5 ms·

Fat shaming just doesnt work, the only provable outcomes are mental illness and weight gain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ https://www.

Fat shaming just doesnt work, the only provable outcomes are mental illness and weight gain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236245/ It's also a huge glaring actor/observer asymmetry issue, you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment?

midoridensha 4y ago
>you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment? Subdivisions basically didn't exist in the US in the 1950s; they were only just being invented then. People lived in smaller towns and cities and walked around a lot more. Even in the 80s, kids were walking around outside a lot, without adult supervision. Now that's basically illegal in most places, so kids stay in their suburban homes all day playing video games. And, as usual, you can compare to other countries. In other places, there's less of a car culture, people walk around a lot more, and there aren't many obese people.
- chownie 4y ago
  I'm not certain but I think we're in perfect agreement here. The environment in which people live has changed and I think that should be the obvious first target to change. I think this urge to blame people for the effects of their environment seen in the one of the parent post is an example of a very dark part of our attitude toward change. It is very easy and tempting to short circuit into ridiculing positive changes in favor of instead attempting to fix it by punishment/shaming ("People will literally rezone entire cities rather than saying we need to eat less food and workout more")

midoridensha 4y ago

>you think between the 50's and now human beings innately changed to be lazier, more prone to overconsumption? Why opt for blaming the individual multiplied by 70 million rather than looking at the conditions of their shared environment? Subdivisions basically didn't exist in the US in the 1950s; they were only just being invented then. People lived in smaller towns and cities and walked around a lot more. Even in the 80s, kids were walking around outside a lot, without adult supervision. Now that's basically illegal in most places, so kids stay in their suburban homes all day playing video games. And, as usual, you can compare to other countries. In other places, there's less of a car culture, people walk around a lot more, and there aren't many obese people.

chownie 4y ago
I'm not certain but I think we're in perfect agreement here. The environment in which people live has changed and I think that should be the obvious first target to change. I think this urge to blame people for the effects of their environment seen in the one of the parent post is an example of a very dark part of our attitude toward change. It is very easy and tempting to short circuit into ridiculing positive changes in favor of instead attempting to fix it by punishment/shaming ("People will literally rezone entire cities rather than saying we need to eat less food and workout more")