zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Of every change the ones to Augustus Gloop not being called "enormously fat" and instead being called "enormous" are the most jarring as his story is a moral parable about the dangers of gluttony. Even if you think such moral parables are wrong, the phrasing change isn't simply just aesthetic, it's fundamentally changing the story's narrative.

>>faerie+dT
You're making a general argument against revisionism but you seem to miss the point that the specific critique of gluttony / being fat / "fat shaming" is an aspect of the current morality that is imposing itself in many corners of culture.

It is forbidden to say being fat is unhealthy, undesirable or to pathologize it at all.

>>PKop+K41
> It is forbidden to say being fat is unhealthy, undesirable or to pathologize it at all.

Does that seem sensible?

>>Comput+Xc1
There was a time, back about five hundred to a thousand years ago, when being fat was a positive trait because it was a social sign that you had the means to surplus nourishment.

But whether it's acceptable to be fat or not, it's ultimately a social measurement that changes like the wind.

Objectively and biologically, being fat is not good for one's health. Period. There is no room for argument here. Being fat is unhealthy. Being too skinny is also unhealthy, incidentally.

>>Dalewy+Bf1
i don't think fat in the past ( like budda statues) has anything to do with fat like today's america.

The people in america we're talking about can barely walk. They are not just fat, they're morbidly obese.