The Fat Of The Land

Lots of people are looking at President Trump's cleanish bill of health after his first on-the-job physical. That surprised everyone by saying that he is in quite good health for a septuagenarian, and not, as assumed, like a sedentary fast-food devotee.

But putting aside his doctor's opinions, the numbers have raised doubts. It says that Trump is 6'3" and 240 pounds, which would count him as medically acceptable, though suspiciously close to the obese classification. That's led doubters to a lot of comparisons with athletes of similar size. For instance, Albert Pujols is the same height and a pound more, but more athletic looking than the President.

But that can be easily explained. After all, muscle is denser than fat, so an athlete is going to look slimmer than a non-exerciser of the same weight. A bigger oddity is his height. Although the physical pegged him at 6'3", he has apparently previously been listed as 6'2". Also, in photos, he looks to be of similar height to Barack Obama (6'1") and noticeably shorter than Jeb Bush (6'3".)

So lots of people have been making fun of the President's weight. It's far from the first time, though such jokes have been few and far between, since there's been so many other things to make fun of. Once again, I'm not really sure why I'm writing a blog post on this; it will probably be obsolete before I finish.

Ridiculing Trump's body has led to a question about the morality of humour. A long time ago, I noted that there are basically three reasons why you might make jokes at another's expense:

• playful teasing, such as what goes on between friends
• ridicule of someone you don't like
• you can't think of any other topic for a joke. And also, you're an asshole.

Most people would agree that the first category is acceptable. And all but the amoral would agree that the last is not (Keep in mind, we're only talking about the morality of humour, not the legality, so put the free speech placards away.) The second category is a bit more questionable. But I've always been okay with it.

Overall, a good way to decide whether a joke fits in an acceptable or unacceptable category is to ask whether you'd be comfortable saying it to the person who is the butt of the joke. If it's the first one, you wouldn't mind, because that person is in on the joke. The second should be okay too, as they'll be offended but you figure that they deserve it. And the third is unacceptable, since you'd be offending an innocent person, and you're really only making the joke because you assumed you'd never have to face the consequences.

So that's moral backing of my humour, which I've always tried to stick to in outlets such as my blog. I'm sure I haven't been completely faithful to it, but it's what I've tried to do.

In recent years, however, I've noticed that there's a flaw in the reasoning. I noticed it not with Trump, but with another not-so-sympathetic character in American politics, Newt Gingrich. I strongly disagree with his political priorities, as well as some of the things he's done in his personal life, so he would fit squarely into the second category.

He's also a bit overweight. And his round face tends to remind you of that fact. So I find that a lot of liberal comics use that weight and his general attractiveness as a convenient put-down. That made me feel uneasy. Sure, he may be an opportunistic bully who doesn't deserve to have his feelings respected. But insults are a bludgeon that hit everyone similar, most of whom have not done any of the things the original target did.

So I've added a caveat to that second kind of ridicule: you can make fun of these people, but only if you're going after the thing that made you want to attack them in the first place. If they are truly worthy of your scorn, you won't have trouble finding something.