By 'psychological profile' I assume you mean the bit where I'm compartmentalizing less than you are? I mean, maybe things have changed in the ~6 months I've been gone, but the idea that it's okay - even expected - for people to have their own preferences and values and not defensible for others to call those values wrong used to be pretty uncontroversial here.

Or, probably more likely, you simply came up with that as a polite way of saying "oh, okay, you're crazy; I'll ignore you now", which - not cool, dude, but if that is how you feel, at least be up front about it instead of hiding behind the 'don't call me out' signals.

Eating ice cream, unlike having a broken fan in a CPU, is not a purely harmful activity, or nobody would do it - it being enjoyable is a benefit, if nothing else, and the relative value of that and other benefits (social/cultural ingroup-ness, psychological self-care, avoiding disordered thinking relating to food restriction, not using up willpower that would be better spent on something else) compared to any harm that would come from it is a judgement call that the individual taking the action gets to make.

Relatedly, in a broader sense, "working like it should" is a decision that individuals get to make about their own lives, just like hardware owners get to decide what "working like it should" means for their hardware - if I decide to take my CPU's noisy fan out and turn it into an alarm clock, that noise might then be purely positive! And, more importantly, that's my call to make; it wouldn't be reasonable for you to insist that I should have thrown the fan away just because you think it's junk. By the same token, if someone is genuinely not bothered by the effect of their weight on their life, it's not appropriate for a third party to step in and insist that their preferences are wrong and that they are obligated to change them.

Every mention of problems related to obesity reinforces the present unhealthily and unaesthetically thin female cultural weight standard.

And makes it more difficult for those of us who are actively rejecting that standard (and the health=weight meme, which does seem plausibly based on a correlation-equals-causation fallacy, to me) to participate comfortably here.

(That's not the primary reason I haven't been around for the last 6 months or so, but it certainly didn't help...)

I'm having enough trouble parsing the last half-or-so of that that I'm writing it off as you being euphemistic in some way that's not going to work on me, but:

overindulging

This is a value judgement, and (deontological/virtue-ethics-based) value judgements (as opposed to consequentialist pointing-out-of-actual-observed-results, which is occasionally useful when the person hasn't also observed them) seem to range from useless through annoying and into emotionally abusive, without any significant subset of them actually achieving anything positive. If you think someone is overindulging, that's your opinion, not some universal law that they're breaking, and as such it's not really their problem.

Other people might also find the example "offensive" because there are likely more LW-ers who are overweight and still eat ice cream (and consider this a perfectly legitimate personal choice) than who take [harmful] drugs recreationally.

Not offensive exactly, but annoying and harder to be emotionally detached from (fat people tend to get a lot of shit about it, and therefore be a bit touchy about the subject), yes.

I tend to think that at least some regard for fairness is part of the common mental structures of humans

I agree with this in a sense, but only in a sense. It seems to me that every culture has a slightly different idea of what 'fairness' means, to the point where the word itself doesn't really translate from one language to another. (Or perhaps I'm thinking of 'justice', which still seems similar enough to count.) The tendency to have something-like-fairness seems pretty universal, though, even if the specific concepts involved aren't.

It could, but hopefully in the context of LW wouldn't, be interpreted as 'the fact that you're distressed doesn't matter; your preference for a certain kind of body is no more significant than $LowStatusGroup's similar and low-status preference'.

But we weren't talking about just you personally,

o.O

How many hours do you [emphasis yours] spend on each comment you make?

If you're going to change the subject, at least don't try to act like I'm doing something wrong when I politely go along with the subject change, okay?

we were talking about "most text-based, internet-based communication".

Most text-based, internet-based communication has very little in the way of time pressure, and LessWrong specifically has a norm of allowing or even encouraging comments on older posts and comments, allowing for arbitrary levels of pre-thinking. Length restrictions are slightly more common on the internet at large, but still not the norm, and not present here. This, in the context of your original comment - plus the implication that since it is possible to do those things, any case where someone doesn't is a matter of personal choice or (problematic, in my opinion) group norms - was the entirety of my original point.

I do agree that the idea of having cached responses to all conversational possibilities is ridiculous. I wasn't proposing that that is a thing that people should particularly try to do. My point, insofar as I had a point and wasn't just answering your question on the assumption that you had some use for the information, was that that is one of the tactics that I've found to work, the other main one being to actually take the time to think my responses through, even if that takes a while.

And you seem to be an exception, not a rule, when it comes to the normal dialogue/discourse I see in the commenting threads of LW. And LW itself is by far vastly the exception to the rule when it comes to dealing with statements made as a result from pre-formed thoughts.

I am not at all sure what you're trying to communicate, here. One possible way of parsing it suggests that you might think that since LW is already well above average in terms of good communication, making it better shouldn't be a priority, which I disagree with. I'd strongly prefer a clarification of your actual intent to a discussion of that idea if it wasn't what you were trying to communicate, though.

I don't see how your question is relevant to the topic at hand. I usually spend less than 15 minutes writing any given comment - most of mine are relatively short - but that's not counting time spent thinking about a topic and figuring out if I have something to say about it at all, which varies wildly and has been known to last days in some cases. But even in instances where I come up with a response near-instantly, it's generally because I've previously spent time thinking about the particular issue, and as a result have a high-quality cached response available, which certainly seems to fit the criteria for 'thought out in advance'!

a thought-out-in advance, unrestricted-in-length, document.

For a moderately loose definition of 'thought out in advance', this describes most text-based, internet-based communication, and certainly the types of communication that can happen on LW.