zlacker

[parent] [thread] 26 comments
1. faerie+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-02-19 00:41:32
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.
replies(4): >>giantg+y >>dehrma+R7 >>PKop+xb >>Animat+jl
2. giantg+y[view] [source] 2023-02-19 00:46:11
>>faerie+(OP)
What was the intent of this change? "Enormously fat" is a subset of "fat". Ostensibly, this would insult more people since there are more fat people than there are enormously fat people.
replies(2): >>faerie+U >>nickff+01
◧◩
3. faerie+U[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 00:50:21
>>giantg+y
I edited quickly since I misspoke.

To be specific - they edited things like “But Augustus was deaf to everything except the call of his enormous stomach” to “But Augustus was ignoring everything”. It's not just the description of Augustus they toned down, they even literally removed lines from the book which explains he was motivated by hunger.

replies(2): >>Dalewy+Ul >>sensan+QX
◧◩
4. nickff+01[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 00:50:55
>>giantg+y
They removed the word "fat", not the word "enormous".
5. dehrma+R7[view] [source] 2023-02-19 01:50:58
>>faerie+(OP)
> Even if you think such moral parables are wrong

Perhaps it would be best to not read a book with them.

6. PKop+xb[view] [source] 2023-02-19 02:20:40
>>faerie+(OP)
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.

replies(3): >>Comput+Kj >>Wobert+pn >>max_en+mp
◧◩
7. Comput+Kj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 03:33:15
>>PKop+xb
> It is forbidden to say being fat is unhealthy, undesirable or to pathologize it at all.

Does that seem sensible?

replies(2): >>xupybd+uk >>Dalewy+om
◧◩◪
8. xupybd+uk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 03:39:10
>>Comput+Kj
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.

replies(1): >>hugh-a+9B
9. Animat+jl[view] [source] 2023-02-19 03:46:53
>>faerie+(OP)
Last year, it was the Fat Controller from Thomas the Tank Engine.[1]

[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/19487821/thomas-the-tank-engine-...

replies(3): >>twotha+rx >>oblio+9G >>unders+kK
◧◩◪
10. Dalewy+Ul[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 03:52:34
>>faerie+U
Changing "deaf to everything" to "ignoring everything" is an affront to English education.

A significant portion of my learning English came from reading books, and now that literature is being dumbed down, simplified, and sterilized, for no reason other than going woke.

Education for today's kids and the coming generations are going to be an even bigger shitshow than anything any of us ever saw in our times.

◧◩◪
11. Dalewy+om[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 03:56:26
>>Comput+Kj
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.

replies(4): >>tomp+jG >>luxpir+2L >>bsaul+cL >>sensan+zX
◧◩
12. Wobert+pn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 04:06:41
>>PKop+xb
Forbidden? Some people don't like it, bit its certainly not forbidden. This gross hyperbole doesn't help the situation, I think it makes the topic all the more polarized. People who are overweight or obese to the point of being unhealthy are of course going to be defensive about it, and sure part of the current culture may be growing to support them in this with the growing number or overweight or obese people, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it, just that we need to consider this defensiveness in our approach.
◧◩
13. max_en+mp[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 04:23:33
>>PKop+xb
Well this is blowing up. Future historians might have to revise the name of the Fat Man device.
◧◩
14. twotha+rx[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 05:46:33
>>Animat+jl
I started reading examples from the article to my wife and she brought up the fat controller. When my son was young we watched all the older, UK Thomas episodes on YouTube. We preferred the narrator and the fat controller to the US version.
◧◩◪◨
15. hugh-a+9B[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 06:38:46
>>xupybd+uk
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.

replies(2): >>Izkata+sO >>wcerfg+4Y
◧◩
16. oblio+9G[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 07:44:27
>>Animat+jl
On the other hand:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-repressiv...

replies(1): >>Animat+053
◧◩◪◨
17. tomp+jG[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 07:45:50
>>Dalewy+om
It was a positive trait in my country (Slovenia) after WWII! My grandparents’ generation! (Same reason)
◧◩
18. unders+kK[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 08:39:14
>>Animat+jl
He should be called by his real name, Sir Topham Hatt.
◧◩◪◨
19. luxpir+2L[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 08:47:47
>>Dalewy+om
Tedious counterpoints from everyone here. Very one dimensional.

It's not about the relative merits of more or less body fat, it's about overweight people constantly being told they need to do something, either in person or in the media. Worse, people will try to shame them into action, probably on a weekly basis, taking the moral high ground that they didn't allow themselves to gain weight, despite having no idea what conditions or mental issues have led to that state.

It's just tiring for people who are a little different (height, skin, fat, ability, etc.) to constantly be reminded of it and ignored as a person because of it.

The old books will continue to exist. But just like we don't tell our kids everything their beloved grandpa said, we do the same with the media they consume. Publishers making these changes are just adding value through convenience, making a calculated bet that it's in demand.

I read these books as a kid in the 80s and was definitely happy in my early years to join in with jokes about differences in people. Took longer than necessary to realise that wasn't funny for them.

◧◩◪◨
20. bsaul+cL[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 08:50:43
>>Dalewy+om
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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
21. Izkata+sO[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 09:34:41
>>hugh-a+9B
It combined with a corruption of HAES: Originally it was "Health At Every Size", as in, an encouraging message that you can always improve your health no matter how big you are (which a lot of people need because when you start exercising you can end up gaining weight before losing anything, because you're building muscle faster than you're losing fat). But at some point it became understood as "Healthy At Every Size" which people took to mean your size doesn't impact your health.
◧◩◪◨
22. sensan+zX[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 11:04:13
>>Dalewy+om
The version of Fat that was envied in the 1500s and earlier is a whole different beast to the morbidly obese blobs of fat that can barely stand up we're seeing today.
◧◩◪
23. sensan+QX[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 11:06:23
>>faerie+U
Wow, that reworked sentence doesn't even carry a hint of the original meaning, it basically rewrites the character entirely...
◧◩◪◨⬒
24. wcerfg+4Y[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 11:08:52
>>hugh-a+9B
Shaming is bad for health, there is a phenomena called minority stress https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10865-019-00120-6
replies(1): >>xupybd+JE2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
25. xupybd+JE2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 23:33:49
>>wcerfg+4Y
Yes but not all criticism is shaming. There is tremendous value in learning how to take negative feedback without letting it get you down. It's not easy but it's valuable.

I'm surprised in the direction we've headed. Instead of encouraging people to develop the ability to give and receive constructive criticism we've demonized it.

◧◩◪
26. Animat+053[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-20 03:32:34
>>oblio+9G
Have You been Really Useful today?

Awdry and Dahl were from the days when men were men, women were women, and the sun never set on the British Empire. That's going to upset some people.

replies(1): >>oblio+q04
◧◩◪◨
27. oblio+q04[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-20 14:11:31
>>Animat+053
> and the sun never set on the British Empire

"because God doesn't trust Brits in the dark".

See, I can play the witty quotes game, too.

Not that I added much of value with this comment.

[go to top]