Just a quick note for slimz and those who love them😆. You are sinking......
Up until recently, slimz routinely maintained that attitude to nourishment that probably comes in the womb. You know young children just eat, in accord with their own needs, tastes and preferences? They'll leave anything. Doesn't matter what their society or culture prizes, they'll bypass it or barely trouble it, if they don't need to.
The basic difference between fat and slim is the latter retained more of this aura of freshness, confidence and eating (or response) clarity. Obviously, it was a case of it being less interrupted by the demands of anorexia-by-proxy et al. My firm feeling is this is more than just a feeling. I think it goes down to a biochemical level. Something comes with it, a kind of protection from the vagaries of having your dieting invasively managed by others, but also as much a potential threat to your nutrition as any dieting mayhem "Gym, eat, repeat: The shocking rise of muscle dysmorphia."
I suspect it is part of your metabolic function. I don't know if we can get it back. I used my slim friends as a marker, post orthorexically induced hyperhunger. That wouldn't be possible now. Whenever you talk to slim people about food you're deluged by the tedium of nutri-bollox, ugh.
What effect this will have on the bodies and minds of slim people, is anyone's guess. I've little doubt we'll find out and it may well identify another part of the puzzle of what the 'obesity' mess does to a person.
Showing posts with label Happy Daze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Happy Daze. Show all posts
Monday, 14 October 2019
Monday, 19 March 2018
Happy
Apart from the general quietness of this blog, I must admit, I've struggled to frame a response to Cancer Research UK's recent marketing bombshell, linking human bodies with cancer. The major reason is 'obesity' is a failed term and the framing of weight in terms of risk of weight is dubious and in the finish, irrelevant. Everyone knows the issue is can we reliably and permanently alter weight or not? Secondly, I'm struggling to grasp what if anything the information given could be pointing to.
Have a look for yourself, Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. In the meanwhile, my attention was caught by an article on bulimia, as an illustration of a certain mindset.
On my way to that though, I just saw "I have prostate cancer. But I am happy". It stopped me in my tracks. I was largely indifferent to Monbiot, until this "slim chance" ugh puke [no pun intended]. After that fiasco, I linked him with irritation. Despite that, I wouldn't wish cancer on him or anyone else for that matter. Sad to say that's becoming a somewhat lofty standard.
Under the circs, it can't help but be instructive to hear from someone who actually has cancer;
Disassociation, that is being associated with low risk and being unlinked to that which is baaad cannot though protect you from occurrence. Though clearly it feels like it does.
What about his reaction to the news, will it be what CR-UK are jonesing for?
Suffice to say, the intention behind George's rules are the opposite of what crusaders wish to impose on those they consider too weighty,
Hard though to believe though it may seem, there was a time was a time when cancer had a stigma as great as HIV/AIDS in its earlier days. Doctors even took pity on families-leaving it off death certificates. Sufferers were hidden away by their relatives who often lied about their sickness, for fear of repercussions.
People finally going from shame to anger at the lack of progress is credited as part of the momentum for Richard Nixon's famous War on Cancer, which led to a lot of advances in the treatment of the disease.
It's taken a lot for cancer stigma to be lowered to the point of now and there's obviously further to go. Those who like to fake pathology and disease also like to enforce the reactions of their targets to their various machinations.
They can't make that realistic either because everyone responds differently to actual disease, often confounding the expectations of fakers.
Have a look for yourself, Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. In the meanwhile, my attention was caught by an article on bulimia, as an illustration of a certain mindset.
On my way to that though, I just saw "I have prostate cancer. But I am happy". It stopped me in my tracks. I was largely indifferent to Monbiot, until this "slim chance" ugh puke [no pun intended]. After that fiasco, I linked him with irritation. Despite that, I wouldn't wish cancer on him or anyone else for that matter. Sad to say that's becoming a somewhat lofty standard.
Under the circs, it can't help but be instructive to hear from someone who actually has cancer;
It would be easy to curse my luck and start to ask “why me?”. I have never smoked and hardly drink; I have a ridiculously healthy diet and follow a severe fitness regime. I’m 20 or 30 years younger than most of the men I see in the waiting rooms. In other words, I would have had a lower risk of prostate cancer only if I had been female.Straight in with the difference between risk and occurrence. Weight is obviously described in terms of "risk", "association" and "linked with", as that can be controlled through, ahm, statistical determinism.
Disassociation, that is being associated with low risk and being unlinked to that which is baaad cannot though protect you from occurrence. Though clearly it feels like it does.
What about his reaction to the news, will it be what CR-UK are jonesing for?
And yet … I am happy. In fact, I’m happier than I was before my diagnosis. How can this be?Is this "denial"?
The reason is that I’ve sought to apply the three principles which, I believe, sit at the heart of a good life.Um, so deciding and seeking to control the way you feel can change what you feel. Let's see those principles;
The first is the most important: imagine how much worse it could be, rather than how much better.Oh I'm feeling that, count your blessings. No matter what people want to say or feel about weight, compared to real illness, it's an embarrassment.
The second principle is this: change what you can change, accept what you can’t.Well, we all know the changes wrought by decades of attempts at calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL].
The third principle is this: do not let fear rule your life.Lols;
Fear hems us in, stops us from thinking clearly and prevents us from either challenging oppression or engaging calmly with the impersonal fates.You don't say? Preach son! No matter what the news, or the intentions of others, we all have to carry on in the way that makes sense to us.
Suffice to say, the intention behind George's rules are the opposite of what crusaders wish to impose on those they consider too weighty,
There are, I believe, three steps to overcoming fear: name it, normalise it, socialise it. For too long, cancer has been locked in the drawer labelled Things We Don’t Talk About. When we call it the Big C, it becomes, as the term suggests, not smaller, but larger in our minds. He Who Must Not Be Named is diminished by being identified, and diminished further when he becomes a topic of daily conversation.This is interesting, George is saying cancer needs to become less scary. Using cancer to make fear larger not only goes in the opposite direction, it re-invigorates fear toward sufferers."Margaret McCartney: Cancer patients should not be shamed";
....Cancer Research UK has gone large on its publicity campaign about obesity. The plain layout with warning label is reminiscent of a cigarette packet. In what Cancer Research UK itself describes as a “PR stunt,” the charity also created “fake cigarette packets with chips in to visually represent that obesity is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer after smoking.” The effect of this has been somewhat predictable. Some people with cancer have told me that they have felt blamed. Other overweight people have written on social media of how they felt shamed.Predictable indeed.
Hard though to believe though it may seem, there was a time was a time when cancer had a stigma as great as HIV/AIDS in its earlier days. Doctors even took pity on families-leaving it off death certificates. Sufferers were hidden away by their relatives who often lied about their sickness, for fear of repercussions.
People finally going from shame to anger at the lack of progress is credited as part of the momentum for Richard Nixon's famous War on Cancer, which led to a lot of advances in the treatment of the disease.
It's taken a lot for cancer stigma to be lowered to the point of now and there's obviously further to go. Those who like to fake pathology and disease also like to enforce the reactions of their targets to their various machinations.
They can't make that realistic either because everyone responds differently to actual disease, often confounding the expectations of fakers.
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
Settled Points
Whilst trawling for something else, I landed on a blog representing a notion that epitomises the divide between the fat standard and what the mainstream applies to itself.
This blog was going on about how set point theory was ultimately condescending and infantilizing to, in this case, women. Keeping them from taking responsibility for their weight (and this was part of why fat acceptance was losing its way).
Another one of her posts spoke about a certain neurotic condition, in the usual way, as if it was an illness.
That represents nervous imbalance as a set point. And that looks exactly as condescending, infantilizing, shifty and vanity serving as you think acknowledging CRIWL is not the right way to achieve weight loss does.
In case of any need of a reminder, as CRIWL is the only route to weight loss. Most people will have to accept the size they are.
If that's confusing, I'm saying that the idea that an imbalanced nervous system is some kind of an illness is in the main, vanity serving drivel. Remember, one of the chiefest foes of dealing with neurosis=vanity.
Yes, there are a minority of people who have functional disorders of some kind, that make them more likely to become mentally unbalanced in this way. Either in terms of the formation of their nervous system, or their organs.
Mainstream therapy culture has advancing this comforting gesture of a set point, for decades. Therapy's efficacy is, shall we say, someone moot [tact-c'est moi; today]. Ergo, someone has to explain why, someone goes into therapy, on the premise that they have an issue, therapy is supposed to solve this. It how shall we say, doesn't. How to explain that?
Therapy doesn't work?
The decision was made to define neurosis as something that is like an infectious disease. Things like depression etc., can make you feel very unwell, they can actually make you sick, but they aren't like illnesses. They aren't a set point, they're more a settled point.
It's often strange when others see in fat people how they themselves act all the time, but don't seem to notice, or remark on. Probably as they know they'd be challenged.
If anything, it was this attitude that was belatedly applied to fatness-which is why its named and why its so contested. Fat people are not subject to the rules applied to others. Whereas those rare people who have a neurosis based on internal fillips become the template for anyone diagnosed with that condition, no matter how far away they are from there.
Fat people are defined by people who are ill and fat, and they're defined as people who would be well, if they weren't fat.
And before those who are fat and neurotic and think this is an outrage get excited, you have already accepted what I'm saying, you just don't apply it to your neuroses-same as everyone else. Anyone accepting the notion that weight or health can be controlled by changing your thinking, eating and activity has accepted the idea that a settled point is not a set point. That your neurosis is open ended and can change in an instant and/or remain for a lifetime. Potentially by your own actions.
The biggest noise made about neuroses is not; just calm down is wrong, its that just calming down is real hard when your nerves are in that state. You do actually have to calm down, cheer up, stop checking, etc.,
You can be fat to thin for anything from a lifetime to a short or no time. Ditto your nervous/mental state. You've all already accepted this, via the fat standard.
This blog was going on about how set point theory was ultimately condescending and infantilizing to, in this case, women. Keeping them from taking responsibility for their weight (and this was part of why fat acceptance was losing its way).
Another one of her posts spoke about a certain neurotic condition, in the usual way, as if it was an illness.
That represents nervous imbalance as a set point. And that looks exactly as condescending, infantilizing, shifty and vanity serving as you think acknowledging CRIWL is not the right way to achieve weight loss does.
In case of any need of a reminder, as CRIWL is the only route to weight loss. Most people will have to accept the size they are.
If that's confusing, I'm saying that the idea that an imbalanced nervous system is some kind of an illness is in the main, vanity serving drivel. Remember, one of the chiefest foes of dealing with neurosis=vanity.
Yes, there are a minority of people who have functional disorders of some kind, that make them more likely to become mentally unbalanced in this way. Either in terms of the formation of their nervous system, or their organs.
Mainstream therapy culture has advancing this comforting gesture of a set point, for decades. Therapy's efficacy is, shall we say, someone moot [tact-c'est moi; today]. Ergo, someone has to explain why, someone goes into therapy, on the premise that they have an issue, therapy is supposed to solve this. It how shall we say, doesn't. How to explain that?
Therapy doesn't work?
The decision was made to define neurosis as something that is like an infectious disease. Things like depression etc., can make you feel very unwell, they can actually make you sick, but they aren't like illnesses. They aren't a set point, they're more a settled point.
It's often strange when others see in fat people how they themselves act all the time, but don't seem to notice, or remark on. Probably as they know they'd be challenged.
If anything, it was this attitude that was belatedly applied to fatness-which is why its named and why its so contested. Fat people are not subject to the rules applied to others. Whereas those rare people who have a neurosis based on internal fillips become the template for anyone diagnosed with that condition, no matter how far away they are from there.
Fat people are defined by people who are ill and fat, and they're defined as people who would be well, if they weren't fat.
And before those who are fat and neurotic and think this is an outrage get excited, you have already accepted what I'm saying, you just don't apply it to your neuroses-same as everyone else. Anyone accepting the notion that weight or health can be controlled by changing your thinking, eating and activity has accepted the idea that a settled point is not a set point. That your neurosis is open ended and can change in an instant and/or remain for a lifetime. Potentially by your own actions.
The biggest noise made about neuroses is not; just calm down is wrong, its that just calming down is real hard when your nerves are in that state. You do actually have to calm down, cheer up, stop checking, etc.,
You can be fat to thin for anything from a lifetime to a short or no time. Ditto your nervous/mental state. You've all already accepted this, via the fat standard.
Friday, 26 August 2016
Hot Hot Hot
Arrow-Hot Hot Hot
We're in the midst of a hot spell over here in the UK, comparatively speaking. Citizens of really hot countries would probably say- "Pish! You call this hot?" Enough yes. Temperatures have varied, but the day before yesterday seemed hotter than hot prior to it; and guess what?
Even those around me with rather robust hunger [function] found that had petered out significantly. And you know what happens then don't you? People don't eat or don't eat much. Barely do they notice this absence half the time. If any weight loss will occur from it, they will not feel starved. They will not "battle". No plans are required. No conscious intent. No portion control. No "willpower" no "self control" no "discipline". No weight management thought-control. Nothing nada. Just, existence.
Kind of like being a slim person. But without the pretence that your size is a product of non-stop workin' nowt.
The best way to eat less is to reduce hunger function. It's not rocket science.
Not might I add, "hunger suppression", not cranking up metabolic function until it destroys your organs. I'm talking putting hunger on its standby setting. The difference between the two is like the difference in reducing your temperature, heightened or otherwise, or seeking to reduce body heat by raising your temperature so you sweat more.
Because sweating cools you down.
Though raising your temperature could sicken/kill you, so what?! It's the principle, not how principle plays out in reality, isn't it?
Contrary to reports of natural selection and evolution hugely favouring 'overeating' and weight gain in us; this is how much of a hold eating has over you.
Something you've done your whole life. Something that is fundamental to your every day existence, something you are designed to ensure is done regularly-that my friends is how much of a hold eating has over you, without hunger.
That's how 'addicty' eating/food is without hunger. That's why hunger is such powerful feeling. In its acute phases it gives off a kind of psychic, as well as physical discomfort/pain, such as we fear that distress enough to make the advanced preparations necessary to keep access to a ready energy supply.
Without hunger food can so easily become irrelevant. The speed of this is salutary. From irresistibly compelling to, fuhgedaboutit.
The latter means we would hardly be inclined to prepare for times when hunger will come, unless the distress was of a kind that created anticipatory activity. Extraordinarily clever and effective design. If you doubt, take a look at trashy tat bulimia facilitator.
Pain can be surprisingly uncompelling when its not there. But the nature of the distress of more acute hunger combined with the nature of our own mind's memory of distress is enough that we can commit to extensive preparations for the need for energy, whether we are experiencing it or not.
This is true insight into how "rewarding" eating is without the primary driver of hunger/appetite. That's:
H-U-N-G-E-R.
Not emotion, not thought, not allegory pathology or narrative metaphor, repeat after me:
H-U-N-G-E-R......hungerrrrr!!!!!!
We gain clear insight into how easily adjustable hunger/appetite could be if that had been a proper investigation point, rather than the pointless mind block that is the 'obesity' construct. Though it should be pointed out that reduced hunger goes with reduced levels of activity.
To be sure, a rise in heat and/or light can decimate hunger.
Why and how though?
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
The With Slims
People can be so bitchy. In order to avoid bad form, take care with your terms.
Just because people around you talk crudely of 'slim people', doesn't mean you have to stoop to their level. That doesn't make it okay.
In order to be a kind and nice person, call 'slim people', people with slim-PWS. They are people first, you remember that.
Calling folks 'slim people' degrades their humanity. The fact of their slimness isn't more important than their personhood. They are more than just slim. They are people with lives, jobs and a feisty attitude you wouldn't believe.
They are special, they are normal. Some of them are freaky, but we won't let on. Slim people are not what people say they are. They are good peopole, living with slim, and I really think they deserve some respect for that.
So please, if you see a with slim, be sure to help them out, whether they ask you for it or not.
And if you're a slim person reading this, never forget: You have slim, you are not slim.
Just because people around you talk crudely of 'slim people', doesn't mean you have to stoop to their level. That doesn't make it okay.
In order to be a kind and nice person, call 'slim people', people with slim-PWS. They are people first, you remember that.
Calling folks 'slim people' degrades their humanity. The fact of their slimness isn't more important than their personhood. They are more than just slim. They are people with lives, jobs and a feisty attitude you wouldn't believe.
They are special, they are normal. Some of them are freaky, but we won't let on. Slim people are not what people say they are. They are good peopole, living with slim, and I really think they deserve some respect for that.
So please, if you see a with slim, be sure to help them out, whether they ask you for it or not.
And if you're a slim person reading this, never forget: You have slim, you are not slim.
Monday, 12 October 2015
World 'Obesity' Promotion
World 'obesity' promotion day has passed without much ceremony. Let's face it, everyday is 'obesity' promotion day. In case of any confusion. The term "obesity promotion" is one of those blurted confessions fat phobes sometimes leak out.
It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.
Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.
I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,
The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.
Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.
The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.
Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.
Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.
As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."
Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?
Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under by the same too.
It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?
Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.
Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.
The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.
But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.
Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this.
This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.
It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.
Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.
It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.
The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?
Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?
I hope not.
It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.
Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.
I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,
“Like climate change, we know the answers to the obesity crisis. We know that tough policies will need to be implemented, and we know that such policies are challenged by powerful commercial interests. But we have no choice if we hope to meet those 2025 targets.”That's was Tim Lobstein The World Obesity Federation's Director of Policy (lols). Just before that he's quoted as saying,
“Preventing obesity means tough government action to limit the promotion of junk food, especially to children, to ensure healthier food is offered at work, in schools and institutions, and to encourage physical activity through better urban design and transport systems.We of course do not know how to alter metabolic function so it reverses weight and "maintains" that state itself. Cos we can't impose that through the anorexia method.
The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.
Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.
The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.
Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.
Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.
As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."
Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?
Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under by the same too.
It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?
Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.
Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.
The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.
But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.
Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this.
This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.
It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.
Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.
It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.
The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?
Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?
I hope not.
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
Magic Fat
I am not currently ill. But I cannot say, I'm healthy-to mean I am not unwell, despite it being fact, because 'obesity' construct. I am classed as disease, not diseased dis-ease. Diseased is when you a human or other being are affected/infected with disease, the idea of you is distinct and separate from the disease. People cannot be separated from themselves. Check out this story about extending the plain packaging from cigarettes to food:"Big Mac's make big children."
The distinction is unprecedented. No one else is classed as disease because no one else is subject to such uninterrupted stupidity-which I consider to be a hidden but prominent object of repression.s
Enforced stupidity.
For the sake of their integrity, I'd advise all fat people to consider developing the more arch slightly removed aspect of their personality. Such a notion should have been stopped before it could get off the ground. By any proposer's inner critic or by someone around them saying WTH?
Some are trying to do a "people first," that is, people with 'obesity', which is like "people with thin or slim."
Being so bestowed, I cannot assert the objective truth. I am not ill. I also cannot assert that I am actually ill, in the fullest sense.
The unprecedented truth is that if you're dis-ease, you cannot become diseased. A disease cannot have a disease. You can only have a related outgrowth of the dis-ease of you.
I'm sure you've heard electronic scooter users-who are fat, are deemed not disabled, but sitting down. These cognitive errors are a product of cognitive errors (delusions) in definition, in construction of terms. And of refusal to stop before a term or even metaphor has utterly exhausted itself.
Fat/ness fat people has/have become magic! Sort of uberuntermenchenfrauen-the demand is that we must play both-'cos this is about role play after all. Weak and sickly but somehow neither and both. Invincible and dead person walking, corrupt but pure and untouched by genetic lottery, hazard, eccentric function, accident or life itself.
Innocent, yet blah, blah, blah you get the picture, maaaaagic.
[It's only a matter of time before people touch a fatty for luck. I'll bet they already are. ]
The distinction is unprecedented. No one else is classed as disease because no one else is subject to such uninterrupted stupidity-which I consider to be a hidden but prominent object of repression.s
Enforced stupidity.
For the sake of their integrity, I'd advise all fat people to consider developing the more arch slightly removed aspect of their personality. Such a notion should have been stopped before it could get off the ground. By any proposer's inner critic or by someone around them saying WTH?
Some are trying to do a "people first," that is, people with 'obesity', which is like "people with thin or slim."
Being so bestowed, I cannot assert the objective truth. I am not ill. I also cannot assert that I am actually ill, in the fullest sense.
The unprecedented truth is that if you're dis-ease, you cannot become diseased. A disease cannot have a disease. You can only have a related outgrowth of the dis-ease of you.
I'm sure you've heard electronic scooter users-who are fat, are deemed not disabled, but sitting down. These cognitive errors are a product of cognitive errors (delusions) in definition, in construction of terms. And of refusal to stop before a term or even metaphor has utterly exhausted itself.
Fat/ness fat people has/have become magic! Sort of uberuntermenchenfrauen-the demand is that we must play both-'cos this is about role play after all. Weak and sickly but somehow neither and both. Invincible and dead person walking, corrupt but pure and untouched by genetic lottery, hazard, eccentric function, accident or life itself.
Innocent, yet blah, blah, blah you get the picture, maaaaagic.
[It's only a matter of time before people touch a fatty for luck. I'll bet they already are. ]
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
The tired old Blame Game-And how we yawn
Aye, Aye, from-the top ten reasons why [certain] classists couples argue;
You're telling me.
Well you know what? Grow out of it because its, yahwn, messed up, self indulgent and very, very old. Instead, let's go from (I'm assuming) a more religion inspired preachy, sound and thunder, spare the rod spoil the child, "tough love" horseshit, to one more in the spirit of the age objective one.
Let's move on to a a more selfless, ego-suspend, active listening and really hearing the other one-under scrutiny/in trouble.
Our old, default pulpit inspired one tends to start from a position of one as the all conquering wise "normal" one and the other as the "sinner". Anyone with even a "blameless" illness will attest to how many people ask them "Can't you just, stop/get up our of that wheelchair/throw away those crutches/visit Lourdes, etc., guilty tripping.
The problem is inherent in the construct "normal" which is as they say a big tent. It forces people on the defensive. Thrusting them into a permanent state of continually re-establishing their authenticity of normal. This neurotic state of is inherently anxiety-promoting, the feeling is, I might not to be. Feelings of panic emerge from the subconscious hinterlands.
Leaning toward a tendency to create a faux demarcation between normal/ abnormal-see how that's defined in relation to, rather than in its own right- then to create as vast a chasm between those two as possible.
Leading to the inability to see the normal in the abnormal and often, vice versa, to see the extent of the abnormal in the normals. This in itself is responsible for as much suffering up to and including death as many actual problems in themselves.
A more mindfully inspired let someone else's thoughts flow without you interrupting with your (dumb) ego giving your less obvious brain a better chance of sending you some wisdom unencumbered, might be a leap forward in society's/societies collective consciousness.
Like a bit of group therapy or even temporarily sponsor where you are like the person's clear, extra brain for a while. Only prodding gently if they're bullshitting-can sometimes tell because they're either boring the pants off you or just seem fake.
What's in it for you? Well, clearing your mind, listening, not only gives your wisdom a chance to poke through-which is heartening-it gets easier to put your ego aside, something that can easily be of immeasurable value to anyone.
Hurry up, some of us need the flamer-blamers in positions of influence to "grow up."
One thing most of us don’t grow out of is that when things go wrong,* we need someone to blame. We find the force of circumstance too threateningly random an explanation. Introverts blame themselves. Extroverts blame other people. This is why they often end up together.* Or we think/convince ourselves they have.
You're telling me.
Well you know what? Grow out of it because its, yahwn, messed up, self indulgent and very, very old. Instead, let's go from (I'm assuming) a more religion inspired preachy, sound and thunder, spare the rod spoil the child, "tough love" horseshit, to one more in the spirit of the age objective one.
Let's move on to a a more selfless, ego-suspend, active listening and really hearing the other one-under scrutiny/in trouble.
Our old, default pulpit inspired one tends to start from a position of one as the all conquering wise "normal" one and the other as the "sinner". Anyone with even a "blameless" illness will attest to how many people ask them "Can't you just, stop/get up our of that wheelchair/throw away those crutches/visit Lourdes, etc., guilty tripping.
The problem is inherent in the construct "normal" which is as they say a big tent. It forces people on the defensive. Thrusting them into a permanent state of continually re-establishing their authenticity of normal. This neurotic state of is inherently anxiety-promoting, the feeling is, I might not to be. Feelings of panic emerge from the subconscious hinterlands.
Leaning toward a tendency to create a faux demarcation between normal/ abnormal-see how that's defined in relation to, rather than in its own right- then to create as vast a chasm between those two as possible.
Leading to the inability to see the normal in the abnormal and often, vice versa, to see the extent of the abnormal in the normals. This in itself is responsible for as much suffering up to and including death as many actual problems in themselves.
A more mindfully inspired let someone else's thoughts flow without you interrupting with your (dumb) ego giving your less obvious brain a better chance of sending you some wisdom unencumbered, might be a leap forward in society's/societies collective consciousness.
Like a bit of group therapy or even temporarily sponsor where you are like the person's clear, extra brain for a while. Only prodding gently if they're bullshitting-can sometimes tell because they're either boring the pants off you or just seem fake.
What's in it for you? Well, clearing your mind, listening, not only gives your wisdom a chance to poke through-which is heartening-it gets easier to put your ego aside, something that can easily be of immeasurable value to anyone.
Hurry up, some of us need the flamer-blamers in positions of influence to "grow up."
Monday, 5 January 2015
Out with the Old and in with the New
Happy New Year to one and all.
Oooh. Guess who didn't get her HNY message edited on time? Yes I do [attempt] to edit this believe me when I say that.
Anyway, in the end, who cares?
I hope this year brings you all the good things you desire. And in terms of the yahwn, weight wars, I hope fat people keep in mind. The real power's in our hands.
I don't care to hear any whimpering about "victim blaming" or sociedee ought not to blah de blah. In short, either we choose to wake up to this mess and throw it off, or we don't.
And its not just for us. I keep saying this. Though that seems laughably mock heroic, it's true. If we fatz continue to allow ourselves to be taken roughly in the unmentionable parts, we'll be used to take everyone else down with us.
And that's something that might be harder for most of us to live with.
Though I can come across somewhat gruff when it comes to slimz and their identity crisis related antics. I have to say, if I absolutely think about it, I don't actually like the idea of being used to take them down at all. Still not bitter, still not interested in returning fat hating fire.
It's still a complete joke. Slimz are better than this.
So do it for yourself, for others, or both. But do it. Re-inhabit yourself/your spirit, your soul. Recognize your humanity lies within and can be found there, not outside or from others and this year could be big fun.
I've got a feeling........
Sunday, 20 July 2014
I am a Person
I'm a human being. I'm one of the people. Citizen, homo sapiens, c'est moi. And I am perfectly happy with that.
I didn't ask to be given any names or brandings.
Not 'obese'. Not "overweight" none of it. These words are unsolicited, unwarranted, unwanted, impositions.
I am not interested in identifying as or with any of these. I consider them in the same light as a non-Jewish person considers the word Gentile, or a non-Muslim considers the term infidel. It's someone else's name for what I can be categorized as, from their point of view. But it has little interest for me, beyond that.
Luckily for me. Neither Jewish people, nor Muslims would feel self important enough to think they can just brand me with these. Getting their media cronies to repeat them like not doing so-one time, would stem their breath.
If anyone on the grounds of anything, weight for example feels the need to disconnect from people they wish to categorize.
I suggest they give themselves-names.
And leave general terms like people, person and so forth for those who are happy to wave them bye-bye.
I didn't ask to be given any names or brandings.
Not 'obese'. Not "overweight" none of it. These words are unsolicited, unwarranted, unwanted, impositions.
I am not interested in identifying as or with any of these. I consider them in the same light as a non-Jewish person considers the word Gentile, or a non-Muslim considers the term infidel. It's someone else's name for what I can be categorized as, from their point of view. But it has little interest for me, beyond that.
Luckily for me. Neither Jewish people, nor Muslims would feel self important enough to think they can just brand me with these. Getting their media cronies to repeat them like not doing so-one time, would stem their breath.
If anyone on the grounds of anything, weight for example feels the need to disconnect from people they wish to categorize.
I suggest they give themselves-names.
And leave general terms like people, person and so forth for those who are happy to wave them bye-bye.
Monday, 9 September 2013
Al fresco
Henry Porter says he's surprised by what he deems a lack of interest in defending privacy and wonders if it is he who's out of step with most other people. I think he probably is. I get his sense of privacy, but circumstances (seem to) have changed from the days when solitude was the model.
There's a bathing scene in the TV adaptation of Shogun. The main character Blackthorne-who's an English sailor shipwrecked in 17th century Japan-finds his lovely interpreter, Lady Mariko naked and bathing in her pool. He's stunned when she invites him to join her. She explains the crowded nature of Japan means they developed different forms of privacy.
Those who come from rural areas can find city folk unfriendly, its similar. All in regulating your gaze. When people post their pictures on-line, they at times object to those putting their images to uses they don't approve of. The criticism of that has been they've undermined their own privacy by publishing them in public spaces. The criticism has some validity, however, the objection also shows the shifting nature of privacy in cyberspace.
Those who administer and run things are always monitoring what the public will accept and how. 'Obesity' has already displayed that people don't object the idea of whole bodies and lives being submerged in what purports to be science. As long as that is in people they're distanced from through defining them as disease. That has been a surprise to many in authority. You can see how slow they have been to try and exploit such a comparatively open goal.
That defining people as a disease process and their lives as that unfolding, hasn't raised instinctive objections shows that people's sense of privacy as either having shifted, or being revealed as not important as it might have seemed, this time under the influence of what is and what purports to be science.
At least with your e-mails and such, the authorities are snooping on what you actually write of your own volition. Your internet footprint at least has the possibility of revealing something real about you. It is something you have some control over shaping.
The 'obesity' construct on the other hand hollows out real human existence and imposes on it a script it expects people to act out. Both 'obese' and the peer pressure chorus. I've said for a long time that you can see the desire through it. To be able to look at anyone person and see their own life.
Whether its the notion that our thoughts will soon be easy to read, our notions of privacy may soon be redundant in any case, that's the aim. The desire of those who run things to know us inside out has been evident forever.
People have willingly sold information on what they buy, for the prospect of "reward points", something akin to a coupon system.
Porter doesn't seem to have been cognisant of this, let alone its implications, just like everyone else.We notice things in our orbit that have meaning to us. The most obviously bad idea can hide in plain sight as long as it finds the right route, or targets.
Who knows, given human kind advanced from smaller tribes and villages where everyone knows everyone and most of the business, perhaps the real aberration was of privacy as based on a model of individuality and solitude.
There's a bathing scene in the TV adaptation of Shogun. The main character Blackthorne-who's an English sailor shipwrecked in 17th century Japan-finds his lovely interpreter, Lady Mariko naked and bathing in her pool. He's stunned when she invites him to join her. She explains the crowded nature of Japan means they developed different forms of privacy.
Those who come from rural areas can find city folk unfriendly, its similar. All in regulating your gaze. When people post their pictures on-line, they at times object to those putting their images to uses they don't approve of. The criticism of that has been they've undermined their own privacy by publishing them in public spaces. The criticism has some validity, however, the objection also shows the shifting nature of privacy in cyberspace.
Those who administer and run things are always monitoring what the public will accept and how. 'Obesity' has already displayed that people don't object the idea of whole bodies and lives being submerged in what purports to be science. As long as that is in people they're distanced from through defining them as disease. That has been a surprise to many in authority. You can see how slow they have been to try and exploit such a comparatively open goal.
That defining people as a disease process and their lives as that unfolding, hasn't raised instinctive objections shows that people's sense of privacy as either having shifted, or being revealed as not important as it might have seemed, this time under the influence of what is and what purports to be science.
At least with your e-mails and such, the authorities are snooping on what you actually write of your own volition. Your internet footprint at least has the possibility of revealing something real about you. It is something you have some control over shaping.
The 'obesity' construct on the other hand hollows out real human existence and imposes on it a script it expects people to act out. Both 'obese' and the peer pressure chorus. I've said for a long time that you can see the desire through it. To be able to look at anyone person and see their own life.
Whether its the notion that our thoughts will soon be easy to read, our notions of privacy may soon be redundant in any case, that's the aim. The desire of those who run things to know us inside out has been evident forever.
People have willingly sold information on what they buy, for the prospect of "reward points", something akin to a coupon system.
Porter doesn't seem to have been cognisant of this, let alone its implications, just like everyone else.We notice things in our orbit that have meaning to us. The most obviously bad idea can hide in plain sight as long as it finds the right route, or targets.
Who knows, given human kind advanced from smaller tribes and villages where everyone knows everyone and most of the business, perhaps the real aberration was of privacy as based on a model of individuality and solitude.
Saturday, 7 September 2013
Fatness is the Last Stand of Free Will
Some are fond of stating fatness is the last acceptable prejudice, clueless and erroneous, but really, it misses something. Fatness for many feels like the last holdout of human free will. And if it goes [breathe deeply] it feels to them like we might forget what it means to be properly human. Perhaps we'll descend into anarchy.
Fat anarchy.
In everyone's mind to varying degrees, despite having trained ourselves to think otherwise, we've had to accept a lot of things we were told previously were our choice pure and simple. We've been told you cannot control; your thoughts, mood, who you love, find attractive, sexuality, drug and drink intake, pleasure intake, sexual appetite, shopping, dieting habits etc., etc.,
In a cultural mindset dependent on pure unadulterated free will-that speciously singular channel for human agency -that feels like an attack from all sides, on that very notion. Irony is, its very inadequacy in explaining the whole of human will is why we have rivalled Usain Bolt in running away from it.
That very singularity and the lack of clearly understood additions to it means getting away from it is like escaping a cherished monolith. Which makes us feel dishonest cowards who cannot face harsh reality. It is seen as the essence of what makes us human. That we can think and decide to act. Then act, purely of our own volition.
Rather than adding useful constructs that enlarge and fill out the picture of why and how we act. And therefore, how we regulate our actions and behaviour, for good or ill. Our defensive flight has left these incompatibly opposite feelings in uneasy stasis.
Something's waiting to hit the fan.
It's that oddness where a tyrannical overlord is much hated and feared, yet somehow has become central to our thinking. We hate living with "We are free to do or not do anything"- When we are on the wrong side of it.
The only way that can alter it is if we claim to be forced by something or someone greater than ourselves. But we still hold to it as the standard. Feeling guilty, shabby, slightly less human even, for evading its destructive glare.
Yet evade it we do and if we're lucky, a group of people will be left, who've been thrown out of their own humanness leaving a hollow shell that can be turned into a construct. This draws like a vacuum all our need to express our fidelity to pure-free-will.
To human agency absolute.
The one thing everyone bar none could guarantee, could count on, is that fat people choose to be fat. They use their elective free will to become fat, apropos of nothing. No "excuses" i.e. explanations of what's going on. It's just, through decisions to eat.
Doesn't matter that of all the things we've accepted as beyond our direct control, this makes the least sense by far. We simply do not design ourselves to be hungry. But we do have direct control over the thoughts in our head. Even in the case of some neuroses.
The point is, the ability to get away with this has been given from on high.
And if we somehow now have to accept that weight is not a conscious direct choice, in the main, then where can we express our disconnected yet oh so important tribute, to this so important you have to get away from it truth?
How can we keep alive and vital our sense that we are in total control and in it our hope of change, of progress? Our, we can any time we want, do anything we want, as long as we put our minds to it?
Howwwww?
* edited.
Fat anarchy.
In everyone's mind to varying degrees, despite having trained ourselves to think otherwise, we've had to accept a lot of things we were told previously were our choice pure and simple. We've been told you cannot control; your thoughts, mood, who you love, find attractive, sexuality, drug and drink intake, pleasure intake, sexual appetite, shopping, dieting habits etc., etc.,
In a cultural mindset dependent on pure unadulterated free will-that speciously singular channel for human agency -that feels like an attack from all sides, on that very notion. Irony is, its very inadequacy in explaining the whole of human will is why we have rivalled Usain Bolt in running away from it.
That very singularity and the lack of clearly understood additions to it means getting away from it is like escaping a cherished monolith. Which makes us feel dishonest cowards who cannot face harsh reality. It is seen as the essence of what makes us human. That we can think and decide to act. Then act, purely of our own volition.
Rather than adding useful constructs that enlarge and fill out the picture of why and how we act. And therefore, how we regulate our actions and behaviour, for good or ill. Our defensive flight has left these incompatibly opposite feelings in uneasy stasis.
Something's waiting to hit the fan.
It's that oddness where a tyrannical overlord is much hated and feared, yet somehow has become central to our thinking. We hate living with "We are free to do or not do anything"- When we are on the wrong side of it.
The only way that can alter it is if we claim to be forced by something or someone greater than ourselves. But we still hold to it as the standard. Feeling guilty, shabby, slightly less human even, for evading its destructive glare.
Yet evade it we do and if we're lucky, a group of people will be left, who've been thrown out of their own humanness leaving a hollow shell that can be turned into a construct. This draws like a vacuum all our need to express our fidelity to pure-free-will.
To human agency absolute.
The one thing everyone bar none could guarantee, could count on, is that fat people choose to be fat. They use their elective free will to become fat, apropos of nothing. No "excuses" i.e. explanations of what's going on. It's just, through decisions to eat.
Doesn't matter that of all the things we've accepted as beyond our direct control, this makes the least sense by far. We simply do not design ourselves to be hungry. But we do have direct control over the thoughts in our head. Even in the case of some neuroses.
The point is, the ability to get away with this has been given from on high.
And if we somehow now have to accept that weight is not a conscious direct choice, in the main, then where can we express our disconnected yet oh so important tribute, to this so important you have to get away from it truth?
How can we keep alive and vital our sense that we are in total control and in it our hope of change, of progress? Our, we can any time we want, do anything we want, as long as we put our minds to it?
Howwwww?
* edited.
Sunday, 1 September 2013
*Tranquilliser, Amphetamine, Narcotic
I had to laugh out loud at a line of T-Shirts, featuring the brand names of some increasingly used drugs on the back. The advert is topped by the tagline, "Just what the doctor ordered".
The shirts, styled a bit like American football shirts with numbers on the back. Featured across the top one of the following; "Xanax, Adderall or Vicodin."
I got the point.
Apparently, this is sacrilege. It 'trivializes', note how that's often a harbinger of wrong-headedness, and glamourizes (equally nausea inducing), drug mis-use. According to a couple of hypocritically po-faced drug representatives who wish to sue the firm making these items.
When its clear, overly enthusiastic prescription does that. And not for the first time. Moreso marketing. Familiarity breeds indifference. You cannot be in a permanent state of shock about things you keep seeing.
That the designer didn't seem to realise these are brand names is indicative of the power of marketing to distance us from what things really are. Which is what said T-shirt maker was picking up on. Its typical of drug company reps to be twisting social justice activism to its own ends.
I have no issue with extent of sensitivity surrounding this particular issue. I don't think it's useful or productive, but that's for others to work out. What irks me is it suppresses a discussion the very people suppressing it clearly need to have.
These subterranean feelings turn up where there's little pressure. Projected onto a more expendable whipping crew. A bit like the real undercurrent of addiction transfer now I come to think of it.
By the time you get to the tortilla chip as a unit of 'addictiveness', mentally enslaving, via the efforts of sinister wo/men performing shadowy alchemy in laboratories. As opposed to say the equivalent of making your signature dish(es) tastier and tastier over time, then you have to know you are no longer talking about food. This increasing paranoia means you need to stop trying to run away from what's really on your mind.
For others, it reflects a need to reexamine the basis of belief that delivered them there. Which is of course, calorie restriction must be the answer, so when it obviously isn't, instead of adjusting to that, you go to, the food must have some bad maaagiccck.
Gettagrip.
Industrial food is bound to throw in dubious chemicals to achieve the same as any good cook you know does working on a dish over time, making it better. That's what they do, cut corners to maximize profits. The real problem is they don't give a shit about food, apart from making it look good enough to pass and okay tasting enough not to make everyone hurl. I'm not excusing this, but it is no voodoo prowess.
Nor is it a good idea to be telling people it is, because erm, that's how voodoo works. Diets fail because they disregard our design, not because our minds have been taken over by Mexican snack overlords.
You cannot affect unconcern about increasing narcotic, barbiturate and amphetamine use on the one hand. Yet be using this kind of language and framing to be talking about chemicals that are being ingested.
* Apologies.
The shirts, styled a bit like American football shirts with numbers on the back. Featured across the top one of the following; "Xanax, Adderall or Vicodin."
I got the point.
Apparently, this is sacrilege. It 'trivializes', note how that's often a harbinger of wrong-headedness, and glamourizes (equally nausea inducing), drug mis-use. According to a couple of hypocritically po-faced drug representatives who wish to sue the firm making these items.
When its clear, overly enthusiastic prescription does that. And not for the first time. Moreso marketing. Familiarity breeds indifference. You cannot be in a permanent state of shock about things you keep seeing.
That the designer didn't seem to realise these are brand names is indicative of the power of marketing to distance us from what things really are. Which is what said T-shirt maker was picking up on. Its typical of drug company reps to be twisting social justice activism to its own ends.
I have no issue with extent of sensitivity surrounding this particular issue. I don't think it's useful or productive, but that's for others to work out. What irks me is it suppresses a discussion the very people suppressing it clearly need to have.
These subterranean feelings turn up where there's little pressure. Projected onto a more expendable whipping crew. A bit like the real undercurrent of addiction transfer now I come to think of it.
By the time you get to the tortilla chip as a unit of 'addictiveness', mentally enslaving, via the efforts of sinister wo/men performing shadowy alchemy in laboratories. As opposed to say the equivalent of making your signature dish(es) tastier and tastier over time, then you have to know you are no longer talking about food. This increasing paranoia means you need to stop trying to run away from what's really on your mind.
For others, it reflects a need to reexamine the basis of belief that delivered them there. Which is of course, calorie restriction must be the answer, so when it obviously isn't, instead of adjusting to that, you go to, the food must have some bad maaagiccck.
Gettagrip.
Industrial food is bound to throw in dubious chemicals to achieve the same as any good cook you know does working on a dish over time, making it better. That's what they do, cut corners to maximize profits. The real problem is they don't give a shit about food, apart from making it look good enough to pass and okay tasting enough not to make everyone hurl. I'm not excusing this, but it is no voodoo prowess.
Nor is it a good idea to be telling people it is, because erm, that's how voodoo works. Diets fail because they disregard our design, not because our minds have been taken over by Mexican snack overlords.
You cannot affect unconcern about increasing narcotic, barbiturate and amphetamine use on the one hand. Yet be using this kind of language and framing to be talking about chemicals that are being ingested.
* Apologies.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
Hold the front page............
Here's a bit of "news". Fat shaming has been discovered to increase the likelihood of remaining a fatty bum, bum.
I hope all those who've been ragging on fat acceptance acknowledge that this has now been "discovered", (again). Without getting out from under this stupid crusade. Folks either wouldn't be 'discovering' this. Or it would be buried.
My political sense is lacking. So I'll just go on a say, this is the principle operating beneath the surface. From children who are targeted for fatness by their families, to the crusade rationale.
i.e. they keep being told they're fat all the time, whether they are or not. To the way, "You are fat because you're too comfortable with yourself. So the answer is to discomfort yourself beyond your endurance" was, oxymoronic.
Leaving aside qualms about the study and its interpretations. It's entirely logical that if stress can tend to increase the likelihood in weight, in the susceptible, that more stress will increase their weight. Under the guise of reducing weight, one can exploit biological tendencies.
Internalizing demarcations comes in the form of efforts to acquire slimness.
Fat people have become increasingly strictured into a discreet class. What's the point of that, if they can easily escape? It's not about conspiracy, so much as opportunism. I think we all expected slimness to be simple and easy to acquire. When it became clearer it was not, well....that's a different story, isn't it?
I mean why say it's moral that fatness should be ended by calorie restriction a punitive, costly and above all, inefficient means? Is it moral for your software to be really slow and buggy? Did people say, "Bill Gates, stop improving your S/W, its immoral?"
Did they heck.
It's the sense of security about that sentiment too. So sure no change will occur that will make manipulating ones metabolism as easy as we all once thought.
Anyway, here's the new instructions fatz. Calm the hell down about everything. Stop taking anything seriously. Stop giving too much of a shit about what doesn't matter. Become independently centred, emotionally and psychologically self sufficient.
Do not obey, make up your own mind. Treat authority as your equal. Bow down to nobody.
Will this make you slim?
Who cares?
Let's "try" this as hard as we did weight loss dieting.
[By the way. Fatness was never stigmatize to motivate fatz. It was dirtied to repel chubbies and slimz from fattening.]
I hope all those who've been ragging on fat acceptance acknowledge that this has now been "discovered", (again). Without getting out from under this stupid crusade. Folks either wouldn't be 'discovering' this. Or it would be buried.
My political sense is lacking. So I'll just go on a say, this is the principle operating beneath the surface. From children who are targeted for fatness by their families, to the crusade rationale.
i.e. they keep being told they're fat all the time, whether they are or not. To the way, "You are fat because you're too comfortable with yourself. So the answer is to discomfort yourself beyond your endurance" was, oxymoronic.
Leaving aside qualms about the study and its interpretations. It's entirely logical that if stress can tend to increase the likelihood in weight, in the susceptible, that more stress will increase their weight. Under the guise of reducing weight, one can exploit biological tendencies.
Internalizing demarcations comes in the form of efforts to acquire slimness.
Fat people have become increasingly strictured into a discreet class. What's the point of that, if they can easily escape? It's not about conspiracy, so much as opportunism. I think we all expected slimness to be simple and easy to acquire. When it became clearer it was not, well....that's a different story, isn't it?
I mean why say it's moral that fatness should be ended by calorie restriction a punitive, costly and above all, inefficient means? Is it moral for your software to be really slow and buggy? Did people say, "Bill Gates, stop improving your S/W, its immoral?"
Did they heck.
It's the sense of security about that sentiment too. So sure no change will occur that will make manipulating ones metabolism as easy as we all once thought.
Anyway, here's the new instructions fatz. Calm the hell down about everything. Stop taking anything seriously. Stop giving too much of a shit about what doesn't matter. Become independently centred, emotionally and psychologically self sufficient.
Do not obey, make up your own mind. Treat authority as your equal. Bow down to nobody.
Will this make you slim?
Who cares?
Let's "try" this as hard as we did weight loss dieting.
[By the way. Fatness was never stigmatize to motivate fatz. It was dirtied to repel chubbies and slimz from fattening.]
Friday, 15 March 2013
Stigma Variations
The dull brained obesity cult is slowly working out that adults openly bullying fat children, even in an atmosphere of fat hating license, dislodges the mask of self-exalting piety.
Typically for it's regressive and brutish mentality, it's has now landed on it's twisted version an underlying truth of family therapy. No wo/man, let alone child is an island. This becomes fighting fat parents. This is defined as "fighting parental obesity" but we know 'obesity' is just a euphemism for "person or people". It's a shame because family therapy seeks to (be):
This is what's deemed thin privilege. It's not that slim people get anything they don't deserve, it's that fat people are excluded and made the poor relations. Do I need to say calorie restriction has not be a successful slimming strategy? Yeah, some people can manage to become less fat-leaving aside those who become fatter-but that isn't going to stop 'obesity'.
If people can go from fat to slim by just laying off having a competitive attitude to eating, I have to wonder if they are fat in the way many of us are. I never lost a significant amount of weight, even when my metabolism seemed to be using up a lot of energy. Are a minority like the reverse of the reduced obese, perhaps the enlarged slim? Probably. I often find caricatures are someone's story, just not the majority.
Assumptions of insufficient motivation though signal of a point blank refusal to acknowledge the efforts of most fat people has led us more or less where we are. Though picking on (fat) parents is a pretty obvious gambit, it has the potential to drift towards the unpleasant realities the crusade loves to avoid.
I caught sight of a show called The New Normal recently. In short, it's about a gay (male) couple expecting a baby through a surrogate. She usually appears with a girl in tow. This particular scene featured thanksgiving as they and some friends were about to tuck into a seasonal tofu substitute for turkey.
They all took their first bite and spat out more or less in unison. Turns out the intent was to be supportive of the little girl's foray into vegetarianism. It's just a more fancy example of the kind of supportive-all for one and one for all that has always been glaringly absent from weight loss dieting.
From the beginning, despite the health warnings, when you (weight loss) diet, you're on your own. It's nothing to sit at a table with your beloved family, gnawing hunger inside - trying to swallow the lump in your throat, along with some offensive tasting low calorie -shit whilst your family set about their communion.
It's not so much the deprivation as the isolation. Especially in plain sight of people's relaxed fulfillment of their own needs. To break bread with those you care about is one of the everyday things that binds us together, we take it for granted. Every religion has to get involved with what you eat, indeed, it's fair to say it's the other way around too, focus on food quickly becomes a system of faith.
Focusing on the parents of fat children, specifically fat parents-it could just as well be slim parents of fat children-may be fine and dandy in the sense that any distress is shared by all. Slimz would be the most ferocious resistor's of enforced WLD, hence their role as holier than thou. Whole families dieting points to the much evaded logic of whole societies dieting.
The avoidance of which has been the purpose of individualizing weight loss dieting in the first place.
To stop fat people's WLD getting in the way of those who aren't. Let's face it, if the logic of weight loss dieting had been followed, it would have stopped the advance of industrialized food and restaurant chains that have come to dominate the food environment during the crusade.
Not a co-incidence. The manufacturing base of certain countries has been dismantled/allowed to wither. Big Food as some are trying to call it-or what used to be classed as the "service sector"-was part of what stepped into that gap, often employing people from the classes that had been put out of work by said policies.
Hence the deluded insistence that fat people individually, against the environment and against societies economic imperative, and be part of a countervailing force to derail this. Whilst the majority wanted and liked this expansion! Unsurprisingly, yet another self comforting delusion that hasn't paid off given drastically controlling the environment in the way of reversing the last 30 years, is one of few examples of a different approach-to calorie restriction.
Beating up on fatz is just a displacement activity. A way to make people feel like they're doing something, when the outcome of it would be undesired. And oh, get this;
That's why I just figured, let's just get real and concentrate on the possibility of scientific advance. That way, if weight can be adjusted successfully, there's no need for unrealistic nonsense about interrupting capitalism etc.,
Typically for it's regressive and brutish mentality, it's has now landed on it's twisted version an underlying truth of family therapy. No wo/man, let alone child is an island. This becomes fighting fat parents. This is defined as "fighting parental obesity" but we know 'obesity' is just a euphemism for "person or people". It's a shame because family therapy seeks to (be):
- Inclusive and considerate of the needs of each member of the family and/or other key relationships (systems) in people’s lives
- Recognise and build on peoples’ strengths and relational resources
- Work in partnership ‘with’ families and others, not ‘on’ them
- Sensitive to diverse family forms and relationships, beliefs and cultures
- Enable people to talk, together or individually, often about difficult or distressing issues, in ways that respect their experiences, invite engagement and support recovery.
This is what's deemed thin privilege. It's not that slim people get anything they don't deserve, it's that fat people are excluded and made the poor relations. Do I need to say calorie restriction has not be a successful slimming strategy? Yeah, some people can manage to become less fat-leaving aside those who become fatter-but that isn't going to stop 'obesity'.
If people can go from fat to slim by just laying off having a competitive attitude to eating, I have to wonder if they are fat in the way many of us are. I never lost a significant amount of weight, even when my metabolism seemed to be using up a lot of energy. Are a minority like the reverse of the reduced obese, perhaps the enlarged slim? Probably. I often find caricatures are someone's story, just not the majority.
Assumptions of insufficient motivation though signal of a point blank refusal to acknowledge the efforts of most fat people has led us more or less where we are. Though picking on (fat) parents is a pretty obvious gambit, it has the potential to drift towards the unpleasant realities the crusade loves to avoid.
I caught sight of a show called The New Normal recently. In short, it's about a gay (male) couple expecting a baby through a surrogate. She usually appears with a girl in tow. This particular scene featured thanksgiving as they and some friends were about to tuck into a seasonal tofu substitute for turkey.
They all took their first bite and spat out more or less in unison. Turns out the intent was to be supportive of the little girl's foray into vegetarianism. It's just a more fancy example of the kind of supportive-all for one and one for all that has always been glaringly absent from weight loss dieting.
From the beginning, despite the health warnings, when you (weight loss) diet, you're on your own. It's nothing to sit at a table with your beloved family, gnawing hunger inside - trying to swallow the lump in your throat, along with some offensive tasting low calorie -shit whilst your family set about their communion.
It's not so much the deprivation as the isolation. Especially in plain sight of people's relaxed fulfillment of their own needs. To break bread with those you care about is one of the everyday things that binds us together, we take it for granted. Every religion has to get involved with what you eat, indeed, it's fair to say it's the other way around too, focus on food quickly becomes a system of faith.
Focusing on the parents of fat children, specifically fat parents-it could just as well be slim parents of fat children-may be fine and dandy in the sense that any distress is shared by all. Slimz would be the most ferocious resistor's of enforced WLD, hence their role as holier than thou. Whole families dieting points to the much evaded logic of whole societies dieting.
The avoidance of which has been the purpose of individualizing weight loss dieting in the first place.
To stop fat people's WLD getting in the way of those who aren't. Let's face it, if the logic of weight loss dieting had been followed, it would have stopped the advance of industrialized food and restaurant chains that have come to dominate the food environment during the crusade.
Not a co-incidence. The manufacturing base of certain countries has been dismantled/allowed to wither. Big Food as some are trying to call it-or what used to be classed as the "service sector"-was part of what stepped into that gap, often employing people from the classes that had been put out of work by said policies.
Hence the deluded insistence that fat people individually, against the environment and against societies economic imperative, and be part of a countervailing force to derail this. Whilst the majority wanted and liked this expansion! Unsurprisingly, yet another self comforting delusion that hasn't paid off given drastically controlling the environment in the way of reversing the last 30 years, is one of few examples of a different approach-to calorie restriction.
Beating up on fatz is just a displacement activity. A way to make people feel like they're doing something, when the outcome of it would be undesired. And oh, get this;
I also agree with West that we'll never conquer the obesity epidemic if we don't face some hard truths about grain subsidies and other economic (and marketing) factors that are contributing to it. Everyone should be able to afford healthy food -- and have access to safe and affordable exercise options. There are real social justice issues here, and we need a groundswell of indignation and action.Yeah, I discounted that ages ago on the grounds that the only way for this "indignation" to build was to develop a high value on the lives of the poor and/or fat. And the primary vehicle for getting there was actually destroying that through a relentless campaign of social stigma.
That's why I just figured, let's just get real and concentrate on the possibility of scientific advance. That way, if weight can be adjusted successfully, there's no need for unrealistic nonsense about interrupting capitalism etc.,
Thursday, 14 February 2013
Human Behaviour
I got a bit emotional the other day. In response to someone telling their story of being fat then became slim/mer and the difference it made in the way others treated them. It might have been that the person abruptly stated that they'd been depressed by that difference in reaction.
It's an undersold part of fat people's experience. The unnerving nature of the way people can totally switch reactions to you. Not on the basis of how you're behaving, but of the size of you.
We hear a lot about encouraging nature of peer pressure, the way it incentivizes fat people to forgo the pleasure of meeting their needs, for a higher goal of relieving the discourtesy others choose to direct at them.
That's really what its about in essence. To make the switch the built in imperative of nourishing ones body, to preventing the threat of some kind of assault on your mind. You can see why even if you exclude the ineffectiveness of weight loss dieting on metabolic function, you still have a pretty uphill climb to replace necessity, with what is unnecessary.
It is imperative to remain sane, but will how often will that supplant the desire to continue one's existence?
Anyway, this switching leaves an element of fakery and in authenticity about others that's hard to shake. More than anything, for me anyway, is watching people jumping to orders without questions. Of internalizing them as if they're their own, when they most clearly aren't.
You can start to really question how we actually function in terms of our beliefs, do we really have any? Now, this isn't new. I worked out a while ago that we work on the elders of the tribe pass on knowledge to the rest of us, their subordinates-as above-and we then go about as if no right thinking person could possibly have thought anything else.
These 'elders' can vary, bullies, the charismatically sociopathic, can substitute, I'm thinking of poorer communities where the criminal code of silence reigns despite their outrages. I say criminals though I can't forget a brief and abortive game I thought up when I got a bit harumphy, how the professional classes are just like street gangs.
I'd probably just heard another story about how when some professional is mind numbingly incompetent, to the detriment of those who reliant on them, and is just given a nickname by the rest of their fellows because well, goodness forbid anyone would be struck off for being useless.
Think of what it took to get there!
Usually, we all strive to appear interesting, together, in charge, confident, funny. We put our best foot forward, trying to make out like we are about something. We're in charge of ourselves, we're independent.........thinkers. We may be like ducks, peddling furiously underneath. But we must try to present a calm exterior.
With weight people show you the joins, because they've lost sight of them, themselves. They've lost the capacity for self observation. The elders said they could. Everyone else is doing it, so it becomes less visible.
If could see what you're seeing, they'd be angry with you, to be revealing themselves to you in such a light. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't know this at some level and that is part of the fury they aim at fat people.
Either way, I rather resent having to see them like this. I prefer their good foot and would very much like to see that again.
It's an undersold part of fat people's experience. The unnerving nature of the way people can totally switch reactions to you. Not on the basis of how you're behaving, but of the size of you.
We hear a lot about encouraging nature of peer pressure, the way it incentivizes fat people to forgo the pleasure of meeting their needs, for a higher goal of relieving the discourtesy others choose to direct at them.
That's really what its about in essence. To make the switch the built in imperative of nourishing ones body, to preventing the threat of some kind of assault on your mind. You can see why even if you exclude the ineffectiveness of weight loss dieting on metabolic function, you still have a pretty uphill climb to replace necessity, with what is unnecessary.
It is imperative to remain sane, but will how often will that supplant the desire to continue one's existence?
Anyway, this switching leaves an element of fakery and in authenticity about others that's hard to shake. More than anything, for me anyway, is watching people jumping to orders without questions. Of internalizing them as if they're their own, when they most clearly aren't.
You can start to really question how we actually function in terms of our beliefs, do we really have any? Now, this isn't new. I worked out a while ago that we work on the elders of the tribe pass on knowledge to the rest of us, their subordinates-as above-and we then go about as if no right thinking person could possibly have thought anything else.
These 'elders' can vary, bullies, the charismatically sociopathic, can substitute, I'm thinking of poorer communities where the criminal code of silence reigns despite their outrages. I say criminals though I can't forget a brief and abortive game I thought up when I got a bit harumphy, how the professional classes are just like street gangs.
I'd probably just heard another story about how when some professional is mind numbingly incompetent, to the detriment of those who reliant on them, and is just given a nickname by the rest of their fellows because well, goodness forbid anyone would be struck off for being useless.
Think of what it took to get there!
Usually, we all strive to appear interesting, together, in charge, confident, funny. We put our best foot forward, trying to make out like we are about something. We're in charge of ourselves, we're independent.........thinkers. We may be like ducks, peddling furiously underneath. But we must try to present a calm exterior.
With weight people show you the joins, because they've lost sight of them, themselves. They've lost the capacity for self observation. The elders said they could. Everyone else is doing it, so it becomes less visible.
If could see what you're seeing, they'd be angry with you, to be revealing themselves to you in such a light. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't know this at some level and that is part of the fury they aim at fat people.
Either way, I rather resent having to see them like this. I prefer their good foot and would very much like to see that again.
Friday, 1 February 2013
Beautiful
I was surprised that describing yourself as beautiful still had such
currency. In the 60's it was "Black is beautiful" because those who were
not Black defined BP as "ugly", due to their fusing of racism with
an aesthetic.
It's a terrible burden when people are disgusted by your appearance due to what's going on in their head. It's not so much needing to be beautiful as not triggering a sense of aversion. Being linked and associated with those feelings.
The eye is attached to the brain. Seeing involves brain processing.
As I'm usually thinking in terms of the crusade, rather than the media and people's looks. And any way I saw that as something that tends to even itself out once you no longer see through the halo of slim goggles.
Of course, not everyone's mind has unravelled that.
Things happen in a different order for different people. The pieces of the puzzle may be absent or present.
Beautiful is used to describe feelings as well as aesthetics, always has been in most languages. Instinct draws people towards proclaiming this, partly as a way of restoring an equilibrium in the way people feel about them.
It's a terrible burden when people are disgusted by your appearance due to what's going on in their head. It's not so much needing to be beautiful as not triggering a sense of aversion. Being linked and associated with those feelings.
The eye is attached to the brain. Seeing involves brain processing.
As I'm usually thinking in terms of the crusade, rather than the media and people's looks. And any way I saw that as something that tends to even itself out once you no longer see through the halo of slim goggles.
Of course, not everyone's mind has unravelled that.
Things happen in a different order for different people. The pieces of the puzzle may be absent or present.
Beautiful is used to describe feelings as well as aesthetics, always has been in most languages. Instinct draws people towards proclaiming this, partly as a way of restoring an equilibrium in the way people feel about them.
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
The real lesson of eating whilst having an emotion is .....
You're alive!
Okay, I know what this is about. They mean that stimulus to your nervous system, i.e. emotions/feelings, shunts eating processes into gear.
Rather like smoking a spliff can too, because it stimulates part of the eating process located in your brain, in a more direct way. I'm pretty sure smoking a doobie is not an emotion.
When a certain level of tension has built up in your system, rather like a clenched fist makes your hand act as one and an open palm means you can animate parts more distinctly, with less engagement of what isn't needed.
Tension tends to drag more processes into play than the you intend. That's one of the reasons it is so exhausting. Flexibility tends to reduce activity to the necessary, encouraging the flow of energy.
There are three main approaches to healing that I know of. Directly attacking the pathology, epitomized by western medicine's magic bullets-though a pretty universal impulse.
To ease and relieve everything but the pathology, i.e. things that support and maintain our everyday well being like Tai Chi, meditation and other alternative exercise therapies. By resting, refreshing our bodies as a whole, we encourage self repair and self healing
Or combinations of both.
I've never liked the intensity of focus on eating disorders as if that is the person. Rather than the second supporting the person as a whole. In this case, calming down the nervous system as a whole.
In other words calming and reviving you as a whole person. Focus on the 'disease' can end up making it seem to be you and you seeing yourself as it.
A combination, the third approach means yes, you might well have to look at the way you see yourself, the world and your interactions with it. How you (feel you) fit your overall view of everything.
The current favoured approach is to me bizarre and frankly at times repellent. It tends to be avoiding both seeing you as a whole person and questioning the way you see yourself. No doubt due to the implications.
Identifying a person as their-real or assumed- pathology (sound familiar?) and encouraging people to see themselves through it, as if it's an identity is the current theme du nos jours.
Conditions are taken very, very seriously indeed-as if unseriousness is somehow crux of the problem. Inducing a fatalistic "I'll never get ovah this" line, a gap for another set of toxic pills with minimal efficacy to be produced.
Concentrating on an image of wounded, damsels in distress, yet brave and noble in their sufferings/fight against this terrible 'illness.' As if the interest is the eating disorders not the person.
Make a real worshipful cult out of it. A full on irrelevant Gothic melodrama.
Increasing the prospect of them feeling barren and lost without it.
Okay, I know what this is about. They mean that stimulus to your nervous system, i.e. emotions/feelings, shunts eating processes into gear.
Rather like smoking a spliff can too, because it stimulates part of the eating process located in your brain, in a more direct way. I'm pretty sure smoking a doobie is not an emotion.
When a certain level of tension has built up in your system, rather like a clenched fist makes your hand act as one and an open palm means you can animate parts more distinctly, with less engagement of what isn't needed.
Tension tends to drag more processes into play than the you intend. That's one of the reasons it is so exhausting. Flexibility tends to reduce activity to the necessary, encouraging the flow of energy.
There are three main approaches to healing that I know of. Directly attacking the pathology, epitomized by western medicine's magic bullets-though a pretty universal impulse.
To ease and relieve everything but the pathology, i.e. things that support and maintain our everyday well being like Tai Chi, meditation and other alternative exercise therapies. By resting, refreshing our bodies as a whole, we encourage self repair and self healing
Or combinations of both.
I've never liked the intensity of focus on eating disorders as if that is the person. Rather than the second supporting the person as a whole. In this case, calming down the nervous system as a whole.
In other words calming and reviving you as a whole person. Focus on the 'disease' can end up making it seem to be you and you seeing yourself as it.
A combination, the third approach means yes, you might well have to look at the way you see yourself, the world and your interactions with it. How you (feel you) fit your overall view of everything.
The current favoured approach is to me bizarre and frankly at times repellent. It tends to be avoiding both seeing you as a whole person and questioning the way you see yourself. No doubt due to the implications.
Identifying a person as their-real or assumed- pathology (sound familiar?) and encouraging people to see themselves through it, as if it's an identity is the current theme du nos jours.
Conditions are taken very, very seriously indeed-as if unseriousness is somehow crux of the problem. Inducing a fatalistic "I'll never get ovah this" line, a gap for another set of toxic pills with minimal efficacy to be produced.
Concentrating on an image of wounded, damsels in distress, yet brave and noble in their sufferings/fight against this terrible 'illness.' As if the interest is the eating disorders not the person.
Make a real worshipful cult out of it. A full on irrelevant Gothic melodrama.
Increasing the prospect of them feeling barren and lost without it.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
If you're sort of waiting for a goodbye note....
....so am I.
I just can't seem to quite get my thoughts together-in a way that has half a chance of making sense to anyone else anyway.
I'm just glad to be out of an atmosphere that has never been conducive to me at all. At first I was just happy and relieved to have lifted a burden off myself, now I'm finding that I'm starting to recover a sense of myself that I was losing. I'm getting caught up in that too.
I'm not sure about what I'm going to do with this blog, it just depends on whether all this leads to my mind clearing enough to sort out past and present posts.
What I planned with this blog was to give my best and if I can find ways to really make good on that, I most definitely will.
I haven't felt this good in ages though, so I'll hopefully see you over the other side of making some sense. Either way, I will address the situation as I feel it's only fair to let those of you who care at all know what's going on.
Thank you for all your support over the years.
I just can't seem to quite get my thoughts together-in a way that has half a chance of making sense to anyone else anyway.
I'm just glad to be out of an atmosphere that has never been conducive to me at all. At first I was just happy and relieved to have lifted a burden off myself, now I'm finding that I'm starting to recover a sense of myself that I was losing. I'm getting caught up in that too.
I'm not sure about what I'm going to do with this blog, it just depends on whether all this leads to my mind clearing enough to sort out past and present posts.
What I planned with this blog was to give my best and if I can find ways to really make good on that, I most definitely will.
I haven't felt this good in ages though, so I'll hopefully see you over the other side of making some sense. Either way, I will address the situation as I feel it's only fair to let those of you who care at all know what's going on.
Thank you for all your support over the years.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Obesitay ay trez hard
If I ever hope to pray, I might include a request for just one thing that comes out of the 'obesity' chimera that doesn't get on my last nerve. Just how many times can a person say; FGS, FHS or even FFS?
I was reminded yesterday of course of this newish meme of "obesity is complex". Less than old because it was simple when it was all on fat people. Excruciatingly so.
When professionals hidebound by their reductive prejudice are in line of scrutiny it becomes really, trez hard.
Charmant, n'est pas?
As the current approach in this field is so extremely partial that it has painted it's own restricted view which doesn't make much sense, it is all that can be seen by most people, especially those who take it as gospel. Therefore a real picture is not accessible and cannot be accurately posited as "complex".
Weight and the metabolic function which produces it, could be complex. It could be challenging but accessible or surprisingly straightforward. Nobody knows as it has too often been woefully misconstrued from the beginning. Usually it's a case of to what extent.
The first point of studying anything is objectivity or as close to it. You can have a working hypothesis/theory, but that should be capable of taking on additional information as by what is revealed by the facts. Rather than an article of faith which the facts exist to be pressed into, in order to shore up your conviction.
You have got that backwards, you find out reality, you don't create it.
Calling a restricted and unbalanced view of fatness and weight in general that doesn't fit together properly anything is really a comment on your own point of view because that is so overweening.
If I give you the corner of a picture it's harder to describe the whole it is complex if you're trying to figure out the rest of the picture from that corner, rather than from looking at the whole. If anyone wants to find out whether 'obesity' complex or not.
They'd have to study it properly to find out.
I was reminded yesterday of course of this newish meme of "obesity is complex". Less than old because it was simple when it was all on fat people. Excruciatingly so.
When professionals hidebound by their reductive prejudice are in line of scrutiny it becomes really, trez hard.
Charmant, n'est pas?
As the current approach in this field is so extremely partial that it has painted it's own restricted view which doesn't make much sense, it is all that can be seen by most people, especially those who take it as gospel. Therefore a real picture is not accessible and cannot be accurately posited as "complex".
Weight and the metabolic function which produces it, could be complex. It could be challenging but accessible or surprisingly straightforward. Nobody knows as it has too often been woefully misconstrued from the beginning. Usually it's a case of to what extent.
The first point of studying anything is objectivity or as close to it. You can have a working hypothesis/theory, but that should be capable of taking on additional information as by what is revealed by the facts. Rather than an article of faith which the facts exist to be pressed into, in order to shore up your conviction.
You have got that backwards, you find out reality, you don't create it.
Calling a restricted and unbalanced view of fatness and weight in general that doesn't fit together properly anything is really a comment on your own point of view because that is so overweening.
If I give you the corner of a picture it's harder to describe the whole it is complex if you're trying to figure out the rest of the picture from that corner, rather than from looking at the whole. If anyone wants to find out whether 'obesity' complex or not.
They'd have to study it properly to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)