you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

She’s not skinny though?

Taylor Swift is (supposedly) 5’10" and around 130lbs.

That is skinny. Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.

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

Here's the order of comments that I was responding to - the original comment is saying that Taylor Swift is not skinny. Then this user responds to me saying that many people use skinny as the opposite of fat. That would imply the original comment is saying that Taylor Swift is fat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • It doesn't, that's what I'm saying. Not skinny, for that user, could just mean not unhealthy in weight.

    Let's imagine there's only 3 weights a person can be: A, B, C - lowest to highest. Comic is saying she's skinny (implying not C), user is saying she's not skinny (implying not A). You assume user is saying she is fat (C).

    Other user says 'skinny is opposite of fat' as in 'polar opposite', so skinny is polar opposite of C - it's A.

    It's confusing because 'skinny' used to mean skin and bones. I remember being in middle school and having a girl in my year who had visibly protruding bones, and when you heard about girls having anorexia on TV they'd look even worse. So now when some of us hear 'skinny' we imagine someone with protruding elbows, shoulders, ribcages. And Taylor Swift seems far from that, especially in this picture (which seems to be a bad picture).

  • source
  • parent