That’s Anthony Loffredo above. He used to look like the inset photo, but now he calls himself the “black alien,” having surgically removed his ears, nostrils and a few fingers so he could have claws. He also sharpened his teeth and dyed them purple, while getting tattooed from head to toe.
Hey, good luck to you, dude! Whatever floats your boat!
But now Tony has authored a complaint in the New York Post. He feels put-upon and discriminated against because restaurants refuse to serve him. They say he scares the customers.
“It’s a fight every day, because every day you find new people who don’t understand, who want to judge. It’s life, not everyone understands everything. Like me, I don’t understand lots of things about lots of people,” he laments. “You can’t judge someone. No one knows what’s inside someone’s head, why they’re doing that, you need to talk with this person.”
Yes, Tony, no one knows what’s inside someone’s head, and when someone has chosen to look like you do, it is reasonable to doubt whether whatever is inside that head is functioning properly.
Loffredo swears he’s just a “normal guy.” Normal guys don’t have their noses, ears and fingers cut off. Loffredo says he’s considering having a leg amputated. Yup, just a normal, safe, trustworthy guy you’d want babysitting your kids, handling your finances, being your life coach.
Whatever ethics line there is here separating bigotry and prejudice from prudence, Loffredo has galloped over it. A restaurant that refuses to admit customers with deformities are cruel bigots, and their diners who don’t want to be disturbed by non-conforming guests need to grow up. A restaurant that refuses to seat someone loudly talking to the air or insisting that he is accompanied by a 6-foot invisible rabbit is taking a reasonable precaution. Anthony Loffredo’s appearance is the equivalent of a man wearing a neon “I’m out of my frickin’ mind!” sign on his head, and any establishment that doesn’t take him at his word is being negligent.
Loffredo’s dining issue is 100% self-made, and nobody is at fault but him. He’s wrong: we have a responsibility to judge people, not by what they look like, but by what they do. If someone judges a man who deliberately mutilates himself as a clinical narcissistic (“Look at me!) and an individual with both dubious judgment and a generalized contempt for societal norms, it is completely reasonable and fair.
Sorry, Tony. Looks like it’s carry-out from now on, and you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. Stop whining.
(And get help.)
17 thoughts on “And Now For Something Completely Stupid! Will Somebody Please Explain To This Guy The Concept Of “Accountability”?”
Jack wrote, “(And get help.)”
He’s getting the exact “shocked” kind of reaction from others that he was looking for and now he’s complaining? Choices have consequences. He knew exactly what he was doing. No one mutilates themselves like that without being actively in search of lots and lots of attention and he reached his goal, so fuck you Anthony and the Sasquatch brained horse you rode in on.
No one can “fix” Anthony Loffredo’s kind of stupid.
Maybe it’s just because my 50th college class reunion is coming up this June, but “If it feels good, do it!” comes to mind reading the Post article about this Frenchman. I was kind of surprised the Post writer is so sanguine, to the point of being affirmative, in her treatment of this guy. (By the way, the photos of this guy in the Post article are even creepier than the ones Jack included.) Where does this guy get his money?
Another question to ask is who are the doctors that are laughing all the way to the bank after they scrapped their ethics to do the shit this fool asked them to do?
I thought the same. Changes in one’s personal aesthetic must be reasonable by societal standards if one wishes to associate with any particular group. It is not the existing group’s responsibility to acquiesce to the demands of newcomers.
His wife does the “surgery”. Doctors are not actually involved with this creep.
Rich in CT wrote, “His wife does the ‘surgery’. Doctors are not actually involved with this creep.”
I haven’t read that anywhere.
So his wife is not a medical Doctor?
Maybe it’s all covering up domestic abuse.
This character goes to the extreme to look the most hideously abhorrent he possibly can yet expects other people to treat him normally. Not only is he suffering significant mental issues, but what doctor in his right mind would perform such mutilative surgery on him? Where are the doctor’s ethics?
BTW, I wonder if he has a job, and if so, who would employ him?
I’ve looked into him a bit about morbid curiosity, and to see if ethics complaints need to be filed. His wife does the “surgeries” and tattoos herself (doctors are not involved, as far as I can tell). She is far beyond an enabler.
He has also complained that he hasn’t been able to get a job for the same reasons he is complaining here about treatment at restaurants.
Can you imagine the reaction of a female walking home alone from work on a dark foggy night having that face creep out of a dark alley and head directly towards you? I’m not so sure a jury of her peers would find her guilty of anything if she shot him dead with her concealed carry pistol.
Again, choices have consequences and people who play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Between this and the latest Masterpiece Cake shop, I have a very unpopular take on both. Anti-discrimination law as applied to private individuals (the government telling it’s employees that THEY aren’t allowed to discriminate on various things is different) is inherently unethical, and a violation of the freedom of association. Yes, that includes whatever bits of the CRA/Ttile IX/ADA/etc. you really like. Discrimination is ALSO unethical in some cases of course, but just because something is immoral doesn’t give the government carte blanche to regulate it. This person has no business suing, and neither did the activist groups trying to get the baker shut down.
Your point is well-taken, albeit unpopular.
Just as Freedom of Speech is the Freedom not to speak, Freedom of Association should mean the Freedom not to Associate.
After all, in a society as large and diverse as ours is, compulsory association could be considered oppressive.
Having said that, a large carve out for professions (lawyers, doctors, etc.), common carriers (hotels, restaurants, cabs, etc.), and government institutions (Universities and government bodies) is needed so that the community can function.
There are fringe areas that can also be addressed (banks, restrictive covenants, housing, etc.), but the laws, as they stand, force people who may not like each other to deal with each other (with the power of the State there to coerce Association). We may be far better off if we relaxed that requirement in very deliberate ways.
For my part, there may be lots of people I don’t like or with whom I disagree. However, I do not believe that it has ever affected my decision whether or not to represent someone.
The mention of desired amputation rang a bell.
Also some overlap with transsexual body mutilation.
I do think Elwood P. Dowd proves himself harmless, at least in the scaring the customers sense.
Yeah, but Harvey was real. And pookas are dangerous.
Warning, satire ahead:
Loffredo is simply a persecuted trans galactic. He was born on Earth but knows in his heart that he is really an extra-terrestrial. He is just expressing his true self. Who are we to judge? I guess the trans galactic lobby has gained very little political traction as of yet.