What exactly is political correctness?

[EquALLity]

With diet alone, around 3 lb per week could be possible. With exercise too, rather than extreme dietary restriction, more could be possible.
If you want to lose 100 lb of excess fat, that should take a little over six months. It doesn't take long.

Is it healthy to lose three pounds per week? And is it practical for people to take it so quickly?

Just like with giving up meat, it's probably better to do it gradually to decrease recidivism.

There's nothing to disagree with there. It's not an assumption, it's just a statistical fact.

If somebody spends 30 adult years obese, then decides to lose weight in the late 40's, and took six months to lose weight, what are the changes that a random encounter with that person while still significantly overweight were while losing weight?

One in 61. Under a 2% chance.

But most fat people never do lose weight. They live fat and they die fat. The odds, in effect, are far lower than that.

Most fat people aren't in the process of making a legitimate effort to lose weight, but rather yo-yo-ing with absurd fad diets, pills, and quick fixes because they can't be bothered to exercise some impulse control and change what they eat for real.

I have no doubt that many fat people report at any given time that they are "trying" to lose weight, but their 'attempts' are self deception, not weight loss.
Like I said before, it's not rocket science, they just have to eat fewer calories than they burn.

You just made up a random situation and used it to represent the situation as a whole.

Also, if people think they'd lose weight on fad diets etc., of course they're going to choose those over something more challenging. Why would you choose something more challenging, when you think you can get the same results much easier?

As to the self-deception thing, we read an article in a test for health class that said all people (regardless of weight) are bad at estimating the amount of calories in food.

We don't want to encourage people to be obese. It should be viewed negatively, and that's fair: it's not healthy and it's not ethical (waste), and it's a personal choice people make to be fat every single day.

First of all, you're not encouraging them to be obese by not stigmatizing them. You're just minding your own business.

It's not healthy, but your body is your body, and you can't assume that people aren't in the process of change.

There's nothing unethical about being obese; that's why the stigma shouldn't be on obesity. It should be on being wasteful, because that's the only real issue.

It's a fair assumption when the legitimate diseases that cause obesity are so profoundly rare:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20014834

It says rare, not profoundly rare.

When you combine that with the people trying to lose weight, it's not fair to make these kinds of assumptions.

Just as if you see somebody eating meat, it's a safe assumption that it isn't road kill that they found, cleaned, and cooked to eat.

That's a tiny fraction of meat-eaters,

I understand that. But if somebody is losing weight, there is no reason such a stigma should still affect him or her. If you're losing 3-5 pounds a week, you're pretty far above any of that bullshit because you know in a few months that won't be you anymore. Psychological detachment.

Eating disorders don't just go away when you start to lose weight, and they don't even necessarily require you to be overweight in the first place.
It's not rational, but it's the reality.

It's pretty serious. Probably far worse than skinny people shaming them (which does drive them into depression and may result in them eating their feelings, but that's a choice too).

What's a choice, that they 'eat their feelings'? So is them getting overweight in the first place, usually. What's your point? We should be concerned with those choices, and try to get people not to engage in them.

You want to stop people from choosing to be overweight via diet.
You (seemingly) don't care that people choose to be overweight due to your methods of convincing them to lose weight.

...

Also, the depression it might cause is an issue too (which isn't a choice).

I can tell you that anybody really losing weight is getting compliments around the clock from people who know them (and aren't fellow fat people shaming them) for weight loss. This (which can be identified with) combined with the detachment from the insults since that won't be them anymore soon, very likely makes it a positive experience for anybody in the process of losing weight.

It's still adding unnecessary and unreasonable negative.

You can't tell when a skinny person is wasteful. If people wore that on them as badges, then it would be more helpful.

And you can't tell when an overweight person is wasteful.

I think it's fine, though, if after getting to know overweight people (not just going up to overweight people and doing this), you ask about the state of their body weights (are they trying to lose weight? etc.), and if they are overweight due to diet and don't seem to care, if you then bring up wastefulness and explain why it's harmful.
It's not fine to shame them for being overweight.

Asking them about their weight, and potentially bringing up wastefulness: fine.
Assuming they are wasteful and shaming them for being overweight: unreasonable.

Why do you think it's considered 'icky'?
I don't think you're substantiating this well, when there are many well known reasons. Some people may think this, but that kind of sentiment can't be upheld long without real reasons to support it.

There's a widespread idea that 'fat' people are 'gross' because "ew fat".

Like I said, it's not about gluttony (our culture is very consumerist and celebrates gluttony).
I doubt it's significantly out of health concern either.

And harming your own health isn't without moral consequence when you drag down the economy and social healthcare with your health problems.

We don't have universal health care, anyway.

Suicide is less harmful, but again, still wasteful and abandoning your responsibility to society.

Well, you don't 'owe' society anything, and I don't see how it's wasteful. It's still horrible, of course.

How much are generic thyroid medications? Are you certain these are not covered under medicare?

I don't know, but it's worth mentioning.

We don't have a Medicare for all system.
We might if we elect Bernie Sanders...

No, it isn't. I don't think you fully grasp the rarity of this.
You can't give people the benefit of the doubt when the doubt is so astronomically small that it basically means you can't ever blame anybody for anything ever -- no matter how much evidence, because the evidence might be wrong.

I don't think it's as small as you make it out to be.

It's not at all like that. The correlations are several orders of magnitude removed.

I don't know about that.

You'd have to check the link, I don't know where it is, I just noted the article when I found it. The point is that everything about manspreading is taking it too far.

That's the point you're advocating, but that picture alone doesn't really demonstrate anything without context.

Not obviously, no. There's nobody to his right, and he's not touching that woman to his left (although the camera angle makes it look like it).

Maybe somebody would be to his right if he wasn't spreading out so much.

Why is having standards bad?

That's a very bizarre way of framing the question.

I'm saying that having snobby and superficial standards when it comes to judging people in the way you're describing (as 'bums' or as people who are 'socially acceptable'- concepts that I also think are snobby) are bad.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with standards as a concept.

The criticism missed the other side. If it were more complete, you would have to explain why the other side is different and why doesn't affect the evaluation.

The criticism of 'extreme' political correctness didn't include the stuff about mens' rights issues?

Yeah, political correctness is less focused on those issues, generally. That's bad, but it really doesn't have anything to do with this.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

What do you mean, 'but not for male anatomy'? Men don't need to sit with their legs spread wide out.

You are saying that because you've never had to sit with something between your legs all the time. Especially when you're wearing tight pants, and when it's hot outside, thus it gets unbearable. We have the right to have a little breathing space, you know what I mean?

I am a MtF transwoman, and I agree that sitting with your legs pressed together can be painful, and that men NEED to sit with their legs partly spread. And not only me, but TONS of guys I have heard from both online and offline think the same way. The only people who think otherwise are either guys in denial because their balls haven't dropped yet, or they have a vagina.

It's like if guys claimed that your period "doesn't hurt that much, you're just being a drama queen." In fact, in THAT case I could understand if EqALLity said that statement is sexist, because how the fuck would guys know how a females period feels?

But it's easy to claim that men should not have a say in abortion, but mothers should have a say in circumcision, or that women have a say in how men should sit. That's something only a condescending bigot would say.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I personally don't think Police Brutality is a racist issue as it affects everyone

It affects black people disproportionately.

Group A killed over 4300 people last year, but make up 13% of the populace. Group B killed 3800, but make up over 70% of the populace. Am I a bigot if it doesn't shock me that something like Police Brutality would affect Group A "disproportionately?" Statistically it is bound to be skewed that way, based off of numerous factors. You can't just run in and scream "BIGOTRY!" without direct proof that even most of the statistics are caused by bigotry. And this is coming from someone who thinks the drug wars are retarded and are probably racially motivated (Repubicans and their connections of cocaine with Mexicans and Pot with Blacks, for instance.) The drug wars are more racist, I agree, but most of the instances of "victimless police brutality" such I see pushed in my face by activists? I don't see proof.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... s/table-43

[brimstoneSalad]

Is it healthy to lose three pounds per week? And is it practical for people to take it so quickly?

Sure, you just have to eat a low calorie nutrient rich diet, like beans, veggies, flax, and a multivitamin.

Just like with giving up meat, it's probably better to do it gradually to decrease recidivism.

That's not necessarily true. If you look at smoking, "cold turkey" tends to be very effective for people who will quit. It's not a recidivism issue as far as I can tell.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-se ... 22634.html

For people following normal maintenance diets, since they have to learn more what to eat, there may be a learning curve, but I think the "gradual" approach is more useful to rhetoric where we convince people to try because they can see themselves making gradual change and doing it all at once seems overwhelming. It's often more psychological than anything else.

It's easy to convince somebody to go vegetarian, and hard to convince somebody to go vegan. But much easier to convince a vegetarian to go vegan.

You just made up a random situation and used it to represent the situation as a whole.

No, I'm giving a typical example. The largest event that usually compels people to change is heart disease, and doctors telling them they need to.

Also, if people think they'd lose weight on fad diets etc., of course they're going to choose those over something more challenging.

That's their fault, like the religiously deluded. They are choosing to believe something false, without good evidence, and in opposition to scientific consensus. Even more so for fad diets, because these don't have mainstream support. The information is available -- and mainstream -- for how weight loss works.

We not only can, but must, blame people who choose ignorance over knowledge (there are people who have no access to knowledge, and that is different). Part of legitimately trying to lose weight is doing a modicum of research to find out how.

As to the self-deception thing, we read an article in a test for health class that said all people (regardless of weight) are bad at estimating the amount of calories in food.

Calorie counting is none the less possible. They need to be weighing their food rather than eyeballing it or guessing, and letting their biases to eat more cause them to underestimate the calorie content. They would discover this fact in a few minutes of research.

Another option is to eat food with low calorie density only, which will prevent them from overeating without needing to count.

First of all, you're not encouraging them to be obese by not stigmatizing them. You're just minding your own business.

It is my business, since they are being wasteful and harmful to the world around them, and taxing our healthcare system.
And the general social attitude that it's not good to be fat helps encourage people to not want to be fat. This is why "fat-positive" is so damaging.

Now all they have to do is take the step from wanting to be thin to actually trying to be.

It's not healthy, but your body is your body, and you can't assume that people aren't in the process of change.

Yes you can. An assumption is not 100% right 100% of the time, it's something that is usually right, or close enough, so much so that it has practical utility to assume it.

There's nothing unethical about being obese; that's why the stigma shouldn't be on obesity. It should be on being wasteful, because that's the only real issue.

That's like saying there's nothing unethical about being covered in somebody else's blood with a bloody knife in your hand, and standing by a body of an innocent person whose blood it is and with whom you had a quarrel and motivation to kill who has been stabbed to death with that very knife with no witnesses to attest otherwise.

Maybe you really didn't do it, but that's not a reasonable doubt, and you need to go to jail either way.

If you throw out the notion of reasonable doubt, you can't convict anybody of anything.

It's a fair assumption when the legitimate diseases that cause obesity are so profoundly rare:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20014834

It says rare, not profoundly rare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prader%E2 ... appearance
one in 10,000 live births at most. Clear physical traits that make the genetic abnormality visually evident on examination (like downs syndrome). There could be an argument to be aware of what this looks like, but most of them are also retarded.
These people need lifetime care and supervision to prevent them from overeating to the point of morbid obesity and death. You've probably never met one of these people, and probably never will.

Cushings is around two or three in a million per year, and is treatable and curable. Again, you've probably never met anybody with it and probably never will.

And those are the common conditions. Conditions that affect hormone levels may influence metabolism, but do not guarantee obesity, and again are treatable.

You're much more likely to run into a fat person legitimately in the process of losing weight than one of these diseases, but again even that is uncommon.

Obesity apologists make grand claims about medical conditions, but the truth of the matter is that these are profoundly rare, and not relevant to the every day conversation about obesity.

Just as if you see somebody eating meat, it's a safe assumption that it isn't road kill that they found, cleaned, and cooked to eat.

That's a tiny fraction of meat-eaters,

Exactly my point. It's not worth speculating about, because you'll probably never meet somebody like that.

And if you do criticize somebody for being fat who is in the process of losing weight, you can just apologize for making an honest (and reasonable) mistake.

Eating disorders don't just go away when you start to lose weight, and they don't even necessarily require you to be overweight in the first place.

They'll have to find other ways to manage their stress. There are many options, and people know this. Usually obese people turn to food because they're already obese and they see it as hopeless, so "why not?".
Also, if obesity was the chief cause of anxiety, then yes, the disorder would disappear with the excess body fat.

What's your point? We should be concerned with those choices, and try to get people not to engage in them.

My point is that weight-loss-shaming, rather than fat shaming, is far more damaging.

If an obese person is found eating a salad or a more reasonable and obviously healthier meal, that person may be mocked for it. This is not OK.

You (seemingly) don't care that people choose to be overweight due to your methods of convincing them to lose weight.

I don't go around 'fat shaming'. I'm saying as a culture it is important that we continue to view obesity negatively, and it is fair to blame those who are obese for their conditions since it is self inflicted.

We need better controlled studies to identify the most persuasive ways to get people to change their diets and stick with it.

Regardless of why those people choose to be overweight, though, they are responsible for that choice. So, I'm saying discrimination against fat people is not unfair, and I don't necessarily even think there's enough evidence to say it's harmful either. It's not very effective for persuasion, but we need to understand better what is causing the problems before we start pointing fingers at those who 'fat shame' or even say they are being unfair (which they aren't).

Also, the depression it might cause is an issue too (which isn't a choice).

Medication, while changing life circumstances (like losing weight).

It's still adding unnecessary and unreasonable negative.

Is it more harmful to these few rare people than helpful to others? This is unclear, and something I doubt.
Before you can say 'fat shamers' are wrong, that's something you have to provide evidence for.

There are some kinds of fat shaming that are definitely wrong, as mentioned above (weight loss shaming) but others may not be.

And you can't tell when an overweight person is wasteful.

You can tell some 99% of the time or more. It's a fair assumption.
If he or she corrects you and tell you he or she is eating very little and in the process of losing weight, you can apologize for the mistake.

Asking them about their weight, and potentially bringing up wastefulness: fine.
Assuming they are wasteful and shaming them for being overweight: unreasonable.

Neither of those are necessarily problematic, the first may be better (more effective too, probably), but the second is still a reasonable assumption.

Like I said, it's not about gluttony (our culture is very consumerist and celebrates gluttony).
I doubt it's significantly out of health concern either.

Those things substantiate fat discrimination. It it were only aesthetic and something people really couldn't help, it would not be acceptable.

We don't have universal health care, anyway.

Many states have chosen to extend medicare. If somebody has a serious health problem and is unemployed, that person needs to move.
Again, though, those conditions are very rare. It's still a safe assumption.

Well, you don't 'owe' society anything, and I don't see how it's wasteful. It's still horrible, of course.

Sure you do -- everybody does. As children we are leechers. When you grow up, it's time to seed.

That's the point you're advocating, but that picture alone doesn't really demonstrate anything without context.

I don't know what to say, that's just where I found it. I was just looking for one that didn't look staged.

Maybe somebody would be to his right if he wasn't spreading out so much.

There's room beside him, it's a bench style seat. Unfortunately, the photo doesn't show context.

I'm saying that having snobby and superficial standards when it comes to judging people in the way you're describing (as 'bums' or as people who are 'socially acceptable'- concepts that I also think are snobby) are bad.

Why is this bad? As long as everybody has the ability to conform to those standards, aren't they fair?
They require an arbitrary level of effort (which is mostly similar in degree for everybody) to enter into the "in" group.

It's a social group with an initiation cost, like a bar with a cover fee.

Let's say there was a society in which everybody should have blue shapes painted on their foreheads. Circles for girls, and squares for men. They take about the same amount of time to paint, and you're judged negatively if you cut corners and slop it on with messy edges. Somebody without a circle at all hasn't put in his or her due for initiation, and is judged even more negatively.

It's just a standard that says: "Hey, I have a few minutes of free time that I want to demonstrate my social conformity with, and enough disposable income (I'm not broke) to afford paint and a mirror. I'm not a bum."
Is this a bad thing? If so, why?

Yeah, political correctness is less focused on those issues, generally. That's bad, but it really doesn't have anything to do with this.

Then that shows that political correctness itself is sexist and "politically incorrect" if you try to use an objective standard. How is that irrelevant? It defeats the notion that political correctness is something objective and useful.

[EquALLity]

What do you mean, 'but not for male anatomy'? Men don't need to sit with their legs spread wide out.

You are saying that because you've never had to sit with something between your legs all the time. Especially when you're wearing tight pants, and when it's hot outside, thus it gets unbearable. We have the right to have a little breathing space, you know what I mean?

I am a MtF transwoman, and I agree that sitting with your legs pressed together can be painful, and that men NEED to sit with their legs partly spread. And not only me, but TONS of guys I have heard from both online and offline think the same way. The only people who think otherwise are either guys in denial because their balls haven't dropped yet, or they have a vagina.

It's like if guys claimed that your period "doesn't hurt that much, you're just being a drama queen." In fact, in THAT case I could understand if EqALLity said that statement is sexist, because how the fuck would guys know how a females period feels?

But it's easy to claim that men should not have a say in abortion, but mothers should have a say in circumcision, or that women have a say in how men should sit. That's something only a condescending bigot would say.

Actually, if guys said that, I wouldn't call it sexist. How is that sexist?
It's ignorant, but it's not a discriminatory comment against women.

Men shouldn't have a say in whether a woman gets an abortion, nor should other woman. It's not about, "Men don't know what it's like to be pregnant, so they don't get a say, but women do". It's, "It's your body, and no harm is being done, so you should be able to do whatever you want with it (generally)."

Circumcision... Not sure what you're saying here. People get circumcised as babies, and obviously both parents should get an equal say in what happens to their child.
I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, though. It's a dumb and barbaric BS religious ritual.
As for the alleged health benefits (that don't necessarily outweigh the downsides), fine, but the person should decide for himself whether or not he wants to do that for his health.

As for females having a say in how males should sit, that's not all it is. And it's not a male-female issue. It's just a, "Hey, can you not take up so much space?" issue. The males spreading their legs wide out aren't the only ones being impacted in this situation.

[brimstoneSalad]

As for females having a say in how males should sit, that's not all it is. And it's not a male-female issue. It's just a, "Hey, can you not take up so much space?" issue. The males spreading their legs wide out aren't the only ones being impacted in this situation.

Abortion affects others too, as well as other issues you mentioned. These are not strictly personal matters.

"Hello good sir, would you rather your unborn child be killed without your consent, or be unable to sit on the subway because women are taking up too much space?"

[EquALLity]

As for females having a say in how males should sit, that's not all it is. And it's not a male-female issue. It's just a, "Hey, can you not take up so much space?" issue. The males spreading their legs wide out aren't the only ones being impacted in this situation.

Abortion affects others too, as well as other issues you mentioned. These are not strictly personal matters.

"Hello good sir, would you rather your unborn child be killed without your consent, or be unable to sit on the subway because women are taking up too much space?"

How do they affect others?

You mean because men are taking up too much space?

What are you saying, the man should get a say in the abortion because he helped create the fetus?

[EquALLity]

I personally don't think Police Brutality is a racist issue as it affects everyone

It affects black people disproportionately.

Group A killed over 4300 people last year, but make up 13% of the populace. Group B killed 3800, but make up over 70% of the populace. Am I a bigot if it doesn't shock me that something like Police Brutality would affect Group A "disproportionately?" Statistically it is bound to be skewed that way, based off of numerous factors. You can't just run in and scream "BIGOTRY!" without direct proof that even most of the statistics are caused by bigotry. And this is coming from someone who thinks the drug wars are retarded and are probably racially motivated (Repubicans and their connections of cocaine with Mexicans and Pot with Blacks, for instance.) The drug wars are more racist, I agree, but most of the instances of "victimless police brutality" such I see pushed in my face by activists? I don't see proof.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... s/table-43

First, murder isn't the only statistic there. Overall, white people are still committing most of the crimes.

Given that about 28% of those crimes are committed by black people, it's still outrageous how much more likely they are to be injured by police: https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/201 ... by-police/

[brimstoneSalad]

How do they affect others?

Many men don't want their unborn children killed. Obviously it can't affect the fetus before it is sentient, but like destroying a work of art harms the artists' interests, killing this wanted child harms the interests of the father. He, above and beyond anybody else aside from the mother, has a distinct interest in the fetus.

You mean because men are taking up too much space?

No, I'm comparing the harm of having your unborn child killed and having no say in it to the harm of having to stand on the subway. The latter is ridiculous and trivial by comparison.
I'm saying if the situation were reversed in terms of "manspreading" and men had the choice to have a say in the fate of their unborn children, or having to stand on the subway sometimes because women were taking up too much room, they'd probably opt to just stand on the subway.

Men having no say in abortion because the woman is uncomfortable with carrying the fetus is much more harmful to men than it is to women that they have no say in men taking up extra space on the subway because the men are uncomfortable closing their legs.

If you argue that men should have to close their legs and take up less space on the subway, then that argument is probably even stronger against abortion without the father's consent.

You can't force people to undergo pain and discomfort for the sake of others' convenience, whether that is forcing men to close their legs on public transit or forcing women to carry a baby to term.

What are you saying, the man should get a say in the abortion because he helped create the fetus?

Either men get a say in abortion, and in exchange women get a say in men closing their legs on the subway (to which men will probably respond by just standing)
Or nobody gets a say in forcing anybody else to be uncomfortable because it makes them feel better.

[EquALLity]

No, I'm comparing the harm of having your unborn child killed and having no say in it to the harm of having to stand on the subway. The latter is ridiculous and trivial by comparison.
I'm saying if the situation were reversed in terms of "manspreading" and men had the choice to have a say in the fate of their unborn children, or having to stand on the subway sometimes because women were taking up too much room, they'd probably opt to just stand on the subway.

Men having no say in abortion because the woman is uncomfortable with carrying the fetus is much more harmful to men than it is to women that they have no say in men taking up extra space on the subway because the men are uncomfortable closing their legs.

If you argue that men should have to close their legs and take up less space on the subway, then that argument is probably even stronger against abortion without the father's consent.

You can't force people to undergo pain and discomfort for the sake of others' convenience, whether that is forcing men to close their legs on public transit or forcing women to carry a baby to term.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you said about women taking up too much space on the subway. I was just clarifying that you meant the men who spread their legs wide as opposed to women.

Anyway, I'm not saying men should squeeze their legs together, because apparently that's painful. I'm just saying they should try not to do it like in the pictures. I really don't care about this that much, though. I was just addressing what ThatNerdyScienceGirl said (since she said it's an example of political correctness going too far).

Fathers should not have a say in abortion, even though ideally they'd agree with the decision. They might care about the fetus (though unreasonably), but ultimately, that can't transcend what the mother wants. She also created the fetus, plus she carries it.

Either men get a say in abortion, and in exchange women get a say in men closing their legs on the subway (to which men will probably respond by just standing)
Or nobody gets a say in forcing anybody else to be uncomfortable because it makes them feel better.

I'm not saying men who take up a lot of space should be forced into not taking up so much space; I'm just saying they should be more aware and try not to.

Also, it's a convenience thing, not a feelings thing.
I really don't see what's controversial about this.

I'm going to address your other post soon, btw.