I’m a liberal democrat horrified by the current Dr Seuss drama and normalization of censorship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when the ACLU represented the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie? I think the liberals had it right then and are getting it wrong now. Censorship through other means is still censorship.

So what alternative are you proposing? That the publisher be FORCED to publish the book by the governement? Really?

This question has been asked about 10 times on this thread and no one will answer. I wonder why.

Still waiting.

I suppose that this point illustrates that it is current society itself that I "fear" - it seems there are thought police afoot that are powerful enough to have real impact on what is presented in the media, arts, news (I felt the same way with the way that Disney/MMA actress was treated - anyone that actually read her tweet could tell it was NOT anti-Semitic). These are corporations making decisions based on money, which is within their rights, but the far-left is trying to erase any exposure to things that they don't agree with or could be construed as offensive. And the far-left are either embedded within these corporations or have the money to exert influence. It's just a "scary" circular effect that seems wrong and the train is moving so fast in this direction with tech and social media and the 24/7 news cycle.

I would fear the thought police too. But the problem is there is no such thing as the thought police, only free people expressing their ideas and using their rights to live their lives as they see fit. The only way to fight this is to present better ideas on the marketplace of free ideas.

It's the twitter mob, the modern day equivalent of the torches and pitchforks. I'm sure the Dr. Seuss foundation saw it was either this or be burned to the ground.

Hyperbole much?

"“Dr. Seuss Enterprises listened and took feedback from our audiences including teachers, academics and specialists in the field as part of our review process. We then worked with a panel of experts, including educators, to review our catalog of titles,” it said." Critiques of Dr. Seuss' work goes back decades. It pre-dates Twitter. If people are able to exert pressure on a private enterprises to bring about change they desire, good for them. That's how it is supposed to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, there are an awful lot of out of print or difficult to find books from the past. Many of these were once popular but fashions change so they are out of print. If they were cancelling all Dr. Suess books because of his racist attitudes, then I'd worry. But cancelling one low volume work tbat most people never heard of is not a big deal.

+1 I had never heard of these books until I read the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when the ACLU represented the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie? I think the liberals had it right then and are getting it wrong now. Censorship through other means is still censorship.

So what alternative are you proposing? That the publisher be FORCED to publish the book by the governement? Really?

This question has been asked about 10 times on this thread and no one will answer. I wonder why.

Still waiting.

I suppose that this point illustrates that it is current society itself that I "fear" - it seems there are thought police afoot that are powerful enough to have real impact on what is presented in the media, arts, news (I felt the same way with the way that Disney/MMA actress was treated - anyone that actually read her tweet could tell it was NOT anti-Semitic). These are corporations making decisions based on money, which is within their rights, but the far-left is trying to erase any exposure to things that they don't agree with or could be construed as offensive. And the far-left are either embedded within these corporations or have the money to exert influence. It's just a "scary" circular effect that seems wrong and the train is moving so fast in this direction with tech and social media and the 24/7 news cycle.

I would fear the thought police too. But the problem is there is no such thing as the thought police, only free people expressing their ideas and using their rights to live their lives as they see fit. The only way to fight this is to present better ideas on the marketplace of free ideas.

It's the twitter mob, the modern day equivalent of the torches and pitchforks. I'm sure the Dr. Seuss foundation saw it was either this or be burned to the ground.

Everyone has a right to free speech, even the "Twitter mob." That is why there is no "thought police". Do you agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when the ACLU represented the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie? I think the liberals had it right then and are getting it wrong now. Censorship through other means is still censorship.

So what alternative are you proposing? That the publisher be FORCED to publish the book by the governement? Really?

This question has been asked about 10 times on this thread and no one will answer. I wonder why.

Still waiting.

I suppose that this point illustrates that it is current society itself that I "fear" - it seems there are thought police afoot that are powerful enough to have real impact on what is presented in the media, arts, news (I felt the same way with the way that Disney/MMA actress was treated - anyone that actually read her tweet could tell it was NOT anti-Semitic). These are corporations making decisions based on money, which is within their rights, but the far-left is trying to erase any exposure to things that they don't agree with or could be construed as offensive. And the far-left are either embedded within these corporations or have the money to exert influence. It's just a "scary" circular effect that seems wrong and the train is moving so fast in this direction with tech and social media and the 24/7 news cycle.

Here's a thought. Why doesn't the right or far right or whoever that cares so much about the agenda of the 'far left' do something to oppose them? I mean, the Mercers and Murdochs of the world aren't exactly poor, yaknow? Or is their only agenda to gin up outrage, but actually not do anything, because really, it doesn't much matter to them?

You still haven't come up with an answer to the question. IF a publisher decides to not publish a book, do you want them to be forced to do it? If a movie/TV show decides to fire an employee because they disapprove of their speech or conduct, should they be forced to keep them on as employees? How does that end?

this is the core of it. they could not care less but they use these wedge issues over and over to fog the minds of their viewers/readers so they vote for the very people who screw them and their children while benefiting the uber rich like Mercer an Murdoch and they dont even see it. look at FoxNews, I am sure Tacker Carlson will spend hours talking about how the radical left has already implemented North Korea style censorship killing the most beloved Dr Seuss that raised so many generation of wonderful Americans and the poor white kids are forced to read Dora the Explorer instead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tune into The View on ABC: they’re discussing this after the commercial break.

Sunny isn’t sure how she feels. She isn’t a fan of cancel culture; she prefers consequence culture. She worries about censorship. She notes the chopsticks.

Sara said a consequence of the racism is taking these specific books out of circulation and that is fine. That’s not cancel culture. Then she went on to say essentially nobody is perfect and times were different; throw a disclaimer on them.

Joy doesn’t like this. She used a Dr Seuss rhyme to say we should use books and art to foster discussion. “Is this sentence/picture racist?” Similar to Gone with the Wind. Don’t cancel it...talk about the problematic parts. Never ban books.

Whoopi says you should say when the book was written up front. Explain that was a time when some people thought it was okay. People don’t feel that way anymore. That’s not what we do now. Acknowledge it. Talk about it. Without the conversation, there’s no understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when the ACLU represented the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie? I think the liberals had it right then and are getting it wrong now. Censorship through other means is still censorship.

So what alternative are you proposing? That the publisher be FORCED to publish the book by the governement? Really?

This question has been asked about 10 times on this thread and no one will answer. I wonder why.

Still waiting.

I suppose that this point illustrates that it is current society itself that I "fear" - it seems there are thought police afoot that are powerful enough to have real impact on what is presented in the media, arts, news (I felt the same way with the way that Disney/MMA actress was treated - anyone that actually read her tweet could tell it was NOT anti-Semitic). These are corporations making decisions based on money, which is within their rights, but the far-left is trying to erase any exposure to things that they don't agree with or could be construed as offensive. And the far-left are either embedded within these corporations or have the money to exert influence. It's just a "scary" circular effect that seems wrong and the train is moving so fast in this direction with tech and social media and the 24/7 news cycle.

Oh, man. Sorry, but...have you met the far left? You really think that they're embedded in corporations? Or that the far left is awash in cash?

You've been watching too much Tucker Carlson, "liberal OP."

[Anonymous]

Books go out of print all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the crowd. Would you support eliminating distribution of "Breakfast At Tiffany's"? Guess it could be accomplished legally by pressuring whichever studio has the rights to pull it from On Demand Services. Pretty offensive Mickey Rooney Asian caricature in that movie. Also unquestionably (IMO anyways) a major cinematic work of art.

I tried watching that movie a year or so ago to see what all the hype was about and I couldn't even be bothered to finish it. If the studio wants to pull it, fine. It's their decision, not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm quite sure that if it's important to you or anybody else to get a hold of Dr. Seuss; books you will be able to.

You can enjoy them while you eat your "beloved" Aunt Jemima pancakes; I'm sure you stocked up right?

And if not, I think we will survive without Dr. S and Aunt J.

Yeah I'll pass on nasty fake maple syrup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What other books that are questionable in nature might be pulled next? I want to stock up. [/quote
My mom bought Gone with the Wind in a panic over possible censorship. If you like books about abusive relationships, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I came to the US in the mid 80s, from communist China. People in the modern day have no conception of what it's like to experience the western culture for the first time, coming from a nearly perfect state of vacuum. Everything was new, vibrant, and amazing, including sliced bread and bologna.

Now throw on top of this, Dr Seuss books. It's like adding Mentos to a bottle of soda. I remember vividly pulling those books off the shelf at the local public library, which was mind blowing in and of itself. An air-conditioned building where everyone is polite and quiet, filled with books! A children's section, my gawd! What are these books, with cats, funny hats, strange words, what does it all mean?

Of all the books I read during those first few months of being in the US, the only ones I remember is my English text book, and Dr Seuss books. Maybe Dr Seuss books contain racially insensitive content, but to stop printing a volume because it talks about Chinese people using chopsticks? I imagine the 11-year-old me would have giggled at understanding that one reference, a moment of familiarity on and otherwise wild mental ride.

Read the article, it isn't the government taking this action. It is the company that holds the rights. This isn't the authoritarian communist state. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when the ACLU represented the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie? I think the liberals had it right then and are getting it wrong now. Censorship through other means is still censorship.

YOU have it wrong. THIS isn't censorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The left is trying to cancel any conservative thought that disagrees with the far left.

It won’t end with silencing conservatives. Unless stopped, it will end with a small number of tech billionaires and a small number of very liberal politicians determining what you can read in a book (Amazon already won’t publish some conservative authors),
What you can watch on TV (tv stars are frequently cancelled),
And what you can listen to on the radio (democrats sent a letter to cable companies wanting them to drop conservative outlets).

So how about the rapper who was cancelled at CPAC. Pot, kettle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even Dr. Suess was ashamed of his early works, which, yes, exhibited racism by his own admission.

If this is the case (and I'm not saying that in a sarcastic way) then I would have appreciated a longer statement/analysis of why they ceasing publication of the titles they chose.

I would classify myself as pretty liberal and when I heard this story this morning I kind of rolled my eyes at what I assumed was the RWNJ outrage of the day. And then come to find out it's pretty much true.

I think it's a bit over the top.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in Europe and loved comics. a very popular series was Tin Tin. It was not among my favorite but I read several books. I visited a comic book store in Bethesda a while ago and it was selling some Tin Tin books (as Asterix and other similar children's comic books from Europe). however, one issue was locked up under glass and I asked the store owner about why (it did not look like an especially valuable or rare comic) and he plainly told me that it was because of its racist content. it was Tin Tin au Congo. I have to confess that probably it was totally normal in the 70's in Europe to read a comic book for kids where black people are depicted as savages wearing just cloth over their butt and the white people as advanced and smart. I would also be happy to know that this stuff is no longer published and my kids don't get to read them without proper introduction and contextualization.