I'm not defending the fat acceptance movement, I just think the line should be somewhere between "being fat is fine" and "fat people just need to sort themselves out".
The problem is the insidious nature of the disease. What is this generations utterly ridiculous, becomes next generations absolute truth. Because no one slapped some sense into these people to begin with with a very basic defense of the truth, because it would hurt their feelings. They will infiltrate every single major platform and start labeling anything counter to their version of reality as Xphobic and ban people who hold the opposite view point, regardless of the truth.
I firmly believe post modernist rhetoric is the lead in the water pipes of western society that will infect all our brains it is such a low grade basic bitch game to play. Pick something that the known reason why something has negative connotations, ignore them. Then say the real reason is dolphin rape and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, with cherry picked examples, and anyone who falls short in that regard will flock to your banner rather than self improve. It is a wonder the tobacco lobby hasn't jumped on hiring a couple of accedemics to argue negative views of tobacco is just dolphin rape towards the native Americans, I mean it is literally as valid and founded in reality as any of the rest of this rubbish.
No we shouldn't entertain it, because it is insincer charlatan rhetoric. Post moderns foundation is literally "The stuff we know is good is actually bad" that's it that is literally the entire underlying basis of it, just most followers never know enough about the history of it to understand the danger of what they spout they are just un it for the ego deflection, it is a total nihilistic disregard for what is actually positive, just a methodology to attack everything, and I hate it.
>>452052 One, define post-modernism. Two, it's hyphenated, you complete dick. You cite not one example of anything you're whinging about which is strange considering you think "post-modernism is the lead in the pipes" of western society, presumably meaning you think it's a massive problem we all need to be aware of. You don't even suggest what the "good stuff" we're allegedly losing out on is. You're just complaining and complaining about nothing, which is the alpha and omega of modern right-wing thought. "Boohoo, we've been in the driving seat for 40 years and everything's shit. The government says I have to let currymunchers and poofs live in some of my 300 rental properties now! It's not fair!", piss yourself.
"Self improve" is on incredibly shaky grammatical ground too.
>>452065 Why are you screaming about this. Post-modernist thought has rightly been the purview of dusty academic corners because it is inherently about applying a cultural relativism to the truth in order to deconstruct reality, with it's adherents also fundamentally applying a Marxist dialectic without recognising the inherent contradiction this creates. It's not a valid post-modernist deconstruction of body image to say that a doctor is mislead when he tells you your obesity is going to kill you and we can't have a discussion on the broader issue if there's no shared truths to operate from.
>"Boohoo, we've been in the driving seat for 40 years and everything's shit. The government says I have to let currymunchers and poofs live in some of my 300 rental properties now! It's not fair!", piss yourself.
Rather than spazzing out with this line of thought that instantly invalidates any point you make, why not actually pick up on the rights adoption of post-modernist and anti-liberal wank. Shit like the "driving seat" just makes anyone reading you picture the Guardian reading academic belittling the working class Brexit voter because he's white.
I really like how a good point made by fat acceptance types ("My doctor told me my bones hurt because I was fat, turns out I actually had boneitis, which has now crippled me because they didn't catch it early.") is transmuted into "Fat people just want to be told it's perfectly healthy to be fat!"
It's almost fun to run with the smoker analogy here - how often does a doctor errantly assume that some health problem unrelated to someone smoking is actually a consequence of their smoking?
It definitely doesn't help their case that you can set aside all the complexity and ambiguity of medical diagnostics and just look at how people selectively read relatively unambiguous language when they know the person writing it is a fat woman.
Nah. He's right, and the fact all you can do is throw out a trite strawman about him being some kind of Mail reading, beer bellied, Benidorm holidaying gammon says as much about you as it does anything else.
You know what he was on about and so does anyone else who's been sentient for the past decade. It's 2022 and Starbucks are holding trans employee's healthcare to ransom as a union-busting tactic, but retards like you are still making the same non-arguments nobody was buying in 2012. The cynicism is out in plain view and you still want to pretend it's a minor issue only grumpy old boomers are concerned about.
You're either a mug or you're a knowing enemy of the common man.
>>452068 >>452074 I'm not screaming about anything, I'm pointing out how vapid his post was. There was nothing to it, just vaguely paranoid complaining about "post-modernism". The idea that this is some massive problem turning society inside out is preposterous, it's like being in 1970 and melting down over how "by the 90s everyone will be living in communes and be wrecked on acid". It's just not going to happen. The only academic bullshit isn't coming from me, it's you lot going on about how the "contradictions post-modernism creates within the Marxist dialectic" and your general over-intellectualising over niche, wedge, non-troversies. "In the driving seat" is a pretty common idiom and I'm not sure why it singles me out as the academic type, nor does making fun of 40 years of Thatcher/Reaganism make me the "enemy of the common man", you pompous idiot. And again, you're the ones starting and boosting threads about "fat pride", I didn't realise this was top of the agenda for the IWW. I don't see you posting anything about the coming rail strikes on here, but there's always time to bump the trans thread that's so old it'll be buying fags and voting any day now.
Ever since Cave Man Jack got way into mammoth brain meat and sent his cholesterol through the roof, some people have been unable to accept their, largely, self-imposed ailments. I was in hospital with a bloke who'd had three lung collapses and spent twenty minutes insisting to me his smoking had nothing to do with it and he wouldn't be quitting. This wasn't because he thought the doctor was a lying reactionary, he just really liked smoking and people are incredibly good at fibbing to themselves. That's all the "healthy at any weight" folk are doing, because changing deeply embedded, almost subconcious, behaviors is really hard. A tiny handful of these people make a living off promoting those ideas, but for most overweight people they basically internalise a kind of sunk cost fallacy, the same way all kinds of people do for all kinds of harmful acts. Already had four cans? Might as well polish off the other two before bed. Accidentally wasted 12 hours of your Saturday playing computer games? You can always shower tomorrow instead. The fact I'm the one who's being labled a subversive intellectual while you spout delusion bollocks regarding the reach, persausive abilities and harm of "post-modernism" is a fucking joke
>It's 2022 and Starbucks are holding trans employee's healthcare to ransom as a union-busting tactic
I don't know what the fuck this means, by the way. As far as I can tell from a quick internet search it's an American thing and as such I haven't the time for it, but it appears Starbuck's trans employees aren't falling for it either so don't sweat it.
>lalala it's not real just go outside it can't hurt you it's only a few weirdos on the internet
That's what you sound like. If we are to indulge in standpoint theory (and I'd really rather not, but for the sake of argument) it's clear that you have the privilege of living in a social and professional environment where none of this stuff impacts you. But not all of us do, in fact increasingly few do.
>Starbuck's trans employees aren't falling for it either so don't sweat it
We will see. They're certainly to be commended for seeing through it, but it's not aimed at them. Just you wait. I'll be proved right again.
Has anyone who gets riled up at postmodernism ever really looked into the concept of postmodernity itself?
I'm no philosopher and maybe I've just outright cracked, but it's always made more sense to me when you put aside all the tedious social issues or obscure americans saying something bizarre and look at the evolution of something like political economy. You've got this nice clean evolution from the classical economists to Keynes. The classical economists mostly say the government shouldn't interfere with things, then Keynes comes along and goes "hang on, we'll stop having all these depressions and panics if the government stabilises the economy." and the government does.
That's your modernism - we've solved the major issue in economics, we've set up a nice stable system where you don't have to worry about unemployment and all that nonsense, so you get a nice consumer boom, everyone's happy. Clear line of historical progress. Then bang, in the 1970s along comes an oil crisis, and along come the neoclassical economists, and they go: "No, hang on, actually Keynes was wrong and the classics were right, the government shouldn't meddle, and we can prove it mathematically." The nice modernist progression of history is broken - if you're a Keynesian, it broke the minute the neoclassicals kicked your lot out. If you're a neoclassical, it broke when Keynes started interfering. Either way, now we're in a brave new world where the only way forward is backwards. But in a way that's much more nostalgic than reactionary - the anomaly isn't so much that people started looking backwards, as that they stopped looking forwards.
yes, this is an incredible oversimplification of the economics of it, but I've spent enough time reading about it to know that it's not worth being more accurate. You could do the same with Marxism - Marx always getting tied up in arguments about postmodernism despite being a modernist. Same basic thing - he does his theories, the revolutions break out across the world, the USSR rapidly industrialises, becomes a superpower with China close behind... and then the USSR collapses and China's communist party tells you to follow in their footsteps by starting your own business empire.
And time and again that same basic pattern - big idea breaking with the past, crisis, weirdness - that keeps recurring. Look at postwar housing developments - after the war we knock down the slums and you get all your nice modernist tower blocks and new towns, all rationally planned to meet the population's needs and all that. People are confident that we've got all the modern planning knowledge we need to get it right. Then decay sets in, the grand plans don't work out, people sour on tower flats, then you slowly wind up with right to buy whittling away the very concept of public housing, and now we're sitting with our current mess of a housing market with the main consensus being that although it's a disaster zone, there's no easy way to fix it. That muddle, that indecisiveness, that lack of certainty, that's far more postmodern than any fat studies course.
>>452078 How am I the privileged one for not having the carefree life of riley one must presumably have to find oneself upset about the fat acceptance movement? Such that this vanishingly niche group can be called a movement. Enjoy your race war chat with your new, anti-OWS mate.
>>452077 >The only academic bullshit isn't coming from me, it's you lot going on about how the "contradictions post-modernism creates within the Marxist dialectic" and your general over-intellectualising over niche, wedge, non-troversies
You tried to browbeat him about not understanding what post-modernism is and now you're getting a highbrow response back, one calibrated in precisely the way this site will understand, you're recoiling in horror.
>>452080 You sounds like you would enjoy James.C Scott's Seeing Like a State.
But no it's somewhat easy to take a liberal enlightenment refutation of this line of thinking, there's a clear grand narrative at work across history focused on the empowered individual and what that means. You don't build top-down housing and at the same time you don't fall for the neo-liberal con that it naturally follows (through discredited models) that a shrivelling state won't mean a loss of human action to the big fish.
You defeat utopianism, authoritarians and shysterism with a bullshit detector.
>>452079 The 'well funded academics' clearly means CIA and other government assets as they themselves been very open about in the past. I think even the otherplace understands this what with 'glowies' and what-not.
Person you were replying to here. Others have defended me but I think it is worth explaining myself...
>define post modernism
I would define post modernism at a most basic level as modernism applied to modernism. Modernism is a principle that defined the enlightenment of holding a critical eye to behaviour in order to establish institutions that were positive, by asking the question of are the things we assumed to be good good, and what would good look like, usually with a liberal bias, this lead to such concepts as the application of rationality and the scientific method, under the premise that the truth is good, and all men being equal utilitarianism and even communism. What post modernism is is questioning of those institutions and the conclusions of those institutions, upto and including science.
If for example medical science says being fat is bad because of various underlying explanations, post modernism doesn't care if a bias is based on evidence what it cares about is there is a bias, if doctors say being fat is bad it is because they are bigots. This is linked in to the rhetoric of dialectic materialism aka communism/Marxism but with the underlying key points about power erased, this is the so called 'cultural Marxism', it has the same model of the status quo and the oppressor, but it has adopted the default opinion of minority opinion =good, regardless of context. Communism has the end goal that we are all equal that is its truth. Cultural Marxism is regularly the rhetoric of the same system of power and inequality that is currently existent but wants the leviathan to have a pair of tits and non white skin, it isn't about changing the system it is about changing the position of the players, it actually gives no thought to an end goal just that we play musical chairs. For all of the dressing up, it thinks men are bad, being Christian is bad white is bad, being educated is bad, being able bodied is bad, for no other reason than that these things are generally accepted as being between good or benign. The snake eats it's own tail occasionally as a result, gay men in my lifetime have achieved a great deal of acceptance in society and as a result they are started to be excluded by this rhetoric from the movements they built for the crime of being quite reasonable.
It is devoid of end goal it is just the rhetoric of compliant.
>>452084 >I'd love to who "they" are, Jewhatelad?
Sorry m7 but since I'm not a racialist, I don't conflate super-wealthy elites who conspire to keep themselves rich with Jews. Nice job proving the point made in the image though.
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ This seemed relevant to all our cunt-offs we were having about obesity earlier. Not to mention an actually interesting mystery - I had no idea lab animals were getting fatter, or any of the unexpected correlations like obesity-vs-altitude.
It's not a mystery at all though. That article goes on at length about what people eat and all the weird coincidences we can observe when we look at the statistics, but it doesn't even touch once, in the entire thing, on how much people eat.
It's really, really, really, REALLY fucking simple. If you eat too much, you get fat. People nowadays eat too much. Simple as that. Literally. You could eat a diet consisting solely and entirely of nothing but 100% lard, but as long as you only eat between 1800-2200 calories worth of it a day, you won't get fat. You'll get scurvy, all sorts of gastrointestinal issues, and a host of other shit, but you won't get fat. I really don't understand why we have to keep pretending it's some great unanswerable question like the fucking Fermi paradox or the origins of the universe, because it fucking isn't.
The real question is why can't people stop stuffing their faces? Why do they eat too much? I think it's fairly easy to see that there's some correlation with food abundance. For an awful lot of people, food is more easily obtained and affordable than ever, but we haven't developed the necessary self control to stop us overindulging on it. We also have a bunch of other factors like the unique existential torment of modern life that make us comfort eat. For the wealthy it's simple decadence, but a lot of poor people are fat because constantly eating shite while they watch Gogglebox is one of the few ways they can mitigate the abject misery of their existence.
Anyway all that aside, I suspect it'll become a self-correcting problem in about 50 years, when the continued effects of climate change and the human population approaching 18 billion start to strain the planet's agricultural capacity. Can't send fatties into space either, they use more fuel.
Ah. That website is very poorly laid out then. Well ,the second page, wherein they bullshit around humans somehow being able to defy the laws of thermodynamics, and then straight up admit the facts, before handwaving them with no real justification:
>It’s true that people eat more calories today than they did in the 1960s and 70s, but the difference is quite small. Sources have a surprisingly hard time agreeing on just how much more we eat than our grandparents did, but all of them agree that it’s not much. Pew says calorie intake in the US increased from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010.
Well, I mean. If you think a full on 20% increase is "quite small" then that quite handily explains why it's such a baffling mystery. Because you're thick as fuck.
>Studies of controlled overfeeding — you take a group of people and get them to eat way more than they normally would — reliably find two things. First, a person at a healthy weight has to eat huge amounts of calories to gain even a couple pounds. Second, after the overfeeding stops, people go right back to the weight they were before the experiment.
Here again, they're trying to use evidence that directly supports this "CICO" as they call it, to argue against it. Yes, you have to eat a lot to gain weight in such a short space of time- 3 months in the study they cite (which they also admit doesn't even state how many calories were used), but if you're eating just a bit over the healthy amount for your entire life, it's going to have a cumulative effect. And I mean, let's just copy and paste this bit again.
>after the overfeeding stops, people go right back to the weight they were before
He's right though, you really do need to stop blaming everyone and everything else for your obesity and rake some self control. It's like the lads in /emo/ or the resting actor thread. We can be here to support you, but we can't do it for you.
Only you can stop stuffing entire fucking cheesecakes down your neck at 3am, you lardy bastard.
>>452331 See, the difference is I made fun of him because he actually can't read. Or rather he can, he just doesn't make the effort, which is worse. You're just making things up even though you've apparently got no dog in this fight, which is more indicative of your own brain-failings than anything. I'll admit this is speculation on my part, but I'm quite confident I'm better in almost every way than you and will likely outlive you as well. Not least because your unprovoked hostility speaks to a mind prone to emotional outbursts, which would suggest you're more at risk of suicide than most men.
Anyway, I need to get back to looking for a new pair of running shoes since my last ones got too raggedy. Feel free to spend the next half-an-hour trying to have a pop about how it was my colossal mass that caused the damage, not their regular usage.
>>452331 I'm fat as balls and it's fantastic. I'm not blaming anyone. I am positively jolly. You ever meet a thin person? They're always so insecure and angry, picking anonymous fights on obscure imageboards when they find out that it's actually been perfectly fine all this time to eat things that are delicious.
And as I type this, in Wimbledon on the TV, the oddly-squidgy-for-a-professional-athlete Jelena Ostapenko has just taken the lead against bony unknown Tatjana Maria.
I was about to make fun of you for spelling her name incorrectly as the search engine did a "Did you mean ___?" But the spelling mistake is that you used an l instead of a ļ and that's some nonsense. Nobody has time to look up how to input ļ.
>>452331 >Only you can stop stuffing entire fucking cheesecakes down your neck at 3am, you lardy bastard.
This, despite it all, is what it boils down to. I skimmed it yesterday whilst being thoroughly annoyed that there's no abstract or contents page for the pleasure of the fucking nerd who put the site together.
They blame lithium contamination for having damaged our brains - or rather the lipostat. That seems a cromulent given the evidence until you dig deeper, mainly that they didn't bother looking at trace lithium dosage by country for correlation (because they're stupid Americans) and we'd know if we were being slowly poisoned by lithium given it's other side effects like death. It also seems questionable to me that modern hunter-gatherers wouldn't suffer lithium exposure compared to wild animals that they're eating.
Second theory is long-chain polymers but despite all the words dedicated to it nobody has been able to explain the mechanism by which a material THAT EXPLICITELY EXISTS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REACT OR BREAKDOWN would react with our bodies. There's not much to this, evil corporations etc. maybe it's true like the whole lead fiasco with something else catalysing but I don't see it. It's something your mum would believe.
Third is gut-bacteria reacting with antibiotics which I have a soft-spot for but humanity is in its infancy when it comes to playing with our poo. It also doesn't explain why damaging a gut biome would almost universally cause obesity and why skinny/fat twins exist given you can't perform accurate gut-biome experiments when tests subjects live together. If you want to lose weight then hang out with skinny people.
But we all know that obesity is one of those things life fucks you with and you have to deal with. We know that eating proper food is a really good idea even if we don't really know why and especially when it's combined with exercise and big manly muscles. Ultimately people have trouble keeping weight off but it doesn't mean diets are wrong, it means losing weight once you put it on (and especially as you age) is extremely hard and your own body fights you which gets worse the longer you stay fat like when you quit smoking. It likes to point out that Penn Jillette did the potato diet and it really worked but misses how he's kept it off.
On an unrelated note; supermarkets should only provide a small amount of processed food sold in plain packaging like Tesco Value used to be. You go in, pick up your cheap chicken, potato and carrots in non-descript packaging, maybe a little dry seasoning and then you leave with a *tiny* bar of victory chocolate. The blandest shopping experience of your life. I'd shop at such a place all the time.
>>452337 Seriously can you imagine the ideological void it would offer. I know that packaging influences taste and people are cheap dopamine junkies but it would be like IKEA where the joy comes from turning base ingredients into meals. Call me a communist all you want but if someone did it well then I bet they would blow Aldi and Lidl out the water.
>>452337 >>452338 I'm not opposed to bland packaging or full communism but you can fuck off if you think you're stopping me from scoffing one of those blocks of chocolate the size of a laptop just because some other people struck the bad luck to get fat doing the same. It's like the man of steel himself put it: Quantity has a quality all of its own.
>>452339 We'll just wait until the combination of diabetes and teeth trouble leave you powerless to oppose the healthy conspiracy. You can't win this battle, chocolate-man.
Do fat people, in general, make the worst parents? I've noticed that when I do the school run if I hear someone screaming at their kids, often the kid hasn't really done anything wrong to justify that reaction, it's almost always a fat woman. I'm guessing it's because it's easier for them to shout than actually move their arses.
Poor women (but not poor men) are disproportionately likely to be obese. There are a lot of reasons why being poor makes it harder to be a good parent.
>>452355 I'm pretty sure paedophiles, drug addicts and mentally unstable cultists all make worse parents than fatties, to give an honest answer to your question.
Yo momma so fat, the userbase of dot gee ess fancies her.
Anyway, while we're on the subject, why are women more likely to be fat than men? I propose it's because women are less capable of self responsibility, which we have already firmly established to be the root cause of fat.
>>452365 It's all biblical innit, the first thing Eve did was stuff her face without thinking of the consequences.
Us blokes should set about finding Eden again and asking that big flaming sword of a doorman if we can get back in since it wasn't our fault we broke the rules, a fat bird put us up to it while we were in a state of diminished capacity.
>>452365 Why does it have to be the fault of too much food, rather than not enough exercise? Society is undeniably more sedentary than it used to be. And while I absolutely could not ever walk my way to abs, it's worth considering that it's harder to eat while pushing a hoop down a cobbled street with a stick than it is to eat while watching TikTok in your bedroom.
We're definitely less active than previous generations, but it takes a remarkably high level of physical activity to seriously shift the balance of calories. It's very easy to eat way too much and very hard to substantially increase your caloric expenditure.
You need to walk a mile to burn off the calories in a single chocolate digestive. If (as a lot of people do) you think nothing of scoffing half a packet of biccies over the course of an evening, nothing short of getting a job as a hod carrier is going to redress the balance. A single chocolate digestive per day in excess of your calorie requirements amounts to half a stone per year of weight gain.
My diet consists mostly of tea, rollies and half-eaten sandwiches, but for normal people it's incredibly hard to maintain a healthy weight in our current food culture. There are too many cheap and tasty treats on offer, too many inducements to eat, too many well-meaning people who foist food on others out of a misguided sense of generosity.
