eduardog3000 [he/him]

The book is also pro Zionist and pro apartheid South Africa among other bs.

Yeah, doesn’t Israel open their border wall to let Palestinians in and it ends up letting the zombies in?

Can’t wait for “The sexism that led to the Ghislaine Maxwell trials”.

Socialism is when you pay landlords in perpetuity for the privilege of living indoors instead of paying a bank for 30 years.

cringe

Like, Linux is fine whatever, but the way you’re presenting it is cringe.

Ads, forced updates, bloatware, and the fucking data collection

Literally all of these can be disabled or removed with about the same level of knowledge and effort needed to run Linux. Hell, my copy of Windows (Education edition) didn’t even come with ads or bloatware.

PS: any negative comments about Linux will result in a ban, the mods are onboard with this :)

Is that a joke? If not that’s pretty dumb, we can’t criticize an OS?

lmao y’all love to prove it too

It just makes vegans seem even more insufferable.

“These words we use that have a certain meaning aren’t actually what we mean.”

I looked through the paper, I get what you are trying to say, but the phrase “healthy at every size” just doesn’t work. And neither does the insistence that being fat isn’t necessarily unhealthy.

There are some good ideas in there. A reduced focus on weight and focusing on a more holistic approach to health can be good, but weight is still an important factor. But again, that’s not at all what the words “healthy at every size” convey. It conveys the idea of a very fat person having no more health problems than the average person, which just isn’t the case.

But reading the paper I get the impression that they think there is not necessarily anything wrong with being fat. That fatness is perfectly fine. It’s not.

lmao, here’s a particularly egregious line from the paper:

The diseases that are associated with higher BMI also occur at low BMI. If fat-ness causes these diseases, why do they exist across the weight spectrum?

“Lung cancer also occurs in non-smokers. If smoking causes lung cancer, why does it exist in both smokers and non-smokers?”

And the story about “Jody” shows someone doing all the wrong things to lose weight. It’s not her trying to lose weight that’s bad (at 195 anyway), it’s the way she tries to lose weight. No shit 1000 calories a day isn’t healthy. And avoiding fat and carbs is misguided as well. As for 105 Jody, that’s a problem of thinking she’s overweight when she’s not. That may come from some social stigmas that need to be worked on, but that doesn’t mean overweight doesn’t exist, and it doesn’t mean 195 Jody isn’t overweight.

one of the myths is “The HAES model argues that people of every size must be healthy”

I didn’t say that. The model says fat people can be perfectly healthy, which just isn’t true.

It’s not a strawman, it’s what those words in that order literally mean…

None of what you said is consistent with being “healthy at every size”. Of course how you lose weight can be unhealthy, but again, someone who is 300 lbs is not healthy and will never be healthy unless they lose weight. Healthy at every size insinuates it’s possible to stay 300 lbs for the rest of your life and be perfectly healthy. It’s just not.

All of those things inherently lead to losing weight. I wasn’t healthy at almost 300 lbs, even when I started walking. It was only when my weight was significantly lower that I started feeling better (still not healthy, but healthier than 50 lbs ago). Getting healthier coincides with weight loss. If you aren’t losing weight, you aren’t getting much healthier.

If you want to reduce some social stigma around being fat, that’s fine. Don’t treat people like shit or blame them for their health problems or whatever. But to insinuate that you can stay 300 lbs and be healthy is complete bullshit. So the social goal should be to replace negative stigma with positive social encouragement and support towards losing weight and becoming healthier. Not to just act like being fat is perfectly fine in every possible way, including medical.

I know being fat is inherently unhealthy. I am unhealthy and so is every fat person I know. “Healthy at Every Size” is complete bs.

You might be able to keep yourself relatively healthy for your weight, but being fat is still inherently unhealthy. Whatever you do to stay “healthy” while fat would be easier to accomplish and work even better while at a normal weight.

I managed to lose ~50 pounds from my walk to work over the course of 2019 (still fat though, and that loss stopped in 2020 for obvious reasons). Even without changing my diet at all, I started feeling much better because of it.

it’s difficult to say what is obese and what isn’t, as body fat is distributed differently across races, body types etc

Yeah it’s difficult to set a hard bottom line for obesity, and it can differ greatly depending on a number of factors, but that doesn’t mean obesity isn’t real or that it’s some completely arbitrary thing that should just be dismissed.

Again, fat person here. Being fat is not healthy, physically or mentally. No we shouldn’t attack or criticize people for being fat, but acting like being fat is perfectly fine is wrong. BMI might not be a good system, but that doesn’t mean the idea behind it isn’t.

“obese” arbitrarily medicalises fatness

Fatness is medical. Fatness comes with a host of health problems. To say it’s not medical is some anti-science bullshit.

Latin equis? That sounds like something a stupid white anglo came up with without even thinking about how it would sound in Spanish.

Latinos is already gender neutral. But if you think that’s too male oriented at least use something that sounds good, like latines.

Latinx is fucking stupid. It makes no sense in either English or Spanish.

None of the words he listed are “slurs”, despite how much some people want them to be. They are just normal insults.

I’m autistic and if someone called me stupid I would probably be mad at them, but I wouldn’t consider it ableist. Unless the conversation has enough context that they’re using the word in reference to that.

Using “re[dacted]” or “autistic” as a stand in for words like stupid or dumb are ableist. Using stupid and dumb to attack someone for their mental disability is ableist. But stupid and dumb themselves aren’t.

It doesn’t have to be random and independent. If neither sibling has power over the other (any more than any other couple), one proposes it, and the other accepts despite never having thought about it before and perhaps after thinking about it after, there’s still no problem, that’s literally how consent works.

You could argue that since it’s illegal, victims who are already adults will be afraid to come forward since it was technically illegal for them too once they became adults.

But like I said, the compromise is making only same generation incest legal, or making a certain age difference illegal so stuff like siblings and cousins where it’s a lot less likely to be grooming are fine.

I can’t remember the specifics, but it’s something like women over 40 have just as much chance of producing a birth defect as incest. The real problem comes when incest is repeated for multiple generations, like royal families did. But that’s extremely unlikely without the “royal blood” concept anymore.

Abuse is abuse. It’s not consensual, and would still be treated as such. We have the same policy for workplaces, schools, and prisons like you said.

If most cases are abuse then those cases will still be illegal, but because they are abuse, not because they are incest.

A sort of compromise could be keeping inter-generational incest illegal, but not same generation. But still, setting the illegality criteria at actual abuse makes more sense to me.

(Hot?) take: consensual sex is consensual sex (minors can’t consent ofc). It might be gross to most people, but so is gay sex.