I want to lazily but quickly refer anyone who’s reading this to a recent video from Hank Green and a Vox video from last year concerning Facebook. During her 60 Minutes interview this week, Frances Haugen revealed that political parties in Europe have written to Facebook, claiming that the platform is making their constituents’ views more polarized and extreme, leaving them with little choice but to alter their campaigns and policy proposals to fit in with these emerging viewpoints. This is a reminder that peoples’ identities are constructed and maintained through our engagement with all forms of media. You think you’re in control of your beliefs; you’re not. And that’s not just about intentional propaganda and division. These algorithms, left on their own, reinforce any oppressive identity categories that already exist, like what women “should” be doing or what poorer people “should” be doing. There’s little room for diversity of thought. Historian Yuval Harari has written about this… others have too… about how “individuals” are constructs of capitalism, and we “individuals” distinguish ourselves chiefly through the goods and services we buy, liberal and conservative alike. Subgroups are easier to market to, so the free market is incentivized to keep our interests concise as well as consistent. As the Vox report shows, cleaning jobs are marketed mostly to women, and lumber jobs mostly to men. If you come into these platforms with more questions about the world than answers, you will leave with more answers than questions. If you feel two ways about a social issue, or another way entirely, social media will force you to coalesce into one of the pre-approved stances, like a Schrodinger Box. We need to be humble and vigilant while we’re compelled to rigorously defend our identities in the Misinformation Age, because our identities exist at the convenience of corporations. Otherwise, societal oppression will go unquestioned and unchallenged, whether the humans in charge of social media want it to or not.
Tag: media
Um… I Think South Park Just Criticized Liberal Media and No One Is Talking About It
SPOILER WARNING: Contains spoilers for the South Park Vaccination Special
CONTENT WARNING: Politics
Curiously, the argument between the anchor and reporter about the “passion” of the kids for stealing the vaccines and distributing them independently… this entire bit is absent from every review I’ve read about the episode. It’s not mentioned in any of the summaries.
Not AV Club. Not Indie Wire. Not Den of Geek, IGN, Collider, or even The Daily Beast.
For me, this was a big moment of the special. The news anchor argues that the anti-vaccine Q-Anon kids are just as valid in fighting for what they believe in as the pro-vaccine kids. Here, Trey Parker claims that you can use the same rationale to justify the acts of one group as the other. Since the initial confrontation between the two groups were reminiscent of the Capitol riot in January (ffs Butters waves that big U.S. flag), I’m preeeetty sure this as an indictment of the liberal media for their coverage of the BLM protests in the summer. I have seen conservatives and libertarians online pointing out a perceived hypocrisy of liberal media qualifying the Capitol rioters as “traitors” and “insurrectionists” and “seditionists”, while elevating any rioters during the BLM protests to an exalted status, or excusing their behavior as “frustration” with the system. Now, I personally do not think these events are equivalent. What I AM suggesting is that Trey Parker is probably making the comparison in order to admonish the liberal media for stoking acceptance of violence at police and property during the BLM protests. At the very least, Parker seems to posit that the Capitol rioters’ violent actions are logically consistent with their beliefs; it’s pointless to claim it was “senseless”, as the media often does. This criticism of liberals would be on brand for South Park, since Parker and Matt Stone have a solid history ridiculing any liberal or conservative who takes a belief as gospel and runs with it. Whether any of us agrees with Parker’s comparison or not, I think he is making it. Liberal outlets have already criticized South Park for its role in stowing political cynicism to the point of inaction, and for contributing to trolling culture. Why aren’t they talking now?
The referenced reviews:
South ParQ Vaccination Special Review: The futility of returning to normal (avclub.com)
‘South Park Vaccination Special’ Review: Comedy in Crisis — Spoilers | IndieWire
South Park Vaccination Special Review | Den of Geek
South Park: ‘South ParQ – The Vaccination Special’ Review – IGN
South Park Vaccination Special Review: A Hilarious Return to Normal (collider.com)
‘South Park’ Brutally Mocks Wacky QAnon Supporters in Vaccination Special (thedailybeast.com)
Yeah We FIGURED Exercise Can’t Completely Stop Fat From Making You Sick. Your Point??
Just a quick rage post, everyone. This week you may have found some punchy, alarming news headlines pop up such as “FAT BUT FIT IS A MYTH”. Scary news. Scary fat news. It’s that kind of thing when “journalists” are desperate for material so they dig into recent academic research to pull out a claim out of context that gets everyone’s attention. Bravo. These news stories are alluding to a study out of a Spanish university that concluded people in “overweight” and “obese” BMI categories remained at high risk of cardiometabolic diseases like high cholesterol, hypertension, and diabetes. But in both the articles I read – one from CNN and one from U.S. News & World Report (see below for links) – the study authors reiterate that their findings also show that regular physical exercise lowered everyone’s risk of these diseases regardless of their BMI, corroborating other studies. I’ve written about this before. CNN interviewed a Duke University administrator who cautioned that this is a correlative – not causative – cross-sectional study (one of the easiest ones to conduct). He mentioned that it could be that some “obese” participants started exercising regularly BECAUSE they learned they had new health issues. You can’t know from a study like this.
This brings me to my biggest beef here…. wh- what… who are these articles for? What do you hope to accomplish? They’re setting up a straw man of well you know, you can’t stay FAT and expect exercise to fix any issues your fat may be causing. Wh- who the hell is saying this? The study authors admit exercise still helps. Besides, again, there still is not scientific consensus about what exactly makes people get fatter and how fat influences disease. And, again,
WE DO NOT YET KNOW HOW TO SHRINK FAT AND MAINTAIN LEANNESS AT A POPULATION LEVEL
Both the articles (both of them?) have a wrap-up with some authority claiming that it’s important to be physically active and get or stay lean. Ok, but HOW? Get out of here with this shit. And shame on the writers and editors for including good news somewhere in the text while having misleading titles and introductions that imply the opposite. Save it for the Daily Mail.
Exercise Doesn’t Boost Health If You Stay Obese, Study Finds | Health News | US News
‘Fat but fit’ is a myth when it comes to heart health, new study shows – CNN
People Miss the Whole Point of Political Correctness
Ah, the joy of r/fatlogic.

I already knew what the commenters would write as soon as I saw this. This argument has been applied to other forms of verbal abuse and microaggressions such as sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and misgendering: you don’t get to decide how someone should feel in response to how you treat them. If someone tells you that the manner and content of your speech causes them to feel uncomfortable, afraid, or sad, the burden had ought to be on you to change your behavior instead of them sucking it up. I generally agree with this maxim, but I don’t think this is the best argument for why people should check their privilege and bigotry. People on the other side of this – usually conservatives and libertarians – claim that feelings are primarily one’s own responsibility (though conservatives are plenty offended by certain things). And people can feel offended about anything. That in itself does not make all feelings logical. Honoring everyone’s feelings as truth would probably amount to cultural relativism when feelings are shared among groups – this dreaded so-called “identity politics”.
I would caution two things. One, it is technically correct to acknowledge that someone has a feeling. Feelings are not under anyone’s control. They are automatic. They can be rational, but they don’t need to be. Erasing someone’s feeling because it’s illogical or inconvenient to you is a pointless endeavor. And two, you shouldn’t change your language or behavior around someone because JUST because it offends them personally. You should do it because you understand the specific ways that people are treated in society based on their group membership and how that creates a different experience than yours – even if they haven’t experienced it yet. It’s the reason why doing blackface is wrong even if your black friend doesn’t know the history and tells you they don’t care. This political correctness crusade has never been about exhausting yourself by constantly catering to individuals’ whims. It’s about understanding general patterns.
If you yell at a woman, especially if you are a man, you should understand that A) as a woman she might have had the experience of being abused by a man in the past – a particular dynamic that most men can’t experience, and B) she probably experiences low levels of verbal harassment most of the time, and your behavior will add to this accumulation of stress.
If you’ve been thin all your life and some of your friends make fun of fat people, with jokes ranging from playfully using fat stereotypes to being downright annoyed by them, you will probably laugh along with them even if you’re neutral or apathetic toward fat people personally. But then what happens if a year or two later you’ve gained 60 pounds? You’re not just so fat that only you notice – you’re so fat that everyone else has noticed too. You’ve never been one of “those people”, but now you are. How do you think all the jokes and insults your friends made about fat people are going to affect you? You’ll probably hate yourself and you won’t know what to do. You probably won’t have many sympathetic friends or relatives to fall back on.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, you can’t just assume that since an individual has not yet experienced explicit instances of discrimination for their group affiliation(s), it’s okay to make jokes or share negative views of their group. You might have a black or Muslim friend who may have been subject to systemic discrimination but happens to not have had insults and slurs hurled at them by strangers or been threatened with racist symbols or Islamophobic messages. But they can still experience these things in the future, and if they do they will probably not recognize it right away, because you’ve been deriding Muslims or black people for years. Just because you don’t see them as “one of those people” and you’ve convinced them that they aren’t, that doesn’t mean they won’t eventually be treated that way by others.
The point of political correctness is to try – at least TRY – to educate yourself about the experiences of marginalized groups and use what you’ve learned to treat strangers and kin with more empathy and respect. But more than that, it’s about fighting for systemic change; a kind smile and a conversation will only do so much. It’s dishonest and misleading to reduce fights for social equity to policing individuals’ language. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. But people who are truly “woke” know that people get their beliefs from SOMEWHERE, and they spend more of their time fighting the institutions that produce loyal followers rather than simply shaming people into compliance, or exiling them as punishment for their personal failings.
The Word “Overweight” Really Doesn’t Mean Anything
We’re back again with a hard-to-search query, and lo and behold it’s still about fat stigma. This time I’m trying to investigate the use of the term “overweight”, looking for nuanced analyses of its multiple uses and their consequences. But I have come back empty-handed. And whenever that happens, I BLOG.
THIS…. this is that blog.
I was attempting to watch a film analysis on YouTube and when this guy referred to the main character as “overweight”, I couldn’t watch anymore. Would people please, please stop using this word?! It’s not just offensive, it’s stupid. It’s a stupid word. I know what he meant. He meant fat. But fat in a “kind” way, in a way that suggests… not that fat, just fat enough for it to be noticeable. First off, you’re not granting anyone a kindness when you use this euphemism. The reason you’re using it is because you want to indicate that you can see a difference in someone’s body proportions, shape, or composition that qualifies them as “fat”, but that they are not REALLY fat, like, the real fat people over there that are actually the ones who are ill or weird or subhuman. It’s not “fat” – it’s “fat lite”. “Fat-ish”. But by doing so, you’re reinforcing the notion that there is a level of fat that is too far gone, too different, too inexcusable. You’re reinforcing the belief that there is any amount of fat that someone has that could make them chiefly responsible, and that we know exactly the point when someone is so fat that it amounts to an illness. But more importantly, when we say the word “overweight” we really mean 3 things, and we use them interchangeably:
- Having so much fat that your physical or mental* health is worse than ideal**
- Having a particular body shape – some proportion of fat that is intermediate between the proportions commonly seen in the media and the fattest person you can think of
- Having a proportion of fat that you think is greater than average
And by “average” I again mean consistent with common media depictions. In reality, many people are fatter than what you see on social networking apps and TV. According to the CDC , the average (mean) height for a female in the United States is about 5 feet, 4 inches (162 cm) and the average weight is about 170 pounds (77 kg). A rough estimate for the resulting average BMI is around 29, which is considered “overweight” by medical authorities. Will a female with a BMI of 29 LOOK fat? It depends, both on the proportions of the person and the schema of the observer. Are they so fat that their health is suffering? Perhaps, but it would still be difficult to know that with any certainty just by looking at them. Are they TYPICAL? Yes, yes they are typical.
I hope people will see that the criteria I listed above are, for the most part, mutually exclusive. People who look “chubby” are likely not over-weight in the sense that they are fatter than average. They probably are average. There are many people who have physical and mental disorders that we associate with being fat, but we don’t suspect it, because they aren’t fat. And besides, at least 80% of American adults may be “overfat”, which is largely to do with visceral fat depots (surrounding your guts); this figure includes a significant proportion of people whose BMI would classify them as having “normal weight”. Where’s our “concern” for them?
So please, let’s stop saying “overweight”. What should we use instead? Oh hell I don’t have ALL the answers. …. Let’s just say FAT for now and I dunno… use modifiers? I’m open to suggestions.
Thanks for reading.
For more on fat stigma, I like this blog post from Scientific American:
Fat is Not the Problem – Fat Stigma Is
*Being “obese” is associated with a greater likelihood of suffering from mental illnesses. Currently, the direction of causation constitutes a chicken-or-egg debate, but it seems that at least in the case of major depression, there is some evidence that both are likely to lead to each other. The mechanisms are not yet well understood. We do know that fat stigma causes increased risks for mental and physiological illnesses irrespective of BMI. Mental health may also suffer from the neurochemical and endocrine disruption that can occur with a diet of high-processed foods and a lack of regular exercise, but these conditions hold true for everybody.
**”Ideal” is, of course, subjective.
The Consequences of Negative Fat Representation
When I was doing research on the presence of fat cartoon characters on television, I came upon a few news articles that discussed a 2015 study out of the University of Colorado. The articles warn about the study’s findings that kids who see cartoon characters with a “rounder” shape are more likely to make unhealthy food choices afterward, unless they are first reminded about healthy behaviors. I immediately became worried about an implication that fat characters had ought to NOT be visible on TV, so as to not prime kids into eating poorly. I think it is very important to have better fat representation in the media, especially for kids. The researchers wrote that there is already evidence that children form negative stereotypes about fat people by the age of 3, and by 8 years old they think fat people are “lazy” and “less healthy”.
I think it’s not completely clear that seeing fat stereotypes “cause” kids to eat more or eat unhealthily, or if it’s really that seeing fat characters LETS them NOT police their own eating. From what I’ve read in the study itself there is no mention of this possibility, but I think it’s important. Because in a way I think that’s not a bad thing, and if anything, what might contribute to a “letting loose” mentality is the constant admonishment for eating “bad” foods that kids are exposed to. Researchers have found that part of the reason diets don’t work for most people is that denying yourself foods you think are bad for you makes you crave them even more. So I think we should hold off on blaming depictions of fat characters indulging themselves.
I hope that people don’t refrain from portraying positive and diverse fat characters in the media because A) the only reason kids and adults hold negative stereotypes about fat people is because the media historically shows fat people as overindulgent, lazy, fearful, etc. and B) you’re NOT going to get kids to make more healthy food choices by erasing fat people from the media; they’ll just think only thin people eat healthy and that there’s no place for fat people who eat healthy, that both these things can’t be true simultaneously.