# Is it just me, or is social media itself the problem?



## TwoSwords (Dec 22, 2017)

I'm pretty well plugged into the internet, and I do research there as both a hobby and a job. Yet, in the last two Christmas vacations I took, I had to tune it out after just a couple of days, and the main reason was that aside from relatively-isolated cases like Deviantart, I just couldn't trust social media and search engines to deliver what I wanted them to when I tried to do research on fatness and fat acceptance. Go ahead. Try it. Try using Yahoo, Google, Ask... Heck, use Duckduckgo if you think it'll help. The vast majority of searches will turn up *opposition* to these things, rather than the things themselves.

Lest you think Facebook is any better, the fat acceptance page there hasn't been updated since 2014, and references a fat acceptance website that no longer exists, (Following the link leads to a blank page with a bunch of links to freaking diet info!) while the page devoted to attacking fat acceptance received updates as recently as October of this year. Youtube is even worse, with fat acceptance and body positivity videos either just not present, or not showing up in searches, and needing to be stumbled onto by chance in the associated videos bar on the side.

A while back, I found a really good website with a series of very well-written articles, debunking the myth of the "obesity epidemic," and within a week of my finding it, the page had been scrubbed from the internet.

People mention public outcry against Facebook for their abusive censoring of fat-friendly ads in appropriate places, but I'm shocked that no one's talked about this; that the FA Reddit page is packed with links attacking FA, and so on and so forth. Where does it end? Is there a whole world of civil Fat admirers out there, who just can't make their voices heard because some bureaucrat in Silicon Valley decided to "sanitize" the web, and as always with censorship, it's fat people and their advocates who suffer first?

This has only confirmed me in my current course, naturally. I don't have any other choice but to oppose this naked, broadside attack against free speech in my own way. Still, I wish more people would discuss this, because it seems like far, far too many people don't even talk about these issues anymore.

P.S.: At least Fanfiction net still has "the Unchosen One," so not all hope is lost, I guess.

---

Addendum: More than one person has indirectly questioned my use of "Fat Acceptance" as a point of discussion, and my response is that the fate of Fat Acceptance represents the reason why just targeting fat-hating isn't enough. Just defending fat people from attacks isn't enough. Just trying to fix a few social issues, to make the lives of some women a little easier isn't enough. That helps fat people, sure. So who's helping FAs? Who stands up to defend the people who are treated as sickos and perverts for feeling emotions that are not mainstream, both by society at large, and by the very people they most care about? To use a quote I found online, "...men who find fat women attractive don’t have much more than a light peppering of creepy, small online communities, and several somewhat less creepy, unpopular figureheads to help shoulder public scorn."

We are human beings, and treating us as objects of ridicule for no misdeed is a wicked and shameful act. So, as I've said before, only the targeting of the stigma attached to *fatness specifically* will show even a glimmer of good faith in this area. Otherwise, it's just a sort of "Got mine, so forget you" attitude from fat people to FAs, giving up on a fight that deserves to be fought, and don't expect me to see it otherwise.


----------



## Yakatori (Dec 23, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> _...I tried to do research on fatness and *fat acceptance*._



Intentionally or not, you're conflating two very distinct, always contentious, and now somewhat estranged subcultures in _Size Acceptance_ versus _Fat Admiration_. That used to co-exist pretty well here until, well, a whole bunch of other technological changes (Smart Phones?) brought more of the mainstream fat folks, those not here just for porn, onto other, more widely utilized platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Tinder, _etc_...) 

Obvious troll. Is too obvious.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 23, 2017)

Yakatori said:


> Intentionally or not, you're conflating two very distinct, always contentious, and now somewhat estranged subcultures in _Size Acceptance_ versus _Fat Admiration_. That used to co-exist pretty well here until, well, a whole bunch of other technological changes (Smart Phones?) brought the more of mainstream fat folks, not here just for porn, onto other, more widely utilized platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Tinder, _etc_...)



So, what? Are you suggesting FA people largely abandoned youtube and google? I have no idea what you mean.

How does this address what I said?

P.S.: I don't see how a person could be a fat admirer without being in favor of fat acceptance, though I could understand why a person would want to practice fat acceptance, even if they're not a fat admirer.

If you're suggesting that most "mainstream fat folks" (I.E.: The people who actually put effort into defending fat acceptance,) were "brought" to those other social media locations, then where are they? Why don't they show up when you look for them? That's my question. Or did you mean something else by the word "mainstream?" Were you referring to those self-denigrating kinds that can't appreciate the marvelous gift they've been given?

P.P.S.: I'm also unsure of why you raised the issue of porn. Neither fatness nor fat acceptance is pornographic in nature, and I certainly don't follow any porn websites or anything like that, so it just doesn't seem relevant to what I was talking about.

P.P.P.S.: If you think this is about finding fat pictures to gawk at, think again. I'm madly, desperately, frantically *jealous* of fatter people, and am looking for anyone like-minded, to let me know the universe still has some decency in it.


----------



## landshark (Dec 23, 2017)

TS, out of curiosity, how do you define fat acceptance? Ive found it means different things to different people with some believing their definition is the sole definitive authoritative definition. Almost like religion! Anyway Im curious how you define it.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 23, 2017)

happily_married said:


> TS, out of curiosity, how do you define fat acceptance? I’ve found it means different things to different people with some believing their definition is the sole definitive authoritative definition. Almost like religion! Anyway I’m curious how you define it.



"The view that fatness is not, and/or should not be treated as, a negative quality to possess."*

And I haven't found it at all in certain places online, which is why I raised this issue.

---

*I place an asterisk after this definition because I want to clarify that just because something is not negative, doesn't mean it *must* be positive or that people *should* want it. For instance, it's not negative to have brown hair, or freckles, yet these things don't *need* to be positive, nor is anyone obligated to desire them. The same is true of fatness.

---

However, as an aside, (and this is not at all implied by the definition I just presented,) I *do* always view them as positive, and I *do* always desire these qualities for myself. My ultimate objective is to locate someone with whom I have some sufficient amount of common ground in these areas to have an actual, friendly conversation, as opposed to another in a long line of boring and much-too-easy debates. (You can go anywhere online for that.)


----------



## agouderia (Dec 23, 2017)

Have you ever considered numerical reality?
Or shifts in social grouping and jargon?

Fat admiration that is publicized through media channels - apart from the porn issue - is a niche issue with only a very limited number of participants.

Fat acceptance as a term and movement most likely is way past its heyday. In public awareness - and in terminology - it has been replaced by the body positivity or body acceptance movement - with similar but not identical goals.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 23, 2017)

agouderia said:


> Have you ever considered numerical reality?
> Or shifts in social grouping and jargon?
> 
> Fat admiration that is publicized through media channels - apart from the porn issue - is a niche issue with only a very limited number of participants.
> ...



I looked up "Numerical reality," and was brought to a page about an obscure superpower.

And in order for something to "replace" something else, it must fulfill the role of that thing. Some of the primary roles of the Fat Acceptance cause are to remind people that good moral conduct should extend to fat people as well, and that fatness should no longer be treated as a lesser quality, which should be marked for annihilation. Neither body positivity nor body acceptance overtly target these issues, and therefore neither is a replacement.

And by the way, if something being a "niche issue" had any effect on me or my goals, I wouldn't be an FA at all.

P.S.: Media channels? Did I read that right? You do realize I'm talking about normal internet discourse, right? Youtube has as much in common with diary entries as it does with media.


----------



## Yakatori (Dec 24, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> "_...I don't see how a person could be a fat admirer without being in favor of fat acceptance..._"


You haven't really thought this through. But I will try to '_do-you-a-solid_' here:



TwoSwords said:


> "_So, what? Are you suggesting FA people largely abandoned youtube and google?_"



No. FA is all over, from YouTube/Google (the same company as far as I can see) to Reddit to Instagram, etc... To more specific sites I'm sure you're probably deeply familiar with. The primary difference being (from my point of view) of it all being, fundamentally, more fragmented? Than it was in Dimensions' '_heydey_.'

And this isn't at all specific to just these kinds of niche interests, but more like an across the board phenomenon, across all media, inclusive of everything from the seemingly endless myriad of different types of shows, webcasts, and podcasts now available to us to movies and other content released exclusively through online subscription-based providers (like Hulu or Netflix). Or Music. Or, particularly, as this last election cycle has demonstrated, even something as basic and vital as news.

That is, much more so than even 7 or 8 years ago, everything is so much more '_individualized_' and customized to the increasingly more specific tastes of a particular demographic of '_consumer._' 

And so, fat people, in general, are no longer under the same kind of pressure they once may've felt to occupy the same space (virtual and other) as so many perverts and ill-mannered wankers popping in for some kind of show. Fetishising us, treating us as some kind of commodity form. Not (at all) suggesting that's necessarily you. Or anyone else in particular. Just...just..._sayin'_, is all. 

So, naturally, they left, they moved on. Most of us, at least. No longer strapped with the problem(s) of '_Omg, what if the people responding to my OkCupid profile don't quite realize just how fat I am, should I post more full-body shots?_'. Because, like I said, with smart phones, the ubiquity of that kind of interface's reach, everything moves so much more quickly. Than even just a decade or so ago.

Meanwhile, _FA_s: *blinking* "_Huh?..Who moved my cheese?_" 



TwoSwords said:


> "_How does this address what I said?_"


Once stripped of the community that Size Acceptance and otherwise more universally approachable themes helped to engender, the _FA_s were basically left with a shell of what was once here. A ghost town or grave yard, if you will, sparsely populated by those lurking amongst ruins of a zombie apocalypse. And those perfectly willing & happy to show bewbs for money. But, again, largely dominated by said wankers. 



TwoSwords said:


> "_..were "brought" to those other social media locations, then where are they? Why don't they show up when you look for them? That's my question._"



They're there-alright, they're just not (particularly) interested in letting people like you in. They're on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, _ect_... I mean, don't want to over-generalize, painting such wide variety of content with a broad brush; but I'll say you shouldn't necessarily expect that they'd include the terminology you're most familiar and appreciative of in their search engine optimization (_BBW_? _Thick_? _Pawg_?). Because they are not so particularly appreciative of that kind of terminology? Nor are they particularly interest in your '_Fat Acceptance_'. Whatever that's even supposed to mean.



TwoSwords said:


> "_I certainly don't follow any porn websites or anything like that, so..._"


Mhhmm. Sort of ironic, considering.


----------



## John Smith (Dec 24, 2017)

Welcome to society.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 24, 2017)

Yakatori said:


> No. FA is all over, from YouTube/Google (the same company as far as I can see) to Reddit to Instagram, etc... To more specific sites I'm sure you're probably deeply familiar with. The primary difference being (from my point of view) of it all being, fundamentally, more fragmented? Than it was in Dimensions' '_heydey_.'



"Fragmented" implies that there are still fragments left, so why am I not seeing them? Why are people not discussing this?



Yakatori said:


> And this isn't at all specific to just these kinds of niche interests, but more like an across the board phenomenon, across all media, inclusive of everything from the seemingly endless myriad of different types of shows, webcasts, and podcasts now available to us to movies and other content released exclusively through online subscription-based providers (like Hulu or Netflix). Or Music. Or, particularly, as this last election cycle has demonstrated, even something as basic and vital as news.



So Netflix, Hulu, Music and the news all have fragments of fat acceptance in them that I'm not aware of?



Yakatori said:


> That is, much more so than even 7 or 8 years ago, everything is so much more '_individualized_' and customized to the increasingly more specific tastes of a particular demographic of '_consumer._'



No man or woman is an island. That's no less true now than it's ever been, and it's wrong to expect people to support themselves, and to share their own views only with themselves, especially when those are views that the world at large benefits from.



Yakatori said:


> And so, fat people, in general, are no longer under the same kind of pressure they once may've felt to occupy the same space (virtual and other) as so many perverts and ill-mannered wankers popping in for some kind of show. Fetishising us, treating us as some kind of commodity form. Not (at all) suggesting that's necessarily you. Or anyone else in particular. Just...just..._sayin'_, is all.



So, yeah. What I'm seeing here is that, having found a way to hide from scorn (which still exists; oh, boy, does it ever!) fat people have decided that other groups of people who are scorned don't deserve their help.



Yakatori said:


> So, naturally, they left, they moved on. Most of us, at least. No longer strapped with the problem(s) of '_Omg, what if the people responding to my OkCupid profile don't quite realize just how fat I am, should I post more full-body shots?_'. Because, like I said, with smart phones, the ubiquity of that kind of interface's reach, everything moves so much more quickly. Than even just a decade or so ago.



I'm afraid I still don't see what smart phones have to do with people finding support in the midst of bad treatment by others. It hasn't gotten any easier. In fact, as I pointed out, it's harder.



Yakatori said:


> Once stripped of the community that Size Acceptance and otherwise more universally approachable themes helped to engender, the _FA_s were basically left with a shell of what was once here. A ghost town or grave yard, if you will, sparsely populated by those lurking amongst ruins of a zombie apocalypse. And those perfectly willing & happy to show bewbs for money. But, again, largely dominated by said wankers.
> 
> They're there-alright, they're just not (particularly) interested in letting people like you in. They're on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, _ect_... I mean, don't want to over-generalize, painting such wide variety of content with a broad brush; but I'll say you shouldn't necessarily expect that they'd include the terminology you're most familiar and appreciative of in their search engine optimization (_BBW_? _Thick_? _Pawg_?). Because they are not so particularly appreciative of that kind of terminology? Nor are they particularly interest in your '_Fat Acceptance_'. Whatever that's even supposed to mean.



I just defined what it meant for "Happily."

And again, all I'm seeing here is a group of people who were (and are) treated with open scorn, who once recognized that they were a persecuted group, and wanted to seek a solution for themselves and other, related persecuted groups, and have basically decided that, as long as they can feel like they're mainstream, nobody else's fate matters.

Fetishists and perverts are an *excuse* for dodging one's responsibility to those who are still rejected by society, and who still require support and acceptance. Yes, they may exist, but whether you *want* to paint everyone with a broad brush or not, that's exactly what you're doing, and it's no different from the broad brush thinking of a Youtube commentor, who assumes all fat people must eat horribly or something.

The only reason why concerns about fetishists are so common, is that miserable, unhappy, angry people always have the loudest voices, but in reality, for every person who has bad experiences with some fetishist, you'll find another person who found a way to enjoy pleasant company, and this is true in the FA spectrum and outside of it. So, while a certain amount of wariness is called for in any decision that requires discernment (and relationship and policy decisions especially,) this excessive fixation on shunning and avoiding fetishists is, as I see it, like trying to kill a fly with a blunderbuss. It's not really justifiable as a general rule, and is more likely to cause further harm than good. I think it's probably just more of the fallout from fat hate, and like all other elements of said fallout, it shouldn't be given any quarter.

So why is it suddenly just fine when open persecution of fatness goes on under our noses, and no one says a word about it?

The only answer I can think of that makes sense, is that women who are not already hostile to their own fat, (acting on fear, primarily,) have decided that challenging their abusers won't bring them any closer to happiness, because they're scared of the company they'd be keeping (again, in a broad brush kind of way,) while men, having realized that this irrational fear leaves no hope for an honest relationship to develop, and sick of being used with no hope of a positive outcome for themselves, have turned to porn as a cheap imitation of the real relationships they can't have.

Have I left anything out?


----------



## Tracii (Dec 25, 2017)

Facebook's main intent was to divide people and its done a good job at that.
It alienates everyone fat, skinny you name it


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 25, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> I'm pretty well plugged into the internet, and I do research there as both a hobby and a job. Yet, in the last two Christmas vacations I took, I had to tune it out after just a couple of days, and the main reason was that aside from relatively-isolated cases like Deviantart, I just couldn't trust social media and search engines to deliver what I wanted them to when I tried to do research on fatness and fat acceptance. Go ahead. Try it. Try using Yahoo, Google, Ask... Heck, use Duckduckgo if you think it'll help. The vast majority of searches will turn up *opposition* to these things, rather than the things themselves.
> 
> Lest you think Facebook is any better, the fat acceptance page there hasn't been updated since 2014, and references a fat acceptance website that no longer exists, (Following the link leads to a blank page with a bunch of links to freaking diet info!) while the page devoted to attacking fat acceptance received updates as recently as October of this year. Youtube is even worse, with fat acceptance and body positivity videos either just not present, or not showing up in searches, and needing to be stumbled onto by chance in the associated videos bar on the side.
> 
> ...


You've basically chronicled what I've been saying for the past couple of years. The Fat Acceptance movement is over. It was killed by several issues, from the faux "size diversity" movement as well as the number of fat people who've had WLS and don't believe they need fat acceptance anymore (even though they may be fat enough to still qualify for another WLS). And the extremely harsh reality of physiology as fat people get older continues to thin our ranks.

As for finding support for fat people, fat acceptance, or Fat Admirers on the _anti-_social media websites like Facebook, Reddit, _et al_, that's a fools errand. For that is where the villagers with torches and pitchforks reside, ready to show non-conformists like us the way to the True Path of Enlightenment.

I'm sorry you and so many others missed the golden age of Fat Acceptance. It was such an uplifting time, so full of promise for the future. 

I think the online communities have been going downhill since the old BBS days. As the technological bar for entry into computers was lowered, more mouth breathing knuckle draggers were able to go online to share their brilliant thoughts with us. Now every idiot with a smartphone attacks us from all sides.

While you may see the situation as a "Got mine, so forget you" attitude, you overlook several issues. First is several of us have been fighting the good fight for well over thirty years. We've dropped several thousand dollars on the fight over the years. And this is a fight that takes a lot of very smart people working together to gain any progress towards fat acceptance. But we'd no longer be starting from the easy origin we had back in 1969. The world has changed and many of our old talking points have been disproven or accommodations have been made. 

And speaking as an old timer, I sometimes wonder what I've wrought. As much as I love how a SSBBW looks, I appreciate the costs to her. Beauty measured by the pound carries a heavy weight to the bearer. It's why I advise only those who receive their own sexual gratification from being fat to gain or maintain supersize status.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 25, 2017)

Tracii said:


> Facebook's main intent was to divide people and its done a good job at that.
> It alienates everyone fat, skinny you name it


Do you have a source you can cite for that? I suspect it's at most an unintended consequence of the users being the product being delivered to the advertisers.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 25, 2017)

Tracii said:


> Facebook's main intent was to divide people and its done a good job at that.
> It alienates everyone fat, skinny you name it



I believe it. Mark Zuckerberg is a divisive dude.



HereticFA said:


> You've basically chronicled what I've been saying for the past couple of years. The Fat Acceptance movement is over. It was killed by several issues, from the faux "size diversity" movement as well as the number of fat people who've had WLS and don't believe they need fat acceptance anymore (even though they may be fat enough to still qualify for another WLS). And the extremely harsh reality of physiology as fat people get older continues to thin our ranks.



No amount of physiology can cause people to give up on accepting their weight. That's a decision on their part, and only their own (in my view, unwise) decision effects it.



HereticFA said:


> As for finding support for fat people, fat acceptance, or Fat Admirers on the _anti-_social media websites like Facebook, Reddit, _et al_, that's a fools errand. For that is where the villagers with torches and pitchforks reside, ready to show non-conformists like us the way to the True Path of Enlightenment.



So what do you suggest?



HereticFA said:


> I'm sorry you and so many others missed the golden age of Fat Acceptance. It was such an uplifting time, so full of promise for the future.
> 
> I think the online communities have been going downhill since the old BBS days. As the technological bar for entry into computers was lowered, more mouth breathing knuckle draggers were able to go online to share their brilliant thoughts with us. Now every idiot with a smartphone attacks us from all sides.



There was always a lot of hostility, and I expect that, but there was also a time when people could find support when they needed to, and knew where to look.



HereticFA said:


> While you may see the situation as a "Got mine, so forget you" attitude, you overlook several issues. First is several of us have been fighting the good fight for well over thirty years. We've dropped several thousand dollars on the fight over the years. And this is a fight that takes a lot of very smart people working together to gain any progress towards fat acceptance. But we'd no longer be starting from the easy origin we had back in 1969. The world has changed and many of our old talking points have been disproven or accommodations have been made.



Disproven in what way? Accomodations were made by whom? Who decided it was okay to throw FAs as a body under the proverbial bus? It all sounds ephemeral and vague to me, and if I'm going to develop any sort of strategy for finding support, or for conquering the internet, I need lists and names, so I can start disproving them.



HereticFA said:


> And speaking as an old timer, I sometimes wonder what I've wrought. As much as I love how a SSBBW looks, I appreciate the costs to her. Beauty measured by the pound carries a heavy weight to the bearer.



You're overcomplicating matters.

There are people who are naturally-fat.
There are people who are naturally-unable to feel for thin people.
If person 1 cannot accept their fatness, they will react badly to the love that person 2 can express.
Therefore, they will cause harm to person 2, and to themselves, by refusing to do so. Where is the hole in this chain?



HereticFA said:


> It's why I advise only those who receive their own sexual gratification from being fat to gain or maintain supersize status.



There are a few points that I feel you've missed here.

A. I've never said that anyone should choose a body type they hate. I agree that, as far as it's within their power, people should have bodies that they can feel confident over, especially since all future mates will need the same, or similar types of feelings in order to appreciate them.

B. I don't know if I was sufficiently clear on this, but this is not even about sex at all. It's about beauty. Beauty is one thing for the majority and another thing for me. To me, beauty is a function of softness, size and surface area, and there are many ways for women to attain these; fatness being only the most natural and least alienating and strange. I also bemoan the loss of hoop skirts and the coming of spring, when people take off their thicker coats. So I'm not arguing from the perspective of a person who specifically cares about sex. I want to live in a world where beauty is not so hard to find, but much more important for me is a single voice of support. But sex? If you'll forgive this, screw that noise.

C. The claim that only certain people *should* gain or maintain a certain weight implies that everyone has some freedom in what their weight is, but as my own experience of not being able to progress past the 280 range indicates, that is simply untrue. People have natural weight "ranges," which they can move up or down *a little,* but stressing the point and struggling to lose or gain a huge amount of weight only leads to frustration, stress and the associated high blood pressure that comes with it.

D. In reality, yes, there are limits for fat people in speed and being "good for thieving," but fatter people also have far greater qualities in many other areas, such as durability, comfort and often, physical strength as well. It's no different than taller people being better, on average, at playing basketball.

E. You also seem to be questioning the legitimacy of FA emotions, in which case, in fairness, we would then need to question the legitimacy of all emotions generally, but since you mentioned sex, I'm not sure if it's really the emotions you're questioning, or just the sexual craving, so I won't press this point.

Also, you've referred to "very smart people" who are apparently needed, and my response is; not really. It only takes one person to accept fatness fully and completely, and I am that person, apparently.

However, if it's brains you need, there are several issues that fat acceptance raises, which I've never heard anyone on the other side adequately answer. Maybe you can share with me how each of these issues was "disproven."

1. How can it be philosophically shown that good physical health transcends the human right to be treated respectfully and lovingly?

2. How can it be shown that experiencing illness in 30 years makes you unhealthy now?

3. How can it be shown that those fat people who experience illness experience it because of their weight, rather than due to stress, poor nutrition, lack of exercise or lack of sleep?

4. How can it be explained that fat people with illnesses live longer, on average, than thin people with the same?

5. What objective standard can be used to show that fatness is inferior to (or even is not superior to) thinness?

6. What is the precise, cause-and-effect relationship between fatness and poor health?

7. How does that relationship work?

8. How can mainstream medicine defend itself from the claim that it is merely assuming that correlations imply causations with regard to fatness?

9. Since every person needs food to survive, in what sense is it proper to speak of a "food addiction" relative to some people, but not others?

10. What objective standard can be used to show that fatness is less beautiful than (or even is not more beautiful than) thinness?

11. What grounds do the fat hate community have for their activities, to protect them from the accusation that they are merely citing their own, fallible sentiments, in place of actual morals?

12. What evidence is there that fat hate or rejection of one's natural body shape makes people healthier?

13. Or prettier?

14. Or better off?

15. Or encourages them to succeed in losing weight?

16. What evidence is there that most people who lose weight in these manners manage to keep it off for more than 5 years?

17. Or find greater happiness?

18. Or improve in overall health?

In short, how have *any* of the claims of fat acceptance been challenged *in any way,* apart from the foundation-less, sentimental drumbeat of the less critical thinkers continuing for a while?


----------



## Tracii (Dec 25, 2017)

Search Sean Parker the first FB president and see what he says about it and how sorry he is that he was a part of it.
Probably find several links to what he said on The Guardian or Gizmodo.
More than likely on Brietbart as well.
All I know if you lean to the left you will discount anything I say or any link to articles that I give you.
But if he did actually say it and admits it then it shouldn't matter who reports it.
Its just a data mining site anyway because people are stupid and freely give out personal info all day long.
You cannot deny the division that exists on there and that groups like antifa and BLM use it all the time. 
Conservative groups do to so I don't give them a pass either.
Trump uses twitter very well to bug the crap out of liberals that fall for anything he tweets.
His tweets drive the liberal media crazy and usually makes them look like fools.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 26, 2017)

Tracii said:


> *Facebook's main intent was to divide people* and its done a good job at that.
> It alienates everyone fat, skinny you name it


It is this point I was addressing in my previous comment to you.



Tracii said:


> Search Sean Parker the first FB president and see what he says about it and how sorry he is that he was a part of it.
> Probably find several links to what he said on The Guardian or Gizmodo.
> More than likely on Brietbart as well.
> All I know if you lean to the left you will discount anything I say or any link to articles that I give you.


I've now found a few articles that cite remarks from Zuckerberg "who has asked for "forgiveness" for ways his "work was used to divide people," revealed Facebook's new mission statement this past summer."

Somehow I suspect they will only change their techniques and not the end result. They can't if the core of their business and algorithms is based on the following: "The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, ... was all about: 'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'" Parker added. The company achieved this by adding the "like" button or letting people comment on posts or pictures, with Parker calling these "a social-validation feedback loop ... exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, *because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.*"

It's that core vulnerability that causes the division because it puts the poster at the center of their online universe. Most people seem to lack the capacity to accept other realities outside of their own and that's most obvious in online exchanges where the lack of visible body language allows a poster to ramp up inflammatory statements beyond the threshold of "rage" by the readers. 



Tracii said:


> But if he did actually say it and admits it then it shouldn't matter who reports it.
> Its just a data mining site anyway because people are stupid and freely give out personal info all day long.


I guess I've been an unusual (and unprofitable) FB user. I revealed very little of my personal information and even less of my "current events". You would learn very little about me from my FB presence. I think the difference is I remembered the old adage "familiarity breeds contempt". Something most everyone's grandparents and great-grandparents understood. And now everyone gets to experience the truth of another old adage, "those who don't earn from history are doomed to repeat it." 



Tracii said:


> You cannot deny the division that exists on there and that groups like antifa and BLM use it all the time.
> Conservative groups do to so I don't give them a pass either.
> Trump uses twitter very well to bug the crap out of liberals that fall for anything he tweets.
> His tweets drive the liberal media crazy and usually makes them look like fools.


Trump understands another old adage, "the best defense is a good offense". I applaud his effort so far. I've enjoyed watching the Media driven into apoplexy over his posts.

Un-social media ls like a double edged sword with no handle. Most grip it too tightly and swing too hard. Over time more will learn that lesson and post accordingly.


----------



## Tracii (Dec 26, 2017)

I enjoy watching all these activist types get on you tube and make bold claims only to find out nobody gives a damn and looks at them as whiny cry babies then makes fun of them for being utterly stupid.
I have done the activism thing when I was in school thinking I was going to change the world but I grew up and saw how stupid I looked waving signs and chanting some stupid slogan.
The people at these rallies when asked why are they there and what is their point they stand there and won't say anything. My guess is they don't know why they are there and just want to be on you tube for their 15 min of fame.
I love watching the loudmouth anifa bad boys act all bad and threaten others then the other person kicks their butt and watch the antifa crowd scatter and leave their comrade laying on the ground.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Dec 26, 2017)

Tracii said:


> I enjoy watching all these activist types get on you tube and make bold claims only to find out nobody gives a damn and looks at them as whiny cry babies then makes fun of them for being utterly stupid.
> I have done the activism thing when I was in school thinking I was going to change the world but I grew up and saw how stupid I looked waving signs and chanting some stupid slogan.
> The people at these rallies when asked why are they there and what is their point they stand there and won't say anything. My guess is they don't know why they are there and just want to be on you tube for their 15 min of fame.
> I love watching the loudmouth anifa bad boys act all bad and threaten others then the other person kicks their butt and watch the antifa crowd scatter and leave their comrade laying on the ground.



I enjoy it, too, but for other reasons. When people cease to believe in the effectiveness of non-violent protest, they generally look for something else to believe in. So far, automatic weapons and suicide bombing seem to be leading contenders for the position.


----------



## Tracii (Dec 26, 2017)

Can you define automatic weapon and where an automatic weapon was used in a commission of a crime recently?
You do know automatic weapons have been restricted and highly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act. Then banned from new manufacture since 1968.
Unless the perp/nut case has a spare 20 grand laying to purchase one and wait a year for the FBI background check and tax stamp chances are he isn't going to have an automatic weapon.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 27, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> No amount of physiology can cause people to give up on accepting their weight. That's a decision on their part, and only their own (in my view, unwise) decision effects it.


Actually physiological issues like diabetes and diabetic complications, orthopedic issues like damaged joints and stress fractures, congestive heart failure, and many other weight related problems have caused many of our former compatriots and allies to abandon the path of fat acceptance. Yes, it was a decision on their part, at least for the ones that lived to make that decision.




TwoSwords said:


> So what do you suggest?


Accept the resources currently available. (And there are many compared to over 35 years ago.) What are you looking for? Larger clothes, social groups, fat porn sites? There's probably more now than ever before. The only thing missing is a place where newly awakened FAs can spread their wings and make the typical mistakes before they mature. 



TwoSwords said:


> There was always a lot of hostility, and I expect that, but there was also a time when people could find support when they needed to, and knew where to look.


The hostility, both from the public and from within our own ranks, will be a constant. The support you think used to be readily available was actually very spotty. Not everyone received it in similar measure. And to be very blunt, some people were needier than others. A few needed more professional help than was available from a social group of average fat folks in the process of finding themselves.

As for today, there are still a few groups scattered across the US, UK and other countries. Get involved and don't expect a perfect fit to your expectations. All of them are busy trying to meet their own expectations.




TwoSwords said:


> Disproven in what way? Accomodations were made by whom? Who decided it was okay to throw FAs as a body under the proverbial bus?


Basically the bariatric industry started using our old Fat Acceptance talking points in their advertising in the early 2000's. And they were phenomenally successful in their use to convince people to be a customer in their OR.

And the FA's were tossed under the bus by the feminists in the Fat Acceptance movement who strenuously objected to sexuality intruding into their (hijacked) civil rights organization they were trying to morph NAAFA into.



TwoSwords said:


> It all sounds ephemeral and vague to me, and if I'm going to develop any sort of strategy for finding support, or for conquering the internet, I need lists and names, so I can start disproving them.


ROTFL!!! That's even more of a Quixotic endeavor than it was in 1969 to 1999.
Here's a couple of groups to go battle:
1) National Institute of Health
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/overweight-and-obesity
2) The Obesity Society
http://www.obesity.org/home
Both groups tend to make decisions based on empirical data, not emotional opinions. You better bring your "A" game if you want to change their minds and their decisions that guide current medical practice and public policy.

But maybe you can start small. Try contacting the producers of "My 600 Pound Life" on TLC. Maybe you can get them to do an episode where you talk someone into accepting their weight for at least another 5 years.



TwoSwords said:


> You're overcomplicating matters.
> 
> There are people who are naturally-fat.
> There are people who are naturally-unable to feel for thin people.
> ...


All chains have holes, or they'd be a bar.

All kidding aside, I think you're oversimplifying the issue to just the perspective of an FA trying to support their preferences. And there was an element of that in NAAFA when it was started. Bill Fabrey was a devout and practicing FA who preferred SSBBWs and probably still does. (He was quite the flirtatious FA with my SSBBW wife a decade or so ago when he assured her there was plenty of room to grow before the seatbelt wouldn't fit.) 

People can prefer to not be fat for many reasons. Some are simply due to social opinion. But for many others their preference is rooted in physiological reasons which you apparently discount. You'd have to be able to stop people's bodies from improving health indicators like BP, BG, HDL, LDL, triglycerides, and other issues when they lose weight. I wish it wasn't true but it is, and we look like idiots when we argue that it doesn't matter. And it's not just due to emotional stress as you seem to believe. 



TwoSwords said:


> There are a few points that I feel you've missed here.
> 
> A. I've never said that anyone should choose a body type they hate. I agree that, as far as it's within their power, people should have bodies that they can feel confident over, especially since all future mates will need the same, or similar types of feelings in order to appreciate them.
> 
> B. I don't know if I was sufficiently clear on this, but this is not even about sex at all. It's about beauty. Beauty is one thing for the majority and another thing for me. To me, beauty is a function of softness, size and surface area, and there are many ways for women to attain these; fatness being only the most natural and least alienating and strange. I also bemoan the loss of hoop skirts and the coming of spring, when people take off their thicker coats. So I'm not arguing from the perspective of a person who specifically cares about sex. I want to live in a world where beauty is not so hard to find, but much more important for me is a single voice of support. But sex? If you'll forgive this, screw that noise.



Admiration of beauty is the precursor to lust, and lust is a prerequisite for loving sex. So your attempt to distance your stance and argument from sex is intellectually dishonest. Otherwise your argument slides into the "FA infantilism" that's been proposed by a few psychologists and sociologists. That's where the FA is seeking the softness and overwhelming size difference they experienced with their mother when they were an infant. That may be true with you and if it is, that's OK. Just realize it's not what many of us experience as FAs.



TwoSwords said:


> C. The claim that only certain people *should* gain or maintain a certain weight implies that everyone has some freedom in what their weight is, but as my own experience of not being able to progress past the 280 range indicates, that is simply untrue. People have natural weight "ranges," which they can move up or down *a little,* but stressing the point and struggling to lose or gain a huge amount of weight only leads to frustration, stress and the associated high blood pressure that comes with it.


The setpoint theory of weight is a little over 25 years old. And repeated weight yo-yo-ing has been shown to increase BP, typically with weight swings of 70 lbs or more.

My views of who should gain (or maintain) are based on years of observation and consideration. Of all the sub-groups of fat people (and wanna-be's), only those who get sexual self gratification should pursue it. And they need to fully appreciate that the risks are real and they accept them. It's a lifestyle of commitment. No one should do it to please anyone else but themselves. That said, they should look for someone that appreciates their efforts. Not only because it's such a rare pairing that deserves to be made, but the gainer is going to need help eventually. It shouldn't be someone likely to bail on them when the going gets tough. 



TwoSwords said:


> D. In reality, yes, there are limits for fat people in speed and being "good for thieving," but fatter people also have far greater qualities in many other areas, such as durability, comfort and often, physical strength as well. It's no different than taller people being better, on average, at playing basketball.


Moral of the story: the only sport fat people should do is lifting weights.



TwoSwords said:


> E. You also seem to be questioning the legitimacy of FA emotions, in which case, in fairness, we would then need to question the legitimacy of all emotions generally, but since you mentioned sex, I'm not sure if it's really the emotions you're questioning, or just the sexual craving, so I won't press this point.


No, since as an FA I've gone through the full range of emotions. Don't let your wants override your SSBBW's needs.



TwoSwords said:


> Also, you've referred to "very smart people" who are apparently needed, and my response is; not really. It only takes one person to accept fatness fully and completely, and I am that person, apparently.
> 
> However, if it's brains you need, there are several issues that fat acceptance raises, which I've never heard anyone on the other side adequately answer. Maybe you can share with me how each of these issues was "disproven."


I have numerous friends and acquaintances who belong to MENSA, several who were involved with the formation and operation of the Fat Acceptance movement. And their intelligence was obvious in the clarity of their writings and breadth and depth of their knowledge. As they drifted away from NAAFA, the Fat Acceptance movement's progress slowed, then stalled. 



TwoSwords said:


> 1. How can it be philosophically shown that good physical health transcends the human right to be treated respectfully and lovingly?


I suspect many philosophers would argue a person's right to life, and one free of disease slightly superceeds the right to be free of verbal abuse. This is because you can usually avoid hurtful people. But disease or death is within you. However the right to be "treated respectfully and lovingly" implies an obligation on others, thereby violating their human right to be free of enslavement and their right to freedom of speech, at least from as philosophical perspective. 

Stated another way, no amount of love and adoration from you can help heal your SSBBW loved one in her hospital bed.



TwoSwords said:


> 2. How can it be shown that experiencing illness in 30 years makes you unhealthy now?


Medical knowledge has shown that chronic illnesses frequently start decades earlier. The biggest chronic illness in the field of medicine is currently diabetes. The causal relationship of elevated weight to diabetes is well documented and understood. The explosion of diabetes is somewhat of a negative testament of the success of Fat Acceptance.



TwoSwords said:


> 3. How can it be shown that those fat people who experience illness experience it because of their weight, rather than due to stress, poor nutrition, lack of exercise or lack of sleep?


Because weight loss usually improves the medical indicators of BP, BG, LDL, HDL, triglycerides and sleep apnea. It's very hard to argue with empirical data that's been duplicated fairly consistently and covered by plenty of articles and studies.



TwoSwords said:


> 4. How can it be explained that fat people with illnesses live longer, on average, than thin people with the same?


While there is the "Obesity Paradox" w/r/t heart disease, there are limits. It really applies to the range of "overweight" (BMI of 25 to 30) and not as much for the higher BMI's. Associating it with obesity (BMI of 30 to 35) is a misnomer.

Some diseases actually kill fat people a little faster. Issues like respiratory infections and skin infections have a big impact. And I've never known an average weight person who had cellulitis. Most fat people I know have had it to varying degrees at one time or another, myself included. And cellulitis can kill. And sometimes it can start with an acne inversa site.



TwoSwords said:


> 5. What objective standard can be used to show that fatness is inferior to (or even is not superior to) thinness?


The objective standard of statistics. The majority of all people will find bodies in the BMI range of 20 to 25 more attractive than what we do. (My preference is a BMI of 60 to 80, but I no longer expect that. The cost to my loved one is too great.) Numerous studies have well documented that fewer negative health issues occur with more average BMI's. (But surely you've read at least some of those papers.)



TwoSwords said:


> 6. What is the precise, cause-and-effect relationship between fatness and poor health?
> 
> 7. How does that relationship work?
> 
> 8. How can mainstream medicine defend itself from the claim that it is merely assuming that correlations imply causations with regard to fatness?



There's not just one key factor. It's a multi-variate issue but at least the doctors now acknowledge it's not simply a case of overeating as the majority of the public still believe. Medical researchers are still working out all the underlying biologic mechanisms. But as some feedees do show, sufficient quantities of food do make for lush bodies.



TwoSwords said:


> 9. Since every person needs food to survive, in what sense is it proper to speak of a "food addiction" relative to some people, but not others?



When someone wants to stop eating when they're full (or not hungry), but they can't and they seek medical help with that issue. That's probably the "bright line" threshold of food addiction. 



TwoSwords said:


> 10. What objective standard can be used to show that fatness is less beautiful than (or even is not more beautiful than) thinness?


Again, studies have been done.



TwoSwords said:


> 11. What grounds do the fat hate community have for their activities, to protect them from the accusation that they are merely citing their own, fallible sentiments, in place of actual morals?


The same grounds we self-appointed fat activists have for our activities. We each have our own sense of morality, values, and beauty we want to see increased in practice. Unfortunately we are not only the minority, but we're fighting against the rules of human physiology. 





TwoSwords said:


> 12. What evidence is there that fat hate or rejection of one's natural body shape makes people healthier?
> 
> 13. Or prettier?
> 
> ...



The fact that you're asking such elementary questions says you're not ready to debate the opposition. You'll be ready once you can argue their side as well as the Fat Acceptance perspective. Your newbie status is blatantly obvious.

I'll try to answer more of these questions a little later. I've got to get to bed now.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 27, 2017)

Now, because much of your post leans on your answers to my final questions, and requires those answers in order to carry its points, I'll begin by addressing them, then move on to your other points.



HereticFA said:


> I suspect many philosophers would argue a person's right to life, and one free of disease slightly superceeds the right to be free of verbal abuse. This is because you can usually avoid hurtful people. But disease or death is within you. However the right to be "treated respectfully and lovingly" implies an obligation on others, thereby violating their human right to be free of enslavement and their right to freedom of speech, at least from as philosophical perspective.



This is confused. People *do* have moral obligations, and this in no way implies enslavement. For instance, I am morally obligated not to kill you and take all your stuff. This does not mean that I am enslaved. I still *could* kill someone and take their stuff. Rather, it's a moral rule, determining what I *should not* do. Human rights exist as an expression of this very moral rule; that there are things which it is *right* for people to have, and *wrong* for others to take from them, and all moral obligations are the same in this regard.

Now, you're right that our human rights are arranged in a heirarchy, with life being primary among that heirarchy. However, it's incorrect to prioritize freedom (read; license) over obligations to others. Any person who demands any rights, while refusing to supply the rights of others is like a man building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other.



HereticFA said:


> Medical knowledge has shown that chronic illnesses frequently start decades earlier. The biggest chronic illness in the field of medicine is currently diabetes. The causal relationship of elevated weight to diabetes is well documented and understood. The explosion of diabetes is somewhat of a negative testament of the success of Fat Acceptance.



Two things.
1. Fat Acceptance, as you pointed out in a previous reply, in fact, *did not* succeed, and therefore there is no correlation between Fat Acceptance and the rise in diabetes, much less a clear connection.
2. It's not enough to say "the causal relationship is well documented and understood." Which documents? Who understands this causal relationship? Give me some arguments or evidence, so that I can deal with them. The last I heard, the correlation between diabetes and obesity was the only strong disease correlation in existence, and that even so, it was still just a correlation, and not well-supported.



HereticFA said:


> Because weight loss usually improves the medical indicators of BP, BG, LDL, HDL, triglycerides and sleep apnea. It's very hard to argue with empirical data that's been duplicated fairly consistently and covered by plenty of articles and studies.



When you say "weight loss usually" does this or that, keep in mind that what you're referring to are experiments, which are done on a group of people who are doing other things in their lives. Now, I might be wrong on this (I'm open to that possibility,) but the last I saw, there had been no studies turning up results like these, while specifically focusing on people who had lost weight *in isolation from other factors,* and there easily could have been. Just follow people who've had weight-loss surgery. On that score, it seems the picture is less pristine, with the dramatic decrease in weight usually having no effect, or a negative effect, upon the person's health. To me, this seems to indicate that it is not the decrease in weight, but the *increase* in healthy behaviors that leads to good health biomarkers. However, again, this is just a correlation, and correlation does not imply causation. I can't definitively state this, and fat-haters know this. They'll take advantage of that to try to put their point over, because they *do* definitively state their points as fact, even though they lack any proof to back them up with.



HereticFA said:


> While there is the "Obesity Paradox" w/r/t heart disease, there are limits. It really applies to the range of "overweight" (BMI of 25 to 30) and not as much for the higher BMI's. Associating it with obesity (BMI of 30 to 35) is a misnomer.



This is a misunderstanding. The obesity paradox refers to the longevity of those who struggle with illnesses while obese vs. not. There is no strong correlation between obesity and heart disease, as there is with diabetes. Heart disease is used as an excuse to attack the obese, but in reality, thin people suffer from heart disease almost as much in places with lousy diets, while in places like France, where a lot of natural cheeses and other normal saturated fats are consumed, heart disease rates are much lower.

At best, the risk of heart disease for an overweight person may be less than twice that for a thin person, and keep in mind when we talk about "risk," that this is not a real thing. It's an estimated percentage chance of something occurring in the future, but since we can't know anything about the future for certain, any estimates we make should be taken with a truckload of salt. "Risk" is also effected by many other factors. For example, diet and exercise can effect risk, as we were just discussing, but from what I've seen in my studies of medicine, the biggest determiner of heart disease is genetics. One of my relatives has heart disease, and I've rarely met a taller and fitter man. Yet, according to the doctors, this often happens, that a person may suffer from a heart condition inherited from their ancestors, as it was in his case.

Since we know that genetics can also effect a person's natural weight range, it's no surprise when these two factors coincide, but that far from proves that weight is the determining factor in heart disease. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence to debunk this claim.



HereticFA said:


> Some diseases actually kill fat people a little faster. Issues like respiratory infections and skin infections have a big impact. And I've never known an average weight person who had cellulitis. Most fat people I know have had it to varying degrees at one time or another, myself included. And cellulitis can kill. And sometimes it can start with an acne inversa site.



Yes, if left untreated, some of these illnesses can indeed kill you. However, this is nothing unusual about fatness. Thin people are more vulnerable to seasonal illnesses, anemia, osteoporosis and reproductive issues, and some of those can kill you too. No one is safe. However, that proves nothing about fatness.



HereticFA said:


> The objective standard of statistics.



Statistics are not an objective standard. They're not even a method of proof. Countless studies of statistics have shown that simply by phrasing a study in a certain way, many studies of statistics warp the results. For instance, a while back, a study was done asking women if they were in favor of Women's Suffrage (in those very words,) and the majority said no. Now, this was done specifically to prove a point; namely, you can't trust statistics to reveal objective truth, if you can't trust the people doing the study to get across to those polled what they're really being asked, and this selective phrasing of studies can warp the results, whether the study is poll-based or not. If you're taking statistics as a standard of objective truth, it's no wonder you're having second thoughts.



HereticFA said:


> The majority of all people will find bodies in the BMI range of 20 to 25 more attractive than what we do. (My preference is a BMI of 60 to 80, but I no longer expect that. The cost to my loved one is too great.) Numerous studies have well documented that fewer negative health issues occur with more average BMI's. (But surely you've read at least some of those papers.)



I make it a hobby of mine to examine the terms of those studies for a game of "find the flaw in phrasing."



HereticFA said:


> There's not just one key factor. It's a multi-variate issue but at least the doctors now acknowledge it's not simply a case of overeating as the majority of the public still believe. Medical researchers are still working out all the underlying biologic mechanisms. But as some feedees do show, sufficient quantities of food do make for lush bodies.



Of course, but wait... What did I just hear? That sound, that miraculous sound of...



HereticFA said:


> Medical researchers are still working out all the underlying biologic mechanisms.



Did... Did you just admit that medical professionals don't really know how fatness causes illness? I think you just admitted that. That was my entire point. Of course, as I've said in the past, trying to push your weight beyond its natural range, or developing lousy eating habits or avoiding exercise come with all their own problems. That's not even really under debate, but wow. It sure is nice to get full confirmation on my views once in a while.

Medical professionals, as a body, are claiming to know more than they do, in fact, know on the topic of weight and health. They can *say* that being fat will cause you health problems (big deal. Anyone can say it,) but when push comes to shove, this is still *not proof.*



HereticFA said:


> When someone wants to stop eating when they're full (or not hungry), but they can't and they seek medical help with that issue. That's probably the "bright line" threshold of food addiction.



I've never heard of anyone like that, nor is that how the term "food addiction" is used.



HereticFA said:


> The same grounds we self-appointed fat activists have for our activities. We each have our own sense of morality, values, and beauty we want to see increased in practice. Unfortunately we are not only the minority, but we're fighting against the rules of human physiology.



Well, I feel I've already shown the weaknesses in the "physiology argument," and I'm honestly disappointed to see someone on this very board advancing acceptance of this unsupported majority position, but whatever. That's your right.

In any case, you seem to think that my position on this is for sentimental reasons. No. I believe people have a moral obligation to be loving and honest to one another, on the basis of my belief in the objectivity of truth. My love for fatness only *motivates* me to pursue this topic, but I would never cite it as the *basis* for any of my claims about it.

Now that the "physiology" question has been thoroughly put to bed, let me address the other points of your reply.



HereticFA said:


> Yes, it was a decision on their part...



We may disagree on how to do science and general honesty in learning information, but at least we can agree on this. Physiology does not force you to hate your body.



HereticFA said:


> Accept the resources currently available. (And there are many compared to over 35 years ago.) What are you looking for? Larger clothes, social groups, fat porn sites? There's probably more now than ever before. The only thing missing is a place where newly awakened FAs can spread their wings and make the typical mistakes before they mature.



These things are not relevent to me, unless one or more of them involves an environment that utterly rejects the cultural (and it is cultural, as I think I've shown,) bias against fatness, and therefore leaves room for the possibility that I can be treated like a person.



HereticFA said:


> The hostility, both from the public and from within our own ranks, will be a constant. The support you think used to be readily available was actually very spotty. Not everyone received it in similar measure. And to be very blunt, some people were needier than others. A few needed more professional help than was available from a social group of average fat folks in the process of finding themselves.



That doesn't make it right, nor sufficient. If I find that support is no longer available, I'll make one. I'm already at work on a project related to this, but I don't really want to finish it if it can be helped, because I, at least, am still concerned with the broader consequences of my actions, and don't want to do anything that hurts people for no reason.



HereticFA said:


> As for today, there are still a few groups scattered across the US, UK and other countries. Get involved and don't expect a perfect fit to your expectations. All of them are busy trying to meet their own expectations.



I've very black-and-white on this, and that shouldn't be too hard to understand.



HereticFA said:


> Basically the bariatric industry started using our old Fat Acceptance talking points in their advertising in the early 2000's. And they were phenomenally successful in their use to convince people to be a customer in their OR.



So they conned a bunch of people. That explains the consequences for the broader culture, but it is not justification for avoiding personal responsibility.



HereticFA said:


> And the FA's were tossed under the bus by the feminists in the Fat Acceptance movement who strenuously objected to sexuality intruding into their (hijacked) civil rights organization they were trying to morph NAAFA into.



I think of fat acceptance in a moral context; not a civil one. I'm not trying to pass any laws. I gave up on the government long ago. My position is that we *should* have a fat-neutral position morally, because the dignity of the human person is not effected by a few hundred pounds.



HereticFA said:


> That's even more of a Quixotic endeavor than it was in 1969 to 1999.



"Windmills, remember, if you fight with them, may swing round their huge arms and cast you down into the mire! Or up, among the stars!"
-Cyrano de Bergerac-



HereticFA said:


> Here's a couple of groups to go battle:
> 1) National Institute of Health
> https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/overweight-and-obesity
> 2) The Obesity Society
> ...



I always bring my A game against everyone, but I don't always tip my hand full of "A's" right away.



HereticFA said:


> All kidding aside, I think you're oversimplifying the issue to just the perspective of an FA trying to support their preferences. And there was an element of that in NAAFA when it was started. Bill Fabrey was a devout and practicing FA who preferred SSBBWs and probably still does. (He was quite the flirtatious FA with my SSBBW wife a decade or so ago when he assured her there was plenty of room to grow before the seatbelt wouldn't fit.)



Argument ad Hominem. The validity of an argument is not effected by the emotional state of the person propounding it. If my arguments are invalid, they're invalid regardless of my feelings. If they're valid, my emotional state does not invalidate them.



HereticFA said:


> People can prefer to not be fat for many reasons. Some are simply due to social opinion. But for many others their preference is rooted in physiological reasons which you apparently discount.



I'm not suggesting a person might not have a *natural, physiological desire* to be thin. I know I have an unchanging need to be fat, so I'm open to the possibility that it works the other way around too, as wierd as that sounds. However, for most people, it's a decision, and for most women in particular, at least part of that decision is a desire to be liked by person/people X. Peer pressure does not cease to be peer pressure because it is institutional. That just reinforces it.



HereticFA said:


> Admiration of beauty is the precursor to lust, and lust is a prerequisite for loving sex. So your attempt to distance your stance and argument from sex is intellectually dishonest.



So am I therefore lusting after the Pacific Ocean? Or Niagara Falls? Do I want to have sex with the Painted Cliffs or a bright, pink sunset with scattered clouds reflecting the light of the sun? This objection doesn't even make sense.



HereticFA said:


> Otherwise your argument slides into the "FA infantilism" that's been proposed by a few psychologists and sociologists. That's where the FA is seeking the softness and overwhelming size difference they experienced with their mother when they were an infant. That may be true with you and if it is, that's OK. Just realize it's not what many of us experience as FAs.



As I've said in other threads, the feelings of the majority have been shoved in my face for my whole life, and have produced absolutely no effect. However, even if everything that you just said is true of me, that would still do nothing to challenge my arguments.



HereticFA said:


> The setpoint theory of weight is a little over 25 years old. And repeated weight yo-yo-ing has been shown to increase BP, typically with weight swings of 70 lbs or more.



Yet medical professionals continue encouraging short-term weight loss for their fat patients. Heckuva time, huh?



HereticFA said:


> Of all the sub-groups of fat people (and wanna-be's), only those who get sexual self gratification should pursue it. And they need to fully appreciate that the risks are real and they accept them. It's a lifestyle of commitment. No one should do it to please anyone else but themselves. That said, they should look for someone that appreciates their efforts. Not only because it's such a rare pairing that deserves to be made, but the gainer is going to need help eventually. It shouldn't be someone likely to bail on them when the going gets tough.



Everyone needs help *eventually.* I agree that people who don't want to be fat shouldn't pursue a relationship with someone like me (our most basic passions constantly at each other's throats, the relationship would only be physical, and not rewarding for either of us.) My point was that "should" implies "can," so you can't really say a person "should" lose or gain weight, unless you can show how they "can," and no one's ever shown me how I "can."



HereticFA said:


> No, since as an FA I've gone through the full range of emotions. Don't let your wants override your SSBBW's needs.



I thought I was pretty clear about this, but a relationship that doesn't take account of my most basic and ubiquitous passions (or hers,) is no kind of relationship at all. It's not some "want" that I can shift here or there for the purposes of completing some other task. It's easier to complete tasks alone than to join forces with someone who is hostile to everything I care about.



HereticFA said:


> I have numerous friends and acquaintances who belong to MENSA, several who were involved with the formation and operation of the Fat Acceptance movement. And their intelligence was obvious in the clarity of their writings and breadth and depth of their knowledge. As they drifted away from NAAFA, the Fat Acceptance movement's progress slowed, then stalled.



Remember, I defined Fat Acceptance thusly...

"The view that fatness is not, and/or should not be treated as, a negative quality to possess."

This is not the same as some social movement or effort to make people do what you want. The kind of Fat Acceptance I'm talking about lives in the heart and flows forth to effect the decisions that a person makes about the fat people in their life.

So I suppose that's that. See you tomorrow, maybe.


----------



## fuelingfire (Dec 27, 2017)

I am just posting so I am subscribed to this thread.


----------



## Mack27 (Dec 27, 2017)

Man I can think back to 1997 or thereabouts and finding this place and thinking "Wow! I'm not alone!" Even back then there were endless arguments about these sorts of things but there was more cohesiveness. The "community" or whatever you want to call it is certainly fragmented and you see it on the web as well as in the real world. Politics plays a part, it's always been divisive, but it seems like much of what would have been part of the "old community" has been subsumed into ready-to-pick-a-fight-with-anyone-who-isn't-100 percent-in line-with-our-group-think crowds. 

Having fat people and people who like fat people enjoy each other's company seems like a pretty simple concept, but it's gotten all too complicated.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 27, 2017)

Mack27 said:


> Man I can think back to 1997 or thereabouts and finding this place and thinking "Wow! I'm not alone!" Even back then there were endless arguments about these sorts of things but there was more cohesiveness. The "community" or whatever you want to call it is certainly fragmented and you see it on the web as well as in the real world. Politics plays a part, it's always been divisive, but it seems like much of what would have been part of the "old community" has been subsumed into ready-to-pick-a-fight-with-anyone-who-isn't-100 percent-in line-with-our-group-think crowds.
> 
> Having fat people and people who like fat people enjoy each other's company seems like a pretty simple concept, but it's gotten all too complicated.



I know, right? Yet, as a person, I pretty much had to learn to enjoy debating, because that's all I ever got when I expressed any of my feelings. Debates. Endless debates, and not just here, or on this topic.

More than anything, I want just one person to tell me that they understand how I feel, and that they think my feelings are good. That shouldn't be such a tall order, should it? Especially when those feelings are feelings of simple appreciation. But no. As I've said elsewhere on these boards, as much as people may *say* they love something, or appreciate something, or want to accomplish something, in 9 cases out of 10, their sentiments of revulsion come first.

In fairness, though, for me, these issues have been cultural, and not just on these boards. I find that a lot of people have a sort of stuck up attitude of "I refuse recognize a person's good intentions, unless they can express them on *my* terms." And, of course, the idea of expressing themselves on the other person's terms in exchange just sort of doesn't come up. It's a sad, sad, lonely world out there.

And in any case, to segue back to the thread's original topic, You are most definitely not alone. You're just surrounded by a lot of very quiet people who are easily pressured into doubting themselves.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 28, 2017)

Resuming where I left off, here are my remaining comments to your previous post:



TwoSwords said:


> 12. What evidence is there that fat hate or rejection of one's natural body shape makes people healthier?
> 
> 13. Or prettier?
> 
> ...



If the "natural body shape" (#12) involves someone reaching a BMI of 60 or more, there have already been numerous studies done that shows an improvement in health outcomes following reduction in BMI. But somehow those studies (many of which are available on Medscape) are either invisible to you from your corner of the interwebs or you discount them entirely for your own reasons. Likewise for number 14. Numerous studies exist to show improvements in income or career positions following weight loss. This is unfortunately due to the formerly fatter person better fitting with the lookism based prejudices of their peers, coworkers or employer. 

"Prettier" (#13) is an exceptionally subjective assessment. At most all that can be done is to say the majority of people find someone of a more average BMI to be more attractive than someone with a higher BMI. 

As for #15, intense dislike of a status quo can be a great motivator to make changes. Most of my friends that had WLS cited their dislike of staying fat as their reason to risk their life on the OR table.



TwoSwords said:


> 16. What evidence is there that most people who lose weight in these manners manage to keep it off for more than 5 years?


The studies show there are typically two approaches that result in significant maintenance of weight loss for over five years. Unfortunately the leading candidate is bariatric surgery. The other is slow weight loss achieved by significant lifestyle changes in composition and quantity of food intake as well as incorporation of purposeful exercise. The surgery usually adds in new co-morbidities the patient didn't have before surgery. The latter approach doesn't.



TwoSwords said:


> 17. Or find greater happiness?


Again, many report increased happiness with weight loss. Not all, but a significant percentage. This again comes from fitting with the societally acceptable "lookism" standards.



TwoSwords said:


> 18. Or improve in overall health?


This has been covered repeatedly.



TwoSwords said:


> In short, how have *any* of the claims of fat acceptance been challenged *in any way,* apart from the foundation-less, sentimental drumbeat of the less critical thinkers continuing for a while?


Many of our foundation arguments from before 1999 have been either successfully challenged or used against us since the early 2000's. One of the more successful tactics was to transition the discussion away from the social sciences/philosophical tact you appear to be trying to pursue. Feel free to continue on that path since that seems to represent your skillset. But don't be surprised if you find yourself a couple of decades into your approach and only minor wins to claim.

The real battle is based on objective hard data that can be duplicated from a sound Design-Of-Experiment, not subjective feelings. I recommend getting a few hundred (or more) papers and articles under your belt to come up to speed on current medical knowledge in the field of obesity. Medscape is a good place to start if you don't have access to a library with medical periodicals like _New England Journal of Medicine_ or _the_ _Lancet_.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 28, 2017)

This one is fairly brief, and all of it is basic to what we were discussing before, so here we go...



HereticFA said:


> If the "natural body shape" (#12) involves someone reaching a BMI of 60 or more, there have already been numerous studies done that shows an improvement in health outcomes following reduction in BMI. But somehow those studies (many of which are available on Medscape) are either invisible to you from your corner of the interwebs or you discount them entirely for your own reasons.



Right. There are good reasons to doubt the validity of many of those studies, and as I said in my last reply, those reasons are as follows.

1. Too many of them merely establish correlations, and expect people to agree with the *assumptions* that they make, in interpreting what those correlations imply.
2. Too many studies proclaim results relevant to weight loss, without addressing whether said results could be due to other factors, by specifically studying those whose weight loss did not coincide with an increase in other healthy behaviors.
3. Too few of them make allowances for genetic factors in the results, or allow for the possibility that some slight trends in the results may be due to mere coincidence, instead interpreting a 2-point, on-paper "risk" spike in some group of people as a sign that everyone *must* belong to another group.
4. Too many studies use inadequate, or misleading terms to warp the results of their study, but don't go out of their way to reveal this to the general public.
5. Too many studies are presented to the public only as a final graph or statistic, with the fat-hostile media providing the interpretation.
6. In short, too many studies treat mere statistics as if they were facts, but as Samuel Clemens rightly saw, statistics are just another way to lie and not get caught, unless they're based on something actual. Are they?

In order to understand whether a specific study has something wrong with it, you need to actually read about it; the terms of the experiments, and how the men did their research. What kinds of people did they bring in? What was the question they were trying to answer? Who paid for the study to be done? Of course, all of this information matters to a person who's concerned with learning the truth, but the general public, who mistakenly trust these snake oil salesmen, masquerading as scientists, doesn't get this information from them directly, and for a variety of reasons, can't afford to find it for themselves.

Now, you could, of course, settle the matter by telling me *which* study shows any of these things, and pointing out that the study was impartial, able to discount other, alternative explanations of its raw data, etc, but you haven't done that, and until you do, no argument is adequate. It does no one any good to tell a person "Just read hundreds of pages of propaganda, and then you'll see!" It is not my job to present the evidence to support the positions of my opponents. That's not how dialogue or debates work. Each person presents evidence to support *their own* position.

Also, I'm a bit confused by your reaction. You'd think you'd want *good reasons* to think your feelings are evil; not just a bunch of charts and graphs with no context.

As the premature judgments against the health of salt and saturated fats show, statistics in the 20th and 21st centuries have, at best, a spotty history. I hope you'll come to understand this one day.



HereticFA said:


> Likewise for number 14. Numerous studies exist to show improvements in income or career positions following weight loss. This is unfortunately due to the formerly fatter person better fitting with the lookism based prejudices of their peers, coworkers or employer.



So at the end of the day, what you're saying is that giving in to peer pressure makes you better off, if you can get some money out of the deal?



HereticFA said:


> "Prettier" (#13) is an exceptionally subjective assessment. At most all that can be done is to say the majority of people find someone of a more average BMI to be more attractive than someone with a higher BMI.



No. That's not all that can be said. Yes, "pretty" is subjectively-perceptible, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. There's a whole philosophy of aesthetics to address on this point. Yes, it's a complex and interesting topic, but that doesn't make it impossible to learn about, any more than it's impossible to learn that many statisticians are trying to bamboozle you with fake science.



HereticFA said:


> As for #15, intense dislike of a status quo can be a great motivator to make changes. Most of my friends that had WLS cited their dislike of staying fat as their reason to risk their life on the OR table.



But the question was whether it encouraged them to *succeed* in losing weight.



HereticFA said:


> The studies show there are typically two approaches that result in significant maintenance of weight loss for over five years. Unfortunately the leading candidate is bariatric surgery. The other is slow weight loss achieved by significant lifestyle changes in composition and quantity of food intake as well as incorporation of purposeful exercise. The surgery usually adds in new co-morbidities the patient didn't have before surgery. The latter approach doesn't.



You're not answering my question, which, remember, was "What evidence is there that most people who lose weight in these manners manage to keep it off for more than 5 years?"

Yes, there are common methods used by those who belong to that category of people who lose weight and keep it off. My question was to do with how large that category is. How many of these people following commonly-prescribed methods of weight loss succeed, vs how many fail.



HereticFA said:


> Again, many report increased happiness with weight loss. Not all, but a significant percentage. This again comes from fitting with the societally acceptable "lookism" standards.



Again, where did you get this percentage from? (For that matter, what percentage? 16%? 75%? 90%? Please try to give me something to work with here.)



HereticFA said:


> Many of our foundation arguments from before 1999 have been either successfully challenged or used against us since the early 2000's. One of the more successful tactics was to transition the discussion away from the social sciences/philosophical tact you appear to be trying to pursue. Feel free to continue on that path since that seems to represent your skillset. But don't be surprised if you find yourself a couple of decades into your approach and only minor wins to claim.



Philosophy is the foundation point of all other knowledge, so steering away from it is a recipe for disaster. People who want to be ignorant of the truth will be ignorant of the truth, whether I like it or not. However, that doesn't mean I'm not right.

P.S.: Lest you claim that this is not the case, take note of how miserably the fat acceptance "movement" has failed, and then try to tell me it hasn't been a total disaster. Clearly, it has, so it seems to me that embracing logically-stronger tactics is something you'd want to do.



HereticFA said:


> The real battle is based on objective hard data that can be duplicated from a sound Design-Of-Experiment, not subjective feelings. I recommend getting a few hundred (or more) papers and articles under your belt to come up to speed on current medical knowledge in the field of obesity. Medscape is a good place to start if you don't have access to a library with medical periodicals like _New England Journal of Medicine_ or _the_ _Lancet_.



None of my arguments have been based on how I feel. If you want to challenge anything I've said, by all means, do so, but so far, all I've heard is a lot of punting to vague "studies" and "statistics," and I just sort of have to take your word for it that they exist, are being reported properly, imply what they say they do, and were conducted responsibly. Sorry, but no. If someone wants to convince me, they need to do better than just asking me to take their word for it. They've got to actually present some argument or evidence to support their position. Just something. And so far, I haven't seen anything presented.

P.S.: I can sort of understand being a little uncritical in your approach to a given topic. I get that some people really, really want to trust that "researchers" know what they're talking about, so when the main stream follows a certain point, I can sort of forgive people who also follow that point, even when a careful examination of the evidence shows it to be badly-supported, or even just flat-out wrong.

However, I felt no sympathy at all after you brought up BMI, and I don't understand how you could make this kind of mistake, if you really study the topic as you say you do. Your statements about BMI (along with any other statement claiming that BMI has any value in determining overall health) have been soundly debunked in mainstream publications on science and medicine. These debunkings are truly easy to find (I found no less than five through googling "BMI inadequate" in less than a minute, then following the links to the source material for those articles.) Those who still cite BMI as a reliable way of guaging health are internet fat-hate groups, inexperienced trolls, and other people whose scientific data is severely outdated, because the truth doesn't serve their purposes.

P.P.S.: When I say that none of my arguments are based on how I feel, I don't mean that I don't have any feelings related to these issues. I obviously do. However, my feelings come into play *after* I learn the truth about something, and are mainly related to the question "How will I deal with these feelings, on the basis of this information?" For me, if any of what you said about fatness were provable, I suppose I'd end up living on a mountain somewhere, as far away from all human contact as possible, but as I said, I don't think you've presented sufficient evidence to justify arriving at that conclusion.


----------



## waldo (Dec 29, 2017)

HereticFA said:


> You've basically chronicled what I've been saying for the past couple of years. The Fat Acceptance movement is over. It was killed by several issues, from the faux "size diversity" movement as well as the number of fat people who've had WLS and don't believe they need fat acceptance anymore (even though they may be fat enough to still qualify for another WLS). And the extremely harsh reality of physiology as fat people get older continues to thin our ranks.
> 
> As for finding support for fat people, fat acceptance, or Fat Admirers on the _anti-_social media websites like Facebook, Reddit, _et al_, that's a fools errand. For that is where the villagers with torches and pitchforks reside, ready to show non-conformists like us the way to the True Path of Enlightenment.
> 
> ...



VERY interesting. I don't think fat acceptance is dead, BUT the concept of health at any size is probably dead. It is hard to argue for similar outcomes for super sized people (BMW >> 50), based on both the statistical evidence as well as the overwhelming anecdotal experience. Personally, I was GUTTED by the news of Catherine Oakes (Cat) and Debbi Thomas having passed in recent months. The situation of others such as Big Cutie Summer reinforce the idea that the odds of 'premature death' at high BMI is more likely than not 

The good news: moderate overweight/obesity may NOT be associated with reduced life expectancy, although quality of life is a whole other issue. The best evidence we have is "research led by Katherine Flegal, a distinguished epidemiologist from the National Centre for Health Statistics at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Maryland, US"http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ght-people-have-lower-death-risk-8434743.html

In particular, low waist to hip ratios seem to be associated with better health outcomes - so pears rule (my wife is an apple ).

I agree with HereticFA that SSBBW status is not to be treaded on lightly.

FA guilt - oh my


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 29, 2017)

waldo said:


> VERY interesting. I don't think fat acceptance is dead, BUT the concept of health at any size is probably dead. It is hard to argue for similar outcomes for super sized people (BMW >> 50), based on both the statistical evidence as well as the overwhelming anecdotal experience. Personally, I was GUTTED by the news of Catherine Oakes (Cat) and Debbi Thomas having passed in recent months. The situation of others such as Big Cutie Summer reinforce the idea that the odds of 'premature death' at high BMI is more likely than not
> 
> The good news: moderate overweight/obesity may NOT be associated with reduced life expectancy, although quality of life is a whole other issue. The best evidence we have is "research led by Katherine Flegal, a distinguished epidemiologist from the National Centre for Health Statistics at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Maryland, US"http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ght-people-have-lower-death-risk-8434743.html
> 
> I agree with HereticFA that SSBBW status is not to be treaded on lightly.



I assure you, I take fat people of all stripes very seriously. I just don't accept statistics or anecdotal evidence as methods of proof, and after all the times I've felt betrayed and disheartened by other people hating fatness, or treating it disrespectfully, or abandoning it, or otherwise being anything but delighted and reverent towards it; cherishing it, like all other things of surpassing goodness, I will question my conclusions on this, *only* if I see *real proof* that they're wrong. Real proof comes in four varieties. Logical proofs (deductive and inductive,) mathematical proofs, scientific proofs and perceptible proofs. Since a connection between fatness and mortality is not perceptible with our normal senses, we must rely on one of the first 3, probably numbers 1 or 3, since numbers alone seem unlikely to give us this data. So, is there some logical argument to indicate that fatness causes poor health, or is it not more likely that the reverse is true? Is there any actual, scientific proof that fatness is the deciding factor in health outcomes, or are there other factors, where the blame is to be more rightly placed?

The stakes, for me, could not be higher, and my entire life's structure will hinge on this point, so I'm strongly motivated to learn the *actual truth* about this. Am I going to be offered some hope in this life, or do I need to wait for the next with patience and silence?



waldo said:


> FA guilt - oh my



I refuse to feel guilty about something which I don't control, can't help, and have no alternative to.


----------



## Mack27 (Dec 29, 2017)

Statistics don't guarantee individual outcomes. My grandmother was of SSBBW size for nearly my whole life, she lived until her late 80's. To an outside observer just looking at visuals she shrank continuously the last decade of her life until she died at an average size. Her mother was very large and her mother's mother was very large (back when very large women were a lot rarer.) So maybe she had something genetically predisposing her to being large, maybe for her as an individual being so large wasn't that far outside the realm of normal and it wasn't as bad health wise as for someone else, especially as it related to metabolic problems and life expectancy. She had skeletal problems though, hip problems and knee problems for as far back as I can remember. 

My wife is currently teetering on the edge of the SSBBW threshold. She's been across it a few times in the past, pretty far across at one point. She loses a ton of weight from childbirth, we have 2 perfect handsome little boys and she lost somewhere around 70 pounds in the space of months after giving birth to each one. She wants another one, we're working on it. I worry about her health, she has back pain (requiring cortisone shots,) she has foot pain, she's had gestational diabetes with both pregnancies. I struggle with some of the same issues I think you're struggling with. 

I'm honest with her. "Yes I'm more attracted and sexually excited when you're bigger" I tell her, "I will always be devoted to you if you lose weight or not, whether you're 90 pounds or 900 pounds." 

As far as assholes go, well there will always be assholes. They think they can justify being dicks to fat people by citing statistics. No, tearing someone down to make yourself feel better is being an asshole no matter how you slice it. I'll always call them on it. Fat people don't cost more in medical costs as every study that measures costs over a lifetime shows. Fat people make less money. Yeah, so do short people, the world is full of shallow fucks. Fat people hurt economic production with more sick days. Oh I'm sorry, did we suddenly stop living in a capitalist society where any particular individual's relationship with their employer is none of your fucking business?


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 29, 2017)

Mack27 said:


> Statistics don't guarantee individual outcomes. My grandmother was of SSBBW size for nearly my whole life, she lived until her late 80's. To an outside observer just looking at visuals she shrank continuously the last decade of her life until she died at an average size. Her mother was very large and her mother's mother was very large (back when very large women were a lot rarer.) So maybe she had something genetically predisposing her to being large, maybe for her as an individual being so large wasn't that far outside the realm of normal and it wasn't as bad health wise as for someone else, especially as it related to metabolic problems and life expectancy. She had skeletal problems though, hip problems and knee problems for as far back as I can remember.



Exactly. There are many possible explanations for why one fat person may experience medical issues, and another not. I tend towards the "refined sugar" explanation myself.



Mack27 said:


> My wife is currently teetering on the edge of the SSBBW threshold. She's been across it a few times in the past, pretty far across at one point. She loses a ton of weight from childbirth, we have 2 perfect handsome little boys and she lost somewhere around 70 pounds in the space of months after giving birth to each one. She wants another one, we're working on it. I worry about her health, she has back pain (requiring cortisone shots,) she has foot pain, she's had gestational diabetes with both pregnancies. I struggle with some of the same issues I think you're struggling with.



My mother suffers from back, foot and leg pain, and my younger brother's wife suffers from diabetes during pregnancy. Neither is elderly (my mother is middle aged, but my brother's wife is in her prime still,) and neither one is even remotely fat, so yeah. It's pretty clear to me that a lot of these problems would exist, even without fatness. I think a lot of people (doctors and patients alike,) see a medical problem, see that a person is fat, and blame the problem on the fatness, because it's easier than learning what really caused it. (And it is much, much easier. Biology is a complex topic, and we don't understand it as well as we'd like to.)

It's like I've said before. Unless you're talking about the board game, "risk" isn't real. It's only an estimate.

P.S.: I love your replies, by the way.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Dec 29, 2017)

Not that I want this discussion to turn into perceptions of health of fat people (because the rest of the thread is fascinating in many ways), but I am a big proponent of contemporary research that being fat isn't as unhealthy as one would think. I constantly look for studies that support this, and while it takes some work, the reality is that most of those studies are blown off as "pseudo science", despite the fact that some of the research comes not only from some quality research institutions, but from all areas of the world. The problem is that it's so revolutionary that most people simply blow it off as fat people trying to convince themselves that being fat is okay (which it should be).

And for this reason alone (there are others as well), we need fat acceptance, and while I agree doesn'e exist as we knew it when Bill Fabrey created NAAFA back in 1969, is probably needed now more than ever, thanks to trolls & internet bullies that still bleed over into real life.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 29, 2017)

wrestlingguy said:


> Not that I want this discussion to turn into perceptions of health of fat people (because the rest of the thread is fascinating in many ways), but I am a big proponent of contemporary research that being fat isn't as unhealthy as one would think. I constantly look for studies that support this, and while it takes some work, the reality is that most of those studies are blown off as "pseudo science", despite the fact that some of the research comes not only from some quality research institutions, but from all areas of the world. The problem is that it's so revolutionary that most people simply blow it off as fat people trying to convince themselves that being fat is okay (which it should be).



I have seen a lot of that (being a research guy myself,) and another thing I've seen with regard to those studies is great, big, heaping helpings of "moving the target." A scientist will release a study, challenging the common conceptions about fatness, and right away, someone will pipe in "We shouldn't take this to mean we should sit around eating bonbons all day!"

Nothing about the study said that we should, and by shifting the topic off of fatness, and onto eating habits, the mainstream scientist can look as though they're right, without actually challenging anything that the study showed.

The problem is that the general public is still laboring under the popular-level misconception that eating habits and weight are one and the same issue, and they are not. By moving the target in this way, these scientists only encourage this misconception to continue, contributing to further ignorance of these topics, which translates into more suffering of innocent people just trying to live their lives on the ground.



wrestlingguy said:


> And for this reason alone (there are others as well), we need fat acceptance, and while I agree doesn'e exist as we knew it when Bill Fabrey created NAAFA back in 1969, is probably needed now more than ever, thanks to trolls & internet bullies that still bleed over into real life.



Bingo.


----------



## waldo (Dec 30, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> I assure you, I take fat people of all stripes very seriously. I just don't accept statistics or anecdotal evidence as methods of proof, and after all the times I've felt betrayed and disheartened by other people hating fatness, or treating it disrespectfully, or abandoning it, or otherwise being anything but delighted and reverent towards it; cherishing it, like all other things of surpassing goodness, I will question my conclusions on this, *only* if I see *real proof* that they're wrong. Real proof comes in four varieties. Logical proofs (deductive and inductive,) mathematical proofs, scientific proofs and perceptible proofs. Since a connection between fatness and mortality is not perceptible with our normal senses, we must rely on one of the first 3, probably numbers 1 or 3, since numbers alone seem unlikely to give us this data. So, is there some logical argument to indicate that fatness causes poor health, or is it not more likely that the reverse is true? Is there any actual, scientific proof that fatness is the deciding factor in health outcomes, or are there other factors, where the blame is to be more rightly placed?
> 
> The stakes, for me, could not be higher, and my entire life's structure will hinge on this point, so I'm strongly motivated to learn the *actual truth* about this. Am I going to be offered some hope in this life, or do I need to wait for the next with patience and silence?
> 
> I refuse to feel guilty about something which I don't control, can't help, and have no alternative to.



The anecdotal evidence for those in the extreme supersized weight range is pretty overwhelming. And as far as quality of life, it is hard for any rational person to argue that being super-sized doesn't have a major effect.

I certainly agree about the chasm between correlation and causation regarding fatness and health outcomes. There are so many other confounding factors that may be involved in the health of fat people. One of the more important ones is level of physical activity that tends to go down as weight goes up. I recall a study that was released a few years back where they showed moderately overweight people who exercised regularly had statistically better health outcomes than thin people who never worked out. A potential flaw there might have been using BMI only to categorize the people and so you could have some high BMI/'normal' body fat (muscle-bound) people making that group seem 'healthier'. I also think the damage done by yo-yo dieting needs to be considered  and again I believe at least one study showed people who had a more stable high weight tended to be better off than those who had large fluctuations over the years. Fat people also are more likely to be stressed due to discrimination, and we know that constant stress/anxiety is bad for your long-term health.
As far as the FA guilt, for me it is seeing numerous women who had done BBW modelling or porn and who I had lusted over now dying in their 40s and 50s. But you are right that we dont consciously choose to find these SSBBW attractive and we have no direct effect on their lives. I guess it is only when it is your own significant other and potentially weight-related health issues that we really need to check ourselves.



Mack27 said:


> .As far as assholes go, well there will always be assholes. They think they can justify being dicks to fat people by citing statistics. No, tearing someone down to make yourself feel better is being an asshole no matter how you slice it. I'll always call them on it. *Fat people don't cost more in medical costs as every study that measures costs over a lifetime shows. *Fat people make less money. Yeah, so do short people, the world is full of shallow fucks. Fat people hurt economic production with more sick days. Oh I'm sorry, did we suddenly stop living in a capitalist society where any particular individual's relationship with their employer is none of your fucking business?



Seems that issue about fat people being unhealthy and costing the health care system more is one that gets trotted out more and more. But if fat people are also not living as long and not suffering the debilitating diseases of old age like Alzheimers as frequently, I can see it balancing out. One of the problems we have is the growing number of elderly which is straining the Medicare and SS pension programs. So you could argue that fat people are helping to partially mitigate that issue by having shorter average lifespans. Of course when it is your own loved ones life (or your own), no one is going to think that way.



wrestlingguy said:


> Not that I want this discussion to turn into *perceptions of health of fat people* (because the rest of the thread is fascinating in many ways), but I am a big proponent of contemporary research that being fat isn't as unhealthy as one would think. I constantly look for studies that support this, and while it takes some work, the reality is that most of those studies are blown off as "pseudo science", despite the fact that some of the research comes not only from some quality research institutions, but from all areas of the world. The problem is that it's so revolutionary that most people simply blow it off as fat people trying to convince themselves that being fat is okay (which it should be).
> 
> And for this reason alone (there are others as well), we need fat acceptance, and while I agree doesn't exist as we knew it when Bill Fabrey created NAAFA back in 1969, is probably needed now more than ever, thanks to trolls & internet bullies that still bleed over into real life.


 It seems this perception of fat people (even a little bit fat) automatically being unhealthy is absolutely the biggest hurdle in the current lack of traction for fat acceptance. So I think it really does not derail this thread to address the issue. Maybe one of the things that hurt fat acceptance back when it was on the verge of really taking hold in the 80s/90s was a tendency of the movement to be too dismissive of the health implications of obesity.


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 31, 2017)

waldo said:


> The anecdotal evidence for those in the extreme supersized weight range is pretty overwhelming. And as far as quality of life, it is hard for any rational person to argue that being super-sized doesn't have a major effect.



Anecdotal evidence is a funny thing, because, you see, people only really report the cases where something bad happens. In the same way that you rarely read the newspaper headline "Good, hardworking people do their jobs," so you rarely hear about the instances where weight did not strongly effect health, and people were happy together.



waldo said:


> I certainly agree about the chasm between correlation and causation regarding fatness and health outcomes. There are so many other confounding factors that may be involved in the health of fat people. One of the more important ones is level of physical activity that tends to go down as weight goes up. I recall a study that was released a few years back where they showed moderately overweight people who exercised regularly had statistically better health outcomes than thin people who never worked out.



There have been a few studies like this, all of them turning up comparable results. Regular physical activity is most definitely good for you, so long as you don't overdo it, and get some kind of athletics-related injury or something.



waldo said:


> A potential flaw there might have been using BMI only to categorize the people and so you could have some high BMI/'normal' body fat (muscle-bound) people making that group seem 'healthier'. I also think the damage done by yo-yo dieting needs to be considered  and again I believe at least one study showed people who had a more stable high weight tended to be better off than those who had large fluctuations over the years.



It's also been shown that those who lose large amounts of weight over a relatively-short time are actually in an even *higher* risk category than the obese, for whatever that's worth.



waldo said:


> Fat people also are more likely to be stressed due to discrimination, and we know that constant stress/anxiety is bad for your long-term health.



From what I've seen, the following factors have been shown to be bad for people, in terms of being responsible for health issues usually associated with obesity (with the first on this list being the ones that have the most proof behind them.)

Trans fats (Obviously)
Lack of exercise
Excessive intake of refined sugars
Yo-yo dieting
High-Fructose Corn Syrup
Stress
Lack of Sleep
Not enough intake of healthy fats



waldo said:


> As far as the FA guilt, for me it is seeing numerous women who had done BBW modelling or porn and who I had lusted over now dying in their 40s and 50s. But you are right that we dont consciously choose to find these SSBBW attractive and we have no direct effect on their lives. I guess it is only when it is your own significant other and potentially weight-related health issues that we really need to check ourselves.



While it's true that I had no direct effect on the life of any BBW Model (that I'm aware of,) let's suppose, for a moment, that I had; that I'd been spending time with one of them to talk about our mutual feelings and developed a relationship. Now, many things might result from this. She might learn to hate the attention because I like the way she looks, and become more stressed, and even more stressed when I tell her that I don't want to stress her out. She might feel pleased and relieved over having someone finally tell her that she's good, beautiful and wanted in their lives; desired and not merely tolerated. Who knows? In the end, so long as I don't forget about her wellbeing in all this, my role in the relationship being an attempt to help her make peace with herself, I am not to be blamed for what follows from that. I'm not a feeder, and I'm not going to insist on her eating truckloads of sweets all the time, or doing other things I know are bad for her. I just think she's pretty, and I want to be able to appreciate that, and, like her, to be told that I'm good, wanted and beautiful, for all that. As I see it, there's nothing there to feel guilty about in the only kind of relationship I could deal with.



waldo said:


> Seems that issue about fat people being unhealthy and costing the health care system more is one that gets trotted out more and more. But if fat people are also not living as long and not suffering the debilitating diseases of old age like Alzheimers as frequently, I can see it balancing out. One of the problems we have is the growing number of elderly which is straining the Medicare and SS pension programs. So you could argue that fat people are helping to partially mitigate that issue by having shorter average lifespans. Of course when it is your own loved ones life (or your own), no one is going to think that way.



It's true. Nobody thinks of their own lifespan or the lifespan of their loved ones as a mere economic factor, though I once didn't have much appreciation of a long life for myself. It's hard to desire another 50-60 years when you're feeling miserable.



waldo said:


> It seems this perception of fat people (even a little bit fat) automatically being unhealthy is absolutely the biggest hurdle in the current lack of traction for fat acceptance. So I think it really does not derail this thread to address the issue. Maybe one of the things that hurt fat acceptance back when it was on the verge of really taking hold in the 80s/90s was a tendency of the movement to be too dismissive of the health implications of obesity.



I feel the so-called health "implications" should be addressed and disproven, or at least shown to be foundationless, rather than being merely dismissed, so yes; in general I agree.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Dec 31, 2017)

Not so much a "study", but it's uplifting to see someone from the sciences discuss the topic intelligently, adding personal experience.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0Ygp7pMbA[/ame]


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 31, 2017)

wrestlingguy said:


> Not so much a "study", but it's uplifting to see someone from the sciences discuss the topic intelligently, adding personal experience.


That was a good TED talk. It quickly covers the more detailed research that's been done into obesity issues over the last few decades. 

There is one thing I would challenge her on in regards to "Mindful Eating" (or intuitive eating, as others have labeled it). It's the recommendation to "stop eating when you're full". Unfortunately that signal is missing from so many of us (for a variety of reasons). For many of us, all we have left is the signal to stop eating before we overstretch our stomachs and do damage. I recommend to instead stop eating when you're no longer hungry. That's a much lower threshold in quantity and caloric content.

One of the most significant things I noticed after being involved in the Fat Acceptance movement for a few years (decades ago) was how many of us had very significant emotional stressors when growing up. One of which was the extremely significant number of the women that were victims of sexual abuse, easily over 50% that I knew personally. Others had violent family members or bullies in their lives. Most of the people tended to gain weight after their period of emotionally stressful events. Their weight setpoint had been moved upwards. In most all cases they tended to eat until they were unable to eat any more. Only then did they stop eating. I suspect they were misinterpreting their body's natural signal of satiety due to the emotional "noise" of their previous stressors. This is much like how a person can develop loss of hearing and tinnitus after hearing loud music at a concert.


----------



## HereticFA (Dec 31, 2017)

TwoSwords said:


> I just don't accept statistics or anecdotal evidence as methods of proof


So, you not only want your draw your own conclusions, but you want your own facts as well since you said earlier that you completely discount all the existing scientific studies contained within Medscape, NIH, NAS, _et al _due to their use of statistics. No health related study will be complete without statistics. (And someone's anecdotal evidence is simply an uncollected datapoint still waiting for the right study or as seed for a hypothesis.)

You would be much more helpful if you cited studies and specific points within those studies where you believed there were problems. But to fully disregard *all* the studies for the reasons you've stated makes it hard to take you seriously. 



TwoSwords said:


> and after all the times I've felt betrayed and disheartened by other people hating fatness, or treating it disrespectfully, or abandoning it, or otherwise being anything but delighted and reverent towards it; cherishing it, like all other things of surpassing goodness,


I hope you can achieve your weight gain goals you alluded to in earlier posts. Maybe then you will better understand why people's reactions to and acceptance of fatness is as varied as their personal experiences and health outcomes.

I'd like to see it as no different from any other physicality. But our society already fetishizes pretty faces and height, so maybe that's the basis for society's negative views of FA's. (Being fat makes a person look shorter and will alter the aspects of a face.)



TwoSwords said:


> I will question my conclusions on this, *only* if I see *real proof* that they're wrong. Real proof comes in four varieties. Logical proofs (deductive and inductive,) mathematical proofs, scientific proofs and perceptible proofs.


You can't have scientific proofs without the use of statistics if you're dealing with populations. If you're the really the "research guy" you claim to be, you should know that. As for the strict application of "logic" as an arbiter of proof, at best that's simply the basis for the formation of a hypothesis. But without supplementing that hypothesis with data and statistical analysis, all you've done is write high level fiction constrained by your prejudices and your imagination.
*treaded*


TwoSwords said:


> Since a connection between fatness and mortality is not perceptible with our normal senses, we must rely on one of the first 3, probably numbers 1 or 3, since numbers alone seem unlikely to give us this data. So, is there some logical argument to indicate that fatness causes poor health, or is it not more likely that the reverse is true? Is there any actual, scientific proof that fatness is the deciding factor in health outcomes, or are there other factors, where the blame is to be more rightly placed?


We can identify disease and death with at least two of our senses so your statement is demonstrably wrong. But unlike you, I'll not discard the rest of your statement due to the incorrectness but address it.

In some medical issues, specifically diabetes, sufficient weight loss has been shown to relieve the disease. The only variables are what constitutes "sufficient weight loss" and how much relief can occur. In my wife it took losing over 150 lbs to see noticeable relief. But she had very brittle diabetes and was insulin dependent, with wild swings in BG levels that were very hard to regulate. Now with a 220 lb weight loss she's able to regulate her BG level pretty well. Others fared much better with less than a 100 pound weight loss necessary to get off oral meds for their diabetes. 



TwoSwords said:


> The stakes, for me, could not be higher, and my entire life's structure will hinge on this point, so I'm strongly motivated to learn the *actual truth* about this. Am I going to be offered some hope in this life, or do I need to wait for the next with patience and silence?


So we finally reach the reason for your desperation to maintain your cognitive dissonance. I was once where you are. And I'll admit it's been a peculiar feeling having this discussion with you since some of your points were nearly identical to those I made decades ago. It's been like arguing with my younger self. But in the end, the actual truth is that for a significant percentage of the people you find the most attractive, you will live to witness their demise. Some may be lovers or friends, others will be faces you remember from fat related events or online communities. The one thing you notice is that they all died early, over twenty years earlier than the average age of 78 or so. 




TwoSwords said:


> I refuse to feel guilty about something which I don't control, can't help, and have no alternative to.


Or you could just accept that you are attracted to an aspect of human physiology that has been shown to cause many people with those characteristics of extremely elevated avoirdupois to have poor health outcomes. No guilt is necessary as long as you don't encourage it to someone's detriment. 

I personally find a big, round "moon face" to be very attractive. But I also know that's a sign of Cushing's Syndrome. It doesn't stop my preference. But it helps me understand what other issues that person may be experiencing. (It also helped me notice that so many WLS post-ops still had their moon face after weight loss, indicating the underlying issue that made them fat hadn't really been addressed and may explain some of their continued health problems.)


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 1, 2018)

Well, I've certainly been enjoying this debate, and I hope you have as well. Now, it's pretty obvious that this discussion has become one about evidence, but before I go back to look at the evidence challenges that I put forth, and see how they've fared, I want to correct one major misconception that I've noticed cropping up throughout this last reply.



HereticFA said:


> But to fully disregard *all* the studies for the reasons you've stated makes it hard to take you seriously.



It seems that, for some reason, you think that my response indicates that I'm disregarding a large number of studies when I make my determinations. However, no. That's incorrect. I will disregard an *individual* study if it makes a clear, logical mistake, and I provided a list of common mistakes that such studies make.

However, up to now, I have not discounted the contents of *any* studies, because it hasn't been necessary to. You simply haven't presented any. All you did was point me in the general direction of a huge library, then tell me to find it myself, and that's simply not how this works. If you have a claim that you want to advance, the burden of proving that claim falls on you; not me. If you have found even one study that provides clear evidence of any of the things you've said, well, go ahead and tell me about it. Who knows? I might agree. We'll never know whether I'll consider the evidence sound or not, unless some is actually presented.



HereticFA said:


> You would be much more helpful if you cited studies and specific points within those studies where you believed there were problems.



Because that would free you from having to do the work of supporting your own position, in theory. However, I do my own research and support my own position, and normally, it's the requirement of each person to do likewise. So, when you say...



HereticFA said:


> Or you could just accept that you are attracted to an aspect of human physiology that has been shown to cause many people with those characteristics of extremely elevated avoirdupois to have poor health outcomes.



Of course I could. That option is entirely open to me, except that this has not, in fact, been shown. If it *were* shown, that's probably the tack I'd take, but it hasn't been.



HereticFA said:


> So, you not only want your draw your own conclusions, but you want your own facts as well since you said earlier that you completely discount all the existing scientific studies contained within Medscape, NIH, NAS, _et al _due to their use of statistics.





HereticFA said:


> No health related study will be complete without statistics. (And someone's anecdotal evidence is simply an uncollected datapoint still waiting for the right study or as seed for a hypothesis.)



When you use the term "your own facts," you seem not to be understanding my objections to certain fact-claims. My point wasn't that the *use* of statistics was the problem, but rather, that statistics *themselves* are not facts. Facts are proven truths, and those cannot be gleaned through *mere* statistics, *without context or proper interpretation.*

As far as anecdotal evidence being an uncollected datapoint, I certainly agree. That's why I don't consider it strong evidence either, by itself.



HereticFA said:


> You can't have scientific proofs without the use of statistics if you're dealing with populations.



In point of fact, science can't deal with "populations," at all, because a "population" is not a real thing. It's only a large collection of individual people. Science can study each member of a group of people, and from that, gather data, which can later be used to draw logical conclusions, but to make assumptions about an abstract thing like a "population" on the basis of an unrelated field like science is not, itself, science.



HereticFA said:


> As for the strict application of "logic" as an arbiter of proof, at best that's simply the basis for the formation of a hypothesis. But without supplementing that hypothesis with data and statistical analysis, all you've done is write high level fiction constrained by your prejudices and your imagination.



That's wrong. In fact, it's only incorrect or inadequate logic that leads to falsehoods, and as with science, there are firm rules to govern what makes a syllogism valid, and what makes it invalid (namely, the rules of inference and the logical fallacies.)

By contrast, when science is isolated from logic, there's nothing to stop scientists from gathering data, then making assumptions about what that data implies, which are not, in any way implied by that data. Those who claim they have no need for philosophy are the ones most likely to be deceived by it. For example...



HereticFA said:


> We can identify disease and death with at least two of our senses so your statement is demonstrably wrong.



We can *identify* disease and death, yes. However, it's one thing to *identify* a dead person, and another to identify *why* and *how* they died. The former can be determined by the senses, but the latter requires logical thought, at the very least, scientific study at the most, and even then, what causes one person to die may not be the same cause of another person's death. Frequently, people just *assume* a cause-and-effect relationship, despite there being no evidence that such a relationship exists, because they've noticed a commonality that they can't otherwise explain. For instance...



HereticFA said:


> In some medical issues, specifically diabetes, sufficient weight loss has been shown to relieve the disease. The only variables are what constitutes "sufficient weight loss" and how much relief can occur. In my wife it took losing over 150 lbs to see noticeable relief. But she had very brittle diabetes and was insulin dependent, with wild swings in BG levels that were very hard to regulate. Now with a 220 lb weight loss she's able to regulate her BG level pretty well. Others fared much better with less than a 100 pound weight loss necessary to get off oral meds for their diabetes.



Over a long period of time (and, I presume, healthy activity,) your wife obtained healthier biomarkers. That is a basic piece of scientific data. However, when you say that the healthy biomarkers were *caused by* her weight loss, you make an unwarranted assumption. As you've said before, scientists still don't know how weight effects health, so unless there's *no other factor* that could have explained her good health, it's not justified to rush to this conclusion. A while back, I had health issues of a blood pressure-related variety. I made two changes in my behavior; reducing my intake of refined sugars and exercising more, and my biomarkers resolved themselves. Throughout that process, my total weight loss amounted to four much-missed pounds. Yet, my health improved. When you can explain why, we'll be ready to talk about whether the "obesity causes bad health" message is adequate to explain the facts.

Indeed, you seem to acknowledge that there *are* other, unrelated factors that effect the health of fat people, and which should, therefore, be taken into account, when you say...



HereticFA said:


> I personally find a big, round "moon face" to be very attractive. But I also know that's a sign of Cushing's Syndrome. It doesn't stop my preference. But it helps me understand what other issues that person may be experiencing. (It also helped me notice that so many WLS post-ops still had their moon face after weight loss, indicating the underlying issue that made them fat hadn't really been addressed and may explain some of their continued health problems.)



The only problem is that you're not applying this same line of reasoning to the general assumption that fatness causes poor health, in isolation from other factors.



HereticFA said:


> But in the end, the actual truth is that for a significant percentage of the people you find the most attractive, you will live to witness their demise. Some may be lovers or friends, others will be faces you remember from fat related events or online communities. The one thing you notice is that they all died early, over twenty years earlier than the average age of 78 or so.



"Over 20 years earlier than 78" is 57. I knew a woman at a previous job who was very obese (600 or so pounds,) and over 60 years old. My obese aunt died only recently at the ripe, old age of 80. Therefore, this statement of yours is not "the actual truth," but rather, is a falsehood.



HereticFA said:


> So we finally reach the reason for your desperation to maintain your cognitive dissonance.



I already gave the reason why I'm choosy in selecting other people's conclusions as valid vs invalid. I believe in objective truth. To accuse me of having ulterior motives for selecting some truths over others is yet another Ad Hominem fallacy.



HereticFA said:


> I hope you can achieve your weight gain goals you alluded to in earlier posts. Maybe then you will better understand why people's reactions to and acceptance of fatness is as varied as their personal experiences and health outcomes.



Unlikely.

Now, with respect to the 18 challenges I advanced, challenges 1 and 11 are to do with the mistreatment of fat people on the assumption that they are in poor health. I addressed these issues from a moral perspective, and the only responses I can recall were based on incorrect assumptions that my moral concerns were sentimental.

Challenge 3 hasn't been adequately responded to, with the conclusion just sort of being assumed, even in this last reply, and that's only question begging.

On challenges 6 and 7, you basically conceded the point, by admitting that doctors don't know the relationship between fatness and poor health. On challenge 9, you used the term "food addiction" in a way I've never heard it used, to refer to a group of people I've never heard of before.

Challenges 12, 13, 14 and 15 were answered from the incorrect assumption that "fat hate" and "weight loss" are one and the same, and frequently, there were other confusions as well, such as not taking note of the word "succeed" in number 15, so no strong counter-arguments have been advanced against those points.

Challenge 16 was answered only by citing the methods that some people use to keep weight off, which was not an actual answer to the question. Challenge 17 was responded to by a suggestion that people who lose weight feel better afterwards, but no evidence was advanced to support this view.

As for challenges 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 18, these have never been responded to in this discussion to any significant degree, and so even if all of my arguments failed, I still think we would have plenty of good reasons to doubt that fatness is the cause of poor health.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 1, 2018)

wrestlingguy said:


> Not so much a "study", but it's uplifting to see someone from the sciences discuss the topic intelligently, adding personal experience.



Yes. It doesn't cite any studies or examine the methods used to gather this information, but in general, these have been the same findings that my own research has turned up (though I obviously don't agree with her from an aesthetic point of view.)


----------



## AirboatRunner (Jan 2, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> Intentionally or not, you're conflating two very distinct, always contentious, and now somewhat estranged subcultures in _Size Acceptance_ versus _Fat Admiration_. That used to co-exist pretty well here until, well, a whole bunch of other technological changes (Smart Phones?) brought more of the mainstream fat folks, those not here just for porn, onto other, more widely utilized platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Tinder, _etc_...)
> 
> Obvious troll. Is too obvious.



I totally agree with you. Something in the FA community has changed. As have the gainers. I'm an old man myself. I have made a lot of friends from this site. Real life, real time ones. A lot of people from here were at my wedding in 2000 as a matter of fact. I deleted my old account here because of the climate change you speak of. Everything got angry, no one would allow other opinions, and there was a bully culture.
On a whim I created this new account in 2014 and still the same. Now it's 2018 and I see the friction is even stronger. 
I remember going to BBW events from Vegas to Dallas to Miami. We could see the change happening. I fear that the damage has been done. We've let politics venture into our community and as with every community that lets politics in. It gets consumed and murdered.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 2, 2018)

AirboatRunner said:


> I totally agree with you. Something in the FA community has changed. As have the gainers. I'm an old man myself. I have made a lot of friends from this site. Real life, real time ones. A lot of people from here were at my wedding in 2000 as a matter of fact. I deleted my old account here because of the climate change you speak of. Everything got angry, no one would allow other opinions, and there was a bully culture.
> On a whim I created this new account in 2014 and still the same. Now it's 2018 and I see the friction is even stronger.
> I remember going to BBW events from Vegas to Dallas to Miami. We could see the change happening. I fear that the damage has been done. We've let politics venture into our community and as with every community that lets politics in. It gets consumed and murdered.



Actually, I'm curious about this, since those years that you mention were when I was young and unsure how to deal with my feelings. For this reason, I wasn't really here at the time, and I'm not sure what you, and others, have meant by "politics." Do you mean actual, voting for Republican Vs. Democrat politics, or are you referring to some "leaders" in the community who I've never heard of.

And, as an aside, what relationship does this have with the difficulty of finding a support community that's actually freaking supportive?


----------



## AirboatRunner (Jan 3, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> Actually, I'm curious about this, since those years that you mention were when I was young and unsure how to deal with my feelings. For this reason, I wasn't really here at the time, and I'm not sure what you, and others, have meant by "politics." Do you mean actual, voting for Republican Vs. Democrat politics, or are you referring to some "leaders" in the community who I've never heard of.
> 
> And, as an aside, what relationship does this have with the difficulty of finding a support community that's actually freaking supportive?



---
Not really about who or what you vote or voted for. Politics is far more wide spreading than the people in power.
Some things have gone too far in the whole 'acceptance' realm of things. Look, don't kid yourself here TwoSwords. BBW events were always filled with fights and jealousy. SSBBW would scream at women they didn't consider big enough to be SSBBW then you had the BBW and the FA's yelling at the women that had weight loss surgery .. yelling at them when they weren't puking in the bathroom that is. That has always been part of the culture and lifestyle but something took a really strange twist over the last ten years.

All self respect seems to be gone. That's the first thing I notice. It's like this whole 'fat movement' means that caring how you look makes you a poser and not a true member of the 'movement' and that's what I mean by politics.
See it the same way the most popular person in the room sees it or you can bet you're going to get shamed online and in public by your so called peers. Those politics.

Not being ashamed of your body, accepting yourself for who you are.. even wanting to pack on the pounds because you yourself find it comforting and beautiful-- that doesn't mean you parade around in public letting fat hang out all over the place and for the love of God.. take a shower, toss on some make up if you're a woman.. have some self respect.

Then you add up all the real political shit like paying extra for airfare. Weight costs more to transport and why is it so wrong to consider the feelings of the passenger sitting next to the obese person? Why must EVERYONE accept your lifestyle choice but the fat movement person .. the fat activist. They don't have to accept the wants and desires of others.

Not long ago things were different. The women of my generation of The Fat Girl was classy and respectful of others and glowed with self respect.
Catay is one.. not sure if she's still around.
Back in 1999 a lady here fixed my first online photo and for the life of me I can't remember her name. I just remember she was really into x-game athletes -- damn I have her name on the tip of my tongue too. Grrrrrrrr..

Anyway that's what I mean by politics. It's not about who or what you voted for as much as the politics of the 'movement' as it were. 
For example my wife is a feminist but she wouldn't be caught dead with this 3rd way feminism that is ruining the world, stopping women from being hired, and ruining lives of innocent people just on their word.

POLITICS


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 3, 2018)

AirboatRunner said:


> "_..*ruining* lives of innocent people just on their word._"



What '_innocent person's_ life was '_ruined_' as such? By Feminism, of all things. Who and what are you talking about here?


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 3, 2018)

AirboatRunner said:


> See it the same way the most popular person in the room sees it or you can bet you're going to get shamed online and in public by your so called peers. Those politics.



That's unfortunate, but thank you for explaining that to me. It's no wonder I've been so unaccepted, as I never see things the way other people see them. Indeed, if I did, I wouldn't be an FA. Perhaps some people in the movement should stop to consider that. As far as the other things you mention...



AirboatRunner said:


> All self respect seems to be gone. That's the first thing I notice. It's like this whole 'fat movement' means that caring how you look makes you a poser and not a true member of the 'movement' and that's what I mean by politics.



If anyone is really serious about working towards the acceptance of fatness, they need to accept all the help they can get without compromising what the movement is about; normalizing fatness.



AirboatRunner said:


> Not being ashamed of your body, accepting yourself for who you are.. even wanting to pack on the pounds because you yourself find it comforting and beautiful-- that doesn't mean you parade around in public letting fat hang out all over the place and for the love of God.. take a shower, toss on some make up if you're a woman.. have some self respect.



I'm not sure what you mean by "parade around in public." I believe fat women have a right to go out in public, just like thin women do. If this is a reference to a certain style of dress that *no woman* should use, then fine, but I don't think it's right to give preferential treatment to thin women in terms of dress, on the basis that they're thin and more preferred. You're still treating fatness as negative, in that case.



AirboatRunner said:


> Then you add up all the real political shit like paying extra for airfare. Weight costs more to transport and why is it so wrong to consider the feelings of the passenger sitting next to the obese person? Why must EVERYONE accept your lifestyle choice but the fat movement person .. the fat activist. They don't have to accept the wants and desires of others.



No one needs to supply the desires of others. However, in this case, I do agree with you in general. Every good thing has its price, and that includes fatness on airplanes, though it may be a bit premature to assume anything about the feelings of the person sitting next to the fat person on a plane. I do think that we have to deal with the natural consequences of our state in life, in the same way that we have to deal with the greater challenges of exercising and the like, but also benefit from all that wonderful softness.



AirboatRunner said:


> Not long ago things were different. The women of my generation of The Fat Girl was classy and respectful of others and glowed with self respect.



Respect is important. I just don't feel you need to agree with the aesthetics of others in order to be respectful.



AirboatRunner said:


> For example my wife is a feminist but she wouldn't be caught dead with this 3rd way feminism that is ruining the world, stopping women from being hired, and ruining lives of innocent people just on their word.



I feel that feminism has done Fat Acceptance no favors in general.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 3, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> What '_innocent person's_ life was '_ruined_' as such? By Feminism, of all things. Who and what are you talking about here?



I can't speak for AirboatRunner. 

While I think that "ruined" might not be the best word used to describe it (everyone moves on, regardless of emotional/physical damage), the fact remains that an incredible amount of bullying & harassment went on in the community.

Case in point. Right around 1998-1999 there was a young lady who was very active in the forums who went under the name "Tantalizing Eyes". She contributed to the forums on a regular basis. In late 1999, a dude visited her, and was supposed to be staying at a hotel near her home. Somehow it turned into him demanding that he stay with her, and as I recall, the situation got ugly and the guy was removed by police

She turned to the same forum that she contributed to, in an effort to discuss what happened, and maybe warn other women to be careful. Instead, the "community" turned on her, engaged in a lot of what today would be considered slut shaming, and was essentially chased off the Dimensions site. I can assure you that this was not uncommon.

As someone who ran BBW events, I can assure you that what AirboatRunner has described is true. It's one of the many reasons that I stopped running events in NJ. As a friend who also used to attend events all over the country succinctly stated at the time, "Honestly, I felt much better about myself before I found Fat Acceptance".


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 3, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> "_I'm afraid *I still don't see *what smart phones have to do with people finding support in the midst of bad treatment by others. It hasn't gotten any easier. In *fact*, as I pointed out, *it's harder.*_"



Hmmm....

Have you actually thought about this?

I mean, really, really reflected on it, thinking it all through, all of the various angles and implications?

How much do you actually remember of life before smartphones?

What about the time before that, when WiFi first became so widely available in all of our public spaces (libraries, cafes, _etc._..)? What about, before even that, the at times gradual shift from dial-up to broadband? Or as dial-up and satellite-based services began to expand yet further and further into yet more rural and remote areas?

(btw, what was it like when you were in grade school and high school, respectively? Do you think it's basically the same as how it was when your parents went to school or when your grandparents were in school? Or do you suppose things have changed, somewhat, more or less? I mean in terms of how things are run, along the lines of stuff student discipline and security, etc...)

Mind you, both Size Acceptance and Fat Admiration-alike, respectively, as distinct subcultures and movements, were up and running well-before all of this. Long-time members of this site, if not to mention its creator, were doing all kinds of stuff, appearing on talk shows, running 'zines, going to workshops and other such events. 

Do you really honestly believe that things are more difficult for fat people today than as they might've seemed back then??



TwoSwords said:


> _"Fragmented" implies that there are still fragments left, so why am I not seeing them? Why are people not discussing this?_"


Because you can't see or won't acknowledge the timber for the forest it once was, doesn't mean it never existed as such or hasn't been reduced through your own fault. Because people aren't talking about this *with you* doesn't necessarily mean it's not being discussed any which way anymore. 



TwoSwords said:


> "_...all have fragments of *fat acceptance* in them that I'm not aware of?_"


You keep throwing this particular term out there. Again and again. And yet again. Maybe, I guess, because it's of some particular importance, to you. To support you own particular (imagined) narrative.

However, it's not really reflective of how most fat people talk about themselves nowadays. _Size Acceptance_ is still, now, '_a thing_.' So is _Body Positivity._ And so is Fat _Admiration_.

Conflating all of that, together, under a banner of Fat Acceptance, or whatever else you want to call it, is akin to.....Nevermind. Just, just....don't do it. Even if you're fat yourself. Better to step back from that one a bit.



TwoSwords said:


> "_....having found a way to hide from scorn ...have decided that other groups of people who are scorned don't deserve their help... a group of people who were (and are) treated with open scorn, who once recognized that they were a persecuted group, and wanted to seek a solution for themselves and other, related persecuted groups, and have basically decided that, as long as they can feel like they're mainstream, nobody else's fate matters.......*dodging one's responsibility to* those who are still rejected by society, and who still require support and acceptance._"


This what people mean when they speak of _entitlement_, a general attitude of _entitlement_, like one's somehow _entitled_ to the sympathy and attention and affection and trust of a fat audience; that all fat people, everywhere, should be perfectly happy to rush to their defense, chasing windmills, etc....for the privilege of hearing about how they or their fat gives you some kind of boner. Except, that's not, like, reality, how stuff works out in the real world. Really, nothing works like that out in the real world.

In reality, out in the real world, 1) You're entitled to *no-thing*.

2) It will tend to be that young people will occupy and take ownership of and protect and defend a space that both takes them in early on and offers them some kind of sustained support. And so, once that space, virtual or otherwise, becomes overrun with (mostly) undesirable elements, it will effectively cease to attract the kinds of numbers of young(er) and new people it practically needs to in order to sustain any kind of ecosystem. It will die off as the older members die-themselves or move on to other things, different phases of life. 

As such, this particular kind of challenge is not at all unique to Size Acceptance or Fat Admiration, but has been equally met (more successfully) by many other subcultures or counter-cultural movements and gone to being better, more firmly established and effective for it. Other older members, people with a lot more direct experience in it than I, have spoken about this here and otherwise at length in the past. The practical need to proactively police and protect one's own. To come up with some kind of mutually agreed-upon ground rules or best practices wherever applicable. Both for the greater good and out of some sense of altruism. And to protect a burgeoning sense of community both from within and without. 



TwoSwords said:


> "_The only reason why concerns about fetishists are so common, is that..._"


Is how readily some people seem to feel like that's an excuse for just about anything.

So, it's not really about fetishes or fetishists, per se; but more about peoples' behavior, in general, what's deem mostly acceptable versus what's considered universally unacceptable, beyond the pale, so to speak. And, with that, fat people are as much a part of it as anyone else, how they might use whatever baggage they're carrying in order to justify whatever might otherwise not be overlooked. How anyone might try to co-opt some larger, higher purpose for their own base and selfish means.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 3, 2018)

wrestlingguy said:


> "_...an incredible amount of bullying & harassment went on in the community._"


But it's not anything to do with Feminism, really, 3rd Wave or otherwise.

Yet another example of how readily people will co-opt the social currency other others' ideals, if left to their own devices.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 3, 2018)

waldo said:


> _...BUT the concept of health at any size is probably dead. It is hard to argue for...may NOT be associated with...seem to be associated with..._


No. You're wrong. _Probably_, it just seems that way if you don't really understand the most basic point about precisely what '_the concept_' even is, to begin with, just for starters. A hint, it's not anything to do with what you '_associate_' this or that with, your '_associations_', whatever they may be.

Are you physician? A (licensed) nutritionist? Physical therapist?



HereticFA said:


> "_...As for finding support for fat people..on the social media websites like Facebook, Reddit, et al, that's a fools errand. For that is where the villagers with torches and pitchforks reside, ready to show non-conformists like us the way to the True Path of Enlightenment...online communities have been going downhill since the old BBS days. As the technological bar for entry into computers was lowered, more mouth breathing knuckle draggers were able to go online to share their brilliant thoughts with us._"


You're wrong as well, have gone soft with age. Yes, there's all kinds of trolls all over social media; but the widening of the base of participation has actually tilted a balance towards more normalcy and decency. I mean, for those communities with the sense and to enact fair and practical moderation. There's thriving Size Acceptance and Fat Admiration based communities on both Reddit and Facebook. There's lots of BBW vloggers on YouTube.

Indeed, the world still turns, but without your help. 



Tracii said:


> "_Can you define..._"


Oh, I see. So, that we lack for a workable (read: airtight) definition for something, it therefore does not exist? Is not '_a problem_' we can talk about?

Yeah, that makes sense.



TwoSwords said:


> "_*I feel* that feminism has done Fat Acceptance no favors in general._"


You know, I think this is what's really at the root of your problems: Too much of "_I feel..._" and "_I think..._" and "_my feelings..._" and not enough critical thinking and (more objective) self-examination and self-criticism and (practical) analysis. Too much certitude and '_confidence_' without enough directly relevant experience and evidence to support it.

C'mon, man, it's time for a paradigm-shift. Start today!


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 3, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> But it's not anything to do with Feminism, really, 3rd Wave or otherwise.
> 
> Yet another example of how readily people will co-opt the social currency other others' ideals, if left to their own devices.



I never said that these incidents occurred because of Feminism. I also say that I have difficulty connecting the dots to arrive at Feminism, though that doesn't mean it absolutely is not true, and I would ask TwoSwords to elaborate on that.

The only connection I can make is that Fat Acceptance has moved to Body Positivity, a movement primarily controlled by women, since the entire concept deals with the judgment of female bodies. That in and of itself may connect it to feminism, but I'd really like to see women participate in this disucssion to give their insight.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 3, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> How much do you actually remember of life before smartphones?
> 
> What about the time before that, when WiFi first became so widely available in all of our public spaces (libraries, cafes, _etc._..)? What about, before even that, the at times gradual shift from dial-up to broadband? Or as dial-up and satellite-based services began to expand yet further and further into yet more rural and remote areas?



I fail to see the point of these questions.



Yakatori said:


> (btw, what was it like when you were in grade school and high school, respectively? Do you think it's basically the same as how it was when your parents went to school or when your grandparents were in school? Or do you suppose things have changed, somewhat, more or less? I mean in terms of how things are run, along the lines of stuff student discipline and security, etc...)



Absolutely. Students are treated much less responsibly now.



Yakatori said:


> Mind you, both Size Acceptance and Fat Admiration-alike, respectively, as distinct subcultures and movements, were up and running well-before all of this.



Neither of which is adequate to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.



Yakatori said:


> Do you really honestly believe that things are more difficult for fat people today than as they might've seemed back then??



This is a logical fallacy called "Moving the Goalposts." You are attempting to invalidate my points by claiming that the purpose of those points is something other than what it is; namely, lack of difficulty for fat people. That is not the purpose of the points I've made. My purpose was fair treatment for *everyone*, but especially for fat people *and FAs,* and I was quite clear about that.



Yakatori said:


> Because you can't see or won't acknowledge the timber for the forest it once was, doesn't mean it never existed as such or hasn't been reduced through your own fault. Because people aren't talking about this *with you* doesn't necessarily mean it's not being discussed any which way anymore.



It sounds like you want to say something here, but don't quite want it badly enough.



Yakatori said:


> You keep throwing this particular term out there. Again and again. And yet again. Maybe, I guess, because it's of some particular importance, to you. To support you own particular (imagined) narrative.



The term "fat acceptance" matters to me because I haven't heard any other terms that describe what it describes adequately. I suppose something like "fatness positivity," or "fatness normalization" would encompass roughly the same territory, but none of the other proposed alternatives would. Both "Size Acceptance" and "Body Positivity" are so general that the intended purpose of normalizing fatness gets lost in the cracks, and as for "Fat Admiration," that's just a description of an inner disposition. It accomplishes nothing socially.



Yakatori said:


> However, it's not really reflective of how most fat people talk about themselves nowadays.



I know. So, why?



Yakatori said:


> Better to step back from that one a bit.



Better for who? I'll stand where I am, until I'm given another place to stand, which is an acceptable replacement.



Yakatori said:


> This what people mean when they speak of _entitlement_, a general attitude of _entitlement_, like one's somehow _entitled_ to the sympathy and attention and affection and trust of a fat audience; that all fat people, everywhere, should be perfectly happy to rush to their defense, chasing windmills, etc....for the privilege of hearing about how they or their fat gives you some kind of boner. Except, that's not, like, reality, how stuff works out in the real world. Really, nothing works like that out in the real world.



1. Straw man fallacy #1. I never said I wanted all fat people to appreciate my feelings.
2. Straw man fallacy #2. I specifically said of sex; "Screw that noise."
3. Straw man fallacy #3. I never said I deserved anything. You made that part up yourself. I said people have a *responsibility* to each other, however, that responsibility does not come from what *we* deserve. So all of your points about "entitlement" or whatnot are aimed at some imaginary person who is not me.



Yakatori said:


> 2) It will tend to be that young people will occupy and take ownership of and protect and defend a space that both takes them in early on and offers them some kind of sustained support. And so, once that space, virtual or otherwise, becomes overrun with (mostly) undesirable elements, it will effectively cease to attract the kinds of numbers of young(er) and new people it practically needs to in order to sustain any kind of ecosystem. It will die off as the older members die-themselves or move on to other things, different phases of life.



If that is your way of saying that there are other "places" that have not been overrun by "undesirable elements," and which will still offer a normal environment for civilized discussion of normal feelings like those of FAs, then that's fine, in and of itself, but you still haven't said any of this directly, and until you do (and perhaps prove some of it true,) your talk of "moving on to other phases" is moonshine, because there just isn't anywhere to move to.



Yakatori said:


> As such, this particular kind of challenge is not at all unique to Size Acceptance or Fat Admiration, but has been equally met (more successfully) by many other subcultures or counter-cultural movements and gone to being better, more firmly established and effective for it. Other older members, people with a lot more direct experience in it than I, have spoken about this here and otherwise at length in the past. The practical need to proactively police and protect one's own. To come up with some kind of mutually agreed-upon ground rules or best practices wherever applicable. Both for the greater good and out of some sense of altruism. And to protect a burgeoning sense of community both from within and without.



As with the last one, I'm not able to decypher any direct claims from this portion. Are you saying "we've got a new social community in the works, but we need some kind of keystone to build it on first?" I'd be happy to share some ideas, if that's the case.



Yakatori said:


> So, it's not really about fetishes or fetishists, per se; but more about peoples' behavior, in general, what's deem mostly acceptable versus what's considered universally unacceptable, beyond the pale, so to speak. And, with that, fat people are as much a part of it as anyone else, how they might use whatever baggage they're carrying in order to justify whatever might otherwise not be overlooked. How anyone might try to co-opt some larger, higher purpose for their own base and selfish means.



What? That's not a sentence.



Yakatori said:


> But it's not anything to do with Feminism, really, 3rd Wave or otherwise.



From what I understand, 3rd wave feminism stressed individualism (which does not help women,) diversity (which helps women only in moderation,) and overall confusion as to direction (which helps no one.)



Yakatori said:


> Oh, I see. So, that we lack for a workable (read: airtight) definition for something, it therefore does not exist? Is not '_a problem_' we can talk about?



No problem can be discussed if you can't define it, just like you can't talk about squirrels if the word "squirrel" has no definitions.



Yakatori said:


> You know, I think this is what's really at the root of your problems: Too much of "_I feel..._" and "_I think..._" and "_my feelings..._" and not enough critical thinking and (more objective) self-examination and self-criticism and (practical) analysis. Too much certitude and '_confidence_' without enough directly relevant experience and evidence to support it.



So, in other words, you don't want to have to shoulder the burden of contesting anything I said, so you're just asking me to do it.

Come on, man! Step it up!


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 3, 2018)

wrestlingguy said:


> I never said that these incidents occurred because of Feminism. I also say that I have difficulty connecting the dots to arrive at Feminism, though that doesn't mean it absolutely is not true, and I would ask TwoSwords to elaborate on that.



I'd be happy to. As I see it, there are three major groups of people whose problems need addressing in relation to fatness.

1. Fat women/girls.
2. Fat men/boys.
3. FAs.

These three types of people each have needs of their own, but all three would be most benefited by the normalizing of fatness, so that groups 1 and 2 aren't met with instant discrimination for being what they are, and group 3 is not met with constant arguments for being what they are.

The major points where the cause of Fat Acceptance was weakened coincide with the times when its membership was intentionally limited from within. Time 1 is when it was tied to feminism. It's one thing to tell people, on moral principle, that you shouldn't treat people badly because of the way they look. Even I would agree with that. However, Fat Acceptance and feminism never made a good fit, because feminism hasn't really stressed moral obligations in its literature since the days of Friedan herself.

Furthermore, feminism is, in theory, all about the empowering of women, and it's unclear how being fat facilitates that, or how being empowered and a feminist would make fatness any more appealing than it was already. On top of all of this, the moral claim that people should be treated well, regardless of appearance, is one that is applicable to any group of people. A steadfast, far-right man with a super-traditional understanding of the "role" of women is still able to understand and accept that kind of moral precept. By making fatness into a "feminist issue," that is destroyed. Now, he won't accept it, just because it would require him to accept feminism. In fact, it will mainly be those who are *already* feminists who will buy into fat acceptance from that point on, and even then, not all of them will. Many feminists don't agree that fatness should be normalized or accepted, and almost none of them are equally-critical of those who discriminate against fat men.

Then there are the FAs, who are, sans-feminism, seen as weird and creepy. Their friends don't agree with them and think they're strange, but ultimately, harmless.

However, by taking on fat acceptance as from only the perspective of women who are fat, FAs are treated as aliens, who don't belong, either with their friends, or with the wider society, or with the people they feel for. Feminists don't want to acknowledge that men have a role in their "mission," and they don't encourage healthy relationships between men and women, for the purposes of solving their mutual problems through complimentarity. If anything, they train women to be more aggressive and more stand-offish, and thereby increase the climate of alienation against FAs, thus further harming them.

The problem is, there's a trickle-down effect to harming others. People who are treated like criminals are much more likely to behave that way (and no, I am *not* saying that's okay. This is just a known fact.) My mother works with young women who have to struggle with the consequences of those kinds of men being all over the place; men who put on a pleasant face until they get what they think they want, or who don't even bother. Me, I'm the man who decided to wait until someone else was ready to foster relationships on their end as well. I wait still.

Now, all of this is the case now, and was, even when feminism was a popular force in the culture. However, it has been declining in popularity, probably because young women are seeing the modern "faces" of feminism as just old women who didn't get married or have kids (and most of them didn't.) Feminist literature is *incredibly* hostile to children, much more so than any other ideology on Earth, and that's a sign of a lack of eagerness for relationships, so men in general don't want to be a part of that, once they're old enough to realize that there's more to life than sex.

According to the dictionary, feminism is only about equality between the sexes, and if so, I am a feminist myself. However, I'm not on board with almost anything that modern "feminism" has done, and that includes putting Fat Acceptance into a box from which, I fear, it has yet to escape.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 4, 2018)

wrestlingguy said:


> "_I never said that these incidents occurred because of Feminism._"


I know, but it was another poster, who previously brought it up, attributing said 'ruining' to 3rd Wave Feminism. Either way, it's just too perfect of an example of how people with some agenda or another will so reflexively attribute something (they don't like) to whatever cause or movement they'll just as readily acknowledge not really understanding.

Like how some people talk about stuff like BLM or Occupy Wall Street as some kind of scapegoat. So, too, for Feminism, Size Acceptance, Fat Admiration, you name it. Movements that fail to take effective control over messaging, that refuse to police their own, are like an open invitation to co-opting by other, outside vested interests or individuals, from perverts to criminals to abusers to those just trying to make a buck off of it. 



wrestlingguy said:


> "_The only connection I can make is that Fat Acceptance has moved to Body Positivity, a movement primarily controlled by women, since the entire concept deals with the judgment of female bodies. That in and of itself may connect it to feminism..._"


Any kind of movement or set of values rooted in basic human equality and freedom would necessarily have to be sympathetic to the idea of people having some kind of sense of autonomy over their bodies. So, it's all pretty intimately tied: personal freedom, reproductive rights, a more progressive approach to human sexuality, etc... 



wrestlingguy said:


> "_...but I'd really like to see women participate in this disucssion to give their insight._"


Right, that was another point I was also just about to approach, in my explanation and response to this whole '_Dude, Where's my Car?_' business. The near-total absence of any kind of genuinely feminine perspective, in both this and other threads. Gee, I wonder how that happened? What _happened_? 



TwoSwords said:


> "_I fail to see the point of these questions._"


Because you have yet to even begin to really grapple with them. Give it shot, a you might actually learn something, gain some practical insight. Even deeper than just the topic at hand.



TwoSwords said:


> "_Absolutely. Students are treated much less responsibly now._"


This makes it seem like you have no real idea; unless, maybe, what you actually meant to say is about how kids today, in general, as well as parents, are much less 'on-their-own,' left to their own devices, permitted to just do whatever just because. On everything from vaccinations to truancy to getting off the bus to personal conduct, _etc_... 



TwoSwords said:


> "_...attempting to invalidate my points by claiming that the purpose of those points is..._"


Nope. I make no such claim, expressly or implied. I am simply telling you like it is, how it's sort of presumptive, on your part, to just presume like every fat person out there's depending or otherwise dependent on whatever you're selling. They're not. They've moved-on from that. 

Your cheese has grown legs and done walked away. It's left the building. 



TwoSwords said:


> "_...Both "Size Acceptance" and "Body Positivity" are so general that the intended purpose of normalizing fatness gets lost in the cracks..._"


No. It doesn't. Quite the contrary, it makes the relevant message more accessible, easier to approach, for more people. Who, in turn, can practically bring more to the table than some myopic, antisocial pervert.




TwoSwords said:


> "_I know. So, why?_"


Because it speaks so much better, more elegantly, to the essential message: That a person's body is their own G_d business? Whether you're fat or thin or want to cover yourself in tattoos or scars. And, what two (or more) consenting adults are '_into_' with each other is basically their own business as well? 



TwoSwords said:


> "_I never said I wanted all fat people to appreciate my feelings._"


Except, a lot of your preconceptions and conclusions are more less just based on that. Your _fee-fees_.




TwoSwords said:


> "_I never said I deserved anything. You made that part up yourself. I said people have a *responsibility* to each other, however, that responsibility does not come from what *we* deserve. So all of your points about "entitlement" or whatnot are aimed at some imaginary person who is not me._"


Yeah, but it's kind of presumptive and entitled for you to imagine like it's somehow your prerogative to be defining and articulating for other people, people you really have no real idea of, where their responsibilities lie. You pull that out in the real world, and you'll promptly be told to eff-off.



TwoSwords said:


> "_If that is your way of saying that there are other "places" that have not been overrun by "undesirable elements,"....your talk of "moving on to other phases" is moonshine, because there just isn't anywhere to move to._"


Well, yeah, sort of, pretty much; although maybe not in quite the way you want to understand it. Remember, my original point, about fragmentation, in how it's become that much more fragmented. And so, the very idea of what's deemed undesirable or inappropriate is that much more subjective for it. So, for example, the kinds of behaviors that drove a lot of the women out of here, that makes this space unapproachable for some fat people (both men and women alike) would not not be tolerated in some other such venues. Just like, in others, stuff that's not even tolerated here would seem like the norm.

I mean, basically, that's the cost that comes with it, the inherent compromise. More rules might feel like less freedom for certain individual members, yet fewer of the important one makes it less accommodating others. And so it's up to each respective team of moderator to find some kind of balance.

So, yes, there are other places to move onto. That aren't (yet) over-run. But they might not prove as accessible for you. You might have to (learn to) modify your behavior as the cost of admission. You may have to suppress some of your own thoughts and desires. You may have to obey certain rules or social cues which are not so explicit, that you don't even realize what they are until after you've broken them.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 4, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> Like how some people talk about stuff like BLM or Occupy Wall Street as some kind of scapegoat. So, too, for Feminism, Size Acceptance, Fat Admiration, you name it. Movements that fail to take effective control over messaging, that refuse to police their own, are like an open invitation to co-opting by other, outside vested interests or individuals, from perverts to criminals to abusers to those just trying to make a buck off of it.



There's no question that that happened to fat acceptance.



Yakatori said:


> Any kind of movement or set of values rooted in basic human equality and freedom would necessarily have to be sympathetic to the idea of people having some kind of sense of autonomy over their bodies. So, it's all pretty intimately tied: personal freedom, reproductive rights, a more progressive approach to human sexuality, etc...



"Progressive" sexuality is unrelated to authentic freedom *or* bodily autonomy. There are always things that it is not okay to do with our bodies, like decapitating someone with a broadsword. It's still unproven that sexuality can't fall into the same category.



Yakatori said:


> Because you have yet to even begin to really grapple with them. Give it shot, a you might actually learn something, gain some practical insight. Even deeper than just the topic at hand.



I'm still not hearing an actual response. I think you're just saying words to say words.



Yakatori said:


> This makes it seem like you have no real idea; unless, maybe, what you actually meant to say is about how kids today, in general, as well as parents, are much less 'on-their-own,' left to their own devices, permitted to just do whatever just because. On everything from vaccinations to truancy to getting off the bus to personal conduct, _etc_...



The responsibility for the children is on the parents, and that's what I mean when I say that children are treated less responsibly. They are handed over to a fat-hostile State to be propagandized from their youngest ages onward, while the parents pursue their own affairs. That's what I mean by "less responsibly."



Yakatori said:


> Nope. I make no such claim, expressly or implied. I am simply telling you like it is, how it's sort of presumptive, on your part, to just presume like every fat person out there's depending or otherwise dependent on whatever you're selling. They're not. They've moved-on from that.



Yet another straw man. I never said or implied any of that. You are making up an opponent to argue with.



Yakatori said:


> Your cheese has grown legs and done walked away.



What in the heck are you talking about? Cheese doesn't grow legs.



Yakatori said:


> No. It doesn't. Quite the contrary, it makes the relevant message more accessible, easier to approach, for more people. Who, in turn, can practically bring more to the table than some myopic, antisocial pervert.



Prove it.

P.S.: Yet another straw man at the end there. You do seem to love those, don't you?



Yakatori said:


> Because it speaks so much better, more elegantly, to the essential message: That a person's body is their own G_d business? Whether you're fat or thin or want to cover yourself in tattoos or scars. And, what two (or more) consenting adults are '_into_' with each other is basically their own business as well?



That's another straw man. That is* not* the essential message. If you want people to enjoy spending time with you, you must recognize that their ability to do so will depend on certain factors. I have only two arguments against the fat-haters. The first is that I don't think it's right to treat people like crap, no matter how much you may dislike their looks. The second is the aesthetic argument. However, I don't disagree with any of their perspectives about wanting to do your part socially or please those in your life. I think those are good things to do. Your problem is that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Really, all I'm hearing here is "I'm glad things are going better for me, and you should be glad things are going better for me too."

No. No, I'm not. Unfairness and inequality existed before, and it still exists now. What is there to be glad about?

I also think it's curious that you call other people perverts, yet you defend the sexual license of consenting adults, while I have never called you any names, yet my goals are mainly social in nature. I would never imply that it takes one to know one. Nevertheless, I think we often see things as we are, rather than seeing them as they are.



Yakatori said:


> Yeah, but it's kind of presumptive and entitled for you to imagine like it's somehow your prerogative to be defining and articulating for other people, people you really have no real idea of, where their responsibilities lie.



Responsibilities are objective in nature. I'm not the one who defines them. They are a part of our nature as human beings, and sure, people can choose to ignore them, but they only make themselves more hateful and vile as a result of doing so.



Yakatori said:


> Well, yeah, sort of, pretty much... ...You may have to suppress some of your own thoughts and desires. You may have to obey certain rules or social cues which are not so explicit, that you don't even realize what they are until after you've broken them.



In other words, "No, and you will be assimilated."

To that, my response is this; "Bring it."

I don't give on this point, and I will protect myself from that sort of poisonous mentality that demands everything and offers nothing. It's half of the reason for my name.


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 4, 2018)

For the record, as most of the moderating team are female, I can assure that at least some women are reading this thread to keep an eye on things, if nothing else (myself included, obviously).

As for why none of the women feel the need to join in this conversation, well, I can only speak on my own behalf and not anybody else. But this conversation has been going nowhere and I've got better things to do with my time than talk to people who aren't willing to listen. It's very obvious that none of you are even remotely willing to consider the other people's opinions and learn from them so there's nothing positive to be gained from joining in.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 4, 2018)

loopytheone said:


> For the record, as most of the moderating team are female, I can assure that at least some women are reading this thread to keep an eye on things, if nothing else (myself included, obviously).
> 
> As for why none of the women feel the need to join in this conversation, well, I can only speak on my own behalf and not anybody else. But this conversation has been going nowhere and I've got better things to do with my time than talk to people who aren't willing to listen. It's very obvious that none of you are even remotely willing to consider the other people's opinions and learn from them so there's nothing positive to be gained from joining in.



For what it's worth, I appreciate this point.

In my case, I want to learn whatever truthful information can be taught. Knowledge, after a fashion, is power. However, the truth is that no matter what I learn, the nature of what is needed to settle my emotions remains the same.

I don't want to conquer the world, or the internet, or whatever. I just want there to be enough room in the world for everybody (FA, fat person, thin person... even haters, perhaps,) to live their lives without feeling like they can't belong in any sphere. I don't see that that's too radical, because without that, some people will always be on the outside, looking in. If anyone should be able to understand the wrongness of that, it should be the people of these movements we've been discussing.

The great thing about the internet is that when any person with some cash can set up a forum or social networking site, anyone (in theory) can have that sort of belonging, finding those rare people in the world who can understand their feelings and their struggles. I can't claim to understand all the struggles that other people go through, but if they're anything like mine, all I can say is that I want to understand, if only to help keep the suffering of one other person from becoming like mine.

I truly hope for these things to change, so that we can come to a better solution for *everyone,* not just for *some.*


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 4, 2018)

loopytheone said:


> For the record, as most of the moderating team are female, I can assure that at least some women are reading this thread to keep an eye on things, if nothing else (myself included, obviously).
> 
> As for why none of the women feel the need to join in this conversation, well, I can only speak on my own behalf and not anybody else. But this conversation has been going nowhere and I've got better things to do with my time than talk to people who aren't willing to listen. It's very obvious that none of you are even remotely willing to consider the other people's opinions and learn from them so there's nothing positive to be gained from joining in.



And with this, I'm out. For the record, I did ask for some input from another gender because I did feel it's more important to hear from those most impacted by fat bias & body judgment. 

Also for the record, seeing this kind of comment from an admin on this forum saddens me, not because I think they shouldn't have opinions, but more because I'm pretty sure they've been brought to that point by so many of the incidents that have taken place in the forums during their time here. That's unfortunate.

Again, it's a reminder why I don't post with the frequency that I used to.


----------



## DragonFly (Jan 5, 2018)

Female here - moderator here - my oponion for what it is worth 

I struggled to understand the question, tried to read as many of the posts as possible..... but the dissection point by point of previous posts makes keeping up with a discussion like this a serious activity. Ive been a little under the weather and just trying to do mod participation..... but from what I understand.... the question is similar to. Did Video kill the Radio Star....... 

Fat Acceptance seemed to have been in the hands of NAAFA as an organization. There were marches, there were political calls to action. I recently got to talk to an OG about that, a FA that was there in the trenches carrying signs and pushing that fat people have the same RIGHTS as non-fat people. Discrimination based on size is what Fat Acceptance is trying to battle. NAAFA at the beginning and into the last decade had a Brigadoon quality in that it brought together like minded people for an accepting environment where you could just be you. I remember my first convention (I was a very late NAAFA participant so I saw it on the down swing and saw the demise). It was wonderful! I was fat and it was the norm. I was NAAFA fat. 

NAAFA failed when it went away from the social side of things. Bashes, the internet and a ton of apps have come up that can connect the fat and the fat admirer. Filling the social gap. 

Body Positivity is a joke and has nothing to do with Fat Acceptance. It has to do with how you feel about yourself. You can feel fine in you skin, and still accept size discrimination. 

Social Media....is the Video of today....

I have found a couple FAs on SnapChat of all places.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 6, 2018)

DragonFly said:


> Female here - moderator here - my oponion for what it is worth
> 
> I struggled to understand the question, tried to read as many of the posts as possible..... but the dissection point by point of previous posts makes keeping up with a discussion like this a serious activity. Ive been a little under the weather and just trying to do mod participation..... but from what I understand.... the question is similar to. Did Video kill the Radio Star.......
> 
> ...



Thank you. This has explained more on this topic, and in a clearer, briefer way, than almost any reply I've received.

I suppose I only have two remaining questions. When you say NAAFA went away from the "social side of things," are you referring to events that connect like-minded people, or means of giving such people the chance to discuss topics of importance to their cause, or did you mean something else by "social?"

Question 2; It sounds like you're suggesting that Social Media is just a new medium that FA has failed to adapt to (the video/radio star analogy at least seems to imply this.) Is there any good reason why FA can't have "video stars" in an organized and reasonable way on Social Media, so-as to foster an atmosphere of fat positivity and normalization in at least one section of the internet, or is it just that it hasn't happened *yet?*


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 6, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> Because it speaks so much better, more elegantly, to the essential message: That a person's body is their own G_d business?



I want to point out one more thing with regard to this point, which I don't think I made sufficiently clear.

There's a phenomena going on now, where people will enter a movement that they may care about on some level, but once inside that movement, they begin to attach additional requirements to being part of that movement. This is why I've been careful to point out whenever some point you've been stressing is not absolutely essential to being accepting of fatness.

Now, whether you think these additional requirements are "better" or "more elegant" is beside the point. The fact is, they are additional requirements, and causes will generally be more attractive to the majority of people if they don't need to shoulder a whole lot of extra burdens, in order to belong to those causes. This isn't even mentioning how the *specific* extra burden being proposed may be different from one person to the next within the movement. If different people consider different "requirements" "better," the movement can fracture due to complete irrelevancies.

This didn't happen with the struggle for civil rights for black people. It didn't happen, because *that* movement had leaders who kept the message where it needed to be; that it is wrong to treat a person as a second-class citizen just because of their skin color. More often, their disagreements were due to what methods they thought were best to use, rather than what the overall goal was. They knew there was a problem, and they recognized what that problem was.

This seems to be lacking in fat acceptance today; a leader of some sort is needed to draw the message back where it needs to be; that treating people like crap because of how they look is scummy behavior, no matter what your reasons for doing so. The issue is that this is a problem with interpersonal conduct; not strictly a result of laws. Worse yet, the targets of fat hate are mainly women (probably because this kind of abuse-based "motivating" only makes most men retaliate, or else laugh it off.)

I say this is worse because of the atmosphere this has created. I've been mainly on the sidelines while the fat acceptance thing was defined, by women in the movement, as a women's issue, then a feminist issue, then a "no men need apply" issue. I've seen men barred from having a voice in the discussion, as the women involved were more scared of the private thoughts of someone who liked them than of being treated abusively in a public forum. As a consequence, Fat Acceptance has been described by more than one person on this thread as "dead."

No movement can succeed if less than half of all people are allowed to be part of it. It just doesn't work that way. I don't believe this movement failed because it's a weak cause. I believe it failed because it was defended too weakly by those who'd cordoned off the guardhouse to keep capable guards out.



P.S.: Sorry if I'm coming across as cruel. I don't mean to be. However, I have had just about enough of this. Nothing in the world is more obvious than the fact that people of differing appearances, and those who like them, should be treated with the same love and respect due to every human being by virtue of their human nature, yet this is being denied or thrown away over some other, unrelated issues, even here. I have half a mind to start researching what's required to start a new branch of social media specifically for people who recognize the clear greatness of fatness, so we can share our struggles with the constant opposition in other venues, without being told we need to "adapt."


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 7, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> No movement can succeed if less than half of all people are allowed to be part of it. It just doesn't work that way. I don't believe this movement failed because it's a weak cause. I believe it failed because it was defended too weakly by those who'd cordoned off the guardhouse to keep capable guards out.



THIS.

For those of you who haven't read the blog Why I'm Over The Size Acceptance Movement or Hey, SA, What Have You Done For Me Lately?, 
I strongly urge you to do so. While the blog doesn't specifically address the point made here by TwoSwords (who has made some very salient points in the rest of this post), it does allude to it, and makes some key points with other reasons why the movement hasn't accomplished what it set out to do.

For me at least, it seems that the movement is fragmented by the "leaders", who are more concerned with advancing their own agenda than the needs of those who support it. Once those supporters realize that, they tend to drop out of the movement. That, combined with what appears to be the near exclusion of men and non fat women as allies to the movement reduces their voice proportionately. 

You are also absolutely correct when you say the civil rights movement still managed to pull together for the greater good. Dr. King & Malcolm X were always at odds with regard to methods of achieving rights for black Americans, but they were truly united when they both acknowledged that getting those rights were absolutely essential.

And yes, it was my intention to avoid posting further in the thread, but the point made was so important that I had to recognize it. See ya later.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 7, 2018)

wrestlingguy said:


> THIS.
> 
> And yes, it was my intention to avoid posting further in the thread, but the point made was so important that I had to recognize it. See ya later.



Thank you very much. See you as well.

And yes; I was referring to Dr. King and Malcolm X when I said that. I'm pleased you caught on to that.


----------



## DragonFly (Jan 7, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> Thank you. This has explained more on this topic, and in a clearer, briefer way, than almost any reply I've received.
> 
> I suppose I only have two remaining questions. When you say NAAFA went away from the "social side of things," are you referring to events that connect like-minded people, or means of giving such people the chance to discuss topics of importance to their cause, or did you mean something else by "social?"
> 
> Question 2; It sounds like you're suggesting that Social Media is just a new medium that FA has failed to adapt to (the video/radio star analogy at least seems to imply this.) Is there any good reason why FA can't have "video stars" in an organized and reasonable way on Social Media, so-as to foster an atmosphere of fat positivity and normalization in at least one section of the internet, or is it just that it hasn't happened *yet?*



I dont think it is becaus the Fat Activism movement hasnt adapted to Social Media, I think that the game has changed. As advances are made the force is diluted and splintered and focused on different areas.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 7, 2018)

DragonFly said:


> I don’t think it is becaus the Fat Activism movement hasn’t adapted to Social Media, I think that the game has changed. As advances are made the force is diluted and splintered and focused on different areas.



I guess I just don't understand why that would necessarily follow, or what it is about "advances" that caused the force to dilute, or what about the game has made it so hard for the FA movement to learn the rules.

I don't think the world, or technology, or smartphones can be to blame for all the disunity that is currently being experienced. Some of it, perhaps, indirectly, but not all.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 8, 2018)

wrestlingguy said:


> THIS.
> 
> For those of you who haven't read the blog Why I'm Over The Size Acceptance Movement or Hey, SA, What Have You Done For Me Lately?,
> I strongly urge you to do so.  While the blog doesn't specifically address the point made here by TwoSwords (who has made some very salient points in the rest of this post), it does allude to it, and makes some key points with other reasons why the movement hasn't accomplished what it set out to do.



Unfortunately the author commits the same mistakes as people did during what she refers as SA 101. She complains that she didn't find a perfect fit to her expectations of the movement. It's that "What have you done for me" attitude that has always held back the movement. But it's rooted in the fundamental issue that we don't share the same priorities.

Even her own works should illustrate to her (and others) why nothing is a perfect fit. Her own work with _ Feminist Press _was to scratch her itch, not necessarily what all other fat people and supporters wanted. That's always what has happened in the Fat Acceptance movement. Volunteers usually work on what interests themselves, especially if it's self funded.

I say it's the _author_ who hasn't been able to progress beyond Fat Acceptance 101 _in her own development_. I believe the Movement made it to at least 401 (or my preference, 4.0). 

We went from isolated fat individuals to a general community, then to more targeted communities. We went from very few choices in larger size clothing to several stores catering to larger size fashions. We went from timid fat people victimized by others to fat people willing to defend their own lives and set their own priorities. We did hit the wall for a few areas like airline seating but that's a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of issues. Our progress stopped with the emergence of the RNY WLS procedure in the early 2000's. That appeared to be the "magic pill" NAAFA members said they would take if offered. (This was from a survey conducted in the 90's.)

And the progression to 4.0 was when we started being involved in FDA medication approvals with the participation of Lynn McAfee of the _Council for Size and Weight Discrimination_ on a couple of FDA panels. But we did plateau out at 4.0 a couple of decades ago.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 8, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> ....made it so hard for the *FA* movement to learn the rules...



You keep (deliberately) conflating what everyone else recognizes as distinctly separate things. Fat Admiration isn't necessarily tied to activism, of any kind. And you don't have to be a Fat Admirer to support Size Acceptance or any other such type of activism.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 8, 2018)

HereticFA said:


> Unfortunately the author commits the same mistakes as people did during what she refers as SA 101. She complains that she didn't find a perfect fit to her expectations of the movement. It's that "What have you done for me" attitude that has always held back the movement. But it's rooted in the fundamental issue that we don't share the same priorities.



I did notice that. Though she addresses the issue of men not having a large enough role, or black women not having a large enough role, and asks why we can't recognize differences and be okay with them, she does seem to be looking for something to fit *her specifically* as well, and that shows a lack of interest in Fat Acceptance in the general sense.



HereticFA said:


> We did hit the wall for a few areas like airline seating but that's a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of issues. Our progress stopped with the emergence of the RNY WLS procedure in the early 2000's. That appeared to be the "magic pill" NAAFA members said they would take if offered. (This was from a survey conducted in the 90's.)



I think the important point about many of these issues is to not let them distract from the central claim of the movement, and that makes it important to understand what that claim is.



Yakatori said:


> You keep (deliberately) conflating what everyone else recognizes as distinctly separate things. Fat Admiration isn't necessarily tied to activism, of any kind. And you don't have to be a Fat Admirer to support Size Acceptance or any other such type of activism.



And you keep implying, falsely, that "Size Acceptance" is an adequate replacement for anything that *specifically* addresses the problematic attitudes about *fatness.* I was replying to DragonFly, who didn't overtly address "Size Acceptance" in her response to me.

While I don't think *anyone* should be treated badly based on their appearance alone, the fact is that the challenge faced by fat people is a very unique one, and the challenge faced by FAs even more so. You don't need to be an FA to believe that fat isn't a bad thing, and you don't need to be one to believe that fat people can be accepted, or to believe that liking fat people is acceptable. In fact, I don't recall having precisely brought up fat admiration at any point in my last 5 replies at least. I think you're the one who's fixated on that point, and that's exactly the problem I was addressing. When you have a serious problem to take care of, you've got to take care of it first, and worry about the tiny distinctions afterwards. All the better if that serious problem brings more people together to resolve it, but a lot of these additional requirements just focus the movement on non-essentials and reduce its number of supporters, as I said.

That said, however, I do believe that fat admirers have a very different kind of social challenge ahead of them, because like everyone else, they need to find some way to live their lives, and while fat people may have recourse to encouraging people to focus on who they are inside; their spirits, feelings, hopes and dreams, the FA has no such option, because their feelings, hopes and dreams are of a type against which the *whole world* is entirely hostile. For the FA, distracting people from the issue won't work. Only *actual* acceptance will, and that's one of many reasons why I want to see this issue addressed specifically, and a solution found for *all* concerned.

P.S.: I can't help but notice you didn't respond to any of what I said in reply to you.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 8, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> I think the important point about many of these issues is to not let them distract from the central claim of the movement, and that makes it important to understand what that claim is.
> 
> <quote snipped>
> 
> And you keep implying, falsely, that "Size Acceptance" is an adequate replacement for anything that *specifically* addresses the problematic attitudes about *fatness.* I was replying to DragonFly, who didn't overtly address "Size Acceptance" in her response to me.


*everyone*
All your posts indicate a lack of familiarity with the history of the movement. In the beginning the focus was solely on acceptance of fat. I'm one of the generation who joined NAAFA in the eighties and authored one of the more successful advertising taglines "It's time you did something about your weight: accept it." It ran for about three years in the ninties in their nation wide advertising. Over time, most of us realized it wasn't just about accepting fat. 



TwoSwords said:


> While I don't think *anyone* should be treated badly based on their appearance alone, the fact is that the challenge faced by fat people is a very unique one, and the challenge faced by FAs even more so. You don't need to be an FA to believe that fat isn't a bad thing, and you don't need to be one to believe that fat people can be accepted, or to believe that liking fat people is acceptable. In fact, I don't recall having precisely brought up fat admiration at any point in my last 5 replies at least. I think you're the one who's fixated on that point, and that's exactly the problem I was addressing. When you have a serious problem to take care of, you've got to take care of it first, and worry about the tiny distinctions afterwards. All the better if that serious problem brings more people together to resolve it, but a lot of these additional requirements just focus the movement on non-essentials and reduce its number of supporters, as I said.
> 
> That said, however, I do believe that fat admirers have a very different kind of social challenge ahead of them, because like everyone else, they need to find some way to live their lives, and while fat people may have recourse to encouraging people to focus on who they are inside; their spirits, feelings, hopes and dreams, the FA has no such option, because their feelings, hopes and dreams are of a type against which the *whole world* is entirely hostile. For the FA, distracting people from the issue won't work. Only *actual* acceptance will, and that's one of many reasons why I want to see this issue addressed specifically, and a solution found for *all* concerned.



History is replete with examples of people seeking Utopia. You're just another person on that quest. Unfortunately everyones goal of what they want is different and that's where the conflict occurs.

The real answer is to help people develop their personal strength sufficiently so they aren't dependent on acceptance from others. It's called being self-actualized. Get to that place in your life where others seek validation from you. Otherwise you'll be trapped in a lifetime game of _Twister _trying to please everyone elsebut yourself.



TwoSwords said:


> P.S.: I can't help but notice you didn't respond to any of what I said in reply to you.


Since I was unable to respond for three days due to being a caregiver to my formerly SSBBW wife, and the discussion appeared to be reaching a natural end I didn't respond. 

Plus there's the issue that I did respond to most of your points, but you discounted them based on arbitrary interpretations of the rules of debate that you apply to others but conveniently fail to follow yourself.

I'll directly address your initiating post in #1:




TwoSwords said:


> I just couldn't trust social media and search engines to deliver what I wanted them to when I tried to do research on fatness and fat acceptance. Go ahead. Try it. Try using Yahoo, Google, Ask... Heck, use Duckduckgo if you think it'll help. The vast majority of searches will turn up opposition to these things, rather than the things themselves.



You've fallen into the trap of the younger generation: thinking the Internet can be used as a tool for primary research for anything other than current events. The half-life for information on the Internet is about three to five years. (In other words, roughly half the information disappears every three to five years unless there's a commercial reason to retain it.) Since the Fat Acceptance movement hasn't really been active since the early 2000's, all those Fat Acceptance posts (and most importantly, NEW posts) stopped. What you're seeing is evidence of data rot. Most of that information existed on the old servers from the AOL and Compuserve through the Alta-Vista eras.

On top of the data rot issue, we're in the age of "Google ranking" services. Companies that create fake websites that reference weight loss oriented websites to drive traffic to diet programs, bariatric surgery websites, and other similar websites. That creates pages of search engine hits that obscure and overwhelm any search for fat acceptance related websites.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 8, 2018)

HereticFA said:


> All your posts indicate a lack of familiarity with the history of the movement. In the beginning the focus was solely on acceptance of fat. I'm one of the generation who joined NAAFA in the eighties and authored one of the more successful advertising taglines "It's time you did something about your weight: accept it." It ran for about three years in the ninties in their nation wide advertising. Over time, most of us realized it wasn't just about accepting fat.



Yeah. I can do it too.
I think this is a topic I've been quite direct in describing for the last few replies. The only difference is in how we see these secondary requirements.



HereticFA said:


> History is replete with examples of people seeking Utopia.



Did you really not understand what I was talking about? What I'm talking about could be offered by *one person on a whim,* with a little bit of time and self-control, and it would cost them nothing. That's not the same thing as "utopia." Don't be that guy.



HereticFA said:


> The real answer is to help people develop their personal strength sufficiently so they aren't dependent on acceptance from others. It's called being self-actualized. Get to that place in your life where others seek validation from you. Otherwise you'll be trapped in a lifetime game of _Twister _trying to please everyone elsebut yourself.



I believe the phrase "no man is an island" has demonstrated sufficient longevity and reliability to refute this point on general principle.

And for the record, most of what you're now responding to was actually directed at Yakatori, not you.



HereticFA said:


> You've fallen into the trap of the younger generation: thinking the Internet can be used as a tool for primary research for anything other than current events. The half-life for information on the Internet is about three to five years. (In other words, roughly half the information disappears every three to five years unless there's a commercial reason to retain it.)



That's false. I've been doing a weekly video series (on largely unrelated topics to this one) for more than seven years, and my earliest episodes can still be found by googling them.



HereticFA said:


> On top of the data rot issue, we're in the age of "Google ranking" services. Companies that create fake websites that reference weight loss oriented websites to drive traffic to diet programs, bariatric surgery websites, and other similar websites. That creates pages of search engine hits that obscure and overwhelm any search for fat acceptance related websites.



Now we're getting somewhere. It sounds like the sort of internet loophole that anyone could exploit.


----------



## DragonFly (Jan 8, 2018)

I know that the debate and discussion is a bit heated.. But it is so darn nice to see discussion about Fat things. I know that we all have our own opinions and ideas of the past and what the future should look like. I know that right now I don't necessarily agree with the way activism is happening right now. I feel that there are so many sub groups of humanity looking to be recognized and accommodate by changes in everything from voter registration forms to how we view basic human dynamics.

Can we put this discussion back on track and give me something to dig my teeth into, Fat Activism is about Fat people's rights. I want the same rights as other people. Body image is way down on the list that I need. I need to have medical equipment, I need to be assured that there is not legal discrimination about weight. Even though there are all sorts non-discrimination laws it still happens because it is hard to prove. So what can be done?


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 9, 2018)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw[/ame]



DragonFly said:


> "_*Body image is way down on the list* that I need. I need to have medical equipment, I *need to be assured *that there is not legal discrimination about weight.... So what can be done?_"


Okay, I know you're not trying to be ironic here. Like, it's not intended that way, but....

How are people, in general, going to fight for everything that's theirs, basic human rights, indeed their very lives, without an underlying confidence in their own personal equality? How is any kind of large-scale, wholesale type of change going to happen anywhere, in any way, without a lot of people persistently fighting for it?

Isn't acceptance, basic personal acceptance, of one's own appearance a foundational part of of strong self-esteem?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbxinUJcLGg[/ame] 



DragonFly said:


> "_NAAFA at the beginning and into the last decade had *a Brigadoon quality in that it brought together like minded people for an accepting environment where you could just be you.* I remember my first convention (I was a very late NAAFA participant so I saw it on the down swing and saw the demise). It was wonderful! I was fat and it was the norm. I was NAAFA fat....NAAFA failed when it went away from the social side of things. _"


Just as, don't you think, Dimensions followed a similar progression?



DragonFly said:


> "_Bashes, the internet and a ton of apps have come up that can connect the fat and the fat admirer. Filling the social gap....found a couple FAs on SnapChat of all places._"


But, the million dollar question is: Is this actually a sole reason for why? I mean, it's kind of like a chicken/egg type of dynamic, right? 



DragonFly said:


> "_Body Positivity is a joke and has nothing to do with Fat Acceptance. It has to do with how you feel about yourself. *You can feel fine in you skin, and still accept size discrimination.*_"


Do you speak from personal experience? Because I'm inclined to disagree. I think a lot of our biased attitudes towards size and, indeed, our willingness to accept this wherever we might come across it comes from a general and deeply personal feeling of insecurity. 




HereticFA said:


> "_The real answer is to help people develop their personal strength sufficiently so they aren't dependent on acceptance from others. It's called being self-actualized. Get to that place in your life...Otherwise you'll be trapped in a lifetime game of...trying to please everyone else but yourself._



Yes, although a better calibrated movement can play an enormous role in helping a lot of people move a lot closer in that direction.



HereticFA said:


> "_...most of us realized it wasn't just about accepting fat..._



Yup.



HereticFA said:


> "_..fallen into the trap of the younger generation: thinking the Internet can be used as a tool for primary research for anything other than current events. The half-life for information on the Internet is about..._



This too.



HereticFA said:


> "_All your posts indicate a lack of familiarity with the history of..._



And, full-stop, right there.


----------



## ScreamingChicken (Jan 9, 2018)

Social media isn't the problem. It's what social media has done to revel the true colors of certain people within the community that has been the proverbial fly in the ointment. Let me explain.

Prior to Facebook, Twitter, and the other social media sites out there, your online interaction with other members of the community was limited to places like Dimensions and the few other message boards that were out there that catered to fat people and their admirers. You had a screenname where you could say and do whatever wanted to with almost no repercussions beyond that particular message board. You didn't necessarily put your picture out there , let alone your real name. You had anonymity and all the things that goes with it (provided you never interacted with anyone from that particular site outside of that site).

Now introduce Facebook and posters from all these sites migrated there and added to their friends lists the people they have met online. Individual circles start to overlap as well. We now how real names with real faces at play. And more than a few of those names and faces have no problems using their Facebook timelines to scream (pun intended) their politics and social views from the tops of their lungs because now the board rules no longer apply and it is THEIR space. In the process, people most likely came to four conclusions....1) the people I agreed with all those years are really cool because they are just like me ideologically 2) the people whom I suspected were flaming assholes all those years really are flaming assholes 3) the people who I wasn't sure about pleasantly surprised me or 4) the people I wasn't sure about really disappointed me. 

In my experience, group 2 came up a lot when I have encountered people from the fat community on Facebook. Not all of them mind you (I keep a small number of Dimmers on my social media and my GF is a Dimmer as well) but enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth. This community that once valued tolerance and acceptance has shown a shitty track record of doing just the very opposite. Some of the more visible posters from years past are especially guilty of this in my opinion. 

My point is once people saw the real faces of their fellow community members outside of Dimensions on Facebook , the likelihood of pulling away from the community increased along with the subsequent fragmentation. Why put up with the negative BS if you don't have to?


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 9, 2018)

DragonFly said:


> I know that the debate and discussion is a bit heated.. But it is so darn nice to see discussion about Fat things. I know that we all have our own opinions and ideas of the past and what the future should look like. I know that right now I don't necessarily agree with the way activism is happening right now. I feel that there are so many sub groups of humanity looking to be recognized and accommodate by changes in everything from voter registration forms to how we view basic human dynamics.



The sad truth is that what's "basic" for one person may be utterly indecypherable for another.



DragonFly said:


> Can we put this discussion back on track and give me something to dig my teeth into, Fat Activism is about Fat people's rights.



*This* discussion was originally supposed to be about the inadequate presence of fat acceptance/fat positivity/fat normalization on social media and the internet in general. Activism as such is not a required component of that. You just need two or more people who are willing to accept that fat is not evil, and boom. You've got your fat-normalized environment. My concern is how there don't seem to be any of those, online or elsewhere.



DragonFly said:


> Body image is way down on the list that I need. I need to have medical equipment, I need to be assured that there is not legal discrimination about weight. Even though there are all sorts non-discrimination laws it still happens because it is hard to prove. So what can be done?



These two things you mention are very different. One is a social custom, which can only stem from a change in attitude about fatness. The other is a problem that most people will eventually have, which stems jointly from our mortality and our limited number of resources.

The truth is that while we can make overt discrimination illegal, and try to discourage it in public places, the only way to excise hate from the human heart is with love. A change in the policies of society will only come about as a reflection of a change in the human spirit. Therefore, acceptance. You can't* both *treat something as a poison to be eradicated, and *also* expect it to be publicly loved and respected. You've got to choose. I've made my choice about this, and I hope you have as well, but it's important to be a great deal less ambiguous about it, so people know we mean what we say.

When fatness is more accepted, it will be less discriminated against.

On the topic of medical equipment, I'm not 100% sure what you mean to imply by this term, so for now, I'll take it at face value. As I see it, this is one of the few areas in which the internet has done fat people tremendous good. While there are some pieces of medical equipment that don't work as well for fat people (certain kinds of wheelchairs and blood pressure monitors spring to mind,) you can, at present, find good alternatives that *do* work on fat people, and they're just a brief Amazon search away. There may be one or two products still unaccounted for in this area, but a large portion of this battle has been won already.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 9, 2018)

ScreamingChicken said:


> Social media isn't the problem. It's what social media has done to revel the true colors of certain people within the community that has been the proverbial fly in the ointment. Let me explain.
> 
> Prior to Facebook, Twitter, and the other social media sites out there, your online interaction with other members of the community was limited to places like Dimensions and the few other message boards that were out there that catered to fat people and their admirers. You had a screenname where you could say and do whatever wanted to with almost no repercussions beyond that particular message board. You didn't necessarily put your picture out there , let alone your real name. You had anonymity and all the things that goes with it (provided you never interacted with anyone from that particular site outside of that site).
> 
> ...



I suppose that's possible, but I sort of expect the people in my life to have their own struggles, if I'm lucky. I think it's unfortunate for people on the internet to bring their real identities into it. I don't mention my full name in any of my comments here, because I don't think it's important. I've heard it said before, but it's not *who* I am on the inside, but *what I do* that defines me.

What puzzles me is that so many people who previously had such a need to discuss these matters, suddenly decided they no longer needed that, because a few people had turned out to be kind of lame. My need to talk about fatness and my feelings about it would be the same, even if *everyone on Earth* was a jerk, and I could *prove* that.

The one thing we need to watch out for, though, is that I'm the exception to the rule on this matter. Most people *are* able to make friends casually among those with normal feelings, and therefore don't need to resort to special groups like the kind we're discussing. Behaving horribly won't make such discussion any more mainstream, and won't convince anyone that we're sincere. That's what I truly believe.

For the record, my views on controversial topics are probably way different than those of anyone else here. But that doesn't change the fact that I need the chance for discussions about fatness. My heart bleeds for them, and while I can understand why some others don't have this same issue, I hope that you can understand my confusion. To me, it would be like the masked man from the Princess Bride letting go of the rope and letting himself fall because midway up the mountain, he found out Inigo Montoya voted for Prince Humperdink.


----------



## DragonFly (Jan 9, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> P.S.: Sorry if I'm coming across as cruel. I don't mean to be. However, I have had just about enough of this. Nothing in the world is more obvious than the fact that people of differing appearances, and those who like them, should be treated with the same love and respect due to every human being by virtue of their human nature, yet this is being denied or thrown away over some other, unrelated issues, even here. I have half a mind to start researching what's required to start a new branch of social media specifically for people who recognize the clear greatness of fatness, so we can share our struggles with the constant opposition in other venues, without being told we need to "adapt."


Going to hit a couple of points then address the below. First medical equipment is not where it needs to be. I have been left sitting in a wheelchair for hours waiting while they locate a bariatric hospital bed. Large blood pressure cuffs hurt and very few medical personel know how to accurately do this on the forearm. Weight based medications are not tested on large people it is a gamble when they dose fat people. I could go on and on. Amazon doesnt have needed surgical equipment or radiation treatment supplies. 

Second- there does need a place for fatties to gather for solidarity on social media. Hashtags are the new group identifier.


----------



## RabbitScorpion (Jan 10, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> Anecdotal evidence is a funny thing, because, you see, people only really report the cases where something bad happens. In the same way that you rarely read the newspaper headline "Good, hardworking people do their jobs," so you rarely hear about the instances where weight did not strongly effect health, and people were happy together.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



* Trans fats (Obviously) *
_ Trans fats are saturated fats, thus unhealthy, but I can't say butter or lard are one iota less unhealthy. Calorie wise, they and liquid lipids, such as vegetable oils, are the same 9cal/g._
Lack of exercise
Excessive intake of refined sugars
Yo-yo dieting
*High-Fructose Corn Syrup*
_HFCS is a lightning rod to those that believe that anything that was not given by the "Earth Mother" is sinful and unhealthy. Reality is, it's just another refined sugar, albeit refined from mays, instead of cane or beets. People who think they can wolf down desserts made with "natural" cane sugar are in for nasty surprises decades down the road._


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 10, 2018)

DragonFly said:


> Going to hit a couple of points then address the below. First medical equipment is not where it needs to be. I have been left sitting in a wheelchair for hours waiting while they locate a bariatric hospital bed. Large blood pressure cuffs hurt and very few medical personel know how to accurately do this on the forearm. Weight based medications are not tested on large people it is a gamble when they dose fat people. I could go on and on. Amazon doesnt have needed surgical equipment or radiation treatment supplies.



Amazon doesn't have supplies for surgery and radiation treatment because those are specialized pieces of equipment that only professionals are permitted to use. I don't think of those as "supplies" that can be provided for someone per se. As for the rest, it just sounds like you have poorly-trained medical professionals in your area; an ailment with which many people, in the FA community and otherwise, can intimately sympathize.

P.S.: *All* blood pressure cuffs hurt. At least if you're doing it right.



DragonFly said:


> Second- there does need a place for fatties to gather for solidarity on social media. Hashtags are the new group identifier.



I... see... Hashtags. Yeah.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 10, 2018)

RabbitScorpion said:


> * Trans fats (Obviously) *
> _ Trans fats are saturated fats, thus unhealthy, but I can't say butter or lard are one iota less unhealthy. Calorie wise, they and liquid lipids, such as vegetable oils, are the same 9cal/g._



Well, take all of this with a grain of salt, since, as I said, we really don't have any proof of how any of these things effect the human body in an absolute sense.

However, we do know that Trans Fats *are not saturated fats at all.* The term is short for "trans-*un*saturated fatty acids," and it occurs in nature in small amounts, but then again, so does cyanide (protip; don't eat ten pounds of almonds in one sitting. It's just not a good idea.)

We also know that trans fats elevate triglyceride levels, while most other saturated fats don't, and in particular, normal saturated fats like butter and coconut oil show no increased rate of coronary artery disease in the way that trans fats do. In fact, most people who cut down on saturated fats increase their intake of carbs, which is significantly more likely to raise their triglyceride levels. Also, you might want to avoid cooking with those vegetable oils you just mentioned. They produce a chemical when heated, which has been shown to cause cancer when taken in large amounts.

This information is supported (but, as I said, not proven) by widespread studies as recent as 2010, and is the result of a 3-month excavation of the highly-polluted field of medical data. I have never in my life seen such a mess when it came to researching a topic. There is agreement on nothing, except, for the most part, that trans-fats are bad, and exercise good.



RabbitScorpion said:


> *High-Fructose Corn Syrup*
> _HFCS is a lightning rod to those that believe that anything that was not given by the "Earth Mother" is sinful and unhealthy. Reality is, it's just another refined sugar, albeit refined from mays, instead of cane or beets. People who think they can wolf down desserts made with "natural" cane sugar are in for nasty surprises decades down the road._



On this point, I partly agree, since I did mention over-consumption of refined sugars, but High Fructose Corn Syrup in particular has been found to harm the immune system, making you more vulnerable to various ailments and illnesses.


----------



## mommy4 (Jan 11, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> Amazon doesn't have supplies for surgery and radiation treatment because those are specialized pieces of equipment that only professionals are permitted to use. I don't think of those as "supplies" that can be provided for someone per se. As for the rest, it just sounds like you have poorly-trained medical professionals in your area; an ailment with which many people, in the FA community and otherwise, can intimately sympathize.
> 
> P.S.: *All* blood pressure cuffs hurt. At least if you're doing it right.
> 
> ...



NO, all BP cuffs do not hurt. If they hurt, they are too tight and give an inaccurate reading


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 11, 2018)

mommy4 said:


> NO, all BP cuffs do not hurt. If they hurt, they are too tight and give an inaccurate reading



I was just about to say this. If your blood pressure cuff hurts it is the wrong size. It should feel like a firm pressure but not be painful.

Also, as an aside... this discussion since DragonFly joined in really highlights exactly why there is a gulf between fat people and FAs. A SSBBW comes onto the board and explains the issues she faces, the struggles she has for her human rights, and you guys respond by basically saying "No, your wrong, also, doesn't affect me so I don't care". Try actually being passionate and caring towards fat people rather than only caring about yourself and what you want in life. This attitude is _exactly_ the reason why fat women want nothing to do with some of you, and you're all too self involved to turn around and see it.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 11, 2018)

loopytheone said:


> I was just about to say this. If your blood pressure cuff hurts it is the wrong size. It should feel like a firm pressure but not be painful.
> 
> Also, as an aside... this discussion since DragonFly joined in really highlights exactly why there is a gulf between fat people and FAs. A SSBBW comes onto the board and explains the issues she faces, the struggles she has for her human rights, and you guys respond by basically saying "No, your wrong, also, doesn't affect me so I don't care". Try actually being passionate and caring towards fat people rather than only caring about yourself and what you want in life. This attitude is _exactly_ the reason why fat women want nothing to do with some of you, and you're all too self involved to turn around and see it.



The fact of the matter is that there will always be more than one person in every human interaction. If DragonFly has issues that need further resolving, we can work together at resolving those, but no one has ever taken *my* blood pressure without it hurting a little, so those are my experiences.

I never said I don't care about these things, but rather, that many of them do not serve to unite us in a common cause, and that some are not related to this discussion, or even this general topic.

It's just as I said; people need to be willing to focus on what unites them if they want to get anything accomplished. If all you focus on is your own desires, you're just going to drive people away, and this is true no matter how much, or how little you weigh, or what the source of your problems is, but it's especially true among those who have a history of suffering shame and persecution.

I began this topic to talk about a very specific issue; social media and the hardship of finding an accepting and welcoming environment on it in the modern world. This is an issue that has strong effects on those whose unpopular qualities have made social contact in normal ways difficult or impossible, and it is an issue in which, it seems, both FAs and fat people can see problems (I have DragonFly's responses to back me up on this conclusion.) So it seems that it matters a lot, and there's plenty of room to talk about things that unite us in that topic. I'd much prefer to do that, rather than shift discussion to an anecdotal issue, that may or may not be widespread enough to effect the community as a whole.

Also, for the record, when you tell men about problems you're having, you are implicitly, because they're men, asking for solutions. This is not a criticism of your struggles. It's just what men do. We want to help.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 11, 2018)

DragonFly said:


> "_Second- there does need a place for fatties to gather for solidarity on social media. Hashtags are the new group identifier._"


That's hardly even a poor substitute. A Hashtag could certainly make for an effective call sign for a community already well-organized and more firmly established, like during the Arab Spring. But it's not like a once disintegrated group can all of a sudden self-resuscitate just like that. Besides which:



DragonFly said:


> "_Did Video kill the Radio Star.....NAAFA failed when it went away from the social side of things. Bashes, the internet and a ton of *apps* have come up that can connect the fat and the fat admirer. Filling the social gap...found a couple FAs on *SnapChat* of all places._"


This only helps to explain how and why Fat people-themselves aren't as dependent on what NAAFA and then, subsequently, Dimensions once provided. Certainly an important-enough part of the equation, and why I brought the point of technology (smart phones) into this in the first place. However, it does nothing to account for how quickly the bottom dropped out for both.

There are other factors which, if more effectively mitigated, could've proven the difference in ultimately retarding the progression of this decline. Or, if neutralized altogether, might've provided some more timely, adequate opportunity to actually take advantage of such emergent technological trends to bolster said community into something even bigger and yet-more socially and politically relevant. 

After all, there are still bashes, right? That's still '_a thing_,' folks are still doing that. But it's just not the same anymore. 

And so, as it appears to me, some of us are less willing to discuss these particular factors as candidly and objectively, even for our own place in them:



TwoSwords said:


> "_What puzzles me is that so many people who previously had such a need to discuss these matters, *suddenly *decided they no longer needed that, because a few people had turned out to be kind of lame...need to talk about fatness and my feelings about it would be the same, even if..._"


Well, maybe you should look further into what actually happened, in the past. Beyond your own preconceptions. Consider what people are trying to tell you, more deeply. Explore the questions they present you with more thoroughly. You know, like Decartes' _Meditation_, starting out with just nothing, empty your whole brain, and just start working your way up from there.



TwoSwords said:


> "_...the inadequate presence of fat acceptance/fat positivity/fat normalization on social media and the internet in general. Activism as such is not a required component of that. You just need two or more people who are willing to accept that fat is not evil, and boom. You've got your fat-normalized environment. My concern is how there don't seem to be any of those, online or elsewhere._"


Except, as has been already pointed out for you, and not just by me, both Dimensions and NAAFA (already) fulfilled this demand, above and beyond, for lots and lots of people. And for a pretty long time.

What happened? Who moved your cheese? 



ScreamingChicken said:


> "_...anonymity and all the things that goes with it...Now introduce Facebook and posters from all these sites migrated there and added to their friends lists the people they have met online. Individual circles start to overlap as well. We now how real names with real faces at play. And more than a few of those names and faces have no problems using their Facebook timelines to scream (pun intended) their politics and social views from the tops of their lungs because now the board rules no longer apply and it is THEIR space....the people whom I suspected were flaming assholes all those years really are flaming assholes...enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth. This community that once valued tolerance and acceptance has shown a shitty track record of doing just the very opposite. Some of the more visible posters from years past are especially guilty of this in my opinion.
> 
> My point is once people saw the real faces of their fellow community members outside of Dimensions on Facebook , the likelihood of pulling away from the community increased along with the subsequent fragmentation. Why put up with the negative BS if you don't have to?_"


Yes, this is definitely some big part of it, albeit not the most efficient stating point.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 11, 2018)

Yakatori said:


> Well, maybe you should look further into what actually happened, in the past. Beyond your own preconceptions. Consider what people are trying to tell you, more deeply. Explore the questions they present you with more thoroughly. You know, like Decartes' _Meditation_, starting out with just nothing, empty your whole brain, and just start working your way up from there.
> 
> Except, as has been already pointed out for you, and not just by me, both Dimensions and NAAFA (already) fulfilled this demand, above and beyond, for lots and lots of people. And for a pretty long time.
> 
> ...



I don't think that you need to criticize other people for being inefficient in answering questions, Yakatori. I can't recall for certain, but I don't believe I've ever gotten a straight answer from you on anything I've asked, in all the time we've been talking.


----------



## ScreamingChicken (Jan 11, 2018)

It might not have been efficient but it was accurate. Unfortunately, you can't encapsulate the underlying dynamics of this community in just a few short sentences.


----------



## DragonFly (Jan 11, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> Amazon doesn't have supplies for surgery and radiation treatment because those are specialized pieces of equipment that only professionals are permitted to use. I don't think of those as "supplies" that can be provided for someone per se. As for the rest, it just sounds like you have poorly-trained medical professionals in your area; an ailment with which many people, in the FA community and otherwise, can intimately sympathize.
> 
> P.S.: *All* blood pressure cuffs hurt. At least if you're doing it right.
> 
> ...



You are not correct in thinking that the medical industry has taken the fat population into account when they are developing treatements or equipment. I am in an area known for its good medical care, your second assumption is also incorrect. Your supersized population is at danger at all times from the lack of medical knowledge and resources to treat them.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 11, 2018)

DragonFly said:


> You are not correct in thinking that the medical industry has taken the fat population into account when they are developing treatements or equipment. I am in an area known for its good medical care, your second assumption is also incorrect. *Your supersized population is at danger at all times from the lack of medical knowledge and resources to treat them.*



Now, *here* I agree. The pharmaceutical and medical industries, and medical practitioners nationwide (perhaps even globally,) are a wreck right now because they're not doing their research responsibly.

I don't believe I said the "medical industry" took fat people into account, but rather that a lot of specialized equipment has come onto the market with fat people in mind, and that equipment is much easier to find now than it's ever been. I still stand by that claim, but if you want to discuss the deficiencies of the modern day medical profession, I'd be more than happy to do so.

However, that's not very strongly related to the thread's intended topic, unless it's part of the reason why there's little-to-no social media presence among those who defend fatness.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 14, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> However, that's not very strongly related to the thread's intended topic, unless it's part of the reason why there's little-to-no social media presence among those who defend fatness.



I suspect it's because so many of the true pioneers died before the age of 55, and some before 45. Like "Teighlor", "Ambrosia", and Susan Mason in these vids. The word got out among the newcomers to the fat scene that it's not just an issue of attitude and acceptance. 
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fRF5_oMDXk[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTEiHwhSIWo[/ame]

Oh how I miss my friends.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 14, 2018)

I stumbled across this article while searching for old names from the FAc movement. It's an interesting snapshot of the era of FAc 101 in the 70's. Back then the Zine scene was the equivalent of today's social media. Talk about literal snail mail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...t-pride/782c4d14-4c75-424b-aff0-ae62cc8dd8fa/

(Note: I'm using FAc for Fat Acceptance vs FAd for Fat Admirer.)


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 14, 2018)

HereticFA said:


> I suspect it's because so many of the true pioneers died before the age of 55, and some before 45. Like "Teighlor", "Ambrosia", and Susan Mason in these vids. The word got out among the newcomers to the fat scene that it's not just an issue of attitude and acceptance.
> 
> Oh how I miss my friends.



"The word got out" meaning people started to make assumptions based on incomplete data.

I guess I can see how that would happen.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 14, 2018)

HereticFA said:


> (Note: I'm using FAc for Fat Acceptance vs FAd for Fat Admirer.)



"Fac" works okay, I think, though I've always preferred "fat appreciator" over "fat admirer," which would mean I'd be using either FAp or FAr, neither of which looks especially good as an acronym. Even the next letter over; FAe, has some unfortunate connotations.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 14, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> "The word got out" meaning people started to make assumptions based on incomplete data.
> 
> I guess I can see how that would happen.



No, the data is pretty complete. They died and are still dead. They were fat and died at ages over fifteen years below the average age for longevity in the US. And they died of obesity related diseases. While I hate all of that from both a FAc and FAd perspective, those are cold, hard facts. 

And now I'm going to start applying some of your pedantic rules for discussion. In your own words in post #38:


TwoSwords said:


> If you have a claim that you want to advance, the burden of proving that claim falls on you; not me.


Referring back to a couple of your earlier posts that started all of this thread:


TwoSwords said:


> I'm pretty well plugged into the internet, and I do research there as both a hobby and a job. Yet, in the last two Christmas vacations I took, I had to tune it out after just a couple of days, and the main reason was that aside from relatively-isolated cases like Deviantart, I just couldn't trust social media and search engines to deliver what I wanted them to when I tried to do research on fatness and fat acceptance. Go ahead. Try it. Try using Yahoo, Google, Ask... Heck, use Duckduckgo if you think it'll help. The vast majority of searches will turn up *opposition* to these things, rather than the things themselves.
> 
> Lest you think Facebook is any better, the fat acceptance page there hasn't been updated since 2014, and references a fat acceptance website that no longer exists, (Following the link leads to a blank page with a bunch of links to freaking diet info!) while the page devoted to attacking fat acceptance received updates as recently as October of this year. Youtube is even worse, with fat acceptance and body positivity videos either just not present, or not showing up in searches, and needing to be stumbled onto by chance in the associated videos bar on the side.
> 
> ...



So you've taken absence of evidence (_argumentum ad ignorantiam_) to justify the basis for this whole thread. Instead of glossing over that fact and skimming ahead, lets take a closer look at what you've chosen as your authoritative reference - the spotty tool of the Internet.

The Internet didn't really start being used commercially by the general public until about 1996, so it's effectively only about 22 years old. Relying on a 22 year old for historic information is foolish. Add to that the web servers of that era were barely i80486 or Pentium2 based. Unless their was an commercial reason to transfer their data to newer servers, that information is gone due to a variety of reasons such as hardware failure or business failure of the hosting company . It's a high level version of "bit rot". So it's a 22 year old with brain damage. Great reference. A great example of this is Stef's old web pages. Only her page at http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef/fat.html remains. The linked pages are gone.

Add to the situation some background information that's been documented before, but it was on old _Dimensionsmagazine.com_ servers that could not be restored. (Actually, Dim's has had two significant failures, a digital lobotomy of the collective writings of the FAc and FAd movements when the database servers couldn't be fixed and everything was flushed.) There were two significant points of fallouts within NAAFA. The last one in '97 to '98 they never really recovered from. Both caused spits in the leadership and spawned new Fat Acceptance organizations. The first was the _Council on Size and Weight Discrimination_ (still operating) and the second was _Big As Texas _(discontinued about 2012, website: http://www.members.tripod.com/bigastexas/). The years 2001 to 2003 were the sharp corner in the downturn of the movement due to the rise of the RNY WLS procedure. That's why you'll find very little since then for FAc and the rise of the Body Positivity movement. In parallel you'll also find the rise of Marilyn Wann and her Fat!So? writings.

So instead of complaining about the lack of true, unconditional Fat Acceptance on the Internet, you should instead be asking why a thriving movement fizzled unless you want to repeat the mistakes of the past. But your focus on effectively returning to FAc 1.0 is just too obdurate. Those of us who lived it get it. I'm sorry you missed the party. Like _Dragonfly_ said, the events were like _Brigadoon_. Online connections that came later were nice but it was the face to face encounters of the workshops, the hallway discussions, the dinner discussions, and the dances that are the memorable parts for me.




TwoSwords said:


> People mention public outcry against Facebook for their abusive censoring of fat-friendly ads in appropriate places, but I'm shocked that no one's talked about this; that the FA Reddit page is packed with links attacking FA, and so on and so forth. Where does it end? Is there a whole world of civil Fat admirers out there, who just can't make their voices heard because some bureaucrat in Silicon Valley decided to "sanitize" the web, and as always with censorship, it's fat people and their advocates who suffer first?


It is never likely to end as long as anyone has a different agenda and is willing to "white knight" to progress that agenda. Unfortunately one person's white knight is another persons troll.

As for the web being sanitized of FAc articles and posts, you need to have better proof that it's due to purposeful actions and not simply bit rot as I've outlined and demonstrated. And even if proven as purposeful actions, I suspect it will be related to bigger advertising income from the weight loss industry compared to smaller FAc related advertising campaigns. 

As for the _League of Extraordinary (F)FAs, _we're just living life. Some are just enjoying who they found. Others of us are being caregivers for our mates and don't have much time to post here. Most of us tired of the 100:1 odds of fighting the online trolls and abandoned the poorly moderated online FAc communities, starting back in the Usenet era.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 14, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> "_..there's little-to-no social media presence among those who defend fatness._"


Except, even that's not really true. Not exactly.



HereticFA said:


> "_..So instead of complaining about the lack of true, unconditional Fat Acceptance on the Internet, you should instead be asking why a thriving movement fizzled.._"


Yup. Basically.

Though we might (all) disagree here or there over which particular factors weighed more heavily than others or how they could've or would've been best mitigated; no real way of getting around the larger point of what once was.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 14, 2018)

Heretic, I'm going to give this one more shot, because in spite of your screen name, I really do get the impression that you care about knowing the truth, and have, for whatever reason, some obstacle that's keeping you from understanding my words. I don't see how that's possible. I think I've been fairly clear and direct in all of my points, but if there is any point I've made, which you aren't quite sure how to interpret, or what it means, or you think there's some implication I haven't fully spelled out, please just ask me about it. I'll be happy to explain the rules of inference, the probability calculus, and the broader philosophical laws from which I draw my criteria for knowledge, if you will only ask.

However, while good reasoning can be convincing, simple stubbornness is not, and to be frank, I think it's disingenuous of you to treat my reasoning as foolishness, given the way that this discussion has gone.

By this, what I mean is that you have presented very little evidence in defense of your baffling position, and yet, whenever you did present evidence, I always addressed it using the rules of logic, and always was able to find some weakness in the evidence or the reasoning. By contrast, you have not even addressed most of my points or counterpoints in response to your positions. My point about counter-examples to your "early death by fat" theory has gone unaddressed. My point about how other factors can influence mortality, and therefore this is just another case of using correlations and anecdotes without context to advance a claim that isn't supported by the evidence, has gone unaddressed. Of my 18 original challenges, none has been satisfactorily answered, and there was near-direct concession on two of them. I could go over them again to show this, and I may, if this persists, but suffice to say, I think there's more than enough evidence that I have addressed your concerns much more thoroughly than you have addressed mine. Many of your responses to my requests for data have just been more anecdotes, isolated samplings and correlations without context or proof, and that's not likely to be very helpful in learning the truth about these sorts of issues.

Now, with all of that in mind, again, please ask if you don't understand why using logic to arrive at conclusions is any more correct than making assumptions based on limited anecdotes, or about any other point that threatens to further confuse the issue for you. I don't want to be misunderstood, as you've done here, when you say...



HereticFA said:


> No, the data is pretty complete. They died and are still dead. They were fat and died at ages over fifteen years below the average age for longevity in the US. And they died of obesity related diseases.



This, remember, is in response to my remark, "...people started to make assumptions based on incomplete data."

It's pretty clear that you didn't understand what I meant by "incomplete," and in a way, that's my fault. I just sort of assumed you'd know what the term meant in this context. "Incomplete" in this context means "not adequate to prove the conclusion presented." Let me use logic to demonstrate this, with the list of data you've just provided. This is done by taking each fact and using them as premises in an argument. If the premises are true, and the logic sound, the conclusion would follow. If it doesn't follow, it's a "guess" or an "assumption," not a "fact."

"They died and are still dead."

Two premises here, the second being unhelpful to the point being advanced, since even if they *had* resurrected, it would still prove nothing about the effect of fatness upon mortality, or lack thereof. So there's only one relevant premise here.

P1. They died.

"They were fat and died at ages over fifteen years below the average age for longevity in the US."

While it's phrased like one sentence, this is actually three separate premises.

1. There is an actual average longevity in the US.
2. They failed to reach that average by over fifteen years.
3. They were fat.

Here we see that the second premise depends upon the first, since failing to reach an average that doesn't exist is inevitable. However, for the sake of this analysis, let's concede all three of these points as premises 2, 3 and 4.

"And they died of obesity related diseases."

Now, when a person is presenting premises, intending for another person to accept them as evidence, as I said, the task of proving those premises falls on the person presenting them. This premise has not been proven, or even hinted at, until this very moment, so at the very least, this premise is in peril for three major reasons.

1. It has not been established that the diseases were truly related to obesity.
2. It has not been established that obesity caused the diseases, rather than the other way around, or rather than them being caused by an unrelated factor.
3. It has not been established that the diseases could have been prevented, had the people in question not been obese.

Even one of these doubts is sufficient to place this evidence into the "we just don't know" category. However, for the sake of this analysis, and to serve as an example, let me pretend that it were proven that these diseases were related to, caused by, and preventable through avoiding, obesity. Well, in that case, we have five premises. Let's go through them, one by one, and see what follows from combining them.

P1. They died.

C1. Therefore, these people were mortal.

P2. There is an actual average longevity in the US.

C2. Therefore, all people are mortal. (This is because if there were any immortal people, it would make it impossible for an average longevity to be found. Infinities tend to mess with averages.)

P3. They failed to reach that average by over fifteen years.

C3. Therefore, the mortality of these people was not of the average sort.

P4. They were fat.

C4. Therefore, these people were fat,* and* their mortality was not of the average sort.

P5. They died of obesity related diseases.

C5. Therefore, these people were fat, and died because of it, *and* their mortality was also not of the average sort.

Conclusion 5 is the final one, because you haven't presented any further premises. Notice what conclusion 5 does not say. It doesn't say that they couldn't have contracted the same diseases, and died the same way, much later or much earlier, or even not at all. Furthermore, it also doesn't say or imply that all people who are fat will experience diseases associated with fatness, just as not all people who are tall will experience diseases that mostly tall people get, and not all thin people will suffer from anemia or a weakened immune system, despite those being illnesses associated with excessive thinness. For these reasons, the data which you've presented does not support the claim that you think it does.

This is a full explanation of what I mean by "incomplete data." I mean that in order to arrive at the claim you say you've arrived at, there must be some hidden premise which is being assumed, and which, if presented, would alter the conclusion to the point of making it match your claim. You have not presented that hidden premise, however, and until you do, your data can't, or at least shouldn't, convince anyone.

I will try to treat your other points in this more thorough way from now on, so that there is no more misunderstanding.

See you in a bit.


----------



## HereticFA (Jan 15, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> I will try to treat your other points in this more thorough way from now on, so that there is no more misunderstanding.
> 
> See you in a bit.


Don't bother. While you don't discount any specific studies, you totally discount statistics, a tool critical for most scientific studies and invent your own version of the truth. I don't believe we have anything further to discuss. I now see why you get caught up in endless debates as you state in #24. You're focused on justifying your feelings by using sophomoric, pedantic techniques to mask your poor quality debating skills and asymmetric techniques that ignore fundamental scientific techniques and practices. We're done.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 15, 2018)

HereticFA said:


> Don't bother. While you don't discount any specific studies, you totally discount statistics, a tool critical for most scientific studies and invent your own version of the truth. I don't believe we have anything further to discuss. I now see why you get caught up in endless debates as you state in #24. *You're focused on justifying your feelings* by using sophomoric, pedantic techniques to mask your poor quality debating skills and asymmetric techniques that ignore fundamental scientific techniques and practices. We're done.



I'm sorry to hear you say this, because I had hoped you would at least be open to learning about the real rules required for drawing logical conclusions. But it seems you've totally bought into the notion that logic is moonshine and only science and context-free statistics, even in the absence of rational underpinnings, are valid. There's no penetrating that sort of view, because it's based on unquestioning faith, not reason.

I have reasons for doubting the findings of statistics. I have reasons for questioning it when scientists stop doing actual science (measuring and testing,) and intrude into the domain of *philosophy* of science (drawing conclusions about what their data means) without sufficient training in philosophical disciplines to draw their conclusions responsibly. This is the lens through which I see every issue I study, because it is the rationally-justified way to look at the world, in a way that unquestioning, uncritical appeals to authority, and the occasional argument ad hominem (like the one highlighted) are not.

P.S.: On a related note, I think this reply gives me more gratification than any other, because here, the words "sophomoric" and "pedantic" are basically being used as insults, outside of their established definitions, and it's unusual for a debater to resort to insults if they have any further arguments to bring to the table.

P.P.S.: I say this, because it is neither ostentatiously-concerned for book learning and rules, nor is it lacking in maturity or good judgment to present reasoned arguments that contradict the conclusion that *you* want me to reach.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 15, 2018)

HereticFA said:


> So instead of complaining about the lack of true, unconditional Fat Acceptance on the Internet, you should instead be asking why a thriving movement fizzled unless you want to repeat the mistakes of the past.



It doesn't matter *why* this happened. The only thing that matters is finding or founding a completely fat-normalized environment, by hook or by crook.



HereticFA said:


> Most of us tired of the 100:1 odds of fighting the online trolls and abandoned the poorly moderated online FAc communities, starting back in the Usenet era.



So the solution is simple; just start a new website, and moderate it to the exclusion of fat-criticism. I can't be the first person who's thought of this.


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 15, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> So the solution is simple; just start a new website, and moderate it to the exclusion of fat-criticism. I can't be the first person who's thought of this.



There is something they often tell artists/writers out there; if something you want doesn't exist, create it yourself. You've spoken about doing this a few times now and I would encourage you to do so, as you clearly aren't getting what you want out of any of the resources available to you at the moment.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 15, 2018)

loopytheone said:


> There is something they often tell artists/writers out there; if something you want doesn't exist, create it yourself. You've spoken about doing this a few times now and I would encourage you to do so, as you clearly aren't getting what you want out of any of the resources available to you at the moment.



Exactly what I was hinting at. I actually have a couple related projects in the works (and one unrelated one,) but I'll look into what's required as soon as I have a free moment. I will say, however, that for me, moderating fat-critical comments out of existence would be a joy, rather than a chore, so I might well be the best person to do this kind of work (and it sorely needs doing. There's a need that isn't being fulfilled, and easily could be. To me, that's the definition of an economic opportunity.)


----------



## fuelingfire (Jan 15, 2018)

TwoSwords said:


> So the solution is simple; just start a new website, and moderate it to the exclusion of fat-criticism. I can't be the first person who's thought of this.



How are you imagining this website being different than Dims?


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 15, 2018)

fuelingfire said:


> How are you imagining this website being different than Dims?



The focus would be slightly different, and the participation rules a bit less general. In particular, while weight loss discussions would be permitted, those discussions would need to be done without ever stating or implying the inferiority of fatness.

I feel that claims citing "health" or "beauty" to denigrate fatness would be the most important thing to forbid, outside of actual hate, and I don't say this to discourage discussion, but rather, to help focus it. People can better study the evidence relevant to fatness if they're not being pressured, in the same breath, to pass judgment on its worth.

Of course, actual hatred would be strongly moderated, as on many other boards all over the place.

Any person could make a judgment on something any other person said or did, of course, but judgments on *general categories* of people would need to be reviewed, and possibly moderated. I say this because, as I've said before, we're not just dealing with fat people here, but also with people who have non-standard emotional states, and who are frequently treated shamefully, even among those they admire. Shaming of either type of person, or of anyone else for something that's not under their control, would be grounds for, at least, a temporary ban.

The overall goals of this sort of community would be to forge an environment in which people with the common belief that fatness is not inferior can talk and share their similarities, differences and struggles, have irrelevant arguments, debates, discussions, get into fights, trade writings and generally be people able to live like people, while also not feeling like they need to walk on eggshells about the "fat issue." I don't have an entire rule-set written out yet, but I do intend to compose one once the project is a little closer to completion.

As far as titles, I'm thinking of something like Sunshine or Sunlight; "Warm, bright, soft and round. Sunlight in the darkness." Or something along those lines.


----------



## DJ_S (Sep 6, 2018)

waldo said:


> VERY interesting. I don't think fat acceptance is dead, BUT the concept of health at any size is probably dead. It is hard to argue for similar outcomes for super sized people (BMW >> 50), based on both the statistical evidence as well as the overwhelming anecdotal experience. Personally, I was GUTTED by the news of Catherine Oakes (Cat) and Debbi Thomas having passed in recent months. The situation of others such as Big Cutie Summer reinforce the idea that the odds of 'premature death' at high BMI is more likely than not



High BMI is false.


----------

