She didn't see that coming!

What do you mean can’t reverse the consequences of? You can lose weight. The issue is untreated diabetes, yes, but how do you treat it? Lose weight for one.

Let’s examine this.
1. Person has a diet/lifestyle/genetics that would have resulted in diabetes regardless of weight (there are skinny diabetics. Strange but true.) the choices they made and genetics led to diabetes. Now:
1a: they recognize the issue and treat and manage their condition. They likely do not lose their eyesight.
1b. They don’t manage it. They lose their eyesight.
2. Person has diabetes that would not have occurred if they were a healthy weight. Now:
2a: they recognize the issue and treat and manage their condition. They likely do not lose their eyesight.
2b: They don’t manage it. They lose their eyesight.
We are already past the B scenario. Even if the diabetes was 100% preventable and treatable they are now blind. It cannot be reversed. They now have a choice, the same choice they had before. Get it under control or risk future loss. But there’s no sense in being a twat about it.

If someone loses their life savings investing in opening a company, why rub that in? They took a risk on something they wanted to do. They got burned. If someone is drunk and loses their phone why rub it in? Ultimately they must take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices. But that doesn’t mean they need to get shit for it. I’m pretty sure the punishment of loosing your eyesight is enough of a pain that you have suffered enough for not taking better care of yourself. It is self righteous and arbitrary to walk in to a bad situation and pile negativity on someone who is already suffering. The world is full of idiots of all types, you can’t make them smarter, you can try to help them improve themselves but only if they want to improve. If going blind isn’t a wake up call and she keeps going the way she is she will have enough horrible things to deal with without having people pile hate on her.

Sorry for making a fat joke
Or rather sorry you can't stand a fucking joke

I accept the apology and appreciate your thoughtfulness on the matter. I know it can take a lot of courage to say “sorry,” and I respect that you acknowledged a feeling of wrong doing. I certainly don’t want to invalidate your feelings, but as far as I am concerned an apology isn’t warranted. As Steven Colbert or many others may illustrate- a “joke” is not always just a joke. It is an odd coincidence when a topic is a current social issue and one just happens to choose that very subject to make a joke. As I point out, no part of reality or any joke about a person becoming blind from diabetes requires or is even enhanced by the inclusion of weight. That element isn’t likely there by coincidence. Jokes can be used to spread information and ideas just the same as anything else. But considering you didn’t make the joke or the post, I don’t think you have anything to apologize for @serosenpai. But still, mighty big of you to throw it out there.

so my question is...and I know you're either a affected by this comment or b sensitive about the comment . both of which are okay. it all goes hand in hand. if people are diagnosed with diabetes and don't take the actions to resolve the issue. some people will lose their eyesight regardless of whether they address the diabetes or not. would it make you upset if the person who lost their eyesight was making the joke? or are you upset because of another reason?

@robbouche- I’m not really upset, disappointed would be closer to the mark, but realistically I’m just observant and apply critical thought to most things around me. Your question is an interesting one. Say you have a friend of a different race who constantly makes jokes about their race and nationality, uses stereotypes, slurs. They are fine with you doing the same. But if you met another person of that nationality, would you introduce yourself with a slur or racial joke? What about your friend? If they meet another person of the same race for the first time, is it safe to greet them with a slur or racial comment? Not always no. Now- being not of their race, how can you tell them what should offend them? And is it possible that what doesn’t offend you does offend them? Some women wouldn’t mind being called “Jim’s Bitch,” and may call themselves that too. But does that mean another woman couldn’t be offended by the phrase: “Jim’s bitch,” or that they may not take offense if you were...

... walking through a crowded mall shouting “Where are you Jim’s Bitch?” So we can’t really say who does or does not have a right to be offended by what as much as we can acknowledge that some things are offensive to some people, and things we know are often considered offensive by a lot of people are things that we can assume will likely offend someone in a public forum. When that offense serves a purpose, it may be warranted. Sometimes the truth requires unpleasantness. My issue isn’t primarily with the idea of making fun of someone who is plus sized- although in itself that is certainly mean, it is with the fact that the inclusion of the fact is punitive. It does nothing at all. It isn’t constructive and it isn’t necessary for the joke. If the article is meant to warn of the potential consequences not of diabetes or being unhealthily overweight, the joke is counter to the message and is unnecessarily malicious. If the whole thing is a joke, then the punchline is better suited to...

... a different target for comedic effect. The only comedic level that inclusion of weight works on is to mock those who are plus sized- and life is already harder for the larger folks by nature of biology alone, so that’s not really necessary and excessive. As a joke it fails, it’s poor writing that is hinging upon being “edgy” and mocking someone for the sin of.... losing their eyesight to a disease? Being overweight? The two types of malicious humor that do best are where a specific entity has transgressed and as an attack one uses them in a joke, such as making fun of a politician for being corrupt or hypocritical, or the type where the condition or type of person being used is an integral instrument for a clever and novel mechanism of delivery but is not themselves the target of the joke, merely a device to bridge the set up and the punchline in a logical way. No part of the punchline: “can’t see the haters.... lost their eyesight...” requires or is greatly enhanced by the...

... inclusion of size. Model kinda works. People look at models and hate on models, but it’s sub optimal to all the other professions or topical entities one could attribute the sentiment “can’t see the haters” to. If you remove the plus size part the joke still functions the same, and if you remove plus sized model or just model it still functions the same. You could insert almost anything you want between the two clauses and it would still work. When you have a generic joke like that, what you choose to insert in the middle is deliberate, and in this case malicious. Many jokes were used during the Obama and trump administrations that were used for Clinton and bush jr, it’s common to recycle political jokes and just change the name because the purpose of the joke isn’t the name it is the idea, the name doesn’t matter, but the name you use tells much about intent because since the name isn’t defined in the joke, you make a deliberate choice who the target is.

Ok this is getting out of hand.

I mean...its his opinion he's entitled too it even if it is an overwhelming amount of information. I couldn't respond earlier because I was at work and I couldn't fully concentrate on what @guest_ was saying. the meme hit a nerve with him and just like some posts I've made he had something he wanted to say. I just didn't understand what he was saying until this last post which was why I wanted clarification.