4 ms·

That's really fat though.

michaelt 4y ago
While it's not an athletic build, the grandparent poster thought it was so high as to call the accuracy of the data into question. While the kind of Americans whose careers put them in front of cameras are rarely so mighty, from what I've seen of the real American population those photos look about average.
yellowapple 4y ago
Maybe if your only exposure to other humans is Hollywood actresses, but in the US those photographed people look pretty normal, and in the rest of the world those people would be somewhat curvier/plumper than average but not unreasonably so.
- bad_good_guy 4y ago
  Fatter. Why use euphemisms to avoid using the term "fat" when it's literally the case. It shouldn't be considered a loaded term, Americans need to admit they're fat instead of constantly moving the goalposts
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    I'm sorry for not using your arbitrarily-preferred synonym for "plump". Like, if you're literally incapable of recognizing the difference between those photographs and, say, the folks on My 500 Pound Life or whatever "Learning" Channel drivel you watch, then maybe you ain't the one to be lecturing anyone about "constantly moving the goalposts".
- AllegedAlec 4y ago
  No. Over here I'd call this borderline obese. These people are unhealthily fat and it's frankly an indictment of the US that people try to sweettalk this sort of behaviour with words like 'curvier' and 'plumper'.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > Over here I'd call this borderline obese. Sorry that we don't all live in towns entirely populated by bulemic supermodels. It's frankly an indictment of you and numerous other commenters that y'all would look at these photos v. the fat people televised for entertainment and decide "yes, these are entirely indistinguishable and therefore warrant the exact same terminology and scorn". Get a grip.
    - AllegedAlec 4y ago
      Dude. I never said that they were indistuinguishable. There's levels from fat to hambeast to "their movement influences tides". That doesn't make the first category acceptable.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > Dude. I never said that they were indistuinguishable. Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses? > There's levels from fat to hambeast to "their movement influences tides". And there's likewise levels from thin to fit to bulky to curvy to plump to fat. > That doesn't make the first category acceptable. And who, pray tell, are you to decide what is or is not "acceptable"?
        AllegedAlec 4y ago
        > Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses? I never said anything about the language you should use. I said "that is really fat though". This is all pure projection on your end.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        You literally did: > it's frankly an indictment of the US that people try to sweettalk this sort of behaviour with words like 'curvier' and 'plumper' Your words, not mine.

While it's not an athletic build, the grandparent poster thought it was so high as to call the accuracy of the data into question. While the kind of Americans whose careers put them in front of cameras are rarely so mighty, from what I've seen of the real American population those photos look about average.

yellowapple 4y ago

Maybe if your only exposure to other humans is Hollywood actresses, but in the US those photographed people look pretty normal, and in the rest of the world those people would be somewhat curvier/plumper than average but not unreasonably so.

bad_good_guy 4y ago
Fatter. Why use euphemisms to avoid using the term "fat" when it's literally the case. It shouldn't be considered a loaded term, Americans need to admit they're fat instead of constantly moving the goalposts
- yellowapple 4y ago
  I'm sorry for not using your arbitrarily-preferred synonym for "plump". Like, if you're literally incapable of recognizing the difference between those photographs and, say, the folks on My 500 Pound Life or whatever "Learning" Channel drivel you watch, then maybe you ain't the one to be lecturing anyone about "constantly moving the goalposts".
AllegedAlec 4y ago
No. Over here I'd call this borderline obese. These people are unhealthily fat and it's frankly an indictment of the US that people try to sweettalk this sort of behaviour with words like 'curvier' and 'plumper'.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > Over here I'd call this borderline obese. Sorry that we don't all live in towns entirely populated by bulemic supermodels. It's frankly an indictment of you and numerous other commenters that y'all would look at these photos v. the fat people televised for entertainment and decide "yes, these are entirely indistinguishable and therefore warrant the exact same terminology and scorn". Get a grip.
  - AllegedAlec 4y ago
    Dude. I never said that they were indistuinguishable. There's levels from fat to hambeast to "their movement influences tides". That doesn't make the first category acceptable.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > Dude. I never said that they were indistuinguishable. Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses? > There's levels from fat to hambeast to "their movement influences tides". And there's likewise levels from thin to fit to bulky to curvy to plump to fat. > That doesn't make the first category acceptable. And who, pray tell, are you to decide what is or is not "acceptable"?
      - AllegedAlec 4y ago
        > Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses? I never said anything about the language you should use. I said "that is really fat though". This is all pure projection on your end.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        You literally did: > it's frankly an indictment of the US that people try to sweettalk this sort of behaviour with words like 'curvier' and 'plumper' Your words, not mine.