The recent push to try to re-frame obesity as healthy, fashionable and sexy seems particularly bizarre and unexplainable. It's the opposite of what happened with cigarettes, which started out as fashionable and healthy, then slowly became known as unhealthy and finally fell out of cultural fashion.
Fair enough. But then what do you suggest we do as an alternative to normalizing diabetes and obesity?
To your point - kinda - about losing weight. Changing behavior isn't any easier when there are too few environmental signals to nudge behavior in a more healthy direction. As humans, we are wired to assume the norm we see around us. How do we reverse the tide when abnormal (and unhealthy) has been normalized? When everywhere you look, there are people just like you?
I do agree. Mental health is important. But a component of that is (dealing with) adversity. I'm certainly not condoning repetitive malicious bullying, but the current climate has outlawed any/all references to traits connected with being unhealthy. At this point there are no social deterrents, are we really better off?
Have we robbed Peter to over-feed Paul?
Of course, obesity is a huge issue (especially in the U.S. compared to many other "developed" countries) that can affect people's lives negatively and causes further medical issues such as diabetes, and ultimately can prevent people from leading a life that is as fulfilling and meaningful as they would have liked.
But we are still dealing with people here, not rats in a laboratory experiment, and I think the issues that directly follow from being obese are already bad enough that it does not help to pile on more shame by treating those people as being "weak-willed" or something of the sort, or denying them basic human dignity and respect for being outside the sacred norm. Do we really have to add artificial negative consequences for being overweight? Does that help those people have a more fulfilling and meaningful life?
I don't think people will just forget the direct negative physical/social consequences of being overweight by not being reminded of them all the time in a moralistic tone (and even just reminding people of such information can be moralizing, depending on the context in which the information is provided).
We have many common diseases that are outright labeled “lifestyle disease”. And tabloids scream at you with headlines like “This one weird thing will dramatically [increase/decrease] your chances of getting Alzheimers”. Impolite subject? Sure, telling an individual that they should just lose weight is an asshole move since it won’t do any good, so in that sense it is uncouth. But as a general background noise that we are all supposed to accept? Oh, it’s not taboo at all.
It is of course completely irrational considering the toll that the actual disease would have on me, but I am in part afraid of getting something like T2 Diabetes just because of the social stigma of getting a Lifestyle Disease (sort of like a negative lifetime achievement award).
And as far as critique is concerned: I’ve been thinking lately that the term "lifestyle" can be misleading for about 30% of our lives. Because being "sedentary" is a lifestyle now, and many of us spend a whopping 50% of our waking, everyday lives being very sedentary in an office. (As for the non-waking time we seem to be stuck with sedentariness.) When I think of "lifestyle" I think of choices, but having a job is hardly a choice for most people. So if the powers that be really want to hold us 100% accountable for our own bad choices, then they should at least give us standing desks, those small walking treadmills, the opportunity to go outside and walk for longer phone calls and meetings, etc.
My point is, what's not sociopolitically allowed is discussing how personal choice as well as normalized systematic issues (e.g., urban food deserts) are killing us, slowly. It's unfashionable to suggest someone's weight is (ultimately) unhealthy. But the USA wants to have its cake and eat it too, literally. That's not working out. It's not sustainable.
Finally, not to get off topic but over the last couple of weeks there's been a thread or two on HN based on acticles suggesting the GDP and similar "classics" economic metrics are hiding underlying social issues. That is, for example, healthcare care contributes to the GDP (or whatever) but that healthcare is for diabetes, opioids, faltering mental health, etc. We're falling apart but not to worry the economy is doing just fine.
It's complicated. But to your point, the fact that some important topics are ofc limits isn't helping. Until that changes the status quo will continue.