> I don’t generally view my body size as positive or negative — it simply is. I eat right (most of the time) and I exercise (an inordinate amount), but it does little, thanks to a struggle with polycystic ovarian syndrome and a failing thyroid gland. I’m strong, I’m flexible and my doctor assures me my health is good, but the fact remains: I’m larger than someone my height should be.
I feel for her and the negative comments are reprehensible, but what I hear in this particular paragraph are excuses. Having issues with POS and the thyroid gland do not make it impossible to lose weight, just more difficult. My advice: ignore the haters and come up with a game plan with your doctor to lose the weight in a steady and health way.
This is one of the more insidiously cruel comments I've seen here.
Never mind PCOS, hypothyroidism is a condition that can suck you of your energy, lower your metabolic rate, put you into depression, and much more, all contributing to weight gain. Point is, it can be a vicious cycle that feeds itself.
But who gives a damn? Who am I to start judging the accuracy or severity of her diagnoses? What if she made it all up? It doesn't matter a damn bit, to me or to you. But at the end of the day, we have no reason to believe she's lying.
Wording your comment in a more civilized manner does not make it that much less childish than the "yeah, nice excuse, fatty, now go run" that we expect from reddit.
Well, I'll try to be more uncivilized next time. I am not accusing her of lying. I take what she says at face value, but I challenge the claim that these conditions make it impossible to lose weight. If she wants to be at the weight she's at, then my advice can be safely ignored. If she is, however, interested in losing weight, then she should do her best to overcome these conditions instead of using them as an excuse to give up.
Dear God man! You don't know anything about her. For all you know she's already tried everything.
For that matter, the article says she is healthy and the doctors have given her the all clear. So she's of a somewhat larger build - big fucking deal!
This is probably coming off wrong. I'm sure you mean well. But don't be so quick to give healthy living advise to someone with a medical condition (or for that matter, really anyone) you don't know. Put yourself in their shoes - the point of this article really - how would you like unsolicited, judgmental advise about something you have little control over?
What marknutter says ("do not make it impossible to lose weight, just more difficult") is tautologically true. What you say ("For all you know she's already tried everything") can not possibly be true.
This is irrelevant pedantry. When people say "... already tried everything." they don't mean everything. This isn't first-order logic, it's conversation!
They mean that the subject has tried many things, to the point of frustration.
Unless we accept that losing weight is the highest possible priority, then it will necessarily be balanced against other priorities. These will be generally inconsistently pursued, because people are not rational.
In part, people who are calling for acceptance of a wider range of body weights are arguing that there is too high a priority placed on a person's weight.
> This isn't first-order logic, it's conversation!
Thank you for that eloquent retort. Though I've been on both sides of a pedant's argument (often the wrong side), it's helpful to set the context that a conversation is happening in. Some folks will grab onto anything if it allows them to say, "I'm right, and you're wrong!"
Actually, my premise is based on a universal predicate, which should be falsifiable (it can be true if she did indeed try everything). And his statement is not a tautology in logic, though perhaps in rhetoric it may well be.
Just a book in discrete mathematics :-) sorry, the comment I responded to was quite pedantic, but unfortunately wrong which I find to be the worst form of pedantry.
I really shouldn't engage in these sort of back and forths, but sometimes I just can't resist...
> For all you know she's already tried everything.
For all I know, her body might not obey the laws of physics that every other object in the universe obeys. But I find that possibility somewhat unlikely.
If your food intakes contains less metabolisable energy than you use, you'll lose weight. It's as simple as that.
Yeah, that endocrine disorder that scientists have been trying to cure for the past 30 years or so can be solved. By diet.
I reckon you should make a phone call to the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Foundation with your astounding discovery, I'm sure they'll be really happy to be told that sufferers can just eat less. Who knew all this time?
You've replied to this story about 15 times defending the woman's eating/exercise habits. What's the agenda here? Most of the people you're taking umbrage with aren't remotely disagreeing with the disorder; merely the assertion that everything is a-okay and nothing more can be done.
The world doesn't work in absolutes and neither should you.
No agenda. But you're right, I have made a few too many comments here. Something must have struck a nerve. Possibly the sheer mean-spiritedness of the comments made (not here) about a stranger.
Indeed. But she makes it clear her diet is under control. The point being made by the poster is what exactly? The poster states that her body can't "defy the laws of physics", like that's helpful or even insightful.
The poster was commenting about weight loss, not mitigating her disorder!
You are arguing a point the parent post never actually made.
She has a fairly common endocrine disorder (5-10% of the female population is millions of people) that makes it easier to gain weight. That does not mean that her body defies the laws of thermodynamics or the conservation of energy, and I'm fairly certain that there are people who suffer from the disorder without being obese.
That isn't to justify the many "Easy!" type comments: Life is tough. We all face tough battles. We all have ways that nature seems to conspire against us. But it does dispute the "I have {x} therefore I am without choice".
As one scientifically vapid, completely and utterly unproven sidenote just because it came to mind during this comment: one observation I've made about people who have difficulty controlling their weight is an almost perfect correlation with an innate desire to maintain warmth at all costs. Very warm houses with the heat set high, thick sweaters, giant comforters, no temperature setback at night. Generating heat is an expensive exercise for the body (calories, of course, are the measurement of the heat potential of foods), so I have to think that these environmental controls contribute to what people call a "low metabolism". I'm the sort of guy who wears a t-shift in the winter and uses the skimpiest threadbare sheet in the 58F house at nighttime, and people always marvel about my "incredible metabolism" as I devour a whole pizza.
I'm a Type I Diabetic. If I eat something containing glucose, my blood sugar will rise to unhealthy levels. Clearly the solution is to never eat anything containing glucose again. It's as simple as that.
And there's something rather neat about physics, chemistry, and biology.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So, that means garbage in = fat + garbage out. You really are what you eat.
I know this by my own diet. When I gobbled up everything in sight, I <gasp> got fat. When I quit packing my face full of food, I lost weight. Interesting how that works.
You're a right idiot if you think it's as simple as that. And your reference to the laws of physics does not make you any more knowledgeable than the hordes of assholes who simplify these issues for an easy insult.
Go google hypothyroidism and PCOS. Then come back and tell us what you learn. I'll have crayons and paper so you can show the whole class.
Where PCOS is associated with overweight or obesity, successful weight loss is the most effective method of restoring normal ovulation/menstruation, but many women find it very difficult to achieve and sustain significant weight loss. A scientific review in 2013 found similar decreases in weight and body composition and improvements in pregnancy rate, menstrual regularity, ovulation, hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance, lipids and quality of life to occur with weight loss independent of diet composition.[41] Still, a low GI diet, in which a significant part of total carbohydrates are obtained from fruit, vegetables and whole grain sources, has resulted in increased menstrual regularity than a macronutrient-matched healthy diet.[41] Vitamin D deficiency may play some role in the development of the metabolic syndrome, so treatment of any such deficiency is indicated.[42]
..... In other words, eat your veggies and don't be a pig. Medically speaking, of course.
I was a lard-ass like you, until I took a doughnut to the knee.
It is pretty simple though to lose weight, from a logical level. You need to consume less calories than you burn every day. The problem is it's not fun for most people and it can take considerable dedication.
That's not in question. But the lady who wrote the post has Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, which has no cure and can only be managed. For many sufferers there is no way to reduce their weight. It's a quite serious endocrine disorder and they're still looking for a cure.
Do you suffer from polycystic ovarian syndrome and a failing thyroid gland, too, or something similar, or do you just think that it's gonna work for everybody because it worked for you?
Overweight people are not spontaneously generating matter, sure, but it's not like people can just stop eating until they hit the weight you'd prefer them to have, they kinda stop working before that happens.
Wikipedia tells me this has little to do with "gobbling up everything in sight". Sadly, physics, biology and chemistry don't know what cause it (yet), nor is there a cure (yet).
I think the point is she shouldn't have to try EVERYTHING. If she's healthy, meaning her medical tests come back fine, and she's getting exercise the amount of work she might have to do to LOOK thin might not be worth it. In fact it might even be counter productive and make her less healthy.
Of course it's far easier to complain that she's unfit and that everyone loses and gains weight at the same rate than to say you don't like the aesthetics of her body and she should lose weight because being fat makes her unattractive.
Decent point. I don't know her either, and it was wrong of me to imply she should try everything to keep her weight down. I actually didn't mean to say this at all, but the comment does look that way.
"For all you know she's already tried everything." - well, not really... By her own admission, she doesn't "generally view her body size as positive or negative". Why would she have tried "everything" then?? It's illogical. Generally, if you don't see something as either positive or negative, you don't go to great pains to do something about it.
Of course, but that wasn't the context. 'marknutter' said that she should try and lose weight. You replied to that that for all we know, she's tried everything. 'marknutter' did not criticize her for not curing herself out of the disorder.
marknutter should a. Not be so concerned about her weight, and b. reread the article where the author assures us that her PCOS is under control.
Her doctor says she is ok, and she states that she is reasonably careful with her diet and does a large amount of exercise, which - because of the endocrine disorder she suffers from - does very little to change her weight.
In some of the comments here I wonder if I've been reading the same article! She makes it clear why her body shape is what it is, she says she's pretty healthy and looks after herself, gets checkups from her doctor and lives a full life. She seems pretty much at terms with her body shape... why are there so many comments telling her she needs to lose weight?
I'm not a doctor, so I can't argue about the medical aspects. Even if I was a doctor, I couldn't rely on what someone wrote on a blog that their doctor told them (we even have no way of knowing if it's true). And even if it is, this does not prove that "she's tried everything" (in terms of diet) within the limits imposed by her unfortunate disorder. I am not saying that she hasn't, but given that she thinks her body is just fine - in the visible aspect - I have a good reason to find this unlikely. Having said that, I do not hate her (or any obese people for that matter), and I'm not personally concerned in the slightest whether she loses weight or not :)
> Why do you think it’s proper to give random people unsolicited health advice
Why do you think it’s proper to give random people unsolicited internet posting advice? Is there any good reason I shouldn't regard you as a hypocrite?
Is it really so hard for you to see the difference between medical advice and advice about polite behavior? The difference seems very clear cut to me. One is most definitely not like the other.
Now, I’m just speculating, but I would guess that most doctors would shy away from giving random people they read about on the internet health advice. Health is personal and private, discussing it with someone in an appropriate manner requires either expertise or at least strong personal ties to that person and is usually done in private. That seems like a pretty standard societal convention to me.
Other members of society are in a position to correct your social misbehavior. People other than this woman's doctor are in no position to correct her approach to her own, personal medical issues that you are neither adequately informed nor qualified to judge.
To be honest, I didn't give much thought to that piece. It was an interesting side-fact -- that her doctor had said she was in good health -- but that's about it.
It's really not up to strangers -- especially those not qualified -- to identify whether she is healthy. It's not even the point of the article.
Not saying that you are making it the issue of the article, just saying I didn't really even give that part of it much thought.
Really. Most people only have one day or two of food at home. In cities, stores have two days of stock at most.
The federal government shut down. If anything else happens, God forbids, that breaks down the provisioning circuits, panic will soon ensue, and for city dwellers, only 2 days before they start dying from thirst, and 42 days until they die of hunger.
Now, I'd like to see all those lean people, how they'll fare after one week. If us the fat people can hide for a week and avoid being eaten by them, then the world will be ours!
No offense, but your advice sounds similar if you are saying to a woman to not to wear shorts or do not go out after 8PM otherwise she deserves to be get raped.
Why should she have to? If she's healthy and going further requires committing tremendous personal resources to weight-loss? For somebody who has a medical condition that causes their body to commit an inordinate amount of energy into fat production, reducing their intake to weight-loss levels may leave too little energy for the person to function effectively day-to-day. Or they may have to slave away on burning calories five hours a day. Is that a realistic project for the sake of vanity?
I admire her strong character. Most people on that situation would stay still and regret about their selves, but she actually did something about it. That's great.
Other thing I got from the article is the reminder that I am doing it well in not uploading pictures to Facebook anymore.
Yeah. I'm not strong enough to take this kind of abuse, I know it, and I take steps to shield myself from it. I've never posted photos of myself online, and I actively ask my friends not to as well. They've all taken it well and done as I asked.
I think it helps having grown up on the Internet back before it had "safe" places. If you think of everything posted on the Internet as public (because it is), it really changes how you interact with it.
This is a classic example of open-loop behaviour. People behave like assholes, but don't get the feedback they would be getting in real life.
It's like the restaurant in tourist areas. Bad meals? Unfriendly staff? No problem - the customers won't be back, no matter whether the service is good or bad. They are tourists and will go home tomorrow.
There's no tit for tat, no negative feedback. This doesn't work in engineering, and it doesn't work in human interaction either.
Not really. In at least some of the internet communities that do this kind of thing, there is actually pressure to conform to the community's norms - it's just that the norms are fucked. For instance, anyone who stands up for the woman in a picture like this will get called all sorts of insults in order to pressure them to back down.
It is sadly typical that this comment thread is full of discussions of how the protagonist should lose weight. Thanks for reminding me, HN, how fat women do not automatically deserve basic politeness [1].
I could be a skinnier person myself by counting calories and sprinting along with my Olympic lifting and kettlebell workouts. I know that my effort could be rewarded with a svelter frame. But you know what? I HAVE MORE INTERESTING THINGS TO DO! Maybe the protagonist, too, has something better or more fun to do with her life.
[1] A small sampling of evidence:
Uberphallus living up to name: "At this point I just don't understand why I should feel pity and display consideration to fat people..."
Driverdan: "I would also add that people who don't have a medical condition and who overeat cause the stigma people with medical conditions receive for being overweight." (Being fat causes stigma why?)
Marknutter: "I feel for her and the negative comments are reprehensible, but what I hear in this particular paragraph are excuses....My advice: ignore the haters and come up with a game plan with your doctor to lose the weight in a steady and health way." (re: OP's paragraph on having PCOS, being healthy.)
Alright. Time to do those more interesting things.
> Maybe the protagonist, too, has something better or more fun to do with her life.
I think the article would have had more impact if that was the reason she gave for her weight, rather than citing her medical issues. Instead, citing her medical issues seems to say that she is interested in losing weight, but sees those as insurmountable obstacles, and I was questioning their insurmountability. Apparently encouraging people to overcome difficult obstacles is considered offensive.
I debated about including the quote from your content. It was not obviously offensive, unlike some others. It did assume that she was interested in losing weight, as you say above, which may or may not be true. Why do we give excuses, after all? Because we don't really want to do stuff :)
It's true that I'm happier now that I can usually just say I don't care or would rather do something else instead of making excuses. It's also true that a fat person saying they don't really care about losing weight is looked at like a two-headed guinea pig.
I think there are two ways to deal with being overweight (or being really skinny as I was growing up, which can be very detrimental socially for a guy), and that is either to accept your weight and love yourself as you are or do something about it and lose the weight (or in my case, build muscle). What I hate to hear is people making excuses for not choosing either one of those solutions. As soon as someone else who has the same afflictions you do conquers their weight issues, your excuses are rendered moot. Either learn to love yourself at your current weight or get to work.
You, sitting at home with your friends, might happen across an amusing picture and chuckle at it. Maybe even take some joy at some else's pain - we all do that occasionally, it's fairly human. While it's not a good thing to do all the time, you can enjoy yourself and your friends in privacy. Maybe even poke some good-natured fun.
But those comments should remain in your living room. If you saw this person in the middle of the town square, and pointed and laughed at them - that's an incredibly, stupendously dick thing to do. It not only is insulting and mean, it encourages others to do the same thing.
Real people get hurt. Children commit suicide every year due to online bullying, and adults too. The emotional scars that don't kill will still hurt for years. Don't be the biggest douchebag in the world, and keep your comments to your living room - and to yourself.
My favorite part about this thread is people who have abundant energy, high metabolisms, perfect health, who once gained a couple pounds after being exceptionally lazy and indulgent, lost it with no effort, and now think everyone who is overweight is constantly stuffing their face and deserve their plight.
Protip: you have no fucking clue what this woman's moment to moment life is like.
I wanted to point that either.
In both cases the bullies behaviour changed the minute they realized it was a photograph of an actual human being who could feel pain from their comments.
I've been fat before. Used to eat a whole box of chocolate kudos bars a day as a kid. I don't think it's particularly odd to get made fun of for it. I got to eat the boxes of chocolates after all, it was a trade off. Other people worked harder and cared more about their health and are welcome to their opinions and the benefits of their work. Seems to be kind of shirking responsibility to say no one can criticize you for it. Even if you have health conditions you still have to put enough calories in your mouth to get that large and that is your decision. I think she is kind of hurting herself by wasting so much time issuing take down orders and contacting comment authors. It didn't matter what they said, but using up your time to fight them, that actually is a big negative to you, you could be out spending that time enjoying yourself.
So true ... the fact that she can laugh at herself is a very useful skill but what I'm interested in is how the mob mentality allows someone to go from "Fridge Raider" (which I thought was funny ... and I'm no toothpick myself) to "That heifer should be put down". There's not a shred of humor in that, nor is there even a shred of humanity in it.
I thought one of the more interesting points, at least in the context of HN, was that the Facebook users didn't even know she could read her posts.
Not that I feel sorry for them, just that so many people use Facebook all the time and have no idea how simple things like this really work and who is able to see their content.
How much is posted on Facebook in the view of the public that wasn't intended for the public?
(this comment got a bit long. tl;dr, the internet is full of insensitive pricks that don't get confronted with their own behaviour)
A large percentage of the internet populace is running on autopilot: browse hundreds of random images a day for quick fixes of entertainment, and post the odd impulsive, thoughtless and, most importantly, internet-badassity-enhancing comment.
It's much more common to be scathing and hurtful on the internet, simply because there is less of, or none of, a 'society filter' out there. If one were to stand on a soapbox in public and make the kind of remarks people make unashamedly and unfilteredly on the internet, they wouldn't be standing there for long and would in all likelihood get called out on their behavior.
Not (directly) so on the internet. I can identify two major reasons for that: One, peer groups. Internet douchebags is a major internet peer group, who will e-high-five each other for remarks outlined in the article. Two: Nobody cares. Scathing remarks are made by anonymous people all over the internet, so a lot of people have been desensitised or simply feel powerless, on behalf of not actually knowing the person making the remarks.
The difference for that last point lies in community. A lot of these image sharing sites have a loosely-tied, unloyal random userbase, where most commenters will not or never know or recognise each other from other 'threads'. This in contrast to, say, HN, where people can gain fame and notoriety over time. In the latter category, where comments and the overall mood is much less random and much more focussed at a certain audience, scathing and offensive and plain dumb comments (which is about 99% of youtube comments, for example) will not only be (anonymously, disconnecedly) downvoted, but outright confronted, countered, and the people behind them approached and have their unwanted behaviour pointed out to them.
[faux-psychologist]Freud assigned people's behavior as a result of the id, ego, and super-ego; on the internet, shielded by anonymity and a high abstraction and reduction of communication to quickly typed, short messages, the super-ego has little power in the big, anonymous communities; there is little to no society that tells people "No, this behavior is unwanted". This in turn dulls the ego (one's rational mind, conscience, etc), allowing the id (the impulsive mind that screams LOL FAT PEOPLE KILL UR SELF LOL) to write a similar blurb onto the internet. Communities like HN have a much stronger super-ego, and unwanted behavior is put down. When the poster approached the commenters, she acted as the super-ego, and the commenters suddenly snapped out of their autopilot, impulsive state of mind, having their conscience suddenly kick in when they realised there was a living person with real feelings behind the 2D image of a random woman dressing up as a character with a different physique.[/faux-psychologist]
> Communities like HN have a much stronger super-ego, and unwanted behavior is put down
Before we sprain something with collective back-patting, have you seen what happens when anyone suggests that HN might have issues with gender or privilege? That class of unwanted behaviour has a bimodal response: some forms are slapped down but others are dismissed or even encouraged.
Yes I have. A while ago I expressed shock and outrage on HN at the systemic sexism (of the "geek community") evident in the PAX business, and in other similar incidents. I was then given a lesson in logic (because this wasn't precisely sexism, but merely an individual behaving badly in this particular case). I was appalled.
No one here would write such things? I doubt it. And at the very least, I find it unbelievable that "cooler heads" are so quick to say that "panty shot" and "tit viewer" or "brogrammer" or whatever have nothing to do with the culture of IT.
I've spent most of my career trying to teach college-age women (coming mainly from humanities programs) how to program. When I suggest to my most promising engineers they they go into computer science, they almost invariably end up not being able to do it. Not because the professor isn't supportive, certainly not because they find the material too hard, but because of the "culture." They can't always find that term, but that's clearly what it is.
Ask any woman who tried and failed to make it through a CS program, and you'll here the same thing: they were sick of being ogled, they were sick of the porn jokes, they were the sick of the "cowboy up or go home" shit.
This is my culture; I'm part of it. And if you read this board a lot, it's probably your culture as well. We absolutely need to own this one and not pin it every time on errant individuals. We need to actually admit that in subtle ways we have created an environment hostile to women.
HN members are great at superficially coming across as intelligent and rational while managing to make all the same childish comments that we see elsewhere.
Want proof? Scroll down this very page. No different.
>Want proof? Scroll down this very page. No different.
But won't you agree that its good that you have to scroll _down_ for them. Showing that they have been downvoted, or at least not been upvoted. Speaks about the average behavior here, in my opinion.
Not to mention a number of incredibly nasty + negative posts I've seen on here on many occasions. I have spent time away from hacker news on 2 occasions just because I found the non-constructive negativity too much.
Hacker News might not suffer from the crude childish nastiness, but don't for a second think it's free of the passive-aggressive 'adult' kind.
I no longer show any particular respect or pity towards fat people. I've been fat most of my life, but no more.
It all started when a friend, well into the 400lb ~ 180kg, started losing weight like magic. Constant, steady weight loss. He was a fat guy in a family of fat people, the typical case of genetic blamery. I asked how he did it, he said he just counted calories and never broke the limit.
I did the same. I changed my food habits. It was hard in the sense that I've been "trained" otherwise; it's evident to me now that my mother transmitted me her fears of famine in the war. I always had to finish the plate, eat all I was given, and eat a bit more on my own whenever possible.
And the conclusion the very first day I started the control is that I just ate too much. Checked the calories, yeah, it's well added up. WTF, it's lunch and I'm already more than done! After a while I noticed things started expiring and get moldy since with my new diet couldn't keep up with my grocery list habits.
I lost weight mathematically. Kept doing exercise and bumped proteins not to lose muscle, and the average caloric deficit approached frighteningly my weight loss rate following the famous 9kcal/g of fat. Ate 20000kcal less this month? Weigh in and poof, 2.2kg gone.
From then I started analyzing other people's habits. And fat people just eat too much, very, very, very few of them are exceptions.
At this point I just don't understand why I should feel pity and display consideration to fat people while smokers (or meth addicts, or gamblers, or other sorts of compulsive behavior) are almost the worst thing in the world after the Third Reich. Saving some distances, it's the same league.
It's just an unhealthy habit, and the only difference is that it can be seen from outside. It's not a lost limb from an accident, something random that could happen to anyone and deserves pity instead of mockery. 99% of fat people just eat too much, they're just choosing to be, play the victim card too often and lack of education in regards to nutrition just perpetuates this. It's essentially the same as white trash, you can blame the environment but in the end it's you making the choice, but I have yet to see as many people defending juggalos as people defending fat people.
Because, you know, sometimes it's more complicated than what you eat, like when you have, you know, medical conditions like the one stated in, you know, the article.
But congratulations on your weight loss and newfound abilities to generalize a condition that endocrinologists and geneticists have been researching for decades.
I've noticed this general tendency to focus on the edge cases to make the rules. This is how we end up with crazy security theatre instead of real security and pointlessly drifting away from the topic.
He is sharing his experience which probably applies to the majority of the people but no, use edge cases to justify your stance and feel good about having the moral high ground.
Congratulations on your ability to focus on the edge cases and not the majority of the bell curve.
EDIT - Guys, no don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about THIS specific article or about being fat or anything. It's just that for the past year or so I've been in any online community (even the other one) I've noticed this. Sure, I get it - Innocent until proven guilty and all, but sometimes, things really are as simple as they appear to be.
[Oh, and dear parent poster, I'm a bit sorry for the "Congratulations on your ability to ..." but that was just me getting upset that people aren't looking at the bigger picture.]
I can turn around and say that treating 99% of fat people as lazy slobs is the same kind of generalization that leads to security theater when we assume everyone is a threat to our national security.
What's the difference between your and my asinine analogies? Yours pushes to look at people in a more judgmental and critical way because you're almost certain they sit towards the meaty middle of the "bell curve" (bell curve of what exactly?). Mine pushes to treat everyone with a higher level of empathy and acceptance. Could an overweight person just be lazy? Sure! Could it be due to more than that? Certainly!
In fact, the type of shitty and ignorant comments this article talks about are most certainly fueled by the idea that most fat people are lazy victim-card playing slobs. Turns out it was a little more complicated for her.
I think I didn't make myself clear in my previous comment (which I've edited btw). It's not about THIS article or THAT article or anything. It's just that I've found when you (not you you, but the general you) focus on edge cases you lose sight of the bigger picture. Sure it may help you win an internet argument by appealing to emotion ("Terrorists will come again", or "She's not lazy, she has a real problem"). I don't disagree with those points but sometimes those are just too small in the probability field that we need to ignore them.
For instance, each iteration of the Rabin Miller test reduces the probability that a number is composite by 10^-4. So sure, you might argue "Well, you never know if the 16384-bit number is prime or not merely on running the rabin miller test 10 times because there's still a 1 in 10^-40 chance it's not prime so you method is invalid." I find this kinds of arguments infuriating.
The question I have is - what good does it do anyone to be cruel and judgmental? Sure, the mean case may be "lazy slob", but so what?
Besides letting anonymous Internet People guffaw in armchair superiority, what does this judgment accomplish?
As a former fatty myself (well, okay, I'm not exactly thin, but no longer huge), I can say without even an ounce of doubt that no amount of ridicule contributed to my turnaround. Support and the complete internalization that the ship can be turned around was what did the trick for me - no amount of haranguing (thanks, parents) nor ridicule (thanks, high school) over years did squat except drive me further away from success.
So we assume that a random fattie is the mean case, and is fat because she's a lazy slob. Then we are justified in saying cruel things behind the mask of anonymity. She feels worse about herself and wallows in another pint of ice cream, and the Internet People tip their fedoras at one another.
Is there any positive to this? Isn't this just entirely negative for all involved except for some people who got a 0.5 second endorphin injection?
I don't know about you, but "things that are damaging to some and provide no good to anyone except ego boosts" counts as a Bad Thing in my book.
I agree that it is bad to be cruel because it does not gain us anything other than bad karma here. I do not think we should call a fattie as a fattie because it's better to not say anything at all if you can't say anything nice. Of course, ridicule is pretty bad. Some people's problems are visible (physical appearances) while others are not (mental problems), and obviously shaming isn't a good idea.
Btw this isn't a debate/argument but just a casual discussion. I was just observing that how quickly a person pulled an extreme card.
Sure, but leaping at "lazy slob" vs. leaping at "medical problem" are both dumb ideas, except one is considerably meaner than the other.
This may be a shitty analogy, but I can't come up with something better:
I give you two boxes. Box A has a 50% chance of being a pizza, and a 50% chance of being $1000. Box B has a 90% chance of being a dog turd, and a 10% chance of being $1,000,000.
Which box do you pick?
It's a trick question of course. The answer is: open the boxes up and take what you want (presumably the million dollars).
It doesn't matter what the bell curve looks like on the causes of obesity - because we're not dealing with aggregates, we're dealing with a specific individual. If you want to know where on the bell curve she lies, ask someone. Leaping to any conclusion because of probabilities is idiotic, because you're not dealing with a probabilistic unknown.
So it doesn't really matter if the majority of obesity is caused by poor lifestyle choices, or if it isn't. It doesn't at all matter how many people are fat due to hormones or due to Big Macs - because in the case of an individual we can directly ascertain it for ourselves. Probabilistic decision making when you can simply observe the individual is nonsensical, and frequently simply represents an attempt to deliberately paint an individual as a generic member of their class.
The part you're missing is the assumptino that your pre-judgements are the bigger picture.
I know you think you are being eminently reasonable, but it's really just another way of saying you intend to keep to those prejudices and not be distracted by treating individuals as individuals. That would be edge case thinking.
You're saying that my assumption is "Majority of the fat people are fat because of intake of food and not because of actual health problems." In this context, yes, that is exactly what my Bayesian priors (so to say) assume but it's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make. I've read things that seem to support this many times over the years so obviously that is what I would assume. If I am wrong, would you kindly care to educate me.
Actually no, don't. Because that is not the point. The point is (like I said in other comments) my gut feeling suggests that we as a society are moving towards optimizing for edge cases and that's not a good thing. (Immediate examples that come to mind are parent fearing children going out and playing, security theatre, crime television, crazy safety labels etc.)
You lost weight and now you're spewing judgmental advice. Am I now supposed to look at a fat person with scorn and immediately assume that they're lazy slobs? Should I suppress feelings of empathy? What is the actual point of what you're saying?
You spent 99% of your comment talking about your success and how you've gained insight into the unsatisfactory habits of others, and all of 1% acknowledging that it may be more complicated. And within that 1% you literally state that only 1% of fat people are losing to more than a simple mathematical equation. I know you coders like your elegant algorithms, but life is bit more messy than that.
Why wouldn't someone be empathetic towards smokers? They got hooked on an addictive substance at some point in their life and are now stuck with an unhealthy compulsion.
I think the unstated assumption OP is making is that fat people got hooked on food, and can't be responsible and give up their addiction. And while it may be hard to do, you only owe your inability to stick with quitting for your continued problems. Born again skinny people are particularly severe in this regard, since they've likely overcome their own personal issues with food (for now, at least) and so see that experience in everyone else. Maybe they made physiological excuses before, and tend to discount those issues in others; maybe their own feelings of weakness don't allow them to be especially empathetic.
And, the analogy to smoking is fatally flawed. Nobody needs cigarettes, but everyone has to eat.
Seriously, I'd like you to back that statement with some hard data. Not because I necessarily disbelieve you (lifestyle is a HUGE cause of weight problems), but because I think you underestimate how many people suffer from medical disorders.
A few illnesses that are characterized by an imbalance or an abnormality in your endocrine glands can also affect your weight. These include hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid), polycystic ovarian syndrome, and certain unusual tumors of the pituitary gland, adrenal glands, or the pancreas. However, in the vast majority of people, these illnesses are not responsible for weight gain. Most are extremely rare. Hypothyroidism, which is the most common, is seldom the main reason for overweight or obesity. Treatment with thyroid hormone, while medically necessary, does not usually cause a significant weight reduction.
Genetic disorders
Obesity is also a symptom of some rare and complex disorders caused by genetic defects. These obesity syndromes usually appear in early childhood and are tied to several additional medical problems. One such disorder is Prader-Willi syndrome, a form of obesity associated with mild mental retardation that occurs in about 1 in 25,000 people and has been traced to abnormalities in a group of genes on chromosome 15. People with this disorder are unusually short and have primarily upper-body obesity. A less common disorder, Bardet-Biedl syndrome, is similar to Prader-Willi syndrome, but is caused by abnormalities in different genes. Several other rare genetic syndromes cause obesity, but account for only a tiny fraction of all weight disorders.
Medical conditions (and often, medications taken to treat certain conditions) only make it more difficult to lose weight. They don't make it impossible.
I really don't like reading lines like "I eat right (most of the time) and I exercise (an inordinate amount), but it does little, thanks to a struggle with polycystic ovarian syndrome and a failing thyroid gland" because it suggests that weight loss is simply impossible for some people. And yet time and time again people with these and other weight-gaining diseases prove this wrong.
99.99% of the time people who struggle to lose weight are simply not following a successful weight loss plan to the letter. I would bet a pretty large sum of money, that if she got help (either online for free, or from a professional trainer/dietitian for not-so-free) and actually followed through with a proven action plan, the weight would come off. If she stuck to the plan, the weight would stay off.
It would probably be more difficult for her than for a healthy person, but to suggest that she has no choice but to be overweight is disingenuous.
The problem you have is that while there are definitely people who really need to modify their lifestyle, there are a not so insignificant number of people who cannot reduce their weight.
I think it's great you managed to lose weight (I fight a constant battle of the bulge myself with exercise and diet), but the author has an endocrine disorder called Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.
My point is that when you lump all "fatties" into the same bucket, you also unfairly judge those with medical conditions. Given many of the fat people you see will be strangers, you'll probably never know if it is lifestyle or a medical disorder causing their excess weight.
PCOS causes insulin resistance. If she counted calories, she would lose weight. She is eating too much, just like the parent comment suggests. Having a very common disorder does not mean it causes obesity, nor does it prevent one from maintaining a healthy weight. It simply makes it more challenging, as she will tend to be hungry more.
Because she is overweight. Contrary to popular belief, this is not actually complicated. There are no magic "get twice as much energy from your food" disorders. Disorders that make you more likely to overeat do not mean that you are not overeating.
While -- as several responses have pointed out -- it is trivially true that diet will help (in that a calorie deficit will always result in weight loss), the real issue with certain thyroid issues is that without a very carefully selected diet and exercise regime, attempting to achieve a calorie deficit in ways that would be easily manageable for a person without metabolic challenge will either leave you completely nonfunctional for life activities (an unacceptable result) or just drop your metabolic rate so that you don't have a calorie deficit.
Weight loss with thyroid issues (and, especially, with other complicating metabolic issues which often occur alongside thyroid issues) is not a simple thing.
People with metabolic issues do need diet/exercise balance to lose weight, but finding the right diet component that allows weight loss while maintaining health and the ability to function can require considerable expert assistance that wouldn't be necessary for a person without those issues.
"Maintain a calorie deficit" is easy to say, but can be very hard to do in a way which actually works.
Yes it does. Are you trying to tell me, for instance, if someone suffering from the same disease as the author, didn't eat a single calorie then they'd still gain weight? Because that is simply impossible (yes, yes.. the body would go into starvation mode).
As someone else has pointed out, suffering from the same problems as the author has, doesn't make it impossible to lose weight, it makes it more difficult. If you provide your body with less energy than it uses, you're going to lose weight. Simple.
She says she's eating healthily, but is she actually?
Question: if not partially caused by diet, does that mean weight gained by people with a thyroid problem is all water weight? Because otherwise you'd still need 9 kcal/g of fat gained?
I tried googling, but the results aren't very useful with regard to the exact mechanism how thyroid problems cause weight gain.
Edit: From more reading I now believe that it's still a diet problem, but the thyroid issues seem to make it harder to eat less.
From what I'd read, my understanding was that thyroid issues, such as hyperthyroidism (this is only one condition AFAIK), are very hard to control, at least via diet.
No, it does not cause weight gain. Excess energy consumption causes weight gain. Some thyroid disorders can make you more likely to consume excess energy. The solution is still to stop consuming excess energy.
I would also add that people who don't have a medical condition and who overeat cause the stigma people with medical conditions receive for being overweight. If most people who were overweight were so because of a medical condition you wouldn't see as much mockery of it.
This was kind of his point - that you can't possibly be fat, if you don't eat too much. The fat doesn't come out of the air - it comes out of the stuff that goes into your mouth.
So wire your jaw, get a backbone, do whatever it takes and you will absolutely NOT be fat. This is physics, not medicine nor psychology.
It was sarcasm. They were saying that society sees smokers as people who are "worse thing in the world after the Third Reich," not that they actually believe that. The point they were making is that people view smokers in a bad light but hypocritically it's taboo to view the obese in a bad light.
A lack of anonymity never stopped Penny Arcade from printing Dick Wolves t-shirts. Every time I see someone quote Penny Arcade, I think to myself "These are the guys who made a bad taste rape joke, then decided to print t-shirts celebrating rape jokes".
You clearly have never read the comic in question and have jumped on the band wagon. In no way was it a rape joke. Please show me how it was a joke about rape? I'm not a penny arcade fan but people who say that the original strip is a "rape joke" are the ones responsible for why the dickwolves saga will never be put behind us. You are perpetuating a myth that the original comic was a rape joke and in doing so are empowering rape culture.
After. The live drawing was before they removed the merch from the store back in 2011.
Krahulik repeated (he'd already made the sentiment clear back in 2011) that his main regret had been the merch being pulled at Prime 2013, early this september.
I don't know about that. The Dick Wolves debacle was the Penny Arcade guys reacting to those who hate rape jokes and not only continuing the joke, but making things hostile for those who spoke out against this sort of behaviour.
Both stories are about someone or some people who are marginalised by a larger group. I think it's very relevant.
The problem is people who equate rape jokes (which are ok, if tasteless) and rape culture (which is not okay, and must be stopped).
The dickwolves thing was well done specifically because it was a joke (not a rape joke, even) that happened to use the word rape that caused a massive freakout among those who don't understand the actual problem and instead wish to attack the symptoms.
Rape jokes are not a positive identifier for those who perpetuate rape culture.
> making things hostile for those who spoke out against this sort of behaviour.
Maybe that kind of knee-jerk reaction deserves a little hostility? I mean, I get that PA crossed the line and got carried away, but I can't really be offended by somebody mocking the social justice blogosphere. Because, quite frankly, they're jerks. They're generally right, but they're jerks.
> I don't see the relevance of this comment to the story at all.
“don't see” or “don't want to see”? This is highly relevant: the original discussion is about how people behave horribly when there are no consequences for doing so. As long as the Penny Arcade fan-base insulates them from criticism by dismissing it and attacking anyone who speaks up, they might not be anonymous but share the same basic ability to avoid significant consequences from their actions.
>These are the guys who made a bad taste rape joke
I like how people just keep gradually dragging that whole thing further and further away from the truth. A rape joke is a joke about rape. They made a joke about quests in MMOGs that happened to mention rape. It even mentioned rape in a "it is the most horrible thing imaginable" context.
Even the reaction wasn't about "yay, rape" - it was about PA butting heads with the internet feminist community. And the internet feminist community are, to put it bluntly, massive jackasses. They're right more often than not, but that doesn't mean they aren't huge dicks. It's a funny feeling to so thoroughly loathe people that I broadly agree with.
So Mike Krahulik picking a fight with them? The whole "Dickwolves" thing? I don't really blame him for it. The problem is that Krahulik didn't really pay attention to the collateral damage he was doing. While his actions were intending to mock the social-justice-warrior blogosphere (which, quite frankly, deserves mockery) some of his fans were using it to celebrate rape (not cool). In the end, he was far more stubborn than he should've been, and he did a lot of damage to his own reputation and crossed the line a fair bit. It was never about rape for him, it was about picking a fight. The problem is that he's a bit immature (like, quite frankly, most folks are) and didn't think about the larger context of his actions.
Your words were "These are the guys who made a bad taste rape joke". But now you admit that is not true, and you are upset at their response to the histrionic reaction to the comic. You said something false about someone you don't like, by accident? Did you slip and hit the keyboard and that particular combination of characters was produced by pure co-incidence?
I wasn't deliberately lying. I said "no", because IMO the joke was in bad taste. I wasn't particularly upset about it though, I could see the context for the initial strip however while I didn't think it was funny or particularly clever, I didn't really find it appalling or upsetting in any way.
You can say something is in poor taste and not get outraged you know. Go watch Meet the Feebles sometime. Or Clerks.
Hence my "Go away troll" comment.
Interesting though that my simple "No" got voted down. I put it down to cognitive dissonance.
This is one of the (probably positive) arguments for Google's "real-name" policy on G+. Perhaps another tactic we could use is to pick the most blatantly rude and obnoxious commenters on 4chan, etc and DOX them ... Once identified, we could comment on their pictures and let their family and friends know how they've been behaving.
The worst part is, I think we'd find many of the worst offenders are 14 or so ... they either haven't developed their humanity yet, or they'll be our worst nightmare as young adults.
Real-name policy doesn't really work. I've seen plenty of vile and horrible comments from people through the Facebook comment widget. And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice. You don't even know if you're doxxing the right person. Extrajudicial punishment is extremely dodgy even in the cases where it is legal.
And Internet anonymity serves a purpose beyond how comfortable it is, which is to allow the discussion of subjects where few people want to have their real name and picture attached. Approximately 50% of the political opinions I debate online, I would not want a prospective employer to be able to look up.
I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.
doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice
Sure, doxxing (publishing someone's personal information), might be seen as "encouraging violence". But the people we're talking about doxxing are the people who make posts that are explicit calls to violence. If person A says "Heifers like her should be put down" (as in article), they are explicitly calling for murder, so why can they be upset when someone posts their personal information? It's not like doxxing calls for "putting the cow down", so it's not as bad.
How do you know that it's the right personal information you just published? That's what due process is for - giving the accused a chance to defend himself before justice is served. Anything else is by definition vigilante justice.
Someone who posts that a fat person is a "waste of space" and should kill themselves to "spare everyone's eyes" clearly already believes in vigilante justice without due process. If you think it's OK to limit someone's freedom of speech to ban doxxing due to it's negative affects, then it's obvious that speech that says a person "should be put down" should also be banned, since that's more harmful.
The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
Yes, I think that hate speech should be prosecuted. I just don't think that the internet mob makes for a good prosecution and it's even a worse judge and jury.
> The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
So in retaliation we accept that our act of doxxing might provide the details of a completely unrelated person that then suddenly has to deal with all the shit the internet mob throws at them? Or feed teenagers to the internet mob so that unto them be done what they did in a careless, stupid moment? Now that's classy.
Just because other people on the internet behave like careless, blundering idiots we don't have to.
"And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice"
Is it really? Not by definition but I'll admit that people often use doxing along with a call for vigilante justice. I wasn't proposing violence of any kind ... just that some people should be shamed using their real identity.
Is there anything inherently wrong with intelligent objective "vigilante justice", especially in minor cases? Just because a judge won't look at a case doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to take action.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with vigilante justice. Our law system is built on the pillar of due process, which means that we have prosecutor, judge and defendant and a process in which those three parties try to get as close to the truth as possible. Each party in that process has rights and obligations - and all those rights the defendant has get thrown out the window in vigilante justice because judge, juror and executor is one and the only party deciding what they deem "the truth" and "the correct punishment." There is no defense speaking, since the defendant doesn't get heard, there's no appeal, because the punishment has already been dealt. There is no 'intelligent objective "vigilante justice"' since there is no objective all-knowing human being, this is exactly the reason that due process was established: To prevent as many human failures as possible and to reduce the damage those failures cause.
Note that this does not mean "do not take action", please, do so: Call out false behavior, but keep it limited to the behavior. Collect evidence if you think that criminal charges should be filed. Support the victim. Doxxing, as appealing as it sounds is not the right action to take.
Vigilantism violates the rule of law. Just like censoring someone who says something really bad (but only if it's "really bad" and something you shouldn't say, of course), you can't just cancel the democratic principles because it seems like a good idea. That is the exact reason why we have these principles; because often it seems like a good idea but you will screw up if you make a habit out of it.
> I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.
I have more optimistic take: it's a social problem so technical hacks won't work but social methods do. Investing time reinforcing the desired community behaviour does work so part of the question is really figuring out how to make that as easy as possible.
I think the majority of them would never even think of saying something like that in person. It's to do with crowd behaviour and the fact that they literally have no consequences.
I've spoken to a few people that are super nice and then as soon as they lose their identity they just spew hate as a release for all the pent up anger built up throughout the day/year/life.
It's very similar to road rage. You can call people every name under the sun and throw up fingers left, right and center but I can bet most people wouldn't dare do such a thing if you accidentally walked in front of them on the street. There's no consequences really when you can just shut your window and drive off or if someone is going the opposite direction.
Real name policies hurt the most vulnerable people the most, and essentially cut off people who can't afford for whatever reason to tie their self-expression on the internet to a name through which or bullies or other abusive personalities can trace their real-life identity. As far as I can tell, they do nothing to curb harassment by people who are secure in spouting abuse because it is considered acceptable in their social environment.
>This is one of the (probably positive) arguments for Google's "real-name" policy on G+
The key is having a community with behavioral standards - a persistent identifier that a reputation can be attached to is a prerequisite for enforcing said standards, but without the community to set and enforce those standards? the identifier doesn't help.
Also note, communities often contribute to this 'problem' as much as they help. Nearly all communities consider certain types of bullying of certain types of people acceptable, and with that community backing? people seem to be much worse than they would be on their own. Most of the time? most of the truly terrible things people do are done in a context where that terrible behavior is normal, or even accepted.)
I think the real problem with a 'real name' policy is that I may wish to participate in different communities with conflicting standards for behavior. A good reasonable example that most of us face is our professional selves vs. our sexual selves. Behavior that is completely acceptable in a nightclub is going to be completely unacceptable in an office, and vis-a-vis.
Google tries to address this with privacy settings, but really? I think that's the wrong approach. The context trumps the relationship; Even if I meet someone from work in a nightclub, that doesn't mean I can apply nightclub behavioral standards to my interactions with them in the office. (I would argue that I could apply nightclub standards to our interactions in the nightclub, but some would disagree.) - At least for me, (and I am told that this is very different for other people) the thing I am concerned about is not so much keeping my non-professional self secret, but in allowing people to choose a context in which to interact with me, and allowing them to be not made uncomfortable by personal issues. If they want to dig and find my personal issues? that's on them.
The worst part is, I think we'd find many of the worst offenders are 14 or so ...
Based on some of the stupid comments my eleven year old has posted on Youtube, and the equally asinine replies, I find this very plausible. I've talked to him about what kind impression he makes for himself. He's not out to hurt anyone, he just posts stuff without thinking about it. Normal behavior for an eleven year old. I said some pretty dumb things when I was a kid, but none of it was broadcasted further than my classmates. Now I'm making my son think about what he says online and I think it's sinking in. I hope that in a few more years when he's old enough to go on the internet without parental supervision he'll be a decent online citizen. A lot of parents don't know how to do this, or it wouldn't occur to them to do so.
Yep ... That's exactly what I meant (not that 14 year-olds were more vicious these days). Your teaching moment will come when he's on the receiving end and will consist of two messages; 1) I'm sorry your feelings were hurt and the people on the other end were so mean. 2) Remember that when you're commenting on someone else, they have feelings too.
Funnily enough, I find HN to discourage "knowing" other posters -- with no avatars, signature blocks, etc., the only way to recognize posters is by a username which the interface deliberately deemphasizes. I almost never notice who posted a given comment.
There's maybe three HN usernames I "recognize" from posts, two of which are for consistently posting stupid comments. (Generally I read the comment, roll my eyes at it, then notice the username and say "oh yeah, that guy again".)
the thing i find surprising here is that the DMCA (assuming anyway) act is being used for blatant censorship, aka she wants her photo off the internet not because of its artistic qualities but because she doesn't like it being on the internet,
And while the internet can be rude and obnoxious if she is not careful she has a good chance of doing a streisand by trying to censor the internet using the DMCA which is the wrong tool for the job
Your issue is with copyright in general, not the DMCA process in particular, I assume?
You kinda come off as more offended by her trying to get out of a shitty situation as best as possible than by the abuse she's receiving in the first place.
I am not offended at all by her trying to get out of the shitty situation, and she has my sympathies for the situation she found herself in, however after seeing a fair few instances of the DMCA being used in the past for censorship as opposed to "protecting copyright" (and yes i realise she owns the copyright on the photo, so technically it can be considered protecting copyright) where it has turned into a streisand effect. including people replicating the hosting of the image/video/media in thousands of places to rebel against the censorship of the internet, based on a law from a single country
Because it's an extremely good, extremely efficient communication tool for keeping in touch with people you know. Much better than everything else there is so far.
I don't have a facebook profile and I keep in touch with people with the exciting new technologies of email and telephone. Amazing what actually talking to people does.
I also use the exciting technologies of email and telephone, and talk to people. On top of that, I use Facebook to keep in touch with the remaining 90% of people I have weaker ties to, but once every half a year or sth. want to do some stuff together.
One big value of Facebook is that it's a push system, not pull (and we know that push > pull). I can stay current with the life of hundreds of people I know without having to think much about it or check it manually. It scales better than e-mail/phone and allows different new ways to interact with people. And there's no reason not to use e-mail and phone along with using Facebook.
As someone with the same email address for fifteen years, the same phone number for almost ten, and who deleted his facebook account five years ago, I can now say that facebook does it better.
I made a new account this month and reconnected with people I haven't been in touch with for years. Not everyone is going to set up a mailing list you can subscribe to.
Is this some tragedy of the commons thing? Individuals have to have facebook accounts or they'd be socially isolated because everybody else has facebook accounts they hate too? And it's not worth it to the individual user to cut themselves off?
Rather than use the criticism to put you down and make you depressed. Use it as a motivation to drive you to achieve what your goals.
Saying that though, if you are happy with yourself the way you are. And you are healthy. Then why do you care what faceless people on the Internet think of you?
The Internet is full of hateful, little people who hide behind the facade that just because they are online they can be whoever they like. I've been through all this before and I would never let it get me down. Instead I used it to drive me harder to achieve my goals.
You are beautiful, keep thinking that and don't let these people get you down!!!
This seems totally related to startups and technology in a concrete way... I can't imagine where else on the internet I would be able to see a story like this... We should try to upvote more "human interest" stories like this to block out the noise of boring stuff like Pythonscript people try to get on the FP sometimes ... <3HN!!!
The only thing I have to contribute is that I've noticed that making fun of people is often assumed to have a hateful undercurrent that isn't necessarily there. I mean, the two often go hand in hand, I'm not denying that, but it's really not necessary to hate someone or have contempt for them in order to find their appearance humorous. I feel like that assumption is a little bit too automatic, on both sides.
And if you are chiding others for their cruelty, do you not ever laugh at the appearance of another? Really, never? We are all human, and it would be good for each side of this issue to come to understand the other a bit better.
"Why do you think that's funny?" is a good question for someone who laughs at fat people out of hatred and self-superiority. For someone who is just laughing, though, there is no answer. The effect of explaining a joke is well-understood.
I often find that physical problems that have to do with appearance rather than functionality of a human being are often ridiculed at. The ones making fun never realize that they are taking a potshot at something that you often have no control over. Some are sensitive to realize it while others aren't. I have friends that fall in both categories. Unless you know the problem, you tend to take it in a light and often mean spirited way. I'd say that you work towards keeping your spirits high and learn to forgive the ones who are making fun. Most of them are ignorant, not malicious.
I applaud your attitude of taking the issue head-on. For my case, I've trained myself to forget such shortcomings with myself and most often I don't realize that they exist.
I remember I was in middle school when I first realized that "funniest home videos" was actually quite distasteful. There were people being hurt; why is there an entire TV show about laughing at them? The joy of /r/cringe and the like is simply lost on me now.
I can hear the whoooosh as that article went straight over your head. I think you need to take a step back and do a little introspection. Also that type of comment does not belong here on HN News.
Nope, it actually is funny. The subject herself thought so - seems like that part of the article went straight over your head.
I do not think it makes the world better when you obsessively avoid saying anything that might possibly offend someone, let alone try to police everyone else.
Tell me something, where do you draw the line? Do you think it's okay to make offensive jokes online? In the workplace? Just with close friends? What, if any, kind of offensive jokes are too offensive? Jokes about being overweight? sexist? racist?
Or is having to think about any of this too much trouble; your definition of "obsessively avoiding". Maybe you don't bother at all drawing a line? Perhaps You just say what you feel like to appeal to your/friends' sense of humor?
Given that offence it taken and not given, I think you'd best define "offensive" first. Then decide if you left any room for humor.
IMHO, there is humor in weight, gender and race. The point is, is one trying to amuse or deliberately offend.
Aside form this specific issue, I notice a huge cultural difference between the US and the UK in this. In the UK, we "take the piss". Its what we do. We sort of use it to equalise each other. In the US, it seems different. I am reminded of a situation a UK comedian found himself it. He's in the US, eating out with US friends. A man walks in with a awful wig on. UK bloke instinctively takes the piss out of him. The US lot are not happy. Apparently when a ridiculous looking person walks in people are supposed to be some how supportive of the attempt to better himself. In the UK, its cause for a lot of micky taking.
Back to the case in point, even the subject is not objecting to the humor, she is objecting deliberately nasty comments specifically meant to be nasty. That has nothing what so ever to do with humor.
The line? Well, IMHO, the line is intent. Is the comment meant to be funny or nasty.
Lastly, have to ask, is obesity a specific US sensitivity? Seems from my POV that there is a hell of a lot of excuse making for obesity in the US that does not happen else where. Any suggestion that its the persons own doing, eating badly and not exercising, is stamped on like its some sort of heresy. Where as here its pretty much the accepted reason.
>Lastly, have to ask, is obesity a specific US sensitivity? Seems from my POV that there is a hell of a lot of excuse making for obesity in the US that does not happen else where. Any suggestion that its the persons own doing, eating badly and not exercising, is stamped on like its some sort of heresy. Where as here its pretty much the accepted reason.
Well there are a lot of obese people here. They even get handicap placards at this point, its recognized as a disease etc. They're 1 step short of becoming a protected group.
The line seems rather clear. "Haha, you're fat" phrased in a witty way isn't too bad, and can be amusing even to the "victim" if they have a healthy self-image. But "you should do everyone a favor and kill yourself", or "do the right thing and don't share such pictures of yourself" are hateful comments that have nothing to do with wit.
Digging deeper, personal offensive jokes are acceptable when then joker knows the target well enough to know that it won't be taken as an actual offense. That's what makes them risky e.g. in workplaces where people don't know each other as well. But on the internet, such jokes are not personal to begin with.
You could replace the OP's picture with a photograph of any other overweight person and it wouldn't make a difference. It's only for people that recognize the person (including themselves) that the joke takes on a whole different meaning. As such, I don't have a huge problem with these jokes.
The hateful comments are a different story, but I find that it helps to remember that they are written by children and other people who simply lack the development of empathy, and should neither be taken seriously nor held completely responsible. They just don't understand, just as a toddler wouldn't understand the repercussions of firing a gun.
> The line seems rather clear. "Haha, you're fat" phrased in a witty way isn't too bad, and can be amusing even to the "victim" if they have a healthy self-image.
Are you serious? Fat people have a tremendously difficult time with being ridiculed for even existing, so no this joke was not acceptable.
> But "you should do everyone a favor and kill yourself", or "do the right thing and don't share such pictures of yourself" are hateful comments that have nothing to do with wit.
This joke and fat hatred go hand in hand. There are not separate entities, they are a part of the same continuum that made the joke a reality: fat people are lazy and have no impulse control and deserve ridicule.
> Digging deeper, personal offensive jokes are acceptable when then joker knows the target well enough to know that it won't be taken as an actual offense. That's what makes them risky e.g. in workplaces where people don't know each other as well. But on the internet, such jokes are not personal to begin with.
> You could replace the OP's picture with a photograph of any other overweight person and it wouldn't make a difference. It's only for people that recognize the person (including themselves) that the joke takes on a whole different meaning. As such, I don't have a huge problem with these jokes.
The amount of shit fat people get from close friends about being fat is just as bad as a society from a whole, so why exactly would it be OK if it was just someone you knew personally hating you vs. a stranger on the internet?
> The hateful comments are a different story, but I find that it helps to remember that they are written by children and other people who simply lack the development of empathy, and should neither be taken seriously nor held completely responsible. They just don't understand, just as a toddler wouldn't understand the repercussions of firing a gun.
People are fully aware of what they post. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, fat hatred, etc. are the basis for many memes and the comments that go with them. There are not separate, they are a part of the same underlying thoughts and stereotypes that people actually believe in.
I don't agree that the joke and hatred go hand in hand. I'm not fat (which perhaps somehow disqualifies me from having an opinion), but it doesn't come for free. This is the case for majority of non-fat people. Most people understand that although there are exceptions (e.g. the OP), being fat is a result of circumstances that you or your parents have control over. In the majority of cases, it's very different from racism, sexism, transphobia and homophobia.
Now, you are right that this doesn't mean fat people deserve to be ridiculed. Neither do smokers. But I'll happily jest with my friend's smoking, because I care and it would do her good to stop it. Poking fun at such things is a good motivator (I've been at the receiving end of this), you just have to be careful to use it only when you know it won't hurt the person's self esteem. That's why I think it is ok when you know the person well.
> The amount of shit fat people get from close friends about being fat is just as bad as a society from a whole
If you get shit from actual close friends, perhaps you should explain to them that's how you feel about it. Perhaps they are unaware. Seems more of a communication issue.
> People are fully aware of what they post.
No, they are not. I reiterate my analogy of a toddler with a gun.
Funny enough, I wasn’t even angry at first. I was actually kind of amused. Who doesn’t laugh at unfortunate shots of poorly dressed strangers? I’ve certainly done it before; the Internet runs on this kind of anonymous scorn.
If you read the article, she was more unhappy about the extremely negative comments from people, not the original picture and joke.
I draw the line where a joke or statement would be recognized by a third-party observer as hateful and/or intended to hurt someone. You know, like the comments that Ms. Seida actually said "took my heart with it".
And yes, that's not an objective binary distinction, because that is not possible when you're dealing with language and feelings.
My point is that it's not the topic that makes a joke offensive. You can have jokes about sex and race without them being sexist or racist.
That enough thought for you? Or do you prefer not to actually think about this and just wallow in self-righteousness and assume that anyone who disagrees with you must not be thinking?
> Perhaps You just say what you feel like to appeal to your/friends' sense of humor?
Isn't that what everyone does? If a joke is too cruel or personal then it won't be funny; I trust my friends' judgement enough that I don't think stupid stereotypes would amuse them.
"Offensive" is a red herring, like "unprofessional" - it's what people say when they can't come up with a real reason for why what you said was wrong.
Everyone draws the line in their own place. I think some people will draw the line too far one way, I think some people will draw the line too far the other way, and other people will think the same thing (both ways) about the place I draw the line.
The fact that one cannot come up with a universal rule that always works in all circumstances doesn't mean no one is allowed personal judgment.
It's quite clear that a whole class of humor is offensive but is still funny. And no, there shouldn't be any lines drawn - there are jokes that is both funny and also obscenely offensive to various races, religions, nations or ethical viewpoints; but there is no such thing as too offensive, even if they are about, for example, the funny habits of babyraping [$ethnic] priests of [$religion].
There definitely are (a lot of) jokes that are inappropriate to a particular situation and impolite to a particular audience, where it would be hurtful and/or incite conflict - but all of them are suitable in other situations and audiences.
Given that the holocaust has been fair game for humor for close to 50 years, as far as I can recall, I think it's allowable to make a joke about pretty much everything.
Perhaps you need to take a step back and realise that making a joke does not mean misunderstanding an issue. I for one certainly found it amusingly ironic that in an article supposed to be sympathetic to a fat girl had an "Enlarge" button on the picture. Not to mention that the article it's self in fact propagates the image even more.
Also, are you really saying humor has no place on HN? I see nothing in the FAQ about banning humor.
Who really cares what other people think about you, especially strangers that have no importance in your life? Haters are to be hated, but more than that I honestly think that life is too short to worry about what some random dumbass has to say about you. They're quite simply a waste of time and energy.
With that said, feel free to hate on me for this post ... cause I won't care ...
This kind of abuse affects different people very differently, and over a long time makes it really, really hard to keep up that "life is too short to worry about it" attitude. While the OP seems to be dealing well, don't underestimate how badly that sort of thing can drag you down and eg. sap all creative energy out of you.
You are aware that a disease such as the one listed can affect body weight and some people genuinely cannot lose it? The same way that some anorexics physically can't gain weight because their body won't allow it.
If you're not trolling (which it looks like you are) then you are incredibly ignorant and need to poke your head out there a bit and do some research :)
While the parent certainly didn't approach it in a polite way; they have a point in terms of the last comment at least.
A quick search online associates PCOS with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and blood pressure, stroke, infertility, fatty liver disease amongst other things. Hardly seems like something a doctor would assure someone was of no consequence to their overall health.
So while saying 'you should work harder' isn't nice; the post shouldn't be disregarded.
> Hardly seems like something a doctor would assure someone was of no consequence to their overall health.
The article doesn't say the doctor did. Reread it again, it says:
I don’t generally view my body size as positive or negative — it simply is. I eat right (most of the time) and I exercise (an inordinate amount), but it does little, thanks to a struggle with polycystic ovarian syndrome and a failing thyroid gland. I’m strong, I’m flexible and my doctor assures me my health is good, but the fact remains: I’m larger than someone my height should be.
Sounds to me like she already knows, is getting on with her life, and is making good, healthy choices.
I'm not at all familiar with polycystic ovarian syndrome the author is unfortunate to be burdened with, but I've lost a lot of weight on a keto diet and it looks like it might also be effective for this syndrome as well:
> If you are somehow at a disadvantage, you should work harder
Honest question: why? She mentions her medical issues and, on top of that, appears to be content with the way she looks. Isn't that enough?
I know people in sizes and shapes different from my own who seem to be fine with the way they are. I might not agree with all of them, but in the end they must decide for themselves.
On a related note: telling people they're lying ("my doctor assures me my health is good" — "NO HE DOESN'T" (paraphrased)) doesn't help your point.
Could you post your qualifications for that judgement? She has mentioned her doctor's explanation, so that sounds good enough for me. But perhaps you know something we don't?
That comment is really not particularly humorous (let alone insightful). Please try not to drag HN down to the level of discourse that the article is complaining about.
It would actually have been a better plan though. What's interesting to me is that she doesn't seem to consider her weight to be the core problem. Her quality of life will remain lower because of her reluctance to lose it. The mean comments could have been a wake up call to her, like, "Hey, maybe I really do need to focus on losing weight."
But maybe she doesn't really need to focus on losing weight? Maybe as someone who actually knows something about her own life, she is in a position to decide that there is other things with a higher return of investment that she can focus on, especially given her medical situation (which we are almost entirely ignorant of)?
Meeting arbitrary beauty standards to be perfectly attractive to the worst of internet commenters isn't and shouldn't be everybody's first and only priority.
I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised by how easily people seem to think they know exactly how other people have gone wrong in their lives. And how to insult them into fixing things.
Are there really that many people around who have so completely solved their own lives that they know, after a single article, exactly what is wrong and what will fix total strangers?
And, these wise insightful people seem to choose harsh judgement and even shaming as tools to fix others. That seems odd as well, I wouldn't have thought such enlightened people would go the judgemental shaming route.
But you're assuming that she is not going to all reasonable lengths to address the issue, which is completely unfounded! The article even mentions how she has been adressing it, even though it's none of our business and completely besides the point, just to preempt your cries "just lose weight then, HEH". Sequeing into of "well she's still overweight so clearly she isn't trying hard enough" shows that you're just either trying to be provocative or don't understand how being overweight works.
Every person gets to trade risks and benefits at their own discretion. To me, the years I've saved traveling are well worth the risk of riding in an automobile. I hope you won't try to convert me to however you feel about it.
Ahhh, the shining example of bully thinking! This is how all bullies I have ever had the honor of meeting have been thinking. They will find some small (maybe just perceived) failing of a person and act like that justifies all the bullying. It’s so disgusting I want to puke.
So, you aren't being a judgemental jerk, you are trying to help her. By shaming her into doing what you, in your great insight into other peoples lives, have figured out would be best for her.
to elaborate on this excellent (though rather confusing) wording, I think you really don't get it. She didn't mean that they made her ashamed of the act, but that they were being hostile to her by saying stuff like "how DARE she dress up as a sexy video game character!! How dare she have FUN!!" get it?
I feel for her and the negative comments are reprehensible, but what I hear in this particular paragraph are excuses. Having issues with POS and the thyroid gland do not make it impossible to lose weight, just more difficult. My advice: ignore the haters and come up with a game plan with your doctor to lose the weight in a steady and health way.