Apparently Davis Aurini is capable of sometimes telling the truth.
As you may recall, the bald, semi-Nazi stain on humanity released his version of The Sarkeesian Effect (that was officially not his version of The Sarkeesian Effect) last week to something less than universal acclaim, with one critic describing the “film” as “worse than a dead squirrel in your wall.”
Ok, that was me.
Weirdly, it turns out that Aurini actually agrees with some of my criticisms. While still maintaining that his not-version of The Sarkeesian Effect is a “damn good film,” he admitted on a livestream last night that the section of his film critiquing Anita Sarkeesian’s alleged lies was “crap.”
He then suggested it would have been much better … if he’d actually watched Sarkeesian’s videos.
Yep. He spent a year — and tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money — ostensibly making a film about Sarkeesian. But somehow he never got around to watching any of her videos.
ETHICS!
You can hear the whole segment on “Bechtloff’s Saturday Night Livestream: Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour” on Youtube here. (The link should take you to the relevant portion of the livestrean, which starts just short of an hour and twenty minutes in.)
Here are the highlights.
In this first clip, Aurini responds to someone with a question about his attacks on Sarkeesian’s alleged dishonesty.
This clip ends a bit abruptly because Aurini was cut off by Bechtloff before finishing his sentence. Luckily, he went on to elaborate on his point. And threw in in a racial slur while he was at it, because why not?
And here he admits he didn’t bother to watch Sarkeesian’s videos.
It’s about ethics in making an entire film about someone without actually knowing anything about them.
EDITED TO ADD:
We Hunted the Mammoth has obtained this footage of Davis Aurini as a child.
H/T — Thanks to the alert reader who pointed me to the relevant section of the livestream.
@PI
Although there’s actually a much better case to be argued there than that taxation is theft. Rentiers are a net drag on the economy, and treating housing as an investment leads to problems like the housing bubble and the current rent crises in many American cities (if you’ve seen discussion of the Panama Papers, many people are now upset about this because it turns out some of the investors broke the law to get their money, and that’s somehow worse than the ways captialists accumulate wealth normally.)
@Guy
And they fight tooth and nail against any efforts at civic fiber and public wifi.
Nope; the economic value lost by not having sufficient and sufficiently accessible infrastructure puts them both at a net disadvantage in terms of overall quality of life than they would be otherwise. Being rich doesn’t do you any good unless 1)there’s cool stuff you can buy with your money and 2) it can get to you.
@Orion
There’s no practical difference, really.
@Axecalibur
You did:
When you’re talking about American capitalism, especially prior to the mid 20th century, laissez-faire is what you’re discussing. (And slaveholding, of course; can’t forget the slaveholding. Or the genocides and massive land theft)
No, it isn’t. The point anarconist is making is that the type of innovation that capitalism promotes is the type that allows capitalists to funnel more money into their own coffers, rather than the sort that improves life for the general public. Sometimes the two categories happen to overlap, but sometimes patients who were bled actually recovered; that doesn’t mean that the theory of humours is a good theory of medicine.
Also, the unstated, and unsupported, assumption in your example is that the incandescent light bulb would not have been invented, and nor would any equivalent artificial light source, in a non-capitalist economy. Why do you believe that?
Look, if you’re going to be an asshole about this, I may have to be too. I’d like you to step back and look at how fucking condescending and disingenous this sounds, and about whether that’s really what you meant. Think about it especially in the greater context, often discussed on this very board, of whose contributions tend to be valued and whose devalued in the current (and all prior) capitalist system. Then apologize.
http://i.imgur.com/QAt1ujp.jpg
Cease to believe in the lies about capitalism, jackass.
No, it’s like saying that the amount of food in your surroundings isn’t dependent on the current state of your metabolism.
@Jarnsaxa
This isn’t really a helpful frame.
@kupo
But shorn of the inferred moralizing about it, Jarnsaxa has a point; a variety of chronic diseases related to diet are strongly on the increase in the U.S. and have been for some while. This is, in no small part, due to the effects of capitalism on food production, and systemic flaws deliberately introduced to increase profits for large agricorps (I’ve posted more details about that elsewhere)
@dlouwe
Do you have some sort of explanation for this bit? I can’t get any further than recognizing these are words.
It’s charming for sure, it sounds like something a Gabby Hayes old-timey miner would say as they threw their hat on the ground.
That’s actually EXACTLY what I pictured when I read through that shit.
I don’t know much about US history, so I tried looking into the Andrew Jackson reference to try to make some sense of it. I’m going to take a guess and say he is referring to the “Tariff of Abominations” that passed under his presidency, which basically taxed imported British goods that were undercutting the goods being manufactured in the northern states, incentivising the southern states to purchase US-made goods, albeit at a higher price. It also meant that the British didn’t have as much money to buy cotton from the southern states. All of which led to South Carolina threatening to secede.
So I guess the point is that the Jackson government created taxes and it hurt the prosperous (slave based) “free market” southern economy, thus helping Andrew Jackson means supporting oppressive taxation? Though the hilarious thing is that it’s all pretty demonstrative of exactly how Galt’s ideal world would play out, because part of the solution with South Carolina’s threat to bypass the tariffs was threatening them with the military. However because the government has some interest in not straight-dicking its people all of the time, they also lowered the tariffs to a place that the southern states were more comfortable with. In the libertarian paradise there would be no such incentive – they could have just wielded the beat-stick and made no concessions.
edit: Well, apparently I pre-emptively looked this up for brooked! I think the “chicken beak pie” part is unrelated.
@Anarconist+Kale+anyone else, who I was dismissive to:
I’m sorry. I came off as disengenuously sniping at you. That was not my intent, but it’s still my failure. I have a habit of being unnecessarily flippant to people. Uncalled for. Words are hard, that just means I have to try harder
@Dali
I have a hard time remembering that far back, sorry. Yes, you’re right
To the rest, I think I’ll leave it here. I don’t wanna argue, if it’s gonna get heated (I didn’t help that, admittedly). Hopefully we can reconvene later with a series of funny reaction gifs at the expense of the next sexist du jour. And can’t be said enough, sorry
@dlouwe:
Ah, I see. I had thought that “Andrew Jackson” referred to the abhorrent barbarity of the Indian Removal Act. That, to me, would have been an insult.
I need to spend more time on the internet, it seems.
@Dalillama
Obesity is a made up problem used to control the masses by convincing them to spend money on the diet industry. The BMI is in no way, shape, or form a measure of anything remotely relevant to anything. The only obesity “problem” is the problem people have with how wide my ass is.
Look, I don’t disagree that there are huge problems with our food supply system and that those problems are likely responsible for an increase in health issues. But obesity is not one of those problems because it’s fucking made up. I happen to have an autoimmune disorder (not officially diagnosed because my doctor doesn’t seem to think it’s necessary to do so, but she gave her best guess) and that disorder is most definitely impacted by the foods I eat, and that has caused my domestic labor to drastically increase because of how many foods I get sick from eating and how that has caused me to need to make almost all of my food myself. It’s a nightmare. But attempting to address my obesity “problem” caused doctors to ignore my symptoms and give me advice that caused my actual illness to get worse.
In short, obesity is not a disease, it’s an excuse to shame in the name of health, and it’s bullshit to say otherwise.
@kupo
I’m applauding that.
@ kupo
I have a PhD in the field of gut microbiome research and its relation to obesity. So I spent several years of my life on a lie and my thesis and my peer-reviewed papers are lies too. Good to know.
@EJ (The Other One)
I feel it’s safe to assume that anything you would find legitimately insulting isn’t the thing that Galt would turn into an obscure coded insult. Though like I said that’s just my best guess – I have a hard enough time wrapping my head around libertarians even when giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming a perfect world.
Normally I’m someone who thinks being overweight isn’t in and of itself a direct threat to your health, but a few days ago my girlfriend told me that carrying just ten extra pounds of stomach fat can cause undue strain on your internal organs. She said she learned this in a college level class focused on nutrition, so her sources are either good or the class is faulty. And I err on the side of believing in academia.
I didn’t like that she also said that doctors aren’t just trying to call you fat when you go in for an appointment, that they are actually concerned for your health, because most doctors don’t take very many courses on nutrition. If there is evidence popping up that even a relatively small amount of extra belly fat is harmful, I find it still likely that a lot of doctors don’t know the actual reasoning and continue to function on bias. Especially when I hear all these stories of doctors ignoring all other health problems just so they can harp on about weight.
That said, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight. I am very lucky that my weight fluctuates within a ten pound range that is considered average for my height, and hasn’t dropped above or below it for the past ten years. A doctor hasn’t commented on my weight since I was a bony, underdeveloped preteen.
It does concern my girlfriend though, whose weight fluctuates a lot more. She has recently gained twenty pounds, and while I hardly notice it really bothers her. And while at first I said things like “you carry it well”, I’ve gotten really tongue tied because I don’t want to be dismissive of something that bothers her and has given her reason to be concerned for her health.
Has anyone else heard of this whole “ten pounds of belly fat will negatively impact your health” rule? I can’t help but feel skeptical, but I don’t know of the flaws in the claim. (I’m sorry that this is a little off topic. It just came up and it’s been on my mind.)
*stops playing with kitties, smells something delicious again*
Okay, THIS time I won’t be late!
*grabs forks, removes kitteh from the server rack*
*grabs a knife, removes kitteh from the server rack again*
*goes to get a napkin, returns, removes kitteh from top of the TV*
*gets a glass of soda, returns, removes kitteh from top of the TV*
Awwwwwwwwww!
*pokes at charred bones, gristle and opinions*
I gotta stop being distracted by kitties and games.
Lord Pabu,
Yes. However, having too little fat is more detrimental. Also, with the fact that individual body types are individual, knowing the ‘ideal’ amount of fat for any one person is darned near impossible.
The BMI is a lousy measure, regardless.
What she’d really need is a more advanced diagnostic to figure out exactly what the fat layers around her internal organs look like, which is ridiculously complicated.
The better rule of thumb is:
1) Can she do all of the physical activities she desires to do without feeling lightheaded/unreasonably out of breath?
2) Does she have a general feeling of tiredness, even with adequate sleep?
3) Does she ever feel her heartbeat become irregular?
If yes to 1 and no to 2 and 3, she’s probably doing pretty well.
If no to 1 and yes to 2 or 3, she might need a consult with a doc.
Also, a pretty good measure is just a simple set of vital signs: blood pressure, pulse, respirations.
Do a set while chilling, do a set after moderate activity.
In general, being on the lower end of ‘normal’ for all of those is a pretty decent indicator that your body is a happy body and your organs aren’t silently screaming at you.
Not a perfect indicator, because some people naturally run low for BP and thus a 110/80 is a huge red flag for them (whereas for most people 110/80 is pretty darned nice).
It may be technically true that additional fat tissue on your body can have an impact on your health, but until we address the completely fucked up views espoused by the diet industry it’s really not the right issue to focus on. I consider it dangerous and/or irresponsible to advocate “weight loss” as a way to improve health while we live in a culture that encourages incredibly harmful methods for losing weight.
Also, can I just give massive kudos to those who had time for this thread and did awesome things?
Special call out to two of you though:
Scildfreja wielded sweetness, reasonableness, and knowledge like a broadsword.
PI took no prisoners and managed to make the troll melt into a sea of hilariously ridiculous insults. Octopi on Drumsets are now my new favorite.
Sorry I missed most of the action.
@Kupo
I apologize; I was insufficiently specific. Calling the problem an ‘obesity epidemic’ is incorrect, and not a useful way to discuss the topic of diet and lifestyle* related diseases.
The true portion is that many of the food/lifestyle issues that lead to diabetes, hypertension, heart problems, etc. also often cause weight gain, and that the health issues in question (especially type 2 Diabetes) often cause sufferers to gain weight. Regardless of what ‘obesity’ means (it’s hard to get a useful definition of it) or whether it’s intriniscally unhealthy (for most of the actually used definitions, not really), the fact is that a)The average American bodyweight has dramatically increased in the last 40 years, b) the rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and other lifestyle* diseases has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. The second of these is a major problem. Both of these facts are related to poor urban design, wretched food systems, overwork, and chronic poverty.
Very technically, it’s just as useful as it always was for its original purpose: knowing what size people are, on average, is useful for people who are making seating, things that contain seating, clothes, etc. (Mind, nobody ever seems to actually use BMI figures for any of that, but would be useful if people did).
*And that word has been loaded too, but I can’t think of a better one. To clarify, I do not use it in a moralistic sense but a descriptive one. Americans today walk fewer places, for instance, and that has health implications. The reason is not because of any moral quality of the people in question, though, but because American cities, and especially suburbs, are designed in a fashion that makes it impractical to get anywhere without a car. (This, in turn, has a number of other effects which are bad to catastrophic; I will try to get around to a blog post about it soon.)
I read somewhere that 2 or 3 decades ago, the BMI categories were changed so that more people would fall into the overweight or obese categories. There was supposedly no research backing up the need to this, so it was likely to benefit the weight loss industry.
I don’t remember the source for this, so I don’t know if it’s true or a silly conspiracy theory. Has anyone else heard this? Maybe I’ll look it up when I get home.
Possible triggers for eating disorders ahead
It makes sense to me though. I’m 5’5″ and the normal range is supposed to be 115-150. When I was 16, I weighed right around 150. I was young, an athlete, and had little body fat anywhere besides my breasts and arms. I wore a size 6. But apparently I was dangerously close to unhealthily fat even though I was very healthy according to my doctor and according to how I felt. When I was at the worst point in my eating disorder, I got down to about 125. I was 10 lbs away from being underweight according to the BMI. I was eating 200 calories a day most days, anemic, and my face was starting to look sickly thin. But the BMI says I was healthy, so I guess I was!
As an adult, my probable set point (I no longer weigh myself because it is triggering, going off a best guess) where I am healthiest is probably in the high 160s, which would put me at an 8/10 pants size. This is apparently too fat though.
I just really don’t understand the scale. I would have to go back to disordered eating to be considered healthy by the medical establishment. It just makes no sense to me. I’m not the only one I know that would have to starve themselves to get down to a “healthy” weight either.
Ok time to put my serious hat on. (Y’all gone and done it now)
Even if weight directly correlated with health, and that’s a giant if. (Studies can be furnished upon request) We don’t know how to make people lose weight long term. The vast majority of people will gain it back (the number I heard was 95-98%) and of those that keep it off the number of pounds is usually under 20.
Serious hat off. As always studies furnished upon request and once I get to a computer. I started checking out the studies after the following conversation with my doctor.
Doctor: I want to see you eat less and exercise more to lose weight.
Me: I dance everyday for 20-30 minutes, do interval training 4 times a week and I don’t drive so I walk everywhere.
Doctor: you should eat less
Me: I eat 1600 calories a day
Doctor: well have you thought about going down to 1200?
Me: you do know I have to live with other people, right?
Edited to add: wwth, the health insurance companies pushed for that bmi change. Probably to raise rates or otherwise reject claims.
@Cleverforagirl
Yeah, my doctors always tell me to eat less and exercise more before ever asking me what my current calorie intake is or how much I exercise. At one point I was walking 5-8 miles a day and eating 1200-1600 calories to lose weight. And that was the only way I could lose weight. I’ve stopped torturing myself and am trying to learn how to understand what my body is telling me it needs because I’ve spent my life ignoring the fatigue, hunger, cravings, gut pain, gut discomfort, and every other clue my body gives me. It’s really, really hard to relearn that.
@kupo,
When I have a depressive episode I tend to stop eating. Just sub 1000 cal unless someone is around to go “hey, clever, lunch time,” because I’ll ignore my hunger, but no one else is allowed to go hungry if there’s something in the pantry and enough strength in my body to drag my behind to the kitchen. So I tend to rely on the Mr. to decide when it’s time to eat. (I have a history of some pretty disordered eating)
There’s this weird assumption that fat people (and depressed people) just sit around eating baby-flavored donuts all day.
This.
Since the population as a whole – and contrary to popular belief, not just in the US – is getting fatter as a group, common sense would say that this is caused primarily by environmental factors. It seems silly to think that all of a sudden, everyone decided to become lazy and gluttonous all at once. If the cause was all individual behavior, and weight loss was as simple as thermodynamics, everyone who eats a moderate number or calories and gets a moderate amount of exercise should be thin. Losing weight should be really easy. A matter of cutting down on desserts, cheese or beers a bit. A matter of walking, biking, and taking the stairs more. But it’s not.
However, it’s difficult and expensive to figure out what environmental factor/s are causing our collective weight gain and implement changes to the way food is produced, subsidized, and distributed. It’s easy as hell to tell fat people they need to put down the Cheetos and go for a run. So, that’s what the system opts for.
I’m not sure it’s every going to change either. Read any news article summarizing research that indicates something other than fat person = lazy, weak-willed glutton and the comments will be chock full of people insisting that the research is wrong because they just know that if all fat people ate less, they’d be thin. This narrative has been drilled into our heads for so long that it’s just taken for granted as true. It’s almost like a deeply held religious belief at this point.
@ WWTH
Exactly. Indeed, it is actually known for the most part what those factors are. They are, however, deeply entrenched in the current system, and have a number of major corporate interests on their side, which is what makes it so hard to fix any of them. Also racism. Because basically every horrible economic decision the U.S. has made has been made primarily because of racism ( I’m not even joking; I could go on for days about this.)
I know. It’s part of the cult of American individualism:Every thing that happens to you, good or bad, must reflect on your personal choices (mades in a vacuum) and thus your morality and intrinsic worth as a person. It’s incredibly pernicious, and it makes me see red every time I try to discuss it on most fora.
@Viscaria
antifeminists do have a problem overall in assuming that there is a unified feminism and that all feminists agree with each other on every issue and not getting that it’s not just simple sound bites
@contrapangloss: My gf does have excercise-induced asthma, as does her mom, but she can walk for long distances and works as a server. She’s also never complained about any heart issues and has less of a problem with fatigue than I do, so by all of those accounts she’s fine. (My fatigue comes from SAD, ADD, and my introvert tendency to turn my anxiety into exhaustion.)
@everyone: I did just do a little bit of reading concerning subcutaneous and visceral fat, and apparently it’s the latter that is a danger and she definitely just has a bit of the former. https://experiencelife.com/article/anatomy-of-a-potbelly/ Though I have known plenty of men with exactly the sort of potbelly that is a concern who have no problems getting around and getting things done, so while not ideal it’s not a death sentence.
I’m all for good health, but I agree with those of you who think it’s not helpful to harass people about weight when we have much larger health concerns as a society that we need to tackle, and many of those are what is making healthy weight loss so difficult in the first place. It really is a cart before the horse situation. But when I also have a lot of people around me who want very badly to lose weight I just want to make sure I can be tactful and informed. It’s not easy.
@LordPabu
What I’ll usually do if I know someone wants positive reinforcement from me is I’ll praise them for healthy behaviors (exercising more, staying hydrated, etc.) but not address the weight at all. That way I’m being supportive but not reinforcing weight myths or body shaming.