• velma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    She’s not skinny though?

    Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant.

    Do people really think that Taylor Swift is fat?

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant.

        I was responding to this in particular.

          • velma@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            At 5’10" and between 115-130lbs, Taylor Swift is skinny. She is thin. She is not overweight. She is bordering on underweight.

            The pictures in the post are also taken from slightly below which will make her thighs look slightly bigger due to the lens distortion.

            • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              In this picture, I’d call her “normal”. The physique that’s basically the norm for “sexy” celebrity women is squarely in the underweight range.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      In the pursuit of continuing to be charitable, I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused.

      “Not skinny” does not mean “fat” necessarily, in the same way “not tall” does not necessarily mean “short”, or “not cold” isn’t the same as “hot”. It’s a continuum with a middle ground that’s the assumed “default” so there are terms describing deviation from that middle. In common language, “not” preceding the term that describes that deviation tends to mean it falls within the default range, as if they meant it fell outside the range in the other direction they’d just use the term for that part of the range instead.

      In this case, the assumed middle is the range of weights deemed “normal” so fat and skinny describe those body types that fall outside that range. Saying someone isn’t skinny does not equate to saying they’re fat since thay can be neither (and that’s typically what’s meant).

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Again, I was specifically replying to this line:

        Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant.