglas about the election as he approaches his 100th birthday.
I guess that’s a way of saying it without saying names. He should say names just on the chance that someone might not get it.
For me, these two stories are anti-click bait. I have a negative desire to click, and I didn’t.
I don’t waste my time with HuffPo either, and avoid looking at traffic accidents. I have no desire to see these kinds of things.
Me either. When I’m feeling churlish I’d go so far as to say it’s irresponsible to look because it encourages this sort of rubbish. They wouldn’t survive if no one clicked.
I left this out by mistake:
The link is a short essay from Kirk Douglas about the election as he approaches his 100th birthday.
You have to admit, that first headline is funnier than Geico’s “Good news, I just saved money on my car insurance!”
I don’t think that first headline is supported by the data, but if it is, it is certainly breaking news. Kim Kardashian has a mind. Who would have suspected that?
As an antidote, here is a rundown of the candidates on various positions by WashPo. While there are some ‘sames’ that not ideal if you’re a liberal, there are many more substantive differences.
HuffPo is a site that allows anyone to write an “article” without paying them for it – so of course you are going to get utterly stupid op-ed pieces presented as “real” junalizm
Well done Ms K.
I know of plenty of liberals who are still planning a “symbolic” anti-Clinton protest vote, without asking themselves which side of history they want to be standing on — even symbolically — when the ax falls.
I’d suggest them first to vote for Clinton and then to occupy some things to give her a hint that she is on probation.
Yes. And she should be held to her word on those concessions she made to Bernie’s platform.
There are certainly times when a protest vote is necessary, even if it means losing an election. This just isn’t one of those times.
I didn’t get very far into the second selection until I became very confused…
“Despite vaginas being the source of literally all human life on Earth, they still remain largely unseen and unspoken of in “polite” society. Thanks, sexism!”
I never knew that not looking at or talking about vaginas was sexist! I feel horrible! It’s a good thing I have the internet, because I’m pretty sure I can look at some vaginas on there somewhere, because I sure don’t want to be sexist, and tomorrow at work, since I work primarily with women, I’ll be sure to talk about vaginas. I’m sure that they will recognize my virtue-signalling and praise me for being such a strong male feminist, right?
With luck they might even show you theirs.
In a spirit of feminist affirmation, of course.
cr
😉
Be sure to talk about schlongs, too. I hear they also have something to do with the propagation of life.
Took the word from my mouth (though I didn’t know this euphemism). The author apparently thinks that all life (1) has well-developed female reproductive system and (2) uses it solely for parthenogenesis.
I thought vaginas were transphobic these days?
🙂
Well, I looked. Was that it? I’ve seen more inspiring pictures of beetles!
(Not that I’m opposed to looking at vaginas, but if I wanted to Puffho is not the first site that comes to mind… )
(The next article linked to off the bottom of that Puffho page is “Art History with Male Nipples” – which pretty much describes it. I only mention it because I haven’t seen such crude amateurish Photoslopping in a long time – if it even qualifies for the term.)
cr
I feel so much more fulfilled having read these pieces.
Sent from my iPhone
>
So, which is more inane? Most postings on the HuffPo? Or pomo theology?
This reminds me a joke about a male obstetrician-gynecologist who is on trial for assault & battery. The judge tells him that it is a shame for a person of this education and position to attack physically a poor woman who barely makes ends meet as a sex worker. The defendant says that he is very sorry, but it came too much for him when, after a hard day with 5 abortions and 10 births, as he was tiredly walking home through the park, the victim appeared and offered to show him a cunt for EUR 5.
A missed opportunity.
The vagina post might seem trivial but it links to this site:
http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/cliteracy/get-cliterate
It’s a bit of a clue to the extent of female oppression that exists not just under Islam (hiajb stuff, and the other WEIT post on hijab fashion commentary by Sarah Haider) but even in the west as part of continuing and remnant religious perspectives on female sexuality.
Check out to site’s pages and some of the videos. Try the Sex Today post and watch the video to see the degree of ignorance that remains in play.
Young boys have no problem checking out their gear, but even today you will find fairly liberal mothers discouraging them from exploring their anatomy – and not just with an educational perspective but actually telling them it’s naughty or dirty.
I don’t go around asking young women how they perceive their anatomy today, but I do know from people my own age that it was definitely not the thing to do. Little girls didn’t touch or look at their bits except from what’s necessary for their ablutions – oh, and keep yer ‘and on yer
It’s easy to disparage the New Age theme of celebrating body parts, but when an understanding of one’s own body has been oppressed for so long that it’s a cultural tabboo even in ‘enlightened’ times, I don’t see the need to be over critical of how much artiness is used to ease it into public view – if you’ll pardon the expression.
As a final note, being brought up on the disguised filthy smut of British inuendo comedy necessitated by censorship I couldn’t help but be amused at the comment on the main page: “I knew that if I took on this subject matter, I would be painting myself into a box…”