[crooked-v]

I'm curious if this post will also have the same phenomena I've seen before of people springing out of the woodwork to post moralizing comments about people shouldn't rely on drugs, about how actually GLP-1s are bad because they don't fix problems indefinitely with a single dose, about how people should fix their problems by just having more willpower, talking about 'but what about the unknown side effects?' of drugs that have been in use for twenty years already, etc.

[buck746]

Semaglutide has been used for diabetics for roughly 20 years. The FUD angle is just people rambling against something that doesn't affect them personally. Everyone knows the only things that matter are what effects "you", everything else is just fantasy. If we could rid ourselves of that mindset we could build a much better world.

[SubiculumCode]

And it surely did. Like clockwork. And it is annoying.

[sp527]

A lot of people have had to accept that they've wasted a considerable amount of time and energy on something that is being heavily devalued by GLP-1's. They've also lost an important vector for status signaling. This particularly offends narcissists and the hyper-competitive.

They desperately need to restore status, and one easy option is, in effect, "oh you're still ugly on the inside."

By way of analogy, it has the same underlying motivation as the various sumptuary laws that arose in response to the mass-manufacture of silk.

> The Elizabethan Restrictions: In 1574, Queen Elizabeth I passed strict sumptuary laws to curb "unprecedented social mobility". The Crown decreed that no woman could wear silk cloaks unless her husband was at least a knight, and restricted fabrics mixed with gold or silver to Earls and above.

> Income Thresholds: In 14th-century England, if an esquire or merchant wanted to wear silk, they had to legally prove they made at least £100 a year. If they didn't meet the financial threshold, wearing the fabric was a criminal offense.

[nonethewiser]

Why shouldnt it?