The beautiful flow of discourse

Trigger warning: The first link is to a site that deals with maintaining a weight loss diet, although that particular thread is probably ok.

There have been a couple of really interesting threads recently around the area of food and weight. Both show what can be achieved when there is trust. One of the saddest things about the whole *obesity crusade is the way we fat people have been robbed of an equilibrium of trust in common discourse.

That is too often ignored by those who seek to characterise this as a two sided battle between equally wrong/right ideologies. We in FA aren't getting a chance to be properly wrong or right as our contribution is on the defensive against histrionic attacks.

Its not that we are seen as suspect, we are labelled completely untrustworthy disseminators of our own (ascribed) set of pathologies makeing it virtually impossible for us to contribute anything that is more than crudely defensive.

Indeed that is the point, to erase us as our contribution can only undermine the convenient fiction written in our absence.

People who speak of pure debate-on whatever side-overlook that a necessary basis for useful discussion is an assumption of good faith on both sides. By that I don't mean, gullibility in terms of accepting everything say, fat people may say as the absolute end, but merely in order to hear what is being said and respond to that. Like a chain of exchange.

Nor do I mean gullibility the other way either, to take on face value what (anti/pro obesity) crusaders say is what they actually mean.

That is disjointed because they are clearly conflicted. It's not that I don't believe crusaders have no point of view, its just that view does not hang together cogently because they seek to represent what they themselves admit is bad as the height of moral goodness.

For instance we are told that it s good for fatness to be made such an intolerably painful and uncomfortable existence, via peer pressure that we seek to do anything to reverse it. At the same time it is claimed this is morally good because it is better for us and our health to engage in attempts to reverse it.

Whether we can succeed or not.

At the same time performing the actions associated with reversal has become more important than what is supposed to be their end, mainly due to the refusal to acknowledge true efficacy or lack of said actions.

So we fat people are stuck trying to engage in discussion as we always have we have been excluded because the desired fiction au courant is agreed upon by others (and some of us to be true). Which is why FA has been revived, to give ourselves voice, not to segregate ourselves.

All this is a waste, we have a lot to offer in terms of understanding more about how we function and what we need to function well and in balance and those against us could benefit from that too.

When you see these two threads, you begin to understand just what is missing from the crude and largely irrelevant discourse who's imperative is to make being fat hurt rather than advance our understanding of each other.

*Not 'anti-obesity' just 'obesity', due to the way the results do not tally with the intent, I feel the need to keep an open mind on intent.