However, aren't fatness and anti-intellectualism a problem in America, and doesn't it tick you off?
Sure, but no more than the crazy anti-intellectualism problem in England or anywhere else in the world. I think we often forget that this problem isn't isolated to just the United States. I do what I can to hang out with non-fucktards and promote education, but I'm not going to let it get to me.
They are like these women who conform to sexist stereotypes...
Freedom and equality means having the choice to live the way you choose, and it does not mean you are required to be independent and break the stereotype. By getting mad at the women who choose to exist within the stereotype, you are discriminating just as much as those who get mad when women exist outside of it. Sure, maybe they choose to live a different way than you would, but it is their choice. They are not necessarily doing something harmful to themselves or society. This is not the case with stupidity, apathy, and poor health choices, all of which have a definite negative impact. The fact that people choose to project one woman's attributes onto another unrelated one is not a failing of the first woman's choices; it is a failing of the observer to make a distinction between individuals.
They are not necessarily doing something harmful to themselves
I think they are. They are validating and supporting the problematic patriarchal society which indirectly hurts them and me. Because they act foolishly and buy into the old fashioned anti-feminist BS, people do not take them seriously, and, by extension, do not take me (a female) seriously. Their behavior supports broken traditions which hurt women.
edit again: You know, it's kind of like the log cabin republicans. They are free to do what they want, but I always feel they are working against their best interests by supporting a party that hates them.
Study is from 2007 and therefore inaccurate for debate today.
True, I suppose, but would we expect any big changes in the last couple of years?
Even so, the report does not make clear exactly what the numbers mean. "Average household television viewing time" could cover a multitude of sins, and there is nothing in the report about how the data was collected, nor is there anything defining terms. It could be that a family of four watching two hours together is credited with eight hours viewing, or that a television that is on is assumed to be watched, or that a bunch of survey responders guessed high, or...
Not as much as people assuming that just because someone is fat, that they are worthless, terrible, or lazy.
I never said that. Someone can be fat, lazy, and terrible at they same time, though. The laziness and such is a separate problem, although they contribute to the fatness sometimes. This rant was prompted by the fact that Americans seem to watch way too much TV. That is lazy. I also said that Americans, on average, are a fat nation. If someone assumes that a person is bad because they are fat, that is the same kind of bigotry as any other judging by outward appearances. However, I am frustrated because it seems that lazy-fat-indignant are all connected in the American stereotype.
No one is ever worthless, though.
Is this what offended you?
looking at the racks of tabloids and watching fat indignant ladies bitch at each other
If it had been darling fat ladies happily talking about nice things by a rack of books, I would not have felt bad. I was the indignation and the tabloids that made me itch.
I also said that Americans, on average, are a fat nation.
Yes, but why bring weight into the equation? If you look at the most recent studies, Americans are actually staying steady (not getting fatter) and the consumption of junk food is down. I am really, really tired of discrimination against people with a genuine medical problem. Sometimes it is of their own doing, sometimes it is caused by something else, but many times those people genuinely DO NOT KNOW how to improve their situation because of all the ridiculous diet information/don't have access to dietitians, doctors and trainers that can help them with their individual situations. It is still socially acceptable to discriminate against fat people, apparently. Why not mention America's alcohol consumption, smoking rates, injuries caused by reckless driving, tanning and other harmful activities that could be related to laziness and ignorance? I guess I just hear about weight issues far, far too much in the media and from some in FRC and I am simply tired of it being tied into every conversation about ignorance, laziness, or America.
I guess it depends on what you define as "watching." My TV is pretty much on all the time when I'm at home, but it is often just background noise, or I'm just listening to it while I am doing something else.
My wife does this. We've kind of reached a compromise. The Weather Channel satisfies her need to have the TV on, and it doesn't bother me by showing silly sitcoms or overly obnoxious commercials. TVG fits the bill in this manner as well.
I am really, really tired of discrimination against people with a genuine medical problem. Sometimes it is of their own doing, sometimes it is caused by something else, but many times those people genuinely DO NOT KNOW how to improve their situation because of all the ridiculous diet information/don't have access to dietitians, doctors and trainers that can help them with their individual situations.
All the evidence I've seen points to two conclusions:
1. The vast majority of obese people have no medical reason for being so, and would lose weight simply by eating less total food. 2. Even without the benefit of any of those things, people on the road to obesity can in the majority of cases avoid it, again, simply by eating less total food.
I also note, per the study I referenced in a recent episode of GeekNights, that preventable-obesity related diseases, primarily in rural areas, are the number one cause, far and away, for the decrease in life expectancy in the United States. Per the study, these people had no medical reasons for obesity other than simply consuming too much food. This is why stomach-stapling is such an effective procedure: it physically forces people to eat less food. The surgery could be avoided if people would simply voluntarily do so without being forced.
Studies show time and time again that most people can ignore all diet advice and simply eat less total physical food, regardless of what it is they are eating, and see results. Anyone who claims to eat less and yet not lose weight is either:
1. One of the tiny, tiny percentage of people with a medical problem 2. Lying about how much they are eating.
I've seen several studies where observers determined that the people involved, who claimed to be regulating their total food intake, were simply outright lying about what they ate. They would just not report a piece of cake. It's ludicrous.
If obesity is such a big problem, and the majority of obesity cases are due to obvious lifestyle choices, then I think weight is verymuch a factor deserving of discussion. As the majority are due only to poor decision-making, I'll bet I can thus statistically correlate obesity to poor decision-making.
There is a girl visiting from Italy in my orchestra, and I recently talked to her about how she likes the U.S. Her English was decent, but I had to speak every clearly (hard for a southerner) and she didn't know a lot of words.
Just curious, I asked her if she thought Americans were lazy. She didn't know what the word "lazy" means, so I said "you know, fat, sit and watch t.v. all the time, don't do anything." And she said she didn't know anything of this, but the reason we are fat is because we don't use good ingredients. She said she has actually lost weight being here because she hates most of the food. They don't really have fast food there like McDonalds, etc. She also asked me what our native food is, and all I could think of was hamburgers, hotdogs, and southern food.
She did say Americans have good relationships with each other and are very kind. I found that quite interesting.
I don't think they state how they got these numbers. Am I missing something? I know a lot of people that just keep the TV on in the background and multitask. That image with the child staring at static is pretty misleading. I'm sure that's an image that is meant to aggravate you. Maybe this is reflective of house wives who clean, cook and execute hobbies with the TV on.
She did say Americans have good relationships with each other and are very kind. I found that quite interesting.
The south is generally a nicer place to be. People in the northeast can be very cut throat. I enjoyed my life in Georgia, but like the career I have in the north east.
Rym is right about obesity being a self control problem. The vast majority of people simply eat too much, restaurant portions are a prime example.
I do this too. Today's lunch is chipotle, and I'll probably eat the whole thing if I don't make an effort to stop myself. I'm trying to make the effort to eat less, I'd like to fit into the 30/32 jeans I used to wear in high school and the beginning of college.
She did say Americans have good relationships with each other and are very kind. I found that quite interesting.
The south is generally a nicer place to be. People in the northeast can be very cut throat. I enjoyed my life in Georgia, but like the career I have in the north east.
Rym is right about obesity being a self control problem. The vast majority of people simply eat too much, restaurant portions are a prime example.
I do this too. Today's lunch is chipotle, and I'll probably eat the whole thing if I don't make an effort to stop myself. I'm trying to make the effort to eat less, I'd like to fit into the 30/32 jeans I used to wear in high school and the beginning of college.
You are so wrong, People in the Northeast are extremely nice and polite, but every group has it's assholes. The population density is higher in the northeast and therefore you find a higher density of assholes, but they are the same everywhere.
I read an article recently that claimed that genetics was the primary cause of obesity. The article does present what seems to be valid science that some people are just genetically hungrier than others, and thus become more obese.
Even if the scientific evidence provided by the article is 100% true, I still disagree with its fundamental thesis. The author is trying to claim that a genetic predisposition to be hungrier all the time means that the person is not responsible for their own overeating problem. To me, that's like saying a visually impaired person is not responsible for forgetting their glasses, driving, and then causing an accident.
Even if you have some genetic condition of extreme hunger, genes don't put McDonald's in your mouth for you. If you want to claim that people have free will, then they also must have will enough to resist eating despite uncomfortable physical feelings in their stomach. If someone really does have a genetic predisposition to be extremely painfully hungry, and they can not manage it with their own will, then they can get doctors to treat that (presumably non-life threatening) problem directly, rather than treating heart disease and other issues later in life.
Great suffering does not excuse a complete lack of will power. Everyone has some sort of problem in life they have to overcome through sheer force of will, be it a phobia, genetic condition, or otherwise. Just because someone has to will themselves over hunger, doesn't excuse obesity.
Even if you have some genetic condition of extreme hunger, genes don't put McDonald's in your mouth for you.
It's not a matter of extreme hunger, it's a matter of leptin resistance. Leptin is the hormone that tells your body that it's full. However, it may be the case that obese individuals have a resistance to leptin. Combine this with an overall larger portion size served in America these days and higher caloric foods and you have a recipe for disaster. Often times these things are much more subtle than you put forward Scott. You say yourself that you fall for psychological tricks, even though you can identify them rationally.
owever, it may be the case that obese individuals have a resistance to leptin.
I've read a few studies that obese people develop this resistance after the fact, but that it is not typically present in the pre-obese condition. It's the same thing possibly as with insulin resistance in Type II Diabetes.
The moral there seems to be that you should never let yourself become obese, for if you do, it will be extremely difficult to un-obese.
It's not a matter of extreme hunger, it's a matter of leptin resistance. Leptin is the hormone that tells your body that it's full. However, it may be the case that obese individuals have a resistance to leptin. Combine this with an overall larger portion size served in America these days and higher caloric foods and you have a recipe for disaster. Often times these things are much more subtle than you put forward Scott. You say yourself that you fall for psychological tricks, even though you can identify them rationally.
Yes, but I don't do it to the point where it is debilitating.
I like that a chart about television watching turned into bitching about fatties and whores. It's also interesting that bitching about fatties and whores are some of the most popular television shows. Maybe it's human nature to bitch about fatties and whores. Even the mighty white tower of enlightenment, the Geeknights forum, descends into bitching about fatties and whores at the drop of a hat. You also have to throw in some regional and class based bias in there. Those two are the dry rub that makes the ribs taste good.
Yes, but I don't do it to the point where it is debilitating.
I'm not so sure about that. Regardless of you personally, many of the problems of obesity begin at childhood. It is all well and good to encourage others to get healthier (which isn't just a weight issue), but to belittle, demean and discriminate is simply unnecessary and adds to the problem of those that use food as a medication for an endorphin boost. Have you ever genuinely felt hungry and forced yourself not to eat for several hours? Imagine doing that constantly and being in a constant state of hunger when you intellectually know you do not need to eat anything else. A lot of people (American or not) have to cope with that on a daily basis. This isn't just impulse control or gluttony for many people. It stems from genuine psychological and physical disorders that can often be exacerbated by ridicule, stress, depression, and lack of self worth. It certainly doesn't help that eating healthy while on a tight budget takes a lot of planning and people either are not aware that it is possible, have been fed misinformation about nutrition, or live lifestyles that make advanced meal planning nigh impossible. Obesity, regardless of the cause, is a medical problem. I find it interesting that someone being an alcoholic garners sympathy and understanding because people now see that it isn't merely an impulse control issue, but are still willing to look at obesity only as an impulse control issue. There are so many physical, psychological, and socio-economic issues that contribute to the obesity epidemic that the simply telling people to eat less is reductionist at best and ignorant at worst.
This study seems to be saying that people are like puppies who get into the food bag and eat too much because their instincts tells them to (and because the food is available), and then get sick. I agree with you, Kate, that picking on people is not the answer. However, saying "Being obese is fine!" is kind of like being "Smoking is wonderful." It is bad for you. I like curvy women and stocky guys (that is not what I am talking about), but when it is unhealthy morbidly obese level I view it like any other bad addiction.
Fine. I realized that I sound like one of those people who go "The gays/atheists/liberals/feminists/et cetera are ruining my country!!! WAAAH!" Only replace those words with "lazy TV watching indignant people." I was making a value judgment - not based on class, but on behavior - but it was still biased and shrill. I'm apologize.
In short, I don't care what other people do. They can all read lame celeb gossip and watch 8+ hours of television. I am not going to. They can eat junk food and not run around. They can focus on entertainment instead of education. I won't. That is all. Just so long as their stupidity does not directly harm me, I don't care.
I am just going to put this out there: How is watching television (for whatever amount of time) any better or worse than playing video games, reading a book/manga/magazine/newspaper or any other restful, leisure activity? Certainly doing any of these things in excess can lead to problems. Why is TV being singled out and demonized?
How is watching television (for whatever amount of time) any better or worse than playing video games, reading a book/manga/magazine/newspaper or any other restful, leisure activity?
Television is 100% passive and constantly novel. WoW is less passive, but still possesses a constant, low-level novelty. I feel that both are almost equally bad. Novelty raises serotonin levels in the brain, and there are studies which show that constant elevated levels lead to a sort of serotonin tolerance and, by extension, a desire to continually seek out low-level novel experiences. You could argue that television and the like alter your brain chemistry such that you become dependent on them to maintain these low level background novelties. Think about how many people can't function without the TV on in the background, for example.
Reading is much more active, and requires engagement. I would argue, however, that reading too much would lead to the same issues that too much television does. The only difference on that point is that the message is often greatly affected by the medium, especially if the creators aren't careful. TV documentaries, for example, are almost always so superficial, slow-paced, and information-sparse as to be of no actual benefit. I've basically sworn off the History Channel and even PBS for their shoddy documentaries: at least books on the same topics would be information-dense and actively engaged.
Much gaming, just as with TV, is largely passive and wasteful. Playing "Peggle" is just as mindless and full of just the same low-level novelty as television.
Some gaming, however, requires high levels of engagement, tactical thinking, reaction, and so forth. There is a reason I play NS, for example, but eschew Team Fortress 2 or WoW.
People are free to do what they will, and value their time as they will. Seeing someone, in my opinion, waste their time on low-level novelty seeking for their serotonin-resistance-based fix, saddens me profoundly. I personally have great difficulty enjoying such activities, and I perceive a harm to one's possible creative or even spiritual output and development from them. I have, at most, around ninety years with which to experience what the world has to offer, to plumb the depths of experience and sensation. I have no desire to waste precious minutes idling after mediocre novel entertainments. Instead, I get myself a good night's sleep, let my serotonin levels reset, and experience the day anew.
I personally have great difficulty enjoying such activities, and I perceive a harm to one's possible creative or even spiritual output and development from them.
Anime? Serenity? Battlestar Galactica? Seinfeld? Television, like movies or novels, can be amazing and well worth the invested time when they are well done or particularly meaningful. Television can be an art that not only entertains the viewer but enriches and enlightens them. I certainly think that massive amounts of it (like any leisure activity) can be detrimental and limiting, but to so lambaste television outright is to demean an artform that you, yourself, enjoy on occasions. The point is moderation in all indulgences.
Is Lost a legitimate show to spend my time on? My roommates and I may or may not have decided moments ago to watch all 5 seasons by the time the new one starts.
Comments
edit again: You know, it's kind of like the log cabin republicans. They are free to do what they want, but I always feel they are working against their best interests by supporting a party that hates them.
Even so, the report does not make clear exactly what the numbers mean. "Average household television viewing time" could cover a multitude of sins, and there is nothing in the report about how the data was collected, nor is there anything defining terms. It could be that a family of four watching two hours together is credited with eight hours viewing, or that a television that is on is assumed to be watched, or that a bunch of survey responders guessed high, or...
Numbers without context are not useful.
No one is ever worthless, though.
Is this what offended you? If it had been darling fat ladies happily talking about nice things by a rack of books, I would not have felt bad. I was the indignation and the tabloids that made me itch.
It is still socially acceptable to discriminate against fat people, apparently. Why not mention America's alcohol consumption, smoking rates, injuries caused by reckless driving, tanning and other harmful activities that could be related to laziness and ignorance?
I guess I just hear about weight issues far, far too much in the media and from some in FRC and I am simply tired of it being tied into every conversation about ignorance, laziness, or America.
1. The vast majority of obese people have no medical reason for being so, and would lose weight simply by eating less total food.
2. Even without the benefit of any of those things, people on the road to obesity can in the majority of cases avoid it, again, simply by eating less total food.
I also note, per the study I referenced in a recent episode of GeekNights, that preventable-obesity related diseases, primarily in rural areas, are the number one cause, far and away, for the decrease in life expectancy in the United States. Per the study, these people had no medical reasons for obesity other than simply consuming too much food. This is why stomach-stapling is such an effective procedure: it physically forces people to eat less food. The surgery could be avoided if people would simply voluntarily do so without being forced.
Studies show time and time again that most people can ignore all diet advice and simply eat less total physical food, regardless of what it is they are eating, and see results. Anyone who claims to eat less and yet not lose weight is either:
1. One of the tiny, tiny percentage of people with a medical problem
2. Lying about how much they are eating.
I've seen several studies where observers determined that the people involved, who claimed to be regulating their total food intake, were simply outright lying about what they ate. They would just not report a piece of cake. It's ludicrous.
If obesity is such a big problem, and the majority of obesity cases are due to obvious lifestyle choices, then I think weight is verymuch a factor deserving of discussion. As the majority are due only to poor decision-making, I'll bet I can thus statistically correlate obesity to poor decision-making.
Just curious, I asked her if she thought Americans were lazy. She didn't know what the word "lazy" means, so I said "you know, fat, sit and watch t.v. all the time, don't do anything." And she said she didn't know anything of this, but the reason we are fat is because we don't use good ingredients. She said she has actually lost weight being here because she hates most of the food. They don't really have fast food there like McDonalds, etc. She also asked me what our native food is, and all I could think of was hamburgers, hotdogs, and southern food.
She did say Americans have good relationships with each other and are very kind. I found that quite interesting.
Rym is right about obesity being a self control problem. The vast majority of people simply eat too much, restaurant portions are a prime example.
I do this too. Today's lunch is chipotle, and I'll probably eat the whole thing if I don't make an effort to stop myself. I'm trying to make the effort to eat less, I'd like to fit into the 30/32 jeans I used to wear in high school and the beginning of college.
Even if the scientific evidence provided by the article is 100% true, I still disagree with its fundamental thesis. The author is trying to claim that a genetic predisposition to be hungrier all the time means that the person is not responsible for their own overeating problem. To me, that's like saying a visually impaired person is not responsible for forgetting their glasses, driving, and then causing an accident.
Even if you have some genetic condition of extreme hunger, genes don't put McDonald's in your mouth for you. If you want to claim that people have free will, then they also must have will enough to resist eating despite uncomfortable physical feelings in their stomach. If someone really does have a genetic predisposition to be extremely painfully hungry, and they can not manage it with their own will, then they can get doctors to treat that (presumably non-life threatening) problem directly, rather than treating heart disease and other issues later in life.
Great suffering does not excuse a complete lack of will power. Everyone has some sort of problem in life they have to overcome through sheer force of will, be it a phobia, genetic condition, or otherwise. Just because someone has to will themselves over hunger, doesn't excuse obesity.
The moral there seems to be that you should never let yourself become obese, for if you do, it will be extremely difficult to un-obese.
Has anyone tried to find out more information on the OECD's website? You might want to check some of this stuff out.
Regardless of you personally, many of the problems of obesity begin at childhood. It is all well and good to encourage others to get healthier (which isn't just a weight issue), but to belittle, demean and discriminate is simply unnecessary and adds to the problem of those that use food as a medication for an endorphin boost.
Have you ever genuinely felt hungry and forced yourself not to eat for several hours? Imagine doing that constantly and being in a constant state of hunger when you intellectually know you do not need to eat anything else. A lot of people (American or not) have to cope with that on a daily basis. This isn't just impulse control or gluttony for many people. It stems from genuine psychological and physical disorders that can often be exacerbated by ridicule, stress, depression, and lack of self worth.
It certainly doesn't help that eating healthy while on a tight budget takes a lot of planning and people either are not aware that it is possible, have been fed misinformation about nutrition, or live lifestyles that make advanced meal planning nigh impossible.
Obesity, regardless of the cause, is a medical problem. I find it interesting that someone being an alcoholic garners sympathy and understanding because people now see that it isn't merely an impulse control issue, but are still willing to look at obesity only as an impulse control issue. There are so many physical, psychological, and socio-economic issues that contribute to the obesity epidemic that the simply telling people to eat less is reductionist at best and ignorant at worst.
I agree with you, Kate, that picking on people is not the answer. However, saying "Being obese is fine!" is kind of like being "Smoking is wonderful." It is bad for you. I like curvy women and stocky guys (that is not what I am talking about), but when it is unhealthy morbidly obese level I view it like any other bad addiction.
Fine. I realized that I sound like one of those people who go "The gays/atheists/liberals/feminists/et cetera are ruining my country!!! WAAAH!" Only replace those words with "lazy TV watching indignant people." I was making a value judgment - not based on class, but on behavior - but it was still biased and shrill. I'm apologize.
In short, I don't care what other people do. They can all read lame celeb gossip and watch 8+ hours of television. I am not going to. They can eat junk food and not run around. They can focus on entertainment instead of education. I won't. That is all. Just so long as their stupidity does not directly harm me, I don't care.
Reading is much more active, and requires engagement. I would argue, however, that reading too much would lead to the same issues that too much television does. The only difference on that point is that the message is often greatly affected by the medium, especially if the creators aren't careful. TV documentaries, for example, are almost always so superficial, slow-paced, and information-sparse as to be of no actual benefit. I've basically sworn off the History Channel and even PBS for their shoddy documentaries: at least books on the same topics would be information-dense and actively engaged.
Much gaming, just as with TV, is largely passive and wasteful. Playing "Peggle" is just as mindless and full of just the same low-level novelty as television.
Some gaming, however, requires high levels of engagement, tactical thinking, reaction, and so forth. There is a reason I play NS, for example, but eschew Team Fortress 2 or WoW.
People are free to do what they will, and value their time as they will. Seeing someone, in my opinion, waste their time on low-level novelty seeking for their serotonin-resistance-based fix, saddens me profoundly. I personally have great difficulty enjoying such activities, and I perceive a harm to one's possible creative or even spiritual output and development from them. I have, at most, around ninety years with which to experience what the world has to offer, to plumb the depths of experience and sensation. I have no desire to waste precious minutes idling after mediocre novel entertainments. Instead, I get myself a good night's sleep, let my serotonin levels reset, and experience the day anew.
Oh wait, there's the whole problem with people dying after playing games too long. Maybe they could alternate.
Television, like movies or novels, can be amazing and well worth the invested time when they are well done or particularly meaningful. Television can be an art that not only entertains the viewer but enriches and enlightens them. I certainly think that massive amounts of it (like any leisure activity) can be detrimental and limiting, but to so lambaste television outright is to demean an artform that you, yourself, enjoy on occasions.
The point is moderation in all indulgences.