They're Only Bees
October 19th, 2009

Fat People Of The World…Unite! Slowly…

This is a riff on a recent BBC article about the rights of fat people. It basically singled them out as different because they are fat, and also offered some very lax views on attacking people – especially people who didn’t suffer from ‘fat’. So I fixed it up a bit. Enjoy.

(original article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8314125.stm - obviously the bits I added were not endorsed by the BBC or by any of the people ‘quoted’. Even though it should be).

 

Overweight ’should be protected’

Attacking someone for being fat should be a crime, campaigners say. As opposed to just a regular crime. Because fat people are different. “It’s like cheating, where’s the skill? It’s not like they can run away” said Fred Jones, chief campaigner for pro-fat charity ‘Clogged Arteries’.

He neglected to mention exactly what type of person it was okay to attack.

They want so-called “fat-ism” to be made illegal on the same grounds as race, age, hair colour and religious discrimination.

A demonstration is being held in the drive-thru car-park of a McDonald’s restaurant near the offices of the mayor of London asking him to lead the way in making sure employers don’t laugh at the fatties. Literally tonnes of people have turned up to show their support (5 people, 4 tonnes). Others have ordered from Just-Eat.co.uk but send their wishes.

Protesters want the UK to follow San Francisco, the world-renowned comedy-law pioneer, where a law bans “fat-ism” in housing and employment and stops doctors pressing patients to slim down. They say that Doctors unwilling to dig through stone upon stone of unsightly flab in order to perform heart surgery is unacceptable. They did not mention if they have grievences against plastic surgeons, who presumably make a fucking killing off the insecure, lazy fatties.

Sondra Solway, a San Francisco lawyer, said: “The San Francisco ordinance says you may want to mention weight to the patient but if the patient says they do not want to talk about that then you are asked to respect those wishes.”

Size acceptance

In the UK, size is not a protected characteristic under discrimination legislation. This is largely assumed to be the case because it’s a ridiculous notion, and simply enables the fat to get fatter with even less of an impact on their conscience.

The campaigners, who belong to the Size Acceptance Movement (which is also noted for the most ironic use of the word ‘Movement’ since ‘Movement Cemetary’ in southern England), say surveys show 93% of employers would rather employ a thin person than a fat one even if they are equally qualified, because they wouldn’t want to stop telling fat jokes in the workplace.

These findings directly clash with other observations from almost everyone, who confirm that most offices actually contain several large fat people who sit about eating fudge all day, ruining the décor and hopping in the lift to travel one flight of stairs.

Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, said that in the UK fat people were stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked. She cites the popular baking mascot ‘Pop N Fresh’ as a big part of the problem, with regular people often reenacting the ‘Pop N Fresh’ actions on their large tummys, causing them to giggle and move against their will.

She said: “I have been *om nom nom* discriminated against – I am a YMCA qualified *om nom nom nom* fitness instructor, but I have gone for jobs and been laughed off the premises. Just because I resemble a large truck and carry a large hog roast everywhere I go, I do not think I deserve such *nom* treatment. The small cart I travel around on is environmentally friendly. *Om nom nom* My ‘exer-size’ fitness classes promote healthy living through eating as much as you can get your paws on, and also revolutionary methods of including a Segway into your daily routine”.

Another campaigner, Marsha Coupe, said: “I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train.

“They say ‘Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle!’”

Ms Szrodecki said: “This is a very common event – someone being beaten up should be a crime. “It is not about who you are or what you have done, it is just about the way you look.

“You are allowed to shame us just because of the way we look.”

These remarks come at a time when ‘people, in general, being beaten up’ is coming under scrutiny from police and the government. In fact, it’s almost outlawed in most US States and even some county’s of the UK, regardless of the person attacked. Except Glasgow, where the beating up of the English is encouraged.

Dr Ian Campbell of the charity Weight Concern said he was doubtful that legislation would have any immediate effect on the situation.

He said: “People who are very overweight do experience a lot of prejudice both in their social life and working life and do need some protection.

“We know that genetic and social reasons can lead to this very complex problem. Often, leading a charge to change the legislation is easier than going for a jog.

“For instance, people in inner cities are much more likely to be overweight because of poorer education, poorer housing and poorer job opportunities. This broad generalisation I have offered overlooks almost every imaginable bit of common sense and fact, but enables fat people to have an excuse for the sorry state of their bodies, which is the aim here.

“Not everyone has a free choice about controlling their weight. Except most people”.

As of yet, it is unclear if the fat people have realised that by asking to be treated as a ‘normal’ actually helps to point out their differences.

They don’t want to be attacked for being fat, where as ‘regular’ people would rather not be attacked at all.

One solution, offered by Bolivia’s leading medical mind (who has asked not to be named in such a ridiculous article), suggests organising ‘Moving Meetings’, where these fat people can come to voice their concerns, whilst walking around a park.

Their local MP can get on a bicycle and lead the fatties around laps of the football pitches, whilst taking their views on board and engaging in heated debate.

 

Discuss.

1 person likes this post.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Ping.fm

October 9th, 2009

Stop Being Fucking Offended

People are “offended” by so many ridiculous things these days, this might turn into a much longer post than I planned. I’m sure something else will come to my and make it even longer, so what I’ll do is split it up into a couple of posts, and get this written up over the next few days.

I’ll kick off with swearing, as it’s the least taboo. Here is a list of my favourite swear words; Fuck (obviously, it’s so versatile), cunt (it’s a pretty good insult, obviously not when taken literally, but when said in a cockney accent its brilliant), bollocks (if you mess something up, you need to say bollocks to begin the path to recovery). There are more, but these are my favourites.

There is no reason what-so-ever that one particular word would be any worse than another. A word being a swear word is so arbitrary, that literally any word could be included. There are many reasons that swear words would or could be used, more often than not they are added into a sentence for emphasis or as a replacement for another word which might not be considered swearing.
For example, “You fucking idiot”, if you’re annoyed at someone you might wish to express that annoyance, adding the swear word conveys that fairly well. Another example would be “I feel shit”, now we all know he doesn’t mean he feels like faeces, yet we understand he doesn’t feel his best. In both of these examples the swear words could easily have been replaced with other things; “You blithering idiot” and “I feel bad”. What makes the words “blithering” and “bad” so much better words?
Any word in the world can be used as a swear word, and singling out some words because at some point someone didn’t like them, is ridiculous. If I was to start a tirade about how much I hate someone, using words like “bonehead” and “cretin” I could still get it into a PG12 film, as opposed to if I called him a “twat” or a “bastard”. Why is this? I’ve still verbally abused someone, and surely that’s where the problem lies.

The only problem I can conceivably  see with swearing, is laziness. Instead of wording your gripes eloquently, you resort to interchangeable phrases with little real meaning. If this is the case, what is the point of censorship? Ever seen something written as “tw*t” or “f**k” before? Hell, even comics that kids read do it with a couple from the top row “#’!$%”. Not only do we still know exactly what the word says (except in the case of the comics, when a little guess work might be required), but it’s the same laziness as before. There’s nothing specific about the chosen word, not that deciding to call someone someone a “nincompoop” actually means anything.
Are we that stupid that hiding part of something automatically absolves it from any wrong doing? There are so many reasons why that is not the case, that it’s not even worth going into.

If someone cares that you said a word that they don’t like, then surely it’s their problem because they chose not to like the word. If I had a problem with the colour red, I wouldn’t be within my rights to complain if I saw anything red. Get out there and bastard swear if you want. Who fucking cares?

4 people like this post.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Ping.fm

by Mick | Posted in Misc | 1 Comment » | Tags: , , ,













Powered by Wordpress using the theme bbv1