So there was a recent post of some right wingers standing next to a ballot box to intimidate voters. This is clearly bad. They also made questionable aesthetic choices, like wearing dad cargo-shorts and growing goatees. This is also clearly bad.
So, what did Chapeau.Chat focus on? The weight of these men of course!
Let's start with the basics:
--Everyone has a range of weights their body is comfortable at. If you try to go too low or too high in this range, your body will start sending your hunger and satiety signals to keep you within that range. While you can go higher or lower in that range by manipulating Calories-in-calories-out, this range is fairly fixed without medical intervention. In other words, some people are just fat.
--There are other uncontrollable factors that effect weight. In Texas, for example, there are fewer walk-able neighborhoods and more access to fast food than here in Portland where there are more new-seasons than mcDonalds or Manhattan where it's easier to take the train than to drive.
--Socially, weight is co-constructed with fitness and self-control. In the protestant value system (the dominant one in the U.S. even among atheists), self control is one of the most important virtues. Fat implies unfit implies poor self control. Thin implies fit implies good self control.
Protestant morality is, here, at odds with reality. Weight here is co-produced by environment, hormones, eating habits and movement habits. All of those things are only partially under our control, and a Portlander is always going to have an easier time being thin than an Austintonian. Moralizing weight the way this community did celebrates protestant morality over basic reality.
As communists, we are better than that.
Call them fascists, make fun of their ugly beards, offer to shoplift them better shorts, but don't fat-shame them.
Waiting for hexbears to realize that "some people can't help what they eat" and "there is no excuse to avoid becoming vegan" are mutually exclusive. Then this thread can really take off.
Do it. Struggle my little posters, struggle. The battle for the soul of the left lies with this comment section. The wrong opinion could stunt the movement for decades to come.
:bait:
It was already at 160+ comments before I got there. I think the cat is out of the bag in terms of starting trouble.
The cat is out of the doors
"Look officer, the house was already on fire when I threw this can of gasoline in"
Exactly. It's not arson if the house is already in cinders.
Stop splitting the left :jokah-messy:
It's ok to have impulse control issues. It's not ok to hurt animals. What's not to get? People don't have infinite self control but we should expect people to have self control when it matters.
"I can't stop masturbating" -> "thats ok buddy, nobody really cares"
"I can't stop kicking dogs" -> "what the fuck dude you need to stop"
"I can't stop eating sugar" -> "ok, that's fine"
"I can't stop eating animal corpses" -> "yes you can you piece of shit"
"I can't stop scrolling on the internet" -> "yeah me neither lol"
"I can't stop calling people the n-word on the internet" -> "fuck off racist"
This isn't that complicated.
I mean if someone can't stop eating chicken that is also fine.
Removed by mod
I don't eat chicken.
Eat shit carnist
Also presumably not vegan.
Eating my shit is vegan because I told you to do it. Eat shit carnist
The fact that I can't legally ship my homemade fruit wines via USPS but it is apparently in fact legal to send actually shit via USPS is simultaneously frustrating and hilarious.
Sorry, not going to have a discussion about anything besides the fact that you spend your time on this website advocating violence against animals.
I'm not advocating violence against animals, I've just made peace with the fact that I don't have a controlling interest in what other people eat. I lost that power when I stopped cooking for room mates after grad school.
Calling violence "fine" is advocating it. Not being able to control something doesn't make it fine and it doesn't mean you should spend your time advocating it. I can't control other people's racism, I don't spend my time logging onto hexbear, finding every anti-racist post I can, and saying "racism is fine, you can be racist and a leftist, stop splitting the left against our racist comrades." If I did that I'd be advocating racism.
I mean the subject of the post is that we're all in agreement that it's inappropriate to step into an individuals personal relationship with weight, food, and their body.
You wanting to add the carve out "unless you feel morally justified in doing so" kinda deflates the original claim into nothingness given that anyone can morally justify anything to themselves.
You shouldn't shame people for being fat because being fat isn't wrong, not because putting something in my mouth causes it to enter some sacred inviolate realm of personal autonomy. If I kill and eat you, that's not "my personal relationship with food", that's a relationship of violence with you. If I pay a poor person to kill a chicken so I can eat it, that's not my personal relationship with food, that's a relationship of violence with that chicken.
If you think that your eating chicken is a relationship of violence that inappropriately abrogates the rights of a chicken then you shouldn't do that.
I'm not going to get tangled in others people's relationship with their body and their diets though. Far too fraught. And that holds even if I'm certain I know better than them and would be morally justified in doing so. Because I'm a moron who is wrong all the time.
Yes you are correct, eating chicken isn't fine. Being a reactionary is not fine and not something we should advocate by calling it fine. Tolerance does not extend to reactionaries. A chicken's body is not your body and not part of your relationship with your body.
I don't eat chicken.
Cool. I kind of don't believe you. Either way, stop advocating for other people to do it.
I mean I don't know what to tell you there. And I'm not advocating for other people to do it. I think they should do what they think is right in terms of their dietary choices. Which includes not eating chicken if they think they shouldn't.
Believe it or not, saying something is "fine" is advocating that thing. Playing enlightened centrist and not drawing any difference between good and bad things, just saying "follow your heart :)" is reactionary behavior. "I think different unions should do what they think is right in terms of racial segregation, which includes allowing black people if they think they should" is patently a statement which defends segregation.
I'm not saying eating chicken is fine. I don't eat chicken.
I said, more or less, thinking eating chicken is fine is fine. Which of course it clearly is, I know tons of good people who think it's fine and thus eat it.
"Eating chicken is fine if you think eating chicken is fine" is just a needlessly convoluted way of saying "eating chicken is fine." "Good person" is a nonsense label, we should talk about specific behaviors as right and wrong, not people as good or bad. Racism is wrong, carnism is wrong. Plenty of people throughout history have been bigots, we don't have to judge them as "good people" and "bad people," to spend our time arguing about whether Stalin was a "good person" or a "bad person" based on e.g. the criminalization of homosexuality. We do need to be clear that racism, homophobia, and carnism are wrong, not fine, and things we should advocate against.
But I don't interact with behaviors, I interact with people. I can engage in behaviors myself, but as soon as it's someone else's behavior in question it's outside of my zone of direct control, so any modulations of the behavior have to be done through the person and my relationship with them.
So do you tolerate transphobia in your friends and dismiss it as "fine"?
Nah transphobia makes someone a bad person in my book.
Ok, literally killing and eating animals is "just a choice" but discriminating against humans makes you a bad person.
You are a speciesist. If hatred and bigotry makes someone a bad person, you are one. Fuck off.
I actually think I'm rather swell, if a bit dense. And speciesm doesn't actually mean anything everyone's a speciest, or at the very least a phylumist or kingdomist, in as much as species and phylums and kingdoms are anything beyond abstractions (which they aren't).
You are correct, species are abstractions. That's why using species to draw lines of when violence is "fine" and when violence makes you a "bad person" is bullshit.
Yeah and if I broke out a cladogram everytime I bought my friends dinner this would be a problem for me.
You don't have to because the violence is built into society. You can just go sit in the whites-only section of the restaurant and feel smug about the fact that you personally don't care what color your friends' skin is, because the mechanisms of privilege are all ready made for you to take advantage of, and then get mad at all those black protesters because they care so much, and enlightened people don't care about things.
Why would I be in a whites only section of a restaurant, obviously I would leave if I saw that sort of thing.
Cool, because the racism isn't something you can put in your mouth you can recognize it as a bad thing.
I mean everyone here agrees that it's bad that's sort of why we're all grouped here as leftists no?
I have no doubt there are plenty of racists on this website, and plenty more who come in from time to time. Taking action against racism is how we deal with them. Taking action against carnism is how we deal with the reactionary human supremacists. Spending your time sniping at vegans as you do is the opposite of that.
I mean I think we can all agree leftism, is at the current juncture explicitly anti-racist in it's construction and I think we can all agree in theory (if not in practice in specific instances) that a leftist doing a racism is either not doing leftism at that point or doing leftism poorly.
All I'm hearing is "There are no good and bad things, only group consensus. Racism became bad when we all agreed it was bad."
Edit: Look, all I really want is for you to stop hurting animals and stop punching left at vegans. If you feel the need to play enlightened centrist, punch right and go annoy the anti-vegans who keep stirring up shit, especially on this comm.
Don't argue with me, i agree with you. I agree it's okay to judge people's self-control issues based on a personal/group value system. I wasn't the one who said doing so was strictly protestant brainworms. Take it up with OP. People don't have infinite self control and they can't always abide by our values. It's silly to think that our collective ideas about what's right and wrong wag the dog and make people's self-control fall into line. As if they suddenly do have infinite self control when it comes to something that we think is wrong. Therefore it's purely a choice for them and they're doing it all on purpose just to be evil.
I'm not being funny, we do really agree. I just think it's wrong to chock it all up to a lazy social critique. Like yeah the protestants are definitely the only group who judges people and treats personal behavior as a moral failing. Says the site who does nothing but argue over which personal behaviors are the most egregious.
White people are the only people ever to have enforceable social norms, that's just a fact, actually.
:sicko-charging:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
They are not, but you care more about a gotcha than either issue