My embarrassing picture went viral
salon.com
salon.com
I feel for her and the negative comments are reprehensible, but what I hear in this particular paragraph are excuses. Having issues with POS and the thyroid gland do not make it impossible to lose weight, just more difficult. My advice: ignore the haters and come up with a game plan with your doctor to lose the weight in a steady and health way.
Really. Most people only have one day or two of food at home. In cities, stores have two days of stock at most.
The federal government shut down. If anything else happens, God forbids, that breaks down the provisioning circuits, panic will soon ensue, and for city dwellers, only 2 days before they start dying from thirst, and 42 days until they die of hunger.
Now, I'd like to see all those lean people, how they'll fare after one week. If us the fat people can hide for a week and avoid being eaten by them, then the world will be ours!
For that matter, the article says she is healthy and the doctors have given her the all clear. So she's of a somewhat larger build - big fucking deal!
This is probably coming off wrong. I'm sure you mean well. But don't be so quick to give healthy living advise to someone with a medical condition (or for that matter, really anyone) you don't know. Put yourself in their shoes - the point of this article really - how would you like unsolicited, judgmental advise about something you have little control over?
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So, that means garbage in = fat + garbage out. You really are what you eat.
I know this by my own diet. When I gobbled up everything in sight, I <gasp> got fat. When I quit packing my face full of food, I lost weight. Interesting how that works.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=polycystic+ovarian+syndro...
This takes me to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycystic_ovary_syndrome
Wikipedia tells me this has little to do with "gobbling up everything in sight". Sadly, physics, biology and chemistry don't know what cause it (yet), nor is there a cure (yet).
Overweight people are not spontaneously generating matter, sure, but it's not like people can just stop eating until they hit the weight you'd prefer them to have, they kinda stop working before that happens.
Go google hypothyroidism and PCOS. Then come back and tell us what you learn. I'll have crayons and paper so you can show the whole class.
Imagine that.
Where PCOS is associated with overweight or obesity, successful weight loss is the most effective method of restoring normal ovulation/menstruation, but many women find it very difficult to achieve and sustain significant weight loss. A scientific review in 2013 found similar decreases in weight and body composition and improvements in pregnancy rate, menstrual regularity, ovulation, hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance, lipids and quality of life to occur with weight loss independent of diet composition.[41] Still, a low GI diet, in which a significant part of total carbohydrates are obtained from fruit, vegetables and whole grain sources, has resulted in increased menstrual regularity than a macronutrient-matched healthy diet.[41] Vitamin D deficiency may play some role in the development of the metabolic syndrome, so treatment of any such deficiency is indicated.[42]
..... In other words, eat your veggies and don't be a pig. Medically speaking, of course.
I was a lard-ass like you, until I took a doughnut to the knee.
I really shouldn't engage in these sort of back and forths, but sometimes I just can't resist...
They mean that the subject has tried many things, to the point of frustration.
Unless we accept that losing weight is the highest possible priority, then it will necessarily be balanced against other priorities. These will be generally inconsistently pursued, because people are not rational.
In part, people who are calling for acceptance of a wider range of body weights are arguing that there is too high a priority placed on a person's weight.
Thank you for that eloquent retort. Though I've been on both sides of a pedant's argument (often the wrong side), it's helpful to set the context that a conversation is happening in. Some folks will grab onto anything if it allows them to say, "I'm right, and you're wrong!"
Of course it's far easier to complain that she's unfit and that everyone loses and gains weight at the same rate than to say you don't like the aesthetics of her body and she should lose weight because being fat makes her unattractive.
I apologise for my terrible phrasing.
For all I know, her body might not obey the laws of physics that every other object in the universe obeys. But I find that possibility somewhat unlikely.
If your food intakes contains less metabolisable energy than you use, you'll lose weight. It's as simple as that.
I reckon you should make a phone call to the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Foundation with your astounding discovery, I'm sure they'll be really happy to be told that sufferers can just eat less. Who knew all this time?
The poster was commenting about weight loss, not mitigating her disorder!
The world doesn't work in absolutes and neither should you.
I think I'm gonna sign off for a while :-)
She has a fairly common endocrine disorder (5-10% of the female population is millions of people) that makes it easier to gain weight. That does not mean that her body defies the laws of thermodynamics or the conservation of energy, and I'm fairly certain that there are people who suffer from the disorder without being obese.
Indeed, it is hardly difficult to find medical resources on weight control for those who suffer from this, such as http://women.webmd.com/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos-and-we...
That isn't to justify the many "Easy!" type comments: Life is tough. We all face tough battles. We all have ways that nature seems to conspire against us. But it does dispute the "I have {x} therefore I am without choice".
As one scientifically vapid, completely and utterly unproven sidenote just because it came to mind during this comment: one observation I've made about people who have difficulty controlling their weight is an almost perfect correlation with an innate desire to maintain warmth at all costs. Very warm houses with the heat set high, thick sweaters, giant comforters, no temperature setback at night. Generating heat is an expensive exercise for the body (calories, of course, are the measurement of the heat potential of foods), so I have to think that these environmental controls contribute to what people call a "low metabolism". I'm the sort of guy who wears a t-shift in the winter and uses the skimpiest threadbare sheet in the 58F house at nighttime, and people always marvel about my "incredible metabolism" as I devour a whole pizza.
Health is more than just body size.
Her doctor says she is ok, and she states that she is reasonably careful with her diet and does a large amount of exercise, which - because of the endocrine disorder she suffers from - does very little to change her weight.
In some of the comments here I wonder if I've been reading the same article! She makes it clear why her body shape is what it is, she says she's pretty healthy and looks after herself, gets checkups from her doctor and lives a full life. She seems pretty much at terms with her body shape... why are there so many comments telling her she needs to lose weight?
Why do you think it’s proper to give random people unsolicited health advice. That’s widely inappropriate and impolite. Please don’t do it.
Why do you think it’s proper to give random people unsolicited internet posting advice? Is there any good reason I shouldn't regard you as a hypocrite?
Then perhaps you'd be good enough to enlighten us all as to what it is.
Never mind PCOS, hypothyroidism is a condition that can suck you of your energy, lower your metabolic rate, put you into depression, and much more, all contributing to weight gain. Point is, it can be a vicious cycle that feeds itself.
But who gives a damn? Who am I to start judging the accuracy or severity of her diagnoses? What if she made it all up? It doesn't matter a damn bit, to me or to you. But at the end of the day, we have no reason to believe she's lying.
Wording your comment in a more civilized manner does not make it that much less childish than the "yeah, nice excuse, fatty, now go run" that we expect from reddit.
It's really not up to strangers -- especially those not qualified -- to identify whether she is healthy. It's not even the point of the article.
Not saying that you are making it the issue of the article, just saying I didn't really even give that part of it much thought.
Why should she have to? If she's healthy and going further requires committing tremendous personal resources to weight-loss? For somebody who has a medical condition that causes their body to commit an inordinate amount of energy into fat production, reducing their intake to weight-loss levels may leave too little energy for the person to function effectively day-to-day. Or they may have to slave away on burning calories five hours a day. Is that a realistic project for the sake of vanity?
Other thing I got from the article is the reminder that I am doing it well in not uploading pictures to Facebook anymore.
I think it helps having grown up on the Internet back before it had "safe" places. If you think of everything posted on the Internet as public (because it is), it really changes how you interact with it.
It's like the restaurant in tourist areas. Bad meals? Unfriendly staff? No problem - the customers won't be back, no matter whether the service is good or bad. They are tourists and will go home tomorrow.
There's no tit for tat, no negative feedback. This doesn't work in engineering, and it doesn't work in human interaction either.
I could be a skinnier person myself by counting calories and sprinting along with my Olympic lifting and kettlebell workouts. I know that my effort could be rewarded with a svelter frame. But you know what? I HAVE MORE INTERESTING THINGS TO DO! Maybe the protagonist, too, has something better or more fun to do with her life.
[1] A small sampling of evidence: Uberphallus living up to name: "At this point I just don't understand why I should feel pity and display consideration to fat people..."
Driverdan: "I would also add that people who don't have a medical condition and who overeat cause the stigma people with medical conditions receive for being overweight." (Being fat causes stigma why?)
Marknutter: "I feel for her and the negative comments are reprehensible, but what I hear in this particular paragraph are excuses....My advice: ignore the haters and come up with a game plan with your doctor to lose the weight in a steady and health way." (re: OP's paragraph on having PCOS, being healthy.)
Alright. Time to do those more interesting things.
I think the article would have had more impact if that was the reason she gave for her weight, rather than citing her medical issues. Instead, citing her medical issues seems to say that she is interested in losing weight, but sees those as insurmountable obstacles, and I was questioning their insurmountability. Apparently encouraging people to overcome difficult obstacles is considered offensive.
It's true that I'm happier now that I can usually just say I don't care or would rather do something else instead of making excuses. It's also true that a fat person saying they don't really care about losing weight is looked at like a two-headed guinea pig.
You, sitting at home with your friends, might happen across an amusing picture and chuckle at it. Maybe even take some joy at some else's pain - we all do that occasionally, it's fairly human. While it's not a good thing to do all the time, you can enjoy yourself and your friends in privacy. Maybe even poke some good-natured fun.
But those comments should remain in your living room. If you saw this person in the middle of the town square, and pointed and laughed at them - that's an incredibly, stupendously dick thing to do. It not only is insulting and mean, it encourages others to do the same thing.
Real people get hurt. Children commit suicide every year due to online bullying, and adults too. The emotional scars that don't kill will still hurt for years. Don't be the biggest douchebag in the world, and keep your comments to your living room - and to yourself.
Protip: you have no fucking clue what this woman's moment to moment life is like.
Thanks for that idea.
Not that I feel sorry for them, just that so many people use Facebook all the time and have no idea how simple things like this really work and who is able to see their content.
How much is posted on Facebook in the view of the public that wasn't intended for the public?
A large percentage of the internet populace is running on autopilot: browse hundreds of random images a day for quick fixes of entertainment, and post the odd impulsive, thoughtless and, most importantly, internet-badassity-enhancing comment.
It's much more common to be scathing and hurtful on the internet, simply because there is less of, or none of, a 'society filter' out there. If one were to stand on a soapbox in public and make the kind of remarks people make unashamedly and unfilteredly on the internet, they wouldn't be standing there for long and would in all likelihood get called out on their behavior.
Not (directly) so on the internet. I can identify two major reasons for that: One, peer groups. Internet douchebags is a major internet peer group, who will e-high-five each other for remarks outlined in the article. Two: Nobody cares. Scathing remarks are made by anonymous people all over the internet, so a lot of people have been desensitised or simply feel powerless, on behalf of not actually knowing the person making the remarks.
The difference for that last point lies in community. A lot of these image sharing sites have a loosely-tied, unloyal random userbase, where most commenters will not or never know or recognise each other from other 'threads'. This in contrast to, say, HN, where people can gain fame and notoriety over time. In the latter category, where comments and the overall mood is much less random and much more focussed at a certain audience, scathing and offensive and plain dumb comments (which is about 99% of youtube comments, for example) will not only be (anonymously, disconnecedly) downvoted, but outright confronted, countered, and the people behind them approached and have their unwanted behaviour pointed out to them.
[faux-psychologist]Freud assigned people's behavior as a result of the id, ego, and super-ego; on the internet, shielded by anonymity and a high abstraction and reduction of communication to quickly typed, short messages, the super-ego has little power in the big, anonymous communities; there is little to no society that tells people "No, this behavior is unwanted". This in turn dulls the ego (one's rational mind, conscience, etc), allowing the id (the impulsive mind that screams LOL FAT PEOPLE KILL UR SELF LOL) to write a similar blurb onto the internet. Communities like HN have a much stronger super-ego, and unwanted behavior is put down. When the poster approached the commenters, she acted as the super-ego, and the commenters suddenly snapped out of their autopilot, impulsive state of mind, having their conscience suddenly kick in when they realised there was a living person with real feelings behind the 2D image of a random woman dressing up as a character with a different physique.[/faux-psychologist]
The worst part is, I think we'd find many of the worst offenders are 14 or so ... they either haven't developed their humanity yet, or they'll be our worst nightmare as young adults.
I've spoken to a few people that are super nice and then as soon as they lose their identity they just spew hate as a release for all the pent up anger built up throughout the day/year/life.
It's very similar to road rage. You can call people every name under the sun and throw up fingers left, right and center but I can bet most people wouldn't dare do such a thing if you accidentally walked in front of them on the street. There's no consequences really when you can just shut your window and drive off or if someone is going the opposite direction.
And Internet anonymity serves a purpose beyond how comfortable it is, which is to allow the discussion of subjects where few people want to have their real name and picture attached. Approximately 50% of the political opinions I debate online, I would not want a prospective employer to be able to look up.
I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.
Sure, doxxing (publishing someone's personal information), might be seen as "encouraging violence". But the people we're talking about doxxing are the people who make posts that are explicit calls to violence. If person A says "Heifers like her should be put down" (as in article), they are explicitly calling for murder, so why can they be upset when someone posts their personal information? It's not like doxxing calls for "putting the cow down", so it's not as bad.
The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
> The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
So in retaliation we accept that our act of doxxing might provide the details of a completely unrelated person that then suddenly has to deal with all the shit the internet mob throws at them? Or feed teenagers to the internet mob so that unto them be done what they did in a careless, stupid moment? Now that's classy.
Just because other people on the internet behave like careless, blundering idiots we don't have to.
Is it really? Not by definition but I'll admit that people often use doxing along with a call for vigilante justice. I wasn't proposing violence of any kind ... just that some people should be shamed using their real identity.
Note that this does not mean "do not take action", please, do so: Call out false behavior, but keep it limited to the behavior. Collect evidence if you think that criminal charges should be filed. Support the victim. Doxxing, as appealing as it sounds is not the right action to take.
Vigilantism violates the rule of law. Just like censoring someone who says something really bad (but only if it's "really bad" and something you shouldn't say, of course), you can't just cancel the democratic principles because it seems like a good idea. That is the exact reason why we have these principles; because often it seems like a good idea but you will screw up if you make a habit out of it.
I have more optimistic take: it's a social problem so technical hacks won't work but social methods do. Investing time reinforcing the desired community behaviour does work so part of the question is really figuring out how to make that as easy as possible.
The key is having a community with behavioral standards - a persistent identifier that a reputation can be attached to is a prerequisite for enforcing said standards, but without the community to set and enforce those standards? the identifier doesn't help.
Also note, communities often contribute to this 'problem' as much as they help. Nearly all communities consider certain types of bullying of certain types of people acceptable, and with that community backing? people seem to be much worse than they would be on their own. Most of the time? most of the truly terrible things people do are done in a context where that terrible behavior is normal, or even accepted.)
I think the real problem with a 'real name' policy is that I may wish to participate in different communities with conflicting standards for behavior. A good reasonable example that most of us face is our professional selves vs. our sexual selves. Behavior that is completely acceptable in a nightclub is going to be completely unacceptable in an office, and vis-a-vis.
Google tries to address this with privacy settings, but really? I think that's the wrong approach. The context trumps the relationship; Even if I meet someone from work in a nightclub, that doesn't mean I can apply nightclub behavioral standards to my interactions with them in the office. (I would argue that I could apply nightclub standards to our interactions in the nightclub, but some would disagree.) - At least for me, (and I am told that this is very different for other people) the thing I am concerned about is not so much keeping my non-professional self secret, but in allowing people to choose a context in which to interact with me, and allowing them to be not made uncomfortable by personal issues. If they want to dig and find my personal issues? that's on them.
Based on some of the stupid comments my eleven year old has posted on Youtube, and the equally asinine replies, I find this very plausible. I've talked to him about what kind impression he makes for himself. He's not out to hurt anyone, he just posts stuff without thinking about it. Normal behavior for an eleven year old. I said some pretty dumb things when I was a kid, but none of it was broadcasted further than my classmates. Now I'm making my son think about what he says online and I think it's sinking in. I hope that in a few more years when he's old enough to go on the internet without parental supervision he'll be a decent online citizen. A lot of parents don't know how to do this, or it wouldn't occur to them to do so.
Before we sprain something with collective back-patting, have you seen what happens when anyone suggests that HN might have issues with gender or privilege? That class of unwanted behaviour has a bimodal response: some forms are slapped down but others are dismissed or even encouraged.
Hacker News might not suffer from the crude childish nastiness, but don't for a second think it's free of the passive-aggressive 'adult' kind.
No one here would write such things? I doubt it. And at the very least, I find it unbelievable that "cooler heads" are so quick to say that "panty shot" and "tit viewer" or "brogrammer" or whatever have nothing to do with the culture of IT.
I've spent most of my career trying to teach college-age women (coming mainly from humanities programs) how to program. When I suggest to my most promising engineers they they go into computer science, they almost invariably end up not being able to do it. Not because the professor isn't supportive, certainly not because they find the material too hard, but because of the "culture." They can't always find that term, but that's clearly what it is.
Ask any woman who tried and failed to make it through a CS program, and you'll here the same thing: they were sick of being ogled, they were sick of the porn jokes, they were the sick of the "cowboy up or go home" shit.
This is my culture; I'm part of it. And if you read this board a lot, it's probably your culture as well. We absolutely need to own this one and not pin it every time on errant individuals. We need to actually admit that in subtle ways we have created an environment hostile to women.
Want proof? Scroll down this very page. No different.
But won't you agree that its good that you have to scroll _down_ for them. Showing that they have been downvoted, or at least not been upvoted. Speaks about the average behavior here, in my opinion.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Edit: Wow, almost 10(!) years ago.
Penny Arcade indeed.
And then decided their only mistake had been taking said t-shirt down.
Krahulik repeated (he'd already made the sentiment clear back in 2011) that his main regret had been the merch being pulled at Prime 2013, early this september.
You are commenting on a difference of ideology and really just changing the issue.
This story is about single human beings and our indifference to them when anonymous and in a group and perhaps unaware they might see our comments.
These are totally different issues. Most people would be horrified to think she read our comments if they were negative.
Most people stand by ideologies.
Both stories are about someone or some people who are marginalised by a larger group. I think it's very relevant.
Maybe that kind of knee-jerk reaction deserves a little hostility? I mean, I get that PA crossed the line and got carried away, but I can't really be offended by somebody mocking the social justice blogosphere. Because, quite frankly, they're jerks. They're generally right, but they're jerks.
The dickwolves thing was well done specifically because it was a joke (not a rape joke, even) that happened to use the word rape that caused a massive freakout among those who don't understand the actual problem and instead wish to attack the symptoms.
Rape jokes are not a positive identifier for those who perpetuate rape culture.
“don't see” or “don't want to see”? This is highly relevant: the original discussion is about how people behave horribly when there are no consequences for doing so. As long as the Penny Arcade fan-base insulates them from criticism by dismissing it and attacking anyone who speaks up, they might not be anonymous but share the same basic ability to avoid significant consequences from their actions.
I like how people just keep gradually dragging that whole thing further and further away from the truth. A rape joke is a joke about rape. They made a joke about quests in MMOGs that happened to mention rape. It even mentioned rape in a "it is the most horrible thing imaginable" context.
You can say something is in poor taste and not get outraged you know. Go watch Meet the Feebles sometime. Or Clerks.
Hence my "Go away troll" comment.
Interesting though that my simple "No" got voted down. I put it down to cognitive dissonance.
http://i.imgur.com/wfDC4gi.jpg
So Mike Krahulik picking a fight with them? The whole "Dickwolves" thing? I don't really blame him for it. The problem is that Krahulik didn't really pay attention to the collateral damage he was doing. While his actions were intending to mock the social-justice-warrior blogosphere (which, quite frankly, deserves mockery) some of his fans were using it to celebrate rape (not cool). In the end, he was far more stubborn than he should've been, and he did a lot of damage to his own reputation and crossed the line a fair bit. It was never about rape for him, it was about picking a fight. The problem is that he's a bit immature (like, quite frankly, most folks are) and didn't think about the larger context of his actions.
My thoughts exactly, except I compressed it into this.
I would be more embarrassed by the picture than I would be affected by the comments.
I attribute this to being used to how people act online. Knowing that it means nothing.
Claimer: I was a fatass.
I no longer show any particular respect or pity towards fat people. I've been fat most of my life, but no more.
It all started when a friend, well into the 400lb ~ 180kg, started losing weight like magic. Constant, steady weight loss. He was a fat guy in a family of fat people, the typical case of genetic blamery. I asked how he did it, he said he just counted calories and never broke the limit.
I did the same. I changed my food habits. It was hard in the sense that I've been "trained" otherwise; it's evident to me now that my mother transmitted me her fears of famine in the war. I always had to finish the plate, eat all I was given, and eat a bit more on my own whenever possible.
And the conclusion the very first day I started the control is that I just ate too much. Checked the calories, yeah, it's well added up. WTF, it's lunch and I'm already more than done! After a while I noticed things started expiring and get moldy since with my new diet couldn't keep up with my grocery list habits.
I lost weight mathematically. Kept doing exercise and bumped proteins not to lose muscle, and the average caloric deficit approached frighteningly my weight loss rate following the famous 9kcal/g of fat. Ate 20000kcal less this month? Weigh in and poof, 2.2kg gone.
From then I started analyzing other people's habits. And fat people just eat too much, very, very, very few of them are exceptions.
At this point I just don't understand why I should feel pity and display consideration to fat people while smokers (or meth addicts, or gamblers, or other sorts of compulsive behavior) are almost the worst thing in the world after the Third Reich. Saving some distances, it's the same league.
It's just an unhealthy habit, and the only difference is that it can be seen from outside. It's not a lost limb from an accident, something random that could happen to anyone and deserves pity instead of mockery. 99% of fat people just eat too much, they're just choosing to be, play the victim card too often and lack of education in regards to nutrition just perpetuates this. It's essentially the same as white trash, you can blame the environment but in the end it's you making the choice, but I have yet to see as many people defending juggalos as people defending fat people.
But congratulations on your weight loss and newfound abilities to generalize a condition that endocrinologists and geneticists have been researching for decades.
Geographically correlated obesity is explained by nutrition culture, not by geographically selective medical conditions.
In particular these two paragraphs:
Illnesses that affect weight
A few illnesses that are characterized by an imbalance or an abnormality in your endocrine glands can also affect your weight. These include hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid), polycystic ovarian syndrome, and certain unusual tumors of the pituitary gland, adrenal glands, or the pancreas. However, in the vast majority of people, these illnesses are not responsible for weight gain. Most are extremely rare. Hypothyroidism, which is the most common, is seldom the main reason for overweight or obesity. Treatment with thyroid hormone, while medically necessary, does not usually cause a significant weight reduction.
Genetic disorders
Obesity is also a symptom of some rare and complex disorders caused by genetic defects. These obesity syndromes usually appear in early childhood and are tied to several additional medical problems. One such disorder is Prader-Willi syndrome, a form of obesity associated with mild mental retardation that occurs in about 1 in 25,000 people and has been traced to abnormalities in a group of genes on chromosome 15. People with this disorder are unusually short and have primarily upper-body obesity. A less common disorder, Bardet-Biedl syndrome, is similar to Prader-Willi syndrome, but is caused by abnormalities in different genes. Several other rare genetic syndromes cause obesity, but account for only a tiny fraction of all weight disorders.
You lost weight and now you're spewing judgmental advice. Am I now supposed to look at a fat person with scorn and immediately assume that they're lazy slobs? Should I suppress feelings of empathy? What is the actual point of what you're saying?
You spent 99% of your comment talking about your success and how you've gained insight into the unsatisfactory habits of others, and all of 1% acknowledging that it may be more complicated. And within that 1% you literally state that only 1% of fat people are losing to more than a simple mathematical equation. I know you coders like your elegant algorithms, but life is bit more messy than that.
And, the analogy to smoking is fatally flawed. Nobody needs cigarettes, but everyone has to eat.
He is sharing his experience which probably applies to the majority of the people but no, use edge cases to justify your stance and feel good about having the moral high ground.
Congratulations on your ability to focus on the edge cases and not the majority of the bell curve.
EDIT - Guys, no don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about THIS specific article or about being fat or anything. It's just that for the past year or so I've been in any online community (even the other one) I've noticed this. Sure, I get it - Innocent until proven guilty and all, but sometimes, things really are as simple as they appear to be.
[Oh, and dear parent poster, I'm a bit sorry for the "Congratulations on your ability to ..." but that was just me getting upset that people aren't looking at the bigger picture.]
I can turn around and say that treating 99% of fat people as lazy slobs is the same kind of generalization that leads to security theater when we assume everyone is a threat to our national security.
What's the difference between your and my asinine analogies? Yours pushes to look at people in a more judgmental and critical way because you're almost certain they sit towards the meaty middle of the "bell curve" (bell curve of what exactly?). Mine pushes to treat everyone with a higher level of empathy and acceptance. Could an overweight person just be lazy? Sure! Could it be due to more than that? Certainly!
In fact, the type of shitty and ignorant comments this article talks about are most certainly fueled by the idea that most fat people are lazy victim-card playing slobs. Turns out it was a little more complicated for her.
For instance, each iteration of the Rabin Miller test reduces the probability that a number is composite by 10^-4. So sure, you might argue "Well, you never know if the 16384-bit number is prime or not merely on running the rabin miller test 10 times because there's still a 1 in 10^-40 chance it's not prime so you method is invalid." I find this kinds of arguments infuriating.
I know you think you are being eminently reasonable, but it's really just another way of saying you intend to keep to those prejudices and not be distracted by treating individuals as individuals. That would be edge case thinking.
Actually no, don't. Because that is not the point. The point is (like I said in other comments) my gut feeling suggests that we as a society are moving towards optimizing for edge cases and that's not a good thing. (Immediate examples that come to mind are parent fearing children going out and playing, security theatre, crime television, crazy safety labels etc.)
Besides letting anonymous Internet People guffaw in armchair superiority, what does this judgment accomplish?
As a former fatty myself (well, okay, I'm not exactly thin, but no longer huge), I can say without even an ounce of doubt that no amount of ridicule contributed to my turnaround. Support and the complete internalization that the ship can be turned around was what did the trick for me - no amount of haranguing (thanks, parents) nor ridicule (thanks, high school) over years did squat except drive me further away from success.
So we assume that a random fattie is the mean case, and is fat because she's a lazy slob. Then we are justified in saying cruel things behind the mask of anonymity. She feels worse about herself and wallows in another pint of ice cream, and the Internet People tip their fedoras at one another.
Is there any positive to this? Isn't this just entirely negative for all involved except for some people who got a 0.5 second endorphin injection?
I don't know about you, but "things that are damaging to some and provide no good to anyone except ego boosts" counts as a Bad Thing in my book.
Btw this isn't a debate/argument but just a casual discussion. I was just observing that how quickly a person pulled an extreme card.
This may be a shitty analogy, but I can't come up with something better:
I give you two boxes. Box A has a 50% chance of being a pizza, and a 50% chance of being $1000. Box B has a 90% chance of being a dog turd, and a 10% chance of being $1,000,000.
Which box do you pick?
It's a trick question of course. The answer is: open the boxes up and take what you want (presumably the million dollars).
It doesn't matter what the bell curve looks like on the causes of obesity - because we're not dealing with aggregates, we're dealing with a specific individual. If you want to know where on the bell curve she lies, ask someone. Leaping to any conclusion because of probabilities is idiotic, because you're not dealing with a probabilistic unknown.
So it doesn't really matter if the majority of obesity is caused by poor lifestyle choices, or if it isn't. It doesn't at all matter how many people are fat due to hormones or due to Big Macs - because in the case of an individual we can directly ascertain it for ourselves. Probabilistic decision making when you can simply observe the individual is nonsensical, and frequently simply represents an attempt to deliberately paint an individual as a generic member of their class.
I really don't like reading lines like "I eat right (most of the time) and I exercise (an inordinate amount), but it does little, thanks to a struggle with polycystic ovarian syndrome and a failing thyroid gland" because it suggests that weight loss is simply impossible for some people. And yet time and time again people with these and other weight-gaining diseases prove this wrong.
99.99% of the time people who struggle to lose weight are simply not following a successful weight loss plan to the letter. I would bet a pretty large sum of money, that if she got help (either online for free, or from a professional trainer/dietitian for not-so-free) and actually followed through with a proven action plan, the weight would come off. If she stuck to the plan, the weight would stay off.
It would probably be more difficult for her than for a healthy person, but to suggest that she has no choice but to be overweight is disingenuous.
I think it's great you managed to lose weight (I fight a constant battle of the bulge myself with exercise and diet), but the author has an endocrine disorder called Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.
My point is that when you lump all "fatties" into the same bucket, you also unfairly judge those with medical conditions. Given many of the fat people you see will be strangers, you'll probably never know if it is lifestyle or a medical disorder causing their excess weight.
Food for thought?
How on earth do you know that?!
I tried googling, but the results aren't very useful with regard to the exact mechanism how thyroid problems cause weight gain.
Edit: From more reading I now believe that it's still a diet problem, but the thyroid issues seem to make it harder to eat less.
But I don't disagree that the thyroid issue makes diet harder, for reasons like increased hunger, less energy, etc(?)
Aaaaaand all your credibility just went out the window.
As someone else has pointed out, suffering from the same problems as the author has, doesn't make it impossible to lose weight, it makes it more difficult. If you provide your body with less energy than it uses, you're going to lose weight. Simple.
She says she's eating healthily, but is she actually?
Weight loss with thyroid issues (and, especially, with other complicating metabolic issues which often occur alongside thyroid issues) is not a simple thing.
People with metabolic issues do need diet/exercise balance to lose weight, but finding the right diet component that allows weight loss while maintaining health and the ability to function can require considerable expert assistance that wouldn't be necessary for a person without those issues.
"Maintain a calorie deficit" is easy to say, but can be very hard to do in a way which actually works.
So wire your jaw, get a backbone, do whatever it takes and you will absolutely NOT be fat. This is physics, not medicine nor psychology.
> while smokers (or meth addicts, or gamblers, or other sorts of compulsive behavior) are almost the worst thing in the world after the Third Reich.
which is just complete BS. There are way worse things in the world happening than that - every minute! (No, I don't smoke, gamble, do drugs or alike)
Your argument is "I'm morally superior so I get to be a douche." Making the argument proves you're not morally superior, though.
There's maybe three HN usernames I "recognize" from posts, two of which are for consistently posting stupid comments. (Generally I read the comment, roll my eyes at it, then notice the username and say "oh yeah, that guy again".)
And while the internet can be rude and obnoxious if she is not careful she has a good chance of doing a streisand by trying to censor the internet using the DMCA which is the wrong tool for the job
You kinda come off as more offended by her trying to get out of a shitty situation as best as possible than by the abuse she's receiving in the first place.
Why do people have facebook accounts, seriously?
One big value of Facebook is that it's a push system, not pull (and we know that push > pull). I can stay current with the life of hundreds of people I know without having to think much about it or check it manually. It scales better than e-mail/phone and allows different new ways to interact with people. And there's no reason not to use e-mail and phone along with using Facebook.
I made a new account this month and reconnected with people I haven't been in touch with for years. Not everyone is going to set up a mailing list you can subscribe to.
Saying that though, if you are happy with yourself the way you are. And you are healthy. Then why do you care what faceless people on the Internet think of you?
The Internet is full of hateful, little people who hide behind the facade that just because they are online they can be whoever they like. I've been through all this before and I would never let it get me down. Instead I used it to drive me harder to achieve my goals.
You are beautiful, keep thinking that and don't let these people get you down!!!
And if you are chiding others for their cruelty, do you not ever laugh at the appearance of another? Really, never? We are all human, and it would be good for each side of this issue to come to understand the other a bit better.
"Why do you think that's funny?" is a good question for someone who laughs at fat people out of hatred and self-superiority. For someone who is just laughing, though, there is no answer. The effect of explaining a joke is well-understood.
I can hear the whoooosh as that article went straight over your head. I think you need to take a step back and do a little introspection. Also that type of comment does not belong here on HN News.
I do not think it makes the world better when you obsessively avoid saying anything that might possibly offend someone, let alone try to police everyone else.
Or is having to think about any of this too much trouble; your definition of "obsessively avoiding". Maybe you don't bother at all drawing a line? Perhaps You just say what you feel like to appeal to your/friends' sense of humor?
If you read the article, she was more unhappy about the extremely negative comments from people, not the original picture and joke.
The fact that one cannot come up with a universal rule that always works in all circumstances doesn't mean no one is allowed personal judgment.
And yes, that's not an objective binary distinction, because that is not possible when you're dealing with language and feelings.
My point is that it's not the topic that makes a joke offensive. You can have jokes about sex and race without them being sexist or racist.
That enough thought for you? Or do you prefer not to actually think about this and just wallow in self-righteousness and assume that anyone who disagrees with you must not be thinking?
Digging deeper, personal offensive jokes are acceptable when then joker knows the target well enough to know that it won't be taken as an actual offense. That's what makes them risky e.g. in workplaces where people don't know each other as well. But on the internet, such jokes are not personal to begin with.
You could replace the OP's picture with a photograph of any other overweight person and it wouldn't make a difference. It's only for people that recognize the person (including themselves) that the joke takes on a whole different meaning. As such, I don't have a huge problem with these jokes.
The hateful comments are a different story, but I find that it helps to remember that they are written by children and other people who simply lack the development of empathy, and should neither be taken seriously nor held completely responsible. They just don't understand, just as a toddler wouldn't understand the repercussions of firing a gun.
Are you serious? Fat people have a tremendously difficult time with being ridiculed for even existing, so no this joke was not acceptable.
> But "you should do everyone a favor and kill yourself", or "do the right thing and don't share such pictures of yourself" are hateful comments that have nothing to do with wit.
This joke and fat hatred go hand in hand. There are not separate entities, they are a part of the same continuum that made the joke a reality: fat people are lazy and have no impulse control and deserve ridicule.
> Digging deeper, personal offensive jokes are acceptable when then joker knows the target well enough to know that it won't be taken as an actual offense. That's what makes them risky e.g. in workplaces where people don't know each other as well. But on the internet, such jokes are not personal to begin with.
> You could replace the OP's picture with a photograph of any other overweight person and it wouldn't make a difference. It's only for people that recognize the person (including themselves) that the joke takes on a whole different meaning. As such, I don't have a huge problem with these jokes.
The amount of shit fat people get from close friends about being fat is just as bad as a society from a whole, so why exactly would it be OK if it was just someone you knew personally hating you vs. a stranger on the internet?
> The hateful comments are a different story, but I find that it helps to remember that they are written by children and other people who simply lack the development of empathy, and should neither be taken seriously nor held completely responsible. They just don't understand, just as a toddler wouldn't understand the repercussions of firing a gun.
People are fully aware of what they post. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, fat hatred, etc. are the basis for many memes and the comments that go with them. There are not separate, they are a part of the same underlying thoughts and stereotypes that people actually believe in.
Now, you are right that this doesn't mean fat people deserve to be ridiculed. Neither do smokers. But I'll happily jest with my friend's smoking, because I care and it would do her good to stop it. Poking fun at such things is a good motivator (I've been at the receiving end of this), you just have to be careful to use it only when you know it won't hurt the person's self esteem. That's why I think it is ok when you know the person well.
> The amount of shit fat people get from close friends about being fat is just as bad as a society from a whole
If you get shit from actual close friends, perhaps you should explain to them that's how you feel about it. Perhaps they are unaware. Seems more of a communication issue.
> People are fully aware of what they post.
No, they are not. I reiterate my analogy of a toddler with a gun.
IMHO, there is humor in weight, gender and race. The point is, is one trying to amuse or deliberately offend.
Aside form this specific issue, I notice a huge cultural difference between the US and the UK in this. In the UK, we "take the piss". Its what we do. We sort of use it to equalise each other. In the US, it seems different. I am reminded of a situation a UK comedian found himself it. He's in the US, eating out with US friends. A man walks in with a awful wig on. UK bloke instinctively takes the piss out of him. The US lot are not happy. Apparently when a ridiculous looking person walks in people are supposed to be some how supportive of the attempt to better himself. In the UK, its cause for a lot of micky taking.
Back to the case in point, even the subject is not objecting to the humor, she is objecting deliberately nasty comments specifically meant to be nasty. That has nothing what so ever to do with humor.
The line? Well, IMHO, the line is intent. Is the comment meant to be funny or nasty.
Lastly, have to ask, is obesity a specific US sensitivity? Seems from my POV that there is a hell of a lot of excuse making for obesity in the US that does not happen else where. Any suggestion that its the persons own doing, eating badly and not exercising, is stamped on like its some sort of heresy. Where as here its pretty much the accepted reason.
Well there are a lot of obese people here. They even get handicap placards at this point, its recognized as a disease etc. They're 1 step short of becoming a protected group.
Isn't that what everyone does? If a joke is too cruel or personal then it won't be funny; I trust my friends' judgement enough that I don't think stupid stereotypes would amuse them.
"Offensive" is a red herring, like "unprofessional" - it's what people say when they can't come up with a real reason for why what you said was wrong.
There definitely are (a lot of) jokes that are inappropriate to a particular situation and impolite to a particular audience, where it would be hurtful and/or incite conflict - but all of them are suitable in other situations and audiences.
Something can be funny and also in poor taste.
Also, are you really saying humor has no place on HN? I see nothing in the FAQ about banning humor.
Have fun in Hacker News and prepare to be downvoted.
With that said, feel free to hate on me for this post ... cause I won't care ...
I was hoping the plan would be to lose weight.
That comment is really not particularly humorous (let alone insightful). Please try not to drag HN down to the level of discourse that the article is complaining about.
Meeting arbitrary beauty standards to be perfectly attractive to the worst of internet commenters isn't and shouldn't be everybody's first and only priority.
It seems pretty important to me.
Every person gets to trade risks and benefits at their own discretion. To me, the years I've saved traveling are well worth the risk of riding in an automobile. I hope you won't try to convert me to however you feel about it.
Are there really that many people around who have so completely solved their own lives that they know, after a single article, exactly what is wrong and what will fix total strangers?
And, these wise insightful people seem to choose harsh judgement and even shaming as tools to fix others. That seems odd as well, I wouldn't have thought such enlightened people would go the judgemental shaming route.
You are so kind.
I don't think she gets it.
If you're ashamed of how you look, maybe the internet is not the problem.