Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And why is that? Because Americans are puritanical.

I don't think "puritanical" is the right word in this case. Unless you are implying that smoking being considered unhealthy is something based on Puritan or other religious values.



>> And why is that? Because Americans are puritanical.

> I don't think "puritanical" is the right word in this case. Unless you are implying that smoking being considered unhealthy is something based on Puritan or other religious values.

We Americans are puritanical, and that's in the sense of being able to imagine that our values are universal because they are good and correct, having been arrived at only after a great deal of thought and even spilled blood; and that anyone who disagrees is at best thoughtless or ignorant, but quite possibly crazy or evil.


It's not that hard to see, it is the right word.

Just because the taboo changed does not mean that the Puritan-inside(tm) hardware most Americans have is not there (self-evident on conservatives and very rabid omg-living-in-denial in liberals)

The main point is, in Puritanism, thinking the wrong thing is a sin, so even writing it down is seen as bad. Other cultures can discuss without dirtying their souls/minds/egos.


The main point is, in Puritanism, thinking the wrong thing is a sin, so even writing it down is seen as bad. Other cultures can discuss without dirtying their souls/minds/egos.

The issue isn't that "writing it down is bad" its that certain descriptions of a character are going to cause readers to judge that character differently depending on the culture the reader is used to. People who think smoking around children is a bad thing, are going to judge a parent doing that around their children. So, an editor might believe that removing that reference will avoid people focusing on an unimportant detail in a way that negatively affects the story being told.


If the criterion is health, it might be better to remove references to Americans eating in front of their children?


In America we tend to assume that it's ok for children to eat food but not ok to smoke


>> If the criterion is health, it might be better to remove references to Americans eating in front of their children?

> In America we tend to assume that it's ok for children to eat food but not ok to smoke

"Americans eating in front of their children". Does not mention food.

That is the point


I tend to assume eating implies eating food. I think you've missed the intended dumb argument about overeating being an american health concern.


Surely you know how ridiculous that comparison is. Second hand smoke kills, second hand food does not. You need to eat to be healthy, you do not need to smoke to be healthy. Not eating in front of children is more likely to give them dietary issues than not.


Yes, of course, it was a joke about American eating habits. I should avoid making oblique jokes but sometimes I can't resist.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: