[–] JStalin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
They're just using the word "empowerment" meaninglessly. The way they're always telling each other how "inspiring" they are, but are never inspired enough to do anything different. Empowerment is like inspiration. If you weren't "empowered/inspired" to do something more and something better, then you don't know what empower or inspire mean.
[–] Portable_Tits 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Fat people will do anything except work out in order to feel accepted. It is kind of fun watching it go down, they struggle and fight so hard from their keyboards, trying desperately to change the tide of popular opinion (scientifically backed mind you) via furious typing with cheeto dusted quarter rolls. Ah, what an amazing beast it is, completely devoid of basic understanding and common sense. In another million years, the civilization after us will be drilling for oil made up of compressed liquidized fatties from deep beneath the earths surface. Renders of what they used to look like will adorn their museums. Crazy theories will emerge as to how they functioned and survived. They may even coin the term "Survival of the fattest". Rest assured, their breed is not long for this world especially if hardships or global disasters rear their heads, god forbid.
[–] YouWantLiesWithThat 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Instead of calling them names just bring up cold hard facts about the ramifications of obesity. They can say what they want but they can't argue with science.
[–] Hannabis 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
They already ruined curvy.
Corpulent could be good or bad depending on how you look at it, most fatties are dumb and won't know what it means, so they'll either not know you're insulting them or you'll be able to open insult them without them knowing.
[–] meanmonster211 [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
True. I kinda think they will just be to stupid to realize it's an insult and to lazy to go look it up.
[–] FatJavalina 0 points 22 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago (edited ago)
To me the difference is they use fat as an adjective, which it is. But it's also a noun. They are fats. They are not humans: they are fats, and all they are is fat.
I find that still delivers sting efficiently because it's beyond dehumanizing, it's downright demammalizing. It takes away every attribute they have as a living thing beyond fat.
Edit to add: it's like calling them a chair. There's nothing endearing or intrinsically valuable about a chair except that they still manage to have more value than fats. A fat is worth less than a chair.
[–] SeigneurdesEtrons ago (edited ago)
A fat is worth less than a chair.
Well obvs. I'm sitting in a chair. I'd never...
ugh
But I appreciate your ability to so eloquently provide moral disambiguity. So, where exactly are fats in the moral totem pole of our existence as we currently stand? Are they superior to vermin or other disease vectors? Are they superior to inanimate objects which objectively could be deadly to thousands (e.g. unstable faultlines). Are they in any way superior to effluence, used tampons/toilet paper and medical waste products which we quarantine from ourselves with a biologically engrained knee-jerk revulsion?
I may go so far as they may be superior to the Ebola virus. MAYBE.
(And here I click Submit and fear that a Mod might ban me for fat sympathy because I think Ebola may be worse than fat people).
[–] FatJavalina ago (edited ago)
In this instance, I don't think that's fat sympathy, and here's why: something that could indiscriminately eradicate humans (weapons and human violence aside) is definitely worse than a fat. It means that many healthy, valuable humans would die as well: far more than would if we only had fats to worry about. If there was a virus that only targeted healthy people, it would be considerably worse than a fat because so many healthy would die while leaving so many fats alive and thus collapsing our species. Now, if there were a virus that only attacked excessively fatty tissue, it'd be worth so much more than fats because it would kill all of them while leaving us humans untouched.
The only reason the first two options are worse is because you value humans that much more than you do fats. If it weren't for harming humans, you absolutely would not care if a disease wiped out fats (which, in a way, is happening).
edit to add: I'd put them above illnesses and diseases that could harm the rest of us severely. They are below the vermin themselves, they are below weapons, they are below tampons and garbage until/if we find some use for them. I have knee-jerk revulsion to fats. They're sick. They're essentially diseased. If they were right with their guhnetik arguments, I would never let their genes mix with mine. As it is, I don't want their influence on my future children, so I still choose to not let them mix with me. They're set up to die in the wilderness. I'd want someone with advantage whether it's physical or mental or both. Hams absolutely lack both.
[–] 32DDbitches 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I second this. 'Fat' for singular. "Fats" for multiple.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] FatJavalina 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Touché, but my point was the human race would get on just fine without them. We also have ladders, logs, large rocks, the ground, beds, other people to help, stools, etc. We don't need chairs to survive. They're a luxury. Though, yeah, they're a lot more endearing than a fat.
[–] thenthingsgotworse 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
They're really just trying to copy the gay acceptance movement.
Reclaiming the word gay has worked out brilliantly for them.
Of course, being gay isn't a major health risk. Or hideous to look at. Or an atrocity to smell.