I agree. I think he meant well. I argue another point: I for am just glad that weāre celebrating a woman, at the very least and not a trans woman. Thatās only two positives I took out of this debacle. Is she celebrity beautiful, no. Is she unhealthy? Yes. But it took guts for her to go out and show herself. Is it the results she wanted no. But maybe we should be arguing for heath standards and beauty to be tied together to make a balanced argument. What do you think?
I think if we hadnāt been fed so much fat positivity āhealthy at any sizeā propaganda in recent years (while simultaneously shamed and degraded for refusing to take certain medications under the guise of public health) this wouldnāt have been an issue. But when weāve had an even more obese woman on the cover of cosmo literally being sold as healthy, and fat activists saying exercising and dieting is fatphobic it just felt like another intellectually dishonest attempt to force feed us a false narrative. I do feel for this model (who is beautiful in my estimation, and deserves just as much to be on the cover of a magazine as some dim witted, overly praised celebrity who can afford all the best trainers, personal chefs and surgeries to achieve those so called beauty standards) but I think the timing was just bad. I agree that we need a balance between criticizing a scientifically inaccurate agenda like āhealthy at any sizeā and not shaming obese people. It really is the fault of woke ideologues who try to force their unsubstantiated views onto everyone else. I blame them, not the model or JP.
It's really hard to take the "fatphobic" people seriously when they are extremely skinny and pretty. That's just false advertising or they are being paid to say this or they are literally that dumb. It might be one, or all three. But it matches up that fatphobic argument is embraced by the ugly women of society. And they blame everyone else for their bad habits except themselves and expect to be called beautiful. And all the while they are still lonely enough to push this narrative onto other people. There's a disconnect that I hope grosses people into a new thinking that "This is not healthy." Rational people need to come this or we're going to be spinning in circles. Sometimes someone can love someone overweight, but either partner is not doing their spouse any good. Being overweight is not fun and that can destroy your thinking, physicality, and humor. If you're humorous, you can find your way out of bad behaviors, or at least laugh at yourself, and make fun of yourself. And shaming yourself is one good step toward achieving true inner peace. Also, achievements must be accepted by the will of the individual and have a real goal set. I could go on and on, but the thing is, shame is a good thing, and when you pull out your pants to see the results, that says it all.
Yeah, it was meant to be funny, but humor and honesty go together. And the fact that it's a woman, however obese, should be given credit where it's due. Otherwise, totally agree.
I dunno, I think that sloppiness has its place in all of this. If Peterson had chosen his words āmore carefully,ā there might not have been a firestorm to begin with.
In the Usenet days, flame wars began with such outlandish statements as Petersonās and often led to a friendly agreement to disagree, but that was then and this is now.
What I find amazing is that the left is allowed to spew unfiltered bile about anything they want to while the right has to āmore carefullyā select their means of expressing themselves.
Rand once said something to the effect that choosing pure violence as a means of control is effective, combining violence with intelligence is utterly untouchable.
And, no, Iām condoning violence here, puh-leeze...
Iām just saying that using leftish methods while combining them with intellectual honesty can be infinitely more effective than raw emotion alone.
I'm a fat woman, and my husband and I got in an argument about this. His thoughts: there is no media push to normalize the pathological and Jordan P was just being a misogynist dick. Mine, being familiar with the ongoing argument about forced celebration, understood the context. But where we really argued was his thought that she should be celebrated because judging her body was mean-spirited. My thinking is that the woman is posing on the cover of a magazine issue that is historically made for masturbatory fantasy. I can critique a band for a new song i dont like. Their job is to play music. Why cant i critique a body whose job it is to be masturbation fodder? My good prog husband finds this to be a sort of victim-blaming on my part. Women have agency and might well be critiqued for offering themselves up as sexual fodder. An aside, to have her (or recent trans models) there at all is to some extent to capitalize on a mood that is primed for wanking, and therefore to be in the business of changing men's tastes. And that kind of social engineering that one is not allowed to critique is very authoritarian in my view.
Fat people are objectively physically unattractive, unhealthy, and obviously not athletic. It's not mean to simply state facts.
It requires 1984-level authoritarianism to enforce a society of people who are supposed to look at fat people on Sports Illustrated and say "She's attractive, healthy, and athletic."
That's Peterson's point and he's spot-on. I'm convinced that anyone confused or angry about his tweet are being purposefully obtuse.
I agree. I think he meant well. I argue another point: I for am just glad that weāre celebrating a woman, at the very least and not a trans woman. Thatās only two positives I took out of this debacle. Is she celebrity beautiful, no. Is she unhealthy? Yes. But it took guts for her to go out and show herself. Is it the results she wanted no. But maybe we should be arguing for heath standards and beauty to be tied together to make a balanced argument. What do you think?
I think if we hadnāt been fed so much fat positivity āhealthy at any sizeā propaganda in recent years (while simultaneously shamed and degraded for refusing to take certain medications under the guise of public health) this wouldnāt have been an issue. But when weāve had an even more obese woman on the cover of cosmo literally being sold as healthy, and fat activists saying exercising and dieting is fatphobic it just felt like another intellectually dishonest attempt to force feed us a false narrative. I do feel for this model (who is beautiful in my estimation, and deserves just as much to be on the cover of a magazine as some dim witted, overly praised celebrity who can afford all the best trainers, personal chefs and surgeries to achieve those so called beauty standards) but I think the timing was just bad. I agree that we need a balance between criticizing a scientifically inaccurate agenda like āhealthy at any sizeā and not shaming obese people. It really is the fault of woke ideologues who try to force their unsubstantiated views onto everyone else. I blame them, not the model or JP.
It's really hard to take the "fatphobic" people seriously when they are extremely skinny and pretty. That's just false advertising or they are being paid to say this or they are literally that dumb. It might be one, or all three. But it matches up that fatphobic argument is embraced by the ugly women of society. And they blame everyone else for their bad habits except themselves and expect to be called beautiful. And all the while they are still lonely enough to push this narrative onto other people. There's a disconnect that I hope grosses people into a new thinking that "This is not healthy." Rational people need to come this or we're going to be spinning in circles. Sometimes someone can love someone overweight, but either partner is not doing their spouse any good. Being overweight is not fun and that can destroy your thinking, physicality, and humor. If you're humorous, you can find your way out of bad behaviors, or at least laugh at yourself, and make fun of yourself. And shaming yourself is one good step toward achieving true inner peace. Also, achievements must be accepted by the will of the individual and have a real goal set. I could go on and on, but the thing is, shame is a good thing, and when you pull out your pants to see the results, that says it all.
> I for am just glad that weāre celebrating a woman, at the very least and not a trans woman
If that's your bar, it's pretty low.
I think I was being rather fair. Did you read the rest of my argument?
Yeah, it's a good comment overall. I just thought it was kind of funny that in 2022 the bar is "at least it wasn't a man" š
Yeah, it was meant to be funny, but humor and honesty go together. And the fact that it's a woman, however obese, should be given credit where it's due. Otherwise, totally agree.
I dunno, I think that sloppiness has its place in all of this. If Peterson had chosen his words āmore carefully,ā there might not have been a firestorm to begin with.
In the Usenet days, flame wars began with such outlandish statements as Petersonās and often led to a friendly agreement to disagree, but that was then and this is now.
What I find amazing is that the left is allowed to spew unfiltered bile about anything they want to while the right has to āmore carefullyā select their means of expressing themselves.
Rand once said something to the effect that choosing pure violence as a means of control is effective, combining violence with intelligence is utterly untouchable.
And, no, Iām condoning violence here, puh-leeze...
Iām just saying that using leftish methods while combining them with intellectual honesty can be infinitely more effective than raw emotion alone.
Just my $0.02 worth...
I'm a fat woman, and my husband and I got in an argument about this. His thoughts: there is no media push to normalize the pathological and Jordan P was just being a misogynist dick. Mine, being familiar with the ongoing argument about forced celebration, understood the context. But where we really argued was his thought that she should be celebrated because judging her body was mean-spirited. My thinking is that the woman is posing on the cover of a magazine issue that is historically made for masturbatory fantasy. I can critique a band for a new song i dont like. Their job is to play music. Why cant i critique a body whose job it is to be masturbation fodder? My good prog husband finds this to be a sort of victim-blaming on my part. Women have agency and might well be critiqued for offering themselves up as sexual fodder. An aside, to have her (or recent trans models) there at all is to some extent to capitalize on a mood that is primed for wanking, and therefore to be in the business of changing men's tastes. And that kind of social engineering that one is not allowed to critique is very authoritarian in my view.
Fat people are objectively physically unattractive, unhealthy, and obviously not athletic. It's not mean to simply state facts.
It requires 1984-level authoritarianism to enforce a society of people who are supposed to look at fat people on Sports Illustrated and say "She's attractive, healthy, and athletic."
That's Peterson's point and he's spot-on. I'm convinced that anyone confused or angry about his tweet are being purposefully obtuse.
Excellent redress and integrity of intellect. If my comments, on the first part of this story doesn't indicate such, I think you mailed it!