#it's not a moral failing

[tedkaczynskiofficial]

I feel like something that should be mentioned here (because I think this is where a lot of people struggle with the idea that exercise ≠ weight loss) is that, of course, calories in calories out is just physics. When people say something like dieting or exercise are not effective weight loss strategies, they don't mean that people's bodies break the laws of physics; they mean those treatment strategies aren't maintainable or have underlying confounding mechanisms, and that's not the fault of the patient. That could mean anything from exercising being unenjoyable and therefore not maintained over time to hormonal changes that make weight loss more difficult with one strategy compared to others. Again, neither of those things are the fault of the patient, and clinicians and researchers should be aiming to create sustainable treatment plans for all conditions.*

I don't know if you've addressed this somewhere in the notes already (apologies if you have! Same for the main point of my reblog. I feel like the idea was lightly conveyed, but I wanted to explicitly lay it out for people not reading close enough), but I do think it's relevant to also point out that the T2 diabetes article says that exercise patients have decreased adipose tissue weight that was offset by muscle gain. Usually, that's what people care about in weight loss, especially visceral adipose tissue from a health standpoint, so I'm not certain that particular article strongly supports your argument. I get that the aesthetic results of deceased visceral fat don't necessarily translate to conventional aesthetic aspirations, but I'm not really certain that that specific article supports the thesis that exercise isn't good for weight loss very well since the goal isn't usually strictly about numbers on the scale- for the patient or the clinician. That said, I do think T2 diabetics are a uniquely motivated group to adhere to exercise regimens (or any regimen) both due to the fact that they have to manage their diet and the awful societal shaming they get for what people view as a self-inflicted condition. TL;DR: I don't think the T2 diabetes article supports your argument well, but I also don't think it's particularly detrimental to it.

*I'm going to add as an addendum that being overweight isn't always an issue; extra weight can cause problems for some people, so we do need safe, effective weight loss strategies, but that's not the case for everyone. Regardless, if a patient doesn't view it as an issue, then the clinician needs to shut up about it unless it's immediately relevant to whatever is currently at hand (e.g. the patient needs surgery and being overweight actually increases their risk of complications), and even then the patient should still be allowed to make their own informed decisions about their health.

Me: Exercise does not cause weight loss. This is a fact that has been demonstrated so robustly in research that even doctors, who hate and fear evidence, are grudgingly starting to admit this.

Someone reading that post: Cool, but have you considered that exercise leads to weight loss?

Me: I am going to eat you

[carlyraejepsans]

people when toriel isn't the Perfect Mother Gentle Character Who Knows Exactly What Her Teenager Is Feeling and makes mistakes

toriel when she's a single mother who spends the entire day participating in her town's community life getting harassed by her ex or pushed to get back with him by her peers and ends up hanging out with the one guy treating her normally in their entire town, so she ditches church to spend some time with him and gets drunk for the first time in (likely) years

it's sad!! the end of chapter 4 is a really fucking sad scene, hilarious as it may be, because we know for a fact toriel's had to be the bigger person in her and asgore's rapport ever since they separated. as a character in hometown she's implicated in this extremely tangled web of social relations and painful drama going back years, that she needs something like this in her life. in a way, as the new guy in town completely unattached to its past, sans is a bit of a susie of her own. she needs this.

...and kris really, really doesn't.

[bixels]

tarpit site.

[frodo-a-gogo]

Let us be brutally honest with ourselves and with eachother for a moment. If he weren't obese you motherfuckers would be capable of percieving evrart claires sexy sexy moral ambiguity and complex charms

[sam-not-samwise]

People who purposefully skinny/twink-ify Samwise Gamgee are my mortal enemies.

He is canonically fat!!! And that is not a bad thing!!!! He is cool and kind and a badass and loving and he is loved and he does this all AND IS ALSO FAT

[fascinationstreetmp3]

i need daniel to be overcompensating for his insecurities so bad. 100 times more cocky and rude and aggressive and insensitive than he was as a human, falling back into old dangerous habits and vices, not just because now he has new energy and power and wealth to flaunt but because it's ALL he has, and he needs to cling onto it. play it up and revel in it so no one sees that underneath, he feels like a botched fledgling in the body of a sick, faded old man who maybe has no real idea why he was even made. that armand might think he failed in making him. that his maker didn't even really want him.

[bloodybellycomb]

"Red white and royal blue is too cringy" "heartstopper is too unrealistic" yeah maybe but so is every single other rom com under the sun. Why does queer media always need to be realistic and profound while straight stories get more freedom to be silly and fantastical?

[darkcademiasss]

When its 3am but the grumpy morally grey character had a 'oh, oh' moment as they stare at the sunshine character all while trying not to have a panic attack.

[majorpepperidge]

Watch out Albrecht, the animals you experimented with and subsequently traumatized have opposable thumbs now

[thepeacefulgarden]

[nocek]

it's meant as a first panel in comic but you know what, with amount of work (to figure out how to do "special effects" on Hobie and Margo as efficiently as possible) I poured into it it deserves separate post ;P

oh and if somebody is interested sketch version is here actually I'm quite proud it only took 4 days to finish, felt much longer >.<

[orangepajamas]

Kim got like 2 points in Physical Touch

[cheerioskid]

the siblings

[the-meme-monarch]

"if shermie is the baby in A Tale Of Two Stans then according to The Rest of the timeline he would've been a teen parent, and then dipper and mabel's parents would've been also, which would be kinda fucked up" I mean yeah alright. my mom had my brother when she was 17 and his dad was 16. I'm not saying it's a Great or even a particularly good thing but it does happen. the pines family is already so fucked up let's just add teen pregnancies to the mix. dipper and mabel's parents are getting divorced like canonically. their divorce is what kicks off the show

[glitter-stained]

Ngl it really peeves me when the debate about Jason's ethics regarding killing in the batfam mixes up the question of him being a moral character in regards to sticking to his own philosophy (aka compromising with what he thinks is right to salvage relationships, but also exploding trains to evade capture, killing random goons in a gang war, etc) and the question of him being a moral character in regards to whether his philosophy is right. And even with regards to his philosophy there is his philosophy on politics, crime control and harm reduction, and his ethical philosophy itself (utilitarianism, aka focusing on intended positive consequences of actions for the greater good rather than the action being fundamentally moral or immoral in itself). Those are different things. Those require different debates and should not be conflated together. I'm not even saying Jason is right! I think utilitarianism and deontology both suck and fail at providing sufficient guidelines for moral behaviour. ("Everybody still loses" like the nihilist clown says. The symbolism of that one scene is pretty cool on that regard.)

And I think some people at dc would very much like for you to make the connection that because Jason is harming civilians/killing unnamed goons, he is a bad person, and as such you don't need to examine the way his stance on moral philosophy (utilitarianism) opposes Batman's. But that's not right, they don't get to wiggle out of the fact that utilitarianism vs deontology is a complicated debate that has been going on for ages, that there is no clear-cut answer where Batman fundamentally comes out on top, they don't get to use the fact that Jason (in the era currently discussed) is a villain to saddle us with a false dichotomy of "well jason is wrong about stuff so batman has to be right" to avoid addressing the actual question. The traits of the people being tied on the tracks do not change the shape of the trolley problem. The traits of the person deciding to pull the lever do not change the shape of the trolley problem. It's still one lever, three people tied on one track, one on the other, do you pull the lever. That's it. Yes, bending the metaphor to address other questions (such as "who keeps tying people to the tracks" to question systemic violence or "how does my bias, my prejudice and empathy impact my decision to pull the lever depending on who is on the tracks") are interesting but that's not what the debate is about. If I wrote an essay about the trolley problem in high school and focused primarily on the nature of the people being tied on the tracks, I'd get a big fat zero with "off-topic" written in red all over my essay, so I'm not inclined to allow DC comics to get away with it.

[iamnmbr3]

i think it's interesting that the harry potter series holds up the weasleys as the 'poster child' poor family but given that they are supporting 9 people on Arthur's single salary they aren't doing THAT badly. Yes there's a lot of stuff they can't afford and they have to be careful with their budget but they still seem to live in relative comfort, especially given the large size of their family - there's always enough food on the table, almost all the family members seem to have their own room without having to share, they don't worry about losing their home, the kids don't feel pressured to work during summers to earn enough money so their family can get by, the house is in relatively good condition etc.

this is not to say that you cannot be poor and also have basic comforts or that someone cannot suffer from financial hardship even if they aren't literally starving on the street. but it's striking because of how much more sympathetically the narrative frames the weasleys' poverty than it does the poverty experienced by snape or tom riddle or the gaunts. all these characters are not 'good victims' and do not cope as gracefully with their circumstances without complaining or showing visible signs of it in ways that might make make people uncomfortable. and idk. it's weird and I'm not sure I like it.