#1

getfiscal posted:



i don't see the qualitative difference between this and telling poors not to stuff their bloated children full of salted poison which i am told is extremely rude and condescending. can we resolve this discrepancy

#2
we build a society where people end up doing things that are bad for them

we are then mean to them for doing those things

the above post identifies the wrong problem
#3
http://www.revolutionaryfitness.org/
#4

littlegreenpills posted:

we build a society where people end up doing things that are bad for them

we are then mean to them for doing those things

the above post identifies the wrong problem



any society will result in some subset of people doing things that are bad for them. being mean to them for it is desirable

#5

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

we build a society where people end up doing things that are bad for them

we are then mean to them for doing those things

the above post identifies the wrong problem

any society will result in some subset of people doing things that are bad for them



that remains to be seen. personal agency hasn't actually existed in any meaningful sense since agriculture was invented

#6

littlegreenpills posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

we build a society where people end up doing things that are bad for them

we are then mean to them for doing those things

the above post identifies the wrong problem

any society will result in some subset of people doing things that are bad for them

that remains to be seen. personal agency hasn't actually existed in any meaningful sense since agriculture was invented



examples of societies with people doing things that are bad for them predate agriculture

#7
i'm thinking of starting an online movement with an ideology that's a bit MTW, a bit accerationist. basically the premise is we support anything that leads to less people in the first world. we support abortion but oppose seat belt laws for example
#8

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

we build a society where people end up doing things that are bad for them

we are then mean to them for doing those things

the above post identifies the wrong problem

any society will result in some subset of people doing things that are bad for them

that remains to be seen. personal agency hasn't actually existed in any meaningful sense since agriculture was invented

examples of societies with people doing things that are bad for them predate agriculture



yeah but they had personal agency so it was their own fault

#9
goatstein, i don't object to suggesting parents feed their kids healthy foods. it's just that you specifically deny the connection between being poor and the increased difficulty of being physically fit.
#10
if you want to change it so people aren't encouraged to eat bad food, it would seem useful to start by restricting the billions poured every year into promoting that they eat bad food through advertising, rather than attacking some random mother who picks up chips when her child glows with hope for them
#11

HenryKrinkle posted:

goatstein, i don't object to suggesting parents feed their kids healthy foods. it's just that you specifically deny the connection between being poor and the increased difficulty of being physically fit.



i don't deny that it's harder, i deny the mechanisms most commonly offered, which is that they're too busy or it's a rational economic calculation, rather than that poverty leads to depression, substance abuse and generally not giving a shit

#12
i think a lot of it has to do with the stress and depression of being poor. i mean if you're working multiple low-wage shifts and/or can't afford some of the basic necessities of life you might be more likely to gorge on shitty food for instant gratification. the same goes for drug abuse.

FWIW it's a myth that poor people eat a disproportionate amount of fast food.
#13

HenryKrinkle posted:

FWIW it's a myth that poor people eat a disproportionate amount of fast food.



it makes total sense, seeing as its intrinsically more expensive. see also drug, alcohol abuse

#14

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

i don't deny that it's harder, i deny the mechanisms most commonly offered, which is that they're too busy or it's a rational economic calculation, rather than that poverty leads to depression, substance abuse and generally not giving a shit



this is what i mean about personal agency having no meaningful existence in class society

#15

getfiscal posted:

if you want to change it so people aren't encouraged to eat bad food, it would seem useful to start by restricting the billions poured every year into promoting that they eat bad food through advertising, rather than attacking some random mother who picks up chips when her child glows with hope for them



sure, let's ban advertising. whoops. turns out humans are biological organisms which crave fat, sugar and salt, and advertising attempts to direct those urges to make them buy one fat-heavy product over another, but does not create the underlying problem. well at least we did fuckall

#16

getfiscal posted:

if you want to change it so people aren't encouraged to eat bad food, it would seem useful to start by restricting the billions poured every year into promoting that they eat bad food through advertising, rather than attacking some random mother who picks up chips when her child glows with hope for them



less advertizing more fuggin' corn subsidies imo

#17

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

sure, let's ban advertising. whoops. turns out humans are biological organisms which crave fat, sugar and salt, and advertising attempts to direct those urges to make them buy one fat-heavy product over another, but does not create the underlying problem. well at least we did fuckall

grow up

#18

HenryKrinkle posted:

i think a lot of it has to do with the stress and depression of being poor. i mean if you're working multiple low-wage shifts and/or can't afford some of the basic necessities of life you might be more likely to gorge on shitty food for instant gratification. the same goes for drug abuse.

FWIW it's a myth that poor people eat a disproportionate amount of fast food.



i've yet to see any evidence that "being too busy" is a statistically significant factor in obesity, considering the vast percentages of the obese amongst those who don't work at all for whatever reason

#19

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

sure, let's ban advertising. whoops. turns out humans are biological organisms which crave fat, sugar and salt, and advertising attempts to direct those urges to make them buy one fat-heavy product over another, but does not create the underlying problem. well at least we did fuckall


http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/ban-on-advertising-to-children-linked-to-lower-obesity-rates/

sorry for linking to non-Marxist scientific studies but geez.

#20
personally i would solve this problem with a top-down planned economy able to manage a robust supply of beans and rice and veggies while suffering constant shortages of potato chips. someone on twitter would be like "the food depot just got a shipment of soda for the first time in 3 months" and everyone would rush out to try and get their sugar water while they can
#21

HenryKrinkle posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

sure, let's ban advertising. whoops. turns out humans are biological organisms which crave fat, sugar and salt, and advertising attempts to direct those urges to make them buy one fat-heavy product over another, but does not create the underlying problem. well at least we did fuckall

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/ban-on-advertising-to-children-linked-to-lower-obesity-rates/

sorry for linking to non-Marxist scientific studies but geez.



well i can't help but agree that banning advertising to children can be very helpful to people who are too lazy and/or stupid to regularly win arguments with six year olds. but should we really deflect 100% of the blame for this onto others? what about their own sloth and idiocy?

#22

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

getfiscal posted:

if you want to change it so people aren't encouraged to eat bad food, it would seem useful to start by restricting the billions poured every year into promoting that they eat bad food through advertising, rather than attacking some random mother who picks up chips when her child glows with hope for them

sure, let's ban advertising. whoops. turns out humans are biological organisms which crave fat, sugar and salt, and advertising attempts to direct those urges to make them buy one fat-heavy product over another, but does not create the underlying problem. well at least we did fuckall



okay but your logic in mocking them is that it will somehow encourage them to not eat unhealthy food, so apparently you believe your fat jokes are a more powerful force in shaping consciousness than advertising? hate to break it to you goat but u might not be that clever

#23
fortunately advertising is on my side wrt the acceptability of being a fat.
#24

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

getfiscal posted:

i don't see the qualitative difference between this and telling poors not to stuff their bloated children full of salted poison which i am told is extremely rude and condescending. can we resolve this discrepancy

it's good you mention feeding shitty food to children because that's the only way you have the connection here of inflicting something on another party. but even then, im pretty sure fetal alcohol syndrome and shit is permanent while eating gross foods is not. also i think it's much easier to categorically say "you shouldnt drink while pregnant" than it is to say "you shouldnt eat doritos"

buyt what are you even arguing here and why does it matter, like i think youre arguing against excuse-making about food deserts and advertising and poverty? so would you be happy if people just stopped saying these things and said theres no excuse for being obese, because and this kind of connects to aerdils post above i dont really believe that would have any impact on actual obesity.

#25
i just hate people so much ilmdge
#26

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

i just hate people so much ilmdge

my friend mike had some good advice here: start with the man in the mirror.

#27
that sounds like terrible advice
#28

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

that sounds like terrible advice

i can't remember but i think his life turned out alright... something about a big house, whatever

#29
it doesn't matter that "poor" people eat more "unhealthy" versus "healthy" food, whatever that means. when you are depressed you will gorge yourself for relief; it doesn't matter what you are gorging yourself with.

this is just anecdotal, but it makes sense to me.
#30

aerdil posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

getfiscal posted:

if you want to change it so people aren't encouraged to eat bad food, it would seem useful to start by restricting the billions poured every year into promoting that they eat bad food through advertising, rather than attacking some random mother who picks up chips when her child glows with hope for them

sure, let's ban advertising. whoops. turns out humans are biological organisms which crave fat, sugar and salt, and advertising attempts to direct those urges to make them buy one fat-heavy product over another, but does not create the underlying problem. well at least we did fuckall

okay but your logic in mocking them is that it will somehow encourage them to not eat unhealthy food, so apparently you believe your fat jokes are a more powerful force in shaping consciousness than advertising? hate to break it to you goat but u might not be that clever



Sure you got to think globally. But you have to act locally.

#31
if we accept that marketing removes agency then doesn't the removal of other choices due to planning also remove agency? it sounds like only planners have agency in that case

anyway the lady in the first post is insane and the liberal idea that being disabled and diseased is just as great as being healthy is something people should be strongly and consistently shutting down
#32

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

we build a society where people end up doing things that are bad for them

we are then mean to them for doing those things

the above post identifies the wrong problem

any society will result in some subset of people doing things that are bad for them

that remains to be seen. personal agency hasn't actually existed in any meaningful sense since agriculture was invented

examples of societies with people doing things that are bad for them predate agriculture



That's a little bit true. I don't want to sound like a primitivist or romanticize them, but hunter gatherers tended to be much more egalitarian for the most part and when agriculture develops, you start to see more inequalities of all types develop. Their work week was way shorter despite having nowhere near the level of technology or resources that we have today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

It's not the ideal model but maybe there are some things that can be learned

#33

drwhat posted:

if we accept that marketing removes agency then doesn't the removal of other choices due to planning also remove agency? it sounds like only planners have agency in that case

problem?

#34

drwhat posted:

if we accept that marketing removes agency then doesn't the removal of other choices due to planning also remove agency? it sounds like only planners have agency in that case

anyway the lady in the first post is insane and the liberal idea that being disabled and diseased is just as great as being healthy is something people should be strongly and consistently shutting down



sure, but food need not be solely suckled through the planners teat.
Advertising doesn't exist in n-space, its displacing other useful things and ideas. Those three hours a day sent being educated about bullshit products add up.

#35

ilmdge posted:

drwhat posted:

if we accept that marketing removes agency then doesn't the removal of other choices due to planning also remove agency? it sounds like only planners have agency in that case

problem?


anyway though... ads seek to subvert and manipulate your will toward their own profit-seeking interests, while soda not being widely available only limits your opportunity to consume it, without attempting to influence your will. in limiting your opportunities i suppose it does have to be asked whether doing so is good or bad, but a planned economy ultimately has to direct its resources and labor toward certain objectives, and a steady soda supply or whatever may not be a particularly desirable objective. also just as a planned economy might not prioritize putting plenty of soda on the shelves, a market economy also will not prioritize any product that isn't going to be profitable, and will even deprioritize products simply for being less profitable than alternatives, so opportunity will be limited either way. apologies for extending your argument to absurdity but it's not like hunter-gatheres didn't have agency because they couldn't buy 5 hour energ.y.

#36
we cd have a planned economy where everyone gets 450kg of cassava flour, 87l of soybean oil, 414 cans of assorted beans, 84kg of ground turkey, and 3.9 metric tons of polypropylene chips delivered to their house on January 1st and they figure out the rest themselves
#37

ilmdge posted:

ilmdge posted:
drwhat posted:
if we accept that marketing removes agency then doesn't the removal of other choices due to planning also remove agency? it sounds like only planners have agency in that case
problem?

anyway though... ads seek to subvert and manipulate your will toward their own profit-seeking interests, while soda not being widely available only limits your opportunity to consume it, without attempting to influence your will. in limiting your opportunities i suppose it does have to be asked whether doing so is good or bad, but a planned economy ultimately has to direct its resources and labor toward certain objectives, and a steady soda supply or whatever may not be a particularly desirable objective. also just as a planned economy might not prioritize putting plenty of soda on the shelves, a market economy also will not prioritize any product that isn't going to be profitable, and will even deprioritize products simply for being less profitable than alternatives, so opportunity will be limited either way. apologies for extending your argument to absurdity but it's not like hunter-gatheres didn't have agency because they couldn't buy 5 hour energ.y.


i agree pretty much i was just making someone say this i guess

#38
why the focus on marketing. sure it's part of the problem but the bigger issue (which others have touched on here) is so-called 'food deserts'. even fucking forbes wrings its hands about this. it's a cute term really because it turns a fairly transparent matter of systematic capitalist oppression into a relatively esoteric concept that, even if carefully unpacked, seems on the face of it to be some kind of unintended consequence of an otherwise good and functional system. like, "whoops! even though the system of food production, logistics and retail generally works great, it turns out some poor people are, uh, mildly disadvantaged! let's hope it doesn't take the mighty capitalists too long to solve this problem, if it is a real problem, and who can really be sure!!"

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

i just hate people so much ilmdge


misanthropy is so fucking lazy, mate. it's the easiest response to the crushing despair that comes with having even a vague idea of how the world works. but, perhaps instead of turning your anger and frustration on the poor, you could focus on the enemy. you won't feel any better but you also won't be making things worse. ganbatte ne

#39

Petrol posted:

misanthropy is so fucking lazy, mate. it's the easiest response to the crushing despair that comes with having even a vague idea of how the world works. but, perhaps instead of turning your anger and frustration on the poor, you could focus on the enemy. you won't feel any better but you also won't be making things worse. ganbatte ne


some people feel hate or loathing toward addicts, fats, yokels, etc but the correect response is a deep abiding & sorrowful pity..

Edited by ilmdge ()

#40
food deserts are nonsense and i've yet to see an example of one existing, let alone it being relevant