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
As someone who is fat and unhealthy I don't think it is. You're not rejecting me to tell me I need to lose some weight, you're suggesting you care about my well being.

I don't understand the modern idea that you must celebrate every part of a person to love them.

>>xupybd+Hd1
I suspect it went something like this: There were studies into shaming of overweight individuals concluded it was a poor method for weight loss. This mutated into the idea that anti-shaming must be good for health and the idea that we should not implicitly shame fat people in general.

In general, I suspect these kinds of cultural phenomena generally begin by fairly mundane scientific observations being processed through a game of telephone within academia.

>>hugh-a+mu1
Shaming is bad for health, there is a phenomena called minority stress https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10865-019-00120-6