|Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co, Ltd|
Apparently, Fatty from the Bash Street Kids is no longer going to be referred to as Fatty (old news I know), and it's created a minor stushie in some circles as many former readers are against it. (Will Spotty be next to lose his nickname I wonder?) The argument (as I understand it) is that it's to prevent the possibility of kids in the real world being influenced by The Beano into calling fat kids 'fatty' just because a comics character has the name. So DCT's flagship weekly title wants to set a positive example, and Fatty will no longer be referred to by his affectionate (and accurate) long-standing appellation.
Parity suggests that if something can have a positive example, then it can also have a negative one as, basically, they're two sides of the same coin (or mirror images of one another). I've long allowed for the possibility of certain comics potentially being able to set a bad example as well as a good one (or even none at all). Not because there's anything intrinsically harmful in the medium itself, as it's more a case of the content than the carton, but there's always the chance of kids being influenced by what they read (and see, and watch, and experience, etc.,) as they're particularly susceptible to suggestion.
So DCT have now acknowledged this with their 'rebranding' decision, and that means some of those who argue in defence of such a change, despite their prior protestations that comics could never influence readers negatively, have implicitly admitted they were wrong in believing such a thing, though most likely they're unaware of the dichotomy between the two views. My own opinion is that fat kids (and adults) are always going to be called fatty, with or without any possible influence by a comic, so it's basically just another bit of self-righteous virtue signalling by the pompous. (Or simply a publicity move to draw fresh attention to the comic, which sells a tiny fraction of what it sold in its heyday.)
He'll always be Fatty to me. What's your view?