Thursday, August 13, 2015



Is "fat" the ultimate term of abuse?

Katie Hopkins has been accused of 'fat shaming' a member of the audience at her inaugural talk show by brandishing the woman a 'raging, angry fat person' during a televised debate.

The columnist became embroiled in a heated exchange with the woman, known only as Sheryl, when discussing whether fat people ought to pay more when flying.

Hopkins, who proudly wears her title as Britain's most hated woman, argued that any woman heavier than 9stone should have to pay £20 per extra kilo when boarding a flight.

When challenged by a member of the audience who slammed her view as 'pure hatred', she screamed back: 'You're a raging, angry, fat person in a pink jacket.'

Her outburst has been slammed by viewers as 'cruel' and 'unkind' with some labelling the columnist a 'bully'.

SOURCE

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can only be shamed if you are ashamed. Progressives cannot be shamed because they believe they are right. It is amazing how absurd the public debate is becoming.

MDH

Bird of Paradise said...

Whine,whine,whine that all liberal do is whine,whine,whine

Anonymous said...

Hopkins' point doesn't match reality.

According to converters, 9 stone is 126 pounds. That's not that heavy.

According to http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/ideal_bw_women.htm, a 5'4" small framed woman could be above 126 lbs and be healthy. A 5'1" medium framed woman could be 126 lbs and not be overweight. A 4'11" larged framed woman could weigh 126 lbs and be healthy and not overweight.

I would bet that Hopkins made her statement to be outrageous and get ratings and it worked.

But in her desire to get ratings, she not only did not make a cogent argument, she slipped into the last desperate refuge of scoundrels and idiots - she launched into insults.

Hokins is certainly free to say what she wants and at the same time, people are free to say what they want about her and her lack of critical thinking skills.

People should not whine when they say outrageous things and have people respond with equally outrageous things.

"Free speech" should flow both ways.


Stan B said...

Why not just allow airlines to charge by the pound anyway, like freight? That solves the problem right there. You show up at the airport with your boarding pass that states how many pounds you paid to ship, and if you weigh more, there's a surcharge. A scale is provided at check-in to prove how much you weigh when you arrive at the airport.

Anonymous said...

I like your thinking Stan. Further a total weight of passenger and baggage could help eliminate shameing.

Alpha Skua said...

Recall if you can FATTY FATTY TWO by FOUR, CANT GET THROUGH THE BATHROOM DOOR,ALL YOU DO IS GO ON THE FLOOR

stinky said...


Why not just allow airlines to charge by the pound anyway, like freight?

Because that's not in line w/how the airlines' costs are incurred. There is a fixed cost per passenger that must be passed on to the consumer, and that covers almost everything. The teeny-tiny bit extra for a heavier passenger would have transaction costs greater than the add'l revenue it would bring.

Anonymous said...

Stinky has a good point.
The 'weight' is only a small part of cost.
Lots of ticket prices are per person - passenger movement type charges.
However, I am not opposed to have some allowance in the ticket price be based on weight/size - but it should then also be accompanied by some adjustment in seat sizing to allow for the weight paid for.

Anonymous said...

If a 747 can carry the damn Space Shuttle on its back, I do not think that a few extra pounds on a passenger or luggage should matter one bit.