Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Hey, remember what a jerk move it was considered when people made racial slurs against the president? Remember "Barack the Magic Negro" and other gross "jokes" that were out there? I am amazed at the constant, unrestrained blasts at Chris Christie's weight. It's been going on for years now, but so many people think it's just the funniest thing in the world. As with president Obama, go after his programs and ideas and political positions all you like. Those things can be debated and argued about. But going for the easy cheap shot personal attack is very weak and childish. Amazing how all the stereotypes about overweight people come out when people feel they are free to express their biases. I disagree with Christie on many things. But his weight is his business. So many people that would bristle at bullying and stand up for those getting picked on seem to be completely oblivious to it when the target is a political opponent.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Aren't you just a tad oversensitive about this because you, too, are overweight, Kar2oonman? Yes, Voice In My Head, that may be the case. But I don't think that's the whole story. I really don't like bullying. And the nasty snark about Christie's weight might also hurt others who are overweight. Trust me, as an overweight person myself, there's no slam or jeer or awful thing anyone else can come up with to humiliate me that I haven't probably said to myself at some point. I am sure Mr. Christie is the same in that regard. Every person on the planet is dealing with something in their life. They may look fantastic on the outside but be addicted to painkillers, or unable to stay out of abusive relationships, or a million other problems. Weight is the last safe stronghold for everyone's inner mean girl to come out. It's pretty okay for people to assume that fat people are weak, or dumb, or without ideas, or couldn't possibly be capable of creativity or innovation. Because they're fat, you see, slobs that don't have the brains to run marathons and eat only healthy foods. The jeering and scorn is GOOD for them, because it's a fantastic way to make them feel good about life and want to join the healthy thin crowd. Right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There are so many legitimate reasons to dislike Christie - chief among them the fact that he is himself a bully. So yeah, the bullying back is both wrong and ironic.
Originally Posted By ecdc Agree 100000000%. I'm incredibly uncomfortable at the snark and nastiness around his weight.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I agree that the fat shaming is wrong. It's wrong to attack someone for their body condition, be it a physical disability or missing teeth or obesity. But in this particular instance, it's tough to not attack Christie for it, because he throws his weight around, figuratively and literally, when he bullies and intimidates other people. Just watch the guy conduct a "town hall" meeting with constituents and reporters. When someone asks him a question that he doesn't want to answer, he verbally attacks that individual. And you can see the restraint the man is engaging in, to keep from physically advancing on that individual he obviously hates so much. They way he moves around during these events clearly shows how much he enjoys bloviating while occupying so much space. As others who've followed his career have noted, he didn't have this weight problem until he started moving up the government food chain, becoming more aggressive in the process. He wanted to throw his weight around via political power, and he managed to gain extra weight as he consolidated more of it. For me, fat shaming is attacking someone like Melissa McCarthy for being overweight. She's not a bully, she's a terrific actress, and a pure delight if you've ever seen her on talk shows (like the Daily Show a few weeks ago). Attacking someone like this for being fat is appallingly elitist and disgusting. But for Christie, there's nothing sweet about the guy. He's a lying sack of maniacal ego out for himself and only himself. His obesity is so inextricably linked to his bully persona, it's nearly impossible to separate the two when describing what a retched human being he is. It takes extra effort not to do it. And truthfully, I'm not sure it's worth the effort, in the long run. And before I forget... BRIDGEGATE BRIDGEGATE BRIDGEGATE 8^D
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>His obesity is so inextricably linked to his bully persona<< I don't think it is. I think it is an easy thing to go after. But behavior and policy are legitimate targets. Someone's physical appearance not so much. Imagine for a moment an overweight woman was running. Would it be fair to make cracks about her weight? It happens all the time, and to me, it just isn't right. We're in an era, thank goodness, where it's not okay to make racially charged comments, or disparage people with physical challenges, and not based on gender or sexual preference. I'm just saying it's time to move forward and include not mocking a person's weight is all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If Christie were as thin as a rail, would he have such a bullying type of personality?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think that the fat shaming has been terrible. And I'm a skinny guy... I would like to weigh more. Even when it isn't overt, there are all kinds of double-entendres that refer to Christie's size. One I remember is "Now that Christie is in, can anyone else fit in the GOP Clown Car? And yes... skinny folk can be just as big of bullies as anyone else.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And yes... skinny folk can be just as big of bullies as anyone else*** Absolutely. Bullies come in all shapes and sizes. Skinner, I have to say I disagree with you on this one. Sure, it's easy to make accusations of "intimidation" based on size and whatnot, but in the end I think you're just looking for ways to justify the attack you enjoy making. It's not just you, we *all* do it, but I think when it happens we need to really step back and think about whether or not we're really being sincere, or just looking for justification. I'm seeing a *lot* of that with my conservative friends lately, bending over backwards to insist the rebel flag is something it's not, and that they're not the least bit racist except for those uppity blacks who don't deserve all those handouts from the uppity negro in the white house, but skin color has NOTHING to do with it. And no, I'm not comparing your well-considered argument with their bullshit, BUT I do think it's just a little *too* well-considered, and I would suggest there is plenty of stuff to focus on with Christie while leaving his appearance completely out of the equation. That's my take on it, anyway. FWIW, I know very little about him but I DO think the guy has balls for standing up against the GOP establishment and daring to praise the president (during Sandy) when to do so was akin to political treason for any right winger. Very ballsey of him, and he earned a lot of respect from me for that. I don't know much more about his politics, and I'm sure I'd disagree with most of it, but it took guts to do what he did, and in such a spineless party guts is impressive indeed.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Seems to me that being in the political arena sort of opens one up to personal references regarding physical traits. I mean, look how Lincoln was ridiculed in the papers, as a tall, skinny baboon, among many other things. Or Churchill as a bulldog! Taft, Roosevelt, Nixon's ski jump nose! Are we gonna say that no one should make fun of politicians with ski jump noses anymore? Political cartoonists would go extinct, if they haven't already. Christie's weight is part of his public persona, and he most certainly throws it around. Condemning a person simply because they are overweight is wrong. But using physical traits, including weight, for political lampooning should be fair game, otherwise you have to run the full spectrum of what might be considered offensive.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The reason I asked my question is often a person's size informs their personality, often as kind of a defense mechanism. In Christie's case, a case could possibly be made that if he wasn't so obese, he might not be this type of bullying person or have such a characteristic imposed upon him. Fat people who aren't taken seriously or don't get their way often do once they resort to bullying. Their own self image is poor. If that's the case with Christie, tasteless or not, it might make that aspect of him fair game, along the lines of if he weighed less, maybe he wouldn't be like this. He'd be happier with himself. The other thing is simply how healthy is the guy, really. As mentioned countless times before, the reason many of us were turned off John McCain was because of his selection of Sarah Palin. McCain had already endured such physical trauma in his life being a POW and having cancer. He was 72-73 when he ran for President. McCain would have been one stroke or cancer recurrence away from not being President. No way on God's green earth did I want Palin that close to the White House. Same thing with Christie. Do we really want to put that much responsibility on someone whose health is put in question just to look at him? Cringeworthy or not, his weight is an issue. That it devolves into something some people find as cruel is something to consider when satirizing or parodying Bush's intelligence or being able to see Russia from your house. The argument can be made that some people can't help their weight any more than their IQ. But I would posit that if they want to be the leader of the free world, all aspects of the person that make up who they are become fair game.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Christie wasn't always obese, and in fact was a jock in high school. And I've read plenty of times in local media from people who knew him that he was a bully in high school too. Just a bullying jock.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Do we really want to put that much responsibility on someone whose health is put in question just to look at him? Cringeworthy or not, his weight is an issue.<< Health concerns are legitimate. I think there are plenty of ways to address that issue without resorting to ridicule. And I am not against ridicule. But I think it's better to ridicule based on behavior and policies. And Chris Christie has no shortage of those issues. Drawing him as a fat guy? Well, of course, that fits within the proper scope of caricature. If the "joke" of the cartoon is simply that he's a fat guy, well, that's pretty lazy and uninspired to me. Most cartoonists have figured out how to draw President Obama without resorting to antique racists caricatures. I don't know that most cartoonists would even consider not inserting a fat joke or two in every Chris Christie cartoon. It's a cheap easy shot.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The argument can be made that some people can't help their weight any more than their IQ.<< I always made it a point to call George W. Bush President Bush, not Dubya or any other thing, even when I came to disagree with him. I don't think he is stupid, I think he's a guy who has been able to breeze through life based on his connections and by delegating. That's kind of lazy, and a legitimate form of ridicule, especially when it results in tragedy. Sarah Palin isn't stupid because she lacks IQ, rather, she takes an odd pride in remaining uninformed. That's ignorant, and ignorance is a choice. That's perfectly legitimate fodder for ridicule. She follows the news cycle looking for quips and zingers, not information. FWIW, I was never a big fan of the whole "Caribou Barbie" line of attack either, even though I don't think I can recall a politician with whom I disagree with more than her on pretty much every single thing.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Sarah Palin isn't stupid because she lacks IQ, rather, she takes an odd pride in remaining uninformed. That's ignorant, and ignorance is a choice." I'd argue that choosing ignorance is stupid and indicates a lack of intelligence.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I think most of us are in agreement that Christie was and is a bully. That means he picks on people who he perceives to have physical, emotional, or performance issues. And you are saying his weight should be off limits? Is fat the new F-word? Sure, it's a cheap shot, but certainly not one he should be immune to, considering how he dishes it out. Take away the ability to critique public figures for physical traits, and pretty soon you end up losing the ability to critique at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think that follows. There's plenty to critique the guy for. But pretty much every political thing I could critique him for, I could also use to critique some skinny pol like Tom Cotton. And criticizing his bullying is also fine, of course. Health concerns are legit. And I'm even fine with ridicule as a tool of political critique, as long as it's ridicule of behavior or policies, as 2oony said. If Jon Stewart ridicules the latest Palin word salad or Colbert deflates some windbag's pomposity, I'm there. But "Hey, you're fat!" is not exactly cogent political analysis.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox It's a razor-thin edge to walk here. "Hey! You're fat!" is shaming. "Hey! You're a fat bully who enjoys throwing his weight around!" is not. That's the difference for me. His bullying is inextricably linked to his weight. I've also heard about him being a bully in high school when he was much thinner. And the weight gain happened over the course of his political career. The higher he rose up the government food chain, the fatter he became. And the worse the bullying behavior became. Trying not to comment on Christie's weight is like trying not to comment on Trump's hair. The man is a damned billionaire, fer cryin' out loud! He can afford hundreds of thousands for the most expensive hair transplants money can buy! So WTF is that thing on his head? No excuse for the dead blond rat residing on Trump's scalp. And no excuse for Christie throwing his weight around to bully folks he disagrees with.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Yeah, rich people and fat people deserved to be mocked if they don't agree with skinnerbox.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Trump and Christie deserved to be mocked for thrusting themselves into the celebrity limelight while lying to their constituents and the potential voters they're actively courting. Trump and Christie are not honorable men. And dishonorable individuals deserve every single ounce of derision and ridicule they receive. It has ZERO to do with "agreeing" with me. It has EVERYTHING to do with pushing falsehoods and lies onto the public expressly to enhance their personal gain.
