Sunday, November 2, 2014

The science behind The Dunham Horror

Science is gradually confirming what anyone who pays attention to the way left-liberals live has known all along:
A wide range of brain regions contributed to the prediction of political ideology (Figure 3A), including those known from past work to be involved in the processing and interoception of disgust and other stimuli with negative affective valence, but also those involved in more basic aspects of attentive sensory processing: we found regions known to be involved in disgust recognition [17, 36, 37, 38] (e.g., insula, basal ganglia, and amygdala), perception of bodily signals [39] (e.g., insula), the experience of physical/social pain [40] or observing others in pain [41] (e.g., S2, insula, PAG, and thalamus), and emotion regulation [42] (e.g., DLPFC, insula, amygdala, and pre-SMA), along with regions involved in information integration [43] (e.g., thalamus and amygdala), attention [43, 44] (e.g., amygdala, IPL, FFG, STG/MTG), memory retrieval [44, 45] (e.g., hippocampus, amygdala, and IPL), and also inhibitory control [46] (e.g., IFG, DLPFC, and pre-SMA), perhaps to suppress innate responses. Although our results suggest that disgusting pictures evoke very different emotional processing in conservatives and liberals, it will take a range of targeted studies in the future to tease apart the separate contribution of each brain circuit.

We proposed that conservatives, compared to liberals, have greater negativity bias [13], which includes both disgusting and threatening conditions in our study. Our finding that only disgusting pictures, especially in the animal-reminder category, differentiate conservatives from liberals might be indicative of a primacy for disgust in the pantheon of human aversions, but it is also possible that this result is due to the fact that, compared to threat, disgust is much easier to evoke with visual images on a computer screen.
Translated from the jargon, what that means is that there is solid scientific grounds for believing that leftists are too stupid to understand potential threats and too filthy to be repulsed by disgusting things.

Which one hardly needs any scientific evidence to correctly conclude as simple observation of the behavior of most left-liberals is sufficient to prove the case beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt.

I had previously recommended that Lena Dunham be harpooned and processed for oil, but now I think that she may have some additional utility to science before her Innsmouth genes come to the fore and she shambles off to join the shoggoths deep under the sea. It seems to me that we could measure units of disgust in terms of a Dunham scale, similar to the Kelvin scale, with the null point absolute zero indicating a perfect Dunhamian left-liberal who is completely inert and incapable of being disgusted by anything except someone failing to toe the politically correct line du jour.


Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Quite. Did you hear the part where Dunham admits to fiddling with her little sister's genitals when they were both little girls? These are kinds of monsters we're dealing with here.

Awesome Lovecraft references, btw.

Shimshon said...

Vox, kelvin (not Kelvin) is a unit. There are no "degrees." I propose the same for the "dunham."

Unless you want to use a Celsius scale, in which case "degrees" (and capitalization) is appropriate.

VD said...

Corrected, thanks. Zero dunhams would be no disgust measured at all.

Ben Cohen said...

Is John Scalzi on the Dunham scale?

Sentient Spud said...

I had predicted back in the early '00s that there were nutjobs in the pipeline so desensitized by their own experiences that, if ever elevated to influential positions in society, would begin reshaping it to reflect their own warped sense of morality. They wouldn't do this from a traditional cultural Marxist Approved Norms™ perspective, but from a perspective of genuine cognitive disability.

That Dunham was blindsided by the reaction to her...erm... "life narrative," and given that nobody who initially reviewed it flagged the appropriate tiles, only demonstrates the point.

As shocking as this latest revelation might be, the circus hasn't even begun. Give them 6 to 10 more years and a few enterprising lawyers. That's when the real freak show will kick off.

pdwalker said...


Something are too horrible to contemplate.

Have you had your sanity score checked recently?

Ghost said...

I hate statements that start off "as a victim of blah blah blah, I'm upset about that." So I'm not going to do that.

On a completely unrelated note, this fucking monster, this unrepentant piece of Satan's taint cheese should serve only one goddam function in polite society. "See that, daughter? Don't be like that."

She knows she's fucking wrong. Otherwise she wouldn't be categorizing years of sexual abuse as "things she did when she was 7." No, bitch. You were 7 when you started. You fucking knew better well before the time it stopped.

It's evil like this that really makes me hope that God has pay per view events in heaven where you get to watch the eternal suffering of the truly wicked.

Trust said...

I've found people on the right to be far more disgusted with blatant evil than people on the left. You can see women and gays stoned to death and beheaded by militant Islamists, and the left will worry about Islamophobia. But for someone on the right to think marriage is "man-woman" and think that it is wrong to force someone to pay for infanticides against their conscience, and you are "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party" engaging in a war on woman and a jihad against gays.

The left only feigns outrage when there is political gain. Michael Brown? Rally the troops! Abortion bombing in 1984? The Deadly Right! Yet a monster beheads a woman in the workplace while praising Allah? Workplace violence not at all tied to jihad, you right wing Islamaphobes.

The left was really as preoccupied with the values it claims to uphold, they would have chosen much different enemies. That's not to say the right always responds appropriately to its enemies, but it is much more reasonable a selecting them.

APL said...

OK, Lena Dunham (WTF, I've been fairly content to be utterly oblivious to the Dunham creature ) was eight, which means she was really actually not responsible for her actions.

The negligence (and abuse) here, is the fault of the parents, at least one of whom if the anecdote be true, knew the big sister was tampering with her sibling.

Ron said...


Agreed. It's why in a saner world this sort of thing would be stopped, the child given help, and the matter sealed.

But her reflections and tone about it indicate that she does not see this insane behavior as evil. And that indicates she is a severely damaged woman.

Ghost said...

APL, if her parents are still alive they should be investigated to the full extent of the law. And Some Dude is right. The fact that she reminisces so fondly over abusing a fucking toddler... beyond damaged. Broken beyond all repair.

Morpheus said...

What does it say about a person's moral compass who thinks Dunham show was quality and an important commentary on the SMP?

Anonymous said...

It's perfectly normal for small children to poke each others' genitals. It's then perfectly normal to beat them and yell at them so they don't do it again. 7 is a ways too old for that.

little dynamo said...

'Dunham Scale' has a nice ring. Appropriate dermatologically. Science should switch instead of being obstinate.

'The Dunham Scale for Horror'. About time it was standardized.

Blubber-rendering needn't be a chore. It should be celebrated collectively, a festival. After all it takes a Village. Ms. Dunwitch would fuel every streetlight in MA for a month. Toss in Ahab get an extra week free

Old Harry said...

I don't think it's that she's overweight. I'm not even sure it's that ugly tat. I think the worst thing about her and what makes me want to hurl when I see her is that ever present mid-wit scowl.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to think of another name to put alongside "Dunham" to coin the term "Dunham-Something effect", similar to Dunning-Kruger effect, defined as a negative bias that is so weak a person doesn't realize their inferiority.

It's gotta be something close enough to "Kruger" that the association (and meaning) is obvious.

Anonymous said...

Dunham's failure to anticipate backlash to her story is a perfect example for this phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

One more comment, because I realized it is probably a mistake to think this is obvious: this subversion would be a weaponized anti-leftist meme.

Anonymous said...

@ Trust....

here's a pretty good example of what you said above

Anonymous said...

aeolipera, that's easy. The Scalzi-Dunham Effect.

Anonymous said...

I considered that, but I'm really itching for something close to "Kruger" so as to exploit the effects of associative recall...

Aha! Dunham-Kramer, as in Ed Kramer.

I am a fucking genius.

Acksiom said...

And exactly how many of you folks are OK with the industrial commoditization of the erogenous flesh of baby boys, as documented in the link below?

These days the Goog's algorithm shows me 6 price sheets for vials of processed baby boy penis pelts in the top 10 results. Do you understand what that means? Do you comprehend what kind of literal Soylent Blue dystopian flesh market that indicates?

Little Lena Dunham's pedopeccadillo isn't even small beer compared to that. Six different companies, and probably more, openly hawking the sexually functional flesh of innocent baby boys.

So, where exactly does that cultural, nationwide psychopathic misandrist exploitation of babies rank on your Dunham scale? Anybody wanna take a swing at that?

I won't be holding my breath waiting for someone to be the second around here after me. You'll just ignore it, because, well, it would cost you too much personally to step up, now wouldn't it? The negative consequences would be too severe.

No, you'll all just go right on spooning the economic benefits of the industrial commoditization of the sexually handicapping permanently amputated erogenous flesh of innocent newborns of exclusively one gender by federal law into your pursed little mouths. Because you like the taste. You like how that constant supply of raw materials for academic and corporate research and manufacturing makes other things in life cheaper for you, subsidizing lower costs for you from across the medical industry all the way to cosmetic anti-wrinkle skin cream for old women.

How's that for "horror", folks? We're all part of the elite elderly class feeding on the flesh of the young. It's inescapable; it's baked into our economy. We all benefit.

Yes, I know. I shouldn't take you seriously. You're not actually posting here to improve the world. You're just here to complain about how awful *those* people are among a like-minded set who will nod and agree.

So I don't expect you to agree with me either. . .but I'm pretty sure you do understand, because you never even acknowledge the existence of the issue, let alone try to argue otherwise. And we all know what it means when the lefties etc. do that to their critics, now don't we? It means they know they can't defend their position. . .which means they *do* understand.

Just like you all understand. Your silence on the issue is your admission of guilt. Because if Lena Dunham fiddling with her sister's genitals is enough to get you to speak out in condemnation, the benefits you receive from the institutionalized shearing and sale of over a million baby boy prepuces annually, for literally no better reason than the supply-side savings trickling down from this cannibalistic corporate manufacturing to everyone's bottom line, should be more than enough to have you out in the streets demonstrating.

But you won't. You won't even speak up here. Because, as I said. . .you like the taste. You like how the money tastes. Never mind how bloodstained it is.

You like the taste of the baby boy flesh.

Anonymous said...

My genius was giving me a boner and you just killed it. I hope you're happy.

Ghost said...

Couldn't be that we've never heard of this. Nope. We're all part of the foreskin conspiracy. You're on to us.

Seriously, though. That's incredibly fucked up. Who buys baby dick skin?

Bob Loblaw said...

"The Dunham Horror". Now, that's good stuff I'm going to be using at work tomorrow.

APL said...

"You like the taste of the baby boy flesh."

I was utterly oblivious to whatever market this is. So in words of one syllable what does infant forskin do that there is a market for it?

Dexter said...

Ya mixing up yer Lovecraft...

Deep Ones =/= Shoggoths.

CarpeOro said...

So... Ack is saying that Dunham is Okay by it? Personally, I find myself appalled by both. I guess I haven't been desensitized to the point where I find either acceptable, like Ack.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Deep Ones =/= Shoggoths.

Shoggoths were under the control of the Deep Ones.

Anonymous said...

Just think, with a bit more scientific research, we'll be able to prove what we've known all along...that Liberalis Stupidus is NOT part of the genus Homo, and may be humanely disposed of like any other deranged and dangerous beast.

mina smith said...

On board w the r/K selection theory I see (Anonymous Conservative) wink wink

Acksiom said...

>Couldn't be that we've never heard of this. Nope. We're all part of the foreskin conspiracy. You're on to us.

It would be easier to believe that if it could somehow explain why so many people who eagerly criticize lesser evils won't even acknowledge the topic's existence when it's explicitly pointed out to them.

>Seriously, though. That's incredibly fucked up. Who buys baby dick skin?

Academic research labs and private corporations, both of whom use it for experimental and manufacturing purposes.

Seriously, think about how much use baby boy prepuces must be put to for the supply side to be that large and institutionalized. It's the freshest, cleanest, healthiest, youngest human skin we can legally get, after all.

>So in words of one syllable what does infant forskin do that there is a market for it?

Doc cut baby, get paid. Doc sell skin, get paid. Doc has plus cash from that so charge less for alt work. Next doc must drop price on same jobs to match or lose out, so med costs drop for all who buy.

Lab make fake skin, sell to doc to fix burns, scars, and so on, get paid; sell to make up biz for tests, get paid. Girl pay less for make up where no beast take harm from test to see if make up is safe for her since test done on boy skin. Lab sell to doc that probe how world works for tests on how world works. Doc that probe world sell what he find out from test to biz that make things that get sold to you and me.

>So... Ack is saying that Dunham is Okay by it?

No, but she probably is.

>Personally, I find myself appalled by both.

But which one do you personally benefit from more?

>I guess I haven't been desensitized to the point where I find either acceptable, like Ack.

To malappropiate Pauli, that isn't even wrong. I can't begin to imagine how you managed to get to that particular nonexistent nowhere from what I actually posted.

Akulkis said...

Seriously, though. That's incredibly fucked up. Who buys baby dick skin?

Probably the coreligionists of people who eagerly cut it off --
how else would such a network come into existance in the first place?

Akulkis said...

>Seriously, though. That's incredibly fucked up. Who buys baby dick skin?

Academic research labs and private corporations, both of whom use it for experimental and manufacturing purposes.

So, in your mind, that makes EVERYONE guilty, even thought 99.99999% of the population never even HEARD of the baby-foreskin reselling market?

That's some level of f***ed up guilt misappropriation there... like 2.3 on the Stalin scale.

MichaelJMaier said...

In the spirit of penile talk: Piss off, ya dick.

Acksiom said...

[shrug] If you really want to break the chains, win the games, and save western civilization, you should be attacking where your enemies are weak and the terrain favors you. The best intersection I know of for that is where the Dunhams and their followers prioritize women's interests ahead of those of children. That's the best combination I know of where they're weakest and the terrain best favors you.

You might want to take me seriously about this. I'm no TFH, but I do have a record of being up to five years or more ahead of the rest of the manosphere on occasion. I rarely make predictions, but they're usually right. And since I finally found a permanent address for the year, last weekend I nailed down my preferred domains for taking that line of attack -- the feminist etc. prioritization of women's interests ahead of those of children -- public and political.

In case you haven't noticed, Instapundit's been increasingly hammering the sexual abuse of underaged male students by female teachers with his "Teach Women Not To Rape" meme for several days now, which means he's getting good links incoming and good hit responses outgoing about it, which in turn means it's just about ripe for wider coverage.

Add in the marriage strike, the drop in the population replacement rate, the growing availability of paternity testing, Vasalgel's coming black swan nuclear strike on the gender power balance. . .I may not have Vox's ability to predict the behavior patterns of Gamma Rabbits etc., but I can damn well see the perfect storm brewing on the near horizon from those cells.

Akulkis said...

That's perfectly good...

But blaming people who NOTHING to do with circumcision or tissue trade for such evil just makes you come off as an absolute full-moon on a cloudless night lunie-tune.

Dexter said...

Shoggoths were under the control of the Deep Ones.

Dogs are under the control of men. Therefore, dogs are the same thing as a men?

Manu said...

Helen of Troy supposedly launched 1000 Greek ships, according to legend. So we might suggest that beauty has a definable metric. 1 Helen is equal to 1000 vessels launched toward the woman in question. A milliHelen would be the attractiveness needed to launch a single boat likewise. Negative units could conceivably exist, ergo the level of hideousness necessary to launch 1000 ships in the opposite direction. We might suggest that 1 Dunham = -1 Helen. Clearly, we should keep Lena Dunham far away from active harbors or busy port cities.

Post a Comment