Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Thoughts on the “glamourizing/normalizing” obesity vs body positivity conversations

14567810»

Replies

  • 7elizamae7elizamae Posts: 749Member Member Posts: 749Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    7elizamae wrote: »


    If by "frequently those who see themselves in a 'victim' category" you mean "everyone"...

    People wanting their view of the world to be to be the "right one" is universal, no one group has a monopoly on that.

    Does this mean you believe "everyone" sees themselves as victims? If yes, I completely disagree.

    And plenty of people are comfortable with others who have different views. I believe my view is correct, but I don't need or expect everyone to agree. And I don't label those who disagree with me as bigots or haters or phobics.
    edited September 17
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    7elizamae wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »

    If by "frequently those who see themselves in a 'victim' category" you mean "everyone"...

    People wanting their view of the world to be to be the "right one" is universal, no one group has a monopoly on that.

    Does this mean you believe "everyone" sees themselves as victims? If yes, I completely disagree.

    And plenty of people are comfortable with others who have different views. I believe my view is correct, but I don't need or expect everyone to agree. And I don't label those who disagree with me as bigots or haters or phobics.

    Just an FYI, I think you keep inadvertently making formatting errors with the quotes.
    That said, when someone says or does something that's racist, anti semitic, transphobic (gasp! there's that suffix), etc I'm not afraid to call the action what it is. And before someone does the, "but people who complain don't actually change anything!" I personally contributed to amending of multiple county and state anti-discrimination laws and have worked with multiple educational institutions to change various policies. I certainly don't expect that people with agree with each other on everything and I don't expect to be able to convince people that what they're saying or doing is harmful. That said, when someone's actions are dehumanising, dangerous, and/or discriminatory I am not just going to roll over and agree if I have the energy and resources to do something about it.

    It's funny (and sad), so many people who prescribe to the very faulty "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality get very offended people do just that.

    I had a discussion on a certain political forum once about just that and..I'm still at a loss for words how to describe it lol.

    That said, there's a distinct difference between people who complain, and then DO, and people who simply complain. You are very clearly a doer, others are content (for lack of a better word atm) to simply sit back and complain never developing or following a course of action.

    I don't really want to get into all the various ways that people short change each other and themselves (I've been guilty of it too) because, while it could easily fit into the scope of this topic, I'm not sure hammering out text for an hour would actually accomplish a lot here, other than folks who read here getting to know each other a bit better.

    That's not a bad thing by the way...I've been losing my stomach for long debates simply because it's so impersonal online..it's harder to contribute to the discussion given that. :)
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    I don't believe it's important what you believe. The importance lies in why you believe it. What data are you reviewing? What experiences have you had? What is your immediate and long term motivation?
    Of course what you believe is important. As is the why of it. Where the debates and conversations come in is either refining and sharpening your own understanding of your beliefs, or (if completely honest with yourself/myself) getting rid of those beliefs.

    One of my favorite bible verses is "Iron sharpens iron". It's a direct reference to what I typed above, and a wonderful tool for getting rid of or avoiding that awful confirmation bias we see so much of today. It requires that personal honesty though.
    One of my favorite relationships was that of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. While both held very opposing views of the law, they used their passion to debate and refine their ideas for truth. This in turn evolved into a wonderful friendship.
    I think of McCain and Kennedy quite often - I don't want to digress, but yes, a friendship that grows out of that kind of interaction can be deep indeed. :)
    All too often in online discussions it ends up being not a debate with another poster, but a debate between yourself and some caricature you've constructed based upon what you believe the other believes.
    Wouldn't you classify that as a stereotype?
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,087Member Member Posts: 6,087Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    I don't believe it's important what you believe. The importance lies in why you believe it. What data are you reviewing? What experiences have you had? What is your immediate and long term motivation?
    Of course what you believe is important. As is the why of it. Where the debates and conversations come in is either refining and sharpening your own understanding of your beliefs, or (if completely honest with yourself/myself) getting rid of those beliefs.

    One of my favorite bible verses is "Iron sharpens iron". It's a direct reference to what I typed above, and a wonderful tool for getting rid of or avoiding that awful confirmation bias we see so much of today. It requires that personal honesty though.
    One of my favorite relationships was that of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. While both held very opposing views of the law, they used their passion to debate and refine their ideas for truth. This in turn evolved into a wonderful friendship.
    I think of McCain and Kennedy quite often - I don't want to digress, but yes, a friendship that grows out of that kind of interaction can be deep indeed. :)
    All too often in online discussions it ends up being not a debate with another poster, but a debate between yourself and some caricature you've constructed based upon what you believe the other believes.
    Wouldn't you classify that as a stereotype?

    I should clarify and "more" important or carrying degree of importance.

    Proverbs 27:17 - one of my favorite passages as well, but this requires like minded truth seekers who are willing to challenge their bias.

    Stereotype fits, but in my mind this is more of a strawman construction as there is no foundation of transfered from one to another. This is a purposeful construction to cast the opposition as evil and thereby maintaining the illusion that the constructor is good.

    Jonathan Haidt discussed much of this is a talk at Penn State - the core concept directly applies to this debate:

  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    I don't believe it's important what you believe. The importance lies in why you believe it. What data are you reviewing? What experiences have you had? What is your immediate and long term motivation?
    Of course what you believe is important. As is the why of it. Where the debates and conversations come in is either refining and sharpening your own understanding of your beliefs, or (if completely honest with yourself/myself) getting rid of those beliefs.

    One of my favorite bible verses is "Iron sharpens iron". It's a direct reference to what I typed above, and a wonderful tool for getting rid of or avoiding that awful confirmation bias we see so much of today. It requires that personal honesty though.
    One of my favorite relationships was that of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. While both held very opposing views of the law, they used their passion to debate and refine their ideas for truth. This in turn evolved into a wonderful friendship.
    I think of McCain and Kennedy quite often - I don't want to digress, but yes, a friendship that grows out of that kind of interaction can be deep indeed. :)
    All too often in online discussions it ends up being not a debate with another poster, but a debate between yourself and some caricature you've constructed based upon what you believe the other believes.
    Wouldn't you classify that as a stereotype?

    I should clarify and "more" important or carrying degree of importance.

    Proverbs 27:17 - one of my favorite passages as well, but this requires like minded truth seekers who are willing to challenge their bias.

    Stereotype fits, but in my mind this is more of a strawman construction as there is no foundation of transfered from one to another. This is a purposeful construction to cast the opposition as evil and thereby maintaining the illusion that the constructor is good.

    Jonathan Haidt discussed much of this is a talk at Penn State - the core concept directly applies to this debate:


    Thanks for the video - I'll check that out tonight.

    Regarding the bold, I absolutely agree that some do exactly that, but to my point about getting to actually know the person you're debating, that's not what I do.

    I will admit, in the interest of full transparency and disclosure, that I have practiced that tactic. Years in the past, and much to my great shame.

    Not everyone who addresses the image in their own mind of the person they are speaking with has ill intent at heart. That's a tough one to parse, but it's true. The difficult part is understanding for oneself that "I" am either a part of, or all of the issue.

    Again though, to my earlier point, it took a lot of work and patience for that to be brought to light, so I, in turn, try to be patient when I run into that these days.
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,087Member Member Posts: 6,087Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    I don't believe it's important what you believe. The importance lies in why you believe it. What data are you reviewing? What experiences have you had? What is your immediate and long term motivation?
    Of course what you believe is important. As is the why of it. Where the debates and conversations come in is either refining and sharpening your own understanding of your beliefs, or (if completely honest with yourself/myself) getting rid of those beliefs.

    One of my favorite bible verses is "Iron sharpens iron". It's a direct reference to what I typed above, and a wonderful tool for getting rid of or avoiding that awful confirmation bias we see so much of today. It requires that personal honesty though.
    One of my favorite relationships was that of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. While both held very opposing views of the law, they used their passion to debate and refine their ideas for truth. This in turn evolved into a wonderful friendship.
    I think of McCain and Kennedy quite often - I don't want to digress, but yes, a friendship that grows out of that kind of interaction can be deep indeed. :)
    All too often in online discussions it ends up being not a debate with another poster, but a debate between yourself and some caricature you've constructed based upon what you believe the other believes.
    Wouldn't you classify that as a stereotype?

    I should clarify and "more" important or carrying degree of importance.

    Proverbs 27:17 - one of my favorite passages as well, but this requires like minded truth seekers who are willing to challenge their bias.

    Stereotype fits, but in my mind this is more of a strawman construction as there is no foundation of transferred from one to another. This is a purposeful construction to cast the opposition as evil and thereby maintaining the illusion that the constructor is good.

    Jonathan Haidt discussed much of this is a talk at Penn State - the core concept directly applies to this debate:


    Thanks for the video - I'll check that out tonight.

    Regarding the bold, I absolutely agree that some do exactly that, but to my point about getting to actually know the person you're debating, that's not what I do.

    I will admit, in the interest of full transparency and disclosure, that I have practiced that tactic. Years in the past, and much to my great shame.

    Not everyone who addresses the image in their own mind of the person they are speaking with has ill intent at heart. That's a tough one to parse, but it's true. The difficult part is understanding for oneself that "I" am either a part of, or all of the issue.

    Again though, to my earlier point, it took a lot of work and patience for that to be brought to light, so I, in turn, try to be patient when I run into that these days.

    I am guilty of the same sin. We all do at some point and will do in the future. It returns to the fundamental truth that man is not inherently good or evil, but has the potential to do good and evil.

    This is why it is important to stress the friendship of those on opposing sides - it represents an ideal to strive towards given the ultimate goals are mutual. Healthy debate evolves from a desire to understand opposing viewpoints.

    I owe much of this to my secondary school history teacher and debate coach who started each session with a quote:

    "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion." John Stuart Mill
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    I don't believe it's important what you believe. The importance lies in why you believe it. What data are you reviewing? What experiences have you had? What is your immediate and long term motivation?
    Of course what you believe is important. As is the why of it. Where the debates and conversations come in is either refining and sharpening your own understanding of your beliefs, or (if completely honest with yourself/myself) getting rid of those beliefs.

    One of my favorite bible verses is "Iron sharpens iron". It's a direct reference to what I typed above, and a wonderful tool for getting rid of or avoiding that awful confirmation bias we see so much of today. It requires that personal honesty though.
    One of my favorite relationships was that of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. While both held very opposing views of the law, they used their passion to debate and refine their ideas for truth. This in turn evolved into a wonderful friendship.
    I think of McCain and Kennedy quite often - I don't want to digress, but yes, a friendship that grows out of that kind of interaction can be deep indeed. :)
    All too often in online discussions it ends up being not a debate with another poster, but a debate between yourself and some caricature you've constructed based upon what you believe the other believes.
    Wouldn't you classify that as a stereotype?

    I should clarify and "more" important or carrying degree of importance.

    Proverbs 27:17 - one of my favorite passages as well, but this requires like minded truth seekers who are willing to challenge their bias.

    Stereotype fits, but in my mind this is more of a strawman construction as there is no foundation of transferred from one to another. This is a purposeful construction to cast the opposition as evil and thereby maintaining the illusion that the constructor is good.

    Jonathan Haidt discussed much of this is a talk at Penn State - the core concept directly applies to this debate:


    Thanks for the video - I'll check that out tonight.

    Regarding the bold, I absolutely agree that some do exactly that, but to my point about getting to actually know the person you're debating, that's not what I do.

    I will admit, in the interest of full transparency and disclosure, that I have practiced that tactic. Years in the past, and much to my great shame.

    Not everyone who addresses the image in their own mind of the person they are speaking with has ill intent at heart. That's a tough one to parse, but it's true. The difficult part is understanding for oneself that "I" am either a part of, or all of the issue.

    Again though, to my earlier point, it took a lot of work and patience for that to be brought to light, so I, in turn, try to be patient when I run into that these days.

    I am guilty of the same sin. We all do at some point and will do in the future. It returns to the fundamental truth that man is not inherently good or evil, but has the potential to do good and evil.

    This is why it is important to stress the friendship of those on opposing sides - it represents an ideal to strive towards given the ultimate goals are mutual. Healthy debate evolves from a desire to understand opposing viewpoints.

    I owe much of this to my secondary school history teacher and debate coach who started each session with a quote:

    "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion." John Stuart Mill

    I like that, quite a bit.

    I agree about striving for ideals as long as those ideals are for the betterment of both sides.

    If only it were as easy as this chat eh? :D
  • Twiley510Twiley510 Posts: 212Member Member Posts: 212Member Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    In the US, you don't pay higher health insurance premiums based on BMI, or any other health condition. The only things that affect health insurance premiums is age and if you are a smoker.

    I don't pay a penalty for my health insurance, but I definitely do for my life insurance. They apply a fee labelled FT (I assume for Fat Tax) because I weigh more than 154 lbs. I pay an extra $360 per year because of it. Any woman who weighs more than 154 lbs (regardless of height) pays the FT with this particular company. I think men are allowed 174 lbs.
  • aokoyeaokoye Posts: 2,969Member Member Posts: 2,969Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    7elizamae wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »

    If by "frequently those who see themselves in a 'victim' category" you mean "everyone"...

    People wanting their view of the world to be to be the "right one" is universal, no one group has a monopoly on that.

    Does this mean you believe "everyone" sees themselves as victims? If yes, I completely disagree.

    And plenty of people are comfortable with others who have different views. I believe my view is correct, but I don't need or expect everyone to agree. And I don't label those who disagree with me as bigots or haters or phobics.

    Just an FYI, I think you keep inadvertently making formatting errors with the quotes.
    That said, when someone says or does something that's racist, anti semitic, transphobic (gasp! there's that suffix), etc I'm not afraid to call the action what it is. And before someone does the, "but people who complain don't actually change anything!" I personally contributed to amending of multiple county and state anti-discrimination laws and have worked with multiple educational institutions to change various policies. I certainly don't expect that people with agree with each other on everything and I don't expect to be able to convince people that what they're saying or doing is harmful. That said, when someone's actions are dehumanising, dangerous, and/or discriminatory I am not just going to roll over and agree if I have the energy and resources to do something about it.

    It's funny (and sad), so many people who prescribe to the very faulty "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality get very offended people do just that.

    I had a discussion on a certain political forum once about just that and..I'm still at a loss for words how to describe it lol.

    That said, there's a distinct difference between people who complain, and then DO, and people who simply complain. You are very clearly a doer, others are content (for lack of a better word atm) to simply sit back and complain never developing or following a course of action.

    I don't really want to get into all the various ways that people short change each other and themselves (I've been guilty of it too) because, while it could easily fit into the scope of this topic, I'm not sure hammering out text for an hour would actually accomplish a lot here, other than folks who read here getting to know each other a bit better.

    That's not a bad thing by the way...I've been losing my stomach for long debates simply because it's so impersonal online..it's harder to contribute to the discussion given that. :)

    Yeah I typically prefer debates/heated discussions on other forums and in person honestly. There's something about MFP that really doesn't lend itself well to these things as opposed to some (key word "some") other online forums. Of course it's much better in person because of issues that come with asynchronous communication and what not.

    I think the other thing that's hard is that while yes, I have explained that I am a doer when possible, there's no way for anyone here to know that. We all unconsciously make a boat load of assumptions about each other - some positive, some negative. That, of course, happens offline as well, but I think it can sometimes be easier for the other person to clear up those assumptions in person. The opposite can be true as well of course - time allows for one to really craft what they have to say (I can give examples from my life).
  • aokoyeaokoye Posts: 2,969Member Member Posts: 2,969Member Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    7elizamae wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »

    If by "frequently those who see themselves in a 'victim' category" you mean "everyone"...

    People wanting their view of the world to be to be the "right one" is universal, no one group has a monopoly on that.

    Does this mean you believe "everyone" sees themselves as victims? If yes, I completely disagree.

    And plenty of people are comfortable with others who have different views. I believe my view is correct, but I don't need or expect everyone to agree. And I don't label those who disagree with me as bigots or haters or phobics.

    Just an FYI, I think you keep inadvertently making formatting errors with the quotes.
    That said, when someone says or does something that's racist, anti semitic, transphobic (gasp! there's that suffix), etc I'm not afraid to call the action what it is. And before someone does the, "but people who complain don't actually change anything!" I personally contributed to amending of multiple county and state anti-discrimination laws and have worked with multiple educational institutions to change various policies. I certainly don't expect that people with agree with each other on everything and I don't expect to be able to convince people that what they're saying or doing is harmful. That said, when someone's actions are dehumanising, dangerous, and/or discriminatory I am not just going to roll over and agree if I have the energy and resources to do something about it.

    It's funny (and sad), so many people who prescribe to the very faulty "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality get very offended people do just that.

    I'll let @7elizamae speak for herself, but the point I was trying to make is just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm bullying or dehumanizing them. A poster was called out for bullying earlier in the thread, and from my POV he was just offering his opinion.

    Carolyn Myss's point is that when people are overly wrapped up in the (admittedly terrible) things that happen to them, they can fall prey to what she calls woundology, which may also be thought of as victimhood.

    I think you and I probably have very different definitions of what it means to be a victim, which is ok. Putting that aside, I was by no means saying that disagreement automatically equals bullying or dehumanising someone. I can easily think of cases where disagreeing about something can be dehumanising or an act of bullying, but that's not always the case. I don't even know if it's often the case.

    edit: Looking at the post in question again, it isn't exactly clear if @7elizamae was responding to my post given the formatting issues.
    edited September 17
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    7elizamae wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »

    If by "frequently those who see themselves in a 'victim' category" you mean "everyone"...

    People wanting their view of the world to be to be the "right one" is universal, no one group has a monopoly on that.

    Does this mean you believe "everyone" sees themselves as victims? If yes, I completely disagree.

    And plenty of people are comfortable with others who have different views. I believe my view is correct, but I don't need or expect everyone to agree. And I don't label those who disagree with me as bigots or haters or phobics.

    Just an FYI, I think you keep inadvertently making formatting errors with the quotes.
    That said, when someone says or does something that's racist, anti semitic, transphobic (gasp! there's that suffix), etc I'm not afraid to call the action what it is. And before someone does the, "but people who complain don't actually change anything!" I personally contributed to amending of multiple county and state anti-discrimination laws and have worked with multiple educational institutions to change various policies. I certainly don't expect that people with agree with each other on everything and I don't expect to be able to convince people that what they're saying or doing is harmful. That said, when someone's actions are dehumanising, dangerous, and/or discriminatory I am not just going to roll over and agree if I have the energy and resources to do something about it.

    It's funny (and sad), so many people who prescribe to the very faulty "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality get very offended people do just that.

    I had a discussion on a certain political forum once about just that and..I'm still at a loss for words how to describe it lol.

    That said, there's a distinct difference between people who complain, and then DO, and people who simply complain. You are very clearly a doer, others are content (for lack of a better word atm) to simply sit back and complain never developing or following a course of action.

    I don't really want to get into all the various ways that people short change each other and themselves (I've been guilty of it too) because, while it could easily fit into the scope of this topic, I'm not sure hammering out text for an hour would actually accomplish a lot here, other than folks who read here getting to know each other a bit better.

    That's not a bad thing by the way...I've been losing my stomach for long debates simply because it's so impersonal online..it's harder to contribute to the discussion given that. :)

    Yeah I typically prefer debates/heated discussions on other forums and in person honestly. There's something about MFP that really doesn't lend itself well to these things as opposed to some (key word "some") other online forums. Of course it's much better in person because of issues that come with asynchronous communication and what not.

    I think the other thing that's hard is that while yes, I have explained that I am a doer when possible, there's no way for anyone here to know that. We all unconsciously make a boat load of assumptions about each other - some positive, some negative. That, of course, happens offline as well, but I think it can sometimes be easier for the other person to clear up those assumptions in person. The opposite can be true as well of course - time allows for one to really craft what they have to say (I can give examples from my life).

    That's true of course, yet with that said I believe it's safer to take some people at their word. You've always been, as long as I've been reading here at least, very consistent. That lends credibility as far as I'm concerned. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.