My Southwest Airlines post earlier this week concerning passengers of size triggered some interesting reactions so I want to take a moment to discuss the matter further, with a focus on what empathy and compassion actually look like.
How Should We Characterize Passenger Of Size Policy On Southwest Airlines?
I appreciated that my colleague Ben from One Mile At A Time strongly disagreed with my assessment of Southwest’s policy toward passengers of size (up to two extra seats for free). He is a friend that I greatly respect with a blog I consider best in the business, so when he speaks, I do listen and take seriously his point of view.
He reasons that I “disappointingly” suggest that Southwest Airlines is “glamorizing” obesity by allowing passengers of size to reserve a second or even third seat for free, even if the flight is full. Ben argues that the Southwest policy is better described as humane and that society has instead glamorized “being so skinny that it’s unhealthy, and that creates an incredible number of issues for young people.”
He further disagrees with my assessment of social media posts that help people obtain those second or third seats for free when flying on Southwest. He finds them helpful while I find them representative of a cultural wave that sees no problem with obesity and even glamorizes it, hence my title.
Instead, I see someone who is encouraging others to be comfortable in their own skin, and live life to the best of their ability. Should they try to live a healthier lifestyle if they can? Absolutely. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Fortunately, one of the positive aspects of the internet is that people can connect with others who are like them, and feel like they have a community and aren’t outsiders. As someone who is gay, I can certainly say that I felt like I didn’t fit in “in real life” growing up, but the internet allowed me to see that there were a lot more people like me out there, and that brought me comfort, and allowed me to be who I am.
Am I understanding this correctly? Is Ben saying that being obese is like being gay? That people are simply born obese? That there is no choice involved? Should it be encouraged for people to “be who I am” even if obesity destructively leads to spiraling health problems later in life?
We Should Be Compassionate People, But Not Superficial
I stand by what I wrote. And yet I quite agree with Ben that, “I think it’s important to show compassion for others.” The question becomes how we best show that compassion. How do we best help folks who are struggling with this?
I had a chat with my wife Heidi, a nurse, about this and she agreed with Ben that my language was too critical (“too much Bill Maher” she said). She cautioned me to avoid personal blame, even if warranted, because shame is not the best way to cajole changes in behavior. But then she went on to tell me about some of the recent cases she has dealt with at her hospital.
Stroke. Diabetes. Gallstones. Gout. Congestive heart failure.
What was the common link? Obesity.
I have many family members who are overweight and some who are obese. I love them dearly. Ben and I both love folks who struggle with weight through no fault of their own, due to thyroid or other issues.
I am not out to shame people who are genuinely suffering from medical conditions that render diet and exercise pointless. Rather, I’m talking more about the middle-aged guys I sit in the sauna with every day with huge bellies who boast about their cruise ship buffets and fancy meals out. I don’t heap coals of judgment on them (even when they are within reach in the sauna…). But sometimes we do talk about diet and exercise and the answer is so often, “Yeah, I really need to start thinking about that again.”
Obesity is DEADLY. Full stop. There is no debate.
And yet because obesity often develops slowly over time (a few pounds per year) and because there are often no initial adverse health effects for those who are obese, the problem becomes like a can that is kicked down the road.
That is until critical parts of the body start to malfunction due to this excess BMI.
The US spends $190 billion PER YEAR on obesity-related healthcare costs. People wallow in pain and often die choking for breath due to complications traced back to obesity. And this problem is getting worse each year.
So no, compassion is not telling people to “be their authentic selves” but helping them to realize the destructive path they are on. I’d prefer to keep it positive and frankly have been surpassingly tender for more than a decade on this blog concerning passengers of size (see here for example). But that’s not working, is it?
I was so blunt because I see this as an issue that far too many people choose to be willfully ignorant in even thinking about. We are so afraid to offend in this culture that we actually show hate, not love, to those we claim to care about by choosing not to address the elephant in the room, if you will pardon the expression.
The trend of so-called “body positivity movements” deludes people into thinking that they are fine the way they are. No, if you are obese, you are not fine. Some people cannot help being obese, but most can introspectively concede they can do more in terms of diet and exercise to promote a healthy lifestyle. Your very life might depend upon it. This is tough work. But it is the right thing to do.
I view the Southwest policy as promoting complacency concerning obesity and therefore I view it as a destructive policy.
On Faith
It’s interesting to me that so many comments on this blog and One Mile At A Time focused on my Christian faith. I was mocked as a hypocrite for not being like Jesus when it came to dealing with those who needed help.
This was not meant to be a faith issue at all beyond the sort of ethic of reciprocity in which we treat others the way we want to be treated. When I err, I want to be corrected. When I am walking down the wrong path, I pray that people will let me know.
But since you asked, I do think my faith does shape my approach to this issue. St. Paul calls our body a temple and the implication is that we care for it carefully:
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. -1 Corinthians 6:19-20
The point of the Christian life is to love God and love your neighbor. Our ability to do that can be greatly compromised by obesity, which impairs our obligation to show our love to God by loving those around us in a very literal way.
Blunt but practical advice is also offered in Proverbs 23:20-21:
Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.
That same book also offers this sage advice:
Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. – Proverbs 27:5-6
Tough love is true love. Failing to speak up for fear of offending is cowardice.
CONCLUSION
Thanks for letting me speak through this issue and address Ben’s post. I hope that even if you disagree, you will better understand my point and will at the very least acknowledge that obesity is a true problem and also a problem that is becoming even worse. I will strive to approach issues more constructively, but sometimes we do need the man on the soapbox to help us open our eyes.
If you are struggling with obesity, you are not alone. Don’t become dejected and do not give up. Progress is made one day at a time. Every piece of junk food you skip or the extra minute you spend in the gym is one step closer to the goal.
Matthew for President. What a valuable voice.
I don’t really feel that much compassion for them. I feel a great deal of respect for those who have realized they need to lose weight to be healthy and make a serious effort, but for those like that hideous “plus sized” model I feel only revulsion. They made themselves the way they are. If they are smart, and actually care about their health, they will make changes to lose weight. If not, then they should not be demanding special privileges for being fat. Unlike other disabilities, being obese is completely self-inflicted and they deserve no more perks than the rest of us. And no, there is no disease or condition that makes people obese. There are disorders that can make people gain weight, but no genetics, disease, or condition can make people morbidly obese against their will.
Also why are they called “passengers of size”? They’re fat, enough with the euphemisms.
However , there are naturally large humans , for example basketball and football players . Please give a thought for their situation .
Most basketball players are not overweight, they’re just tall. The football players that are overweight while playing are usually lineman. Yes, they might be overweight but they are strong as $hit. They have to be. They are colliding over and over again with another human of equal or greater size. Football is a brutal sport on their bodies. My own dad, who’s played semi-professionally and arena football back in his hey day has recently had to have both of his knees replaced within the last couple of years from the damage done playing at that level. Those lineman also know that the weight they play at is not a healthy weight and most tend to lose the weight after they retire. You can google “lineman lose weight after retirement” I won’t post the threads but there are plenty of articles that support this. Your argument is pretty weak at best.
I used to get free food, including free ice cream. I ate so much ice cream that I started to have a little chubby belly. That is when I put my foot down and thought “no more ice cream” even if free, though one serving, maybe once a month was ok. Within a year, the chubby belly was gone. A few years later, they pulled the free food and gave everyone a card with an allowance.
Obesity has genetic predispositions but is partly behavioral. It is extremely rare to have no behavioral component.
In warm and humid Hawaii , I can put down a case of beer each week . Haven’t gained weight .
I think you are being generous.
Any comparison of obesity today versus 1923 or 1823 indicates that, unless there has been a nationwide mutation to our genes over three or four generations, obesity is behavioral. I have two skinny brothers and 15 months ago was on the cusp of morbid obesity. I changed my habits and lost 100 pounds in 9 to 10 months.
Some sympathy may be in order. Information is at times poor. And millions live in food deserts where processed foods, the contents of which people have little control, reign supreme.
Congrats on your accomplishment and wish you good health
This was very encouraging to me. Thank you Matthew.
There are naturally larger people , for example basketball and football players . There are also naturally smaller people . Same with smaller and larger animals of the same species , small and large horses , dogs , etc . The airlines may wish to give two seats together , with a raisable arm-rest , to the naturally larger people . This would be both a charitable and fair solution with which everyone might agree .
I’m very tall (over 2 meters tall) and with airlines ever reducing seat pitch to literally squeeze more passengers in, the risks to me of DVT (Deep Vein Thrombis) is very real. I can’t even lower the seat tray because of my legs and it’s pure horror if someone in front of me tries to force their seat to recline. Yet if I mention comfort, space, or health, I’m simply told to buy a bigger seat in one of the premium classes. WHY? Why does a passenger with extra girth receive free accomodation but extra length is just too bad? And you wonder why I’m pissed off?
@Steve … Exactly correct . I suggest you EARLY request (nicely) at the check-in counter for a bulkhead seat . That alone will assist you immeasurably ( pun intended ) . If they won’t do it , ask to speak with the manager . Then , you’ll likely get an upgrade . Your trump card is that you obviously cannot be in the confined seat THEY assigned , so don’t assign yourself a seat if bulkhead is blocked . I am obviously disabled , and they always try to accommodate me .
I was traveling with a friend recently and booked additional seat recently when flying Southwest since we are both over 6’4” and both have very broad shoulders. Before booking the additional seat I explained our situation to ensure I wouldn’t have any issues getting the additional tickets refunded since we aren’t “obese” and was assured it was fine and passenger of size encompasses more than overweight people. Needless to say, there were no issues being refunded and we were able to sit comfortably and will definitely do this when using Southwest.
Really appreciate your thoughtfulness and humanity in talking about this topic – one where reasonable people can disagree but everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. OMAAT is clueless for his post and one reason why this blog is so much better in both content and tone.
I razzed you about the post and I’m happy to see a little more depth vis a vis the Christianity aspect. I still may not agree only because I think smoking/vaping is a far much more greater problem. (yes, both obesity and smoking are awful.) The smoking costs are even more but there isn’t the same visceral outrage towards smokers. Big Tobacco/Hollywood literally glamorized smoking. There are zillions of fat jokes and comments but smokers don’t catch the same heat. I am also not sure if you were able to convince an obese person to change their ways with your concern…but maybe you did? I won’t even bring up alcohol…
Just because something may be “wrong” doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge it exists and still have resources (whether it’s drug addiction, undocumented immigration, medical care for people doing dangerous things, etc). But we should still work towards a healthier society. It doesn’t help that you can feed a family at McDonald’s for a lot cheaper than a healthy meal.
We should all just live free or fly
Personally, I’m just tired of the never ending ‘look at me, I’m a victim’ that goes on. What next, the obese calling themselves ‘survivors’?
Every passenger squeezed into the ever-smaller seats are Victims of airplane over-capacity . We are not platoons of infantry to be squeezed into a C-130 .
I’ve flown on C130s in the web seats and had far more leg room than I do in an economy seat on a commercial aircraft.
Matthew, I just don’t get why you care. Why pick this fight? And I read Ben’s response–he was not equating obesity to homosexuality, which is a pretty purposefully obtuse comment to make, which I think you also know. He meant that when we shame groups of people, we marginalize them, making them feel more alone, encouraging even more destructive behavior (both self-inflicted and from the outside). Is obesity a health concern? Absolutely it is. But if you think fat people don’t desperately want to be thinner, you’ve not known many. The biggest disappointment I have with you and that post, though, is the attention it’s drawn from the Internet’s favorite misanthropes amplifying your rhetoric into something even more hateful. The comments on these posts are just needlessly hateful. If we want to do Bible verses, Matthew 7:1-3. Coming from the New Testament, it seems both more operative and more apt. Proverbs is mostly good when you’re reaching for righteous hellfire.
I care because I think it is the greatest threat facing the USA (far more annual deaths than guns, which are also a major problem).
And if you’re serious about quoting Matthew 7, I invite you to check out this article:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/judge-not-ultimate-mic-drop/?amp
The greatest threats facing the U.S. are changing demographics that will turn the country into a majority third world population and the idea that democracy is something we should respect when it means bad people decide our future and what we can and can’t do with our own bodies or property.
The word “HUMANE” is being as abused as “RACISIM”. Applying HUMANE to rationalization for open borders is better stated as RUINOUS HUMANITY.
Guns don’t fire themselves. Criminals with guns are the problem. Before we blame inanimate objects, can we have a test run first by locking up criminals who commit crimes with guns?
Are you in favor of background checks?
I had the same reaction to Matthew reading Ben’s gay analogy so it wasn’t just him. What a silly comparison to make. So does Ben believe we can pray the gay away through diet and exercise????
I second this post. Very well-spoken.
I also agree with the author’s wife:
“She cautioned me to avoid personal blame, even if warranted, because shame is not the best way to cajole changes in behavior.”
There are peer-reviewed studies documenting how counterproductive it is to blame and shame people who are dealing with obesity.
An example of shaming people with obesity would be the picture our author chose for this redemption post. His words in this post were a little less derogatory than in the original post, but the unattractive faceless obese person portrayed in that image says it all.
I found the comments over there quite amusing. They appear to loathe you (as well as anything to do with Christianity and the right wing) yet obviously read your blog (again no pun intended) religiously. Hypocrisy writ large.
Some people just wanna hate and make an excuse for terrible behavior. IMO your original comments weren’t out of line and nailed the problem.
If fatties wanna be fat, fine. But corporations shouldn’t be encouraging or supporting the problem of obesity either directly or indirectly. The rest of us pay for it in increased health insurance prices already. Just like we do for smokers, drug addicts and the like.
This policy makes me want to fly Southwest when I fly coach.
Now I know that it’s pretty much guaranteed that I will never be stuck sitting next to someone who is overflowing into my seat.
The lack of respect, compassion, and understanding for other human beings in the two posts and comments makes me so sad. It will likely make it harder for me to appreciate the opinions expressed on this blog because I’m now a little more suspicious of Matthew’s point of view.
Bottom line is this is a policy that benefits EVERYONE! The normal size customers (the vast majority) won’t have someone infringing into their space and the customers of size will actually fit in their allotted space.
On a related note, I was just asking a friend why do US airlines not allow customers to buy 2 seats just to guarantee an open middle seat? AirAsia and Play allow it. I’m only 5’7″ so I don’t need a lot of legroom, but I’m someone who doesn’t like my personal space invaded so I would prefer to have my own arm rest and not sit so close to a stranger for 5 hours.
Does this benefit the person who got bumped to accommodate the overweight passenger?
Completely agree. For the most part this is just like alcoholics or drug addicts or gamblers. Should we all just tell them to compassionately live their life as is? Heck no.
I often see obese people who keep eating chips and candy and I think to myself – if I was in their position, I would stop eating for weeks. How can a yone live like that?
I usually stay out of people’s business but not when it has an adverse impact on me. Sitting next to an obese person who is taking over half my seat has a direct effect on me.
My son is 6’8” tall and 260 lbs. a college athlete and a damn good one.
Airlines give him no quarter with respect to seating. He must buy E+ or similar. He simply cannot fit in a seat with 31 or 32 pitch.
I’m obese technically based on the BMI. It’s absolutely fair to not pretend obese people aren’t gluttons and don’t bring it on themselves. It’s fine to let people live their lives how they want, and they should be free to do so, but it’s not fine for fat people to get special treatment and normal people to have to pretend obesity isn’t a problem. It’s wrong for fat people to be models. We shouldn’t glorify unhealthiness. We shouldn’t glorify defectives, like people born gay, born with Down Syndrome, born deaf, or etc, with parades. These are sad things that people live with but we shouldn’t glorify or pretend it’s how nature intended. We also shouldn’t pretend alcoholics, drug addicts, smokers, or obese people are cool, although, we should support freedom for people to do and be all those things as your body your choice is the highest law of freedom.
I do know most gays want to force bakers to bake them a cake celebrating things against their fundamental beliefs so I am not surprised militant obese people want to force service providers to give them free stuff and make them Miss Universe.
I was eye rolling as Ben compared somehow his being Gay as relatable to the plight of obese people. Hmm, does that mean you believe that you could be conditionally reformed to being heterosexual? Obesity can be reversed, If one chooses, that is. Truly, this was the most laughable rationalization for giving people who were not born into a preference, but chose it, the luxury of special treatment.
Where does Ben’s empathy end or begin? Parkinson’s patients are not offered an extra seat for something they didn’t choose. Those with broken legs that could benefit from extra space but are only offered early boarding. Those with autistic children do not get offered extra seats in a row to better manage. Really, I wonder what world he lives in? he seems to believe in Santa Claus more than he does compassion.
But, of course, he chose to use being Gay as somehow relatable to those who are obese. It was absurd and, really, an insult to the entire LGBT community. If he had said, “I have mobility problems and can relate, ok.” But, gay? This makes him somehow qualified to judge that WN is doing the right thing in throwing out free seats to those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle? Or positioned to harshly criticize those that see it as a ridiculous policy?
I personally think you were too kind in your retort, Matthew. Nor did your original post deserve the nasty response he gave. Let’s not forget that the great “compassionate Ben” is also the same man who loves to dabble in ageism, criticizing those organizations that choose “white middle aged men” for whatever positions.
Finally, the irony being that Ben would likely die first before regularly flying WN as support for their “compassionate policy.” And I’m sure that he cringes and and acts entitled at those who do fly WN. His love of the policy only goes so far as his fake virtues because, we all know, it’s not something he regularly deals with.
Ben and Matthew have exceptionally different approaches to life. Matthew tends to be straightforward and openly passionate in his posts,( as am I in life) and Ben much more sensitive which is also appreciated and rounds out the blogs. And yes I found the vitriol comments on omaat appalling.
However, give up the ageism, I understand you were upset, but don’t be
a d!ck about this, or if so make yourself useful. ; )
Sorry, won’t budge on this. Matthew has integrity. As an example Ben manages comments to assure anyone who challenges him directly is deleted or moderated and never posted. Nope, @Maryland, I adore you of course but on this one we will disagree.
He was your host. All you had to do was agree to disagree, as offered. I know you won’t back down, but why? Love you much and I respect you always. You are the best.
Oh and yes, I agree with Matthew and Heidi. Health has been an issue he has reinforced here and that’s a very good thing. We all benefit from that.
Yes, very true.
If Ben does not like your political view points or religious beliefs, even comments that are not political / not religious are scrubbed and deleted.
Time for me to stop going to OMAAT,
Let me try to Gaysplain. Ben wasn’t equating obesity to sexual orientation, they are quite obviously very different. But for many of us who grow up gay and feeling ostracized from within our own communities, there’s a natural affinity for others who get picked on and an aversion to shaming people for their appearance or inability to change something about themselves that may (or may not) be within their control. Ben was describing why his being gay gives him a perspective that allows him to empathize with someone who gets negative sh*t thrown at them all the time and turns to the internet for community and acceptance.
I personally think Matthew’s first post showed a real lack of empathy in the manner he expressed his points, but like Ben, I’m gay and sensitive to that kind of shaming. If you haven’t walked in our shoes, you might not understand, but maybe try to take a moment to reflect on the fact that we might understand how people who look or act different from others might feel when they’re shamed. Also keep in mind that it’s only very recently that attitudes shifted about sexual orientation, and most of us grew up also being told that we could change if we just tried a little harder.
I’m gay and found Ben’s comparison to be absurd. It’s a classic “appeal to authority” argument in which the speaker tries to falsely elevate his opinion by posing as an expert or claiming to have more knowledge on the topic from his experience.
Most people have felt ostracized from the community at one point or another in their lives. Being gay or having something stand out about you doesn’t make your opinion any more valid or insightful.
Also, the reason the comments on his page are so hostile is because the creep censors anyone who challenges him. Thus he’s left with no one but sycophants.
Oh please you’re anything but gay based on your past comments. You’re just saying that to be a contrarian troll.
This, 100%.
@Darin
If Ben truly felt empathy and compassion as a gay man he would not marginalize middle aged white men as he does. It’s one thing to be virtuous. It’s another to be virtuous when it’s convenient and he wants to slam others. Further, we are talking about giving something away for free to those who chose obesity. Being gay has absolutely no relevance in the argument and in no way makes him especially equipped to understand this specific absurdity.
@Stuart is absolutely correct here.
How does he marginalize middle aged white men?
https://onemileatatime.com/news/paris-air-show-gender-diversity-panel/
Hi Darin, I appreciate your commentary.
Oh crikey.
Stuart I emphatically agree with you.
I read Paul Joseph Watson’s take on the situation in that apparently paying passengers are being bumped without compensation which certainly generates resentment. It’s one thing of the corporate bean counters are accommodating the obese at the expense of the shareholder, but another to dump that burden entirely on an innocent passenger. (Wait, are the shareholders innocent too? Well, yeah, sort of. But it’s not as big a burden, pardon the pun, as when it’s saddled with a single person whose been bumped0>
I hope the gal who was bumped with compensation notified the FAA about it.
Replying to my own comment. I think Paul may be commenting on a June 8th issue that was reported by Matt (I somehow missed) of a woman and family who was bumped off of a flight due to the size-accommodation policy but perhaps there was more involved (such as the woman and family flying standby). So this may be a confusion of news which sometimes happens innocently.
Ben runs a great blog and does well in his space. I respect him totally in his command of the frequent flyer, air travel, and hotel space. I devour his reviews of various products.
OTOH, Ben has never had a real job other than his blog and has lived his career in his travel blog bubble. So it’s an obvious pass when it comes to (even airline) food reviews, wine reviews and real-life working-folks issues. I’m sure he’d be the first to admit his lack of proficiency in these areas and why others shouldn’t look to him for leadership there.
He’s a frequent flying kid who developed into a blogger. Allow him that acclaim but also its obvious limitations.
It’s not our job to respect his “limitations.” It’s his job to stay in his lane.
“Tough love is true love. Failing to speak up for fear of offending is cowardice.”
Beautifully put.
Ben is retarded.
No, he’s not. He’s a thoughtful, intelligent person whom I deeply care for. We may agree to disagree on this issue and others, but he is one of the most respectable person I know.
Final words on this: It is interesting to read the Live and Let’s Fly obesity posts versus the posts about smoking rooms. The language is very different. One example: “What I want is a comfortable, ventilated room where smokers can enjoy a cigarette or cigar before or after a long flight.” https://liveandletsfly.com/why-i-mourn-the-loss-of-airport-smoking-lounges/“https://liveandletsfly.com/why-i-mourn-the-loss-of-airport-smoking-lounges/”
No, here’s a WN policy that is a win-win for everyone, yet everyone is disgusted and up in arms. Moreso, no travel blogger even knows how many people have actually been bumped by the WN policy. Make it make sense! And smoking is wayyyyyy much worse and kills innocent people. (“The report found that the use of tobacco burdens economies with more than US$1 trillion annually in health care costs and lost productivity. https://landmarkrecovery.com/the-cost-of-alcohol-use-disorder/#:~:text=Economic%20Stats%20on%20Substance%20Use%3A%20A%20Broad%20Overview&text=This%20figure%20includes%20costs%20from,drug%20use%2C%20it's%20%24193%20billion.) And we can go back and forth about this study or that study but the bottom line is that obesity, smoking, and alcoholism are all bad and very costly, it was interesting to note how you write about obesity.
That’s a really interesting comparison and I am glad you made it, BKAloha. Because I’ve also seen people die gasping for breath after a life of smoking and even seen people tragically die of second-hand smoking.
I’d respond that if you look at those posts I very clearly call smoking a disgusting habit, but support those rooms so that I can avoid second-hand smoke (a huge problem at my home airport of LAX). Yet indeed, my language is softer, which is a valid point. I will say that I do not support bans on junk food or smoking, although I find both behaviors destructive. Instead, I call on people to exercise self-control.
I’m going to think this over more to see if there are inconsistencies in my thinking. Good points!
I don’t disagree with your opinion. Obesity is a leading risk factor for certain types of breast cancer, for example. When a person has control over their lifestyle, I agree they have a personal responsibility to learn how to take care of themselves best.
That said, what was problematic to me with your original article was the condescending tone. While your words weren’t incorrect, they felt, to me, to come from a high horse. “(Losing weight) is not that hard of a concept” is one such example. “Destructive behavior” is another. Sometimes your articles carry this tone (rightfully criticized by your wife) that feel like you mean more harm than perhaps intended.
Growing up in an environment where healthy eating is promoted is a privilege and blessing, imo. Where do you normally find food deserts? Low income areas. Yes, there are options like food pantries available, but it is its own challenge to change the mindset of people who have little money and little time with their family. Cheap and fast food is (wrongly) the most accessible to these folks. Imagine a parent trying to just fill the basic requirement of making sure their kid isn’t hungry – fresh and healthy food may be the *right* thing to do, but in the moment when you have to get to your next shift and you have limited money, that $5 fast food combo doesn’t look like a bad option.
Children who grow up in these environments are often obese and think this is how they should eat. It becomes part of their identity, out of their control. To me this is what Ben meant by having a certain identity that one is aware may be at odds with what someone else believes in. My niece grew up in such a way. She is obviously heavier than her classmates and I sadly wouldn’t be surprised if others meanly pointed that out. But it’s not her fault and I’m sure she is aware that she’s different as well. She isn’t purposely trying to be destructive to herself. Hopefully one day she will learn and have control over better eating habits than what her mother taught her, and hopefully one day the US will do better in terms of the foods we feed our people. In the meantime, if she needs certain accommodation (free or paid is a separate debate) then I hope others won’t make mean assumptions.
Keeping an open mind about circumstances different than your own and being kind is something you could do more of with your writing. I think this can coexist with “tough love”.
Appreciate your comment.
It was like prepping for moot court! Thanks for the “homework” this week.
Compassion, tolerance and acceptance are all forms of enabling.
As society tolerates more unhealthy and inappropriate behavior under the guise of compassion, the worse off we are.
Look at almost any topic (drug use, education, mental health, immigration), look at the language being used, who is using that language and you’ll start to see the pattern of enablement.
Then ask yourself…what’s the goal ?
While I appreciate that you are friends with the guy in question and he might well be fun to be around in person, he really is extremely shallow and I think that you are doing yourself a disservice by giving credence to his views on anything more serious than the type of champagne offered in Rwandair business class.
If you go back to the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, OMAAT went a lot further than saying that racism is a complicated issue and that we should all endeavour to be inclusive, reflect on our behaviour etc- there was a lot of self-flagellation and the overall line was that white people are all complicit in the unspeakable tragedy of black people experiencing constant racism etc.
I was very occasionally commenting on some of his posts and pointed out that, while racism does very much exist in parts of the USA, the generalisations and self-flagellation aren’t really conducive to addressing the issue, and that the passion with which he was engaging in the discourse was a bit of a surprise coming from someone who had never written a single word about the Uighur genocide* and had indeed been supporting it through his use of Chinese travel providers. My comment was never published – your friend obviously is too much of a coward and/or ill-prepared to participate in discussion around serious social issues. Naturally, I have never commented on his blog since then and I only monitor it for the odd points sale. I might sometimes look at an airline review but even there he comes across as being out of touch with the real world and often focuses on things that I don’t care about- e.g. information about the retail price of a bottle of wine is of limited use, I would rather see some basic tasting notes and a view on whether it seemed to work well with the food on offer.
* I hope I don’t have to explain why I don’t believe that whataboutism extends to thinking about the reasons for the difference between the reaction to the injustice faced by certain groups of people in certain situations and the reaction to a state-sponsored genocide involving CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
He’s a buffoon who knows about flights and hotels and little about anything else.
I think that for me, the summary of it all would come down to this: Compassion/ kindness do not have to be mutually exclusive of other realities.
You can feel compassion for someone and be kind to them, but still require them to buy a second seat or a bigger seat they don’t fit in a single economy seat. As noted already, tall people don’t get free access to E+, and there’s no debate that they can’t help how tall they are.
These things are just facts of life. Sometimes you have to be a certain height to ride a ride, sometimes you can’t sit in an emergency exit row if you’re not of a certain age or if you have certain disabilities. You can feel empathy for people and be kind to them while still accepting that things are what they are.
So I think what frustrates some people is: Why are passengers of size the exception? Why do they merit special accommodation versus passengers of height or any other number of things in life? Again, that doesn’t give the right to anyone to be unkind to them. But asking someone to pay for the space the occupy is not synonymous with being unkind.
I wish some of the commenters supporting Matthew’s position would also follow his example. He hasn’t changed his mind on the policy, but he’s listened to other viewpoints, been respectful of those who disagree, and contemplative about where he might have gone too far. Sometimes it’s not just what you say, but the tone and vitriol that comes across. I know we’ve all learned to scream at each other from opposite sides, but maybe just take a moment to understand where others are coming from?
I’m not a Ben apologist, I too wouldn’t run OMAAT in the exact same way he does, but I don’t get the nastiness directed at him. I personally don’t like the less moderated version of comments that Matthew and Gary employ because it often devolves into a kind of miserable atmosphere, but 100% respect that it’s their prerogative to run it how they like. Ben is just as entitled to have a more curated version where he might feel he gets more engagement because people aren’t put off at being screamed at or have topics devolve into right/left nastiness. They’re both valid, and both have made mistakes in how far they let people go or how much moderation they employed. But neither are inherently bad people, I enjoy both even though I often (politely) disagree with both.
I can’t speak about other commentators here, but my main point about Ben is that I don’t think that has the capacity to develop coherent arguments about social issues of the sort we’re debating here.
That doesn’t mean he is ‘retarded’ as someone else has claimed- just that his skills/capabilities in this area aren’t very well-developed. The stuff around his censorship tactics is a tangential discussion which however confirms that there’s limited value in attempting to take his social commentary with any degree of seriousness.
Matt just won the debate over Ben in a very convincing fashion with an incredible display of reason, data, logic and facts.
Matt = critical thinking skills
Ben = but, but, but “I feel” (emphasis on emotion, which shifts by the second)
Truth is still truth, even if your feelings are offended.
Agreed 200%
Got 2 friends that might need an extra seat. One is large because of side effects of lung cancer drugs. She’s had stage 4 for 8 years. She’s enrolled in drug trials that have caused many painful and unwanted side effects. But they have kept her alive.
The other has struggled with weight since childhood. She has run 10ks, mountain biked, joined a gym, dieted, and even when not on a diet eats less and more healthy food than I do. I don’t exercise close to what she does and I’ve never been on a diet and I’ve not been overweight. I do believe there is a genetic component to weight. And I so admire my friend for all the years of effort she has put in.
Ben is good at miles and points, but beyond that he’s as shallow as a bathtub once the plug has been pulled, and his statements on matters not related to the subjects of his expertise are generally vapid
Let’s not forget about the sea of broken seats and cracked supports that are left begging in every plane and every restaurant and every public space. It isn’t fair that some overweight people casually wreak havoc without so much as a thought to what is left in their wake only blaming the seats themselves for not being strong enough.
Matthew, I believe your blog to be outstanding, and as a fellow follower of Jesus I love the faith based commentary and well reasoned and written positions.
To be honest with you, OMAAT is like reading a tabloid with sub-par writing / journalism.
Is there a reason, why the Credit Card Links on your blog link to OMAAT?
Best wishes for a joyous Christmas
I partner with Ben on credit card links – since I do not push them like other blogs, I don’t have direct accounts with the credit card issuers and prefer to work with OMAAT over Red Ventures.
I’m enjoying the discourse here, especially when you address what Ben said. An aspect I think that could use more discussion is that of role/authority: when is it appropriate to take an idealistic stand and then apply it to strangers, versus when is it the more appropriate role to be pragmatic toward the realities of taking people as you find them. If we extend “nanny state” ideas to having corporations making values judgments on their consumers, it seems like that it would lead to further, divisive, virtue signaling from corporations. We have enough class and regional divides without turning airlines into another Chick Fil A.