Shhh! The Southern Provinces haven't figured it all out yet.

Won't they be surprised when we veto Trump's election!

Shhh, the title is just to lure people into feeling as silly as I did not to spot it!

Psst! Don't tell them this, but their system is far more socialist than it is not. Shhh!

Good thing she gave me the shhh signal. That way I knew my laughter wouldn't go back in time when she recorded the video and interrupt the dancing.

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

Shh shh shh shhh shhh shhh shhhhhhh

"Shhh, Timmy... Don't look inside... That's Old-Man-Smithyton. Ever since he replaced his living room wall with a giant pane of glass, he's been like a zombie there with a beer and no pants on."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Oh. Right. Move along then.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dag:
Mind your ad homs please. >> ^Yogi:
>> ^dag:
Shhh. You'll attract the Blankfist. >> ^DerHasisttot:
Some private firefighting company will quench the fire after the puppies sign the lease of the house over to the company.


That guy is such a fucking moron he should go live with all the other pigeon ghosts.


But Can't you tell I'm Insane!??!

>> ^dag:

Mind your ad homs please. >> ^Yogi:
>> ^dag:
Shhh. You'll attract the Blankfist. >> ^DerHasisttot:
Some private firefighting company will quench the fire after the puppies sign the lease of the house over to the company.


That guy is such a fucking moron he should go live with all the other pigeon ghosts.



But Can't you tell I'm Insane!??!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Mind your ad homs please. >> ^Yogi:

>> ^dag:
Shhh. You'll attract the Blankfist. >> ^DerHasisttot:
Some private firefighting company will quench the fire after the puppies sign the lease of the house over to the company.


That guy is such a fucking moron he should go live with all the other pigeon ghosts.

>> ^dag:

Shhh. You'll attract the Blankfist. >> ^DerHasisttot:
Some private firefighting company will quench the fire after the puppies sign the lease of the house over to the company.



That guy is such a fucking moron he should go live with all the other pigeon ghosts.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Shhh. You'll attract the Blankfist. >> ^DerHasisttot:

Some private firefighting company will quench the fire after the puppies sign the lease of the house over to the company.