Essay 3 on Safetyism (Choice A) for 200 Points Due May 12
Read Derek Thompson’s “How Anxiety Became Content,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s “The Coddling of the American Mind," Pamela Paresky and Bradley Campbell's "Safetyism Isn't the Problem," and John Warner’s “Safetyism Was Never Real."
Then write a 1,200-word argumentative essay that addresses the claim that there is an ideology in our culture that is infecting society and young people in particular with the pathologies of “safetyism”--a sense of exaggerated trauma and prevalence inflation--and thereby causing the very things the adult world does not want to happen to their children: infantilization, mental decline, emotional fragility, paranoia, maladaptation, and a flagrant absence of qualities needed to survive and thrive in both career and meaningful relationships.
Building Block #1 for Safetyism Essay for 25 points
Two Paragraphs
Paragraph 1: Read Derek Thompson’s “How Anxiety Became Content" and Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Then read John Warner’s counterargument “Safetyism Was Never Real" and Pamela Paresky and Bradley Campbell's "Safetyism Isn't the Problem." Based on these readings, develop a one-paragraph definition of Safetyism. What is it? What are its distinguishing characteristics?
Paragraph 2: Write a thesis in which you argue if Safetyism is “a real thing” and should be a cause of concern or not. Be sure to give 3 or 4 reasons to explain your position. Those reasons will map your body paragraphs.
Building Block #2 for Safetyism Essay for 25 points
One Paragraph
Write a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph to strengthen the persuasive power of your argumentative claim.
***
Essay 3 Choice B on Consumer Body Shaming for 200 Points Due May 12
Comparing the documentaries Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion (HBO Max) and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch (Netflix), write an essay that addresses the claim that both documentaries expose the way young people are manipulated by a cult-like culture of toxicity, body shaming, racially-biased beauty standards, and exploitation.
Choice B Building Block #1 for Consumer Body Shaming: 2 Paragraphs
Paragraph 1: Summarize the documentaries Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch.
Paragraph 2: Write a thesis that addresses the following writing assignment: Comparing the documentaries Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch, write an essay that addresses the claim that both documentaries expose the way young people are manipulated by a cult-like culture of toxicity, body shaming, racially-biased beauty standards, and exploitation.
Choice B Building Block #2 for Consumer Body Shaming Essay for 25 points
Write a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph to strengthen the persuasive power of your argumentative claim.
Choice A Introduction: Safetyism
Definition of Safetyism
From an abstract:
This paper by Lucy Foulkes and Jack L. Andrews has been published by New Ideas in Psychology. The abstract says:
“In the past decade, there have been extensive efforts in the Western world to raise public awareness about mental health problems, with the goal of reducing or preventing these symptoms across the population. Despite these efforts, reported rates of mental health problems have increased in these countries over the same period. In this paper, we present the hypothesis that, paradoxically, awareness efforts are contributing to this reported increase in mental health problems. We term this the prevalence inflation hypothesis. First, we argue that mental health awareness efforts are leading to more accurate reporting of previously under-recognised symptoms, a beneficial outcome. Second, and more problematically, we propose that awareness efforts are leading some individuals to interpret and report milder forms of distress as mental health problems. We propose that this then leads some individuals to experience a genuine increase in symptoms, because labelling distress as a mental health problem can affect an individual’s self-concept and behaviour in a way that is ultimately self-fulfilling. For example, interpreting low levels of anxiety as symptomatic of an anxiety disorder might lead to behavioural avoidance, which can further exacerbate anxiety symptoms. We propose that the increase in reported symptoms then drives further awareness efforts: the two processes influence each other in a cyclical, intensifying manner. We end by suggesting ways to test this hypothesis and argue that future awareness efforts need to mitigate the issues we present …”
***
In other words (McMahon's words):
Freaking out and becoming paranoid about small, normal anxieties is an overreaction, which is more dangerous than the original false diagnosis. Furthermore, when we freak out and diagnose ourselves with a variety of afflictions, we pamper ourselves, avoid challenges, and become terrified of engaging with reality. As a result, we become weak, dependent on security blankets, and dysfunctional to engage with the real world. The results of our overreactions is that we ended up afflicting ourselves with the very dysfunctions we feared getting in the first place. We have become guilty of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As such, we are trapped in a negative doom loop.
***
***
Why do people diagnose themselves?
- Boredom
- Navel-gazing is fun when you're bored.
- It feels good to get "expert" advice for free.
- People are looking for a silver bullet to explain all their complex problems.
- Herd behavior: "Since everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"
- Too much time alone
- A lack of purpose in life causes idle people to fixate on unhealthy websites.
- Loneliness makes you anxious. When you're anxious, you cope by lingering on all sorts of self-obsessions, which make you the center of the universe on one hand and a nervous wreck on the other.
Five Takeaways from Derek Thompson's "How Anxiety Became Content"
- Social media needs traffic. To get traffic, fear is an effective algorithm. Therefore, by peddling fear in the form of exaggerated afflictions, social media personalities can reliably get our attention.
- Immersing our brains in the fever swamp of exaggerated anxieties makes us paranoid, withdrawn, and dysfunctional.
- Prevalence inflation ascribes pathologies from what is in actuality normal behavior: "I'm hangry." "I am in a post-pancake carbo-load coma." "I have post-coffee jitters."
- Broadcasting our supposed mental afflictions has become a status symbol because our affliction gives us license into the special world of "the oppressed." For example, "Oh my God, I can never find the shade of khaki pants I want at Banana Republic. I feel so traumatized."
- Traumatization creep. If everything is traumatic, then nothing is.
McMahon loves the topic and finds it hilarious, but he disagrees with the argument. Why?
Study Guide for “How Anxiety Became Content” by Derek Thompson
One. What is the big business of trauma?
The idea of trauma is big business, a blockbuster algorithm that generates lucrative social influencers. The more you can get your audience anxious and scared, the more you can get them glued to your context. Making your audience dysfunctional is your business model. You get them sick, and then you claim you have the cure. You are the ultimate social-media charlatan.
As we read:
Anxiety has become its own genre of popular content. Social-media feeds are crowded with therapy influencers who tell us to be more aware of our anxiety, our trauma, our distress. Instagram is full of anxious confessions and therapy-speak The TikTok hashtag #Trauma has more than 6 billion views. According to Listen Notes, a podcast search engine, more than 5,500 podcasts have the word trauma in their title. Celebrity media are awash with mental-health testimonials, and summaries of those testimonials, including “39 Celebrities Who Have Opened Up About Mental HealthLinks,” “What 22 Celebrities Have Said About Having DepressionLinks,” and “12 Times Famous Men Got Real About Mental Health.”
***
Two. What is Derek Thompson’s central argument?
Look at paragraph 2 in which we read:
But in the past few years, I’ve become more convinced that the way we commonly discuss mental-health issues, especially on the internet, isn’t helping us. Watching and listening to so much anxiety content, which transforms a medical diagnosis into a kind of popular media category, might be contributing to our national anxiety crisis.
***
Three. What is the danger of prevalence inflation?
Prevalence inflation is the tendency to “process normal problems of living as signs of a decline in mental health.”
If we tag normal problems as traumatic, then we tend to over protect ourselves from “trauma,” which is no trauma at all, and this becomes a first step in a form of self-debilitation called safetyism in which we retreat into a cocoon and atrophy both physically and intellectually as we disengage from the real world, we become fearful of challenges that would make us stronger, and we excuse ourselves from being accountable for life’s normal challenges.
Another harmful feature of prevalence inflation is that an exaggerated self-diagnosis, with no basis in fact, will actually make people more anxious, thereby creating a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yet another harmful effect of prevalence inflation is the blossoming of social media charlatans, fakes, and grifters, “therapy influencers” with no credentials who are making us hyper-aware of our supposed anxieties and traumas, compelling us to seek sanctuary is safe spaces where we marinate in the fear and trembling of safetyism.
Finally, prevalence inflation obliterates a reasonable and sane sense of proportion and creates an ironing-out effect. If everything is traumatic, then nothing is. We must be able to differentiate the trauma of physical violence and bigotry with the "trauma" with someone who found a fingernail in their fast-food burger and then made an outraged TikTok video about their "trauma."
Four. Why is having a supposed anxiety crisis or an anxiety affliction a potent status symbol?
For many who claim to be afflicted with anxiety, they are hiding in the paralysis of safetyism and with nothing to show for a life of timid hibernation, they desperately seek status as someone who is “mentally afflicted” and thereby worthy of attention and perhaps even counsel. As we read:
Darby Saxbe, a clinical psychologist at the University of Southern California and a mother to a high schooler, told me she has come to think that, for many young people, claiming an anxiety crisis or post-traumatic stress disorder has become like a status symbol. “I worry that for some people, it’s become an identity marker that makes people feel special and unique,” Saxbe said. “That’s a big problem because this modern idea that anxiety is an identity gives people a fixed mindset, telling them this is who they are and will be in the future.” On the contrary, she said, therapy works best when patients come into sessions believing that they can get better. That means believing that anxiety is treatable, modifiable, and malleable—all the things a fixed identity is not.
***
Five. What is catastrophic thinking and why is it so harmful?
The narcissistic desire to be special by claiming a nonexistent affliction leads to exaggerated emotional responses to events that don’t merit level-10 outrage. In the attention economy, you don't get eyeballs if you're mildly afflicted with something. You need to be full tilt or in the extreme. As we read:
This is just one way in which our society popularizes the language of therapy while eviscerating the substance of it. Another is through the arousing negativity contained in much viral media: indignation, anger, shame, “I’m literally shaking.” Something about the five-alarm fire of moral outrage burns efficiently across the prairie of the social web. But cognitive behavioral therapy, for example, encourages patients to avoid catastrophic thinking, to cool the fire of anger, to reconstruct their feelings and thoughts to be more patient with themselves and with others. The share of adults receiving mental-health treatment is surging but we have built an online ecosystem that thrives on the very principles that counselors implore us to reject.
***
Six. How does having a smartphone encourage catastrophic thinking?
When we own smartphones, we tend to live in the tiny world of the smartphone ecosystem. This miniscule environment hijacks our brains and consumes our thoughts. We can’t see beyond this tiny world so that we are more gullible to false and harmful messages. As we read:
When I asked Saxbe whether internet conversations about anxiety might be partly driving the anxiety crisis, she readily agreed. Marshall McLuhan’s observation that “the medium is the message” has been on her mind as she notes the way that social media takes people out of the physical world. “We all, and young people in particular, too often use our phones to withdraw and avoid,” she said. “So even if we’re getting insightful therapeutic content, we’re often getting it while we’re in bed and on our phones.” Of course, she acknowledged, some online conversations can feel cathartic and even help people put into words their inchoate feelings. But alone on couches and in beds, thin lines separate active reflection (which can be healthy), rumination (less healthy), and outright wallowing (not healthy). “It’s not so different from listening to sad songs when you’re sad,” she said. “Of course, I would tell a patient that it can be cathartic. But if it’s all you do to cope? That’s bad.”
More deeply, she added, the algorithmic architecture of social media isn’t doing us any favors. The “If you liked that, you might like this” organization of information on social media means that our engagement with certain kinds of content—politics, lifestyle, or mental health—can burrow us deeper into that genre. Rather than allow us to work through our negative feelings and move on, it can trap us in algorithmic whirlpools of outrage, doubt, and anger. (Anybody who has doomscrolled through a particularly gruesome news cycle can surely empathize.)
***
Seven. What is the solution to debilitating ourselves with exaggerated self-diagnoses of anxiety and depression?
Rather than getting paralyzed in the maze of fear and depression and reinforcing that maze by reading more and more about our “afflictions,” we should move forward, take action, and do activities that will take us out of our “brain hijack.” Living inside our heads the last thing we should be doing. As we read:
The solution begins with the principle of opposite action. Saxbe said the best thing we can do for ourselves when we’re anxious or depressed is to fight our instinct to avoid and ruminate, rather than get sucked into algorithmic wormholes of avoidance and rumination. The best thing one can do when they’re depressed is to reject the instinct to stay in bed basking in the glow of a phone, and to instead step outside, engage with a friend, or do something else that provides more opportunities for validation and reward. “I would tell people to do what’s uncomfortable, to run toward danger,” Saxbe said. “You are not your anxiety. You’re so much more.”
***
Essay 3 on Safetyism for 200 Points Due May 12
Read Derek Thompson’s “How Anxiety Became Content,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s “The Coddling of the American Mind," Pamela Paresky and Bradley Campbell's "Safetyism Isn't the Problem," and John Warner’s “Safetyism Was Never Real."
Then write a 1,200-word argumentative essay that addresses the claim that there is an ideology in our culture that is infecting society and young people in particular with the pathologies of “safetyism”--a sense of exaggerated trauma and prevalence inflation--and thereby causing the very things the adult world does not want to happen to their children: infantilization, mental decline, emotional fragility, paranoia, maladaptation, and a flagrant absence of qualities needed to survive and thrive in both career and meaningful relationships.
Building Block #1 for Safetyism Essay for 25 points
Two Paragraphs
Paragraph 1: Read Derek Thompson’s “How Anxiety Became Content" and Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Then read John Warner’s counterargument “Safetyism Was Never Real" and Pamela Paresky and Bradley Campbell's "Safetyism Isn't the Problem." Based on these readings, develop a one-paragraph definition of Safetyism. What is it? What are its distinguishing characteristics?
Paragraph 2: Write a thesis in which you argue if Safetyism is “a real thing” and should be a cause of concern or not. Be sure to give 3 or 4 reasons to explain your position. Those reasons will map your body paragraphs.
Building Block #2 for Safetyism Essay for 25 points
One Paragraph
Write a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph to strengthen the persuasive power of your argumentative claim.
Sample Outline:
Paragraph 1: Define Safetyism and its relationship to prevalence inflation.
Paragraph 2: Write your argument or your claim with 4 reasons.
Paragraphs 3-6: your body paragraphs that explain your reasons for supporting your argument
Paragraph 7: your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph
Paragraph 8: your conclusion, a brief and powerful restatement of your argument
Your last page: Works Cited in MLA format with a minimum of 4 sources
Sample Thesis Statements for Paragraph 2:
Sample #1
Derek Thompson has presented a persuasive and compelling case that Gen Z has succumbed to the afflictions of Safetyism and prevalence inflation by being beholden to charismatic social influencers, finding justifications for staying alone in their room to avoid the challenges of the real world, enjoying the status of their exaggerated and grandiose self-diagnoses, and becoming dysfunctional citizens whose afflictions validate their original paranoid fears thereby trapping these Gen Zers in a negative doom loop from which they cannot escape.
Sample #2
While I will concede Derek Thompson's point that some people spend too much on the Internet and go down a rabbit hole of false diagnoses, Thompson's thesis has several flaws that require thorough interrogation. First, it is absurd to accuse Gen Z of being fragile snowflakes going down the rabbit hole of Safetyism when in fact their helicopter parents have been the ones guilty of pampering and coddling their children into a state of emotional hysteria. Second, Thompson doesn't give us any evidence that this Safetyism phenomenon is a top-priority crisis rivaling other compelling crises like economic and political polarization, rising crime, and the exorbitant costs of college and housing. Third, his attempt to send the alarm about this thing he calls "Safetyism" is as paranoid as the very paranoia he so vociferously condemns. But what I find most offensive and objectionable about Thompson's critique of Gen-Z Safetism is his unbridled scapegoating of young people whose behaviors on the Internet are no more egregious than anyone else's. Berating the young when they are at a vulnerable state in their lives strikes me as morally dubious at best and indicates that Thompson should interrogate his own deleterious claims by presenting such an essay for public consumption.
Sample #3
I concede that Derek Thompson could tighten the screws around some of his arguments, but the excoriation of Thompson above hardly seems appropriate. We could all benefit from having a healthy skepticism of Safetyism and its unintended effects so that we may protect ourselves from the various maladies Thompson describes so clearly and cogently in his essay. As a whole, Thompson's essay is persuasive because he clearly defines Safetyism and prevalence inflation; he explains how the business model of performative anxiety works at the expense of the users; and he gives concrete solutions to prevent the malaise of Safetyism, thereby showing that Thompson has in interest in helping us sort through the rat's maze of paranoia and false diagnoses that so many social-media influencers dish out with no moral qualms. Thank you, Derek Thompson, for being there for all of us.
Sample #4
I find the above writer's effulgent praise of Derek Thompson to be shocking, misguided, and sycophantic. To ignore Thompson's ageist bias against the young is deplorable. To ignore Thompson's exaggerated diagnosis of a society prone to exaggerated self-diagnoses is hypocritical. To ignore Thompson's failure to see the real causes of Gen Z's anxieties: economic disparity, political polarization, and global warming is such an egregious oversight that this writer has no credibility and his praise of Thompson is as valuable as a heap of ashes.
***
***
***
Checklist of the Evils Evident in Brandy Hellville & the Cult of Flash Fashion
- The company steals designs from independent companies and shamelessly shows itself to be a parasite fashion company.
- The CEO is a doctrinaire racist who fills his secret social media chat group with photos of himself engaged in Hitler cosplay.
- The CEO shamelessly commits labor abuses.
- The CEO grooms his favorite employees by promoting them above the others and sending them to a secret New York apartment where they will be subject to the abuse of creepy old guys.
- The CEO flagrantly commits labor apartheid, putting the white girls in the front of the store and the girls of color in the stockrooms.
- The CEO brazenly exercises racist hiring practices.
- The company creates so much discarded clothing that trillions of tons of the discarded clothes land on Ghanaian shores where the clothes cause pollution to the land and sea and present carcinogens to the sea creatures and land mammals alike.
- The discarded clothing in Ghana creates a job market in which Ghanaian women are forced to carry over 150-pound clothing crates above their heads resulting in crushed spines, scoliosis, and other afflictions.
- The company uses social media algorithms to hijack young girls’ brains in a way that they are overcome with body dysmorphia.
- The company unapologetically promotes a white aesthetic that reflects the CEO’s racist tastes, views, and predilections.
- The company gaslights its customers by saying its small clothing sizes aren’t really small but “one size fits all” when in fact their tiny clothing is even too small for its anorexic sales girls.
- The CEO rigs a secret button by the cash registers so he can send a signal for the cashiers to take photos of female customers he takes a fancy to.
Essay 3 Choice B on Consumer Body Shaming for 200 Points Due May 12
Comparing the documentaries Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion (HBO Max) and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch (Netflix), write an essay that addresses the claim that both documentaries expose the way young people are manipulated by a cult-like culture of toxicity, body shaming, racially-biased beauty standards, and exploitation.
***
Comparing the documentaries Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion and White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch, write an essay that addresses the claim that both documentaries expose the way young people are manipulated by a cult-like culture of toxicity, body shaming, racially-biased beauty standards, and exploitation.
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Title: Unmasking the Cult of Exploitation: Analyzing "Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion" and "White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch"
Introduction:
"Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion" and "White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch" are two documentaries that offer profound insights into the pervasive manipulation of young people by the fashion industry. Both films expose the insidious nature of a culture characterized by toxicity, body shaming, racially-biased beauty standards, and exploitation. This essay will critically examine the narratives presented in these documentaries, highlighting the common themes that shed light on the cult-like dynamics at play.
Cult-Like Manipulation:
Central to both documentaries is the portrayal of the fashion industry as a realm governed by cult-like manipulation. "Brandy Hellville" delves into the fast fashion phenomenon, illustrating how brands capitalize on young consumers' insecurities and desires to perpetuate a cycle of consumption. Similarly, "White Hot" unveils Abercrombie & Fitch's calculated marketing strategies, which manipulated perceptions of beauty and belonging, particularly through racially-biased standards. In both cases, the documentaries reveal how these brands fostered a sense of belonging akin to a cult, exploiting vulnerable individuals for profit while perpetuating harmful stereotypes and unrealistic ideals.
Toxicity and Body Shaming:
Both documentaries confront the toxic culture of body shaming perpetuated by the fashion industry. "Brandy Hellville" exposes the detrimental effects of fast fashion on both the environment and individual self-esteem, highlighting how the relentless pursuit of trends fuels dissatisfaction and self-loathing. Likewise, "White Hot" reveals Abercrombie & Fitch's promotion of a narrow, racially-biased ideal of beauty, which not only alienated those who did not fit the mold but also perpetuated harmful stereotypes. Through poignant interviews and compelling narratives, both films underscore the damaging consequences of an industry that prioritizes profit over the well-being of its consumers, particularly those from marginalized communities.
Racially-Biased Beauty Standards:
An important aspect explored in both documentaries is the perpetuation of racially-biased beauty standards by the fashion industry. "Brandy Hellville" sheds light on the exploitation of workers in developing countries, many of whom are people of color, who endure harsh working conditions to produce clothing for Western markets. Similarly, "White Hot" exposes Abercrombie & Fitch's preference for hiring predominantly white, conventionally attractive models, which not only perpetuated harmful stereotypes but also marginalized individuals from diverse backgrounds. By interrogating these practices, both documentaries highlight the racial inequalities inherent in the fashion industry and the ways in which they intersect with broader systems of oppression.
Exploitation and Ethical Implications:
Moreover, both "Brandy Hellville" and "White Hot" confront the ethical implications of the fashion industry's exploitative practices. "Brandy Hellville" exposes the exploitation of garment workers, many of whom are women of color, who endure low wages and unsafe working conditions to meet the demands of Western consumers. Similarly, "White Hot" confronts Abercrombie & Fitch's history of discriminatory labor practices and racially-charged marketing campaigns, which perpetuated harmful stereotypes and marginalized individuals from marginalized communities. By foregrounding these issues, both documentaries challenge viewers to confront the human cost of their consumer choices and advocate for systemic change within the fashion industry.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals:
Critics may argue that the issues depicted in these documentaries are isolated incidents rather than systemic problems within the fashion industry. However, such a perspective fails to acknowledge the broader patterns of exploitation and manipulation that pervade the industry. Additionally, critics may contend that consumers have the power to effect change by supporting ethical brands. While individual choices can make a difference, they alone cannot address the systemic inequalities and injustices ingrained within the fashion industry. Ultimately, both "Brandy Hellville" and "White Hot" serve as potent reminders of the urgent need for systemic reform to combat the cult-like culture of exploitation and manipulation that ensnares young people within the fashion industry.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, "Brandy Hellville and the Cult of Fast Fashion" and "White Hot: The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch" offer compelling insights into the pervasive manipulation of young people by the fashion industry. Through their respective narratives, these documentaries expose the cult-like dynamics of toxicity, body shaming, racially-biased beauty standards, and exploitation that underpin the industry. By confronting these uncomfortable truths, viewers are challenged to reevaluate their relationship with consumer culture and advocate for systemic change to create a more equitable and inclusive fashion industry. As such, these documentaries stand as powerful indictments of an industry in desperate need of reform.
***
***
Do You Want to be a Brawler or a Peacemaker in Your Argumentative Tone?
In argumentation, we decide upon a rhetorical voice. We can be aggressive brawlers who take no prisoners in our argumentation or we can be peacemakers who try to arrive at a point of common understanding. One style is not better than the other. They are different, and both have good and bad points. The aggressive style can come off as being brash and arrogant, but it is very powerful writing when done well. The more polite style can show more decorum and show humility, but it may come across as being too tepid and boring.
Example of a Counterargument-Rebuttal That Is Aggressive and Forceful
Striving to eat a clean diet of whole foods, mostly plant-based, while eating 150 grams of protein a day and abstaining from sugar and alcohol is by no means a fool’s errand. Such a nutritional regimen could very well save one’s life. Opponents of my call for healthy eating are too focused on the folly and self-destruction of what I call Social Media Fad Dieters, those misguided souls who starve themselves, look for gimmicks and silver bullets and get hustled into buying supplements they don’t need, and gaining all their weight back after finding they cannot adhere to their crash course in weight loss. But these nay-sayers such as Harriet Brown make the fatal mistake of making the claim that just because 95% of aspiring dieters don’t do their due diligence and find a way to enjoy healthy eating that we should surrender a life of good health and happiness and resign ourselves to a life of slovenliness and gluttony. Harriet Brown and her ilk seem to be making the logical fallacy of Two Rights Make a Wrong: Since crash dieters are wrong in their approach and fail miserably, then it’s somehow okay to give up on a healthy approach to eating. Harriet Brown can give us several reasons for why diets fail, but she doesn’t give a hint at eating healthy. To be sure, I agree with her that unrealistic expectations and crash diets are bad, but there are joys, pleasures, and good health that we can enjoy when we can learn to eat clean whole foods rather than sob and feast on the pity party of learned helplessness.
Counterargument-Rebuttal with a Peacemaker Tone
I would like to first make it clear that I agree with my opponents such as Harriet Brown that fad dieting doesn’t work and that the diet industry makes profits by pounding us over the head with messages that we are never skinny enough. I would also like to make it clear that I agree with my opponents that losing weight and keeping it off permanently on any kind of diet is most likely futile and what could be called a “fool’s errand.” Where I’d like to differ with my opponents, though, is that I don’t think we should throw away the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. What is the baby? Healthy eating. And what is healthy eating? Consuming whole foods, 150 grams of protein a day, and abstaining from sugar and alcohol. Will such a regimen guarantee the kind of weight loss that will make us worthy of being Instagram models? Likely not. But will such a dietary regimen make us look and feel better? Indeed, it will, which is why I am not so mired in despair as my adversaries who seem so discouraged by the fad diets that they may have been over-eager to dismiss the healthy-eating diets as well.
***
Comments