Fat shaming can kill?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Many people with serve weight problems also have depression. So there's 4 outcomes from being fat shamed:
1) They're able to overcome their problems and lose the weight.
2) It doesn't affect them.
3) The shaming makes their depression even worse, likely causing them to stay at or gain more weight.
4) They commit suicide because of the affect on their depression over time.
The first two would have been done without the abuse. The last 2 could have happened without abuse, but is more likely with abuse.
In no way, in the many years I've literally hated myself, including because of my weight, hearing someone abuse me for it has NEVER made me think "people abuse me because of my weight. Better change it for them". It doesn't work like that. And if you're trying to change your lifestyle for those kinds of reasons, it really won't go very far. It needs to be for you, not for others.
Fat shaming at the very best changes nothing. And at least makes everything worse. It's a backward idea. By doing what they're doing, they're making the very thing they apparently hate so much... worse.
Though I don't believe that the words have some magical powers to decrease peoples life-span themselves, they can and do hold massive psychological weight.
But at the end of the day, it's the same as any kind of hate and abuse. People do it because they're angry, mean people who dislike themselves and so abuse others to feel better about themselves.
0 -
Stand up and say it's not OK. Heck, it isn't OK. In the meantime, while you're waiting for humanity to change, it might be more productive to work on your own reactions to that which you dislike.DeguelloTex wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I was wondering where the "let's make it illegal" stuff was.
I think you are the only one who said that or made that implication as to what people are saying.
"...there is federal protection of said rights..."
I don't think the inference that that's what you're saying is a stretch. If it's not, I'm not sure what the relevance of federal protection would be.
I was making a comparison of another situation where instead of just sitting with your head in the sand and pretending it is not happening....people tried to make a difference with a societal view and they have been pretty successful.
You want people to ignore and pretend people being hateful to them because you think that nothing can change. I don't agree. Change is possible. I gave an example. I could give countless more, but they are all pretty political and I know the rules around here.
If you never stand up. If you never say something is not okay. If you never ask for change....change will never happen.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And I've said, repeatedly, try both. I think one is a plausibly realistic approach and one's a bit pie-in-the-sky. One's in your control and one isn't. So, again, try both. But don't pretend that both are equally likely to occur in one lifetime.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Stand up and say it's not OK. Heck, it isn't OK. In the meantime, while you're waiting for humanity to change, it might be more productive to work on your own reactions to that which you dislike.DeguelloTex wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I was wondering where the "let's make it illegal" stuff was.
I think you are the only one who said that or made that implication as to what people are saying.
"...there is federal protection of said rights..."
I don't think the inference that that's what you're saying is a stretch. If it's not, I'm not sure what the relevance of federal protection would be.
I was making a comparison of another situation where instead of just sitting with your head in the sand and pretending it is not happening....people tried to make a difference with a societal view and they have been pretty successful.
You want people to ignore and pretend people being hateful to them because you think that nothing can change. I don't agree. Change is possible. I gave an example. I could give countless more, but they are all pretty political and I know the rules around here.
If you never stand up. If you never say something is not okay. If you never ask for change....change will never happen.
I think people in this thread have said....why not both?
Anyways, I am tapping out of this discussion. Not because I don't think it has value or because I even want to. I am tapping out because I feel that any spirited discourse on the forums tends to end with some points. I can't afford taking that chance, so I leave this discussion to others. Peace out.
0 -
I see people work successfully towards change every day. Those who need to improve coping skills and resilience and those whose actions make others need the coping skills and resilience. It's like weight loss, there's slow progress, and there are ups and downs, but the overall trend is generally linear. Change is a marathon, not a sprint.0
-
Yeah. Now, if you're at risk from dying as the result of fat shaming, how's the marathon of societal change on the subject going to work out for you? You need something a lot more sprint-like.I see people work successfully towards change every day. Those who need to improve coping skills and resilience and those whose actions make others need the coping skills and resilience. It's like weight loss, there's slow progress, and there are ups and downs, but the overall trend is generally linear. Change is a marathon, not a sprint.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
And I've said, repeatedly, try both. I think one is a plausibly realistic approach and one's a bit pie-in-the-sky. One's in your control and one isn't. So, again, try both. But don't pretend that both are equally likely to occur in one lifetime.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Stand up and say it's not OK. Heck, it isn't OK. In the meantime, while you're waiting for humanity to change, it might be more productive to work on your own reactions to that which you dislike.DeguelloTex wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I was wondering where the "let's make it illegal" stuff was.
I think you are the only one who said that or made that implication as to what people are saying.
"...there is federal protection of said rights..."
I don't think the inference that that's what you're saying is a stretch. If it's not, I'm not sure what the relevance of federal protection would be.
I was making a comparison of another situation where instead of just sitting with your head in the sand and pretending it is not happening....people tried to make a difference with a societal view and they have been pretty successful.
You want people to ignore and pretend people being hateful to them because you think that nothing can change. I don't agree. Change is possible. I gave an example. I could give countless more, but they are all pretty political and I know the rules around here.
If you never stand up. If you never say something is not okay. If you never ask for change....change will never happen.
I think people in this thread have said....why not both?
Anyways, I am tapping out of this discussion. Not because I don't think it has value or because I even want to. I am tapping out because I feel that any spirited discourse on the forums tends to end with some points. I can't afford taking that chance, so I leave this discussion to others. Peace out.
IKR. What possible benefit could there be to effecting change that won't necessarily help me specifically, or even happen in my lifetime.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
All kinds of things. You avoid people in general, particularly those that shame you. You hide your eating / pretend to eat less, and then binge eat when not around other people, particularly when out of the presence of those you know.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you hide being fat?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does being subjected to shame make you want to maintain the status for which you are being shamed? That sounds more like rationalization than causation.jennifer_417 wrote: »Look, most of us have experienced fat shaming, so we know it's bad. But at best, we're preaching to the choir, and at worst, we're promoting a victim mentality that that allows people to justify their obesity. Yeah, fat shaming does make people want to stay fat. It did me. But I made the choice to overcome that, and everyone else has that choice, too.
Most psychological studies on shame show it is appallingly poor at changing the behavior it targets. What it tends to do is drive people to hide the behavior from others.
I mean, we've both beenLourdesong wrote: »Were the subjects of this study Americans? Just wondering if this finding would be the same in any other country, given that shaming people to conform to a norm or ideal or meet a minimum expectation, or shaming/punishing people for deviation from it, is a pretty widespread practice in societies (which also makes me a little skeptical of the claim that the practice of shaming (irrespective of shaming being right or wrong) is ineffectual...)
Why does widespread make it true or not? A lot of common cultural practices are wrong or not based in effectiveness.
Heck, war is not effective - it destroys assets and kills people - but it isn't rare or discarded for that reason.0 -
Don't be so disingenuous.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And I've said, repeatedly, try both. I think one is a plausibly realistic approach and one's a bit pie-in-the-sky. One's in your control and one isn't. So, again, try both. But don't pretend that both are equally likely to occur in one lifetime.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Stand up and say it's not OK. Heck, it isn't OK. In the meantime, while you're waiting for humanity to change, it might be more productive to work on your own reactions to that which you dislike.DeguelloTex wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I was wondering where the "let's make it illegal" stuff was.
I think you are the only one who said that or made that implication as to what people are saying.
"...there is federal protection of said rights..."
I don't think the inference that that's what you're saying is a stretch. If it's not, I'm not sure what the relevance of federal protection would be.
I was making a comparison of another situation where instead of just sitting with your head in the sand and pretending it is not happening....people tried to make a difference with a societal view and they have been pretty successful.
You want people to ignore and pretend people being hateful to them because you think that nothing can change. I don't agree. Change is possible. I gave an example. I could give countless more, but they are all pretty political and I know the rules around here.
If you never stand up. If you never say something is not okay. If you never ask for change....change will never happen.
I think people in this thread have said....why not both?
Anyways, I am tapping out of this discussion. Not because I don't think it has value or because I even want to. I am tapping out because I feel that any spirited discourse on the forums tends to end with some points. I can't afford taking that chance, so I leave this discussion to others. Peace out.
IKR. What possible benefit could there be to effecting change that won't necessarily help me specifically, or even happen in my lifetime.
"And I've said, repeatedly, try both. I think one is a plausibly realistic approach and one's a bit pie-in-the-sky. One's in your control and one isn't. So, again, try both. But don't pretend that both are equally likely to occur in one lifetime."
There's no point continuing to respond to you if you're purposefully going to misrepresent what I've written.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Don't be so disingenuous.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And I've said, repeatedly, try both. I think one is a plausibly realistic approach and one's a bit pie-in-the-sky. One's in your control and one isn't. So, again, try both. But don't pretend that both are equally likely to occur in one lifetime.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Stand up and say it's not OK. Heck, it isn't OK. In the meantime, while you're waiting for humanity to change, it might be more productive to work on your own reactions to that which you dislike.DeguelloTex wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I was wondering where the "let's make it illegal" stuff was.
I think you are the only one who said that or made that implication as to what people are saying.
"...there is federal protection of said rights..."
I don't think the inference that that's what you're saying is a stretch. If it's not, I'm not sure what the relevance of federal protection would be.
I was making a comparison of another situation where instead of just sitting with your head in the sand and pretending it is not happening....people tried to make a difference with a societal view and they have been pretty successful.
You want people to ignore and pretend people being hateful to them because you think that nothing can change. I don't agree. Change is possible. I gave an example. I could give countless more, but they are all pretty political and I know the rules around here.
If you never stand up. If you never say something is not okay. If you never ask for change....change will never happen.
I think people in this thread have said....why not both?
Anyways, I am tapping out of this discussion. Not because I don't think it has value or because I even want to. I am tapping out because I feel that any spirited discourse on the forums tends to end with some points. I can't afford taking that chance, so I leave this discussion to others. Peace out.
IKR. What possible benefit could there be to effecting change that won't necessarily help me specifically, or even happen in my lifetime.
"And I've said, repeatedly, try both. I think one is a plausibly realistic approach and one's a bit pie-in-the-sky. One's in your control and one isn't. So, again, try both. But don't pretend that both are equally likely to occur in one lifetime."
There's no point continuing to respond to you if you're purposefully going to misrepresent what I've written.
What?
How have I misrepresented the part of your post that I bolded? Where did anyone say they were only interested in improving the outlook of individuals that felt fat shamed because the change was going to happen in their lifetime? You stated it as some sort of forgone conclusion, not to mention a driving force for making such improvements, when it doesn't have to be either. As I know, no one even brought up a timeline so far, but now we're "pretending" it'll happen in our lifetime? How did you even get to that?
0 -
At least part of the point with research like this is showing people the negative outcomes.
If someone genuinely has believed shaming works and was genuine in wanting to help, thus research and the related should stop them.
Or it will force them to admit they don't actually do it in hopes of helping and that they may just be horrible people.
We can't stop shaming, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try - that's a nirvana fallacy, and if you feel that way, why have any rules of a polite society, someone is going to break them.
I feel expecting the people who are stressed to change is a kind of victim blaming, whether it is effective or not, and whether well intentioned or not.0 -
Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.0 -
It's not blaming because I didn't say it was their fault.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's not blaming because I didn't say it was their fault.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
You're saying they can only reasonably expect to change the situation by changing themselves and that expecting others to change isn't reliable.0 -
Which isn't blaming them. Saying that Person X has the power to avoid, negate, or minimize the harm done by others isn't blaming Person X for what's happening.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's not blaming because I didn't say it was their fault.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
You're saying they can only reasonably expect to change the situation by changing themselves and that expecting others to change isn't reliable.
"Dad, every time I ride my bike past that house, all the boys yell mean things at me and I can't get them to stop."
"Some people are like that even if you didn't do anything to them. You can keep trying, but it may be that you can't make them change. You can ignore them or maybe ride your bike a different way, though."
Is that victim blaming?
Is teaching women self-defense victim-blaming?
0 -
I would like to add a few comments that focuses on concept of shame and its impact on learning and developing based on what we now understand to be true regarding the workings of the brain. The ongoing banter thus far seems to highlighting a range of values and beliefs which reflect subjective views about respect, dignity and courtesy vs people taking responsibility and being realistic with the impacts of obesity.
Another way of looking at the benefits of not creating a shame response for human beings relates to the functioning of the brain. If the response of shame is strong enough (we often label this guilt), then the brain is far less likely to be open to insight and learning and may instead become protective and defensive. The part of the brain which may be triggered is the Amygdala which mobilizes a fight/flight response during times of threat, fear or danger. We know through brain scanning that the Amygdala may also respond to strong feelings of shame and the person may feel attacked and threatened. The net result of the Amygdala becoming activated is that learning, listening carefully, gaining new insights and changing behavioural patterns in meaningful ways becomes unlikely. It may therefore be the case that individuals who are confronted with their weight in a way which triggers a fear/shame response may not respond positively and may feel attacked/confronted and/or offended and this may not lead to helpful outcomes (if this was the intention of the message regarding obesity.
The neuroscience of the brain, from my understanding, suggests that kind and respectful messages are far more likely to create behavioural changes then ones which might be unpleasant for the person hearing the information.
Thanks for letting me share
S
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
And to me, the recommendation here isn't even necessarily an action, but rather potentially changing the core of who you are. I'm sometimes around people that notice either actual occurrences around them, or are just incredibly perceptive and empathetic, whereas multiple people present at the same time are like "hmm, what?" I don't hold it against the somewhat aloof people, but at the same time I wouldn't want the sensitive parties to intentionally dull themselves and become someone else. A situation that would require that IMO is an absolute shame, a failing of us as a community, and a chance to say, "you know what guys, it's time to do something. How do we fix this?" That doesn't necessarily mean count on everyone's altruism, either. Laws, rules, tools made available to the affected victims on a wider scale, and other types of consequences/feedback can be pretty good about this, too. And a lot of times when those are implemented, suddenly the more successful group, if you will, that already by all indications solved their problem also come out expressing their relief, glad to have an environment where they can be themselves without fear of abuse
0 -
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Having said that, regardless of blame, the victim is still responsible for their own actions. They can choose to let the adversive behavior on the part of others cause them to keep unhealthy patterns, or they can overcome, which IS HARD, admittedly, but still up to the victim.
It's not compassion to tell someone, or imply, that it's ok to continue their unhealthy patterns, just because of someone eles's behavior/opinion.
AGAIN: fat shaming is bad! It shouldn't happen. It's painful. It's hard to overcome.
BUT IT CAN BE OVERCOME.
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive0 -
If you don't grasp the distinction between a reason why a study of self-reported incidents might be poor and blaming the people who are shamed, your understanding is quite poor. Quite poor, indeed.jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive
Just because someone can do something to affect their circumstances doesn't make the circumstances their fault. To say otherwise is a borderline childish oversimplification.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
If you don't grasp the distinction between a reason why a study of self-reported incidents might be poor and blaming the people who are shamed, your understanding is quite poor. Quite poor, indeed.jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive
You gave examples of people who go through life looking for reasons to be offended and interpreting ludicrous things as a slight. In the same post explaining that you do not notice certain incidents that others around you did (i.e. they were likely legitimate). And hey, if they just weren't this way, they'd probably lead less stressful lives. To me, you weren't just explaining why the study might be biased, but also offering your theory on why those who feel fat shamed more often might tend to lead more stressful lives. In my "poor" understanding, simply because they were more sensitive. Honestly, I'd love to be wrong on this but that's how you're coming across
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive
Just because someone can do something to affect their circumstances doesn't make the circumstances their fault. To say otherwise is a borderline childish oversimplification.
It's the difference between doing something about your situation, and being someone else to prevent/avoid your situation.
Is that childish enough for you?0 -
None. Of. Which. Blames. Them. For. What. Other. People. Say.DeguelloTex wrote: »
If you don't grasp the distinction between a reason why a study of self-reported incidents might be poor and blaming the people who are shamed, your understanding is quite poor. Quite poor, indeed.jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive
You gave examples of people who go through life looking for reasons to be offended and interpreting ludicrous things as a slight. In the same post explaining that you do not notice certain incidents that others around you did (i.e. they were likely legitimate). And hey, if they just weren't this way, they'd probably lead less stressful lives. To me, you weren't just explaining why the study might be biased, but also offering your theory on why those who feel fat shamed more often might tend to lead more stressful lives. In my "poor" understanding, simply because they were more sensitive. Honestly, I'd love to be wrong on this but that's how you're coming across
That something introduces stress to someone doesn't mean that that something is that someone's fault. Acknowledging that someone is stressed by a terrible boss doesn't blame that someone for the terrible boss's actions. If you can't understand that then I guess I'll be just as ineffective at explaining it to you as I was with the math behind the square-cube law and BMI.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
None. Of. Which. Blames. Them. For. What. Other. People. Say.DeguelloTex wrote: »
If you don't grasp the distinction between a reason why a study of self-reported incidents might be poor and blaming the people who are shamed, your understanding is quite poor. Quite poor, indeed.jennifer_417 wrote: »
I..can't even...You keep using that word, but I don't think you really understand what it really means. To BLAME someone is to state, directly or otherwise, that what has happened to then IS THEIR FAULT. Literally no one has said that.DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes, of course, "You don't have to let this get to you" is victim blaming, now. Zod, we're so hosed as a society.
Who knew that all this time that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was just a thin veneer on top of victim blaming?
Mock how you want, but you haven't presented anything to say it isn't.
Here's the facts, you're asking the victims, the people who are losing lifespan, to make the change to avoid it. That their willingness to let it affect them is part of the problem. That's a victim, and that's a blaming.
Hmm? My understanding of multiple posts I've read is that they probably notice too much, and if they were a bit less observant of their surroundings they'd probably be fine. One could interpret that as, it's their fault they're so damn sensitive
You gave examples of people who go through life looking for reasons to be offended and interpreting ludicrous things as a slight. In the same post explaining that you do not notice certain incidents that others around you did (i.e. they were likely legitimate). And hey, if they just weren't this way, they'd probably lead less stressful lives. To me, you weren't just explaining why the study might be biased, but also offering your theory on why those who feel fat shamed more often might tend to lead more stressful lives. In my "poor" understanding, simply because they were more sensitive. Honestly, I'd love to be wrong on this but that's how you're coming across
That something introduces stress to someone doesn't mean that that something is that someone's fault. Acknowledging that someone is stressed by a terrible boss doesn't blame that someone for the terrible boss's actions.
Saying that people call ludicrous things stressors, or introduce themselves willingly into these situations sounds a lot like blaming to me. Acknowledging that I'm stressed by my boss isn't blaming me. Saying it probably happens because I pay too much attention to the things he does, or that I choose to work with him, or it's because of the way I interact with him might be
:laugh: square cube law. Some guy randomly makes some crap up and suddenly it's law. Ok
0 -
The problem with what little 'fat shaming' i received when i was fatter (my niece still calls me fat or did last month, you always get honesty from those under 5 years old! She's slightly in my profile picture right now) was that when i was genuinely at my fattest, i didn't really grasp that i could do anything about my weight. I thought 'this is the way i am', and worse when i gained the people who gave me medicine told me 'medicine causes weight gain' so i figure oh well what can i do about it... So the people attacking me with 'fat shaming' as far as i concerned just didn't like me for who i was and there was nothing i could do about it. Only when i start to see some progress mixing diet and exercise, only then do i realize perhaps those people making fun of me may in a subtle way be trying to help me (or at minimum, have a legitimate reason for criticizing).0
-
I like how you keep implying that it doesn't exist and people are making it up. As if they're all crazy and there aren't nasty people out there who take pleasure in hurting others. Why do you continue to suggest that it doesn't exist?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thinking you're being shamed or discriminated against is stressful. Stress shortens lives. Therefore thinking you're being shamed or discriminated shortens lives.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
So you're not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions stated in the article - just that those conclusions were more or less a given, and not necessarily new information? So are you dismissing the findings documented in the article, or explaining a possible reason for those findings?
The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely it is to be stressful. The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely you are to self-report and the more likely your self-report will contain more incidents.
Hoping or expecting the world the world to change to make your life less stressful probably isn't as effective as trying to change your reaction to the world.
Nice avatar, by the way.
0 -
It clearly exists. Where did I suggest that it doesn't exist? I mean, even in what you quoted, I wrote "The more you notice..." which clearly indicates that there are things to notice.
I like how you keep implying that it doesn't exist and people are making it up. As if they're all crazy and there aren't nasty people out there who take pleasure in hurting others. Why do you continue to suggest that it doesn't exist?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thinking you're being shamed or discriminated against is stressful. Stress shortens lives. Therefore thinking you're being shamed or discriminated shortens lives.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
So you're not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions stated in the article - just that those conclusions were more or less a given, and not necessarily new information? So are you dismissing the findings documented in the article, or explaining a possible reason for those findings?
The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely it is to be stressful. The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely you are to self-report and the more likely your self-report will contain more incidents.
Hoping or expecting the world the world to change to make your life less stressful probably isn't as effective as trying to change your reaction to the world.
Nice avatar, by the way.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions