Big dogs, and watchdogs, or: diversity makes us strong.

Hits count for a lot on the old internetz, but brother, they don’t count for everything. There’s something to be said for remaining critical and objective, but it’s not a trench in which to hide your biases while you fire at others. You’d think there’d be a low-tolerance for Baloney in the Fatosphere — I mean, we’re constantly getting the line, “Diets don’t work, but ~+~lifestyle changes~+~ do!” but apparently not.

Hit counts expose you in good and bad ways. And we all flub — maybe we don’t think about a particular political sect’s potential protests to that which we link, and perhaps we’re thinking one thing when we link and someone else is thinking an entirely different thing when they read that to which we linked.

No one is perfect. Especially not those who attempt to rip down a monolith with one out-of-context swipe. Constantly trying to find the keystone, those who desire to fell the monolith probe and pull, probe and pull. Finding a loose stone, they yank feverishly and, most of the time, are left with a heavy stone crushing them to the ground, the monolith still standing soundly.

It takes a lot of energy, that kind of hate, that kind of focus. Energy better directed where it can do the best good — like myth-busting the fat-haters — than trying (badly, and largely in vain) to paint another fellow blogger in the movement to be some evil word (fill in the blank. This word was: racist. We know that’s a loaded one around here. )

Here are some good posts which deal with the aftermath of this most recent in(fought?) hullaballo:

1. Shocking revelations about the Fatosphere (by Lindsay)

2. The Fatosphere is not a Hive Mind (by goodbyemyboy)

3. In a World Gone Mad (by Limor)

and a response — with a neat recent real-world example! — to the *real* issue at hand, which is the fight between those in the Fatosphere who support universal healthcare, and those who do not.

4. Taking a step back and thinking about the real story (by Sandy)

Healthcare decisions will no longer be those for individuals and their personal healthcare providers to make. Workers found to have high BMIs, cholesterol levels, glucose levels, or blood pressures will be required to enroll into wellness programs with their integrated disease management, along with weight loss targeting those with BMIs ≥35, and be given one year to improve, or be penalized $25/month. Those who are thin and have approved numbers will be exempt.

Diets aren’t ~+~lifestyle choices~+~, and government dictation is not the common good. Capisce?*

* An’ that ain’t racist, cuz I’m Italian. And you know what? It wouldn’t be if I weren’t.


6 comments on “Big dogs, and watchdogs, or: diversity makes us strong.

  1. anniemcphee says:

    Very very awesome post. And I especially appreciate Limor’s post too. Wow.

    And by the way, I don’t care if you ARE Italian; I’m going to treat you the same as I do everyone else. Deal with it, sister. It’s kind of funny – at work and at home in my neighborhood and in church that works so damn well – I treat people the same no matter what their sex or skin color or religion and only want the same from them. We share food, and conversation, and listen to music together, and laugh and cry together…treating people as you wish to be treated, seems to go a long way. It seems so simple in real life to get along most of the time. But then I was supposed to have my computer turned OFF right now because I’m supposed to be finishing my first book. Which would put me right back in real life. I dunno, I caught sight of this abortive mess and it sucked me in.

    Ok back to the ur-viles and the demondim and the Ranyhyn of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. I’ll likely end up checking again tomorrow as it’s impossible to get away from the computer at WORK. Gah!

  2. If i read the bits about Alabama correctly, the policy is only being applied to people who are actually employed by the state. So if you live in Alabama and work for, say, a privately-owned IT company, this will not affect you.

    I could have misunderstood that bit, though. And i recognize it’s a totally nitpicky side note to what your post is really about.

    Fact is, we can sit and bicker and finger-point amongst ourselves, but uh… what exactly will that accomplish? Actively going out of our way to look for the bad in people is boring and tedious, but also incredibly detrimental. As you said, better to direct that energy to something that will actually do something good and worth-while.

  3. anniemcphee says:

    I don’t see any nitpicking. As far as finger-pointing, I guess so. But I didn’t start a shitstorm and neither did BL – it just happened. Either we’re allowed to actively disagree with other bloggers or we’re not – which would you prefer, Lindsay?

  4. Annie, the nitpicking i mentioned was merely that of my own. I did not see BL’s primary point as being about the Alabama situation, i saw it as a discussion about the recent events occurring in the fatosphere. So my saying that “the policy is only being applied to people who are actually employed by the state” was a nitpicky side note for two reasons: 1) is not relevant to the majority of the post, and 2) the number of people being affected by the Alabama policy being less than perhaps originally thought does not mean that the issue itself is of less importance.

    Rereading my comment from earlier, i realize that i had not entirely separated my brain from some of the other posts and comments i had read and responded to earlier today and yesterday from what was being discussed here. So my third paragraph may have seemed like it was tied to the first two, when in fact it was not intended to be. I apologize if that was misunderstood, and recognize that i may not have been entirely clear that i was moving on to a different aspect of the discussion.

    I do not believe that anyone here started a shitstorm, but it does feel that you are taking offense at things i have said recently, or are somehow upset by my words. If that is the case, i would like to address the issues so that any bad air can be cleared. If it is not the case, i will be glad to have misinterpreted the situation. 🙂

    We are most definitely allowed to disagree with other bloggers. I think some disagreement, provided there are valid reasons behind it*, can be vital to making progress, especially when it comes to ironing out some of the finer points of what one believes to be true about fat and fat acceptance. There have been plenty of times where i’ve disagreed with someone about something, discussed/debated the matter, and that discussion/debate helped me understand some of the finer aspects of what i believed.

    On occasions when people have come to my blog to disagree with what i’ve written there, i’ve found ways to make productive dialog occur, enabling the people who came there looking for a fight to take a breath, step back, and get a better idea of what it is that FA is really about. I actively welcome people who would otherwise be labeled as trolls, because it’s a chance for outreach, a chance for both sides to learn and recognize each others’ humanity.

    I do feel very strongly about is that disagreements should most definitely be tolerated (and not immediately labeled as trollish comments), and that the process of disagreeing should not result in assholish behaviour from either side. IOW: we don’t have to LIKE each other, but it might reflect well upon us as individuals and as a community to find it in ourselves to keep our disagreements respectful.

    * – invalid reasons would be along the lines of “disagreeing with someone because of who they are, not because of what they’re saying.” IOW, disagreeing for the sole purpose of being an ass. Disagreeing with someone because you hold a different viewpoint would be completely valid.

  5. anniemcphee says:

    No, I haven’t been offended or pissed about things you’ve said. For what it’s worth. 🙂 I didn’t mean to make it seem that way. It’s sometimes a little frustrating when I’m not sure what someone’s saying, but you, at least, are almost always willing to say what you mean(t), and of course I appreciate that. IMO it would be fairly petty to have been pissed at anything you’ve said, so far as I can see.

    It’s an interesting point, about objecting to who someone is instead of what they’ve said. Definitely something I try not to do…though I will admit to the flip-side. As in, someone who I’m really in awe of because I’ve been so impressed by what they’ve done and written – when that person ends up saying something I find abhorrent (and I’m not talking about SP here) I sometimes get really thrown, and then wonder if I might be wrong. In other words I give their words more weight than I would if it were coming from a stranger or someone who I didn’t think much of in the first place.

  6. Sorry for the delay in response, i got smacked with an unwell stick. Ooga.

    I definitely understand the way it feels to find out that someone you admire is, at times, less admirable that one might hope. It sucks, because it makes you question whether or not you had valid reason to admire them in the first place.

    I have more thoughts on the matter, but should probably wait until my brain is like, working and stuff.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s