Archived Hams are trying to "reclaim" the word fat to use it to empower themselves (fatpeoplehate)
submitted ago by meanmonster211
Posted by: meanmonster211
Posting time: 5.3 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 1211
SCP: 27
27 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
~31 user(s) here now
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
Archived Hams are trying to "reclaim" the word fat to use it to empower themselves (fatpeoplehate)
submitted ago by meanmonster211
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] [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.
[–] 32DDbitches 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I second this. 'Fat' for singular. "Fats" for multiple.
[–] SeigneurdesEtrons ago (edited ago)
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.