Fat-Friendly Campuses?

[hashslinger]

I hope you don't talk like that when you're out in public. 

 

You remind me of the pony-tailed guy in Good Will Hunting. 

 

I have no context for this reference. I guess I left it back in the 90s with my copy of Jeff Foxworthy quotes and my giant mangina.

[ExponentialDecay]

I hope you don't talk like that when you're out in public. 

 

You remind me of the pony-tailed guy in Good Will Hunting. 

I am mildly perplexed at your hypocrisy, given your stance on class privilege and educational achievement.

[EmperorRyker]

Since bodies aren't closed systems, there is no a priori argument that all energy that goes in must go out. Friction, bro. 

 

1. That's exactly what we've been saying, how many times do we need to repeat it? It's obvious with fat people that in the past not all energy that came in went out. It's because they ate more (i.e. took in more usable energy in the form of food, the only known form that can increase body weight) than they could expend (i.e. what their energy out part was, something partially controlled by activity) that they got that way, whatever psychological factor might have played a role in that. I'm not even saying about the latter at this point.

 

2. What's your point in regards to friction? Friction results in energy going out of a system. But taken as a whole when that system is included in the environment, the energy still does not appear out of nothing or disappear into nothingness.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I have no context for this reference. I guess I left it back in the 90s with my copy of Jeff Foxworthy quotes and my giant mangina.

I didn't realize you were keeping a list. Pretty soon you'll be ebaying my greatest hits. 

[ExponentialDecay]

1. why is it obvious that they ate more? from what is it obvious that they ate more? we actually have a very limited idea of what goes on inside the living human body, and a very limited idea indeed of how the kcal that is taken in is utilized. there is no research that suggests that any random human body must subscribe to a standard that you arbitrarily deem as "healthy". 

 

2. sure. but we don't know where it goes, or why it goes where it goes, or how it goes where it goes. you're grossly oversimplifying, which is understandable, but not excusable.

[DeafAudi]

[TakeruK]

Yeah, ultimately it's all fuzzy anyway. You can't tell whether a person is just not trying hard enough or actually can't do it. But then what does "actually can't do it" mean, right? In a way you're right, but on the other hand, due to there not being a clear dividing line in matters like these, we can explain away any (and I mean any) behavior with saying it was the psychological factors that caused it (because ultimately, that's true). I just drew an arbitrary line, and you can choose to draw it elsewhere. That's fine with me.

 

To me, if the person in question says that they can't do it, then they can't do it. If they say that they are not trying hard enough, then they are not trying hard enough. Since I am not them, I cannot know how they feel. I don't any reason for me to pass judgement on them or why people need to "prove" that they are trying hard enough to others.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here, though: "obviously if a person does not eat, they would gain less weight than if they did eat, no matter what other circumstances are at play". They wouldn't gain less weight. They would lose weight.

 

Oops. I meant if a person eats less they would gain less weight (let's say gaining negative weight = losing weight). 

 

What's your opinion on stuff like crime, though? Only focusing on the choice and not the consequences, can a murderer prevented himself from not killing a person? Or perhaps a slightly different question, was it his fault he didn't?

In my opinion, when it comes to matter of guilt or fault, then we should focus on the choice. When it comes to matters of "how to keep the public safe" then we should also consider consequence. In your example, if a murderer is deemed** to not have been able to prevent himself from killing a person (e.g. psychological issues), then I don't think the person should be guilty of murder. However, it would not be in the interests of everyone (included the person accused) if we just do nothing and keep the status quo (they might hurt others or themselves). So, it would make sense for our society to do something to help prevent any more people getting hurt. What actually should be done would depend on the specific circumstances, in my opinion. But I think that the goal of the procedure should be to 1) get help to those who need it and 2) prevent further damage (to everyone). Punishment definitely should not be the goal (I don't think punishment should ever be the goal of corrective action even if the person knowingly chose to kill). 

 

**This part is tricky since we are still working to understand human psychology. But we have to make do with what we know for the time being!

[Mordekaiser]

Ok I am sorry for criticizing fat people for everyone I have offended.

.

I guess some people that are making good diet choices and exercising daily somehow become obese. They are perfectly good people and I should respect them because they are fat. Because they obviously did not *chose* to become fat slobs and were not too lazy to do anything about it, I will not treat them any worse and they have my utmost respect. I will also respect everyone that failed classes in schools because they were partying all the time because they must have had genetic problems. I will also respect drug addicts that went from smoking to heroin because of bad genetics; not like they could do anything about it.

.

I also did not realize 99.99% of obese people had genetic conditions that predisposed them to becoming fat. They obviously have no control over it, and their decisions to improve their condition will be meaningless.

.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I will sympathize with you all now. I forgot that the laws of Thermodynamics don't hold for human calorie consumption, and that the special life force needs to be treated with care and love.

.

EDIT: Sorry here's a diagram that explains how obesity is NOT caused by the choices people make.

http://stupidbadmemes.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/calories-and-genetics.jpg

Edited March 22, 2014 by Mordekaiser

[DigDeep(inactive)]

[TakeruK]

They are perfectly good people and I should respect them because they are fat. I will also respect everyone that failed classes in schools because they were partying all the time because they must have had genetic problems. I will also respect drug addicts that went from smoking to heroin because of bad genetics; not like they could do anything about it.

 

How about "I should respect them because they are people." You don't have to agree with their diet choices, their academic choices, or their drug choices. Why are we so quick to judge and consider those that we deem "inferior" less worthy of our time/efforts? I would say if you come across someone who e.g. failed because they were partying and you wanted to help them and they wanted the help, then why do you need to judge? If you don't want to help (or they don't want your help), then that's fine too, both of you never need to interact. What I don't understand is when people like you take the time to criticize/judge/shame people for making bad decisions. What good does it do? 

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

How about "I should respect them because they are people." You don't have to agree with their diet choices, their academic choices, or their drug choices. Why are we so quick to judge and consider those that we deem "inferior" less worthy of our time/efforts? I would say if you come across someone who e.g. failed because they were partying and you wanted to help them and they wanted the help, then why do you need to judge? If you don't want to help (or they don't want your help), then that's fine too, both of you never need to interact. What I don't understand is when people like you take the time to criticize/judge/shame people for making bad decisions. What good does it do? 

I get what you're saying. I've always respected your opinion on here. I'm just wondering if being so soft on people is such a good philosophy. I was reading the grade inflation thread the other day, and the consensus among us grads and soon-to-be's was that it's a bad thing to reward people simply for just showing up to class (or not). Yet, when it comes to the real world, these same people are handing out A's and A-'s to everyone. What good is it to not say anything when someone is hurting themselves and can still turn things around? When I was a kid, if you had a weakness, the other kids would terrorize you until you did something about it. And for the most part, it worked. We birthed a lot of tough kids in that neighborhood. 

 

If a person is fat, it most likely eats away at them all the time. The only people I know who are proud to be fat are those ghetto black chicks who are like, "Girl, I'ma shake my shit!" People think that telling them they're fat does nothing but depress them even more. But they're already depressed enough as it is. Just keeping your mouth shut allows them to continue to stay stuck in the same state and never break out. The fat kids we used to tease are in better shape than all of us now. 

 

I just don't see the good in being soft on people. We see the results everywhere. Even in the classroom, I think a little competition would do people some good. There are a lot of kids who just sit in the back of the class, happy to get a C. Imagine if they got called out on a consistent basis for being stupid. They might try to prove everyone wrong and pull a few all-nighters. They might even end up getting the highest grade in the class. In sports, when I was a kid, you got teased when you sucked. You know what you did? You spent the whole summer busting your ass so you could make the team next year and tease everyone else for sucking. Nowadays, they make a team full of sucky players, make them play the other team full of sucky players, end the game in a tie, and go out for pizza, where all the parents say, "I'm so proud of you, Little Bobby." Fuck that. Let the kid get his ass whooped by the other kids a few times after practice. He just might spend his weekends in the gym instead of the basement playing Halo. 

[DropTheBase]

I get what you're saying. I've always respected your opinion on here. I'm just wondering if being so soft on people is such a good philosophy. I was reading the grade inflation thread the other day, and the consensus among us grads and soon-to-be's was that it's a bad thing to reward people simply for just showing up to class (or not). Yet, when it comes to the real world, these same people are handing out A's and A-'s to everyone. What good is it to not say anything when someone is hurting themselves and can still turn things around? When I was a kid, if you had a weakness, the other kids would terrorize you until you did something about it. And for the most part, it worked. We birthed a lot of tough kids in that neighborhood. 

 

If a person is fat, it most likely eats away at them all the time. The only people I know who are proud to be fat are those ghetto black chicks who are like, "Girl, I'ma shake my shit!" People think that telling them they're fat does nothing but depress them even more. But they're already depressed enough as it is. Just keeping your mouth shut allows them to continue to stay stuck in the same state and never break out. The fat kids we used to tease are in better shape than all of us now. 

 

I just don't see the good in being soft on people. We see the results everywhere. Even in the classroom, I think a little competition would do people some good. There are a lot of kids who just sit in the back of the class, happy to get a C. Imagine if they got called out on a consistent basis for being stupid. They might try to prove everyone wrong and pull a few all-nighters. They might even end up getting the highest grade in the class. In sports, when I was a kid, you got teased when you sucked. You know what you did? You spent the whole summer busting your ass so you could make the team next year and tease everyone else for sucking. Nowadays, they make a team full of sucky players, make them play the other team full of sucky players, end the game in a tie, and go out for pizza, where all the parents say, "I'm so proud of you, Little Bobby." Fuck that. Let the kid get his ass whooped by the other kids a few times after practice. He just might spend his weekends in the gym instead of the basement playing Halo. 

 

It's not your fault.......It's not your fault....

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

It's not your fault.......It's not your fault....

I gotta go see about a girl. 

[Graditude]

What a thread! The ¨fat-friendly¨ in the title caught my eye, and it made for interesting reading -- much better than watching people compare their GRE stats in other threads. And the interpersonal dynamics, with all the downvoting and the upvoting! A whole little corner of GC I knew nothing about!

 

Anyway, I want to say two things: First, no way the OP or her question are genuine. It is a trick of some sort. Second, people cannot get fat unless they are eating more calories than their bodies can burn. It really is not rocket science, and doesn´t take an advanced degree to know this. Here in Europe, the only morbidly obese people are in sections of Germany and the UK where life resembles the car-dependent parts of the US. Everywhere else, people walk more and eat differently. It is true that food deserts, ignorance, bad habits, etc are real social problems -- but again... phsyically you cannot get fat without eating more than your body requires for its work. Only certain American scholars try to blur this one basic biological fact.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

What a thread! The ¨fat-friendly¨ in the title caught my eye, and it made for interesting reading -- much better than watching people compare their GRE stats in other threads. And the interpersonal dynamics, with all the downvoting and the upvoting! A whole little corner of GC I knew nothing about!

 

Anyway, I want to say two things: First, no way the OP or her question are genuine. It is a trick of some sort. Second, people cannot get fat unless they are eating more calories than their bodies can burn. It really is not rocket science, and doesn´t take an advanced degree to know this. Here in Europe, the only morbidly obese people are in sections of Germany and the UK where life resembles the car-dependent parts of the US. Everywhere else, people walk more and eat differently. It is true that food deserts, ignorance, bad habits, etc are real social problems -- but again... phsyically you cannot get fat without eating more than your body requires for its work. Only certain American scholars try to blur this one basic biological fact.

You actually make a good point that hasn't been brought up yet in this thread. Obesity seems to be primarily an American issue. But then how does that play into the argument that people can't help that they're fat? If people can't help it, it's a human issues, not an American issue. Maybe we (Americans) need to evaluate the way we live. Sure, there may be the occasional "thyroid problem" but for the most part, it's how you live. Americans just live differently from the rest of the world, and it shows. 

 

Thanks for dropping by, Graditude. And welcome to the dark side of Grad Cafe. 

 

Oh, and if you want to be amused, read anything by LittleDarlings (formerly known as CorruptedInnocence, and formerly formerly known as Pinkster). 

Edited March 22, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[TakeruK]

I get what you're saying. I've always respected your opinion on here. I'm just wondering if being so soft on people is such a good philosophy. I was reading the grade inflation thread the other day, and the consensus among us grads and soon-to-be's was that it's a bad thing to reward people simply for just showing up to class (or not). Yet, when it comes to the real world, these same people are handing out A's and A-'s to everyone. What good is it to not say anything when someone is hurting themselves and can still turn things around? When I was a kid, if you had a weakness, the other kids would terrorize you until you did something about it. And for the most part, it worked. We birthed a lot of tough kids in that neighborhood. 

 

I agree that there is a fine line between respecting people for what they are and coddling/enabling them to further harm themselves. I think where this line is also depends on your relationship with the person in question. If someone in my family is self harming, for example, if my younger cousin decided that they want to start smoking, I would agree with you and do something about it before it got worse. But if I am on the Internet or in the real world, and someone was smoking, I try not to judge. I mean, I wouldn't directly help them harm themselves but I'll respect their decision and stay out of it. 

 

I think that in this thread, none of us knows the OP very well (I mean, the OP hasn't even posted again so as others have pointed out, this might just be a troll/fake/whatever). I think that in this specific case of this thread, it does no good to try to "terrorize"/"shame" the OP until they "get better". I think that "tough love" only works in cases where there is some pre-existing relationship and that ultimately, you know that the other person means the best for you. For example, a coach being hard on his/her team for a crappy practice/performance. A parent who knows their child could have done better letting them know that life will expect 100% effort from you. etc. Also in all of these cases, it really only works when the "tough love giver" knows the other person well enough to know what works and what won't. But random person on the Internet? Just my opinion, but I don't think this is an appropriate place to do this kind of thing.

 

Also, I don't think I would really agree with/like a society where the weak is pushed to change by their peers. Maybe I am just not a good capitalist, but I also don't always think competition is good. In your sports teams example, what is so bad about two teams of crappy players just having fun on the field and then going for pizza afterwards? I mean, this is basically the definition of the intramural sports teams I play on right now, as an adult in grad school! Why can't we have competitive leagues for those who want to get better and improve themselves and also recreational leagues where everyone is welcome, and the point is to just play the game/have some fun, not actually win. This is how most sports at my school is structured, and I think it's good to have kids sports go this way too (I have no children so I have no idea how kids sports are actually structured--but I would not think a world where only competitive leagues are available would be a good one!). 

 

I don't have my own kids but I have coached plenty of kids* (actually teens) teams in different types of competitions. When my kids lose a competition, I agree, we don't just say "oh well, maybe next time" because hey, they signed up for this competition to win! We figure out why we sucked and we work on it. But I also try to make sure they get positive feedback on the things they did do well. And the kids still worked hard to get to where they are, so they deserve a reward (e.g. pizza) too. There are ways to reward your team when they lose without letting them be complacent with losing!

 

tl;dr: Yeah, I agree that we can be "too soft" on people and enable their problems. But there is a right time and place for "tough love" and I don't think strangers on the Internet with very little information on the actual problem is neither the right time nor place.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I agree that there is a fine line between respecting people for what they are and coddling/enabling them to further harm themselves. I think where this line is also depends on your relationship with the person in question. If someone in my family is self harming, for example, if my younger cousin decided that they want to start smoking, I would agree with you and do something about it before it got worse. But if I am on the Internet or in the real world, and someone was smoking, I try not to judge. I mean, I wouldn't directly help them harm themselves but I'll respect their decision and stay out of it. 

 

I think that in this thread, none of us knows the OP very well (I mean, the OP hasn't even posted again so as others have pointed out, this might just be a troll/fake/whatever). I think that in this specific case of this thread, it does no good to try to "terrorize"/"shame" the OP until they "get better". I think that "tough love" only works in cases where there is some pre-existing relationship and that ultimately, you know that the other person means the best for you. For example, a coach being hard on his/her team for a crappy practice/performance. A parent who knows their child could have done better letting them know that life will expect 100% effort from you. etc. Also in all of these cases, it really only works when the "tough love giver" knows the other person well enough to know what works and what won't. But random person on the Internet? Just my opinion, but I don't think this is an appropriate place to do this kind of thing.

 

Also, I don't think I would really agree with/like a society where the weak is pushed to change by their peers. Maybe I am just not a good capitalist, but I also don't always think competition is good. In your sports teams example, what is so bad about two teams of crappy players just having fun on the field and then going for pizza afterwards? I mean, this is basically the definition of the intramural sports teams I play on right now, as an adult in grad school! Why can't we have competitive leagues for those who want to get better and improve themselves and also recreational leagues where everyone is welcome, and the point is to just play the game/have some fun, not actually win. This is how most sports at my school is structured, and I think it's good to have kids sports go this way too (I have no children so I have no idea how kids sports are actually structured--but I would not think a world where only competitive leagues are available would be a good one!). 

 

I don't have my own kids but I have coached plenty of kids* (actually teens) teams in different types of competitions. When my kids lose a competition, I agree, we don't just say "oh well, maybe next time" because hey, they signed up for this competition to win! We figure out why we sucked and we work on it. But I also try to make sure they get positive feedback on the things they did do well. And the kids still worked hard to get to where they are, so they deserve a reward (e.g. pizza) too. There are ways to reward your team when they lose without letting them be complacent with losing!

 

tl;dr: Yeah, I agree that we can be "too soft" on people and enable their problems. But there is a right time and place for "tough love" and I don't think strangers on the Internet with very little information on the actual problem is neither the right time nor place.

I agree with just playing sports to have fun. I think it's a little different when you're a kid, as opposed to a grad student, because you're still trying everything out and seeing what you like. If you're playing sports, for example, as a kid, it's assumed you actually want to do well, so kids will torture you if you suck. At least that's how it was for me. When you're a 30-year old PhD student with a beer belly, I think your dreams of being a pro athlete are over and it's assumed it's just for fun. 

 

But to your other point. You say it's okay to judge more critically someone you already know than a stranger. I agree, but there are a lot of people without close relationships with other people, and lots of those people are the dark, depressed type to live in their own sad worlds. If everyone had the mindset that, "I don't want to tell Jane Doe to lighten up and relax a little because I don't know her," then Jane could go and do something bad to herself or others. I know it's a bit extreme, but I'm just saying that there are a lot of people out there without close ones who give them constructive criticism. I lot of people go through life in a lonely existence without anyone ever bothering to give them good or bad feedback. 

 

So what does a person without any close friends or family do? Well, they go seek people to talk to. Some of them go to shrinks. But let's be real, a lot of us don't have money to pay someone to listen to you. They also might go to support group meetings, but a lot of people are also uncomfortable breaking out of their shells in the real world. What's left? The Internet. I think if you're resorting to the Internet to deal with such serious issues, then you're giving other people the right to be real. 

 

This is a grad school forum. We come here to find out how long to make our SOPs, who to ask for an LOR, which offer to accept, how to respectively reject an offer, etc. Every now and then people come on here asking for advice about happiness, love, marriage, children, money, hopelessness, body image, weight, health, etc. This isn't really the place for it, but if you bring it here, don't expect a bunch of, "Aww don't worry, sweetie. You're wonderful the way you are!" At least not from me. As much as I'm willing to tell you your SOP/GPA/GRE sucks, I'm willing to tell you your lifestyle/personality sucks. 

[Geologizer]

Like most probably, I've been visiting this thread periodically for the amusing reading. I didn't really care to jump in because the OP was so blatantly fake, but the last few posts have come back to some enticing points.Gnome Chomsky touched on an interesting point, but I think it's worth putting out there explicitly.

Consider the hypothetical situation:

It's mid-terms week in your class. Test grades are to be posted outside your office, and students come to see their grade on their own time - everyone can see everyone else's grades. While grading, you notice that one student totally bombed the test. The student isn't overtly disregarding the class - comes to class, doesn't disrupt others, etc. But still, totally bombed. You have two choices.

1. You decide that you should give the student a passing grade, but make sure to tell that student that they really need to improve. After all, grades are going to be public. Everyone can see it, and that's going to be really tough. Further, perhaps there was some really good excuse for that poor test. Maybe that student has a learning disorder, or had a family emergency, or had some other cause out of their control. You empathize, so you pat yourself on the back because you didn't make a harsh snap judgment, save them some embarrassment, and you're sure that they'll get it turned around.

2. You give the grade they deserve. You know that everyone is going to be able to see the grades, and if you inflate their grade, they're going to see it's not that far off from everyone else's. Even if you make a point to tell them they're far behind, you see the obvious mixed message and at that point you're part of the problem, complicit. You acknowledge that if something extraordinary was at fault, then they'll take the grade with a grain of salt and move on.

I don't think I have to articulate the parallels to this thread, but I think we can mostly agree option 2 is the most responsible and constructive course of action.

With all that said, I don't think people should necessarily push their judgement on people unsolicited. That is a sense of entitlement that I think is a bit over the line. What I don't think is over the line is passing judgement in your own mind, or voicing your honest opinion if asked. The reality is that an overwhelming percentage of obesity cases are controllable. Many health problems that contribute to obesity are directly attributable or exacerbated by being obese. Further, those with genetic predispositions have to cater their lifestyle to that fact. People can become healthy almost all of the time if they make real constructive change. If those who "can't" lose weight means "can't while maintaining my same lifestyle," then frankly, I agree. But isn't that kind of the point?

Lastly, I think the kid gloves need to come off and people need to start treating everyone else like adults. Judgement is a part of reality, and people need to learn how to deal with it. We judge all of the time, and it is necessary that we do it, not evil. If you want to draw a line, how about this: as soon as empathy infringes on people's ability to handle adversity, then you've crossed the line. Quit coddling people, and let them grow. Judgement and adversity imposed by society and/or individuals can be a constructive and healthy thing, despite what the current PC culture would suggest.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Geologizer

[hashslinger]

Lastly, I think the kid gloves need to come off and people need to start treating everyone else like adults. Judgement is a part of reality, and people need to learn how to deal with it. We judge all of the time, and it is necessary that we do it, not evil. If you want to draw a line, how about this: as soon as empathy infringes on people's ability to handle adversity, then you've crossed the line. Quit coddling people, and let them grow. Judgement and adversity imposed by society and/or individuals can be a constructive and healthy thing, despite what the current PC culture would suggest.

 

I feel as though your discussion is trying to have it both ways: fat people are judged in real life (and they need to suck it up and deal with it or change) but apparently we've been coddling fat people, thereby enabling them to get really fat. Our acceptance and "PC-ness" lurk behind the obesity epidemic at every turn. At the same time, we live in a judgmental and fatphobic society, the reality of which is inescapable. Which is it? Seems to me that if we lived in a society that was obsessed with "kid gloves" and treating people with too much kindness, then we wouldn't have to constantly warn fat people that it's a cruel world out there.

 

I'm not fat myself and therefore not especially attuned to size discrimination and whatever, but I don't see a lot of coddling of fat people going on in society. Our society places a premium on thinness, beauty, and youth. It's widely known that fat people don't get hired at the same rate as thin people, and that fat students might even get lower grades than better looking, thin students. So, I don't know. I don't think that the fat people of the world really need me to treat them with harsh tough love so that they snap to it and buy a Jillian Michaels DVD. I think they're already aware of their situation.

 

I don't really see the parallel between giving grades. I'm in a position to comment on people's work, but I'm not in a position to grade people based on their body mass index. If I'm someone's doctor, then yes, there might be a parallel there, and I could make those judgments and recommendations. But the thread isn't about advice from a doctor to a fat patient. The question wasn't, "Should a doctor tell their patient that they should lose weight or keep coddling them for fear of hurting their feelings?"

 

Moreover, I really don't think that grade inflation is driven as much by self-esteem issues as it is evaluations--the "customer" mentality of higher ed as well as the administrative bloat and the abolition of tenure. But that's a different issue altogether.

 

And why are we using the "this is the way things are" explanation as an excuse? I don't know, just because the world hates fat people as a matter of course, that doesn't make it right. I know that I've made snap judgments about fat people or little comments under my breath to my thin friends. But that's not something I'm proud of. The world might be on my side, but I've still been an asshole, and that's my problem.

Edited March 23, 2014 by hashslinger

[Geologizer]

No, the "kid gloves" are stigmatizing a collective voice against unhealthy eating/lifestyle choice, thus forcing any collective voice on the matter to have to walk on eggshells (i.e. "Fatphobic - decidedly negative, but really, is wanting people to be more healthy so bad, and to flip it, what good is that label actually doing?) That stigma inherently breeds a less effective convoluted message, much like the one I set up in the hypothetical situation. Like I said, there is obviously a line where people shouldn't feel so entitled to go off on random people in the street. Then you're just punk Will Hunting the art critic (Keeping it going  ). Obviously those people do exist though, and I don't mean to justify them. But I also don't think there's any problem with making judgments, and that relegating the judgments people make to the subversive realm though the PC campaign, is destructive. 

 

I think you missed most of the point I was trying to make, but by now I've said my piece on it, so I'll leave it there for the time being. 

 

 

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I feel as though your discussion is trying to have it both ways: fat people are judged in real life (and they need to suck it up and deal with it or change) but apparently we've been coddling fat people, thereby enabling them to get really fat. Our acceptance and "PC-ness" lurk behind the obesity epidemic at every turn. At the same time, we live in a judgmental and fatphobic society, the reality of which is inescapable. Which is it? Seems to me that if we lived in a society that was obsessed with "kid gloves" and treating people with too much kindness, then we wouldn't have to constantly warn fat people that it's a cruel world out there.

 

I'm not fat myself and therefore not especially attuned to size discrimination and whatever, but I don't see a lot of coddling of fat people going on in society. Our society places a premium on thinness, beauty, and youth. It's widely known that fat people don't get hired at the same rate as thin people, and that fat students might even get lower grades than better looking, thin students. So, I don't know. I don't think that the fat people of the world really need me to treat them with harsh tough love so that they snap to it and buy a Jillian Michaels DVD. I think they're already aware of their situation.

 

I don't really see the parallel between giving grades. I'm in a position to comment on people's work, but I'm not in a position to grade people based on their body mass index. If I'm someone's doctor, then yes, there might be a parallel there, and I could make those judgments and recommendations. But the thread isn't about advice from a doctor to a fat patient. The question wasn't, "Should a doctor tell their patient that they should lose weight or keep coddling them for fear of hurting their feelings?"

 

Moreover, I really don't think that grade inflation is driven as much by self-esteem issues as it is evaluations--the "customer" mentality of higher ed as well as the administrative bloat and the abolition of tenure. But that's a different issue altogether.

 

And why are we using the "this is the way things are" explanation as an excuse? I don't know, just because the world hates fat people as a matter of course, that doesn't make it right. I know that I've made snap judgments about fat people or little comments under my breath to my thin friends. But that's not something I'm proud of. The world might be on my side, but I've still been an asshole, and that's my problem.

My point of not being PC was with regard to giving people "criticism" on an Internet forum when they come here asking you specifically for your criticism/advice. 

 

Also, taking your comment that you've mumbled hurtful things under your breath when you've seen a fat person on the street. That's what I've noticed here on GradCafe. I guess it's because this is a professional forum and people should act as if it's a professional environment. You'll have people (take you for example... though I'm not saying this is how you are all the time) who will mumble things under their breath at these people when they see them on the street, but when they come here and pose a question on an Internet thread, you'll go, "Oh, no, I think you're doing just fine. Keep up the good work." 

 

I'm not advocating running through the streets, screaming, "Kill Fatty!" I'm saying, keep your cruel comments to yourself (not even under your breath) when you're out in the streets, but if someone comes to you asking for your opinion, don't be afraid to give it to them. 

I don't see how it's more appropriate to walk around all day forming judgments about people, but then to never in a million years voice those judgment even if the person is begging for it. 

 

I guess I have the ability to detach myself from my opinions (as long as it doesn't really bother me). Not a long of things really make my blood boil. I find obesity disgusting and a sign of weakness, but it really doesn't bother me. I usually even like fat people more than the fit, pretty, little blonde cheerleader because I've always appreciated the underdogs. But I do have a personal philosophy, and if someone comes asking me for my opinion, even though their lifestyle really doesn't bother me, I can give them my opinion based on my personal philosophy. What that means is, you won't catch me in the street being repulsed by fat people or mumbling things under my breath, but if they come up to me and ask me for some honesty, I'll give it to them super sized with fries. 

[hashslinger]

No, the "kid gloves" are stigmatizing a collective voice against unhealthy eating/lifestyle choice, thus forcing any collective voice on the matter to have to walk on eggshells (i.e. "Fatphobic - decidedly negative, but really, is wanting people to be more healthy so bad, and to flip it, what good is that label actually doing?)

 

 ...But the world doesn't really stigmatize a voice against unhealthy eating/lifestyle choice. At least not in the society I live in. Where is this mythical society where fat people are regarded as special snowflakes and encouraged to continue to be unhealthy? Where are fat kids not bullied online or on the playground? It's true that we advertise a lot of food and unhealthy food products ... but we also constantly encourage people to look better, younger, thinner, buy gym memberships, get surgery, etc. That seems more a symptom of capitalism than any kind of schizophrenic social pressure. When it comes to fat people, I actually think that our "collective voice" is united and not at all stigmatized: fat is bad, fat people are lazy. Even as people cite medical reasons for their weight, I'd say that most non-fat people in society at large don't really sympathize or "buy" these explanations. Just as people in this thread have not been sympathetic, the world is really not sympathetic. So I'm having a difficult time seeing whatever point it is that you believe you're making because your assumptions are based in a world that you have invented from hypothetical conjecturing.

 

And I always side-eye when someone brings up the whole concept of PC police. Other than the fact that it's a throwback to the culture war backlash of the 90s--honestly, it belongs back a time where Will Hunting was actually considered a good movie and you might be a redneck if--it generally just means that someone wants to be recognized as "edgy" because they don't want to acknowledge another person's basic human worth. So many people want to feel "stigmatized" because they secretly want to disregard basic civility, I guess. There's really nothing subversive or edgy about making fun of fat people.  

 

If you are concerned about fat people, and not just trolling to unload thoughts under the guise of earnest concern, then, I don't know, get involved in Michelle Obama's let's move thing? You're right that society isn't doing enough to combat obesity, but I'm not sure that "taking off the kid gloves" (i.e. disregarding basic civility) is really a start.

Edited March 23, 2014 by hashslinger

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

 ...But the world doesn't really stigmatize a voice against unhealthy eating/lifestyle choice. At least not in the society I live in. Where is this mythical society where fat people are regarded as special snowflakes and encouraged to continue to be unhealthy? Where are fat kids not bullied online or on the playground? It's true that we advertise a lot of food and unhealthy food products ... but we also constantly encourage people to look better, younger, thinner, buy gym memberships, get surgery, etc. That seems more a symptom of capitalism than any kind of schizophrenic social pressure. When it comes to fat people, I actually think that our "collective voice" is united and not at all stigmatized: fat is bad, fat people are lazy. Even as people cite medical reasons for their weight, I'd say that most non-fat people in society at large don't really sympathize or "buy" these explanations. Just as people in this thread have not been sympathetic, the world is really not sympathetic. So I'm having a difficult time seeing whatever point it is that you believe you're making because your assumptions are based in a world that you have invented from hypothetical conjecturing.

 

And I always side-eye when someone brings up the whole concept of PC police. Other than the fact that it's a throwback to the culture war backlash of the 90s--honestly, it belongs back a time where Will Hunting was actually considered a good movie and you might be a redneck if--it generally just means that someone wants to be recognized as "edgy" because they don't want to acknowledge another person's basic human worth. So many people want to feel "stigmatized" because they secretly want to disregard basic civility, I guess. There's really nothing subversive or edgy about making fun of fat people.  

 

If you are concerned about fat people, and not just trolling to unload thoughts under the guise of earnest concern, then, I don't know, get involved in Michelle Obama's let's move thing? You're right that society isn't doing enough to combat obesity, but I'm not sure that "taking off the kid gloves" (i.e. disregarding basic civility) is really a start.

So, what I've gathered from your posts, basic civility means to, in your words, make "snap judgments about fat people or little comments under [your] breath to [your] thin friends," but then to come on GradCafe and act like Mother Teresa? Well, then consider me uncivil. I'd rather not talk behind someone's back but give them my honest opinion if they ask me for it. You'd rather talk behind their back and give them a gold star of approval when they ask you for honesty. I guess I'm just edgy. And when did Good Will Hunting stop being a good movie? 

Edited March 23, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[RunnerGrad]

Since I'm in nutrition, I actually have studied obesity. It isn't as simple as calories in = calories out, as some of you think.  It also isn't always about personal choice.

 

If any of you actually care to educate yourselves, here are some good studies and other articles on the topic:

 

The epidemiology of overweight and obesity: public health crisis or moral panic?

 

2006 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on the management and prevention of obesity in adults and children

 

ECONOMIC CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF OBESITY

 

Here are some great graphics that illustrate the many causes of obesity:

 

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h232/nutritionrunner/determinants_zps32a90d05.jpg

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h232/nutritionrunner/obesityfactors_zps9041a94e.png

 

Oh gee, look at all the factors that aren't under an individual's control!  Imagine that!

 

The following is the best illustration of all the many factors that affect obesity.  It is an incredibly complex problem:

http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html

 

So please, educate yourself about the causes and treatment of obesity before you go assuming it is the individual's fault.  The research being done in this area indicates that there are many complex, interacting factors that affect obesity and obesity rates.  It isn't always a matter of eating too much and moving too little.  It is much, much more complex.  Energy balance is only part of the equation.

Edited March 23, 2014 by RunnerGrad

[hashslinger]

So, what I've gathered from your posts, basic civility means to, in your words, make "snap judgments about fat people or little comments under [your] breath to [your] thin friends," but then to come on GradCafe and act like Mother Teresa? Well, then consider me uncivil. I'd rather not talk behind someone's back but give them my honest opinion if they ask me for it. You'd rather talk behind their back and give them a gold star of approval when they ask you for honesty. I guess I'm just edgy. And when did Good Will Hunting stop being a good movie? 

 

Good try, but I never said that. I said that, as I'm sure many people have, I've judged fat people in the past and that no, I'm not proud of it. Nor do I give "mother teresa" advice on gradcafe. I am, however, honest in admitting that I've made judgments before and that, no, I don't think it's right.

 

Do a better job at shit-stirring. Let's call it for what it is: an attempt to troll, and not a particularly good or creative one. There's something a little embarrassing about a poster who wants to be seen as so earnest/edgy and doesn't pull it off. It's not really offensive as much as it's a bit trite. It's been done. And better. Pretending to clutch your pearls while you lay troll bait ... eh. You don't like fat people, and that's fine. No one said that you had to. But to come at them from a point of faux-concern in order to generate entertainment is actually the epitome of dishonesty, not "keeping it real, bro." And it's fine if you come at it from that angle: just own it.

Edited March 23, 2014 by hashslinger