4 ms·

I had the good fortune that the people the government sent to my school to teach such nonsense were the unhealthiest people I had ever seen in my life up to tha

I had the good fortune that the people the government sent to my school to teach such nonsense were the unhealthiest people I had ever seen in my life up to that point. A good priming for a 7 year old into distrusting the government and the start of a resolve to a general rule of thumb that the people telling me how to be healthy should at least appear healthy themselves.

rqtwteye 2y ago
I had a similar thought when I did my yearly checkup at Kaiser some years ago. The doctor what interviewed me looked like hell. I thought for them any health advice they are giving is just a theoretical concept that they clearly don’t live by.
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
I’m curious why does your ire land with the government, instead of landing with the sugar companies that took over the government? Do you view it as a failed promise that they would represent you and that that was something that should be expected given history? Is it a moral failing of the government person? I suppose the confusing thing to me is that people who rail about the government, are simply complaining about the power of companies to control it.
- luckylion 2y ago
  > the sugar companies that took over the government If those sugar companies now _are_ the government (after they've taken it over, as you say), the question becomes: do you like those sugar companies? Do you trust them?
- adsfjkalskdf 2y ago
  When there's a revolving door between the two, there's not really much of a difference. It's simply a distrust and distaste for the American elites (public and private). There are some elites that are self sacrificial and view other Americans as countrymen and not units to extract from but they are very few. As somebody who rails about the government, it's fundamentally an elite problem. You can propose any system you want, but if those running it are rotten it's not going to work.
- paulsutter 2y ago
  We should be unhappy with a government that is so easily controlled, and that isn't looking out for our interests
- throw10920 2y ago
  > the confusing thing to me is that people who rail about the government, are simply complaining about the power of companies to control it. This is a baseless assertion with no evidence, written in an emotionally manipulative manner ("the confusing thing", "I'm curious", etc). The government is responsible for drafting laws and regulations, and for setting nutritional standards. Not companies. This is a fact. If a government official decides to claim that sugar is ok and fat is bad, that's something they have to take responsibility for given that they are literally doing so as a representative of the government. The sugar industry is not mind-controlling these government employees. They are being corrupted, yes, but ultimately they are making the decisions. The primary moral failing is with the individuals making the decisions. This is factual. If you make a decision, you are more responsible for that decision than someone else who did not make it, by definition. None of this is to say that this bribery and corruption on the part of the companies is somehow excusable or doesn't make the problem worse, just that the primary responsibility lies with our elected officials and those they then nominate and hire in turn.
  - zahlman 2y ago
    Unfortunately, "knowing the truth when an industry exec is lying to you" is not among the prerequisites for a politician to be successful.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  You see this often here in the HN comment section, on a variety of topics: "For-profit industry did [wrongdoing], and the government [went along with it | was fooled | didn't act fast enough], therefore I don't trust the government!" They're always silent on corporate power. It's odd reasoning to say the least.
  - owisd 2y ago
    And totally counterproductive, given the underlying insinuation that scaling back the government would solve the problem, when in reality it just hands more power over to corporations to do even more [wrongdoing].
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > given the underlying insinuation that scaling back the government would solve the problem This is almost never actually stated in comments on HN. This is statement is just projection and/or inventing hypothetical strawman positions.
      - zahlman 2y ago
        The fact that the discussion tends to lead this way is a good reason to treat phrases like "You see this often here in the HN comment section" with suspicion.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  At the time I was unaware of reasons why and simply knew that the visitors were from the governments national scientific body. I did later find out that the initiative was partly funded by cereal corporations. I did believe and still do that the people sent thought they were acting in the best interest of the students. These days I consider our governance to be oligopolistic corporatism where the government is a corrupted tool of the corporations that mainly exists to keep the peace between the corporations so they can more effectively extract monopolistic rents. I do like the idea of a hypothetical ideal of an uncorrupted government but I have no idea how such a government could be achieved and worry that attempts to achieve this could easily backfire and make things worse. Edit: I consider the attempts to pin all ills on government to be the result of yet another successful public relations campaign by large corporations. Unfortunately society has been polarized to the point that I don’t have a political home with either the left or the right - and again I think this is an intentional conspiracy to undermine effective opposition.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throw0101d 2y ago
> […] a general rule of thumb that the people telling me how to be healthy should at least appear healthy themselves. If a medical professional tells you that you shouldn't smoke and that it's bad for you, but are smokers themselves, are they wrong? Should you not follow them? Calling someone a hypocrite (which is essentially what you are doing) is a specious reasoning: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I wouldn’t call them a hypocrite because I believe they followed their own advice and were well intentioned in their advice. In the case of a doctor that tells me smoking is bad even though they smoke, I’m more likely to believe them because they have first hand experience even if they don’t follow their own advice. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to not follow your own advice especially from the point of view that they would follow their own advice if they could and are open about that. In fact there have been numerous smokers in my life who have told me they’re addicted and recommended to me to never start and I did heed their advice. But that’s not what happened in grade school so I’m not exactly sure what point you are making.

rqtwteye 2y ago

I had a similar thought when I did my yearly checkup at Kaiser some years ago. The doctor what interviewed me looked like hell. I thought for them any health advice they are giving is just a theoretical concept that they clearly don’t live by.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

I’m curious why does your ire land with the government, instead of landing with the sugar companies that took over the government? Do you view it as a failed promise that they would represent you and that that was something that should be expected given history? Is it a moral failing of the government person? I suppose the confusing thing to me is that people who rail about the government, are simply complaining about the power of companies to control it.

luckylion 2y ago
> the sugar companies that took over the government If those sugar companies now _are_ the government (after they've taken it over, as you say), the question becomes: do you like those sugar companies? Do you trust them?
adsfjkalskdf 2y ago
When there's a revolving door between the two, there's not really much of a difference. It's simply a distrust and distaste for the American elites (public and private). There are some elites that are self sacrificial and view other Americans as countrymen and not units to extract from but they are very few. As somebody who rails about the government, it's fundamentally an elite problem. You can propose any system you want, but if those running it are rotten it's not going to work.
paulsutter 2y ago
We should be unhappy with a government that is so easily controlled, and that isn't looking out for our interests
throw10920 2y ago
> the confusing thing to me is that people who rail about the government, are simply complaining about the power of companies to control it. This is a baseless assertion with no evidence, written in an emotionally manipulative manner ("the confusing thing", "I'm curious", etc). The government is responsible for drafting laws and regulations, and for setting nutritional standards. Not companies. This is a fact. If a government official decides to claim that sugar is ok and fat is bad, that's something they have to take responsibility for given that they are literally doing so as a representative of the government. The sugar industry is not mind-controlling these government employees. They are being corrupted, yes, but ultimately they are making the decisions. The primary moral failing is with the individuals making the decisions. This is factual. If you make a decision, you are more responsible for that decision than someone else who did not make it, by definition. None of this is to say that this bribery and corruption on the part of the companies is somehow excusable or doesn't make the problem worse, just that the primary responsibility lies with our elected officials and those they then nominate and hire in turn.
- zahlman 2y ago
  Unfortunately, "knowing the truth when an industry exec is lying to you" is not among the prerequisites for a politician to be successful.
ryandrake 2y ago
You see this often here in the HN comment section, on a variety of topics: "For-profit industry did [wrongdoing], and the government [went along with it | was fooled | didn't act fast enough], therefore I don't trust the government!" They're always silent on corporate power. It's odd reasoning to say the least.
- owisd 2y ago
  And totally counterproductive, given the underlying insinuation that scaling back the government would solve the problem, when in reality it just hands more power over to corporations to do even more [wrongdoing].
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > given the underlying insinuation that scaling back the government would solve the problem This is almost never actually stated in comments on HN. This is statement is just projection and/or inventing hypothetical strawman positions.
    - zahlman 2y ago
      The fact that the discussion tends to lead this way is a good reason to treat phrases like "You see this often here in the HN comment section" with suspicion.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
At the time I was unaware of reasons why and simply knew that the visitors were from the governments national scientific body. I did later find out that the initiative was partly funded by cereal corporations. I did believe and still do that the people sent thought they were acting in the best interest of the students. These days I consider our governance to be oligopolistic corporatism where the government is a corrupted tool of the corporations that mainly exists to keep the peace between the corporations so they can more effectively extract monopolistic rents. I do like the idea of a hypothetical ideal of an uncorrupted government but I have no idea how such a government could be achieved and worry that attempts to achieve this could easily backfire and make things worse. Edit: I consider the attempts to pin all ills on government to be the result of yet another successful public relations campaign by large corporations. Unfortunately society has been polarized to the point that I don’t have a political home with either the left or the right - and again I think this is an intentional conspiracy to undermine effective opposition.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throw0101d 2y ago

> […] a general rule of thumb that the people telling me how to be healthy should at least appear healthy themselves. If a medical professional tells you that you shouldn't smoke and that it's bad for you, but are smokers themselves, are they wrong? Should you not follow them? Calling someone a hypocrite (which is essentially what you are doing) is a specious reasoning: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

cjbgkagh 2y ago
I wouldn’t call them a hypocrite because I believe they followed their own advice and were well intentioned in their advice. In the case of a doctor that tells me smoking is bad even though they smoke, I’m more likely to believe them because they have first hand experience even if they don’t follow their own advice. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to not follow your own advice especially from the point of view that they would follow their own advice if they could and are open about that. In fact there have been numerous smokers in my life who have told me they’re addicted and recommended to me to never start and I did heed their advice. But that’s not what happened in grade school so I’m not exactly sure what point you are making.