Decent(sort of) Article About Trump's Heightism

www.thedailybeast.com/short-people-are-pissed-at-trump-for-his-bloomberg-height-attacks

Of course, there had to be an obligatory pun because the author so cleverly had to add the heading "small ball." People absolutely can not discuss heightism without saying at-least one goofy joke. This tells you just what we're up against.

The article also had some decent parts. Tanya made good remarks, and even Brock from Modest Man didn't say anything unproductive. Tanya was definitely right about how Trump's remarks will not unite short people. Absolutely nothing unites short people other than the will to be Garmins who try to end heightism discussion. It's also good that Tanya brought-up stereotypes about short men and how short people are not viewed as potential leaders.

Then, for no reason whatsoever, the author had to bring-up the topic of r/shortcels and dismissed the entire content of the sub as "misogynist." Here we go again with lumping heightism discussion in with misogyny. When Wendy Williams made heightist remarks about Ariana Grande, I didn't hear anyone try to relate short women with some other form of bigotry. It's extremely telling that an author who writes an article that is about Trump's big mouth finds the need to somehow equate the victim's of Trump's statements with misogyny. There are ample other places(including Heightism Hub and the pages run by our posters) that he could've gotten content that wasn't loaded with the type of stuff that is discussed at r/shortcels, but he deviated from the whole topic he was writing about in-order to virtue signal by showing he is anti-misogyny, and left the audience believing that anti-heightism discussion is somehow linked with misogyny. I guess the author couldn't find it within himself to discuss anything that affects short men without somehow giving the audience an "out" by bringing-up shortcels so that they could immediately dismiss any concerns short men have.

There was good and bad with this article, and it was better than most articles, but the bad portions were unnecessarily shoehorned in, which lessened the positive impact.


Edit: I forgot to mention the title of the article, which was "Short people are pissed Short People Are Pissed at Trump for His Bloomberg Height Attacks."

There are two things wrong with this title.
1) It makes it sound like short people are pissed-off at this as a whole. That's far from the case. Short people are far too docile to be pissed-off at these types of comments. I wish more short people were pissed at stuff like this. If they were, we might finally be able to make some progress, but the truth remains that most short people will either self-deprecate, defend "everyone's right to have an opinion," ignore the comments, or prance for tallers so as to show they aren't bothered by these types of comments. Not nearly enough short people will actually be pissed enough to do anything about it or challenge the type of people who make these types of comments.

2) Has anyone ever heard any supportive comments about short people(especially short men) being pissed off? Absolutely not. The only type of feedback that will come as the result of short men being pissed off for disparaging remarks is about how those pissed-off short men prove Napoleon Complex exists, about how short men are angry at their shortness, they're bitter pathetic losers, and so on. I'd be willing to bet that the author found the idea of theoretical short men being pissed-off at Trump's comments amusing, which is why he chose this particular title. Once again, If he wanted to handle this topic with complete seriousness, why did he go digging on a shortcels forum so as to equate short men with misogyny?