VICE: "Gym Bros More Likely to be Right-Wing Assholes, Science Confirms"

Translation: "Fake News attack on men who are stronger, more masculine with higher testosterone because they tend to have Conservative values, and defense of weaker men with lower testosterone because they tend to be Liberal."

Point by point critique (1/2):

>"To all you gym-bro haters amongst us, come, be seated. This one's for you. Science—objective, empirically tested science, the science that tells us that the ice caps are melting—has confirmed what many of us have long suspected: Gym bros are right-wing jerks."

The very first paragraph is hate speech against Men who work out, and that 'science' has 'proved' the hate speech as justified because muh climate science (which has in fact shown the Antarctic ice cap to have grown over a longer than 5 minute length videos of local melting each Sept in the Artic ice cap). I just need to summarize them to show how they're all wrong.

>"strong men who regularly go to the gym are more likely to be right-wing and support social and economic inequality than weaker men."

When a person lives a healthy life and includes making the effort at weight lifting, they do see over time that only their own bodies are improving by all that effort, they aren't seeing everyone's bodies also improve with every 'rep' the gym goer makes. Is it truly 'supporting inequality' to recognize that varied outcomes of personal success are dependent on personal effort? That those who work hard, who get rewarded for it with improved bodies, are neither supporting nor attacking inequality, but becoming more personally unique, sort of like how some liberals 'express their uniqueness' by dying their hair blue and getting a nose ring? Is this 'inequality' in outcomes driven by individual effort is what is considered 'unjust'? Is the author trying to hide his envy and resentment at the fact he didn't grow muscular from all the years others spent exercising?

To recognize that outcomes can be unequal based on differences in individual effort is not wrong, it is who we are as humans. When one person chooses to eat a poor diet, only they get diabetes and heart disease, rather than everyone getting sick. Is that 'inequality' unjust?

>"this explains a lot, like Trump's weird grab and yank power handshake—he's just trying to assert supremacy over his fellow uncaring assholes!"

Leave it to VICE to somehow some way express their TDS. Article on weightlifting? Orangeman bad because 'supremacy handshake'.

>"A research team led by Dr. Michael Price assessed 171 men aged 18-40, collecting data on their height, weight, waist size, hand grip, muscularity, and arm and chest strength using a 3D body scanner. They also analyzed their political and social views, asking them whether they supported the redistribution of wealth (a key tenet of socialism) or believed that some social groups should have dominance over others."

The author falsely portrays the research as attempting to prove a false dichotomy "heads we win, tails you lose" unfair alternative. The false dichotomy is either you must support the existence of leftist controlled government forced redistribution of wealth, or, if you don't support that, then you must support 'some groups having dominance over other groups', and vice versa.

Notice there is at least one ommitted, third alternative: One can reject the leftist/Marxist 'redistribution of wealth' because it presupposes the existence of one group (those who take and redistribute wealth) 'dominating' others (those whose wealth is taken and redistributed) with guns (force of government) rather than productivity and effort, AND one can reject the notion that free and fair competition causes unfair 'inequality of outcomes' between 'social groups'.

>>10188610

VICE: "Gym Bros More Likely to be Right-Wing Assholes, Science Confirms"

Translation: "Fake News attack on men who are stronger, more masculine with higher testosterone because they tend to have Conservative values, and defense of weaker men with lower testosterone because they tend to be Liberal."

Point by point critique (2/2):

>"Price's findings? That rich muscle dudes are the worst! Under those rock-hard abs lie the rock-hard souls of men who doesn't believe in spreading their riches around.

Another false dichotomy, another third alternative ommitted: One can reject leftist governments redistributing wealth to justify its own 'dominance over others', and one can support individual charity, where the people, not the government, decide how much of their wealth to 'spread' outside of reciprocal exchanges.

>"It's basically your tolerance to the idea that wealth shouldn't be redistributed," Dr. Price explains. "Some people thought it was horrible; some people thought it was fine.". Fascinatingly, the longer men spent in the gym, the more likely they were to have less egalitarian socioeconomic beliefs. But is the gym turning men into entitled, unempathetic jerks—or are they in the gym because they were born that way? It's a real chicken (breast) and egg (white omelet) conundrum, to be sure.

Well that is kind of an important distinction isn't it Vice? You go from "the science tells us why gym bros are politically outside the Democrat plantation" to "hmmm, maybe it's the other way around.". In other words, the author admits that both conservative political views and going to the gym may themselves be independent causally but are both driven by another set of values.

>"What you get is a positive feedback loop," Dr. Price argues. "The standard conventionalism is that people are adapting their morality to their physical nature. What comes first is that you're big and strong you find yourself in this big muscular body, and other people are intimidated by you, and you have status and tend to win—so I like inequality, because inequality suits me."

The "standard conventionalism" is psychological projection of its adherents. It's not that 'inequality suits me', I'd more then welcome others to work out and improve themselves and 'reduce the inequality' between the sizes of their muscles and my muscles. I'd be content living in a world of ALL healthy people, men and women! But I am physically incapable of growing other people's muscles through my own weightlifting. Any and all 'inequality' that increases by my own weightlifting, is objective reality, I'm not trying to be a Scrooge McMuscle and 'hoard my muscle wealth from the skinny soyboys". Those who choose to not exercise are also contributing to a heigtened inequality.

>"As Orwell might have put it: Muscly bros: Bad! Scrawny dudes: Good!"

This statement makes no sense in the context.

>"Pleasingly, it seems women are exempt from this general rule. "Women's physical attractiveness or formidability isn't related to their egalitarianism," Price confirms."

>"In short, keep lifting that weight, sister, because pumping iron has little effect on how much you want to help lift your fellow citizens out of poverty."

But the VICE author already conceded he doesn't know whether exercise causes escape from D plantation, or escaping D plantation causes exercising. Now he says women should exercise.

Convenient for a soyboy isn't it? Soyboy wants to live in a world with more fit women and fewer muscular men. Who does that benefit?

>"Sadly, Price doesn't want us to hate on self-involved assholes reading a copy of The Fountainhead in between reps. "I'm just trying to illuminate the source of people's moral views," he says, "to help them to be more reflective about it."

kek, the VICE author is upset at the scientist for not advocating for left wing political attacks on those who escaped the D plantation.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5e3z7/gym-bros-more-likely-to-be-right-wing-assholes-science-confirms