The body positivity movement when it was more about people not being ashamed for having conditions (amputations, eczema, vitiligo, etc.) was a good movement. It was about accepting people for their body that they had no control of. It was a bit tumblr-y but it had its heart in the right place at the start. It was kind of hijacked by these fat activists that wanted to convince people that being 400 pounds was not just okay, it was good. Then social graces forced people to go along nod politely despite everyone disagreeing.
This is precisely how I felt. Being obese is not, nor ever, ok. The body positive movement around obesity should have been to help people to 1) nto feel ashamed at being obese, but also 2) to reduce the negativity around it and turn that into positive reinforcement for healthy eating. Instead it became a dogmatic, self righteous movement of encouragement to continue to live that way because others judged it negatively.
No one should be harassed or made to feel bad by the way they look, but at the same time, it's not wrong to want others to be healthy.
GLP-1 drugs have basically thrown out the idiotic idea that people were fat because they were sloths or gluttons. Our genetic and epigenetic predispositions very obviously played a huge role in whether on not people became obese. Body positivity was a reasonable coping mechanism for folks who drew the short straw at birth or in youth, and would never be able to have the beauty our society holds above almost everything.
Not we have a drug that fixes these predispositions. Yay! It’s basically the equivalent of “teeth positivity” going away after the advent of braces. The point was about helping people cope in an uncaring world… and then there not needing a coping mechanism after the problem people were coping with gets solved.
I realize this is a nuanced discussion, but could you clarify the predispositions you're referring to? I'm asking because there are people who blame obesity on a predisposition to hunger (obese people have a stronger hunger drive than thin people) but also people who blame it on a predisposition to weight gain, meaning that obese people can eat the same amount of food as thin people and still be obese. Are you saying GLP-1 drugs have refuted the idea of the latter?
I'm actually saying quite the opposite. That GLP-1 drugs have refuted the idea that people do not have built in biological mechanism that make them obese, whether or not that's on the hunger side (say, ghrelin) or on the amount of stored energy per calorie (say, metabolism, gut microbiome, etc).
My hypothesis is that GLP-1 drugs are basically counteracting the effects of various chemicals interfering with the natural processes of our endocrine system. I think something (microplastics, chemicals in the water, hormones, ultraprocessed food, etc) is interfering with how GLP-1 is interacting with our body in the first place. So the GLP-1 Drugs is helping bring this back to normal. I think different people due to genetic differences are affected by these environmental factors differently, that's why two people can both eat the same food and one is still starving and one is full.
Maybe Bond, he's a casual day drinker which aligns with alcoholism. The frat thing is more about binge drinking than alcoholism, which is not exactly the same thing. Binge drinking can cause alcoholism in the long run, but is inherently problematic even if it doesn't reach the point of developing a physical dependence.
To some extent American culture does glorify binge drinking, but I don't think the same is true of alcoholism. People brag about how much they drank at the party last night, but they feel shame about starting the morning with a few drinks.
I’m fairly certain that the “odd” behaviour is that of the extremists who hijacked the original concept to promote the idea that being fat is good.
I’d consider calling it “odd” to be an understatement. I always thought such extreme positions were a bizarre denial of the negative impacts that obesity can have on personal well-being and quality of life. Having said that, I only ever encountered such views on the Internet; never in real life.
Even more minor issues and not going to those more abhorrent extremes, some countries like Japan or China have much more social shame for public misbehavior. The United States used to have more social shame for public misbehavior. This is why people are quiet on subways, there's less petty crime, and higher grades. There's shame for doing poorly in school, not excuses for how ducks don't climb trees or whatever. There's shame for people that litter. I am all aboard this train personally.
I don't belive you can make a logical and humanitarian case for shaming people for who they're attracted to, whether it's children, animals, etc. They didn't choose it, and from the outside it looks like a horrible fate that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Our society would be much better off with compassion for those people, and it would likely result in fewer actual victimizations than our current approach.
Conflating attraction with actually doing bad things is sloppy reasoning.
None of these feel good things matter when someone victimizes a child because they mistakenly thought people will forgive them for their natural tendencies. You can argue from points of logic until you are blue in the face but talk to parents and you'll be laughed out of the room or have an angry mob on your hands.
I am also going to guess that you don't have children. I've seen all of my friends with children change how they think. Never, ever underestimate the emotional investment that family brings to the political table. I've witnessed card carrying Democrats vote Trump with no qualm.
> None of these feel good things matter when someone victimizes a child…
That's very true, yes. But many of us are attracted to certain characteristics without compulsively raping anyone possessing them; I like blonde hair! The parent poster is pointing out the distinction between attraction and action.
Again, we're not talking about whether someone should be harshly penalized for victimizing a child. We're talking about whether we should shame someone for a glitch in their brain over which they have no control. What is even the point of shame in that scenario? What exactly are you hoping for?
I would further argue that the shaming you're talking about makes it all worse! It makes people much less likely to seek help, and the shame spiral drives all kinds of anti-social and destructive behavior.
Again, I don't think you can make a logical case, and you clearly didn't even try here.
