If a Mississippi legislator were to get his way, such signs would move off of redneck bumpers and on to restaurant entrances. While unlikely to be enacted, the move reflects two themes that are prominent in post-modern America. First, it reflects the fact that bias based on weight or looks remains commonplace. Those who are heavy are often assumed to also be stupid and lazy, and those who hold such beliefs often feel unconstrained about expressing them. A society that is hypersensitive to the slightest expression of racial bigotry has little apparent problem with fat jokes.
Second, the move reflects the worst elements of a growing and coercive nanny state, where the government empowers itself not only to protect individuals from others, but also from themselves. Self-righteous arbiters of good living have moved from mandating no-smoking options to banning all smoking and are now involved in moves to ban foods of which they disapprove in cities like Chicago and New York. Coming next: Mandatory exercise sessions 5 times a week supervised by the government? There is certainly no reason to be confident that some hyper-skinny, bottled-water-swilling polyanna won’t demand it — for your own good, of course.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
This may seem petty, but I’d like to point out that this particular "Nanny State" measure has been introduced by a Republican, though clearly not one who is very into the whole "small-government" thing.
From what I have been able to tell, the nanny state is bipartisan. I never claimed anything partisan in this post, Claudia. The parties just sometimes differ in the sorts of things they seek to micromanage "for your own good".
admin: off-topic spam deleted
I’m glad you take that view, and I agree. I only mentioned it because the term "nanny-state" is much more often associated with Democrats than Republicans since, as I understand it, traditional conservative values are completely contrary to the nanny-state idea.
Truth be told, when I read the item, I thought it must have been a Democrat. It sounds like just the sort of thing that would occur to the über-leftists where I grew up.
The GOP ain’t what it used to be. There seems to be a bit of a tiff going on about that very thing right now…
I fully support the fat chick agenda.
In fact people look here. If Obama is really moderate he would be willing to accept no fat chicks and in return Republicans would accept no more transfats.
He then could make the case that Hillary is Fat and therefore cannot be president in a no fat chick society.
Honestly, Abri, it is not necessary to hijack every thread with your Obama obsession.
Jason mine was humor. And considering the post said no one not just Fat women I had to assume your post withe the FAT CHICKS heading was written as a snark and designed to impede not encourage serious debate.
The "Nanny" treatment is indeed bipartisan. The state movements to make gardasil a requirement for young girls, where schools have the right to make parental decisions concerning birth control decisions children without consulting parents, are just a few of those government knows best programs.