What would be great is if fat people could be defined by themselves, on their own terms. Ditto fatness being defined on its terms.
Whether it's fatuous phobes who insist on comparing being fat with smoking, drinking, drugging or some fat activists who crib civil rights movements or 'obesity', folklore, rather than look at fat people and talk about them.
Fatness needs to stop being like an abandoned object always projected on. This needs to be for all of us.
Saturday, 28 June 2014
Friday, 27 June 2014
Busted Flush
'Obesity' wallahs inability to see they're a busted flush continues its surreality. Or is it that they're so used to the general docile learned role of patient, that they just expect it? I'll bet its their perception of fat people as piteous that's doing it. I almost pity their impotence, their irrelevance.
I've been there and I got sick and tired of it.
'Obesity' adherents, call that "overweight" or anything you please, like those who will whined about people's 'non-compliance' then took on the food industry and found out what that really means, think they're up against one thing-the human mind, when they're up against something altogether more indomitable. Nature.
Believe me, they are no match. Nature is riding them like they've been riding fatz. If this is all so important. Real intellect and no little effort is required, put up or shut up.
Ill-thought suppositions won't do it. I doubt anyone things you know what you're talking about. I don't know whether to pity this. Many 'obesity' promoters sound more cuckoo than they want to pretend fatness is.
This is what you could call sanity privilege. Where wrong beliefs are held to insanity within a sane mind. This is indulged way beyond anything a mind with faltering function could easily get away with. In fact, things like this can open your eyes to just how much discipline mentally ill people need to use to get by.
Apparently, we should seek to create a binge cycle every 5 years. Erm, no thanks love. I promised my body I'd never do that to it again, after 20 years of continuous trying. I was lucky enough to have learned that if your system is sensitive or sensitized to it, the threat of calorie restriction still hanging over your body, encourages it to keep storing fat against that eventuality.
The best thing to do is reframe the way you look at yourself. Reconnect with your body, (re-)take full possession of it. Accept that if you want to do more to improve your mental and/or physical function, there's no magic weight management rainbow that will solve it all.
Once you withdraw your mental investment in the latter, you'll have that energy to spend on yourself as you are now. Because to quote the quote, you are worth it and worth it now. It's a change of direction, because a mind dedicated to restriction is not the same as one stimulated by being in touch with its own needs.
Many people spend years doing nothing, because they can conceive of little more than the diet, no matter if that's over 5, 10, 15, 20 years, one day, keep trying, don't give up, someday.
When you liberate yourself from this anchoring to the never-never, you can begin to develop a feel for what you actually need now and may even want to do. You can have a different plan, learn to dance, walk as easily/freely/fast as possible. You start to think (and think up) techniques.
Even doing what seems to be "nothing" if it is removing harm, just chilling out til you feel inclined is better than the stasis you get stuck in, trying to get your body to submit to what it mostly finds reprehensible.
No matter what you think.
It is possible that weight comes off and goes on slowly. But many more people, myself included, find calorie restriction raises activity in our hunger/appetite systems. Imagine something that makes you a bit nervous, now imagine it getting stronger and stronger until its harder and harder to ignore, taking over more and more of your mind.
Would you volunteer for that on the presumption of this person?
There are good reasons not to diet, 5% of your weight isn't much, apparently, 10% is where the body starts defending itself against weight loss. However, that's not been tested in bodies that are primed to store due to the continuous threat of starvation (on top of anything else). Until these people start studying people, rather than ways to restrict, they'll never be in a position to give the best advice possible.
To learn to get better, to be, dare I say it, worthwhile.
I've been there and I got sick and tired of it.
'Obesity' adherents, call that "overweight" or anything you please, like those who will whined about people's 'non-compliance' then took on the food industry and found out what that really means, think they're up against one thing-the human mind, when they're up against something altogether more indomitable. Nature.
Believe me, they are no match. Nature is riding them like they've been riding fatz. If this is all so important. Real intellect and no little effort is required, put up or shut up.
Ill-thought suppositions won't do it. I doubt anyone things you know what you're talking about. I don't know whether to pity this. Many 'obesity' promoters sound more cuckoo than they want to pretend fatness is.
This is what you could call sanity privilege. Where wrong beliefs are held to insanity within a sane mind. This is indulged way beyond anything a mind with faltering function could easily get away with. In fact, things like this can open your eyes to just how much discipline mentally ill people need to use to get by.
Apparently, we should seek to create a binge cycle every 5 years. Erm, no thanks love. I promised my body I'd never do that to it again, after 20 years of continuous trying. I was lucky enough to have learned that if your system is sensitive or sensitized to it, the threat of calorie restriction still hanging over your body, encourages it to keep storing fat against that eventuality.
The best thing to do is reframe the way you look at yourself. Reconnect with your body, (re-)take full possession of it. Accept that if you want to do more to improve your mental and/or physical function, there's no magic weight management rainbow that will solve it all.
Once you withdraw your mental investment in the latter, you'll have that energy to spend on yourself as you are now. Because to quote the quote, you are worth it and worth it now. It's a change of direction, because a mind dedicated to restriction is not the same as one stimulated by being in touch with its own needs.
Many people spend years doing nothing, because they can conceive of little more than the diet, no matter if that's over 5, 10, 15, 20 years, one day, keep trying, don't give up, someday.
When you liberate yourself from this anchoring to the never-never, you can begin to develop a feel for what you actually need now and may even want to do. You can have a different plan, learn to dance, walk as easily/freely/fast as possible. You start to think (and think up) techniques.
Even doing what seems to be "nothing" if it is removing harm, just chilling out til you feel inclined is better than the stasis you get stuck in, trying to get your body to submit to what it mostly finds reprehensible.
No matter what you think.
It is possible that weight comes off and goes on slowly. But many more people, myself included, find calorie restriction raises activity in our hunger/appetite systems. Imagine something that makes you a bit nervous, now imagine it getting stronger and stronger until its harder and harder to ignore, taking over more and more of your mind.
Would you volunteer for that on the presumption of this person?
There are good reasons not to diet, 5% of your weight isn't much, apparently, 10% is where the body starts defending itself against weight loss. However, that's not been tested in bodies that are primed to store due to the continuous threat of starvation (on top of anything else). Until these people start studying people, rather than ways to restrict, they'll never be in a position to give the best advice possible.
To learn to get better, to be, dare I say it, worthwhile.
Thursday, 26 June 2014
Reality Bites
Imitation is no substitute.
Susan Jebb says something revealing;
A lot of what the whole crusade has been about as been establishing this pretense-that fatness is disease. That has failed because it isn't. Yes you can use society to enforce people into a state of undermined mental, psychological and yes, physical health, especially with the person mirroring that internally. You can create a permanent state of unwellbeing. However, trust me, the body ultimately sees through that.
It's like being brought up with religion. If you're inclined towards atheism and don't know it, you can honestly absorb what's around you, eventually your truth will surface. Once it has, the hold on faith is loosened. Fat people went along with this fantasy, unwittingly and increasingly otherwise. Yet, no matter how much you dramatize fatness. No one believes it. That extent of effort alone undoes it.
Certainly not those who went ape over the idea of a 25stone man using disability legislation as his only means of fighting job discrimination. Few can think of when they know it isn't true. Even when such hugely overheated pretense as been achieved, it can't substitute for real illness. I know some killers aren't felt, however reversing that does not a strategy make.
Not a good health one anyway.
It just should never have been a technique in the first place. It's vindictiveness should be obvious by now. You cannot pretend to be like a type 1/type 2 injecting diabetic etc., because as they say, reality bites.
What gives most pause is the suggestion that when you have a (real) disease, other people somehow own you. Clearly, that's more about 'obesity' and its artificial stigma "denormalization" and embarrassing fakery. But still, the implication is revealled.
A lot of people struggle with disease and the only thing that keeps them following instructions is that real diseases cause agony, pain and real death. Sometimes you can touch it. Slipping close to or into a few diabetic comas or collapsing with a serious asthma attack, could keep anyone complaint with even quite extraordinary demands.
You simply cannot fake that, no matter how hard you try. That circle has never squared and trying adds harm, violating (medical) ethics. The continued wishful thinking around this re: 'obesity' is pi-ti-ful.
Susan Jebb, doesn't have to care about any reality or nuance over in her freely chosen remove, because the failure of her silly hypotheses are always the "fault" of the unfortunates unluckily bestowed. Never hers. Never.
Has she or her ilk "confessed" yet to being wrong about weight loss dieting and apologized to fat people? Do people like this ever just stand up and acknowledge their errors or say sorry, we made an error? We did you wrong? Like virtually every fat person spent their lives doing? Apart from a few noble exceptions, both male nuh.
Don't worry, I never expected them to take even a little bit of what they've given.
No, if quangoistas like this Jebb person wish to give forth with any more tipsy hypotheses, back them up with reasonably scaled trials.
Just for once, do the bloody work first.
Susan Jebb says something revealing;
She said: "If you think of obesity as a chronic relapsing condition, you could say well maybe every five years you have to diet for 12 weeks – I'm not sure that feels so untenable a position when you think of what we ask people with other chronic diseases to do, whether they are injecting insulin multiple times a day to control their diabetes or whatever. Say, every five years you have to have a really concerted effort to lose 5% of your bodyweight.We don't, because it isn't. And what "we" ask of people with actual disease is to save their own lives in ways that can often be felt by them meaningfully.
A lot of what the whole crusade has been about as been establishing this pretense-that fatness is disease. That has failed because it isn't. Yes you can use society to enforce people into a state of undermined mental, psychological and yes, physical health, especially with the person mirroring that internally. You can create a permanent state of unwellbeing. However, trust me, the body ultimately sees through that.
It's like being brought up with religion. If you're inclined towards atheism and don't know it, you can honestly absorb what's around you, eventually your truth will surface. Once it has, the hold on faith is loosened. Fat people went along with this fantasy, unwittingly and increasingly otherwise. Yet, no matter how much you dramatize fatness. No one believes it. That extent of effort alone undoes it.
Certainly not those who went ape over the idea of a 25stone man using disability legislation as his only means of fighting job discrimination. Few can think of when they know it isn't true. Even when such hugely overheated pretense as been achieved, it can't substitute for real illness. I know some killers aren't felt, however reversing that does not a strategy make.
Not a good health one anyway.
It just should never have been a technique in the first place. It's vindictiveness should be obvious by now. You cannot pretend to be like a type 1/type 2 injecting diabetic etc., because as they say, reality bites.
What gives most pause is the suggestion that when you have a (real) disease, other people somehow own you. Clearly, that's more about 'obesity' and its artificial stigma "denormalization" and embarrassing fakery. But still, the implication is revealled.
A lot of people struggle with disease and the only thing that keeps them following instructions is that real diseases cause agony, pain and real death. Sometimes you can touch it. Slipping close to or into a few diabetic comas or collapsing with a serious asthma attack, could keep anyone complaint with even quite extraordinary demands.
You simply cannot fake that, no matter how hard you try. That circle has never squared and trying adds harm, violating (medical) ethics. The continued wishful thinking around this re: 'obesity' is pi-ti-ful.
Susan Jebb, doesn't have to care about any reality or nuance over in her freely chosen remove, because the failure of her silly hypotheses are always the "fault" of the unfortunates unluckily bestowed. Never hers. Never.
Has she or her ilk "confessed" yet to being wrong about weight loss dieting and apologized to fat people? Do people like this ever just stand up and acknowledge their errors or say sorry, we made an error? We did you wrong? Like virtually every fat person spent their lives doing? Apart from a few noble exceptions, both male nuh.
Don't worry, I never expected them to take even a little bit of what they've given.
No, if quangoistas like this Jebb person wish to give forth with any more tipsy hypotheses, back them up with reasonably scaled trials.
Just for once, do the bloody work first.
Monday, 23 June 2014
Necessity Equals Anatomy
The notion that eating is a purely elective act of thought. Like deciding on the colour of your walls, picking out a pair of shoes or deciding whether you hoik your pinkie up in the air when you drink from a dinky cup-or not, is inherently bogus. I'll say it for the eleventy hundred time: Eating is vital bodily function.
It is required for existence. That this needs to be said, that this can even seem like it's up for any debate sounds the cuckoo 'obesity' cult is as much a cover for worship of anorexia as anything else. [Well, would you openly admit that you feel that way?]
In this climate, this fact is willfully misunderstood. It's not supposed to be defensive. Its merely pointing out that vital functions have to be a part of you:
It is required for existence. That this needs to be said, that this can even seem like it's up for any debate sounds the cuckoo 'obesity' cult is as much a cover for worship of anorexia as anything else. [Well, would you openly admit that you feel that way?]
In this climate, this fact is willfully misunderstood. It's not supposed to be defensive. Its merely pointing out that vital functions have to be a part of you:
VITAL FUNCTIONS MUST HAVE ANATOMY
Conflations of fatness with; smoking, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, are unworthy of response. Alas fat phobia and the privileging of it requires me to patronize you with the obvious, none of these are required for existence. Therefore, they have no anatomy dedicated only to signalling the need for and satisfaction of said habits. The unnecessary can only adapt what is there for other purposes, or "hi-jack" parts-as some have liked to claim about what needs to jack nothing to exist.
First these habits have to be acquired by use, then signalling occurs only through things put there for other purposes.
It's a tribute to the disembodying and dehumanizing effects of the 'obesity' branding that it numbs minds into overlooking fat bodies are people. Though the human body like others is essentially a biochemical melange. We do not normally see ourselves in those terms substances. Our minds would usually balk at comparing people with cigarettes or bottles of scotch.
The ramifications of necessity = anatomy carry on. Suppression of the urge, instinct or signally of necessary function, will create pathology at some point. Especially mindless suppression of for example, the sexual urge, tends to produce sexual and/or psycho-pathology, ditto sexuality, of movement, of breathing and of eating.
This is not necessarily to do with sexuality or even the desire to vary the amount, frequency and/or strength of signalling. But suppression without thought to how the nervous system functions. Vital signalling for things like eating, sleeping etc., act rhythmically, in some kind of harmony with each other. Arrhythmia in one tends to have a knock on effect and spread to another or others. It depends on your overall make up.
A lot of people don't realize the supposed flexibility in (genuinely) addictive substances, is in their lack of necessity. The hope that addiction craving will abate and/or cease if the substance is no longer taken, is not based on willpower, but the absence of any intrinsic anatomical basis for said substance. The "willpower" is in getting to that point. If you're body recovers. It's essentially depriving the body of the causal agent, in the hope that it can heal itself.
And note, even that is hardly foolproof. How much less something that has no potential end like hunger/appetite signalling?
Suppressing the urge to eat whether that's deemed 'over' or not, isn't the same prospect. It requires different and more subtle techniques that basically aim to restore balance, rather than end anything. You could not end that, without ending a part of yourself.
First these habits have to be acquired by use, then signalling occurs only through things put there for other purposes.
It's a tribute to the disembodying and dehumanizing effects of the 'obesity' branding that it numbs minds into overlooking fat bodies are people. Though the human body like others is essentially a biochemical melange. We do not normally see ourselves in those terms substances. Our minds would usually balk at comparing people with cigarettes or bottles of scotch.
The ramifications of necessity = anatomy carry on. Suppression of the urge, instinct or signally of necessary function, will create pathology at some point. Especially mindless suppression of for example, the sexual urge, tends to produce sexual and/or psycho-pathology, ditto sexuality, of movement, of breathing and of eating.
This is not necessarily to do with sexuality or even the desire to vary the amount, frequency and/or strength of signalling. But suppression without thought to how the nervous system functions. Vital signalling for things like eating, sleeping etc., act rhythmically, in some kind of harmony with each other. Arrhythmia in one tends to have a knock on effect and spread to another or others. It depends on your overall make up.
A lot of people don't realize the supposed flexibility in (genuinely) addictive substances, is in their lack of necessity. The hope that addiction craving will abate and/or cease if the substance is no longer taken, is not based on willpower, but the absence of any intrinsic anatomical basis for said substance. The "willpower" is in getting to that point. If you're body recovers. It's essentially depriving the body of the causal agent, in the hope that it can heal itself.
And note, even that is hardly foolproof. How much less something that has no potential end like hunger/appetite signalling?
Suppressing the urge to eat whether that's deemed 'over' or not, isn't the same prospect. It requires different and more subtle techniques that basically aim to restore balance, rather than end anything. You could not end that, without ending a part of yourself.
Sunday, 15 June 2014
A cure for diabetes? Poverty
Being too poor to eat or more accurately, having not enough food around anyways. Between 1991-5, in the post-soviet shakedown Cuba's ability to feed itself decline. This lead to a population wide fall in consumption of calorie intake and weight of 12lbs/5.5kg on average .
Along with a fuel shortages, which caused people to take to travelling by pony bike and foot, diabetes went into decline. According to boffins, this caused a decline in the level of deaths by heart disease as well as diabetes. Smoking was mentioned, but no matter.
Intriguing given the notoriously better health of richer people. Rather in keeping with an underlying green romanticism about how measures people take when poor are green and need to be preserved.
After 1995;
This is what my brain worked out years ago, weight regulation (management) via calorie restriction requires the whole of society on a diet. Yet we're all constitutionally designed to loathe and resist calorie restriction. Furthermore, those less inclined to store weight's interests begin to be diametrically opposed to those who are more inclined to store weight. And the former win.
Individualization of weight loss is not about blame, its about leaving slimz and thinz out of it. The blame is a lever to apply this, not a cause of trying to make calorie restriction private.
Rather like gastrectomy is the only thing that delivers meaningful weight loss results (to hell with health and too often life obviously). To overcome the high resistance of our design to cal res, you must cut people into it restriction. The parts of the mind that don't run the body, cannot override the parts of the brain and nervous system that do. Or the latter would be superfluous and nature always has a reason.
Society shaped around dieting is key to implementation. The results are another story.
Four years isn't long enough to find out what would happen. There's little doubt in my mind that any longer, would simply reveal other problems. That's the problem with the fashion for either/or assumptions replete in healthism.
The weight loss or undermining of the ability to maintain a higher weight for those who aren't prone to storing fat, would create more of them and more health problems for them. Just as before when they suffered from such societally induced wastage. This is part of fat people's proneness to guilt. The sense that we are shafting them.
That comes from this chosen solution which is insisted upon, no matter what.
That's why some along with myself have pointed out, the best resolution is to find a way of altering the metabolism individually. Dieting isn't that, sorry, it only impersonates it. That should satisfy everyone. Don't want to lose weight? Don't. Want to, do. Slimness can no longer pretend to be a big deal, no class created around weight falsehoods. A block to eating disorders acquired through trying to lose weight through cal res. Yes that's the cause of many ED's, no probably not all.
As I keep saying, manipulating metabolic function is a gateway to better treatment for all issues related to metabolism and use of energy. That includes the possibility of better (actual) mental health treatments-drug free ones. Note I mean real scientific study of actual metabolism and its function, not any pseudo 'obesity' nonsense.
Or we can continue with this derangement.
Along with a fuel shortages, which caused people to take to travelling by pony bike and foot, diabetes went into decline. According to boffins, this caused a decline in the level of deaths by heart disease as well as diabetes. Smoking was mentioned, but no matter.
Intriguing given the notoriously better health of richer people. Rather in keeping with an underlying green romanticism about how measures people take when poor are green and need to be preserved.
After 1995;
A rebound in population weight followed in 1995 (33.5% prevalence of overweight and obesity) and exceeded pre-crisis levels by 2010 (52.9% prevalence).Sort of what happened in many countries post-WW2. That played its part in the weight spikes of the 1960's and 70's, the latter is the real beginning of the modern rise in fatness.
This is what my brain worked out years ago, weight regulation (management) via calorie restriction requires the whole of society on a diet. Yet we're all constitutionally designed to loathe and resist calorie restriction. Furthermore, those less inclined to store weight's interests begin to be diametrically opposed to those who are more inclined to store weight. And the former win.
Individualization of weight loss is not about blame, its about leaving slimz and thinz out of it. The blame is a lever to apply this, not a cause of trying to make calorie restriction private.
Rather like gastrectomy is the only thing that delivers meaningful weight loss results (to hell with health and too often life obviously). To overcome the high resistance of our design to cal res, you must cut people into it restriction. The parts of the mind that don't run the body, cannot override the parts of the brain and nervous system that do. Or the latter would be superfluous and nature always has a reason.
Society shaped around dieting is key to implementation. The results are another story.
Four years isn't long enough to find out what would happen. There's little doubt in my mind that any longer, would simply reveal other problems. That's the problem with the fashion for either/or assumptions replete in healthism.
The weight loss or undermining of the ability to maintain a higher weight for those who aren't prone to storing fat, would create more of them and more health problems for them. Just as before when they suffered from such societally induced wastage. This is part of fat people's proneness to guilt. The sense that we are shafting them.
That comes from this chosen solution which is insisted upon, no matter what.
That's why some along with myself have pointed out, the best resolution is to find a way of altering the metabolism individually. Dieting isn't that, sorry, it only impersonates it. That should satisfy everyone. Don't want to lose weight? Don't. Want to, do. Slimness can no longer pretend to be a big deal, no class created around weight falsehoods. A block to eating disorders acquired through trying to lose weight through cal res. Yes that's the cause of many ED's, no probably not all.
As I keep saying, manipulating metabolic function is a gateway to better treatment for all issues related to metabolism and use of energy. That includes the possibility of better (actual) mental health treatments-drug free ones. Note I mean real scientific study of actual metabolism and its function, not any pseudo 'obesity' nonsense.
Or we can continue with this derangement.
Friday, 13 June 2014
The Right to Work whilst Fat
A Danish childminder called Karsten Kaltoft has posed the question of whether it's legal to discriminate against a person, solely for being fat. Along with that, whether being fat-as in the construct 'obesity'-can be construed as disability, under law. And what criterion would be used to work out who would qualify.
The case is being reviewed in the European Court of Justice no less.
What's excited the press is could 'obesity' be deemed disability. Well, perhaps they should ask that when they're propagandizing for the adipocalypse. Barely anyone can manage a rationale take on any aspect of weight these days without a grovelling disclaimer about how they know and agree fat is the end of civilization as we know it.
Señor K is 25st or 158kg in the morally superior metric system (350lbs in USasian). His employers nominally sacked him due to lack of demand. He had reason to suspect it was on account of his weight.
When challenged Bullund Kommune-his employers responded in writing that he was incapable of doing the work, citing an instance where he'd asked a colleague to tie a child's shoelaces. Supposedly because he couldn't manage to bend to do it himself.
Not sure whether it was assumed he couldn't, or whether he said that himself. Other people's projections onto fat people tend to be the only consideration.
The usual phenomena of the slim mainstream not understanding their own machinations 'til they catch a ghost of them in fat people is in effect;
We've gotten to this point with fatness, as 'obesity' wallahs are rarely challenged in a way that requires them to state their case, whatever it is. Without their incessant shifting of goal posts, in places where they're not held aloft by the attendant hate-fuelled shit cloud. Don't mistake noise that upholds and operates within the dubious set-up laid down by them, for real challenge.
If you ask "What kind of a stupid fool is that person." And I respond, "They're a really nice fool/ That sadsack is addicted to tomfoolery" I may be disagreeing with you, but ultimately, I'm upholding your premise, sharing your view and working within its bounds.
Even if I say, "That person isn't a fool", I appear to have accorded it the same meaning. If I ask you what you mean by "fool". I'm at least opening up the possibility of something outside your viewpoint. That's rarely if ever done with 'obesity'. If it is, the point goes recognized by the 'obesity' mindset, that's stumped by anything outside itself and therefore cannot respond to what's being said. This leads to the projection of views that aren't held.
You could call my view of disability somewhat old fashioned.
Disabling, especially in the sane able-bodied, does not equal a disability. That matters not a jot. Ideas don't always set the mainstream agenda. People deemed valuable do. And when they decided at some point, using the "social model of disability" (apparently) meant "I have a boo boo" becomes "Recognize my disabled status, or I'll start crying" (Everything's turned into status by these people), well, that was that.
Not to forget-my inconvenient issue (perceived or otherwise) that has no obvious resolution = disease which can often =disability.
Acting as if any old use of disability is some kind of landmark is typical of mainstream interaction with fat people. When fat people use that system because, it is the system, it's seen as if anew. As a sign everyone's right to turn on fat people. This ends up being a critique of themselves, they just can't see it through their own halo. Actual things brought to light by fat people; we're continually erased from.
If a slim person asked someone else to tie a child's laces, would it be assumed they couldn't? Would that be seen as age, lack of fitness/flexibility, would they be sacked? Certainly, it would not be seen slim related would it? Can a fat person, especially of Kaltoft's size make that argument meaningful to anyone stuck in the 'obesity' mindwarp i.e. virtually everyone?
And I don't know whether to be embarrassed, but I never thought of PWD as experiencing "preferential rights". The point is access to the things others take for granted surely? Of removing barriers to their ability to contribute and keep themselves, fulfill their potential.
Now I finally can grasp why some are so aggressive and resentful towards disabled people. At times to the point of harassing them, using their designated parking spaces without regard. Surely, able-bodied are experiencing the real preferential treatment by keeping PWD out?
Nurturing such a stream of grievance must be stressful. I wonder how much disabled taxpayers shell out for those health outcomes. Let's not speculate.
Under law not all emotive uses of disability are recognized as such. According to this UK's 2010 Equality Act, addiction to non-prescribed drugs are not recognized as such. *Pause* while I consider whether to laugh, put head in hands, both.
Mr Kaltoft is just trying to find a way, from the means available, to stop people being sacked merely for being fat. Legally, there's nothing to stop employers from doing this;
The case is being reviewed in the European Court of Justice no less.
What's excited the press is could 'obesity' be deemed disability. Well, perhaps they should ask that when they're propagandizing for the adipocalypse. Barely anyone can manage a rationale take on any aspect of weight these days without a grovelling disclaimer about how they know and agree fat is the end of civilization as we know it.
Señor K is 25st or 158kg in the morally superior metric system (350lbs in USasian). His employers nominally sacked him due to lack of demand. He had reason to suspect it was on account of his weight.
When challenged Bullund Kommune-his employers responded in writing that he was incapable of doing the work, citing an instance where he'd asked a colleague to tie a child's shoelaces. Supposedly because he couldn't manage to bend to do it himself.
Not sure whether it was assumed he couldn't, or whether he said that himself. Other people's projections onto fat people tend to be the only consideration.
The usual phenomena of the slim mainstream not understanding their own machinations 'til they catch a ghost of them in fat people is in effect;
Audrey Williams, an employment discrimination expert at Eversheds law firm, said the judges would have to decide "whether obesity itself should trigger preferential rights, or should only impact where an individual, due to obesity, has other recognised medical issues"."Preferential rights?" I hope this isn't an official view of access for PWD. That phrase would suggest a dropping of the pretense that being fat is disease. I detest this crude fakery and wish people would stop pandering to it as real.
We've gotten to this point with fatness, as 'obesity' wallahs are rarely challenged in a way that requires them to state their case, whatever it is. Without their incessant shifting of goal posts, in places where they're not held aloft by the attendant hate-fuelled shit cloud. Don't mistake noise that upholds and operates within the dubious set-up laid down by them, for real challenge.
If you ask "What kind of a stupid fool is that person." And I respond, "They're a really nice fool/ That sadsack is addicted to tomfoolery" I may be disagreeing with you, but ultimately, I'm upholding your premise, sharing your view and working within its bounds.
Even if I say, "That person isn't a fool", I appear to have accorded it the same meaning. If I ask you what you mean by "fool". I'm at least opening up the possibility of something outside your viewpoint. That's rarely if ever done with 'obesity'. If it is, the point goes recognized by the 'obesity' mindset, that's stumped by anything outside itself and therefore cannot respond to what's being said. This leads to the projection of views that aren't held.
You could call my view of disability somewhat old fashioned.
Disabling, especially in the sane able-bodied, does not equal a disability. That matters not a jot. Ideas don't always set the mainstream agenda. People deemed valuable do. And when they decided at some point, using the "social model of disability" (apparently) meant "I have a boo boo" becomes "Recognize my disabled status, or I'll start crying" (Everything's turned into status by these people), well, that was that.
Not to forget-my inconvenient issue (perceived or otherwise) that has no obvious resolution = disease which can often =disability.
Acting as if any old use of disability is some kind of landmark is typical of mainstream interaction with fat people. When fat people use that system because, it is the system, it's seen as if anew. As a sign everyone's right to turn on fat people. This ends up being a critique of themselves, they just can't see it through their own halo. Actual things brought to light by fat people; we're continually erased from.
If a slim person asked someone else to tie a child's laces, would it be assumed they couldn't? Would that be seen as age, lack of fitness/flexibility, would they be sacked? Certainly, it would not be seen slim related would it? Can a fat person, especially of Kaltoft's size make that argument meaningful to anyone stuck in the 'obesity' mindwarp i.e. virtually everyone?
And I don't know whether to be embarrassed, but I never thought of PWD as experiencing "preferential rights". The point is access to the things others take for granted surely? Of removing barriers to their ability to contribute and keep themselves, fulfill their potential.
Now I finally can grasp why some are so aggressive and resentful towards disabled people. At times to the point of harassing them, using their designated parking spaces without regard. Surely, able-bodied are experiencing the real preferential treatment by keeping PWD out?
Nurturing such a stream of grievance must be stressful. I wonder how much disabled taxpayers shell out for those health outcomes. Let's not speculate.
Under law not all emotive uses of disability are recognized as such. According to this UK's 2010 Equality Act, addiction to non-prescribed drugs are not recognized as such. *Pause* while I consider whether to laugh, put head in hands, both.
Mr Kaltoft is just trying to find a way, from the means available, to stop people being sacked merely for being fat. Legally, there's nothing to stop employers from doing this;
"I don't see myself as disabled," he said. "We hope the outcome is that it's not OK just to fire a person because they're fat, if they're doing their job properly."He worked for his employers for 15 years and says he was able.
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Same Difference
The differences between healthy dieting and anorexia
| Anorexia Healthy dieting is an attempt to control weight. | Healthy Dieting Anorexia is an attempt to control your life and emotions. |
| Your self-esteem is based on more than just weight and body image. | Your self-esteem is based entirely on how much you weigh and how thin you are. |
| You view weight loss as a way to improve your health and appearance. | You view weight loss as a way to achieve happiness. |
| Your goal is to lose weight in a healthy way. | Becoming thin is all that matters; health is not a concern. |
Actually, the real difference is, if you're a dieter, your body's responding normally and resisting calorie restriction. If you're anorexic, your body isn't so much and is instead succumbing to calorie restriction.
Sunday, 8 June 2014
Not a golden age of stoicism-thank goodness
Had to chuckle. Researchers are touting the prospect of a fat wasting jab (don't mind the idiot headline) containing a hormone called irisin. This supposedly has the capacity to convert white adipose cells/tissue into brown adipose.
Brown adipose wastes rather than stores energy like white stuff. Whether this is "jab" is likely to happen any time soon, isn't really in question. As predictably, it has pissed off your common or garden hare-brained fat hating too. Who doesn't have the presence of mind to attempt some half arsed concern trolling.
One even forgot themselves enough to declare;
I knew these wing nuts were regressive hate fuelled dolts who want human progress to stop. They want everything to be a reflection of their own tainted souls.
Even from my dieting days, there's not and never has been any reason for weight loss to not be effective, efficient, available to anyone that wants it and to be pain/discomfort free. That's no more immoral than learning eating competence or to defend, nurture or restore you're instincts to move.
Even if it was, the fact that it upsets the right people would decide it for me anyway. Fuggem. That they would rather stop progress for even those suffering through what they'd agree is no fault of their own, to keep hating, makes them lower than dirt.
Most of these jokers would struggle to make their ahem 'argument' against everything from the equine strength pain pills for headaches, to the convenience of "psyche meds" being thrown around save the ardous effort of changing the way you think/feel/react.
And no, that's not rude/ ableist of me. That's CBT.
Nor do I personally object to how others choose to manage their mental health. Just, when there's preaching to fat people about gritting their teeth-where it would make little difference, when others can't be arsed to do shit, that's a conversation they need to be having with themselves. So, rumbled.
Certainly, if any of these dimwit arseholes dared to suggest anyone should be kept from mind alteration on the basis of mild aches and pains, they'd be quite a backlash. The privileging of slimz and all that.
Few in western model countries can lecture fat people about stoicism with expecting to put up with the most minimal discomfort went out with the ark for them. They probably only fetishize it in "fitness" precisely because they've squeezed out elsewhere. It's like one of those rough adventure holidays middle class people go on.
Well for a lot of fat people, continuous mental, physical, social, spiritual and psychological discomfort is their life. People not knowing about that for so long, was fat people grinning and bearing it. Take a look at the good that did.
That's why you truly won't find me gainsaying folks feeling entitled to relief for their own discomfort. My concerns lie elsewhere.
One person recently wrote. He, "Didn't believe in any unnecessary pain."Aww, that's precious. Certainly these shut it. Thin privilege doesn't make people invisible. We can see you!!!
There is nothing moral about trying and failing to impersonate a starvation disorder, nothing. It's actually a disgusting waste of people's effort, time, lives and yes, health. The whole 'obesity' crusade has been a degenerate exercise in thought regression that has generated nothing of any value from the professionals. And this kind response is exactly the kind of degeneracy it promotes.
Its clear the pro-ana approach is about satisfying the deranged emotional needs of these messed up muppets. Well, they've been hoist with their own hard, there's nowhere left to go with their imposing their cravings. Unless they want to make being fat illegal and lock people up for it. I know many hypocrites who'd love that.
They'll pop a few synthetic opiates for any conscience pangs no doubt.
Brown adipose wastes rather than stores energy like white stuff. Whether this is "jab" is likely to happen any time soon, isn't really in question. As predictably, it has pissed off your common or garden hare-brained fat hating too. Who doesn't have the presence of mind to attempt some half arsed concern trolling.
One even forgot themselves enough to declare;
No; enough of this research and trials. Tell them to exercise, this is so silly.Yeah, let's crawl back to the good old Stone Age you intellectual void. The prospect of better treatment for diabetes, PCOS and other metabolic travails is such a joke, scientific progress, stupid ain't it? Urgh.
I knew these wing nuts were regressive hate fuelled dolts who want human progress to stop. They want everything to be a reflection of their own tainted souls.
Even from my dieting days, there's not and never has been any reason for weight loss to not be effective, efficient, available to anyone that wants it and to be pain/discomfort free. That's no more immoral than learning eating competence or to defend, nurture or restore you're instincts to move.
Even if it was, the fact that it upsets the right people would decide it for me anyway. Fuggem. That they would rather stop progress for even those suffering through what they'd agree is no fault of their own, to keep hating, makes them lower than dirt.
Most of these jokers would struggle to make their ahem 'argument' against everything from the equine strength pain pills for headaches, to the convenience of "psyche meds" being thrown around save the ardous effort of changing the way you think/feel/react.
And no, that's not rude/ ableist of me. That's CBT.
Nor do I personally object to how others choose to manage their mental health. Just, when there's preaching to fat people about gritting their teeth-where it would make little difference, when others can't be arsed to do shit, that's a conversation they need to be having with themselves. So, rumbled.
Certainly, if any of these dimwit arseholes dared to suggest anyone should be kept from mind alteration on the basis of mild aches and pains, they'd be quite a backlash. The privileging of slimz and all that.
Few in western model countries can lecture fat people about stoicism with expecting to put up with the most minimal discomfort went out with the ark for them. They probably only fetishize it in "fitness" precisely because they've squeezed out elsewhere. It's like one of those rough adventure holidays middle class people go on.
Well for a lot of fat people, continuous mental, physical, social, spiritual and psychological discomfort is their life. People not knowing about that for so long, was fat people grinning and bearing it. Take a look at the good that did.
That's why you truly won't find me gainsaying folks feeling entitled to relief for their own discomfort. My concerns lie elsewhere.
One person recently wrote. He, "Didn't believe in any unnecessary pain."Aww, that's precious. Certainly these shut it. Thin privilege doesn't make people invisible. We can see you!!!
There is nothing moral about trying and failing to impersonate a starvation disorder, nothing. It's actually a disgusting waste of people's effort, time, lives and yes, health. The whole 'obesity' crusade has been a degenerate exercise in thought regression that has generated nothing of any value from the professionals. And this kind response is exactly the kind of degeneracy it promotes.
Its clear the pro-ana approach is about satisfying the deranged emotional needs of these messed up muppets. Well, they've been hoist with their own hard, there's nowhere left to go with their imposing their cravings. Unless they want to make being fat illegal and lock people up for it. I know many hypocrites who'd love that.
They'll pop a few synthetic opiates for any conscience pangs no doubt.
Saturday, 7 June 2014
The Real Fat Police
Just a quick mention of this story of a couple who've been detained by police under "suspicion of neglect and child cruelty."
Their son's 11 years old, weighs 15 stones/ 210lbs/ 95.2 kg and has a BMI of 41.9. Now, I do not know whether there is more to this story than meets the eye. He's already known to social services, apparently for this same reason.
If this is case is prima facie then it exposes yet again the cost of 'obesity' lies and who's actually paying for them. Framing weight as fully under the control of the parents is a dirty trick unworthy of a profession people trust with their lives. It leaves people guilty as charged and under pressure.
The problem seems to be no weight los/ceasing of weight gains. But that should have been the duty of "obesity medicine" [sic]. It hasn't bothered so cannot promise. It's failed to formulate that as a worthwhile goal and tackle it, too busy indulging its slimmer of the year level yearnings.
It's almost beyond comprehension that anyone could turn metabolic function into a legal tussle, the incompetence is mind-boggling. Especially when you consider the lengths social services can go to keep children with those committing all sorts of genuine damage to their children, in the name of keeping families together.
If you're wondering how the parents ended up in custody, they went voluntarily. I wonder if that's why genuine abuse is harder to stop, lack of co-operation from the parents. This level of aggression towards fatness is out of control and shows the spread of the 'obesity' echo chamber in certain quarters. I also suspect that its an easy target. There's an element of show.
I hope someone gets sued. I'm wondering whether this impinges on article 8.
Whilst it may be possible to check weight in some way through the imposition of diets and exercise on children. It should never have been relied on to the expense of any other possible approaches. Nor should any pretense that it can be taken for granted be a basis of judgement. If that was the case, 'obesity medicine' would routinely be managing it and this detaining would be unnecessary.
It's this policy of at the exclusion of all else, plus the punitive atmosphere that has led here, not the parents ability. If this had been done with other areas of well-being and health, the jails would be full of parents. There's barely one parent who can claim confidently not to have one area that could be seen as not living up to the high standards of social services.
Feeding your children is not and never has been an exact science and no one should expect it to become so just because capricious authority deems it the route it flex its might.
There should be a system in place to help weight outliers such as this boy achieve his full potential. Something like an out patient clinic, where there's access to physio, as well as nutritional advice. A check on his emotional state, helping him manage it if necessary to help keep him mentally robust. He needs to be in this atmosphere.
If he feels bad about himself or is being teased a lot, then that may add a significant problem, whether he has an issue with his hunger/appetite or not.
From what his parents seem to have said, they're positive and accepting of him and they should be congratulated for that. It's not easy to resist such a fat phobic surround.
How wrong was that?!
And bracketing fatness thus;
Their son's 11 years old, weighs 15 stones/ 210lbs/ 95.2 kg and has a BMI of 41.9. Now, I do not know whether there is more to this story than meets the eye. He's already known to social services, apparently for this same reason.
If this is case is prima facie then it exposes yet again the cost of 'obesity' lies and who's actually paying for them. Framing weight as fully under the control of the parents is a dirty trick unworthy of a profession people trust with their lives. It leaves people guilty as charged and under pressure.
The problem seems to be no weight los/ceasing of weight gains. But that should have been the duty of "obesity medicine" [sic]. It hasn't bothered so cannot promise. It's failed to formulate that as a worthwhile goal and tackle it, too busy indulging its slimmer of the year level yearnings.
It's almost beyond comprehension that anyone could turn metabolic function into a legal tussle, the incompetence is mind-boggling. Especially when you consider the lengths social services can go to keep children with those committing all sorts of genuine damage to their children, in the name of keeping families together.
If you're wondering how the parents ended up in custody, they went voluntarily. I wonder if that's why genuine abuse is harder to stop, lack of co-operation from the parents. This level of aggression towards fatness is out of control and shows the spread of the 'obesity' echo chamber in certain quarters. I also suspect that its an easy target. There's an element of show.
I hope someone gets sued. I'm wondering whether this impinges on article 8.
Whilst it may be possible to check weight in some way through the imposition of diets and exercise on children. It should never have been relied on to the expense of any other possible approaches. Nor should any pretense that it can be taken for granted be a basis of judgement. If that was the case, 'obesity medicine' would routinely be managing it and this detaining would be unnecessary.
It's this policy of at the exclusion of all else, plus the punitive atmosphere that has led here, not the parents ability. If this had been done with other areas of well-being and health, the jails would be full of parents. There's barely one parent who can claim confidently not to have one area that could be seen as not living up to the high standards of social services.
Feeding your children is not and never has been an exact science and no one should expect it to become so just because capricious authority deems it the route it flex its might.
There should be a system in place to help weight outliers such as this boy achieve his full potential. Something like an out patient clinic, where there's access to physio, as well as nutritional advice. A check on his emotional state, helping him manage it if necessary to help keep him mentally robust. He needs to be in this atmosphere.
If he feels bad about himself or is being teased a lot, then that may add a significant problem, whether he has an issue with his hunger/appetite or not.
From what his parents seem to have said, they're positive and accepting of him and they should be congratulated for that. It's not easy to resist such a fat phobic surround.
“Any action taken by any agency will be subject to a joint strategy between all partner agencies and will always be taken with the welfare of the child and their protection from harm as paramount.If that was in any way the case, the crusade you are involving yourself in, would not have had setting people up to fail as its main concern. The welfare of children has stopped none of this. Indeed, one of the main reasons why I never thought things would get anywhere near this bad, is that people wouldn't want to hurt children.
How wrong was that?!
And bracketing fatness thus;
A force spokesman said officers from the child abuse investigation unit worked closely with health and social services to deal with “sensitive issues such as obesity and neglect of a child.Has gone beyond reason.
Friday, 6 June 2014
Fatphobia is internalized
One of the many tiresome aspects of the fat acceptance movement, is it's own inherent fat phobia and privileging of slimz. Well actually, the denial of this and refusal to deal with it. Made easier by the virulence of fat haters in comparison, plus the endless cries of radicalism, which essentially has the same root.
Whatever slim people do or are sets the standard by which everything must be judged. There's no such thing as a slim people's mindless, stupid, hysteria and wickedness for the pleasure of it, naw, its, excuses, excuses.
Let's call it learned fat phobia if that helps spare feelings.
It's like the misogyny of women. Which is there in feminism too, having been brutally exposed by race, class as well as fatness.
I honestly didn't know this self-knowledge could be in any way insulting.
In the past, activists for real civil rights grasped that having grown up in a racist/sexist etc., society nay world they two would be replete with internalized racism/sexism etc., It's virtually unavoidable. These systems of control are powerful as much because we end up carrying them out on and through ourselves, our bodies and minds become part of the process.
Surely that's obvious?
There's a beautiful miracle in the sunshine of a deep sense of our humanity peaking through the cracks. That never completely dies at any one time. It hurts to be mistreated, the pain is internal comparison with that sense of ones humanity being threatened.
Without that deep sense, what would there be in us to generate that hurt?
So, you must dismantle your own learned prejudice and hatred of yourself, with the same mind that contains it. That can be like dancing on the head of a pin.
The impossibility of it means it happens in stages. In waves of consciousness. You have to leave where you are now, to progress, or even know there's any progression to make.
At some point, people stopped knowing this. The moment they declare themselves, an activist, they imagine they're more or less over all that and are the experts in teaching others to divest themselves of fat hate and "thin privilege" as imagine they have.
They haven't, certainly I haven't, and I find myself champing at the unseen contempt with which fat activists see themselves as a fat people and others. To the extent that it alienates. You actually have to be quite fat phobic and slim privileging to get along with fat activists.
I know credibility resides within people, so to be fair do slimz, it's only fat activists who insist it layselsewhere in slimz, the real people. Fat acceptance is "insular" yet it can barely maintain a workable relationship with any Black fat activist.
Well, before you get to race, they're fat. Real Black people are slim. Only slim people are real, fat people are somehow not. Despite the fact that in this state, we've already changed the discourse on weight. We're forced to as we are still excluded from the heart of it.
All this despite repeatedly claiming said prejudice is deeply ingrained. The use of the word society needs to be checked, too often it functions as disembodied from us all.
We are all society.
It's obvious that no-one would anyone avoid being formed by such an overwhelmingly unquestioned frame of which there is no alternative. Fat phobia isn't an opinion, it's the opinion. Many genuinely intelligent and humane people simply don't get anything else. Like dog whistle, they can hear nothing else. And they assume something must be right about fat phobia. They truly believe that, despite having absolutely no trouble whatsoever believing there's not one thing right about fat people.
Too many fat activists presume something must be right about whatever slim people invest in too. They certainly don't believe that about fat people though.
HAES is just the absence of obesity [construct] related self harm.
It's like having been persuaded to bang your head against a wall, for your moral health. Then discovering; NBYHAES-not banging your head at every size means whatever your problem, you do no harm. Because that was and still is not the rule applied to fat people.
When I've raised this, people thought I was insulting them.
Rather like a recent conversation where Virgie Tovar was accused of believing what she was noting and analyzing.
It's a loss of ability to tell the difference between a message being relayed and being given as a personal opinion. Why now, in such divergent views? As ever I suspect its commerce and the way branding gives people a sense that they've mastered whole narratives instantly through a brand name, blurb and a few slogans.
I daresay someone's investigating how much this has influenced our current intellectual rationale.
The feeling that I am personally insulting by making this observation confirms my points about fat phobia and the automatic privileging of slimz. It's de rigueur to excuse the brainwashing of everyone else into fat phobia. That its not any kind of choice, like you choose a religion. Even if you're born into it, at some point people become responsible for their faith.
Yet the moment I point out, that we've all learned the same and not as lacking in fat phobia as we might assume.....that the real difference is wishing to depart the fat phobic narrative, not the absence of it, this becomes a direct accusation of you deliberately and cynically deciding to be a fat phobe.
It takes a fat person to be assumed to be what others are, for the truth to be clearly perceived by fat activists. It used to be in vino veritas, now it's, in fat-the truth.
Yes, repression is this kind of humiliation. Its far more about feelings of being duped into colluding in your own undoing, of feeling owned, than it is a social powerplay or identity.
I guess the former is not how it can seem from the outside though, so its a bit angry-making for the unwary.
Whatever slim people do or are sets the standard by which everything must be judged. There's no such thing as a slim people's mindless, stupid, hysteria and wickedness for the pleasure of it, naw, its, excuses, excuses.
Let's call it learned fat phobia if that helps spare feelings.
It's like the misogyny of women. Which is there in feminism too, having been brutally exposed by race, class as well as fatness.
I honestly didn't know this self-knowledge could be in any way insulting.
In the past, activists for real civil rights grasped that having grown up in a racist/sexist etc., society nay world they two would be replete with internalized racism/sexism etc., It's virtually unavoidable. These systems of control are powerful as much because we end up carrying them out on and through ourselves, our bodies and minds become part of the process.
Surely that's obvious?
There's a beautiful miracle in the sunshine of a deep sense of our humanity peaking through the cracks. That never completely dies at any one time. It hurts to be mistreated, the pain is internal comparison with that sense of ones humanity being threatened.
Without that deep sense, what would there be in us to generate that hurt?
So, you must dismantle your own learned prejudice and hatred of yourself, with the same mind that contains it. That can be like dancing on the head of a pin.
The impossibility of it means it happens in stages. In waves of consciousness. You have to leave where you are now, to progress, or even know there's any progression to make.
At some point, people stopped knowing this. The moment they declare themselves, an activist, they imagine they're more or less over all that and are the experts in teaching others to divest themselves of fat hate and "thin privilege" as imagine they have.
They haven't, certainly I haven't, and I find myself champing at the unseen contempt with which fat activists see themselves as a fat people and others. To the extent that it alienates. You actually have to be quite fat phobic and slim privileging to get along with fat activists.
I know credibility resides within people, so to be fair do slimz, it's only fat activists who insist it lays
Well, before you get to race, they're fat. Real Black people are slim. Only slim people are real, fat people are somehow not. Despite the fact that in this state, we've already changed the discourse on weight. We're forced to as we are still excluded from the heart of it.
All this despite repeatedly claiming said prejudice is deeply ingrained. The use of the word society needs to be checked, too often it functions as disembodied from us all.
We are all society.
It's obvious that no-one would anyone avoid being formed by such an overwhelmingly unquestioned frame of which there is no alternative. Fat phobia isn't an opinion, it's the opinion. Many genuinely intelligent and humane people simply don't get anything else. Like dog whistle, they can hear nothing else. And they assume something must be right about fat phobia. They truly believe that, despite having absolutely no trouble whatsoever believing there's not one thing right about fat people.
Too many fat activists presume something must be right about whatever slim people invest in too. They certainly don't believe that about fat people though.
HAES is just the absence of obesity [construct] related self harm.
It's like having been persuaded to bang your head against a wall, for your moral health. Then discovering; NBYHAES-not banging your head at every size means whatever your problem, you do no harm. Because that was and still is not the rule applied to fat people.
When I've raised this, people thought I was insulting them.
Rather like a recent conversation where Virgie Tovar was accused of believing what she was noting and analyzing.
It's a loss of ability to tell the difference between a message being relayed and being given as a personal opinion. Why now, in such divergent views? As ever I suspect its commerce and the way branding gives people a sense that they've mastered whole narratives instantly through a brand name, blurb and a few slogans.
I daresay someone's investigating how much this has influenced our current intellectual rationale.
The feeling that I am personally insulting by making this observation confirms my points about fat phobia and the automatic privileging of slimz. It's de rigueur to excuse the brainwashing of everyone else into fat phobia. That its not any kind of choice, like you choose a religion. Even if you're born into it, at some point people become responsible for their faith.
Yet the moment I point out, that we've all learned the same and not as lacking in fat phobia as we might assume.....that the real difference is wishing to depart the fat phobic narrative, not the absence of it, this becomes a direct accusation of you deliberately and cynically deciding to be a fat phobe.
It takes a fat person to be assumed to be what others are, for the truth to be clearly perceived by fat activists. It used to be in vino veritas, now it's, in fat-the truth.
Yes, repression is this kind of humiliation. Its far more about feelings of being duped into colluding in your own undoing, of feeling owned, than it is a social powerplay or identity.
I guess the former is not how it can seem from the outside though, so its a bit angry-making for the unwary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)