Fat Jokes are ok again, if you are bad

See Also:

Brock Turner, the rapist.

Ethan Couch, the “affluenza” teen. (His mom aided and abetted his criminal attempts to evade the law also. Go figure. :man_shrugging: )


In that case, the word “cherubic” literally exists, and actually connotes the things you describe.


Exactly. He’s an absolute piece of shit, so why describe him in fatphobic terms that catch innocent folks in the crossfire and damn them by association with him, FFS?

Would it be okay if they called him limp-wristed, swarthy, hook-nosed, buxom, or other epithets that do more harm to other folks than to the person being labelled?


38 year speaker of colloquial American English here, and I’ve never heard “chubby” use to connote “childlike” and not “fat.” I’ve heard it used to describe babies and children, obviously, but exclusively when commenting (not necessarily disparagingly) on their fatness.

Anyway, this piece of shit’s chubbiness has zero relation to his being a piece of shit, and is irrelevant. Bringing up irrelevant physical markers when describing criminal pieces of shit is 1.) bad writing and 2.) pretty much exclusively a tool used to oppress groups of folks by associating them with moral depravity.

I’m not really a fan of the word chubby either, but do you really believe that saying that his cheeks are chubby is the same as calling him fat?


baby mask


He’s not being described in “fatphobic” terms…


TBF, the first thing that comes to mind in my case is baby fat, but I luv baby fat.


Congratulations on your purchase of a thesaurus.

I don’t really care whether people refer to Rittenhouse as chubby-cheeked, boyish, baby-faced or cherubic. I doubt his victims do either.


Who it was legally okay to call looters or rioters or anything but victims, but god forbid someone should comment on Rittenhouse’s face.


Imma just going to use the phrase “fat-faced fascist fuck”

he deserves no better.


Fat Jokes are ‘ok’ again, if you’re bad a dick.



Congratulations on your purchase of a thesaurus.

It’s a pretty common word. Most of us wouldn’t need a thesaurus to pull up that word.

I don’t really care whether people refer to Rittenhouse as chubby-cheeked, boyish, baby-faced or cherubic. I doubt his victims do either.

I care about minimizing harm to folks. And I care about the language we use. This isn’t about being nice to Rittenhouse or to his victims, it’s about not perpetuating further harm to other folks, in this case fat folks.

To put it in terms even a proudly apathetic person who doesn’t care about other people might understand, if the OP had described Rittenhouse as a “Brainspore-looking motherfucker,” you might not appreciate them making the association.

When such thoughtless associations are made with broader groups of people, especially already maligned people, the potential for harm likewise broadens. When the local news never bothers to mention the race of white criminals, but invariably and unnecessarily mentions the race of Black criminals, it reinforces cultural associations of Blackness with criminality. Likewise, unnecessarily harping on the chubbiness of Rittenhouse (or Trump, or whoever), is both cruel to individual non-fascist fat people, and perpetuates shitty cultural ideas linking fatness to immorality, lack of self-control, etc.

As with all things, intention matters less than impact.

What god forbade commenting on Rittenhouse’s face? I haven’t seen any person or deity arguing that point.

The point is that you used a synonym to communicate the same concept clearly intended by the OP. If the intent was to fat-shame Rittenhouse then he would have been called “chubby” or “fat” instead of noting that he had chubby cheeks that apparently helped convince certain people of his childlike innocence.

A better comparison here would be “wide-eyed,” another facial descriptor often associated with naiveté and innocence. I don’t think many people would react to that description with “but MY eyes are wide, why are you picking on me??”


Um. Saying someone has chubby cheeks is calling them chubby.

And people with wide eyes aren’t a group of people who have been historically and continue to be maligned, stereotyped and mocked. That’s not a “better comparison,” it’s an irrelevant one.

No. It’s saying their face still has some baby fat rather than highly chiseled cheekbones, not necessarily implying that they are overweight.

Methinks you may be focusing on the wrong victims in this particular story.


but of course, that would be valorizing an Eurocentric view of the world.

The biblical description is thus:

“In appearance their form was human, but each of them had four faces and four wings. Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf… had the face of a human being, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle. They each had two wings spreading out upward…and each had two other wings covering its body…The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it.”

That’s from Ezekiel, of pulp fiction fame.

1 Like

Season 4 Wow GIF by The Office


I don’t believe that facial features are a very good indicator of body type. The plumpness of one’s cheeks has very little to do with BMI.