The "I Don't Want To Live On This Planet Anymore" thread

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Anyone still think there isn't a problem with political correctness run amok?

Because one random person on Twitter said that being fat is healthy? Ok man.....

I'm sure 99% of people would agree that being obese is not good for your health.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think its more a problem with social media. In the old days a person could only say stupid things in his/her own inner circle. Now they can make fools of themselves in front of everyone on the internet.

Actually, the problem is that even when someone says something stupid on social media, a distressingly large number of people will back them out of dogmatic partisanship. If someone criticizes the stupid comment in a way that could be interpreted as expressing support for the other side, defenders will come out of the woodwork to denounce the criticism as just the kind of thing an XYZ would say. Content and discernment become irrelevant, and all we're left with is endless battles over dogma.

Originally Posted by heep223

Because one random person on Twitter said that being fat is healthy? Ok man.....

I'm sure 99% of people would agree that being obese is not good for your health.

And yet two of the first people to respond to the Twitter comment came out in support of it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by heep223

I'm sure 99% of people would agree that being obese is not good for your health.

A couple of things. First, I think you're probably right in the implication that if you're just on twitter all the time, you're going to get an inflated sense of the prevalence of these sorts of beliefs, because they just get magnified. I saw no fewer than half a dozen high-profile accounts (i.e. people with over 100,000 followers) talking about this, which then filters through those followers to millions of people.

However, notice the reaction here. It's basically evenly split between "this person is a lone kook; nobody really thinks in these terms" and "this person actually has a really good underlying point". Which is it?

There seems to be a tendency by which crazy ideas are actually protected by their audacity. Seems related to the concept of the "big lie". People hear something completely outrageous and think, "surely no one really thinks this; this isn't worth my time". So no one really says anything, and it metastasizes, and we end up with Donald Trump getting ~40% of the vote of a major political party.

So again, I'll concede that I should probably just turn off twitter for a bit so as not to be so constantly bombarded by this sort of idiocy, but I also think you need to acknowledge that you may be underestimating the rapidly expanding reach of this ideology.

[troutman]

This story I just read is tangential to this discussion:

Once again, Facebook reporting algorithms facilitate harassment of pro-science advocates by antivaccine cranks

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...accine-cranks/

We have a group of rabid antivaccine activists intentionally going through Facebook with a fine tooth comb to locate anything that they think they can report to Facebook that might get a temporary ban, and then they report it. It doesn’t matter how tenuous that “dirt” is. We have service (Facebook) with a system for dealing with hate speech and online harassment that is easily gamed to harass people, an observation that is ironic in the extreme, so much so that it would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive. Facebook’s reporting algorithm is now a tool of harassment, such that it can be used again and again to keep pro-science advocates banned and continually on their guard. Finally, Facebook’s double standard is so incredible that many complaints about things that should be complained about and should result in a ban result in no action.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That whole program - and Twitter is doing the same thing - is a very thinly veiled project to target people who hold the "wrong" political opinions under the guise of "harassment". So it's not just that it's easily gamed to harass people, it has a deliberate blind spot because it's only nominally concerned with actual online bullying.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet two of the first people to respond to the Twitter comment came out in support of it.

I think, I hope, what people are saying in this context is that the amount of fat on someone's body isn't necessarily correlated with how healthy they are, in the case of being slightly overweight (ie. 15 pounds like corporatejay was saying). Some people just carry a bit more fat than others. I think that's what they're saying?

I can't see how anyone could argue that being obese isn't unhealthy. Anyone arguing otherwise is just being obtuse or is rationalizing their own obesity.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That whole program - and Twitter is doing the same thing - is a very thinly veiled project to target people who hold the "wrong" political opinions under the guise of "harassment". So it's not just that it's easily gamed to harass people, it has a deliberate blind spot because it's only nominally concerned with actual online bullying.

Peter Hitchens has rightfully labeled Twitter as "one gigantic left-wing mob."

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, the problem is that even when someone says something stupid on social media, a distressingly large number of people will back them out of dogmatic partisanship. If someone criticizes the stupid comment in a way that could be interpreted as expressing support for the other side, defenders will come out of the woodwork to denounce the criticism as just the kind of thing an XYZ would say. Content and discernment become irrelevant, and all we're left with is endless battles over dogma.



And yet two of the first people to respond to the Twitter comment came out in support of it.

I think people are often guilty of taking a three line tweet and thinking that's the end of the story. I'm not supporting what the girl said over the course of 160 or whatever characters. I'm supporting what her actual point is. In this particular case it's also pointless to assume fat equals unhealthy. Frankly, I don't think anyone up to date in the health profession would argue as much anyway. You treat type two diabetes with diet, exercise and insulin/drugs, not by becoming skinny. You might become skinny in the process but depending on your body type, metabolism, psychology etc, you may become healthy while remaining overweight. Same with heart disease. If you're morbidly obese, you may see equal benefit from dropping a little weight, 5-8%, and remaining overweight as you would dropping 20-30% and becoming skinny. It's not the exterior that matters but what's under the hood.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think people are often guilty of taking a three line tweet and thinking that's the end of the story. I'm not supporting what the girl said over the course of 160 or whatever characters. I'm supporting what her actual point is. In this particular case it's also pointless to assume fat equals unhealthy. Frankly, I don't think anyone up to date in the health profession would argue as much anyway. You treat type two diabetes with diet, exercise and insulin/drugs, not by becoming skinny. You might become skinny in the process but depending on your body type, metabolism, psychology etc, you may become healthy while remaining overweight. Same with heart disease. If you're morbidly obese, you may see equal benefit from dropping a little weight, 5-8%, and remaining overweight as you would dropping 20-30% and becoming skinny. It's not the exterior that matters but what's under the hood.

Are you overweight? Serious question.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by heep223

I can't see how anyone could argue that being obese isn't unhealthy.

Yeah, except...



I know, I know, you're going to say "just ignore this crazy lady", but there really is a whole political ideology dedicated to the notion that reality should be dispensed with if expressing it is going to make anyone feel uncomfortable.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, except...



I know, I know, you're going to say "just ignore this crazy lady", but there really is a whole political ideology dedicated to the notion that reality should be dispensed with if expressing it is going to make anyone feel uncomfortable.

Ignore this crazy lady.

I hear what you are saying, but it's a very small minority in any given issue that you see this phenomenon ie. anti vaccine people etc. Just ignore it...it's too draining.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by heep223

Are you overweight? Serious question.

No. Average. If personal experience matters at all I just remember doctors and my crazy mom in the 1980's making my dad lose weight and exercise even though to this day he hasn't ever had a single health issue. Now they just tell him to keep doing what he's doing which is rocking 300 pounds at 86.

I read this girl's Twitter feed a bit and she really is a horrible idiot looking for a pc fight. What she's trying to say is that image is not healthy or unhealthy. Health as a whole may or may not include losing weight. Walking into a doctor's office and being prescribed weight loss with no underlying health reasons is probably a thing of the past anyway.

[jammies]

How is saying "fat is healthy" PC? This is a false equivalency, even if you agree with saying that "fat shaming is wrong" is a PC concept, this is not the same as "fat is healthy".

Furthermore, the idea that PC has "gone too far" implies that there is a level that is just far enough. Which is usually disingenuous, the people making such claims are usually people who despise anything that smacks of empathy or violating their right to be a complete d-bag. Usually, anyway.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

How is saying "fat is healthy" PC? This is a false equivalency, even if you agree with saying that "fat shaming is wrong" is a PC concept, this is not the same as "fat is healthy".

In this case it is. The entire point is to tell people who are overweight that they shouldn't feel bad about it. Which, okay, seems kind and compassionate enough, except this person has taken that principle to the extent that medical professionals should not be giving entirely appropriate medical advice to people who are overweight to the extent that it's harmful to their health, because they're fragile and it'll make them feel bad. Take this alongside the demands that laws about rape not be taught in law schools because it can trigger the students, or that one shouldn't challenge the notion that affirmative action is a good thing because it's a micro-aggression against black people, and the good intentions have largely finished paving the road to nowhere good.

It's the "fat shaming is wrong" sentiment taken to absurd extremes, which is again quintessential PC or social justice culture, at this point. It's dogmatic, and people like this nutbar strive to demonstrate their piety and purity of devotion to the social justice dogma by being as unequivocal and uncompromising as possible. "you think you're sensitive to the plight of others? That's nothing, let me show you how sensitive I am, how righteous and warmhearted! Facts be damned, our cause is just, and you're a worse person than I am if you disagree with even my hyperbolized account of this issue. Fall in line and prostrate yourself before our altar of exaggerated sympathy, or be declared anathema."

Which brings me to the next point...

Furthermore, the idea that PC has "gone too far" implies that there is a level that is just far enough. Which is usually disingenuous, the people making such claims are usually people who despise anything that smacks of empathy or violating their right to be a complete d-bag. Usually, anyway.

Leaving aside that there is a "level that is just far enough" in more or less every ideology ever, this sentiment is just awful. This is why no one corrects these morons. "Mostly if you disagree with this stuff you're just a bad person who's lamenting the fact that people won't let him act like an #######". I know me, I know I'm a decent human being, but knowing that if I speak up and say, "wait a goddamn minute, it makes no sense that dissent is treated as moral deficiency ab initio", someone will call me a "d-bag" or depending on the topic a bigot or a misogynist or some other such accusation that I then immediately have to defend myself against. People who don't know me, and don't know that I'm a decent person, may just be persuaded by the bare accusation itself - in fact, it seems like a large number of people have precisely this tendency.

Easier to just keep quiet even where you honestly think someone's position sounds bonkers... it's just not worth it, right?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by heep223

Ignore this crazy lady.

I hear what you are saying, but it's a very small minority in any given issue that you see this phenomenon ie. anti vaccine people etc. Just ignore it...it's too draining.

She writes for several online publications and has 8,000 twitter follows. This isn't some random whack job.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Furthermore, the idea that PC has "gone too far" implies that there is a level that is just far enough. Which is usually disingenuous, the people making such claims are usually people who despise anything that smacks of empathy or violating their right to be a complete d-bag. Usually, anyway.

And people who think language policing and hand-wringing over the potential for hurt feelings can never go too far are dogmatic zealots who derive tremendous satisfaction from broadcasting their piety and outrage on behalf of others. See how that works?

[PsYcNeT]

Just a reminder that PC2Respect is the best Chrome extension ever and makes these conversations way more hilarious.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Just a reminder that PC2Respect is the best Chrome extension ever and makes these conversations way more hilarious.

This is interesting. I'm a fan of Gaiman, but that little witticism of his (and the Chrome plugin they made to effect it) is totally off-base. It's a classic motte and bailey argument, discussed here and here, among other places.

The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.

The motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then, when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over, you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.

In this case, devout political correctness doctrinaires demand all sorts of crazy things, e.g. medical professionals can't give medical advice if it'll upset someone, professors of classical literature can't teach Ovid because of the presence of sexual assault in the narrative, evolutionary biologists can't write papers describing inherent differences in the behaviours of women and men, or the classic cultural relativist schtick that the moral practices of other cultures can't be criticized because to do so would be somehow insensitive or racist. When someone then says that political correctness is resulting in some highly objectionable, and in some cases batcrap insane edicts, they'll then retreat to the motte: "But political correctness just means treating people with respect!"

Then once everyone agrees that treating everyone with respect is a good thing - because that's obvious, and no one short of a sociopath would object to that statement - the proponents can go back to calling people misogynists for suggesting that the phrase "rape culture" is a bit much.

[Fuzz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/wo...m_content=link

“Every day, I had to swallow one in front of him. He gave me one box per month. When I ran out, he replaced it. When I was sold from one man to another, the box of pills came with me,” explained the girl, who learned only months later that she was being given birth control.

In its official publications, the Islamic State has stated that it is legal for a man to rape the women he enslaves under just about any circumstance. Even sex with a child is permissible,according to a pamphlet published by the group. The injunction against raping a pregnant slave is functionally the only protection for the captured women.
The Islamic State cites centuries-old rulings stating that the owner of a female slave can have sex with her only after she has undergone istibra’ — “the process of ensuring that the womb is empty,” according to the Princeton University professor Bernard Haykel, one of several experts on Islamic law consulted on the topic. The purpose of this is to guarantee there is no confusion over a child’s paternity.
Most of the Sunni scholars who ruled on the issue argued that the requirement could be met by respecting a period of sexual abstinence whenever the captive changes hands, proposing a duration of at least one menstrual cycle, according to Brill’s Encyclopedia of Islam.
In its own manual, the Islamic State outlines the abstinence method as one option. But it also quotes the minority opinion of a Tunisian cleric who in the 1100s argued that it was enough to fulfill merely the spirit of the law. That opens the way for other means, including modern medicine, to circumvent the waiting period.

The pretzels these Neanderthals tie themselves in to respect some BS law that allows rape is disgusting. You know what, dickheads? God might just be happier with you if you didn't rape people. Bam. No justification required.

[Fuzz]

Who pissed in your, oh...oh my!

Kellogg is "shocked and deeply disappointed" by a graphic video posted online that allegedly shows a man urinating on an assembly line that is used to make Kellogg products.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/kell...490684?cmp=rss