Boing Boing's Continuing Fat Hatred... ugh.
Cory, can you ever post anything related to food that doesn't include a jab at fat people? Ever? Come on. It makes you look ignorant.
Listen. I know that you went on a diet and lost weight - that's been mentioned in many of your posts in the past. Swell. Great. Whatever. I don't care. More importantly, what's it got to do with brownies? What - they have fat in them? And people may eat them?! So? What's it matter to you? Clearly you still like the Tetris Brownies (I do too!) but if you've got hangups over food because of your diet, you should consider having someone else write about food on Boing Boing. Just sayin'.
Commenting is Easy | Alton Brown: "Be Ashamed" of Your Fat Body
Posted by paul on September 6, 2008
Yeah, I always find that such comments immediately (and enduringly) cause me to think so much less of a person.
Btw, the idea is brilliant, and fortunately the original link -- http://fraskedesigns.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-to-make-tetris-brownies-or-tetris.html -- is free of bigotry. I'm totally going to make these!
By any chance do you have links to other fat-hating posts from Boing Boing, from Cory or others? I get irked at their anti-feminist commentary, and now I'm curious if size discrimination overlaps with it. Thanks for any help!
*passes a big ol plate tetris brownies to paul* at least we can enjoy these, they don't wanna eat em..fuck em
Stop hating! I'm plumb like a roast, and thicker than most!
I don't know this "Cory" but I more concerned at the fact that Cory wants the brownies thin. I mean we all know brownies should be thick and moist and chewy or they basically suck
moxie3
I love BB, but Cory is a typical carbtard. Not only can he not post about anything involving sugar without making a snide aside, he posts any item that purports to support the carbs = evil theory, no matter how shaky (or non-existent) the "science" behind it is.
Frosting on brownies though? Yech.
Hey Cory, if carbs are so terrible for your health, can you explain why the Japanese, who don't consider they've truly eaten unless rice is consumed, have the lowest rates of cancer, heart disease and obesity, and the longest life spans in the world?? Just curious!
moxie3, Cory didn't write the tutorial, he's just re-posting it.
what I'm having a hard time working out is --- why does anyone think it takes an online tutorial to make brownies? --- the directions are on the side of the box for goodness sakes..... Whatever this cory person believes about sugar, carbs, fat, etc means nothing to me -- I just wonder why this person thinks people are so completely retarded that they need this particular task explained in an online tutorial. I mean, really want to freak me out, duplicate mickey mouse's head or something -- not some blocks that my 10yo could sort out ---
"I just wonder why this person thinks people are so completely retarded that they need this particular task explained in an online tutorial."
Lol. Well, fortunately, the original post doesn't waste much time on the brownie-making procedure per se. I love that the creator of these took the trouble to colour-match the icing to the original Tetris pieces. These would make great treats for a retro-videogame-themed party. (Accompanied by these: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/02/pac-man-cake-with-cu.html -- note that Doctorow managed to restrain his calorie-fears on this post.)
Sigh. Non-ableist language FAIL....
oh for goodness sakes - get off the PC train - people should just talk the way they talk and not be continuously monitoring themselves -- you end up having much more frank, open and honest discussions about a whole host of subjects if people can just be themselves and iron out any problems as you go along ya know?
Was not the very issue that sparked this thread Doctorow's own failure to "monitor himself" and to be self-critical of the attitudes towards weight/fatness that he was expressing in his commentary? We're criticizing his casual use of fatphobic language, but willing to perpetuate ableist language in doing so? I find that problematic. Also, as a person who has non-neurotypical friends, I personally find the use of that term offensive.
(And wasn't it the use of the term that prompted Paul's 'unhappy face' comment just above? I thought I was just reiterating what was expressed by that emoticon.)
You were indeed.
My apologies that you were offended by my language, of course. No offense was intended to anyone.
My point is - if we spend our entire lives editing and censoring every word that comes out of our mouths or each others, we lose a great bit of spontaniety in our interactions. For myself, I would rather take people as they are - warts and all - educated or not - and lack of PC speech patterns or not - and have an honest straight up conversation where they can feel free to express themselves without worrying continuously that some unknown entity anywhere on this planet or perhaps another will find themselves so wrapped up in their own importance that they won't understand that not everything is about them or their so-called identity politics.
When someone offends me, I tell them so and ask them to explain or apologize. But, I also try really hard to just give people freedom to be who they are and have authentic conversations with me.
I think the PC train can be taken to a wholly ridiculous level, and too often is - just my opinion
I've got to go with Kimmie on this one (with the disclaimer that it's Paul's ballpark and we'll play by his rules or go home). How can you have any kind of productive conversation if you're constantly having to weigh and judge every little word for offense to the other person?
We in particular, who are supposedly trying to take back the word "fat" so that it's just a noun or adjective again, should be the -first- people to get this concept. "Retarded" means "slow." That's why it was originally used to describe the "mentally handicapped." They didn't learn as fast, didn't process as fast as "average." Just because there was a long time when every school boy's favorite past time was making fun of "the retarded kid" doesn't change the meaning of the word. Descriptive words don't have inherent value, we humans add it from past experience. I am fairly sure Kimmie has never made fun of someone with -any- kind of handicap, so I for one am not going to gasp and moan over her "politically incorrect" language because a descriptive word having so much value that it can stop a conversation in its tracks is laughable to me. Her intent wasn't to insult anyone. She used the word correctly. She didn't say "Does he think retarded people read his little articles or something?" which -would- have been over the line. She made the mistake of pointing out condescension and/or ego with a common politically incorrect slang phrase that contains a word that has come to be associated with pity and embarrassment so for some reason we "shouldn't use it" even for what the damn word means.
All that ranting aside, I disagree with her on the lack of a need for an online tutorial. I have absolutely no cooking imagination when it comes to desserts and if it wasn't for cook books and online how-tos I would probably still be making chocolate milk and calling it "dessert."
And on topic with the post... I must be bad at this whole FA thing... all I can work up is an eye roll that a "writer" resorted to such an over used cliche.
Honestly, I don't feel that this argument works very well in this case. We, as fat people, are trying to reclaim 'fat' as a neutral (even positive) signifier. But if I, as a more-or-less neurotypical person, use 'retarded' -- even in an attempt to reclaim it, which doesn't seem to be what's happening here -- I am unavoidably speaking from a position of (neurotypical) power, imposing a term on another group of people to whom I don't belong, which they may not feel comfortable claiming for themselves. (Reclaimation of the term could certainly happen, but by those to whom the label has traditionally been applied, I think. Otherwise, it's rather more akin to a non-fat person saying they choose to use 'obese' as a neutral description for fat people, and we fat people had all better be okay with that.)
I don't doubt that the person who left the original comment meant no malice or offence, of course -- that term is, unfortunately, still encountered in some forms of popular discourse. My criticism -- which could perhaps have been less snarky in tone -- was not in any way intended as criticism of her as a person. It's simply that I find it ironic that, in a post calling out someone (Doctorow) for his very casual use of language which we, as fat people, reject, we perpetuate the very same sort of practice by doing the same with language generally (to the best of my knowledge) deemed unacceptable by another identifiable group of people, and then try to defend doing so on the grounds that critiquing language and privilege prevents open discussion from occuring. I am, unfortunately, accustomed to encountering remarks like 'don't be so PC!' (or the variant, 'don't be so sensitive!') used as a silencing technique against those who call out other forms of prejudice--sexism, racism, fatphobia, and the like.
That's the thing, Kimmie never imposed a term on a group of people. If she had said, "I just wonder why this person thinks people are so completely (stupid, slow, ignorant, etc)," we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Even though what she said and what I just typed above means the -exact- -same- -thing-. Just like I pointed out in my last point that "Does he think retarded people read his little articles" would have been crossing a line because that -is- imposing a term on another group.
This isn't a blatantly offensive word that is used to indicate inferiority or otherness, like the 'N' word for example. The word has meaning and relevance in everyday usage outside of the negative connotations it's come to be associated with. Just like "fat" started out as just a word to describe a type of tissue in the body, and then an adjective for something or someone who had an abundance of that tissue. It's only decades of people being made fun of during their formative years for being fat, and mostly the recent ramp up of the obesity epi-panic, that has lead to the word having negative connotations. It's not like the word "obese" which only exists because the negative connotations of "fat" lead to the medical community deciding there was something wrong with fat and they had to have a medical sounding word for it. It's not like "overweight" which says right there in the word that there's some "normal" weight to be, when there's absolutely no proof.
I'm not saying it's wrong for the word to be a trigger, when used the way you're talking about. A group of people should absolutely not have a word applied to them not of their choosing. But before jumping someone about it, we should really make sure that's what they were doing first.
I agree with Morrighan on this. I do think people take offense way too easily at words. By the logic being used here, the expression "Don't be so blind" should never be used either. After all, it might offend the "seeing impaired" (and do those who can't see really want to be called "seeing impaired", or are they ok with blind? Because I really don't know anymore. I don't see anything wrong with blind, myself.)
But honestly, can you think of another phrase that is nearly as descriptive as "Don't be so blind"? Nothing gets across the point nearly so well.
So, is this another "forbidden" word? If so, our language begins to really lose something. And if not, then why is this so different from some of the others we have declared to be off limits?
The short truth of the matter is that anyone could be offended by anything.
I found Doctorow's falling into the trap of "fat = bad", "high calories = bad", "food = bad" to be offensive, as I did the use of the word "retarded." In my post prior to this one I used a word, "neutered", that could have been considered sexist. I removed it after I got an email from Kate Harding about it (I agreed with her point of view).
I've been wary of using the word "lame" since I was deemed ableist.
We can all disagree on this stuff, sure, and we probably should. There's a reason that we (collectively) call out people who use terms like "fattie" and "overweight." In light of everything else, I should admit that I don't want to devolve all of these discussions into semantic battles, nor do I want (nor like!) the idea that everything has to be censored, vetted, and filtered.
I guess the bottom line is, don't be a jerk about all of it. (No one here has been.) Think about your posts - give them consideration. That's all.