3 ms·
With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond. I would guess, the first time a person comes acr
by reflexive 10y ago
With such a strong, unequivocal, (strident?) statement, I'm honestly curious how you expect people to respond.
I would guess, the first time a person comes across this type of statement, they would simply dismiss it.
After hearing similar sentiments from 10 or 20 people, they may start to feel bothered and wonder if they're doing something wrong; if they ought to do research to justify their existing behavior.
Then they may come something like the New Nordic Diet, and find it has an aesthetic appeal; plus they are also primed to appreciate that it addresses the excess sugar problem. This offers a way forward.
Alternatively, they simply come to terms with the fact that other people disapprove of their lifestyle choices. It's just as important to be able to withstand social pressure as it is to eat healthy.
- grzm 10y agoThanks for the response. I think you can accomplish all of these without the absolutist language, requiring fewer cycles of exposure. Given the HN audience, I think they'd appreciate and be more open to listening to a more nuanced perspective. With the nature of nutritional research, there are plenty of papers out there supporting a variety of positions on sugar: refined, added, high-fructose, and otherwise.
- reflexive 10y agoI agree the language you were responding to was unnecessarily emotionally charged ("tragedy", "addiction", suffering children). It's possible to advocate a radical position (near-complete elimination of refined sugar) without making the reader feel bad.