A safe space implies a place where people cannot or should not be hurt. You're suggesting a place where people can freely hurt anyone and everyone, so that they feel good about themselves. Not even close to the same thing, and I can see we won't be able to agree on this in the slightest, so I'll bow out here.

I'd like to ask what the people fighting for the description to stay the same are fighting for, exactly. What would you lose by it being changed? Do you often read it and get a laugh? So often that changing it would seriously affect you? Because to the people who want it changed, just reading it once, let alone multiple times, can very obviously affect them. While you might be sad and feel everything is just too politically correct nowadays, can't anyone take a joke anymore, to others it can bring up very hurtful memories and put them in an unhealthy mindset that can easily spiral into real, actual, physical harm. (not that the mental effects don't matter!) Just imagine if the Bloodred Razor had a description poking fun at self-harm.

It is not a personal attack against those who find it funny, but perhaps some acknowledgement that not everyone will read it that way? At least? All I see from that side are people digging their heels in deeper about what a grave injustice it would be to change the dumb little pea item and how you're way too sensitive if you don't like it. (sidenote, quoting Ricky Gervais as a defense is so hilariously ironic and unaware here)

And I think the item's intention could stay the same, but without such potentially harmful language? "The ultimate low-carb, low-fat, low-calorie meal... Wait, this is seriously supposed to fill you up?!" Okay, obviously I'm not going to win awards for my incredible sense of humor, but something like that perhaps?

As disclosure I don't have an ED so that description might still be bad, I don't know. But even I can tell the current one is not in good taste...

It would be great if I wasn't hurt by it. It would be great if I could 'turn it off' or tell my brain that I shouldn't be hurt by something and then I'm no longer hurt by it. That would be awesome. I'm not that lucky though.

This specific item has been brought up multiple times in the past and asked to be changed with only a handful of people defending it, and I feel like that says something about how it comes across.

Satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize. The meaning that the description is meant to be poking fun at those types of comments and not an example of them is lost if you're only looking at the item and description. I would also be more comfortable with it being tweaked

I've been following this thread all day, and I guess it's time to weigh in.

First, I've seen a lot of people mention previous threads, but no one has linked to them. I found one on my own so I'm providing it below, in case anyone else was curious:

Item Name and/or Description Update Thread

Second, here's the thing about humor:

• Just because something was funny at one time doesn't mean it will always be funny.
• Just because something is funny to you doesn't mean other people find it so.
• Something can be funny and hurt others at the same time.

We don't even need to do away with the joke entirely - it could be reworded or changed into something else that still pokes fun at the absurdity of a pea on a plate as a whole meal. It can be inclusive and still be funny.

This is a site that is welcoming to all, so it should also be considering how things look from as many perspectives as possible. And frankly, this just looks bad taken out of the context of who wrote it and what they were thinking, which cannot be provided to every user each time they see.

We can accept the joke for what it was in that context and change it to something that is better going forward.

As another user said on the other thread, this is a mark of maturity:

This hits the nail on the head. For those of us who aren't affected by it, nothing is really lost by having the description changed. For the people who are affected it can make a big difference.

On the other hand, I think that in situations like this some people push back because they want to prove they're not affected by things that hurt others, because of insecurity or other reasons. It's kind of sad that anyone would expect others to "deal with it" just because it doesn't bother them personally.

Edited to say that I got ninja'd by but that post is 100% on point.

I personally think a nice compromise would be leaving the description alone, but remove the "pig" comment on the end. That way it's more of a joke about how lame a single pea would be for a meal, without the bashing and name-calling. Just my two cents.

Adding support for changing it.

There are a lot of other things I could say responding to some of the Y I K E S in this thread but why waste my energy on people determined to be shitty.

+1 for removing "Pig". I think that without the egregious name-calling, the description would retain the punch of the joke/remain relatable/whatever without being downright nasty.

. . . am I really watching a staff member argue with a user over an item description?

If you have to explain a joke, Bean, it falls flat. You can be as disappointed and offended as you like that some people don't find it funny, but arguing with a user on the website that you work on feels really petty and unprofessional. It doesn't matter that you think it's absurd, what matters is how the users interpret it.

Ultimate Miracle Meal is old as shit and needs to be revamped anyway, why not update the description as well if users request it? Why are you so emotionally attached to this thing? Hasn't it been more than 10 years? Why do you want to die on this hill?

What the hell, Subeta, about time you slowly grow up and learn that "spazz" "skank" and fat-shaming are offensive.

Personally, I think Ultimate Miracle Meal is hilarious but I why would I care if it's changed? I don't mind if it helps someone's mental health, no skin off my nose.

I don't agree with the mentality that because something offends you or a small group of people that it 'has' to be changed. Someone will always be offended by something, it's your choice as to whether you let that affect you or not. It's not a 'deal with it' attitude but an 'ignore it' if it bothers you one. The attitude of I shouldn't hear or see something I don't agree with eventually leads to the erosion of free speech.

The same applies for people saying, 'I don't find this funny'. Ok, so don't laugh then. Don't find it funny, but some people will and that's okay. Not everything on the site will individually be catered/censored for you, that would be impossible. Everyone is different and everyone is affected by different things and everyone thinks that their issues or problems are the most important in the world, because they are to them. But if everyone started asking for descriptions to change based on their individual emotions and circumstances, it would be ridiculous to cater to. Ultimately anything can be deemed as offensive by someone and who gets to decide where the line is drawn. Exactly the reason I don't think it should be changed.

Also, just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they're being shitty or it doesn't bother them personally. It just means they have a different viewpoint to you. I can understand that people may be offended by the description, I just don't think it should have to be changed because it offends people. Jokes are subjective and Bean justified her joke.

At the end of the day, that's just my personal opinion. I just want to share why I feel the way I do about this scenario, just as everyone else on this thread is doing so. I can appreciate other people have a different stance and that's fine.

Although, comments like 'You can be as disappointed and offended as you like that some people don't find it funny... It doesn't matter that you think it's absurd, what matters is how the users interpret it.' I find fairly ironic. In that you're suggesting that it's okay that Bean is offended or upset by other things people say, but not that those other people are allowed to be offended or upset by what Bean has said in jest. I'm not sure why you think that Bean as a staff member should be any less entitled to an opinion than anyone else.

I don’t have anything to contribute to the discussion surrounding the item, but I see no problem with a staff member arguing with a user. “The customer is always right,” is a toxic mentality. Staff should have whatever rights users have to voice opinions. To silence one just because you find it distasteful seems wrong if you’re not going to demand the same of the other side. [edit]

Free speech doesn't mean freedom to be an asshole without being called on it. It doesn't mean freedom to make unfunny jokes at other people's expense without being called on it. If you feel driven to write an essay in defence of your right to insult people, you do you, but others don't have to let you do it.

There's a difference between jokes about being fat and jokes insulting fat people.

There's also a difference between disagreeing with someone and dismissing them as absurd.

Staff probably won't change the description of this item. That's up to them. People are still allowed to ask for it and to explain why.

Who is being an asshole? Am I an asshole because I don't agree with you?

All, I'm saying is that whilst I understand people may be offended by this, people can be offended by anything and at what point do you draw the line. Who gets to decide what is 'too' offensive and what needs to be censored? Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Just because you have the opinion that something isn't funny doesn't mean it should be changed. I could say I'm offended by what you've just written, should that now be deleted or changed because I'm telling you I'm offended?

I don't think I have any right to insult people, but you seem to. There's a difference between something intended as a joke and just being rude. It seems clear to me that the intention of this item was never to insult people, galvanised by what Bean has stated, but clearly everyone interprets things differently. At no point have I said people are absurd for being upset by the description, in fact I've said I understand that people can be offended, my opinion is just that I think it's okay to be offended by a joke.

People explaining why they have no issue with the item is also allowed.

Never mind. Don't want to get in trouble.

I'm not going to dwell too much on this because this conversation is tired, but yes--everyone has a different sense of humor and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, and yes, anyone could potentially be offended by anything.

The problem is that this item description does rely on the very-real social ill that fat people are less deserving of respect because of their size. The community guidelines have a line about -isms and -phobias, and I could see how this joke could be fatphobic--again, regardless of who's making the joke to begin with, since we don't get that context from the item alone.

I agree that just removing the word "pig" can make a big difference in how this description reads.

I'm going to leave this thread because I think most of what needs to be said has already been said.

I just wanted to say how much I agree with this. Weren't some staff members teenagers back then? I don't know about anyone else, but I know that when I was a teenager sometimes I said things that make me cringe in restrospect. But I grew up and ended up learning more about the world, and the person I am now doesn't need to defend immature/ignorant things I now disagree with that I said well over a decade ago. It would be a bad sign if nobody grew up in the course of a decade or more.

I don't know about the "spazz" and "skank" incidents. I hope staff changed those because, yikes.

The description has always been offensive - the joke was never funny, adding the context that the staff member who wrote it is also fat still doesn't make it funny.

Several users, however, have pointed out how hurtful it is to see and read and I do not understand why any member of staff is going "but the lols" about it as if that makes it okay to ignore what people are saying in regards to how it affects their mental health. Nobody says get rid of the item, they say adjust the description so it's not so potentially triggering to people who have disordered eating - how callous to argue about that.

Gonna sign onto the sentiment that there is nothing to be lost from changing an obviously hurtful item description. Several users have made great suggestions.

The expectation that everyone is going to "get" self-deprecating humor and therefore laugh along with a bad joke (yeah, bad joke) is not a great expectation to have. Just because some of us are in recovery does NOT mean everyone is. Imagine a user is in the darkest trenches of their eating disorder, and sees that item description, and that item is the reason they decide not to eat today. Sure, you could blame them for being offended or whatever, as some people have done in this thread. Or you could have compassion and understand that not everyone is gonna be able to just shrug this off. Some people might genuinely hear the words, "You're going to eat it all? Pig." echoing through their minds for days. I know eight years ago, I would have. And it is absolutely not something that people can control by telling themselves it's "just" a joke.