Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »If I want to test whether paper is weakened by soaking it in balsamic vinegar but, due to the price/value of balsamic vinegar I decide it's cheaper/better to run the experiment with tap water and extrapolate that vinegar would yield similar results, I likely wouldn't be far off. However...
If I want to study the effect of adding baking soda to balsamic vinegar but, due to the price/value of balsamic vinegar I decide it's cheaper/better to run the experiment with tap water and extrapolate that vinegar would yield similar results, things would be rather different.
Mice aren't humans. They aren't necessarily going to respond the same way that humans do. Depending on where you stand on animal experimentation (I'm in favor for medical research, opposed for cosmetic), it can be a necessary first step. But it's definitely not the last one.
You're absolutely right, mice aren't humans. It seems to me that the real question is why, then, they are one of the mammals used in studies before they progress to human studies? 95% of test animals are mice and rats. Why?
Among other reasons:-
"Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare."
https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
We can't automatically say that just because something works a certain way in mice that it's going to work the exact same way in humans. That said, however, mice are used because the way things work are so similar to humans, and, as stated above, they "are appropriate for use to answer many research questions."
That's why I find these studies on salt interesting, and why researchers are both excited and concerned about the implications for humans.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
Fat-shaming is NEVER okay.
I 100% agree. I think those who engage in this type of behavior have some need to make themselves feel superior by putting another down. It's abusive and damaging. (This is probably also an unpopular opinion.)2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Mine is that everyone should do what makes them happy. Wanna be vegan? Great! Just don't try to talk me out of a burger. Love crossfit? Awesome! I like bodybuilding, ya'll have fun in your box. You think sugar and carbs will make you fat? That's your right...if you need me I'll be over here enjoying my poptarts. You think fasted cardio is more effective? Sweet, I eat as soon as I wake up so pretty unlikely for me. Etc, etc, etc.
Basically, live and let live. Crazy, right???
I 100% agree with this guy...
At the end of the day though, all any of us are trying to do is defend our respective fitness churches...
I'm just a sucker for a good debate
Rather than deal with "churches" and treat this like a matter of faith, I think I'd rather draw my conclusions based on the best available evidence. I'm not inclined to defend anything if there is reliable evidence that it might not be accurate or true.
Most people form their opinion and then migrate towards the latest research that supports their opinions... But surely not you.
The difference here is that I want to believe as you low carbers do, I want to believe that I can consume all the meat and dairy I want and that our animal products are not tainted to the point where they just might not be worth it... But I just no better, the fact is, imo, reality bites and are food and health industries are massively corrupt. To believe otherwise is just naive...
The money is behind meat and dairy and big agriculture, not behind Dr Greger... I'm sorry but we live in a time where you can't always trust the latest research...
LOL - the person you are responding to is vegan.
So what... I'm speaking to the group
Also fairly sure little to no one in this whole discussion besides stanmann is/has done low carb at all. We just don't like BS.
What? I'm doing low carb, high fat right now.....0 -
But that's far from the only reason. From that same source:Scientists and researchers rely on mice and rats for several reasons. One is convenience: rodents are small, easily housed and maintained, and adapt well to new surroundings. They also reproduce quickly and have a short lifespan of two to three years, so several generations of mice can be observed in a relatively short period of time.
Mice and rats are also relatively inexpensive and can be bought in large quantities from commercial producers that breed rodents specifically for research. The rodents are also generally mild-tempered and docile, making them easy for researchers to handle, although some types of mice and rats can be more difficult to restrain than others.
Most of the mice and rats used in medical trials are inbred so that, other than sex differences, they are almost identical genetically. This helps make the results of medical trials more uniform, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. As a minimum requirement, mice used in experiments must be of the same purebred species.
So, besides the reason you quoted above, they're cheap, easy to house and maintain, adaptable, short-lived, malleable, and frequently inbred. I don't think these other factors irrelevant, if @stanmann571 is correct in stating that
.animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.
I've noticed that across all different parts of the population, including older people. It doesn't seem to be limited to young people or people with the type of political opinions that sometimes get them dismissed as "snowflakes."7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
That's why specifics are important, but I was replying to a particular post.
No, I would not consider someone disagreeing with me bullying, but bullying does happen and isn't a nothing that wouldn't bother a non snowflake (not really a useful term, IMO) at all.
There seems to be a pattern here where people say something like "fat shaming is great and only a snowflake would be bothered by it!" and then when challenged on that say "well so and so not here would say that being smiled at is fat shaming so there!"
I think we can ask "what do you consider fat shaming" or "what do you consider bullying" if you are concerned that others in this conversation are suggesting we should outlaw or make against the rules or publicly condemn whatever it is you think we mean by those terms, but honestly I think you should know better than to assume that's what we mean. That's what seems to me to be a strawman.
And I think on MFP I've been EXTREMELY clear that I think people need to not consider disagreement rude or somehow mean, so I certainly (oh so obviously) don't consider it bullying. I think free argument and exchange of ideas is extremely healthy, and sure that can include (IMO) saying certain ideas are terrible and so on.There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes.
Not sure I agree with this. Was life less easy in the 1980s than now? It doesn't seem all that different and in some ways (as janejellyroll pointed out) for kids it could be more challenging now.Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse.
We disagree.
And how is the first sentence not blaming kids for being bullied?7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.
I agree with this. The same with "shaming" and "judging" - these were once very grave acts that had very heavy, serious connotations. Now the most benign comments are found to be the decimators of self-esteem and spark (faux?) outrage about sensitivity and self-esteem.
I referenced a dadbod as being "dumpy" earlier in this thread and was accused of "body shaming". My dad actually told me I was getting dumpy in my 20s because...I was getting dumpy. It stung a little and then I got over it.11 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.
I agree with this. The same with "shaming" and "judging" - these were once very grave acts that had very heavy, serious connotations. Now the most benign comments are found to be the decimators of self-esteem and spark (faux?) outrage about sensitivity and self-esteem.
I referenced a dadbod as being "dumpy" earlier in this thread and was accused of "body shaming". My dad actually told me I was getting dumpy in my 20s because...I was getting dumpy. It stung a little and then I got over it.
And I'm guessing you did something about the getting dumpy.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
Bullying has been and always will be a problem. The behavior expands from every generation and we become less resilient each generation - it's one of the many ramifications of success and prosperity.
As for definition I like Collins - Young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations.5 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »But that's far from the only reason. From that same source:Scientists and researchers rely on mice and rats for several reasons. One is convenience: rodents are small, easily housed and maintained, and adapt well to new surroundings. They also reproduce quickly and have a short lifespan of two to three years, so several generations of mice can be observed in a relatively short period of time.
Mice and rats are also relatively inexpensive and can be bought in large quantities from commercial producers that breed rodents specifically for research. The rodents are also generally mild-tempered and docile, making them easy for researchers to handle, although some types of mice and rats can be more difficult to restrain than others.
Most of the mice and rats used in medical trials are inbred so that, other than sex differences, they are almost identical genetically. This helps make the results of medical trials more uniform, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. As a minimum requirement, mice used in experiments must be of the same purebred species.
So, besides the reason you quoted above, they're cheap, easy to house and maintain, adaptable, short-lived, malleable, and frequently inbred. I don't think these other factors irrelevant, if @stanmann571 is correct in stating that
.animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior.
Yup.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642860/2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.14 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
Calories are the main culprit in a western diet.
Many healthy traditional diets with essentially no obesity had and have a higher carb percentage than in our diet (and lower fat and protein percentage).What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet.
True. But people are different in what works for them.Fructose, for instance, doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
Many people eat lots of fruit and don't feel hungry at all.
I never pretend I got fat because of uncontrollable hunger. I got fat because I like to eat and because I have an issue with emotional eating, both. However, I also find if I am a bit hungry eating a piece of fruit is a great solution. I don't do it now, much, since I prefer not to snack, but back when I was a kid (in the dark ages of the '70s and '80s, as discussed upthread just a bit), that's what I mostly had after school and what my mother would tell me to have if I claimed to be hungry, and it worked great. My sister does snack and still keeps fruit out so she'll remember to grab the fruit, and she's always been quite thin.
This idea that carbs made us fat is tiresome.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
That's why specifics are important, but I was replying to a particular post.
No, I would not consider someone disagreeing with me bullying, but bullying does happen and isn't a nothing that wouldn't bother a non snowflake (not really a useful term, IMO) at all.
There seems to be a pattern here where people say something like "fat shaming is great and only a snowflake would be bothered by it!" and then when challenged on that say "well so and so not here would say that being smiled at is fat shaming so there!"
I think we can ask "what do you consider fat shaming" or "what do you consider bullying" if you are concerned that others in this conversation are suggesting we should outlaw or make against the rules or publicly condemn whatever it is you think we mean by those terms, but honestly I think you should know better than to assume that's what we mean. That's what seems to me to be a strawman.
And I think on MFP I've been EXTREMELY clear that I think people need to not consider disagreement rude or somehow mean, so I certainly (oh so obviously) don't consider it bullying. I think free argument and exchange of ideas is extremely healthy, and sure that can include (IMO) saying certain ideas are terrible and so on.There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes.
Not sure I agree with this. Was life less easy in the 1980s than now? It doesn't seem all that different and in some ways (as janejellyroll pointed out) for kids it could be more challenging now.Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse.
We disagree.
And how is the first sentence not blaming kids for being bullied?
I like the term snowflake. It is a critical term and utilizes a touch of humor to point out absurd behavior.
A rather hyperbolic hypothetical don't you think? Even the original poster clearly stated that this was not the intent of his post, so exactly what point are you trying to make?
Here is the government website:
https://www.stopbullying.gov
Under the new definition we have certainly expanded the definition from generation to generation. The underlying issue was never addressed. The problem is profoundly worse, but measures were put in place, despite the abject failure of effectiveness.
The challenges are not better or worse - they are different.
5 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
That's why specifics are important, but I was replying to a particular post.
No, I would not consider someone disagreeing with me bullying, but bullying does happen and isn't a nothing that wouldn't bother a non snowflake (not really a useful term, IMO) at all.
There seems to be a pattern here where people say something like "fat shaming is great and only a snowflake would be bothered by it!" and then when challenged on that say "well so and so not here would say that being smiled at is fat shaming so there!"
I think we can ask "what do you consider fat shaming" or "what do you consider bullying" if you are concerned that others in this conversation are suggesting we should outlaw or make against the rules or publicly condemn whatever it is you think we mean by those terms, but honestly I think you should know better than to assume that's what we mean. That's what seems to me to be a strawman.
And I think on MFP I've been EXTREMELY clear that I think people need to not consider disagreement rude or somehow mean, so I certainly (oh so obviously) don't consider it bullying. I think free argument and exchange of ideas is extremely healthy, and sure that can include (IMO) saying certain ideas are terrible and so on.There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes.
Not sure I agree with this. Was life less easy in the 1980s than now? It doesn't seem all that different and in some ways (as janejellyroll pointed out) for kids it could be more challenging now.Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse.
We disagree.
And how is the first sentence not blaming kids for being bullied?
I like the term snowflake. It is a critical term and utilizes a touch of humor to point out absurd behavior.
A rather hyperbolic hypothetical don't you think? Even the original poster clearly stated that this was not the intent of his post, so exactly what point are you trying to make?
Here is the government website:
https://www.stopbullying.gov
Under the new definition we have certainly expanded the definition from generation to generation. The underlying issue was never addressed. The problem is profoundly worse, but measures were put in place, despite the abject failure of effectiveness.
The challenges are not better or worse - they are different.
My main encounters with the word "snowflake" are when it is used to dismiss people and shut down conversations. It seems to sometimes indicate that the person using it has little interest in addressing actual ideas and arguments being advanced. Instead the entire person is dismissed and there aren't many ways the conversation can move forward from there. A *person* may have some ideas you disagree with, but conversation can still progress and you might even agree with them about other things. When someone is called a "snowflake" and it's paired with language about "destroying snowflakes" or "melting snowflakes," it feels weird to me.
I'm not saying you're using it that way, but it's mainly how I see it online.17 -
jseams1234 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh
Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat storage, etc.
So smells can trigger fat storage, now? And what the etc. part?
Absolutely - I smell bacon and I eat it all. Same with pizza... it's like blood in the water for sharks. I imagine it would be a lot easier to avoid certain foods if they didn't smell so darned good.
Actually, it seems just the smell itself is enough, no food needed. I'll have to find the reference. 7 -
I don't believe that a woman doesn't know she's pregnant until she gives birth, especially if she delivers after 35 weeks. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. I think there is some serious mental health/denial issues going on.5
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
That's why specifics are important, but I was replying to a particular post.
No, I would not consider someone disagreeing with me bullying, but bullying does happen and isn't a nothing that wouldn't bother a non snowflake (not really a useful term, IMO) at all.
There seems to be a pattern here where people say something like "fat shaming is great and only a snowflake would be bothered by it!" and then when challenged on that say "well so and so not here would say that being smiled at is fat shaming so there!"
I think we can ask "what do you consider fat shaming" or "what do you consider bullying" if you are concerned that others in this conversation are suggesting we should outlaw or make against the rules or publicly condemn whatever it is you think we mean by those terms, but honestly I think you should know better than to assume that's what we mean. That's what seems to me to be a strawman.
And I think on MFP I've been EXTREMELY clear that I think people need to not consider disagreement rude or somehow mean, so I certainly (oh so obviously) don't consider it bullying. I think free argument and exchange of ideas is extremely healthy, and sure that can include (IMO) saying certain ideas are terrible and so on.There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes.
Not sure I agree with this. Was life less easy in the 1980s than now? It doesn't seem all that different and in some ways (as janejellyroll pointed out) for kids it could be more challenging now.Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse.
We disagree.
And how is the first sentence not blaming kids for being bullied?
I like the term snowflake. It is a critical term and utilizes a touch of humor to point out absurd behavior.
I agree with the poster upthread who said those who seem most wedded to it seem to be the biggest snowflakes when their opinions are challenged, but that's not based on this forum, just coloring my view of the term.A rather hyperbolic hypothetical don't you think? Even the original poster clearly stated that this was not the intent of his post, so exactly what point are you trying to make?
I do think we are not communicating well, as I almost asked you (and some others) the same question. It's easy to lose track of how the discussion began, but I am still responding to the comment about how back in the day bullying didn't bother anyone and kids today commit suicide because they have been coddled.
To bring it back to the fat shaming, when I commented that of course it is wrong but also I would agree that it gets overused (agreeing with another post), I got told that HAES would use it in absurd ways. I agree that people affiliated with HAES would (in at least some cases), but I'm not sure what that has to do with my point that it's wrong, but should not be overused. To me -- and I'd be happy to understand better -- the point of bringing up HAES there, or people claiming that "bullying" is being disagreed with if someone says "no, bullying can be harmful" is to deny that there's any problem at all.
We'd perhaps agree on what falls within "bullying" and what does not; what is "fat shaming" and what is not. You'd need to talk about specifics to know for sure. But that some people use it in ways I find irritating or overwrought or simply wrong doesn't mean it doesn't happen on only weak people about whom we should not care would find it bothersome.
Maybe you don't mean to communicate that either, but then I really don't understand what your point is or what you are arguing with. Absolutely NO ONE here has said that fat shaming = informing people that overweight is unhealthy (although going over to some stranger to lecture them about that would be at least questionable, bizarre behavior IMO) and similarly I have yet to see someone here arguing for safe spaces or saying that disagreement is a hostile act (something, again, that I argue against on MFP consistently).9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.
NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.
If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:
INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE
published in JCI April 17, 2017
In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.
I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.
I do find this to be very interesting however.
None of which was supported by the human data.
The hypothesis was indeed supported by the human data, it which it was stated:
"In addition, increased rhythmical glucocorticoid action may increase metabolic water production by promoting protein, fat, and sugar breakdown."
You seem to have significant issues with critical thinking and reading comprehension.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior. If you had done the appropriate background, you would know this.
By the way, the effect of increased salt intake on glucocorticoids was measured in humans as well as mice In the study I referenced. The glucocorticoid excretion in humans was quantified by 24-hour cortisol excretion.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.
Guess whose diets are also high in carbs, even higher than the US? The blue zones, the healthiest and longest living places on earth.
Which carbs do they eat?1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Issues with raised cortisol can inhibit fat burning, and this has been an observed effect that has been talked about on these boards before.
Many people report anecdotal incidents of losing weight after vacation, for example, or there are plenty of stories from the pressure-filled world of contest-prep where a "binge" will lead to the scale suddenly moving again. The reason? Reduced stress.
However, the inverse of lowering stress from a baseline normal rather than elevated back to normal doesn't hold true to my knowledge and I doubt you'd find anything to back that up in human studies.
You're welcome to try, though.
If that's what you're not asserting, forgive me if I've lost track of the point you're trying to make here.
Cortisol is the only glucocorticoid they measured in humans. My understanding is that because it responded to increased salt by elevating, other glucocorticoids may also be elevated, hence the suggestion in the elevated glucocorticoid hypothesis given.0 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I'm sure for every kid offing themselves, there are plenty more out there who are like you were.
They just don't make for good clickbait and viewing figures.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.
I'm 55.
I did try to kill myself.
It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.8 -
theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.
Guess whose diets are also high in carbs, even higher than the US? The blue zones, the healthiest and longest living places on earth.
Which carbs do they eat?
Why do you care, you simply said the US diet is high in carbs.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
I never implied that actually. In fact, I mentioned social media as a possible culprit. I also think that mental illness plays a role in what the bullying causes re:escalation.
I wouldn't want to give the impression that I am unsymathetic. I'm just genuinely puzzled as to what makes some people take severe, actual, bullying and get past it, and what makes other resort to violence, either towards themselves or others.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.
I agree with this. The same with "shaming" and "judging" - these were once very grave acts that had very heavy, serious connotations. Now the most benign comments are found to be the decimators of self-esteem and spark (faux?) outrage about sensitivity and self-esteem.
I referenced a dadbod as being "dumpy" earlier in this thread and was accused of "body shaming". My dad actually told me I was getting dumpy in my 20s because...I was getting dumpy. It stung a little and then I got over it.
Not to beat a dead, or dumpy horse, but context is everything. If my dad told me I was getting dumpy (btw, he has) I would take it as coming from a family member concerned about me. Some a$$hat on the street calling me dumpy has no entree into my life or circumstances and therefore no right to say it. The motives are different. One is my dad worried about my health. The other is an idiot trying to shame me. Again, I have plenty of tickets to Hell to give to people like the latter.19 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.
I agree with this. The same with "shaming" and "judging" - these were once very grave acts that had very heavy, serious connotations. Now the most benign comments are found to be the decimators of self-esteem and spark (faux?) outrage about sensitivity and self-esteem.
I referenced a dadbod as being "dumpy" earlier in this thread and was accused of "body shaming". My dad actually told me I was getting dumpy in my 20s because...I was getting dumpy. It stung a little and then I got over it.
Not to beat a dead, or dumpy horse, but context is everything. If my dad told me I was getting dumpy (btw, he has) I would take it as coming from a family member concerned about me. Some a$$hat on the street calling me dumpy has no entree into my life or circumstances and therefore no right to say it. The motives are different. One is my dad worried about my health. The other is an idiot trying to shame me. Again, I have plenty of tickets to Hell to give to people like the latter.
That's really the key. Being able to tell folks who don't matter to colorfully fornicate a duck either out loud or under your breath... and let them go their way.
8 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
I never implied that actually. In fact, I mentioned social media as a possible culprit. I also think that mental illness plays a role in what the bullying causes re:escalation.
I wouldn't want to give the impression that I am unsymathetic. I'm just genuinely puzzled as to what makes some people take severe, actual, bullying and get past it, and what makes other resort to violence, either towards themselves or others.
I didn't think you said that. That's what the post said that I was replying to said -- "Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid."
I think why kids kill themselves is a lot more complicated, but what bothered me was the idea that if you aren't a weak person bullying would be basically a nothing. Also, that back in the day no one was bothered by it in any serious way. I'm old (47) so remember back in the day, and that's not true.
I don't disagree with your point, and I'd also say there's of course a middle between "get past it" and "resort to violence." I didn't get past it in a lot of ways (at least not until much later), but I didn't "resort to violence" either. I think a lot of people are similar. And I think that it was more damaging for me than some probably had a lot to do with other things (like family background/issues) too, of course. But I don't think the idea that it's only something someone weak and unworthy of consideration will be seriously bothered (it wouldn't even have ruined my day!) by is accurate, and I similarly don't think that it's the fault of the person being bullied that it happens. Especially since we are talking about kids.
(I don't really think we are necessarily disagreeing, sometimes I append something to a post without meaning to suggest the prior post was in disagreement in my mind.)5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions