StrangeSox

If we want an example of the huge, gigantic influence that culture can have on our actions, look no further than what we did during WWII. People scrimped and saved and rationed as much as they could. They collected huge amounts of junk metal for recycling, linens, etc. Ultimately, yes, it's a bunch of individuals making some sort of a choice, but what choices you can make (forced rationing, limited supplies) and what choices you ultimately want to make are going to be influenced by what you see around you (everyone support the war!) This doesn't mean nobody's responsible for anything. It only means that judging for not making the same choices you made without recognizing what influenced and enabled you to make your choices and what influenced and enabled them to make their choices is unhelpful and ignorant at best.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 04:06 PM) Again, this is not imperialism or imposing the British monarch's desires on the people of India. I mean, come on...at some point you put the stakeholders in a room and try to help alleviate a problem. We are all stakeholders...no one is saying exclude those in poverty from the discussion. Would it be better if we all talked about how terrible it would be for those not in poverty to try and help rectify the situation than to actually attempt to do something about it? This just gets ridiculous after a point... "Cultural imperialism" doesn't mean actual state-sponsored imperialism and colonization, it means imposing your culture onto someone else's. It's a broad issue and I understand it a little better in regards to cross-country issues. I'd love to do something to help with the violence in Chicago. It's a tragedy. But if I was some wealthy guy and set up a foundation to implement a bunch of policies I'd thought would be great, it'd probably fail spectacularly. Because I don't know the people or the culture, the scope of the problems, how people interact and the connections that are formed, etc. That doesn't mean I could never learn, but I'd need a PhD in sociology before I'd be comfortable saying that I have solutions. And even then, I'd never have the lived experiences that the people actually in the community have. They'll always have a hell of a lot more knowledge and credibility than I would. So what could I do? I can find some organizations run in that way, from the bottom-up and from people actually in the community, and donate my time or money. People tend to resent outsiders coming in, telling them why they're failing/immoral/bad, and telling them that they know how to fix it. It actually can be a problem with liberalism, though not in the way ss2k5 tried to paint it, and it's why I wouldn't necessarily self-identify as a liberal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) All of these arguments so are irrelevant that I dont even know where to begin. You arent even arguing ease of access in the US versus different countries, you are arguing US v US, for some unknown reason. Secondly, its our physiology? What type of cop out is that. Its like saying if I get paid $100, Ill immediately spend it, so I should only get $20 because I cant control myself. This is actually a problem with escaping poverty that I've read about. You're so used to money coming into one hand and being handed over with the other that any extra money is quickly spent because you know it's going to be gone soon regardless. Even when someone's moved up into a middle-class life, they still have these tendencies. It's something they grew up with and learned and it's hard to un-learn what you did when you were young whatever your background is. If you're talking about our food culture and weight gain, it seems silly not to regard increased portion sizes and to regard what our brains want to do regardless of conscious thought. If you're served a 12oz steak instead of a 10oz steak, you're probably going to eat all 12oz. Or, at least, you'll have to make a conscious choice to stop eating, to overpower your unconscious desire to finish what's there because for generations we didn't know when the next meal would come. So you've got to overpower a natural tendency there. If you got the 10oz, you finish your plate and you're not any more hungry than if you had eaten the 12oz. It's not a "cop-out" to understand and recognize these factors. It's not making excuses because I really don't see it as a moral issue that needs to be excused. If, on the whole, portion sizes have been increasing, it only makes sense to look at that impact. Those portion sizes aren't increasing on their own in some organic, uncontrollable process but through a collection of decisions society/companies/individuals make. You need to consciously overrule your natural desire to stop eating what's on your plate (up to a point, obviously you can eat to the point where your subconscious says "this is enough.")

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) So Sqwert, should there be no responsibility whatsoever? Should we not use rational or sympathetic thought in trying to determine some of the causes of this? Are white or affluent people not allowed to try and help determine an appropriate solution because they lack perspective? At least cross-culturally, imposing outside solutions typically is doomed to failure. It's imperialist, and if you don't actually understand what you're trying to change, you're probably going to be ineffective at worst if not outright damaging.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) Which is why this makes no sense arguing about the US life expectancy rate. The US life expectancy rate is lower due to many reasons, but Im pretty sure "not having easy access to food" is not one of them. I agreed with this back on page 2! but this is the internet, when do things ever stay on topic past the first page?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) I don't get why there is such a disconnect in here. Everyone immediately goes to poverty and how poor people can't afford to eat healthy. Again, that's a completely incorrect statement. That's all I've been saying. Grabbing fast food is a cop out. Poverty can make it difficult to be healthy for multiple reasons, but you're right that this discussion isn't necessarily about poverty.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:47 PM) Those arent really true statements. If they sell 64 oz cokes, I can drink every 1 oz, I can drink 64 oz, so I can drink 7 oz if I want to. If they sell 7 oz cokes and I want to drink 64 oz, I can buy 10 7 oz cokes. Just because I bought 12 donuts, doesnt mean I have to eat 12 donuts as soon as I get home. So change it to "purchase" and the point stands. Or change it from size to a particular product offered. I can't choose to by a McRib because McDonalds isn't selling it right now. My choices are constrained, I do not have complete and total agency to choose whichever item in the world I desire. But as far as portions go, there's a psychological effect at play. Even if you'd have been perfectly satisfied with a 12oz drink, you're pretty damn likely to drink all 20oz if that's the standard size. It's just our physiology.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:47 PM) As I said, it's not. But based on the discussion you were using that as an example to show that people just don't have any choice in the matter, when the real choice is not having ANY soda at all. People aren't FORCED to buy a bigger soda. Otherwise I agree with your statement. Except that, again, I have said, very explicitly, the exact opposite thing many times throughout this thread. You've created this strawman entirely on your own and can't let it go. I said that choices are constrained by what's available. I used the sizes of sodas offered at fast food restaurants over time as an easy example because this was about food at one point. You can apply this to virtually anything; I can't choose something that I can't buy. If no grocery store around me carries a certain product, I'm pretty much SOL. I'm forced to choose from a smaller or different set of options. That's it. That's all I said. Yet for some reason this basic description of "things available for purchase" is too absurd of a concept and keeps getting straw-manned into "liberals think no one is responsible for anything! you're forced to buy 128oz sodas!"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) The inference through this whole thread (well except when a couple have flat out said it) has been that poor/non-white people aren't able to make the healthy lifestyle choices they need to make, even though those choices are out there, and a vast majority of them are obvious. The only deflection here is trying to deflect the idea that a lot of people in this thread think poor and non-white people need to have their choices limited or made for them. That is the entire theme of this thread. It is disgusting and racist. you really believe that, don't you?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) Because when you point out social factors you're blaming society, whether you intend to or not. You justify the behavior and/or indirectly excuse the behavior of poor people because they can't act any differently due to their upbringing. That's the import of your argument here. I wouldn't say I'm laying blame, period. However, it says nothing about intelligence, nor does it mean that poor people have zero agency. But nobody has total agency, privilege is a thing and where you start in life is a strong predictor of where you end. The difference is that I explicitly reject viewing peoples' outcomes in moral terms while you don't. You're only seeing the argument from your moral framework. Except that I've explicitly said the exact opposite of this. Directly to you. I can't drink a 64Oz McDonalds soda if they don't sell 64Oz sodas. I can't drink a 7Oz soda if they don't sell 7Oz sodas. I really, really don't understand why this was controversial at all.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) How do you know that I have had a privileged perspective? How do you know that people here haven't faced hardships growing up? How do you know I haven't walked in those shoes before? I dunno, usually someone who's talking about lazy, irresponsible poors who should think before knocking up a bunch of women if they can't find the time to be healthy now didn't come from poverty. That doesn't mean you've never faced your own problems, just that you might not know what it's like to face the struggles of poverty. Sharing what it was like for your grandfather or someone who isn't you to grow up in poverty can tell in interesting story, but that doesn't mean that you, personally, know what it's like to live in poverty in 2013 or any other time. Things are different than they used to be and the inequality gap is growing, not shrinking. But I think you've highlighted another aspect of privilege--coming from a successful family. If you come from a well-to-do family full of entrepeneurs, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for you to figure out how to start your own business right? Still going to be challenging, but you're going to start from a much better place than the kid who's entire neighborhood is blue-collar factory workers who are steadily losing their jobs to overseas plants. So how fair is it for you to judge that person for not reaching the same heights you did? What right do you have to judge them at all?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) I like to point it out when someone tries to play both sides of the racial codes. Nobody brought intelligence into this. Not having the same advantages as someone from a higher socioeconomic class has nothing to do with intelligence. Maybe you're projecting your own views of poverty in there, I don't know. But plenty of smart people are poor and plenty of dumb people are rich, and growing up in an impoverished household with a whole hell of a lot less resources than a suburban kid doesn't make you dumb. Nobody has said this, yet that's the same terrible deflection you and jenks attempt any time someone talks about privilege. You guys don't even understand it as a concept apparently.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) Well, I am sure I will get accused of harboring some horrible stereotypes with this anecdote too, but I was watching a show on Nat Geo about drug addicts in Las Vegas and they were showing the lives of some of these folks and the lengths they will go to score drugs. Many of them live in the sewers and in tunnels but spend $2500/mo on heroin. Many of them panhandle all day, and make $50-100 in 4-6 hours and then immediately go spend the money on crack. Many people in poverty are not necessarily there by chance, but they are there because they have some issue(s) which industrialized civilization is not particularly good at helping them overcome. Now in the past, these folks would probably have either not developed these issues (because they didn't have the luxury of developing them) or they died unnoticed. Now, because of social welfare, many of them can eek by for 30-60 years and they are noticed. But the point is, they find where to get drugs and they go to great lengths to get drugs because drugs are very important to them. However, quality nutrition, is not. So kick that back just one generation--what if the now-drug addict's parents were also drug addicts? How much of a chance did that kid have compared to you or I? How much easier was it for you or I to get by day-by-day and go to college than someone from that background? That's generational poverty, that's privilege. the food desert was one possible factor that was brought up that I posted an article casting doubt on myself. This conversation expanded beyond food deserts pages ago.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) Kinda sucks when we play that game with you, doesn't it? It kinda sucks when you guys make awful arguments and can't even consider having a discussion about or even acknowledge that existence of culture and privilege, yeah.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) And you are doing just the opposite. You are soooo afraid of being accused of doing what you are accusing me of doing that you are belittling them to the point of being sub-human and incapable of any rational thought whatsoever. No, I'm not. Recognizing your own privilege doesn't reduce the non-privileged to subhuman status. Recognizing that society actually has an impact on people and that your thoughts and ideas are impacted by your upbringing isn't calling anyone dumb.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) Right, I clearly made up the insertion of race and racial codewords into this thread No, you made up that bulls*** about someone saying that poor people or non-whites are too dumb for something or other. You and jenks love to trot out this horrible argument whenever someone points out social factors.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) And I am not allowed to have an opinion either, because I have no perspective of "the real world." You're absolutely allowed to have an opinion. Just try to examine your own opinions to see if they're coming from a privileged perspective, if there's some advantages you had and maybe didn't recognize that these other people you're judging don't, if you had more room for mistakes and set-backs, etc. Basically "walk a mile in someone's shoes" or at least, to the extent possible without actually living their experience, try to understand a mile in their shoes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:14 PM) Like non-white people aren't smart enough to figure out how to eat smart? Nobody has said this bulls***. I can't believe you guys are actually incapable of understanding the concepts of "culture" and "social pressures and influences."

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) Do you not realize there was a time in human history when stores did not exist? When people actually had to hunt and gather their food? That they had to grow their food? Good thing they didn't all just eat the poisonous plant that was close to their cave... They found ways to not have to do that and to make it a lot easier. If you make it difficult to walk to the store, few people will walk. I really don't get why you guys are having such a hard time accepting cultural and social factors that go into general health and fitness levels. I think you've actually hit on a really, really good point here. Worrying about your health 10, 20, 30 years from now is a luxury. It's a huge luxury most people haven't had throughout history and hundreds of millions if not billions still don't have. You're worried about surviving until tomorrow or until next week, worried about paying the bills due Friday and not those due at the end of the month. Planning for the future is a luxury for people who don't have to struggle so hard just to get by in the present.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:04 PM) Lol, well done. "well done" what? That's been my point since page 1. You guys read your own bulls*** into it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) It is a moral failing to be lazy and get fat as f*** and eat s*** food just because it tastes good and is easier. Only if being overweight is a moral failing, which I wouldn't agree that it is. I don't think I'm a morally better person because of my diet. edit: and weight is only a proxy for diet and activity levels, which is why it's problematic to encourage healthy diets and exercise by stigmatizing being fat. I'm skinny, but it isn't because I eat super-healthy foods and exercise like crazy, it's because I've got a high metabolism. A guy in my office who eats better and bikes constantly could be called 'husky' but he's in a hell of a lot better shape than I am.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:54 PM) Yeah, we could write tomes sympathetic to the plight of those in poverty. What you are reducing them to is a state of completely lack of any knowledge about how their bodies work, how they feel, how to get produce out of a grocery store instead of buying the Big Mac at McDonalds. You're basically equating them to being about as intelligent as some of the less intelligent animal species. They are in poverty. They are not unable to have basic thought. No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that judging them from your perspective far-removed from poverty is unfair because you're probably ignorant of what their lives are like.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:52 PM) Really, now that I think about it, the real cause of fatness is women and the suburbs. As soon as my white, affluent "slightly obese" ass got married and moved away from the city, the pounds started to pack on. Ugh. Women. Suburbs. Their fault, not mine. Suburban sprawl and the way neighborhoods/subdivisions are laid out is actually a factor that people look into. It's very practical to walk down the street to any number of stores in a lot of urban neighborhoods. For me, it'd be about a two mile walk through dumb twisting subdivision roads and then down a main throughway to get to the store. Sprawling strip malls mean maybe you hit up one or two stores, but then you get in and drive a block down to the other end of the gigantic parking lot. City planning can make things more difficult to walk/bike or not, and that's going to influence your choices!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) You're jumping all over the place. I can call someone lazy as an insult and still not think they are a bad person. My fatass sister is lazy - she eats like a slob and never works out. I don't think she's a bad person, though. yeah I wasn't clear there. Not a universally bad person, but accusing them of having some bad trait, making it about a moral failing.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) People keep claiming that its food deserts, some people have said food deserts might be an issue while also posting an article about research downplaying food deserts. somehow this has morphed into people saying that food deserts absolve all responsibility. it's weird.