While the kind of Americans whose careers put them in front of cameras are rarely so mighty, from what I've seen of the real American population those photos look about average.
Like, if you're literally incapable of recognizing the difference between those photographs and, say, the folks on My 500 Pound Life or whatever "Learning" Channel drivel you watch, then maybe you ain't the one to be lecturing anyone about "constantly moving the goalposts".
Sorry that we don't all live in towns entirely populated by bulemic supermodels. It's frankly an indictment of you and numerous other commenters that y'all would look at these photos v. the fat people televised for entertainment and decide "yes, these are entirely indistinguishable and therefore warrant the exact same terminology and scorn".
Get a grip.
Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses?
> There's levels from fat to hambeast to "their movement influences tides".
And there's likewise levels from thin to fit to bulky to curvy to plump to fat.
> That doesn't make the first category acceptable.
And who, pray tell, are you to decide what is or is not "acceptable"?
I never said anything about the language you should use. I said "that is really fat though". This is all pure projection on your end.
> it's frankly an indictment of the US that people try to sweettalk this sort of behaviour with words like 'curvier' and 'plumper'
Your words, not mine.
Of course, it wouldn't be good for your dating life if you considered 50% of women 'obese' so it's good you've got more sensitive language.
Certainly not an athletic build, and a borderline-obese BMI, but well short of ball chair territory.