While some of this is questionable the removal of the word 'fat' is an important one.
'Fat' should not be used in kids books as a derogatory, or at all frankly. Fat is an incredibly important and necessary part of a healthy diet and should be treared accordingly. Training people to think of fat in the antiquated notions of bad cardiogy isnt useful.
So while this may have been a move centered around "body positivity", it serves and higher purpose.
There's a very large difference between making sure you get the appropriate level of mono unsaturated fats that you would find in things like avocados and fresh fish, versus what Dahl is obviously referencing which is the concept of obesity.
You will not locate a doctor on this entire planet who would agree that obesity is healthy, it places far more load on the joints, and puts additional stress on your organs.
Either you have a deeply profound misunderstanding of the adjective fat versus the noun fat, or you're deliberately misconstruing the authors intent to fabricate an argument for why censorship is OK.
You are smart enough to know what's obvious to you, can you infer then what is so obvious to a child?
You have missed the point.
I'm not protecting the obese or advocating for censorship.
It is unwise to introduce some word associations to children, such as a negative conotation to a word, because they are limited in their understanding. This also seems obvious
A simple solution that makes language more precise would just keep tall and thin, and then untall and unthin could be used. Adding "plus" could be used to indicate if someone was superlatively unthin
You seem to have missed the point. So allow me to reiterate: fat is a derogatory term which lends itself to the idea that food fats are bad.
Food fats aren't bad. So call them chubby or overweight or whatever you want. Using the word fat, when fat refers to a food product, gives dumb people the impression that fat is a bad thing.
Do you get this concept?
"Thin" isnt a food group. Short and tall, also not food groups.
> Food fats aren't bad. So call them chubby or overweight or whatever you want.
These are two completely different meanings of the word though? Are you arguing that they need to carry the same semantics?
Should we not call smart people "bright", because people might think light bulbs are intelligent too?
Also, if I call someone fat, that might be demeaning. But it also might just be a description.
Of course nobody wants a negative description applied to them, and it might make them sad, but it's not because of the word we're using: it's because we're ascribing that description to them.
This is just silly. Fat has two meanings. 1) noun, a type of animal tissue, which serves, as one of its purposes, to store excess energy from consumed food for leaner times. 2) adjective, describing a person or animal who has a lot of this tissue, possibly to a detrimental level. The first meaning is not derogatory (or shouldn't be), it's just a physiological description of a type of body tissue. It can be in the right places and of the 'right' amount, or it can be in the wrong places and too much or too little. That's when we get into the second meaning (derived from the first) where there is an excess and that excess is getting stored in the wrong places (both on the superficial level and deeper in organs and clogging up arteries & veins).
Thin, short and tall are all just straight adjectives. Them being that doesn't invalidate the double meaning of fat and somehow (by your logic) the word itself.
"Fat" is an insult. It isnt hard to understand. Is it factually true that an obese person is 'fat', sure. It is still generally regarded as an insult.
Most of these replies are coming from idiots. This is both factual and an insult.
I havent made any remarks defending obesity or suggesting we need to curtail efforts of obese people to control their weight
Calling a character in a kids book "fat" doesnt help kids stay healthy and fit. Insulting and shaming kids doesnt help them stay healthy and fit. Their parents probably feed them garbage and have made poor lifestyle decisions.
Lipids (fat) are a macronutrient and necessary part of diet.
Being fat is not incredibly healthy, on the other hand - and there is absolutely no chance that there is any confusion between the two. This isn't to prevent Timmy from thinking certain people are called lipids.
'Fat' should not be used in kids books as a derogatory, or at all frankly. Fat is an incredibly important and necessary part of a healthy diet and should be treared accordingly. Training people to think of fat in the antiquated notions of bad cardiogy isnt useful.
So while this may have been a move centered around "body positivity", it serves and higher purpose.