The click point says 'totally unacceptable" Record number of 10 and 11 year olds severely obese'. That is the opposite of the truth. These results are totally acceptable to those claiming otherwise. If indeed it was the the case that the ends were unacceptable, they'd abandon the failed means for those which succeed. Not on paper they control, but it actual real life.
That isn't happening because the pseudo- is more important than the science.
Not that I take the phony stats of 'obesity' at face value, I'm doing so here to make the obvious point.
If you do not come up with a method to achieve an end that is effective at achieving that end, you will not achieve said end. Simple. Nobody can be so spoiled as to think stamping their feet will change that, surely? If people cannot achieve anorexia, they cannot, no matter how much you seek to press it on them, so come up with something that works for them or put up with the results.
Failure is the feedback by which you change what you are doing in order to succeed, if you wish to achieve success. If you are welded to failure for whatever reason, then you shall continue to fail. If failure doesn't make you change, it will repeat until it changes you. That's called science. Science is not inspiration, it is not statistically insignificant randomness, it is not declaration from an uberclass, it is what demonstrably and predictably repeats.
Stopping, stabilising or reversing weight using calorie restriction or starvation has failed. People cannot use failure to achieve success.
It's not personal. It's not a challenge to a person's heightened opinion of themselves, it is just real. Nobody, not an Emperor nor King can bully reality to what they want it to be, without viable means to do so.
Learn that lesson or don't and take the consequences.
Showing posts with label Self-Own. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-Own. Show all posts
Thursday, 11 October 2018
Thursday, 4 October 2018
Embodiment not weight as identity
N.B. It's rather strange that this is breaking about now, "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship". I wrote this piece yesterday before I heard anything.
A reminder to those going around claiming their "fat identity" is insufficiently possessed or recognised by others, i.e. lacking this fat identity is a main source of woe. 'Obesity' is all about creating and imposing a "fat identity" from the outside, in order to direct behaviour.
This is that identity sold;
Before anyone says anything on this, it's entirely possible to even hate your size if so inclined, without that having any real affect on your sense of self. Think, people who say-they, hate their hair-either how it looks or when it won't behave or style in the way they intended. Consider how little this defines their sense of self.
Weight as identity is the way your weight can take lumps out of your psyche. This includes slim people.
Weight as identity is not the answer, it's the problem. WAID started with slimness being seen as somehow, inherent to being human, rather than a size human beings come in.
This affected the way anything outside this range was defined, driving a desire to confect an ID for higher weight to try and give meaning to the creation of humanness based exclusively in slimness.
That kind of slimness is the origins of weight identity. Fat people's indifference to perceiving weight as a subject for identity, plus learning an outer defined view of themselves- meant the grab to define this fat adjunct had nothing to contest it. Fatness belongs exclusively to slimness, becoming just more space to project whatever they disliked about themselves.
People seem to see climbing into this "space" as the only thing to do, because there is no real fully formed normalcy of embodiment and because they seem to feel whatever slim people do must contribute to the sense that they humans living their best life.
'Obesity' cultists have little problem with it in essence with weight as ID, it makes their "war" feel to them "provoked", defending a rational non(proactively)-aggressive idea of themselves. They pick out and twist what is said under the banner of fat ID to re purpose their favoured themes. Fat people stigmatise themselves, rather than learn the same "grammar" of body size as everyone else.
An aspect of this fat ID has even turned up as a "cause" of staying fat; "You really identify as a big bear of a man and that's stopping your 'weight loss'" etc., Becoming something to pin the failure of calorie restriction induced weight loss.
What people lack is not ID, it's more a history of metaphysical embodiment. A sense that this body and the experience and history of it is inside out, not the other way around. That doesn't require you to bother with someone else's imposition of weight ID.
What's notable about the above examples, is the lack of anything present inside to counteract them. I don't mean argue, I mean the feeling that outer falsehood is hitting a real sense of (inner) perception. If someone claims you have stolen something, when you haven't, you don't feel pushed over by the accusation, you know what you have and haven't done. And you know that comes from inside you and doesn't require validation to even think or be aware of this. Regardless of external doubt.
Fat people learnt the same way one way of seeing as everyone else, except, it was them being seen by others and they learnt this, rather than seeing themselves from the inside out.
We learnt the outside in one at the expense of awareness of our inside out one.
The rareness of this makes it harder to spot and counteract.
My term in place of embodiment was sentience, the awareness of your own unique existence. Constructing that-I don't know that it's ever been there, in this area-requires not simply a mental grasp that you know your life experience is yours, but an embodied feeling and sensibility.
There's no obvious route map, but the sense of your life being yours needs to get (a whole lot) stronger, more present and unspoken, the sense that others can wrongly contradict this needs to weaken to the dust that it really is.
A reminder to those going around claiming their "fat identity" is insufficiently possessed or recognised by others, i.e. lacking this fat identity is a main source of woe. 'Obesity' is all about creating and imposing a "fat identity" from the outside, in order to direct behaviour.
This is that identity sold;
Obesity, we are told, is a personal failing that strains our health care system, shrinks our GDP and saps our military strength.And this is that learnt;
the fear of becoming fat, or staying that way, drives Americans to spend more on dieting every year than we spend on video games or movies.This too;
Forty-five percent of adults say they’re preoccupied with their weight some or all of the timeThis especially;
......so many of my sources.......double- and triple-checked that I would not reveal their namesAnd this
One remembered kids singing “Baby Beluga” as she boarded the school busUnsurprisingly;
Arguably most of all this;“I have this sense I’m fat and I shouldn’t be,” he says. “It feels like the worst kind of weakness.”
I waited to do things because I thought fat people couldn’t do them.”This too sticks in the mind;
I avoided so many activities where I thought my weight would discredit me.”The nature of the way-the "weight" is separated from-the "me" takes a lot of untangling.
Before anyone says anything on this, it's entirely possible to even hate your size if so inclined, without that having any real affect on your sense of self. Think, people who say-they, hate their hair-either how it looks or when it won't behave or style in the way they intended. Consider how little this defines their sense of self.
Weight as identity is the way your weight can take lumps out of your psyche. This includes slim people.
Weight as identity is not the answer, it's the problem. WAID started with slimness being seen as somehow, inherent to being human, rather than a size human beings come in.
This affected the way anything outside this range was defined, driving a desire to confect an ID for higher weight to try and give meaning to the creation of humanness based exclusively in slimness.
That kind of slimness is the origins of weight identity. Fat people's indifference to perceiving weight as a subject for identity, plus learning an outer defined view of themselves- meant the grab to define this fat adjunct had nothing to contest it. Fatness belongs exclusively to slimness, becoming just more space to project whatever they disliked about themselves.
People seem to see climbing into this "space" as the only thing to do, because there is no real fully formed normalcy of embodiment and because they seem to feel whatever slim people do must contribute to the sense that they humans living their best life.
'Obesity' cultists have little problem with it in essence with weight as ID, it makes their "war" feel to them "provoked", defending a rational non(proactively)-aggressive idea of themselves. They pick out and twist what is said under the banner of fat ID to re purpose their favoured themes. Fat people stigmatise themselves, rather than learn the same "grammar" of body size as everyone else.
An aspect of this fat ID has even turned up as a "cause" of staying fat; "You really identify as a big bear of a man and that's stopping your 'weight loss'" etc., Becoming something to pin the failure of calorie restriction induced weight loss.
What people lack is not ID, it's more a history of metaphysical embodiment. A sense that this body and the experience and history of it is inside out, not the other way around. That doesn't require you to bother with someone else's imposition of weight ID.
What's notable about the above examples, is the lack of anything present inside to counteract them. I don't mean argue, I mean the feeling that outer falsehood is hitting a real sense of (inner) perception. If someone claims you have stolen something, when you haven't, you don't feel pushed over by the accusation, you know what you have and haven't done. And you know that comes from inside you and doesn't require validation to even think or be aware of this. Regardless of external doubt.
Fat people learnt the same way one way of seeing as everyone else, except, it was them being seen by others and they learnt this, rather than seeing themselves from the inside out.
We learnt the outside in one at the expense of awareness of our inside out one.
The rareness of this makes it harder to spot and counteract.
My term in place of embodiment was sentience, the awareness of your own unique existence. Constructing that-I don't know that it's ever been there, in this area-requires not simply a mental grasp that you know your life experience is yours, but an embodied feeling and sensibility.
There's no obvious route map, but the sense of your life being yours needs to get (a whole lot) stronger, more present and unspoken, the sense that others can wrongly contradict this needs to weaken to the dust that it really is.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
Indivisible
The current school of thought droning on about how people have never been so divided tend not to bother with no disagreement but one or other parties insist there is/are.
Ad hominem-literally, to the man or person.
Everybody signed on to slim down or become slimmer under their own steam. Nobody disagreed. The disagreement came when the results of a particularly singular method were deemed biologically (and politically) incorrect.
This is the major sticking point, not simply quarrelling with biology, but blocking the proper use of biological function.
Currently George Monbiot "We’re in a new age of obesity. How did it happen? You’d be surprised" et al are saying;
By reversing the effects purportedly achieved by Industrial Food.
The great thing about using the same mechanics to reverse his assertions is this will either uphold them or not. Which is science's usual starting point. Be sure and mention this to your medic or otherwise healthcare professional, sundry fat phobes and such.
Metabolism can be manipulated using non-drug means and Industrial Food knows all about it, according to George Monbiot. Call him.
He also mentions using "subliminal scents" to alter metabolic settings. I myself have said use of light (and probably darkness, separately and in concert) should be tried as a means to alter metabolic function via the eyes, brain and ergo neuro-endocrine glands.
Starvation and drugs are not simply too crude to do this in the right way, they are irrelevant and they poison the body as collateral damage. Plus surgery, is just violent assault.
Roxane Gay recently reminded us of how far back this rage against the body goes with the case of Sancho I (935-966),
Why do 'obesity' peddlers insist on framing this as a whodunnit? How about they try whogivesafuq?
I saw a photo of myself only a few weeks ago, as a preteen already diet veteran. You would have had trouble picking me out of the photo, on the grounds of body mass. I don't know why slim people never listen to what they project onto us, as if this by definition excludes them, "Normalisation of Plus Size etc.,". If not being able to notice size fattened, Monbiot himself would be a target of his own cultism.
And if dieting had worked, I would never have been one myself. That's how it happened George. I feel like Kano, I lived it.
Cults tend to degenerate into doom laden paranoia. Self correction comes hard to them. Their articles of faith do not engage critical faculties. Round and round and round circling the same themes, tightening all the time, until there's a massive shoot out with the FBI or some such.
Sorry old bean, some of us got off that merry-go-round a long time ago.
Ad hominem-literally, to the man or person.
Everybody signed on to slim down or become slimmer under their own steam. Nobody disagreed. The disagreement came when the results of a particularly singular method were deemed biologically (and politically) incorrect.
This is the major sticking point, not simply quarrelling with biology, but blocking the proper use of biological function.
Currently George Monbiot "We’re in a new age of obesity. How did it happen? You’d be surprised" et al are saying;
.......food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.Meaning, we have the capacity to strengthen our natural appetite control mechanisms, build up our defences against them being breached, can use psychology to trick ourselves into eating less than we need, and to use the latest neuroscience findings to triumph in leaving our resistance untroubled.
By reversing the effects purportedly achieved by Industrial Food.
The great thing about using the same mechanics to reverse his assertions is this will either uphold them or not. Which is science's usual starting point. Be sure and mention this to your medic or otherwise healthcare professional, sundry fat phobes and such.
Metabolism can be manipulated using non-drug means and Industrial Food knows all about it, according to George Monbiot. Call him.
He also mentions using "subliminal scents" to alter metabolic settings. I myself have said use of light (and probably darkness, separately and in concert) should be tried as a means to alter metabolic function via the eyes, brain and ergo neuro-endocrine glands.
Starvation and drugs are not simply too crude to do this in the right way, they are irrelevant and they poison the body as collateral damage. Plus surgery, is just violent assault.
Roxane Gay recently reminded us of how far back this rage against the body goes with the case of Sancho I (935-966),
Sancho would....have to travel to Cordova to undergo the slimming treatment; First of all, the physician shut Sancho up in a room, where he lay on a bed with his feet and hands tied. He only left his captivity to take long walks during which he was pulled with ropes by slaves, while leaning on an assistant. When the exercise was over, Sancho was obliged to take endless steam baths.... To prevent food intake, Hasday ordered that Sancho's mouth be sewn up, with only a small opening being left so that with the aid of a straw he could sip liquids (“Hebrew herbs”), which gave him continuous diarrhea. It appears that Sancho was only fed fluids throughout his stay at Cordova, receiving daily seven infusions combining salt water, orange-flower water, water boiled with vegetables, and fruit. These very probably contained theriac, a drug consisting of a variable number of ingredients, sometimes more than 70, including opium.Starvation, forced labour and drugs and even some mutilation, albeit reversible, unlike the kind currently being promoted by the likes of Monbiot.
Why do 'obesity' peddlers insist on framing this as a whodunnit? How about they try whogivesafuq?
I saw a photo of myself only a few weeks ago, as a preteen already diet veteran. You would have had trouble picking me out of the photo, on the grounds of body mass. I don't know why slim people never listen to what they project onto us, as if this by definition excludes them, "Normalisation of Plus Size etc.,". If not being able to notice size fattened, Monbiot himself would be a target of his own cultism.
And if dieting had worked, I would never have been one myself. That's how it happened George. I feel like Kano, I lived it.
Cults tend to degenerate into doom laden paranoia. Self correction comes hard to them. Their articles of faith do not engage critical faculties. Round and round and round circling the same themes, tightening all the time, until there's a massive shoot out with the FBI or some such.
Sorry old bean, some of us got off that merry-go-round a long time ago.
Thursday, 7 June 2018
No Slimming for Channel Four
If I was bending over backwards, I'd say Channel 4's a mixed bag when it comes to representing the fatz. It commissioned the TV version of "My Mad Fat Diary", which gave us much joy. It has also featured another series with a lead that acts like a human being and not a saddo obot. I typed in Channel 4, female, northern, detective and it came up! "No Offence". I saw bits of it and it thought it seemed well made and had an interesting antagonist, it got away from me.
The other side of this however is far bigger. That's the side that made TV fatsploitation classic Supersize/Superskinny. It has continued with this level of class, upping the ante being a typical achingly bourgeois ghetto for scienterrific fat phobia [you're fooling no-one C4]. Usually featuring, the-you are totes unaware of how much you are pushing into your face-type premise. Specialising in humiliations of the gotcha kind- where people are set up with secret cameras, caught eating pies/cake etc., to then be lectured with the expected pompous yet insipid twit-toned nutritionista.
Every airhead diet trend is taken seriously, all dieting is the same Mao suit, no matter the fabric or colour.
So it was a complete surprise to hear this channel criticise one of their stalwart presenters- Jamie "Please can we not have any more" Oliver. "Channel 4 tells Jamie Oliver he's wrong on junk food ad ban campaign". Thunderstruck, I did the mental equivalent of falling over my feet desperate to find out what their objection could possibly be.
I couldn't even speculate, I was taken aback by their rationale. Money. Not that they said this outright from the get-go;
They're not bothered about participating in the relentless dehumanisation and exploitation of people in the name of reducing the size of their bottoms.
When it comes however to trimming their fat bottom line, they come over all fat positive max, butt only because it means they'll have less money available to produce more useless pseudo science fuelled crap.
Isn't that well meaning of them?
This is the age we live in my friends. Real maltreatment is not being exhorted to starve on the demand of others neurosis, but the prospect of corporate loss of funds.
Call the UN.
To be candid though, this could pose a dilemma.
Oppose Jamie Oliver or support him and possibly reduce C4's budget for fat hating propaganda. Tough choice.
Never did I think anything could even for a moment make me reconsider objecting to the Oliver that wants to give less rather than ask for more.
The other side of this however is far bigger. That's the side that made TV fatsploitation classic Supersize/Superskinny. It has continued with this level of class, upping the ante being a typical achingly bourgeois ghetto for scienterrific fat phobia [you're fooling no-one C4]. Usually featuring, the-you are totes unaware of how much you are pushing into your face-type premise. Specialising in humiliations of the gotcha kind- where people are set up with secret cameras, caught eating pies/cake etc., to then be lectured with the expected pompous yet insipid twit-toned nutritionista.
Every airhead diet trend is taken seriously, all dieting is the same Mao suit, no matter the fabric or colour.
So it was a complete surprise to hear this channel criticise one of their stalwart presenters- Jamie "Please can we not have any more" Oliver. "Channel 4 tells Jamie Oliver he's wrong on junk food ad ban campaign". Thunderstruck, I did the mental equivalent of falling over my feet desperate to find out what their objection could possibly be.
I couldn't even speculate, I was taken aback by their rationale. Money. Not that they said this outright from the get-go;
Channel 4 bosses have said Jamie Oliver’s campaign for a ban on airing junk food adverts before 9pm is wrong, arguing that it is anachronistic because children rarely watch live television.Megalmao.
......Channel 4 said any such ban could have a substantial impact on its revenue and prevent it from funding programmes about healthy living.Arrrhahaha..further, snorts, guffaws etc.,
They're not bothered about participating in the relentless dehumanisation and exploitation of people in the name of reducing the size of their bottoms.
When it comes however to trimming their fat bottom line, they come over all fat positive max, butt only because it means they'll have less money available to produce more useless pseudo science fuelled crap.
Isn't that well meaning of them?
This is the age we live in my friends. Real maltreatment is not being exhorted to starve on the demand of others neurosis, but the prospect of corporate loss of funds.
Call the UN.
To be candid though, this could pose a dilemma.
Oppose Jamie Oliver or support him and possibly reduce C4's budget for fat hating propaganda. Tough choice.
Never did I think anything could even for a moment make me reconsider objecting to the Oliver that wants to give less rather than ask for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)