Discussion of airlines charging fat people more is the worst thread ever. June 19, 2002 4:31 PM Subscribe
Hatred, intolerance, name calling, scatology. This is easily one of the worst Metafilter threads I've ever seen.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- Brandon Blatcher
It started badly which seemed to set the tone for the rest of the thread.
posted by johnny novak at 5:02 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by johnny novak at 5:02 PM on June 19, 2002
I think a lot of this happens to be venting. If you ever get stuck next to an obese person cramped in your seat for a 4 hour flight that only serves you peanuts... you'd be pretty pissed to. Which isn't an excuse but it's where I'm guessing the anger is coming from. Homosexuals, diabetics, the handicapped, et al. don't cause discomfort.
Plus people see obesity as a result of laziness, lack of self control and other sins that this society really looks down on. Of course, people also make fun of all the other deadly sins. Calling people sluts, greedy, etc. It just so happens that gluttony is not the only cause of being fat.
posted by geoff. at 5:11 PM on June 19, 2002
Plus people see obesity as a result of laziness, lack of self control and other sins that this society really looks down on. Of course, people also make fun of all the other deadly sins. Calling people sluts, greedy, etc. It just so happens that gluttony is not the only cause of being fat.
posted by geoff. at 5:11 PM on June 19, 2002
Homosexuals, diabetics, the handicapped, et al. don't cause discomfort.
I want to live in your universe.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:25 PM on June 19, 2002
I want to live in your universe.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:25 PM on June 19, 2002
I suspect that fat is an issue that many people are not comfortable with, mainly as a consequence of the pressure we are put under to be thin by the media we consume. This is reflected in most of the posts from both sides of the debate.
Maybe we should all read again.
posted by johnny novak at 5:25 PM on June 19, 2002
Maybe we should all read again.
posted by johnny novak at 5:25 PM on June 19, 2002
Well, the thread would have been better off without the ad hominems, snarky reprisals, and other items of pure noise... I'm sure a lot of the posters in that thread can go back and find some things they said that didn't add anything to it (try it, I dare you).
Basically, it's a touchy subject. I think that people with a conflict of interest should not be allowed to comment, because they may take personal offense and stray from reasoned debate. And those that don't fully understand the subject shouldn't be allowed to comment either. So that rules out anyone who has has ever been overweight and anyone who has never been overweight...
posted by whatnotever at 5:59 PM on June 19, 2002
Basically, it's a touchy subject. I think that people with a conflict of interest should not be allowed to comment, because they may take personal offense and stray from reasoned debate. And those that don't fully understand the subject shouldn't be allowed to comment either. So that rules out anyone who has has ever been overweight and anyone who has never been overweight...
posted by whatnotever at 5:59 PM on June 19, 2002
You know, I don't log onto MeFi for two whole months, and this is practically the first thread I see.
Simply appalling.
Of course, I'm a bit touchy on this subject since two days ago I lost my job in part because of someone's admitted and irrational prejudice against fat people.
I don't think I'll come back. I hoped that things had gotten better, but I guess not.
posted by eilatan at 6:27 PM on June 19, 2002
Simply appalling.
Of course, I'm a bit touchy on this subject since two days ago I lost my job in part because of someone's admitted and irrational prejudice against fat people.
I don't think I'll come back. I hoped that things had gotten better, but I guess not.
posted by eilatan at 6:27 PM on June 19, 2002
I really enjoyed reading that thread. Like, an unhealthy amount of enjoyment. It spoke to the Springer-watcher in me. But I'll agree that it was basically a waste of bandwidth, and almost no good suggestions or ideas came from it. Perhaps we should label these threads as they happen with a cute little boxing-glove icon on the front page, as a warning for us to get a soda and a bag of chips -- and to disengage our brains -- before viewing the comments.
Or maybe it's just, as whatnotever said, a topic that brings the worst out of people. Let's just observe this thread for what it is -- specifically, crap -- and then move on. The attitudes and opinions of the participants of this thread probably haven't changed much, nor will they, no matter how much we talk about it here.
posted by Succa at 6:35 PM on June 19, 2002
Or maybe it's just, as whatnotever said, a topic that brings the worst out of people. Let's just observe this thread for what it is -- specifically, crap -- and then move on. The attitudes and opinions of the participants of this thread probably haven't changed much, nor will they, no matter how much we talk about it here.
posted by Succa at 6:35 PM on June 19, 2002
I avoided the thread, realizing that nothing I said was going to make the fat-o-phobes change their minds or opinions. But I tell ya, I know who's not getting invited to my house for lasagna. ;)
Seriously, in my heyday, I ate almost nothing but brown rice and steamed veggies, I was a gymnast and I worked out during almost every daylight hour...and I still needed speed to stay in competition weight. Now that I'm older and uninterested in working out 9 hours a day and have no interest in "fat pills", I have a body similar to Mae West. I'm not "fat"...but I"m not a skinny little fashion model either. Not counting the pregnancy weight, I could stand to lose 20 pounds...but I'm just not freaked out about it anymore. I spent almost 15 years throwing up or refusing to eat, and taking speed so I could stay so thin that my periods stopped...I'm done trying to please other people.
But people with the opinions expressed on that thread are why thousands and thousands of girls spend hours a day purging themselves, taking laxatives and getting speed from their doctors or coke from their dealers...all so they won't be judged morally lesser beings by people whom I'm sure are not Fabio in their own right.
I'm disgusted by the whole thing...and see a bunch of people in a whole new light.
posted by dejah420 at 6:53 PM on June 19, 2002
Seriously, in my heyday, I ate almost nothing but brown rice and steamed veggies, I was a gymnast and I worked out during almost every daylight hour...and I still needed speed to stay in competition weight. Now that I'm older and uninterested in working out 9 hours a day and have no interest in "fat pills", I have a body similar to Mae West. I'm not "fat"...but I"m not a skinny little fashion model either. Not counting the pregnancy weight, I could stand to lose 20 pounds...but I'm just not freaked out about it anymore. I spent almost 15 years throwing up or refusing to eat, and taking speed so I could stay so thin that my periods stopped...I'm done trying to please other people.
But people with the opinions expressed on that thread are why thousands and thousands of girls spend hours a day purging themselves, taking laxatives and getting speed from their doctors or coke from their dealers...all so they won't be judged morally lesser beings by people whom I'm sure are not Fabio in their own right.
I'm disgusted by the whole thing...and see a bunch of people in a whole new light.
posted by dejah420 at 6:53 PM on June 19, 2002
Really, although Frasermoo posted the comment that johnny novak points to as starting things badly, it was evanizer who crapped all over that thread with 'hatred, intolerance, name calling, scatology" etc.
"you're insensitive, brash and nasty....you must be the kind of guy...who chortles at kids in wheelchairs and screams at people in mental institutions to CHEER THE F**K UP....I wonder if there's a weight-related corrolary to homophobia?"
And on, and on.
People also seemed to have become confused about the difference between thinking something to yourself and saying it to someone.
posted by Catch at 7:05 PM on June 19, 2002
"you're insensitive, brash and nasty....you must be the kind of guy...who chortles at kids in wheelchairs and screams at people in mental institutions to CHEER THE F**K UP....I wonder if there's a weight-related corrolary to homophobia?"
And on, and on.
People also seemed to have become confused about the difference between thinking something to yourself and saying it to someone.
posted by Catch at 7:05 PM on June 19, 2002
"I have a body similar to Mae West"
Can I have an invitation to come up and see you for lasagna some time?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:06 PM on June 19, 2002
Can I have an invitation to come up and see you for lasagna some time?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:06 PM on June 19, 2002
Yeah, I tend to crap on people who moralize me into the ground with their phony concerns for my well-being, their ugly slurs, and their self-righteousness over being 'normal'. As I said in the thread, some of you sound like a group of basement preachers condemning the sinners to the fires of hell. Well, if that's the case, at least it will be hot enough down there to roast some chicken. And I hear saunas really melt off the pounds!
heh. I got a bit defensive and lost my temper... But put yourself in the position of anyone who has ever been moralized to about anything, and perhaps you'll understand why. I love this place and most of the people that contribute here, but this thread was almost a last straw for me here. The irrational hatred, baiting and moralistic disgust evinced by some of the posters is just too similar to everything I've tried to escape from in my life. You think that being fat is bad for you? Try being fat and gay and partially handicapped in a rural high school. If the impending heart attack that the learned lay physicians in the thread diagnosed don't kill you, you'll probably kill yourself from the pressure of enduring adolescence along with taunting and meanness that goes along with all three. I luckily escaped alive and reasonably together (after a few years of utter hell), so I don't intend to subject myself to it all again here at Metafilter.
posted by evanizer at 7:22 PM on June 19, 2002
heh. I got a bit defensive and lost my temper... But put yourself in the position of anyone who has ever been moralized to about anything, and perhaps you'll understand why. I love this place and most of the people that contribute here, but this thread was almost a last straw for me here. The irrational hatred, baiting and moralistic disgust evinced by some of the posters is just too similar to everything I've tried to escape from in my life. You think that being fat is bad for you? Try being fat and gay and partially handicapped in a rural high school. If the impending heart attack that the learned lay physicians in the thread diagnosed don't kill you, you'll probably kill yourself from the pressure of enduring adolescence along with taunting and meanness that goes along with all three. I luckily escaped alive and reasonably together (after a few years of utter hell), so I don't intend to subject myself to it all again here at Metafilter.
posted by evanizer at 7:22 PM on June 19, 2002
"put yourself in the position of anyone who has ever been moralized to about anything, and perhaps you'll understand why"
Sure. Cheers.
I'm glad for you that your epic struggles with life haven't made you bitter, or blind to other people's realities, or self righteous or stuff.
posted by Catch at 7:32 PM on June 19, 2002
Sure. Cheers.
I'm glad for you that your epic struggles with life haven't made you bitter, or blind to other people's realities, or self righteous or stuff.
posted by Catch at 7:32 PM on June 19, 2002
As regrettably dumb and often shrill as that thread was, I don't think it was that bad.
Evanizer, I'm sorry you had a bad childhood. Lots of us did. Time to let it go. I'm not trying to belittle your pain at all - I understand it, and empathize - and I understand you're upset, but I think you need to step back a bit.
Look at me, Mr Towering Rage, talking all reasonable-like. I know. Pot. Kettle. Etc.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:37 PM on June 19, 2002
Evanizer, I'm sorry you had a bad childhood. Lots of us did. Time to let it go. I'm not trying to belittle your pain at all - I understand it, and empathize - and I understand you're upset, but I think you need to step back a bit.
Look at me, Mr Towering Rage, talking all reasonable-like. I know. Pot. Kettle. Etc.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:37 PM on June 19, 2002
I thought we were all freaks here at MeFi. No, really.
posted by ColdChef at 7:43 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by ColdChef at 7:43 PM on June 19, 2002
That thread got personalized so quickly - there are comments in there from people who are overweight, not obese, and somehow they think they're being punished. Then you have the comments from others who have discovered it's an easy button to push.
The thread seems to me another great example of trolls at work. I know weight is a dicey subject, but if the posts upset you - well, posting your disgust isn't going to make anyone more sensitive to your plight.
I know some of you may act offended, but secretly you love the fighting. Otherwise those threads wouldn't grow so quickly.
posted by Salmonberry at 7:44 PM on June 19, 2002
The thread seems to me another great example of trolls at work. I know weight is a dicey subject, but if the posts upset you - well, posting your disgust isn't going to make anyone more sensitive to your plight.
I know some of you may act offended, but secretly you love the fighting. Otherwise those threads wouldn't grow so quickly.
posted by Salmonberry at 7:44 PM on June 19, 2002
But people with the opinions expressed on that thread are why thousands and thousands of girls spend hours a day purging themselves, taking laxatives and getting speed from their doctors or coke from their dealers...all so they won't be judged morally lesser beings by people whom I'm sure are not Fabio in their own right.
I've worked with a lot of friends and family members on their self-image issues, and I don't know that it helps to put all of the blame on the random meanies of the world. Everyone's subjected to intolerance, incivility, cruelty and unkindness. It's an individual's choice to even consider whether these non-Fabio's are judging them.
posted by anildash at 7:48 PM on June 19, 2002
I've worked with a lot of friends and family members on their self-image issues, and I don't know that it helps to put all of the blame on the random meanies of the world. Everyone's subjected to intolerance, incivility, cruelty and unkindness. It's an individual's choice to even consider whether these non-Fabio's are judging them.
posted by anildash at 7:48 PM on June 19, 2002
I thought we were all freaks here at MeFi. No, really.
Wise words. People come in all sizes and colours(hey, that's the beauty, right?) but I'd say most people here would fit beautifully into the "Unusual and Different To A Socially Significant Degree" category. So it's self-defeating to point at people who are overweight(or tall, short, homosexuals, socialists, geeks, drunks, vegans, Christians, et ceatera)and go: "You're different!". We all are. Deal with it, i.e. look at yourselves(specifically, at how others might look at you), you holier-than-thou dispensers of judgement and advice. Join the group and let's be done with the lot of you. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:06 PM on June 19, 2002
Wise words. People come in all sizes and colours(hey, that's the beauty, right?) but I'd say most people here would fit beautifully into the "Unusual and Different To A Socially Significant Degree" category. So it's self-defeating to point at people who are overweight(or tall, short, homosexuals, socialists, geeks, drunks, vegans, Christians, et ceatera)and go: "You're different!". We all are. Deal with it, i.e. look at yourselves(specifically, at how others might look at you), you holier-than-thou dispensers of judgement and advice. Join the group and let's be done with the lot of you. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:06 PM on June 19, 2002
Miguel, you're scaring me with the number of categories I do - or once did - fit in!
Other than that - what Senor Pulet di Fantasm said.
PS - No name calling! (...or, "why can't we all just get along?")
posted by dash_slot- at 8:22 PM on June 19, 2002
Other than that - what Senor Pulet di Fantasm said.
PS - No name calling! (...or, "why can't we all just get along?")
posted by dash_slot- at 8:22 PM on June 19, 2002
I'm glad for you that your epic struggles with life haven't made you bitter, or blind to other people's realities, or self righteous or stuff. --Catch
What, did you leave your sense of empathy at the door? Evanizer is obviously a little sensitive to the subject and when he makes an admittedly mild attempt at apology you come out with this? Maybe you left your sense of shame at the door, too.
posted by ashbury at 8:28 PM on June 19, 2002
What, did you leave your sense of empathy at the door? Evanizer is obviously a little sensitive to the subject and when he makes an admittedly mild attempt at apology you come out with this? Maybe you left your sense of shame at the door, too.
posted by ashbury at 8:28 PM on June 19, 2002
"What, did you leave your sense of empathy at the door? Evanizer is obviously a little sensitive to the subject and when he makes an admittedly mild attempt at apology you come out with this? Maybe you left your sense of shame at the door, too."
Oh, don't be such a bloody drama queen. Where did you leave your sense of proportion? In the men's room with Strunk 'n' White?
As for Evanizer, I see no apology. I see self-justification and smugness. You think my reaction to apology is bad? How 'bout this ?
posted by Catch at 8:40 PM on June 19, 2002
Oh, don't be such a bloody drama queen. Where did you leave your sense of proportion? In the men's room with Strunk 'n' White?
As for Evanizer, I see no apology. I see self-justification and smugness. You think my reaction to apology is bad? How 'bout this ?
posted by Catch at 8:40 PM on June 19, 2002
Rush, among others, felt OK saying what he did as long as he didn't have to think about the reaction of his audience.
Where did you come up with that? Anything I say, here, there or anywhere, I will say in any forum, before any audience. Obviously, I'm not going to go out of my way to insult people, but that's true whether they're standing in front of me or miles away, oblivious to my words. Either you misinterpreted what I said or are being quite insulting. In any group of 14,000 people, OBVIOUSLY some are going to be overweight. Some, very much so. So to imply that I "just didn't realize" that a portion of my audience was overweight and, therefore, possibly sensitive to the topic, is to imply that I'm stupid. Which you are free to believe, but don't hint at it--come right out and say it. My point was that I didn't know *which particular individuals* were overweight, and the corollary to that is that I didn't and don't care.
The fact of the matter is that I don't care about the nature of my audience as a generalized, amorphous whole. I do not feel it is my responsibility to dance around or deny outright what I feel to be simple facts just because some people may not feel able to deal with them. This is true in a thread about politics, computers, or the consequences of obesity, smoking, or joining the Polar Bear Club. I didn't temper my comments about smokers in the recent smoking thread, so why would I do so in a thread that touches on overweight people? It is an insult to overweight people to suggest that I should do so, as if to assume that they cannot handle such discussion and must necessarily be shielded from it. If someone is so sensitive to a topic that they cannot discuss it rationally--or hear it so discussed--then it is THEIR responsibility to avoid the discussion, not the participants' to censor it.
The amazing thing about that thread was how quickly some people personalized the discussion. I've already commented on this in-thread re: evanizer, but there were obviously others as well, though none so over-the-top and so quick to throw out the conventions of decency that we try to maintain for the site. The thread is not, and never was, about the fatness of particular individuals--certainly not of any MeFi members. If someone is compelled to redefine it in those terms, then I submit that they have a problem that has nothing to do with what anyone posted in that thread. The post was about the policy implemented by Southwest Airlines, and again, I fail to see how that policy can be rationally discussed without talking about the merits of the assumptions upon which they based the policy.
But, obviously, some people didn't want to discuss the issue. Some people wanted to shout down anyone with the temerity to not tow the PC party line that being obese is a perfectly rational and acceptable life choice, never to be discussed or open to debate, much less questioned.
I think it was made very clear early on that NO ONE was talking about that sub-section of the obese population that results from direct medical causes (though much shouting was done claiming that we were wronging them with our mean talk); nor was anyone talking about slightly overweight people, bearers of pot bellies, or the pudgy, plump, rotund or typically-American extra-large sized, which categories many of those protesting seem to fit within, to hear them tell it. The group being discussed was, rather, the one matched to the topic--those who do not fit in a single seat on an airplane. Even after the discussion moved to obesity in general, it was very clearly referenced to, as some bluntly put it, "gluttons;" in other words, those directly responsible for their own conditions. As I said recently in another thread, it is quite possible to acknowledge, understand, and even sympathize with something without condoning or approving of it.
Everyone is sensitive about something. Everyone has self-esteem issues, things about themselves they wish were different, things they have been picked on for or taunted about. But that does not give them the right to attempt to deny the community the right to even discuss those issues. It is ironic that those quickest to leap to the conclusion that people were calling them names and being derogatory toward them were the first to verbally attack those very same people, calling them all manner of names in an attempt to shame them into silence or shout them down. This is not in the spirit of open discourse, which supposedly this site is based upon.
As I said in thread, if people started abusing individual members because of their weight, or any other physical attribute, then I'd be among the first to condemn them. But that is IN NO WAY what occurred in this particular thread, and those who wish to portray it as such now are naught but damned revisionists.
posted by rushmc at 8:40 PM on June 19, 2002
Where did you come up with that? Anything I say, here, there or anywhere, I will say in any forum, before any audience. Obviously, I'm not going to go out of my way to insult people, but that's true whether they're standing in front of me or miles away, oblivious to my words. Either you misinterpreted what I said or are being quite insulting. In any group of 14,000 people, OBVIOUSLY some are going to be overweight. Some, very much so. So to imply that I "just didn't realize" that a portion of my audience was overweight and, therefore, possibly sensitive to the topic, is to imply that I'm stupid. Which you are free to believe, but don't hint at it--come right out and say it. My point was that I didn't know *which particular individuals* were overweight, and the corollary to that is that I didn't and don't care.
The fact of the matter is that I don't care about the nature of my audience as a generalized, amorphous whole. I do not feel it is my responsibility to dance around or deny outright what I feel to be simple facts just because some people may not feel able to deal with them. This is true in a thread about politics, computers, or the consequences of obesity, smoking, or joining the Polar Bear Club. I didn't temper my comments about smokers in the recent smoking thread, so why would I do so in a thread that touches on overweight people? It is an insult to overweight people to suggest that I should do so, as if to assume that they cannot handle such discussion and must necessarily be shielded from it. If someone is so sensitive to a topic that they cannot discuss it rationally--or hear it so discussed--then it is THEIR responsibility to avoid the discussion, not the participants' to censor it.
The amazing thing about that thread was how quickly some people personalized the discussion. I've already commented on this in-thread re: evanizer, but there were obviously others as well, though none so over-the-top and so quick to throw out the conventions of decency that we try to maintain for the site. The thread is not, and never was, about the fatness of particular individuals--certainly not of any MeFi members. If someone is compelled to redefine it in those terms, then I submit that they have a problem that has nothing to do with what anyone posted in that thread. The post was about the policy implemented by Southwest Airlines, and again, I fail to see how that policy can be rationally discussed without talking about the merits of the assumptions upon which they based the policy.
But, obviously, some people didn't want to discuss the issue. Some people wanted to shout down anyone with the temerity to not tow the PC party line that being obese is a perfectly rational and acceptable life choice, never to be discussed or open to debate, much less questioned.
I think it was made very clear early on that NO ONE was talking about that sub-section of the obese population that results from direct medical causes (though much shouting was done claiming that we were wronging them with our mean talk); nor was anyone talking about slightly overweight people, bearers of pot bellies, or the pudgy, plump, rotund or typically-American extra-large sized, which categories many of those protesting seem to fit within, to hear them tell it. The group being discussed was, rather, the one matched to the topic--those who do not fit in a single seat on an airplane. Even after the discussion moved to obesity in general, it was very clearly referenced to, as some bluntly put it, "gluttons;" in other words, those directly responsible for their own conditions. As I said recently in another thread, it is quite possible to acknowledge, understand, and even sympathize with something without condoning or approving of it.
Everyone is sensitive about something. Everyone has self-esteem issues, things about themselves they wish were different, things they have been picked on for or taunted about. But that does not give them the right to attempt to deny the community the right to even discuss those issues. It is ironic that those quickest to leap to the conclusion that people were calling them names and being derogatory toward them were the first to verbally attack those very same people, calling them all manner of names in an attempt to shame them into silence or shout them down. This is not in the spirit of open discourse, which supposedly this site is based upon.
As I said in thread, if people started abusing individual members because of their weight, or any other physical attribute, then I'd be among the first to condemn them. But that is IN NO WAY what occurred in this particular thread, and those who wish to portray it as such now are naught but damned revisionists.
posted by rushmc at 8:40 PM on June 19, 2002
Evanizer is obviously a little sensitive to the subject and when he makes an admittedly mild attempt at apology you come out with this?
He is, and I feel for him, but that does NOT NOT NOT IN ANY WAY give him the right to shit upon the thread, its participants, or this community. Did you miss his threats of physical violence, perchance? Out of line.
posted by rushmc at 8:43 PM on June 19, 2002
He is, and I feel for him, but that does NOT NOT NOT IN ANY WAY give him the right to shit upon the thread, its participants, or this community. Did you miss his threats of physical violence, perchance? Out of line.
posted by rushmc at 8:43 PM on June 19, 2002
This thread was yet another example of degradation-due-to-ad hominem. Frasermoo and evanizer's comments were among the ones that sent it spiralling into flames, whereas posts by rushmc, insomnyuk and subgenius, for instance, focused on the issues instead of invective. The recent evolution thread shows what it looks like when personal attacks are for the most part left out of the discussion, and the results are terrific.
posted by Marquis at 8:46 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by Marquis at 8:46 PM on June 19, 2002
People come in all sizes and colours...
Nice sentiments, Miguel, and I am in total accord with them. However, they in no way address what occurred in the thread.
I say again, if people are incapable of rationally discussing a topic, for whatever reasons, be they personal or otherwise, they should not attempt to do so, and they should CERTAINLY not attempt to interfere with those who do wish to do so. It's like the guy who sent me the email filled with bile, invective, and death wishes because I failed to concede his political point in an area he was a little too close to emotionally.
If someone wishes to condemn everyone who dares to acknowledge the existence and reality of obesity and to discuss it openly as a hate-filled bigot and bully out to make them miserable, there's nothing I can do about it--they are free to think so. But I am equally free to think them irrational, self-absorbed, and incapable of separating their thoughts and their feelings.
posted by rushmc at 8:51 PM on June 19, 2002
Nice sentiments, Miguel, and I am in total accord with them. However, they in no way address what occurred in the thread.
I say again, if people are incapable of rationally discussing a topic, for whatever reasons, be they personal or otherwise, they should not attempt to do so, and they should CERTAINLY not attempt to interfere with those who do wish to do so. It's like the guy who sent me the email filled with bile, invective, and death wishes because I failed to concede his political point in an area he was a little too close to emotionally.
If someone wishes to condemn everyone who dares to acknowledge the existence and reality of obesity and to discuss it openly as a hate-filled bigot and bully out to make them miserable, there's nothing I can do about it--they are free to think so. But I am equally free to think them irrational, self-absorbed, and incapable of separating their thoughts and their feelings.
posted by rushmc at 8:51 PM on June 19, 2002
The fastest way to make yourself look stupid is to threaten violence on the internet. I'm big and mean and i'll beat you up!
Wait, I forgot about randomly throwing out the word 'lefty'.
posted by zzero at 8:58 PM on June 19, 2002
Wait, I forgot about randomly throwing out the word 'lefty'.
posted by zzero at 8:58 PM on June 19, 2002
Fair enough, rushmc, but I don't think you're being as rational about this as you believe.
Your statement that "people have the right to choose to become or accept being overweight, or to not do the things that it would take to not be overweight (dietary changes, exercise programs, etc.)" is not an informed statement about obesity.
posted by rcade at 9:05 PM on June 19, 2002
Your statement that "people have the right to choose to become or accept being overweight, or to not do the things that it would take to not be overweight (dietary changes, exercise programs, etc.)" is not an informed statement about obesity.
posted by rcade at 9:05 PM on June 19, 2002
As someone who spent her teen years throwing up and snorting coke to stay skinny, AND as a woman who gained 60 pounds while pregnant and struggled to take them off, I can speak from both ends of the spectrum. Moderation here is the key people - it is not about how you look but what you are doing to your body.
Somewhere in the ranting commentary in this post the point that was being discussed was lost which was in fact, should an airline charge more for people who need more space. I say absolutely. Why? Because I was once one of those people who bought ONE seat with an infant (and a carrier I might add along with diaper bag and toys) and prayed for a less than full flight. My prayers were not answered and I felt terrible that my stuff (not to mention me and my child) encroached on other people's space. No one said anything to me but they would have been justified if they had. Take away the baby and the items and replace that with my person - would they have STILL had the right to complain? Yes. For really it is the same thing. This is NOT about fat or thin. Bitching about airline seat size is ridiculous. Accusing each other of prejudice because of a right to your own personal space and the airlines recognizing that right by requiring you to buy enough seat to comfortably hold your bulk is a GOOD idea. I am not thrilled by the ruling that the airlines can prejudge you based on a single look but I think they should have weight spans and if you fall in that range you pay more. I think they should require people with infants under two to purchase two seats as you DO need the space even if the baby can fit on your lap.
This is about respecting others. This is not a fat/thin, tall/short, whatever issue. It got nasty in the thread because someone's toes were stepped on for some silly name calling. This was not supposed to be a fat hating post - rather it became that way because of one post and a massive flame war the ensued.
Obesity is a problem in America. If you eat too much and do not exercise you will gain weight. The time I traveled while pregnant in my seventh month I YEARNED for that extra seat even though I fit quite well in my own. I cannot IMAGINE carrying more weight than that and squeezing into an airline seat with any dignity and without taking over another person's space. Get away from the insecurities here folks and admit that obesity is a space issue in public transportation and a health issue in life and nothing more... then if you do not like the fact that you are obese, then lose the weight. Do not spew vitriol online to justify unhealthy lifestyle habits.
posted by gloege at 9:20 PM on June 19, 2002 [1 favorite]
Somewhere in the ranting commentary in this post the point that was being discussed was lost which was in fact, should an airline charge more for people who need more space. I say absolutely. Why? Because I was once one of those people who bought ONE seat with an infant (and a carrier I might add along with diaper bag and toys) and prayed for a less than full flight. My prayers were not answered and I felt terrible that my stuff (not to mention me and my child) encroached on other people's space. No one said anything to me but they would have been justified if they had. Take away the baby and the items and replace that with my person - would they have STILL had the right to complain? Yes. For really it is the same thing. This is NOT about fat or thin. Bitching about airline seat size is ridiculous. Accusing each other of prejudice because of a right to your own personal space and the airlines recognizing that right by requiring you to buy enough seat to comfortably hold your bulk is a GOOD idea. I am not thrilled by the ruling that the airlines can prejudge you based on a single look but I think they should have weight spans and if you fall in that range you pay more. I think they should require people with infants under two to purchase two seats as you DO need the space even if the baby can fit on your lap.
This is about respecting others. This is not a fat/thin, tall/short, whatever issue. It got nasty in the thread because someone's toes were stepped on for some silly name calling. This was not supposed to be a fat hating post - rather it became that way because of one post and a massive flame war the ensued.
Obesity is a problem in America. If you eat too much and do not exercise you will gain weight. The time I traveled while pregnant in my seventh month I YEARNED for that extra seat even though I fit quite well in my own. I cannot IMAGINE carrying more weight than that and squeezing into an airline seat with any dignity and without taking over another person's space. Get away from the insecurities here folks and admit that obesity is a space issue in public transportation and a health issue in life and nothing more... then if you do not like the fact that you are obese, then lose the weight. Do not spew vitriol online to justify unhealthy lifestyle habits.
posted by gloege at 9:20 PM on June 19, 2002 [1 favorite]
The group being discussed was, rather, the one matched to the topic--those who do not fit in a single seat on an airplane
I thought an interesting point was brought up several times in the thread - that the airlines, by determining the seat size are thus dividing us into fat and non-fat or tall and not-tall. Talk about a social construct that creates divisiveness.
People who do not fit into aircarrier-defined seats should lose weight, godammit!! Is that the right attitude?
posted by vacapinta at 9:30 PM on June 19, 2002
I thought an interesting point was brought up several times in the thread - that the airlines, by determining the seat size are thus dividing us into fat and non-fat or tall and not-tall. Talk about a social construct that creates divisiveness.
People who do not fit into aircarrier-defined seats should lose weight, godammit!! Is that the right attitude?
posted by vacapinta at 9:30 PM on June 19, 2002
The fact of the matter is that I don't care about the nature of my audience as a generalized, amorphous whole.
Unless I've seen a picture of the subject, I imagine they look like me, in a malkovichesque sort of way.
Also, hear hear to what gloege has said.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:43 PM on June 19, 2002
Unless I've seen a picture of the subject, I imagine they look like me, in a malkovichesque sort of way.
Also, hear hear to what gloege has said.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:43 PM on June 19, 2002
Anything I say, here, there or anywhere, I will say in any forum, before any audience.
OK then Rush. I guess I thought you would think of people's feelings. It's fine that you don't, and it's probably why you are a much better debater than I. I can't not think of stuff like that.
But I will say that if you were saying what you said to people in person instead of through this site, many would consider you to be at the very least thoughtless and rude.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:22 PM on June 19, 2002
OK then Rush. I guess I thought you would think of people's feelings. It's fine that you don't, and it's probably why you are a much better debater than I. I can't not think of stuff like that.
But I will say that if you were saying what you said to people in person instead of through this site, many would consider you to be at the very least thoughtless and rude.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:22 PM on June 19, 2002
OK maybe just rude. You seem like a thinker.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:22 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:22 PM on June 19, 2002
Were I to avail myself of various minor cosmetic surgeries, I could be startlingly handsome. Were I to acquaint myself with free weights at the local Gold's, I could sculpt my lean bod into chiseled magnificence. With proper training, I could become a more robust lover. My IQ promises an intellectual power which my intellectual laziness will never permit me to enjoy. I have a natural musical talent which will never be nurtured past mediocrity. I cheat at games. I lie.
IOW, I suck in many curable ways.
Yet my deficiencies are never met with spontaneous derision or disgust.
Just lucky, I guess.
There will be a pill. It will be called 'Physicality'.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:50 PM on June 19, 2002
IOW, I suck in many curable ways.
Yet my deficiencies are never met with spontaneous derision or disgust.
Just lucky, I guess.
There will be a pill. It will be called 'Physicality'.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:50 PM on June 19, 2002
Nowadays on Mefi, everybody gets offended by every little damn thing. Slowly but surely we're building this asinine Nerfworld.
posted by owillis at 10:57 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:57 PM on June 19, 2002
Nowadays on Mefi, everybody gets offended by every little damn thing.
As egos discover less rational reason to exalt themselves, any irrational reason will do.
posted by Opus Dark at 11:06 PM on June 19, 2002
As egos discover less rational reason to exalt themselves, any irrational reason will do.
posted by Opus Dark at 11:06 PM on June 19, 2002
FFF, Frasermoo, rush and others, you sound like a bunch of puritans on a tirade against blasphemers and sinners
- Thanks evanizer, I don't recall making any references to anyone personally but you obviously feel the need to because you also called me insensitive, brash and nasty
Nice one.
As for my initial post, it stands as a comedic anecdote with undertones of concern for the state of some people I had encountered, and if you had trouble seeing that then go smoke a joint and rent a Bill Hicks video.
posted by Frasermoo at 1:15 AM on June 20, 2002
- Thanks evanizer, I don't recall making any references to anyone personally but you obviously feel the need to because you also called me insensitive, brash and nasty
Nice one.
As for my initial post, it stands as a comedic anecdote with undertones of concern for the state of some people I had encountered, and if you had trouble seeing that then go smoke a joint and rent a Bill Hicks video.
posted by Frasermoo at 1:15 AM on June 20, 2002
Fraser. It's not my responsibility to supply my own context and inflection and little wink-nudge to your, allegedly, tongue-in-cheek posts. It's yours. I submit that maybe your Bill Hicks impression really fucking sucks, or that maybe it doesn't translate well on the web, or that maybe MAYBE MAYBE there's a time and place for everything, and the time and place for joking yet extremely brash condemnation of "incredibly fat" "DUMB F*CKS" was NOT two posts into a thread where the poster had specifically requested that we all attempt to discuss the matter at hand without resorting to the predictable and embarrassing hatefests that MeFi weight-related posts always become.
You people who are the width of three hairs quivering with indignance from screaming THOUGHT POLICE, THOUGHT POLICE: no one's asking you to go deny that an overweight person can have health problems, only that you refrain from insulting him while you're busy being oh-so-concerned about his health. Not that concern for his health has anything to do with the issue of whether he should be paying more money to fly Southwest, which is really the most embarrassing aspect of this whole debacle, and why you quiverers aren't anything near to plausibility when you rail about how your valuable and shockingly true opinions are being stifled by the politically correct regime.
posted by Sapphireblue at 1:31 AM on June 20, 2002
You people who are the width of three hairs quivering with indignance from screaming THOUGHT POLICE, THOUGHT POLICE: no one's asking you to go deny that an overweight person can have health problems, only that you refrain from insulting him while you're busy being oh-so-concerned about his health. Not that concern for his health has anything to do with the issue of whether he should be paying more money to fly Southwest, which is really the most embarrassing aspect of this whole debacle, and why you quiverers aren't anything near to plausibility when you rail about how your valuable and shockingly true opinions are being stifled by the politically correct regime.
posted by Sapphireblue at 1:31 AM on June 20, 2002
hey, I was being sarcastic. If you had trouble seeing that...
well, you know the rest.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:01 AM on June 20, 2002
well, you know the rest.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:01 AM on June 20, 2002
Talk about a social construct that creates divisiveness.
Very good point.
posted by adampsyche at 4:07 AM on June 20, 2002
Very good point.
posted by adampsyche at 4:07 AM on June 20, 2002
Frasermoo to Sapphireblue: "yeah, it's the lowest form of wit."
ack ack
posted by Catch at 4:10 AM on June 20, 2002
ack ack
posted by Catch at 4:10 AM on June 20, 2002
The thread is not, and never was, about the fatness of particular individuals
Ah, but the original post indeed was not an open call to yet again walk us down the primrose path of discussing fatness in America as its own topic, but that's where we ended up. Almostcool asked: "Is this a legitimate charge, discrimination, or are seats simply built too small in airplanes these days?". There were several posts which addressed that question, even after Frasermoo's post rife with stereotype, supposition, Fat Americans jabs, and a nasty display of the judgmental, self-righteous, intrusive attitude that set the negative tone to the thread and left a bad taste in many mouths. That many posters were able to get past that is to their credit.
But eventually, we started devolving, and it was no longer about whether or not this policy is appropriate, it was about the peril of travelling near the fat and then the chuga-chuga-fat's-sooo-bad train seemed to be gaining speed, and of course the attempts to shout the train down started as well, because many of us realise that the last thing MeFi needed or ever needs again is another morality of fat thread.
If being fat is a moral failing, so is being nastily rude to or about strangers, creating completely phony "statistics" to back up your prejudices, and choosing not to respect people because they've made personal choices which do not have one iota of effect upon you.
We've been there, done that, (as almostcool mentioned in the OP) . We've talked about it here before, too. It's the same old, same old, it's like I/P and SUVs, because some people just seem to be intrinsically incapable of withholding their "moralizing" on the overall issue, even when that requires a complete hijack of the thread. And that's just plainly pathetic.
posted by Dreama at 4:18 AM on June 20, 2002
Ah, but the original post indeed was not an open call to yet again walk us down the primrose path of discussing fatness in America as its own topic, but that's where we ended up. Almostcool asked: "Is this a legitimate charge, discrimination, or are seats simply built too small in airplanes these days?". There were several posts which addressed that question, even after Frasermoo's post rife with stereotype, supposition, Fat Americans jabs, and a nasty display of the judgmental, self-righteous, intrusive attitude that set the negative tone to the thread and left a bad taste in many mouths. That many posters were able to get past that is to their credit.
But eventually, we started devolving, and it was no longer about whether or not this policy is appropriate, it was about the peril of travelling near the fat and then the chuga-chuga-fat's-sooo-bad train seemed to be gaining speed, and of course the attempts to shout the train down started as well, because many of us realise that the last thing MeFi needed or ever needs again is another morality of fat thread.
If being fat is a moral failing, so is being nastily rude to or about strangers, creating completely phony "statistics" to back up your prejudices, and choosing not to respect people because they've made personal choices which do not have one iota of effect upon you.
We've been there, done that, (as almostcool mentioned in the OP) . We've talked about it here before, too. It's the same old, same old, it's like I/P and SUVs, because some people just seem to be intrinsically incapable of withholding their "moralizing" on the overall issue, even when that requires a complete hijack of the thread. And that's just plainly pathetic.
posted by Dreama at 4:18 AM on June 20, 2002
"It's not my responsibility to supply my own context and inflection and little wink-nudge to your, allegedly, tongue-in-cheek posts. It's yours."
"hey, I was being sarcastic. If you had trouble seeing that... "
Fantastic SapphireBlue. Did you even have time to draw breath before contradicting yourself? (But of course it won't count when you do it and if I have trouble figuring that out etc. etc. etc.)
Oh and well said, owillis.
posted by jackiemcghee at 4:22 AM on June 20, 2002
"hey, I was being sarcastic. If you had trouble seeing that... "
Fantastic SapphireBlue. Did you even have time to draw breath before contradicting yourself? (But of course it won't count when you do it and if I have trouble figuring that out etc. etc. etc.)
Oh and well said, owillis.
posted by jackiemcghee at 4:22 AM on June 20, 2002
I though I was on the "Last Word" but that's a sports show on Fox, or this is a sport at MF. Can we say together"I don't always have to be RIGHT"
posted by thomcatspike at 5:22 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by thomcatspike at 5:22 AM on June 20, 2002
Arggg, my "t" in thought , I forgot.
posted by thomcatspike at 5:23 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by thomcatspike at 5:23 AM on June 20, 2002
Catch, I wasn't talking about evanizer's inability to accept an apology, I was talking about your seeming lack of sensitivity to a person who, rightly or wrongly, feels a little abused by comments in a thread. He may not be your friend but that doesn't mean that you can walk all over his emotions.
Oh, don't be such a bloody drama queen. Where did you leave your sense of proportion? In the men's room with Strunk 'n' White?- Catch
If you're implying that I'm gay, I'm not--I'm not a drama queen, nor did I leave anything in any men's room but the things one would normally leave there, but thanks for thinking of me.
He is, (in reference to his sensitivity to the topic) and I feel for him, but that does NOT NOT NOT IN ANY WAY give him the right to shit upon the thread, its participants, or this community. Did you miss his threats of physical violence, perchance? Out of line. --rushmc
As a matter of fact, I did miss his threats of physical violence--it's a big thread. He was wrong to do so. I'm glad that you feel for him. I know that you prefer to debate without any emotion but sometimes it's good to know that, your position in that debate notwithstanding, you do have some sort of positive feeling for the person that you're discussing. I realize that you would also prefer that those who can't discuss things rationally stay out of the discussion--sometimes it's hard to remain calm when the subject matter is so personal. This doesn't mean that what they say, couched as it is, isn't valid. It's how we react to them when they do go a little crazy that shows we understand them and their motivations.
posted by ashbury at 5:37 AM on June 20, 2002
Oh, don't be such a bloody drama queen. Where did you leave your sense of proportion? In the men's room with Strunk 'n' White?- Catch
If you're implying that I'm gay, I'm not--I'm not a drama queen, nor did I leave anything in any men's room but the things one would normally leave there, but thanks for thinking of me.
He is, (in reference to his sensitivity to the topic) and I feel for him, but that does NOT NOT NOT IN ANY WAY give him the right to shit upon the thread, its participants, or this community. Did you miss his threats of physical violence, perchance? Out of line. --rushmc
As a matter of fact, I did miss his threats of physical violence--it's a big thread. He was wrong to do so. I'm glad that you feel for him. I know that you prefer to debate without any emotion but sometimes it's good to know that, your position in that debate notwithstanding, you do have some sort of positive feeling for the person that you're discussing. I realize that you would also prefer that those who can't discuss things rationally stay out of the discussion--sometimes it's hard to remain calm when the subject matter is so personal. This doesn't mean that what they say, couched as it is, isn't valid. It's how we react to them when they do go a little crazy that shows we understand them and their motivations.
posted by ashbury at 5:37 AM on June 20, 2002
Airplane experiences are strange things to quantify. The rules of decent behavior get thrown out the window because it is one of the few times in our lives where most of us give up total control to someone nebulous authority - STAND IN THIS LINE, MAKE NO JOKES, WAIT YOUR TURN, STAND BACK AND BE QUIET, SIT DOWN, NO YOU CANNOT USE THE RESTROOM, BUCKLE THAT BELT....ok, now you can get out of this sickening little tube and go home. It is like nothing that we deal with each day, unless we are logging into MF from Cell Block D (which I doubt).
The point is that air travel can easily bring out the worst in us because we are clamoring for control. Have you ever questioned why everyone clamors for their overhead luggage as soon as the fasten seat belt goes off? Because now they have control again. The same holds true to our personal space in an airline with regards to large people; we cannot control so many things, but we can lash out at the persons who we can snark at without retribution - obese people, parents with loud babies, drunks and other annoying types. Pick your poison.
I see an obese/airline seat thread, and I stand to the side because it is already too laced with vitriol from the dehumanizing aspects of airline travel that we are forced to endure at the hands of the airlines in the first place.
posted by lampshade at 6:18 AM on June 20, 2002
The point is that air travel can easily bring out the worst in us because we are clamoring for control. Have you ever questioned why everyone clamors for their overhead luggage as soon as the fasten seat belt goes off? Because now they have control again. The same holds true to our personal space in an airline with regards to large people; we cannot control so many things, but we can lash out at the persons who we can snark at without retribution - obese people, parents with loud babies, drunks and other annoying types. Pick your poison.
I see an obese/airline seat thread, and I stand to the side because it is already too laced with vitriol from the dehumanizing aspects of airline travel that we are forced to endure at the hands of the airlines in the first place.
posted by lampshade at 6:18 AM on June 20, 2002
Your statement that "people have the right to choose to become or accept being overweight, or to not do the things that it would take to not be overweight (dietary changes, exercise programs, etc.)" is not an informed statement about obesity.
So it is your belief, rcade, that ALL obesity is the result of causal medical conditions, that the well-known bad eating habits rampant in our society do not contribute to it at all, and that it is inevitable that unless we happen to have the Callista Flockhart genes and/or spend all our time vomiting up our meals, we are all doomed to be significantly overweight?
Once again, you are changing the scope of the discussion, so of course it becomes indefensible. No one, least of all me, is saying that all obese people would be svelte if they quit eating so much. But I defy you to prove that *some* wouldn't. I have obese family members, and I have seen EXACTLY how they got there over the years. It's not rocket science.
posted by rushmc at 6:46 AM on June 20, 2002
So it is your belief, rcade, that ALL obesity is the result of causal medical conditions, that the well-known bad eating habits rampant in our society do not contribute to it at all, and that it is inevitable that unless we happen to have the Callista Flockhart genes and/or spend all our time vomiting up our meals, we are all doomed to be significantly overweight?
Once again, you are changing the scope of the discussion, so of course it becomes indefensible. No one, least of all me, is saying that all obese people would be svelte if they quit eating so much. But I defy you to prove that *some* wouldn't. I have obese family members, and I have seen EXACTLY how they got there over the years. It's not rocket science.
posted by rushmc at 6:46 AM on June 20, 2002
Moderation here is the key people - it is not about how you look but what you are doing to your body...This is about respecting others. This is not a fat/thin, tall/short, whatever issue...
Excellent post, gloege. Prepare to be villified.
posted by rushmc at 6:49 AM on June 20, 2002
Excellent post, gloege. Prepare to be villified.
posted by rushmc at 6:49 AM on June 20, 2002
People who do not fit into aircarrier-defined seats should lose weight, godammit!! Is that the right attitude?
No, but they should buy two seats.
posted by rushmc at 6:50 AM on June 20, 2002
No, but they should buy two seats.
posted by rushmc at 6:50 AM on June 20, 2002
So it is your belief, rcade, that ALL obesity is the result of causal medical conditions,
rushmc, you're putting words in rcade's mouth. He didn't say "all", but the poster to whom his comments were addressed failed to qualify his comment either, with the "most" or "many" that it required. The original comment was overbroad, and therefore uninformed, as rcade rightly acknowledged. It was a generalization. That does not mean, nor does the acknowledgement imply, that only the diametric opposite of that statement is accurate.
posted by Dreama at 6:56 AM on June 20, 2002
rushmc, you're putting words in rcade's mouth. He didn't say "all", but the poster to whom his comments were addressed failed to qualify his comment either, with the "most" or "many" that it required. The original comment was overbroad, and therefore uninformed, as rcade rightly acknowledged. It was a generalization. That does not mean, nor does the acknowledgement imply, that only the diametric opposite of that statement is accurate.
posted by Dreama at 6:56 AM on June 20, 2002
But I will say that if you were saying what you said to people in person instead of through this site, many would consider you to be at the very least thoughtless and rude.
Why, kafkaesque? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to discuss matters of weight with anyone who is overweight? I can't accept that. Would you claim that it is equally impossible to discuss heart disease with people suffering from heart disease? anorexia with anorexics? etc., etc.? because they are somehow innately too sensitive to discuss the matter rationally?
It seems to me that dialogue with those with first-hand experience of a particular condition is extremely valuable and informative and should not be shunned out of some misguided attempt to "protect their feelings." That's patronizing. No one is suggesting pointing at them and shouting "fattie! fattie!" for god's sake! We're talking about a calm, rational discussion of the problem!
And in this case, it wasn't even a case of seeking a discussion of weight with specific overweight people, but rather with an anonymous group of individuals of indeterminate size. And yet, even that is deemed unreasonable in the minds of certain people.
posted by rushmc at 6:58 AM on June 20, 2002
Why, kafkaesque? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to discuss matters of weight with anyone who is overweight? I can't accept that. Would you claim that it is equally impossible to discuss heart disease with people suffering from heart disease? anorexia with anorexics? etc., etc.? because they are somehow innately too sensitive to discuss the matter rationally?
It seems to me that dialogue with those with first-hand experience of a particular condition is extremely valuable and informative and should not be shunned out of some misguided attempt to "protect their feelings." That's patronizing. No one is suggesting pointing at them and shouting "fattie! fattie!" for god's sake! We're talking about a calm, rational discussion of the problem!
And in this case, it wasn't even a case of seeking a discussion of weight with specific overweight people, but rather with an anonymous group of individuals of indeterminate size. And yet, even that is deemed unreasonable in the minds of certain people.
posted by rushmc at 6:58 AM on June 20, 2002
You people who are the width of three hairs
Now who is judging people on the way they look, rather than the value of their arguments? And in language intended to insult, no less. (Plus, you make some wild and baseless assumptions.) Pot, kettle.
posted by rushmc at 7:01 AM on June 20, 2002
Now who is judging people on the way they look, rather than the value of their arguments? And in language intended to insult, no less. (Plus, you make some wild and baseless assumptions.) Pot, kettle.
posted by rushmc at 7:01 AM on June 20, 2002
Ah, but the original post indeed was not an open call to yet again walk us down the primrose path of discussing fatness in America as its own topic, but that's where we ended up.
And I submit that we ended up where we did because some people were forced to defend their statements from the rancid abuse and misinterpretation of certain others, not because anyone set out to derail the thread and rag on the obese. If someone's comment is mischaracterized, they have the right to set the record straight; if they do not, that is tantamount to acknowledging the misinterpretation.
posted by rushmc at 7:04 AM on June 20, 2002
And I submit that we ended up where we did because some people were forced to defend their statements from the rancid abuse and misinterpretation of certain others, not because anyone set out to derail the thread and rag on the obese. If someone's comment is mischaracterized, they have the right to set the record straight; if they do not, that is tantamount to acknowledging the misinterpretation.
posted by rushmc at 7:04 AM on June 20, 2002
and choosing not to respect people because they've made personal choices which do not have one iota of effect upon you.
Ah, but THERE is your topic! The whole focus of the thread was that some people's personal choices DO affect us when they do not purchase a second seat on an airplane and demand to share our already-way-too-small seats.
posted by rushmc at 7:06 AM on June 20, 2002
Ah, but THERE is your topic! The whole focus of the thread was that some people's personal choices DO affect us when they do not purchase a second seat on an airplane and demand to share our already-way-too-small seats.
posted by rushmc at 7:06 AM on June 20, 2002
Those of you seeking extra-credit points with your Junior Debate Squad captain for debating the validity of sarcasm as a rhetorical device are more than welcome to do so. I, personally, don't care whether or not anyone uses sarcasm, but I do have a problem with sarcasm or other "but-I-didn't-REALLY-mean-it" devices when they're used as a disguise for prejudicial ridicule of People Different From You, particularly as done on the heels of a request *not* to do so.
Fraser, I do believe you've gotten lost on your journey to the intellectual high road. Do tell, what is the highest form of wit? Poking fun at fatties? Racing to be the first to blatantly disregard a call for civility? Or possibly, could it be, responding to my post without actually addressing my point at all? Here's another Junior Debate vocabulary word which you may find useful: smokescreen. Your evasive little snark of a response to my post does nothing to convince me that you didn't go into that thread looking to stir up some shit. I do hope you're pleased with your success.
(preview: hi, again, rush; are you actually serious, or heckling me for your own amusement again? Nice snip, but the actual phrase was "the width of three hairs ... from screaming THOUGHT POLICE". hope that helps.)
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:24 AM on June 20, 2002
Fraser, I do believe you've gotten lost on your journey to the intellectual high road. Do tell, what is the highest form of wit? Poking fun at fatties? Racing to be the first to blatantly disregard a call for civility? Or possibly, could it be, responding to my post without actually addressing my point at all? Here's another Junior Debate vocabulary word which you may find useful: smokescreen. Your evasive little snark of a response to my post does nothing to convince me that you didn't go into that thread looking to stir up some shit. I do hope you're pleased with your success.
(preview: hi, again, rush; are you actually serious, or heckling me for your own amusement again? Nice snip, but the actual phrase was "the width of three hairs ... from screaming THOUGHT POLICE". hope that helps.)
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:24 AM on June 20, 2002
Hey Rush read my post above again and then again, because you go on an on and on, I give up...............you win now can we let it rest. I took a middle of the road, as I'm not really affected whether I sit next to a fat person or a small person. I have the room either way. The only way someone that big would intrude on my "space", they would not fit through the door to begin. My views of you or anyone else is not the discussion. I think lampshade is your "Frazier Crane", sorry lamp to pull your chord into this as your points are correct. Maybe we should have a thread "What sucks about air travel" yet we didn't it was if you agreed about a policy regardless if they are right or wrong...... maybe we need to have a multiple choices only when posting, then we can just be a number and be one. And no I'm not going to argue with you........ :).
posted by thomcatspike at 7:35 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by thomcatspike at 7:35 AM on June 20, 2002
Typical crap. I don't need to take an intellectual high road to satisfy any self-pities I may have for myself. I don't have to wrap myself up in cotton wool, stick my fingers in my ear and tell myself 'everything is going to be alright', because let's face it, it probably aint. The world has gone banana's and a healthy dose of sarcasm goes down my gullet very easily with a healthy dose of realism.
Now if you'll excuse, I'm back to my lab to work on a machine that hoovers up virtual eggshells.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:36 AM on June 20, 2002
Now if you'll excuse, I'm back to my lab to work on a machine that hoovers up virtual eggshells.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:36 AM on June 20, 2002
thomcat, that was not aimed at you, but don't tell me when to let it lie. The thread is still open til Matt closes it.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:37 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by Frasermoo at 7:37 AM on June 20, 2002
Then lets really discuss it like it should. What is the weight and height that Southwest is using for over weight? Then I think the thread will flow, and I apologize that I came accross as, ordering you or anyone, not right by me. Yet, maybe there is more to the emotions than the thread, that I'm unaware of, like your privite e-mails to each other. I just find it wierd no one has established who will be paying "the extra seat" and the not knowing is causing a lot of the emotions. I'm serious as a heart attack that for now I will never ever have to pay for an extra seat. Unlsess you are wearing a skirt. But I can not speak nor do I have proof for you (honeslty it's NOMB). Lets not forget the article also spoke about "height" too being the only factor for the extra seat, and what are you suppose to do, pull a bitteroldpunk, I'm still laughing at his comment. ;)
posted by thomcatspike at 8:05 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by thomcatspike at 8:05 AM on June 20, 2002
So it is your belief, rcade, that ALL obesity is the result of causal medical conditions, that the well-known bad eating habits rampant in our society do not contribute to it at all, and that it is inevitable that unless we happen to have the Callista Flockhart genes and/or spend all our time vomiting up our meals, we are all doomed to be significantly overweight?
I didn't say anything of the kind, and I'm amazed that someone who recently lamented the lack of reasonable discourse would claim otherwise.
What I did say: Your inference that all obesity is behavioral is not factual.
That's a problem I have with a lot of the comments being made here and in the thread; many people can't discuss obesity without claiming that it's always within the direct control of an obese person to lose the weight, and that's a falsehood that contributes to the mutual atmosphere of disrespect whenever the subject comes up for discussion.
Many of the extremely obese people who would need two airplane seats have genuine physical problems. Others have addiction issues I would compare to alcoholism or gambling addiction.
I can drink alcohol without ever having a problem stopping myself. Because this is easy for me to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics? You and many others are making the same assumption about obese people. Don't be such a fathead.
posted by rcade at 8:10 AM on June 20, 2002
I didn't say anything of the kind, and I'm amazed that someone who recently lamented the lack of reasonable discourse would claim otherwise.
What I did say: Your inference that all obesity is behavioral is not factual.
That's a problem I have with a lot of the comments being made here and in the thread; many people can't discuss obesity without claiming that it's always within the direct control of an obese person to lose the weight, and that's a falsehood that contributes to the mutual atmosphere of disrespect whenever the subject comes up for discussion.
Many of the extremely obese people who would need two airplane seats have genuine physical problems. Others have addiction issues I would compare to alcoholism or gambling addiction.
I can drink alcohol without ever having a problem stopping myself. Because this is easy for me to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics? You and many others are making the same assumption about obese people. Don't be such a fathead.
posted by rcade at 8:10 AM on June 20, 2002
I think it's obvious that rcade is nothing but a drunken, lazy hillbilly who compulsively eats cheese from a can and gambles away his childrens' diaper money. Stone him!
posted by Skot at 8:22 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by Skot at 8:22 AM on June 20, 2002
What I did say: Your inference that all obesity is behavioral is not factual.
And what I am tiring of pointing out is that there IS no such inference, on my part or anywhere else in the thread. It exists only in your expectations. And that is precisely what derailed the thread, people having to defend themselves against these specious accusations.
That's a problem I have with a lot of the comments being made here and in the thread; many people can't discuss obesity without claiming that it's always within the direct control of an obese person to lose the weight
Who has said that? Such claims exist only in the minds of those who cannot approach a thread like this without looking for a fight.
posted by rushmc at 8:31 AM on June 20, 2002
And what I am tiring of pointing out is that there IS no such inference, on my part or anywhere else in the thread. It exists only in your expectations. And that is precisely what derailed the thread, people having to defend themselves against these specious accusations.
That's a problem I have with a lot of the comments being made here and in the thread; many people can't discuss obesity without claiming that it's always within the direct control of an obese person to lose the weight
Who has said that? Such claims exist only in the minds of those who cannot approach a thread like this without looking for a fight.
posted by rushmc at 8:31 AM on June 20, 2002
I can drink alcohol without ever having a problem stopping myself. Because this is easy for me to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics?
Who ever said anything about "easy?" How does "easy" even enter into it? More strawmen....
posted by rushmc at 8:32 AM on June 20, 2002
Who ever said anything about "easy?" How does "easy" even enter into it? More strawmen....
posted by rushmc at 8:32 AM on June 20, 2002
And what I am tiring of pointing out is that there IS no such inference, on my part or anywhere else in the thread. It exists only in your expectations.
Direct quote from your post: "People have the right to choose to become or accept being overweight, or to not do the things that it would take to not be overweight (dietary changes, exercise programs, etc.). But they have NO right to expect anyone to give them a single special consideration for their decision. Choices have consequences."
The clear inference in that statement is that obesity is always a decision. I don't see how you could claim otherwise. Feel free to retract the statement at any time.
Who has said that?
Leaving out the examples where people acknowledge and minimize the number of people who are obese for non-behavioral reasons (often with bogus statistics, no less), here's another example: "Morbidly obese people are killing themselves with food. I do not see how that can be seen as anything but a stupid course of action. It seems to me that everyone who's jumped all the two or three of us who've said that choosing ill health is stupid, is in serious denial."
I was surprised not to find more examples -- a lot of people qualified their comments with an acknowledgement that some people are obese for other reasons, though they typically assumed that those folks are a distinct minority, making it easier for them to deride those of us who earned our obesity one Big Mac at a time.
Now that I've revisited the thread, I think this comment by centrs is the best response to the childish sneers about fat fucks:
posted by rcade at 9:19 AM on June 20, 2002
Direct quote from your post: "People have the right to choose to become or accept being overweight, or to not do the things that it would take to not be overweight (dietary changes, exercise programs, etc.). But they have NO right to expect anyone to give them a single special consideration for their decision. Choices have consequences."
The clear inference in that statement is that obesity is always a decision. I don't see how you could claim otherwise. Feel free to retract the statement at any time.
Who has said that?
Leaving out the examples where people acknowledge and minimize the number of people who are obese for non-behavioral reasons (often with bogus statistics, no less), here's another example: "Morbidly obese people are killing themselves with food. I do not see how that can be seen as anything but a stupid course of action. It seems to me that everyone who's jumped all the two or three of us who've said that choosing ill health is stupid, is in serious denial."
I was surprised not to find more examples -- a lot of people qualified their comments with an acknowledgement that some people are obese for other reasons, though they typically assumed that those folks are a distinct minority, making it easier for them to deride those of us who earned our obesity one Big Mac at a time.
Now that I've revisited the thread, I think this comment by centrs is the best response to the childish sneers about fat fucks:
i am fat. not so fat that i require two seats anywhere, but fat nonetheless. i was thin until i was 19. i was an athlete, i ran track and competed in gymnastics. i had a major bout of depression that lasted two years and i went from 140 and wearing a bikini to 312 lbs. i realized i was killing myself, sought medical help and over the course of 5 years, i lost 112 lbs.
BUT, and there is a but, it took me FIVE YEARS to lose that much weight and that is a normal and healthy weight loss. most of you are going to look at me and think (based on what i've read here), "god, she's fat and disgusting." you're not going to see the hard work that i did and am doing. and, if i choose to have a fucking coke, you have no right to judge me.
posted by rcade at 9:19 AM on June 20, 2002
Who ever said anything about "easy?" How does "easy" even enter into it?
OK, I'll restate it: I can drink alcohol without ever having a problem stopping myself. Because this is something I have been able to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics? You and many others are making the same assumption about obese people.
posted by rcade at 9:21 AM on June 20, 2002
OK, I'll restate it: I can drink alcohol without ever having a problem stopping myself. Because this is something I have been able to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics? You and many others are making the same assumption about obese people.
posted by rcade at 9:21 AM on June 20, 2002
The clear inference in that statement is that obesity is always a decision. I don't see how you could claim otherwise.
I claim otherwise because it had already been established to my satisfaction by that point which population we were talking about. If it remains unclear to you, however, I have no objection to prefixing every comment I ever make on the subject with a large, bolded note explicitly making the distinction. Seems like overkill to me, though.
Because this is something I have been able to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics?
Yes, because it IS a choice. Perhaps not one consciously made, and perhaps to choose otherwise would be considerably more difficult than it would be for you, but to say that they had no choice in the matter is to relegate them to the status of mindless puppets, which I am not willing to do. It's a matter of respect.
posted by rushmc at 9:46 AM on June 20, 2002
I claim otherwise because it had already been established to my satisfaction by that point which population we were talking about. If it remains unclear to you, however, I have no objection to prefixing every comment I ever make on the subject with a large, bolded note explicitly making the distinction. Seems like overkill to me, though.
Because this is something I have been able to control, should I automatically assume that it's a choice for others to ruin their careers and personal lives by becoming alcoholics?
Yes, because it IS a choice. Perhaps not one consciously made, and perhaps to choose otherwise would be considerably more difficult than it would be for you, but to say that they had no choice in the matter is to relegate them to the status of mindless puppets, which I am not willing to do. It's a matter of respect.
posted by rushmc at 9:46 AM on June 20, 2002
Is Rushmc & Frasermoo the same. As I was not just trying to point at rush only yet I did call him out in a previous post, then Frasermoo answered for him...........?????
I know some of the problem childs have had multiple names which really makes the community smaller. No you have not been banned so this is no reference to you. And if I'm wrong I apologize to the both of you. I will say this, minus your emotions, your points were good.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:08 AM on June 20, 2002
I know some of the problem childs have had multiple names which really makes the community smaller. No you have not been banned so this is no reference to you. And if I'm wrong I apologize to the both of you. I will say this, minus your emotions, your points were good.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:08 AM on June 20, 2002
rcade: So if we are to compare obesity with alcoholism (which isn't a bad example, I think) how would you feel if the seat next to you on a plane was occupied by an alcoholic, who was getting more and more drunk and obnoxious? This seems to be the crux of the whole discussion.
posted by salmacis at 10:20 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by salmacis at 10:20 AM on June 20, 2002
on-line, everyone weighs the same.
posted by jcterminal at 10:43 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 10:43 AM on June 20, 2002
salmacis, that's only a fair analogy if the fat person next to you was getting larger as the ride progressed.
posted by Dreama at 11:45 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by Dreama at 11:45 AM on June 20, 2002
She's right, salmacis. For your analogy to work, the alcoholic would have to be drunk from the outset.
*not supporting the analogy, just fine-tuning the logic
posted by rushmc at 11:48 AM on June 20, 2002
*not supporting the analogy, just fine-tuning the logic
posted by rushmc at 11:48 AM on June 20, 2002
Frasermoo, I would suggest your Bill Hick's analogies are misplaced.
You seem to suggest that you can say anything offensive about minority groups, and if anyone takes offence, it's "Oh, can't you see I'm a great social satirist, like Bill Hicks, Jonathan Swift, etc." This position then allows you to accuse the complainer of being humourless or even worse politically correct, when in fact all they are doing is showing tolerance for other's views and lifestyles, or standing up for their right not to ridiculed, bullied, etc.
posted by johnny novak at 12:32 PM on June 20, 2002
You seem to suggest that you can say anything offensive about minority groups, and if anyone takes offence, it's "Oh, can't you see I'm a great social satirist, like Bill Hicks, Jonathan Swift, etc." This position then allows you to accuse the complainer of being humourless or even worse politically correct, when in fact all they are doing is showing tolerance for other's views and lifestyles, or standing up for their right not to ridiculed, bullied, etc.
posted by johnny novak at 12:32 PM on June 20, 2002
when in fact all they are doing is showing tolerance for other's views and lifestyles, or standing up for their right not to ridiculed, bullied, etc.
Except, of course, for YOUR views, which they are actively ridiculing as they bully you....
posted by rushmc at 1:10 PM on June 20, 2002
Except, of course, for YOUR views, which they are actively ridiculing as they bully you....
posted by rushmc at 1:10 PM on June 20, 2002
Ashbury, it's 8:30 am here and I've just come back to this so please excuse the lateness of this reply.
No, I don't often show sympathy for people who use their 'uncontrollable emotions' as an excuse for nasty behaviour. Evanizer let go of any attempt at civility or self-control, and he was indulging in self-justification, not apologising.
Self pity and vindictiveness are emotions that I hold cheap. You can read me as a person who has no sympathy or sensitivity if you like, fine. But you're overreacting. In bad technical form.
All the sympathy in the world won't stop a self-centred child in the middle of a tantrum. The only remedy is to hold its head under the cold tap.
Yes, we all had fucked-up childhoods, I'm sure.
posted by Catch at 1:50 PM on June 20, 2002
No, I don't often show sympathy for people who use their 'uncontrollable emotions' as an excuse for nasty behaviour. Evanizer let go of any attempt at civility or self-control, and he was indulging in self-justification, not apologising.
Self pity and vindictiveness are emotions that I hold cheap. You can read me as a person who has no sympathy or sensitivity if you like, fine. But you're overreacting. In bad technical form.
All the sympathy in the world won't stop a self-centred child in the middle of a tantrum. The only remedy is to hold its head under the cold tap.
Yes, we all had fucked-up childhoods, I'm sure.
posted by Catch at 1:50 PM on June 20, 2002
All the sympathy in the world won't stop a self-centred child in the middle of a tantrum. The only remedy is to hold its head under the cold tap.
I've always found the "walk out of the room, thus depriving it of an audience" technique to be particularly effective. Unfortunately, that only works when you comprise its entire audience, not 1/14,000th of it.
posted by rushmc at 1:54 PM on June 20, 2002
I've always found the "walk out of the room, thus depriving it of an audience" technique to be particularly effective. Unfortunately, that only works when you comprise its entire audience, not 1/14,000th of it.
posted by rushmc at 1:54 PM on June 20, 2002
I apologize if I offended anyone, and I apologize for my hyperbole and vitriol. It was defensive and pointless. I do not apologize for or recant any of the criticisms I made in this or the Metafilter thread. I also don't apologize for using a personal example from my life to explain why I don't like being attacked or ridiculed. We all have histories and some of us may or may not chose to call on them. I've always believed that the only authority I have when speaking about almost anything is the authority I've gained through lived experience. If my relation of the circumstances of my adolescence came across as all Oprahfied, I apologize because that's not really how it was intended. I simply thought it would clarify why react so emotionally to prejudice and moralizing. I don't ask for any sympathy, at least not anymore sympathy (or perhaps empathy) than should be expected from one human to another. I assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Metafilter was a community where one should have some basic courtesy and respect for his or her fellow contributors. I admit I lost my temper, and I regret it, especially my 'threats', however purposely hyperbolic and tongue-in-cheek they may have been.
That's all that needs to be said. For those of you that offered your concerned opinions about my lifestyle choices or my health, thanks for the concern. But I'm a pretty sharp guy, with pretty sharp doctors, and we're both aware of and vigilant about my health. I don't really need anyone's criticism or advice beyond that.
For those of you that have expressed a more vitriolic reaction to bulky individuals, I suggest you should look into the source of those feelings, or at least the anger and lack of respect that prompts you to vent them in such an angry, hurtful and juvenile way.
And rushmc, you seem like a smart guy who is basically a good contributor to Metafilter. I don't know why you keep on and on with this topic (17 comments to this thread and 17 to the Metafilter one that spawned it), or why you feel the need to grind up anyone who stands in the way of you reaching your admittedly muddled and nebulous goals. Perhaps it's a personal issue with you, or perhaps you just want to 'win' the argument. I can sympathize with both reasons but, as the wonderchicken pointed out, sometimes you just have to let go.
posted by evanizer at 3:58 PM on June 20, 2002
That's all that needs to be said. For those of you that offered your concerned opinions about my lifestyle choices or my health, thanks for the concern. But I'm a pretty sharp guy, with pretty sharp doctors, and we're both aware of and vigilant about my health. I don't really need anyone's criticism or advice beyond that.
For those of you that have expressed a more vitriolic reaction to bulky individuals, I suggest you should look into the source of those feelings, or at least the anger and lack of respect that prompts you to vent them in such an angry, hurtful and juvenile way.
And rushmc, you seem like a smart guy who is basically a good contributor to Metafilter. I don't know why you keep on and on with this topic (17 comments to this thread and 17 to the Metafilter one that spawned it), or why you feel the need to grind up anyone who stands in the way of you reaching your admittedly muddled and nebulous goals. Perhaps it's a personal issue with you, or perhaps you just want to 'win' the argument. I can sympathize with both reasons but, as the wonderchicken pointed out, sometimes you just have to let go.
posted by evanizer at 3:58 PM on June 20, 2002
I don't know why you keep on and on with this topic (17 comments to this thread and 17 to the Metafilter one that spawned it)
I think I've expressed why several times (believe me, I'm so sick of seeing my own name in these threads I can barely stand it...I can imagine how the rest of you must feel!): to clarify misinterpretations and misrepresentations (intentional or otherwise) of my views and statements (and secondarily, those of other posters in the threads whom I feel are not getting a fair shake). When someone makes a blatantly false claim on Metafilter, I think it should be challenged, particularly when it is couched in terms of an attack upon another poster's character. Otherwise, some people will assume that the silence signifies that it is true by default.
Also, because people keep asking me questions, which requires that I respond in order to be polite. ;)
posted by rushmc at 4:27 PM on June 20, 2002
I think I've expressed why several times (believe me, I'm so sick of seeing my own name in these threads I can barely stand it...I can imagine how the rest of you must feel!): to clarify misinterpretations and misrepresentations (intentional or otherwise) of my views and statements (and secondarily, those of other posters in the threads whom I feel are not getting a fair shake). When someone makes a blatantly false claim on Metafilter, I think it should be challenged, particularly when it is couched in terms of an attack upon another poster's character. Otherwise, some people will assume that the silence signifies that it is true by default.
Also, because people keep asking me questions, which requires that I respond in order to be polite. ;)
posted by rushmc at 4:27 PM on June 20, 2002
Okay, Catch, it's a free world. But in these circumstances I would rather over-react than under, tho frankly I don't believe I'm doing either. In any case, you are more than welcome to think whatever you like about my reaction, but I don't know what you mean by "in bad technical form". For the record, I don't believe that you are lacking in sensitivity and sympathy, but when confronted with a "tantrum", I don't think that The only remedy is to hold its head under the cold tap. Catch, there must have a been a different way to make your point than this. It didn't do anything for me, not that it matters.
You! ( .)(. )
Who are you staring at? Welcome to the club, dude. Is it okay to call you Bob?
posted by ashbury at 7:33 PM on June 20, 2002
You! ( .)(. )
Who are you staring at? Welcome to the club, dude. Is it okay to call you Bob?
posted by ashbury at 7:33 PM on June 20, 2002
I know some of you may act offended, but secretly you love the fighting. Otherwise those threads wouldn't grow so quickly.
I think you have a very valid point there, Salmonberry.
It's just like the handwringing over the dreaded I-P [TM] threads. You can't be surprised that things get out of hand so quickly over a topic where large numbers of people are bound to be offended. I've ignored these type of threads because I've gotten a pretty good idea of what the responses will be without reading them.
I'm not psychic. It's just common sense.
Dreama, I would never have thought that SUVs could be worked into this thread. You rock!
posted by mark13 at 8:21 PM on June 20, 2002
I think you have a very valid point there, Salmonberry.
It's just like the handwringing over the dreaded I-P [TM] threads. You can't be surprised that things get out of hand so quickly over a topic where large numbers of people are bound to be offended. I've ignored these type of threads because I've gotten a pretty good idea of what the responses will be without reading them.
I'm not psychic. It's just common sense.
Dreama, I would never have thought that SUVs could be worked into this thread. You rock!
posted by mark13 at 8:21 PM on June 20, 2002
MetaFilter: Where ad hominem comes to life!
There's nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks, so long as people don't take them personally.
.
posted by Catch at 9:45 PM on June 20, 2002
There's nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks, so long as people don't take them personally.
.
posted by Catch at 9:45 PM on June 20, 2002
And that's where I met the big moosey...
posted by adampsyche at 4:35 AM on June 21, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 4:35 AM on June 21, 2002
There's nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks, so long as people don't take them personally.
Um, I call bullshit.
posted by Marquis at 6:55 AM on June 21, 2002
Um, I call bullshit.
posted by Marquis at 6:55 AM on June 21, 2002
There's nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks, so long as people don't take them personally.
Um, I call bullshit.
Yay!!! Something else to argue about!
posted by SweetJesus at 10:22 AM on June 21, 2002
Um, I call bullshit.
Yay!!! Something else to argue about!
posted by SweetJesus at 10:22 AM on June 21, 2002
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The Front Page Post acknowledges the ickiness that transpired in the last such discussion, and yet starts the same crap all over.
It's almost as if people felt they were dared to be more awful than last time. Well congrats. You did it!
And the answer to how people can be that way was offered by rushmc when he replied to Evanizer, saying he was unaware of his weight, or the weight of any of the posters. Rush, among others, felt OK saying what he did as long as he didn't have to think about the reaction of his audience. Well, shouldn't you always consider your audience?
posted by Kafkaesque at 4:38 PM on June 19, 2002