Wednesday, July 27, 2016

j reacts to fat shaming as an anarchist social control mechanism

fwiw, i have no problem with fat shaming. in fact, i encourage it. again: i'm an anarchist, i'm not a christian progressive. fat shaming is an example of what anarchists refer to as informal social control mechanisms. it's what we promote as replacements for state institutions. and, there's a giant level of inherent statism in erecting all these things that require policing, but are really just a lot of bourgeois fantasies and nonsense upon stilts.

--

n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-o....

i think this whole idea of comparing categories is absurd to begin with, because i don't like putting people in categories. but, being gay and being black are similar in at least one way - it doesn't harm anybody. i think we can all agree that we can't really change our skin colour (without an extreme expense). can we change our orientation? i don't particularly care if we can or not. it's the question of harm that's important.

that's standard liberalism. but, the harm principle is also very important to anarchists. there's a big point of agreement there. if you're getting bogged down in the question of choice, you're exiting liberalism and aligning with....see, there's those christian progressives again. with homosexuality, though, the harm issue is at the center of academic liberalism. it's in some ways the actual defining issue - because it's so prominent in mill.

so, what about being fat? is that a choice? probably, but who cares. the important issue to me - both as an anarchist and as a liberal - is whether it produces harm. this is a complex point, but there are a few things to think about. food scarcity. is that really an issue? well, the issue has more to do with distribution - or at least it does here. my bigger concern is health care, which is in fact scarce. when you take poor care of yourself, you do consequently harm others by wasting resources that are being inefficiently distributed. it follows that society has a valid mandate to fat shame you.

the people that call themselves liberals nowadays want to talk about individual rights theory, while ignoring the more important questions of social harm. i don't pretend i'm a liberal to start with. i'm a socialist. it's obvious how this makes sense to me. but, "liberals" have lost the plot if they think we all have the right to waste resources for no good reason.

this kind of thinking isn't actually really christian, either. it's only christian on the most base, surface level. christianity was constructed in an economy where food scarcity was a real issue  - that's why gluttony is a sin.

it's more along the lines of what might be referred to as nihilism, this idea that we should just live in excess and tell everybody else to fuck off. it's utilitarianism, certainly - but basely so. satanism, perhaps, in the sense that it appeals to base, animal instincts. objectivism, in the sense of it upholding selfishness as a virtue.

but it's not a coherent liberal view (it causes social harm), a coherent socialist or anarchist view (it rejects distributive justice, if not in food then in health care) or even a coherent christian view (gluttony is sinful).

==

body temperature is 36-38 degrees celsius.

you're sweating at 25 degrees because you're unhealthy. i don't sweat at 25 degrees. i barely sweat at 30 degrees.

hypothermia sets in when your body goes below 35 degrees celsius. that's about 95 degrees farenheit.

we evolved in eastern africa, not siberia. we like it hot. if we're healthy...