IIHS prejudiced against fat women because the fat dummy made for them won't help? I guess?
-
Or she just misspelt 'her'
-
Maybe, but 'hir' is one of those made-up pronouns that people in certain internet circles think should be used, and she fits the profile.
-
Or she just misspelt 'her'
On this site, I doubt it.
Boob Pistol of Disdain—Liss' oft-recommended, oft-used, and awesomely gratifying response to strangers cow-calling, commenting, grabbing, or otherwise rudely reminding you that you're publicly fat: 1. Grab your boob. 2. Aim it at them like a pistol of righteousness. 3. Blow a giant, loud raspberry. [Variant on step 3: Make a machine- or laser-gun noise. "Rat-a-tat-tatta-tat-tat!" and "Pyoo! Pyoo!" are both acceptable substitutions for "Phbbbbt!"]
"Hm, I might think about what people say to me... fuck it, that's too hard *sticks out a tit*"
Bootstraps—A reference to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" canard about self-reliance, which elides systemic disadvantages and privileges conveyed on individuals by the kyriarchy.
I didn't understand a single word out of it. Except "bootstrap", but I doubt they're interested in a boot process of my machine.
Nieztschean Bake Sales—Where feminists get together and sell our baby-flavored cakes and sundries. A good place for people of like-minded curmudegeonliness to sit and grumble about how everything sucks and we hate all the menz. [Definition provided by InfamousQBert.]
OH MY GOD THEY'RE GOING META
-
Bootstraps—A reference to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" canard about self-reliance, which elides systemic disadvantages and privileges conveyed on individuals by the kyriarchy.
I always find these to be the most telling. These people quite simply do not believe in meritocracy.
-
do not believe in meritocracy
Filing this under the "way to tell an idiot they're an idiot" file.
Isn't it the whole point, though? It doesn't matter who you are and what you can do, we need to fill a quota?
-
It doesn't matter who you are and what you can do, we need to fill a quota?
Somewhat. Equality of Outcome vs Equality of Opportunity.
way to tell an idiot they're an idiot
It's not like that's going to bother them.
-
The correct word to use for non-gender specific individual is "their".
Only since late 20th century.[1] And this is what's wrong with English. Because everything non-human is "it", when speaking of humans, the gender you use is very big deal. In Polish for example, a table is "he", a cow is "she", a flower is "he", a bathtub is "she", everyone/anyone/someone is "he", an unspecified person is "she" - gramatically speaking. No one gives a fuck about it, that's how everyone said it for hundreds of years so why bother with asking "why". On the other hand, few years ago we had a minister of something who was a woman and didn't like being called "minister" (because it's male) and invented a new word - <abbr title="actually, it was "ministra" - which translates to what I've written>ministress. Everyone had a good laugh at her and I don't think there was a single voice in her defence.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they
-
an unspecified person is "she" - gramatically speaking
Only as a word meaning unspecified person itself. In construct such as "whoever was there", "was" takes masculine form, and Polish generally defaults to masculine most of the time.
On the other hand, few years ago we had a minister of something who was a woman and didn't like being called "minister" (because it's male) and invented a new word - ministress.
And adding female prefixes leads to lots of hilarity, since a lot of these words have been used to mean various things before PC took over - "dyplomata" is a diplomat, but "dyplomatka" is a kind of trenchcoat.
-
Only as a word meaning unspecified person itself. In construct such as "whoever was there", "was" takes masculine form, and Polish generally defaults to masculine most of the time.
That's what I said - the word that literally means "anyone" is masculine, the word that literally means "person" is feminine. Read the whole sentence next time, please?And adding female prefixes leads to lots of hilarity, since a lot of these words have been used to mean various things before PC took over - "dyplomata" is a diplomat, but "dyplomatka" is a kind of trenchcoat.
That's postfix.
-
That's what I said - the word that literally means "anyone" is masculine, the word that literally means "person" is feminine. Read the whole sentence next time, please?
A'ight, a'ight. But still, the point stands - we default to masculine, as an evil conservative country should.
That's postfix.
So it is.
-
I'm disappointed that there's no entry for "straw man."
We can add it ourselves:
**Straw man**—A straw man is a turboshitwad fuckbro with a BMI of less than 20.
-
Or she just misspelt 'her'
No, hir is in the FAQ, too:
Hir—A gender-neutral substitute for him, her, his, hers. Also see: Zie.
Zie—A gender-neutral substitute for she and he. Also see: Hir.
-
A'ight, a'ight. But still, the point stands - we default to masculine, as an evil conservative country should.
Not quite. When you say "everyone should be like that", you use masculine form, but when you say "every person should be like that", you use feminine form.Zie—An alternative spelling of "the" used by eastern EU politicians who through seventy years of their lives never bothered to learn the pronunciation of basic English words.
FTFY
-
-
-
I'm buttuming that they think that it's not possible that a healthy diet can lead to weight loss in any way.
Spoken like a true dudebro.
-
No, hir is in the FAQ, too:
>Hir—A gender-neutral substitute for him, her, his, hers. Also see: Zie.
>Zie—A gender-neutral substitute for she and he. Also see: Hir.
Why? What was wrong with shklee and shklim (and shkler)?
[size=9]I've never seen those words written, so I probably spelt them wrong.[/size]
-
What was wrong with shklee and shklim (and shkler)?
That one does not produce enough saliva to be able use these multiple times in one conversation.
-
That one does not produce enough saliva to be able use these multiple times in one conversation.
"Szkli" (pronounced "shklee") is a valid Polish word and not hard at all to say.
-
-
I had to look this up. TL;DR version: It's still patriarchy.
But it's better because it works on both genders!
Filed under: just like anal sex
-
I hate that whole "Fat people can't lose weight" nonsense because you can't have a rational argument with them. They'll say it's a metabolic problem and it's not healthy to eat less. To which I respond that I have a slow metabolism and live on about 1300 - 1400 kcal/day because if I ate the "normal" 2500+ I'd weigh 600 pounds. But then they think I'm a liar because it doesn't fit their worldview that someone can live on that low of a calorie intake, and that it's impossible for someone who's currently 5' 11" and 165 pounds to know anything about being fat even though I used to weigh quite a bit more.
The trick to losing weight is eat less. Period. Once your body adjusts it's really not hard to stay on that reduced-calorie intake, my appetite eventually adjusted, but at some point you have to train yourself to start eating a little more again so you don't accidentally lose too much weight. Been there done that.
-
Right. And I'm sure it's no easy task, don't get me wrong. But the claims I've seen were "no statistically significant number of fat people have ever managed to lose weight (with no surgery) and not gain it again within a few months. Therefore fat = permanent, therefore not my fault". And this is just false.
Everyone who doesn't live in a cave knows at least one person who has lost weight and managed to keep it off, so it's not just false, it's obviously false.
It doesn't matter who you are and what you can do, we need to fill a quota?
It's a bit more complicated than that. The way they determine if there is discrimination is to look at people in certain jobs and see if the distributions match the general population. Quotas are involved because that's the only practical way to shut them up.
-
I hate that whole "Fat people can't lose weight" nonsense because you can't have a rational argument with them. They'll say it's a metabolic problem and it's not healthy to eat less. To which I respond that I have a slow metabolism and live on about 1300 - 1400 kcal/day because if I ate the "normal" 2500+ I'd weigh 600 pounds. But then they think I'm a liar because it doesn't fit their worldview that someone can live on that low of a calorie intake, and that it's impossible for someone who's currently 5' 11" and 165 pounds to know anything about being fat even though I used to weigh quite a bit more.
The trick to losing weight is eat less. Period. Once your body adjusts it's really not hard to stay on that reduced-calorie intake, my appetite eventually adjusted, but at some point you have to train yourself to start eating a little more again so you don't accidentally lose too much weight. Been there done that.
Yeah -- some people just have a broken feedback loop regarding caloric intake. Fortunately, this can be worked around with some TV dinners (which are quite convenient and have a known calorie count), a scale, pencil, paper, and a bit of maths to get rid of all the water-weight noise in your weighings and count your calories for the day.
The big problem at the beginning is that you do need to go hungrier than normal for a few days in order to start losing weight, because you need to get the fat cells to switch from storing fat to burning fat. However, this is not some super-unhealthy thing -- our bodies were built to store energy between widely separated meals, not eat 3 square meals a day!
The FDA recommended 2000kcal/day's pretty bloody generous, IMO: if your rest metabolism is 500kcal/day, eat 500kcal/day! You'll need a multivitamin to do that -- but it's not like our bodies care all that much about where the calories and micronutrients come from, just that we have them.
-
The big problem at the beginning is that you do need to go hungrier than normal for a few days in order to start losing weight
+1. However the average American has the willpower of a retarded cat in heat, so they fall flat right after starting.
-
but it's not like our bodies care all that much about where the calories and micronutrients come from, just that we have them.
Not exactly. Nutritients in food are far easier to digest for your bodies than tablets, ie. they're far more effective and less burden to our guts.
-
Nutritients in food are far easier to digest for your bodies than tablets, ie. they're far more effective and less burden to our guts.
[citation needed]
If anything, the manufactured versions would be made to work better.
-
Not exactly. Nutritients in food are far easier to digest for your bodies than tablets, ie. they're far more effective and less burden to our guts.
I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, the choice between making my gut work a little bit harder or outweighing a Peterbilt is pretty obvious.
-
The FDA recommended 2000kcal/day's pretty bloody generous, IMO
You missed an H, I think.
...Despite the observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women obtained from doubly labeled water experiments, most of the people who responded to the comments judged the proposed benchmark too high. Nutrition educators worried that it would encourage overconsumption, be irrelevant to women who consume fewer calories, and permit overstatement of acceptable levels of “eat less” nutrients such as saturated fat and sodium. Instead, they proposed 2,000 calories as:
- consistent with widely used food plans
- close to the calorie requirements for postmenopausal women, the population group most prone to weight gain
- a reasonably rounded-down value from 2,350 calories
- easier to use than 2,350 and, therefore, a better tool for nutrition education
He doesn't cite his source, but I've read similar stuff in multiple places.
-
I was speaking from a "history of our species" perspective -- as a statistical average/starting point, it's quite reasonable. Of course, your particular body's fuel mileage will vary...
-
I was speaking from a "history of our species" perspective
I think that's a pretty shitty benchmark, but from that POV, I'd agree. Reminds me of the joke:
A Russian general attends some American Army exercises as part of detente. He boasts to the Americans that his soldiers thrive on 2000 calories a day. The Americans reply that their soldiers consume 3000 a day. "Nonsense", the general replies. "No One can eat that many potatoes!"
-
Why? What was wrong with shklee and shklim (and shkler)?
IIRC the netflix subtitles agree with your spelling but the DVD subtitles dropped the
h
-
[citation needed]
I'm too lazy to look it up. With this, I concede defeat in the argument - for technical reasons, not because I'm wrong.I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, the choice between making my gut work a little bit harder or outweighing a Peterbilt is pretty obvious.
It's not only about working harder but also about wearing down.
-
something something people eat as much as they can because food used to be scarce something something outpacing evolution
-
These people quite simply do not believe in meritocracy.
Of course not. They dimly comprehend that they wouldn't occupy the place they think they deserve in such a system.
-
The trick to losing weight is eat less. Period.
It can certainly help to change what you eat, too. I lost ten pounds doing Atkins, and I've kept most of it off for ten years. I could stand to lose another 20-30 pounds or so, or at least to convert some of that fat to muscle, but I'm too lazy so far to convert my diet.
-
I lost ten pounds doing Atkins
Dude, I can lose ten pounds in less than a week. Of course, it's pretty much all water...
-
I probably lose ten pounds every week. Down my toilet. But somehow my weight never changes...
-
Of course there are those of us who are obese, according to the BMI scale, who are quite happily not rubbing that fact into other peoples faces like she is...
Also:
http://www.mysignaturenutrition.com/My_Signature_Nutrition_Blog.php?post=10
BMI Range
Underweight <18.5
Normal 18.5-24.9
Overweight 24.9-29.9
Obese >30George Clooney: 31- obese
Arnold Schwarzeneggar- 33- obese
Brad Pitt- 31- obese
Johnny Depp- 29.8- overweight (almost obese)
President Obama- 24 Normal
Michelle Obama- 22- Normal
Beyonce Knowles 21- Normal
Kirstie Alley- ~23- Normal
Cameron Diaz- 17.7- underweight
Tyra Banks- 25- overweight
Serena Williams- 21- Normal
-
Related to that, a lot of professional rugby players have BMIs in the mid- to high-30s; some of the backs break the 40 barrier.
Basically, BMI is
-
Who would have thought that a scale calibrated to 1800s Belgiuns would lose its relevance to modern people?
-
Is there evidence that is was relevant to 1800s people? If you changed the cutoffs, would it become more relevant?
-
It wasn't ever relevant to anybody, the reason it's used is because it's a really easy measurement to take. It doesn't require submersing someone in a tub of water or using any kind of expensive medical scanner.
-
Exactly.
-
Stop making up pronouns, Internet. Grumble.
Stop misusing plural pronouns for something (someone) singular, Internet. Grumble. "It" is a perfectly good gender-neutral singular pronoun.
-
What, like 'you'? 'they' has been used in this manner for at least a century, so it's nothing to berate the internet over.
-
believe in meritocracy.
I'll believe in meritocracy when I see it.
Only since late 20th century.
-
Imagine if there was a place on the internet where every member of a single demographic could hang out and complain about how every other demographic is the literal worst.
Filed under: What's an internet?
-
+1. However the average American has the willpower of a retarded cat in heat, so they fall flat right after starting.
There's more to it than simple lack of willpower.Forty years of telling Americans that smoking is deadly got the usage rate down from nearly 50% to under 20%. Forty years of telling them that being fat is deadly has done pretty much exactly the opposite. Nicotine is very addictive and we are only asking overweight people to reduce consumption, not stop - so it should be easier. Obviously it's more than a simple matter of willpower.
-
Singular they | Older usage by respected authors
You didn't read the whole article, did you?Imagine if there was a place on the internet where every member of a single demographic could hang out and complain about how every other demographic is the literal worst.
I'm sure such place exists somewhere. But because I'm not blue-eyed blonde, I haven't really looked it up ever.Filed under: What's an internet?
Internet should be capitalized, according to printed dictionaries (that are very slow to pick up language changes).
Where did the 2,000 calorie diet idea come from? - Food Politics by Marion Nestle
Singular they - Wikipedia