Main
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
I'm not engaging in this conversation until you read that piece. Health at Every Size is a very specific movement, it's not just the meaning you assign to the words. There's a little FAQ at the end of that piece with common myths, one of the myths is "The HAES model argues that people of every size must be healthy"
"These words we use that have a certain meaning aren't actually what we mean."
I looked through the paper, I get what you are trying to say, but the phrase "healthy at every size" just doesn't work. And neither does the insistence that being fat isn't necessarily unhealthy.
There are some good ideas in there. A reduced focus on weight and focusing on a more holistic approach to health can be good, but weight is still an important factor. But again, that's not at all what the words "healthy at every size" convey. It conveys the idea of a very fat person having no more health problems than the average person, which just isn't the case.
But reading the paper I get the impression that they think there is not necessarily anything wrong with being fat. That fatness is perfectly fine. It's not.
lmao, here's a particularly egregious line from the paper:
"Lung cancer also occurs in non-smokers. If smoking causes lung cancer, why does it exist in both smokers and non-smokers?"
And the story about "Jody" shows someone doing all the wrong things to lose weight. It's not her trying to lose weight that's bad (at 195 anyway), it's the way she tries to lose weight. No shit 1000 calories a day isn't healthy. And avoiding fat and carbs is misguided as well. As for 105 Jody, that's a problem of thinking she's overweight when she's not. That may come from some social stigmas that need to be worked on, but that doesn't mean overweight doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean 195 Jody isn't overweight.
I didn't say that. The model says fat people can be perfectly healthy, which just isn't true.
Thanks for putting effort into fighting this nonsense. This poster is making medical concerns arbitrary by bringing attention away from the syndrome of obesity and focusing on the symptoms which possibly can be “present at every BMI level.”
Your analogy of the syndrome of smoking causing the symptom of lung cancer is apt here. For how are we to stop endemic lung cancer without stopping endemic smoking, and how are we to stop what are provably endemic symptoms of obesity without first dealing with obesity?
(my usage of ‘symptoms’ and ‘syndrome’ was chosen bc the word syndrome is widely considered ‘that which causes symptoms’. by calling obesity a syndrome, i am only claiming that it produces symptoms. there is not meant to be any further negative connotation than it being the thing that produces symptoms)