Fat Shaming.

[Lightknight]

The problem with fat shaming is that it is essentially someone being an asshole and covering it up with a veneer of "concern" for the person's health. But in reality, nobody has ever run a mile or lost a single pound out of shame, or self-loathing, or out of a desire to earn the respect of somebody who won't respect them at their heaviest. Personal health is a lifelong journey that never really ends, and everybody is at different places for different reasons. If you watch TV shows like the Biggest Loser, you'll quickly see that the people who succeed are driven by hope, pride, happiness, and love. Love for others, and most importantly love for themselves.

Fat shaming is bad because being a dick is bad. It isn't really something that needs to be explained any further. Anyone who thinks being a dick is OK aren't probably the sort of people whose opinions we care about. They're just one of those kids in highschool that mocked the handicapped class when they walked by.

But I'll heartily disagree with your claims as to the motivation of weight loss. Fun fact about me , I lost 65lbs because a girl dumped me with an indication that my weight had something to do with it.

Now, you might want to imagine that love and hope propelled me to go the gym and eat next to nothing over that time, or you take me at my word that I was motivated by loss, despair and shame and acknowledge the fact that different motivations work for different people. Some people absolutely go to the gym because they're ashamed of how they look or are afraid of death or even to gain someone's affection.

As for the Biggest Loser, shame is absolutely part of the experience. They aren't crying about being ashamed out of love or something. Instilling fear in what they're doing to their bodies is part of the experience. Hope starts kicking in later when they actually have results. Love and support can really help to lose more weight, but overall it's a personal choice that all comes down to the reason why the person wants to lose weight and that's usually going to be shame, sickness and/or fear.

 

[chikusho]

Right, obese people and smokers have a higher cost of health care per year of life. That much is obvious. But, since that life is shorter the net cost is lower than that of healthy people. That much is equally obvious.
On average, the majority of health-related costs are accrued at the end of your life. About a third of an average persons lifetime health care costs are accrued during middle age. About half of total health care costs are accrued during the senior years. The math is simple - live longer, cost more. Live shorter, cost less.

The problem with this logic is that the increased cost of health care for those who are obese and those who are smokers exceeds that which those who are healthy incur through virtue of living longer.

On average those who are overweight and those who smoke will require medical attention that is not only more expensive, but also requires greater frequency in one's lifetime. Going to a hospital 20 times in 20 years vs going to the hospital 20 times in 60 years is still going to the hospital 20 times in both time-frames.

There's a reason why doctors have been pretty unanimous about society ending smoking and obesity being a major steppingstone towards lowering per capita medical costs. Especially when being obese will only on average reduce life expediency by 10 years at most while being much more then expensive for the health care system overall.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Let's use some numbers..
Healthy people are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 280 000 EUR.
Obese people are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 250 000 EUR.
Smokers are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 220 000 EUR.

The argument that obesity is causing a net increase in health care costs is simply false. Rally against obesity all you want, but give this bullshit economic argument a rest.

 

[Lightknight]

Right, obese people and smokers have a higher cost of health care per year of life. That much is obvious. But, since that life is shorter the net cost is lower than that of healthy people. That much is equally obvious.
On average, the majority of health-related costs are accrued at the end of your life. About a third of an average persons lifetime health care costs are accrued during middle age. About half of total health care costs are accrued during the senior years. The math is simple - live longer, cost more. Live shorter, cost less.

The problem with this logic is that the increased cost of health care for those who are obese and those who are smokers exceeds that which those who are healthy incur through virtue of living longer.

On average those who are overweight and those who smoke will require medical attention that is not only more expensive, but also requires greater frequency in one's lifetime. Going to a hospital 20 times in 20 years vs going to the hospital 20 times in 60 years is still going to the hospital 20 times in both time-frames.

There's a reason why doctors have been pretty unanimous about society ending smoking and obesity being a major steppingstone towards lowering per capita medical costs. Especially when being obese will only on average reduce life expediency by 10 years at most while being much more then expensive for the health care system overall.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Let's use some numbers..
Healthy people are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 280 000 EUR.
Obese people are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 250 000 EUR.
Smokers are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 220 000 EUR.

The argument that obesity is causing a net increase in health care costs is simply false. Rally against obesity all you want, but give this bullshit economic argument a rest.

For anyone who wants a source with those numbers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

Apparently the cost of living longer far more impacts the cost of healthcare savings. By the rhetoric being employed here under the erroneous belief that obese people incur greater lifetime costs on the health care system, healthy people should actually be taxed for selfishly living longer.

What a twist.

The current confusion appears to be from the fact that in a given year the average obese person costs more than the average healthy person. But over the lifetime the former is significantly cheaper than the latter due to the difference in years lived.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Right, obese people and smokers have a higher cost of health care per year of life. That much is obvious. But, since that life is shorter the net cost is lower than that of healthy people. That much is equally obvious.
On average, the majority of health-related costs are accrued at the end of your life. About a third of an average persons lifetime health care costs are accrued during middle age. About half of total health care costs are accrued during the senior years. The math is simple - live longer, cost more. Live shorter, cost less.

The problem with this logic is that the increased cost of health care for those who are obese and those who are smokers exceeds that which those who are healthy incur through virtue of living longer.

On average those who are overweight and those who smoke will require medical attention that is not only more expensive, but also requires greater frequency in one's lifetime. Going to a hospital 20 times in 20 years vs going to the hospital 20 times in 60 years is still going to the hospital 20 times in both time-frames.

There's a reason why doctors have been pretty unanimous about society ending smoking and obesity being a major steppingstone towards lowering per capita medical costs. Especially when being obese will only on average reduce life expediency by 10 years at most while being much more then expensive for the health care system overall.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Let's use some numbers..
Healthy people are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 280 000 EUR.
Obese people are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 250 000 EUR.
Smokers are estimated to have lifetime health care costs of about 220 000 EUR.

The argument that obesity is causing a net increase in health care costs is simply false. Rally against obesity all you want, but give this bullshit economic argument a rest.

For anyone who wants a source with those numbers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

Apparently the cost of living longer far more impacts the cost of healthcare savings. By the rhetoric being employed here under the erroneous belief that obese people incur greater lifetime costs on the health care system, healthy people should actually be taxed for selfishly living longer.

What a twist.

The current confusion appears to be from the fact that in a given year the average obese person costs more than the average healthy person. But over the lifetime the former is significantly cheaper than the latter due to the difference in years lived.

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

 

[Tanis]

As a fat person...
Nah, this is messed up.

As a fat person who is partly fat because of medical reasons, but also laziness and is trying their hardest to get under 300LBS...
This is messed up, but at the same time...

I just don't think we, as a society, should be going down the road that 'obese is good' anymore than 'anorexia is good'.
Both are bad things and should be treated as bad.

 

[sumanoskae]

"We also object that the beatiful (Yes, that's how they spelled it) pig is used as an insult."

As if the motivations of these people weren't already incomprehensible enough; let's mercilessly dismantle one of their arguments real quick, just for fun!

Being fat in no way proves that you consume more or less food than other people, except in extreme cases. Differences in metabolism and body type mean that what constitutes overeating varies from person to person. If you're a professional athlete whose 6'4, your body just needs more fuel than if you were, say, a 5'4 office worker.

If you literally exorcise for a living, you're probably not going to get fat, no matter what you eat. You could be "Wasting" all the food you want; nobody is going to be able to tell just by your weight.

This is before we even consider the quality of the food you eat. Just one of those cinnamon abominations from Taco Bell is LOADED with sugar and fat. If you live on regular sized helpings of fattening foods, you're still giving your body more than it needs.

The fact that you're fat doesn't mean that you eat more food than other people; your body type is determined by many factors of both your genetics and your lifestyle.

These people literally started a hate group over a problem that they MADE UP.

Side Note: If you want to get technical, America collectively wastes enough food that we might as well just be dropping a full bag of fresh groceries into the fucking garbage can every time we go shopping. And this doesn't account for the food that we eat, this is the food we just throw out!

I can only assume other countries with similar lifestyles and governments have similar statistics. As the saying goes: people who live in glass houses shouldn't make up stupid, hateful bullshit about their neighbors.

 

[Strazdas]

That's where you're wrong. It's actually quite the oppossite. The lifetime cost of health care is higher for healthy people than for obese people/smokers for the simple reason that obese people and smokers have a shorter lifespan. Healthy people have a higher chance of reaching an age where their bodies start to break down due to old age and they can't take care of themselves any longer. Providing health care for these people over a longer period of time is much more expensive as a result.

which might be true if all obese people, smokers and alcoholics were to live many times shorter than regular people. however since not all of then suddenly die at the age of 20, this is absolutely nonsensical logic. Most unhealthy lifestyle people cost multiple times more than healthy people. so unless they live multiple times shorter, which is clearly not true, they cost more to healthcare institutions. I think you would have far more success in talking about excise taxes being extra income from unhealthy people that could be used for their medical care, but then there are other problems such as they are not nearly big enough, there are no excises on food (even tax breaks and subsidies instead) and these taxes do not go directly to healthcare institutions anyway.

The fact that you're fat doesn't mean that you eat more food than other people; your body type is determined by many factors of both your genetics and your lifestyle.

These people literally started a hate group over a problem that they MADE UP.

Yes, it does. it is literally impossible to be fat without eating. the body would simply have no way of creating fat without the food being introduced. Obesity is NOT a made up problem it in fact is one of the largest drains of healthcare budgets and in some countries like US there is a significant percentage of population that are obese.

Side Note: If you want to get technical, America collectively wastes enough food that we might as well just be dropping a full bag of fresh groceries into the fucking garbage can every time we go shopping. And this doesn't account for the food that we eat, this is the food we just throw out!

This is a problem, but it is not related to obesity. especially since majority of this thrown out food is actually vegetables and fruits. Also do come to Europe, adopt our policy, we donate that food to places like homeless shelters instead.

 

[chikusho]

That's where you're wrong. It's actually quite the oppossite. The lifetime cost of health care is higher for healthy people than for obese people/smokers for the simple reason that obese people and smokers have a shorter lifespan. Healthy people have a higher chance of reaching an age where their bodies start to break down due to old age and they can't take care of themselves any longer. Providing health care for these people over a longer period of time is much more expensive as a result.

which might be true if all obese people, smokers and alcoholics were to live many times shorter than regular people. however since not all of then suddenly die at the age of 20, this is absolutely nonsensical logic. Most unhealthy lifestyle people cost multiple times more than healthy people. so unless they live multiple times shorter, which is clearly not true, they cost more to healthcare institutions. I think you would have far more success in talking about excise taxes being extra income from unhealthy people that could be used for their medical care, but then there are other problems such as they are not nearly big enough, there are no excises on food (even tax breaks and subsidies instead) and these taxes do not go directly to healthcare institutions anyway.

I've been through this in other posts already, but here's the short version: no. The vast majority of health care costs are racked up during senior years, and on average obese people are estimated to have about 30 000 EUR lower lifetime health care costs than healthy people. Even if we don't factor in obesity, women have been calculated to have health care costs of almost $100.000 more than men in large part just for having an 8 percent longer life expectancy. Curing obesity does not decrease health-care costs, it just offsets them a few years and then is more likely to result in a net increase.
Stop using the health care costs argument - it's bullshit.

 

[Strazdas]

I've been through this in other posts already, but here's the short version: no. The vast majority of health care costs are racked up during senior years, and on average obese people are estimated to have about 30 000 EUR lower lifetime health care costs than healthy people. Even if we don't factor in obesity, women have been calculated to have health care costs of almost $100.000 more than men in large part just for having an 8 percent longer life expectancy. Curing obesity does not decrease health-care costs, it just offsets them a few years and then is more likely to result in a net increase.
Stop using the health care costs argument - it's bullshit.

how is that weighed in comparison to social contributions by said people? surely people that live longer and healthier controbute far more than people who live shorter (less time to contribute) and less likely to be employed due to health problems (more likely to be net consumers than net contributors).

 

[zidine100]

As a ex overweight person (Im not exactly lean but im under the overweight bracket (ive lost 69! pounds), im still planning on loosing about 10 more pounds or so which should leave me about 6 pounds wiggle room between the normal weight and underweight range) I have to say that this is the kind of thing that would have made me just hate everyone and end up on a binge. Hell and im used to being insulted and looked at like I have leprosy on a daily basis from most people I meet, it wouldn't spur me on it would have just have made it harder.

These people dont know how hard it is to loose weight. Its not one choice, you dont just wake up one day and say "hey im going to become fat. Wooooo! Bring on all the cakes!", its not something you can be bullied into loosing weight is a lifestyle change not a one off quick fix magical pill of leanness that we all should take to fit in with what society deems the beautiful people that we should all worship and love like they are some paragon saint of some holy order. No its a load of little choices and little things that you incorporate into your normal life, and it takes years of constant struggle to achieve. Yes its a struggle, after years of eating whatever you want its difficult to stop, ill freely admit food is addicting, especially when it seems everything is against you (dont get me started on the media, you cant watch tv for ten minutes without seeing some sort of calorie laden snack advert claiming its the next best thing since sliced bread). As much as it pains me to admit I was fat because honestly to me it felt like food was the only good thing left in my life now do they really think insults would help someone like that? Or would it just exacerbate the problem and add to the long list of things that are going against your goals.

If they really wanted to help people they would try and change the whole misinformation and downright dangerous practices the diet industry, instead of you know insulting random strangers who are either already trying to loose weight, or are just not in the right mindset to start. But hey I guess they wouldn't get that nice feeling of superiority they get because they are one of the special people, and god forbid they try and help people it would reduce their specialness after all.

Sorry for the rant and if it doesnt make sence, its early morning and im just spit-balling thoughts here.

 

[chikusho]

I've been through this in other posts already, but here's the short version: no. The vast majority of health care costs are racked up during senior years, and on average obese people are estimated to have about 30 000 EUR lower lifetime health care costs than healthy people. Even if we don't factor in obesity, women have been calculated to have health care costs of almost $100.000 more than men in large part just for having an 8 percent longer life expectancy. Curing obesity does not decrease health-care costs, it just offsets them a few years and then is more likely to result in a net increase.
Stop using the health care costs argument - it's bullshit.

how is that weighed in comparison to social contributions by said people? surely people that live longer and healthier controbute far more than people who live shorter (less time to contribute) and less likely to be employed due to health problems (more likely to be net consumers than net contributors).

Oh, come on man, look at what you're saying here. Why would belly-fat be an impediment to societal contribution? Also, even if that was true, why would that be the one condition, disease or addiction to be singled out from all of humanitys flaws and imperfections? A persons weight is just one single, largely unimportant aspect of a person, not the defining characteristic of their being.

Anyway... First off, if an obese person is less likely to be employed, that's not a problem with obesity. That's a problem with discrimination.
Secondly, considering that the majority of health care costs are racked up in the senior years, as in at the time where you're very unlikely to be contributing in any meaningful way, I think that's a real stretch.

 

[chikusho]

The argument would be that if you continue to fuck yourself up knowing that you will be taken care of and won't have to feel the full consequences of your actions, you are incentivizing people to take easier short term paths that will fuck you up in the long run. No one destroys their lungs with one cigarette. It's one thing for the tax payers to put down a social safety net for those who've had unfortunate and unforeseen things happen to them. Its another when someone continues an irresponsible behavior through out there life and then expects the state to come in a foot the bill later on. Its just not right for the people who took care of themselves and stayed healthy to be forced to take care of people who deliberately didn't. If someone willingly wants to help others like that, sure its no big deal but when you've involved the state you're involving the entirety of the tax paying body and that money has to be spent appropriately. Better it be used for people that had no, or very little hand in their injury or illness than people who cultivated it over an extended period. At the end of it though... doesn't justify idiots taking frustration out on random people in a subway.

Healthy people have higher lifetime costs of health care than obese people and smokers. By your logic, it's not right for smokers and obese people to have to pay for healthy people just so that they can live to 90 and be a huge drain on the system.

 

[Strazdas]

Oh, come on man, look at what you're saying here. Why would belly-fat be an impediment to societal contribution? Also, even if that was true, why would that be the one condition, disease or addiction to be singled out from all of humanitys flaws and imperfections? A persons weight is just one single, largely unimportant aspect of a person, not the defining characteristic of their being.

Anyway... First off, if an obese person is less likely to be employed, that's not a problem with obesity. That's a problem with discrimination.
Secondly, considering that the majority of health care costs are racked up in the senior years, as in at the time where you're very unlikely to be contributing in any meaningful way, I think that's a real stretch.

because obese people may not be able to do the tasks the job requires?
Also i didnt single it out, i mentioned 3 addictions in my original post, but the topic here is obesity. The difference is to be made between things people are willingly putting on themselves, such as obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs, and those that they have no control over (diseases and illnesses).


No, there is no need for discrimination, simple lack of ability to perform will do. Obese people (note that simply being fat is not same as obese. obese people have problems moving around, let alone working) are unable to do many of works that they may be able to do if they were not obese. same thing with, say, alcoholics. they cannot both be alcoholic and work as a driver.

 

[BarrelsOfDouche]

Eh...gluttony...

On one hand, I agree with the fact that it's "not glands"...it's instinct. Instinct beaten into the skulls of your great, great, great, great, great, great, etc. ancestors.

Perhaps not even that far back. Ever see those dead sexy photos of people in the 1930s?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/17/be/bf/17bebfeecd8fd112560f75c9e04f2417.jpg

Their weight loss technique secrets? F***ING STARVING TO DEATH.

Today, we're privileged enough to chose what we want off the shelf and complain about it. For the longest time, gluttony was a survival instinct. You could argue that the script has been flipped, but you don't just do away with thousands of years of conditioning in four decades. Difficulty losing weight is nature's way of saying "DUDE, wtf are you doing? I worked hard to make you fat. How else are you going to survive the winter?!"

Nature gives 0 f**ks about you fitting into your bikini.

 

[chikusho]

No, there is no need for discrimination, simple lack of ability to perform will do. Obese people (note that simply being fat is not same as obese. obese people have problems moving around, let alone working) are unable to do many of works that they may be able to do if they were not obese. same thing with, say, alcoholics. they cannot both be alcoholic and work as a driver.

Most people can't do most jobs for an incalculable number of reasons. People who can't do math can't become accountants. Would you say that people who can't do math are less able to contribute to society? What about math experts who don't know architecture, are they less able to contribute to society?
Also, alcoholics can be drivers just fine as long as they are not drunk on the job.

 

[Strazdas]

No, there is no need for discrimination, simple lack of ability to perform will do. Obese people (note that simply being fat is not same as obese. obese people have problems moving around, let alone working) are unable to do many of works that they may be able to do if they were not obese. same thing with, say, alcoholics. they cannot both be alcoholic and work as a driver.

Most people can't do most jobs for an incalculable number of reasons. People who can't do math can't become accountants. Would you say that people who can't do math are less able to contribute to society? What about math experts who don't know architecture, are they less able to contribute to society?
Also, alcoholics can be drivers just fine as long as they are not drunk on the job.

people who cant do math pretty much doesnt exist. primary school takes care of that. And yes, due to specialization we controbute to society differently, however most are still able to do the basic tasks, especially manual labour. something obese people cannot do. there is no need to speculate though, we have actual studies [http://www.eng.vt.edu/news/maury-nussbaum-participates-study-effect-obesity-workplace] regarding this. Buffalo study found that obese people were less productive, more likely to get injured, and needed longer breaks than their normal weight counterparts; notably, their endurance times were 40% shorter. A 2010 King?s College, London study [http://www.livescience.com/6819-obese-employees-sick-leave.html] showed obese staff took, on average, four more sick days a year. And fat has a price: according to NICE, obesity would cost a company with 1,000 staff £126,000 a year.

Also no, acoholics dont just "not drink on the job". they are alcoholics because they cannot control their drinking.

 

[chikusho]

people who cant do math pretty much doesnt exist.

Math literacy is a sliding scale. People who can't do math on a professional level are plentiful. I'm one of them, in fact.

And yes, due to specialization we controbute to society differently

Right. So there's no problem here.

there is no need to speculate though, we have actual studies [http://www.eng.vt.edu/news/maury-nussbaum-participates-study-effect-obesity-workplace] regarding this.

How fortunate then that the job market and economy is not entirely reliant on hand-grip endurance related jobs. Also, something else that reduces productivity: sports injuries. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268498/] Especially if its hand and wrist [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224888438_Economic_Impact_of_Hand_and_Wrist_Injuries_Health-Care_Costs_and_Productivity_Costs_in_a_Population-Based_Study] related injuries. Now, sports activity is most definitely an individual choice. Why should the rest of us pay for people who willingly engage in sports, and rack up health-care costs and costs in loss of productivity when they are injured?

A 2010 King?s College, London study [http://www.livescience.com/6819-obese-employees-sick-leave.html] showed obese staff took, on average, four more sick days a year. And fat has a price: according to NICE, obesity would cost a company with 1,000 staff ?126,000 a year.

According to that link, they don't know why obese staff take more sick days. Here's a possible contributing factor: fat shaming. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23585429] Workplace bullying [http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/financial-impacts-of-workplace-bullying.aspx] is a productivity killer by itself. But it can also lead to depression [http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/implementation/topics/depression.html], which is closely linked to insomnia [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/30/the-average-worker-loses-11-days-of-productivity-each-year-due-to-insomnia-and-companies-are-taking-notice/], two even larger productivity killers. Also, fat shaming even works to increase the obesity problem [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070048].

Even if we take the ridiculous and cold-hearted "obese people cost more" argument at face value, harassment and bullying (up to and including fat shaming) is a much bigger problem than being obese. And shaming, harassing, bullying and discriminating against people is an individual choice, one might argue even more so than "being obese" is (especially since obesity is classified as a disease). So, then the question becomes, why should the rest of us have to pay for the care of people who are creating this situation?

And, of course, you can't answer that because the entire economic argument is still bullshit.

Also no, acoholics dont just "not drink on the job". they are alcoholics because they cannot control their drinking.

An alcoholic is not necessarily a person who's drunk all the time. Also, you can be drunk all the time without being an alcoholic.

 

[Mechamorph]

This is brilliant. I recommend that the organization behind this expand their operations to the continental Americas. Perhaps they can start small in Mexico City, New York and the state of Texas. Go ahead and tell people how much they disgust you with a chipper smile and press that card into their hands with pride. After all for the latter two, you're in the United States of America! Home of the brave! Land of the free! Freedom of speech is guaranteed and obviously nothing terrible will happen to you as you exercising your rights by telling people that they are even lower than pigs!*

* Disclaimer: Following this advice might lead to small amounts of weight gain due to an infusion of lead particles. Don't worry though, the blood loss will make up for it and you'll remain your usual svelte self you champion of healthiness you! In fact if such an occurrence, as unlikely as it is, comes to pass you might be looking at a severe weight loss in the near future! Bonus!

 

[Zen Bard]

The only fat shaming I have a problem with is when I'm going for a walk (whether to get somewhere or to get some exercise), I feel really apprehensive about it now because people will shout derogatory things or throw things out the window at me while they're driving past.

Said apprehension makes it very hard for me to want to leave the house, which kinda compounds the weight problem.

Don't let the bastards get you down!

Any time I see an overweight person going for a walk, riding a bike or at the gym, I think "Props to you for taking steps towards a healthier lifestyle!".

So good for you! Don't let the actions of a few narrow minded idiots stop you from doing what you want to do.

(Note: this is intended to be an encouraging compliment. But I'm sure it'll offend someone because you know...it's The Escapist)

 

[Barbas]

(Note: this is intended to be an encouraging compliment. But I'm sure it'll offend someone because you know...it's The Escapist)

You...uh, crisco white male bastard, I've never been so pissed off in all my days! Why, I oughta smack you with my rake as a point of honour.

OT: Well, basically, I think Mr Lahey said it best:


...If they want help, obviously. Basically, hey, be nice.