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:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

You know, I bet most people never noticed all those General Lee statues until the left demanded they be torn down. Why so verklempt over a stupid old statue nobody looks at?

Personally, I don't care either way, but let's stop pretending that there aren't two sides in the culture wars, each with their own concerns

Yeah, why so verklempt over removing a stupid old statue nobody looks at? (Except the descendants of enslaved people who did notice it, of which group I'm assuming you are not a part of, am I correct?) So anyway, I guess we're in agreement!

Well somebody apparently noticed this book and thought that it should stay in print. You can always belittle the other by saying your concerns matter more than theirs, no matter the issue. Do you really think 100% of black people agree with you?

No, nobody really cares whether the book stays in print or not. How can I make this statement? Because the sales of the books have not been great. So people have been voting with their wallets. It became a “thing” for some because it fit into their “cancel culture” narrative. I don’t think the people complaining about the estate’s decision care whether the book goes back into circulation. What they want is something different. For racist tropes from a different time to be commonly accepted today. And that just isn’t going to happen broadly speaking.

How do you know what other people really care about? Are you God? So what if the sales of the book were not great? You know why they weren't great? Because they were already being pulled from the shelves due bogus charges of racism.

And no they don't want racist tropes because they don't think that was racist to begin with. Can't talk about chopsticks now? Really?

How many of these books did you own as a child and how many of them did you buy for your child or for other children as an adult?

I buy children's books all the time. I have never bought one of the titles that are no longer being published. No one - no grandparent, no aunt or uncle, godparent, friend, -- no one ever once gave us one of those titles as a gift.

Let's take a poll to see who else never bought one of those titles when they were in print or never received one or never owned them growing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

Ok. So this is your definition of “censoring”. Groups of people and corporations changing what they want to promote is just how the world moves forward. Things aren’t going to stay frozen in the past with the reading lists you grew up with being the only option for your grandchildren. Sometimes you agree with the change. Sometimes you don’t. That’s life.

When Trader Joe's tried to change the name on some of their ethnic foods to something more woke, there was a popular outcry and they reversed it. That's life too. So what's your real problem?

Yeah, that’s life too. That’s just the way the free market works. (I don’t know the incident you are referring to with Trader Joe’s but I am assuming you are representing the facts correctly). I don’t understand that question about “my real problem”.

We all know that's how the free market works. It's foolish to claim the people you disagree don't know something obvious. It's equally foolish to complain about people complaining, vecause they always complain about something, especially nowadays. So what.are you actually complaining about?

I am complaining, I guess, about randomly making up new definitions for well understood words like censoring. As far as people complaining, they are free to do so, but should expect to be told why some might consider them to be full of it. No, I don’t think everyone understands the free market. If they did, people in this thread wouldn’t be talking about suing Dr. Seuss’ estate for censorship.

On the right they are complaining about the new definition of racism, so I guess you are even.

I think one person said they should sue. I've seen leftists make dumb comments too. Not everyone is so smart.

For what it’s worth, it’s not a new definition of racism. My dad said to me when I was a kid that you can never trust a white person to see your capabilities separate from your skin color. Didn’t matter if it was my best friend’s parents. And the decades have proved him right (but fortunately less right than he was when he said it). The thing is you are seeing POC’s definition of racism, which is not just lynchings and colored water fountains, becoming an accepted understanding of the concept of racism within some white circles too. And that worries some on the right.

"Don't trust white people" is just the mirror image of "don't trust black people, so no, that wasn't the POC definition of racism. The definition was the same for both and both turned it down. Until now, when black scholars said at random racism=prejudice plus power and racism is dtermine at the sole discretion of black people and scholars steeped in the appropriate theories. Fine, if you want to try that, but don't be surprised when you get pushback, and not just from the right.

I'm a white person and holy cow. You don't read much history, do you? Because no one who has read widely and deeply about race relations in this country could say such an ignorant thing. At no point since slavery / Jim Crow ended did we ever start anew on a ground zero of race relations. It is absolutely understandable that when one group of people treated another group of people horribly for centuries that the mistreated group is not going to trust the group who mistreated them.

In other words "don't trust white people" resulted from white people treating black people horribly. White people are the ones to blame for that sentiment because white people couldn't be trusted to treat black people as humans. For CENTURIES.

"Don't trust black people" resulted from racist thought and intent to keep power away from black people.

Past is not prologue. We are not our parents. One day you will know this. Unfortunately, not today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

Ok. So this is your definition of “censoring”. Groups of people and corporations changing what they want to promote is just how the world moves forward. Things aren’t going to stay frozen in the past with the reading lists you grew up with being the only option for your grandchildren. Sometimes you agree with the change. Sometimes you don’t. That’s life.

When Trader Joe's tried to change the name on some of their ethnic foods to something more woke, there was a popular outcry and they reversed it. That's life too. So what's your real problem?

Yeah, that’s life too. That’s just the way the free market works. (I don’t know the incident you are referring to with Trader Joe’s but I am assuming you are representing the facts correctly). I don’t understand that question about “my real problem”.

We all know that's how the free market works. It's foolish to claim the people you disagree don't know something obvious. It's equally foolish to complain about people complaining, vecause they always complain about something, especially nowadays. So what.are you actually complaining about?

I am complaining, I guess, about randomly making up new definitions for well understood words like censoring. As far as people complaining, they are free to do so, but should expect to be told why some might consider them to be full of it. No, I don’t think everyone understands the free market. If they did, people in this thread wouldn’t be talking about suing Dr. Seuss’ estate for censorship.

On the right they are complaining about the new definition of racism, so I guess you are even.

I think one person said they should sue. I've seen leftists make dumb comments too. Not everyone is so smart.

For what it’s worth, it’s not a new definition of racism. My dad said to me when I was a kid that you can never trust a white person to see your capabilities separate from your skin color. Didn’t matter if it was my best friend’s parents. And the decades have proved him right (but fortunately less right than he was when he said it). The thing is you are seeing POC’s definition of racism, which is not just lynchings and colored water fountains, becoming an accepted understanding of the concept of racism within some white circles too. And that worries some on the right.

"Don't trust white people" is just the mirror image of "don't trust black people, so no, that wasn't the POC definition of racism. The definition was the same for both and both turned it down. Until now, when black scholars said at random racism=prejudice plus power and racism is dtermine at the sole discretion of black people and scholars steeped in the appropriate theories. Fine, if you want to try that, but don't be surprised when you get pushback, and not just from the right.

I'm a white person and holy cow. You don't read much history, do you? Because no one who has read widely and deeply about race relations in this country could say such an ignorant thing. At no point since slavery / Jim Crow ended did we ever start anew on a ground zero of race relations. It is absolutely understandable that when one group of people treated another group of people horribly for centuries that the mistreated group is not going to trust the group who mistreated them.

In other words "don't trust white people" resulted from white people treating black people horribly. White people are the ones to blame for that sentiment because white people couldn't be trusted to treat black people as humans. For CENTURIES.

"Don't trust black people" resulted from racist thought and intent to keep power away from black people.

Past is not prologue. We are not our parents. One day you will know this. Unfortunately, not today.

np Flowery language does not make you wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

You know, I bet most people never noticed all those General Lee statues until the left demanded they be torn down. Why so verklempt over a stupid old statue nobody looks at?

Personally, I don't care either way, but let's stop pretending that there aren't two sides in the culture wars, each with their own concerns

Yeah, why so verklempt over removing a stupid old statue nobody looks at? (Except the descendants of enslaved people who did notice it, of which group I'm assuming you are not a part of, am I correct?) So anyway, I guess we're in agreement!

Well somebody apparently noticed this book and thought that it should stay in print. You can always belittle the other by saying your concerns matter more than theirs, no matter the issue. Do you really think 100% of black people agree with you?

No, nobody really cares whether the book stays in print or not. How can I make this statement? Because the sales of the books have not been great. So people have been voting with their wallets. It became a “thing” for some because it fit into their “cancel culture” narrative. I don’t think the people complaining about the estate’s decision care whether the book goes back into circulation. What they want is something different. For racist tropes from a different time to be commonly accepted today. And that just isn’t going to happen broadly speaking.

How do you know what other people really care about? Are you God? So what if the sales of the book were not great? You know why they weren't great? Because they were already being pulled from the shelves due bogus charges of racism.

And no they don't want racist tropes because they don't think that was racist to begin with. Can't talk about chopsticks now? Really?

How many of these books did you own as a child and how many of them did you buy for your child or for other children as an adult?

I buy children's books all the time. I have never bought one of the titles that are no longer being published. No one - no grandparent, no aunt or uncle, godparent, friend, -- no one ever once gave us one of those titles as a gift.

Let's take a poll to see who else never bought one of those titles when they were in print or never received one or never owned them growing up.

I don't care what you think. I told you I care, that should be good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

Ok. So this is your definition of “censoring”. Groups of people and corporations changing what they want to promote is just how the world moves forward. Things aren’t going to stay frozen in the past with the reading lists you grew up with being the only option for your grandchildren. Sometimes you agree with the change. Sometimes you don’t. That’s life.

When Trader Joe's tried to change the name on some of their ethnic foods to something more woke, there was a popular outcry and they reversed it. That's life too. So what's your real problem?

Yeah, that’s life too. That’s just the way the free market works. (I don’t know the incident you are referring to with Trader Joe’s but I am assuming you are representing the facts correctly). I don’t understand that question about “my real problem”.

We all know that's how the free market works. It's foolish to claim the people you disagree don't know something obvious. It's equally foolish to complain about people complaining, vecause they always complain about something, especially nowadays. So what.are you actually complaining about?

I am complaining, I guess, about randomly making up new definitions for well understood words like censoring. As far as people complaining, they are free to do so, but should expect to be told why some might consider them to be full of it. No, I don’t think everyone understands the free market. If they did, people in this thread wouldn’t be talking about suing Dr. Seuss’ estate for censorship.

On the right they are complaining about the new definition of racism, so I guess you are even.

I think one person said they should sue. I've seen leftists make dumb comments too. Not everyone is so smart.

For what it’s worth, it’s not a new definition of racism. My dad said to me when I was a kid that you can never trust a white person to see your capabilities separate from your skin color. Didn’t matter if it was my best friend’s parents. And the decades have proved him right (but fortunately less right than he was when he said it). The thing is you are seeing POC’s definition of racism, which is not just lynchings and colored water fountains, becoming an accepted understanding of the concept of racism within some white circles too. And that worries some on the right.

"Don't trust white people" is just the mirror image of "don't trust black people, so no, that wasn't the POC definition of racism. The definition was the same for both and both turned it down. Until now, when black scholars said at random racism=prejudice plus power and racism is dtermine at the sole discretion of black people and scholars steeped in the appropriate theories. Fine, if you want to try that, but don't be surprised when you get pushback, and not just from the right.

I'm a white person and holy cow. You don't read much history, do you? Because no one who has read widely and deeply about race relations in this country could say such an ignorant thing. At no point since slavery / Jim Crow ended did we ever start anew on a ground zero of race relations. It is absolutely understandable that when one group of people treated another group of people horribly for centuries that the mistreated group is not going to trust the group who mistreated them.

In other words "don't trust white people" resulted from white people treating black people horribly. White people are the ones to blame for that sentiment because white people couldn't be trusted to treat black people as humans. For CENTURIES.

"Don't trust black people" resulted from racist thought and intent to keep power away from black people.

Past is not prologue. We are not our parents. One day you will know this. Unfortunately, not today.

np Flowery language does not make you wise.

Neither does assuming you know what someone else has or hasn't read. I read a lot of history. Oh boy did you all get it wrong. Your history is going to crush you like a bug. But not until you take so much value down with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Discussing this issue with my 17 year old and she reminded me how she got a class project cancelled in the 4th grade after she loudly announced that Dr Seuss cheated on his wife while she had cancer and she died of a broken heart. I’m not sure what filters the school was using for kids doing online research projects, but that’s the info she found interesting and chose to share.

What a creep!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

You know, I bet most people never noticed all those General Lee statues until the left demanded they be torn down. Why so verklempt over a stupid old statue nobody looks at?

Personally, I don't care either way, but let's stop pretending that there aren't two sides in the culture wars, each with their own concerns

Yeah, why so verklempt over removing a stupid old statue nobody looks at? (Except the descendants of enslaved people who did notice it, of which group I'm assuming you are not a part of, am I correct?) So anyway, I guess we're in agreement!

Well somebody apparently noticed this book and thought that it should stay in print. You can always belittle the other by saying your concerns matter more than theirs, no matter the issue. Do you really think 100% of black people agree with you?

No, nobody really cares whether the book stays in print or not. How can I make this statement? Because the sales of the books have not been great. So people have been voting with their wallets. It became a “thing” for some because it fit into their “cancel culture” narrative. I don’t think the people complaining about the estate’s decision care whether the book goes back into circulation. What they want is something different. For racist tropes from a different time to be commonly accepted today. And that just isn’t going to happen broadly speaking.

How do you know what other people really care about? Are you God? So what if the sales of the book were not great? You know why they weren't great? Because they were already being pulled from the shelves due bogus charges of racism.

And no they don't want racist tropes because they don't think that was racist to begin with. Can't talk about chopsticks now? Really?

How many of these books did you own as a child and how many of them did you buy for your child or for other children as an adult?

I buy children's books all the time. I have never bought one of the titles that are no longer being published. No one - no grandparent, no aunt or uncle, godparent, friend, -- no one ever once gave us one of those titles as a gift.

Let's take a poll to see who else never bought one of those titles when they were in print or never received one or never owned them growing up.

I don't care what you think. I told you I care, that should be good enough.

^^^Has never owned any of these Dr. Seuss books or bought them or read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discussing this issue with my 17 year old and she reminded me how she got a class project cancelled in the 4th grade after she loudly announced that Dr Seuss cheated on his wife while she had cancer and she died of a broken heart. I’m not sure what filters the school was using for kids doing online research projects, but that’s the info she found interesting and chose to share.

What a creep!

Who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

You know, I bet most people never noticed all those General Lee statues until the left demanded they be torn down. Why so verklempt over a stupid old statue nobody looks at?

Personally, I don't care either way, but let's stop pretending that there aren't two sides in the culture wars, each with their own concerns

Yeah, why so verklempt over removing a stupid old statue nobody looks at? (Except the descendants of enslaved people who did notice it, of which group I'm assuming you are not a part of, am I correct?) So anyway, I guess we're in agreement!

Well somebody apparently noticed this book and thought that it should stay in print. You can always belittle the other by saying your concerns matter more than theirs, no matter the issue. Do you really think 100% of black people agree with you?

No, nobody really cares whether the book stays in print or not. How can I make this statement? Because the sales of the books have not been great. So people have been voting with their wallets. It became a “thing” for some because it fit into their “cancel culture” narrative. I don’t think the people complaining about the estate’s decision care whether the book goes back into circulation. What they want is something different. For racist tropes from a different time to be commonly accepted today. And that just isn’t going to happen broadly speaking.

How do you know what other people really care about? Are you God? So what if the sales of the book were not great? You know why they weren't great? Because they were already being pulled from the shelves due bogus charges of racism.

And no they don't want racist tropes because they don't think that was racist to begin with. Can't talk about chopsticks now? Really?

How many of these books did you own as a child and how many of them did you buy for your child or for other children as an adult?

I buy children's books all the time. I have never bought one of the titles that are no longer being published. No one - no grandparent, no aunt or uncle, godparent, friend, -- no one ever once gave us one of those titles as a gift.

Let's take a poll to see who else never bought one of those titles when they were in print or never received one or never owned them growing up.

I don't care what you think. I told you I care, that should be good enough.

^^^Has never owned any of these Dr. Seuss books or bought them or read them.

Sure, whatever you say. You don't know me or care about me. You made up your own story anyway. Good job.

You only care about scrubbing old books you claim nobody cares about and don't know anything about. Somebody told you it was racist, so you believe it and that's good enough for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

You know, I bet most people never noticed all those General Lee statues until the left demanded they be torn down. Why so verklempt over a stupid old statue nobody looks at?

Personally, I don't care either way, but let's stop pretending that there aren't two sides in the culture wars, each with their own concerns

Yeah, why so verklempt over removing a stupid old statue nobody looks at? (Except the descendants of enslaved people who did notice it, of which group I'm assuming you are not a part of, am I correct?) So anyway, I guess we're in agreement!

Well somebody apparently noticed this book and thought that it should stay in print. You can always belittle the other by saying your concerns matter more than theirs, no matter the issue. Do you really think 100% of black people agree with you?

No, nobody really cares whether the book stays in print or not. How can I make this statement? Because the sales of the books have not been great. So people have been voting with their wallets. It became a “thing” for some because it fit into their “cancel culture” narrative. I don’t think the people complaining about the estate’s decision care whether the book goes back into circulation. What they want is something different. For racist tropes from a different time to be commonly accepted today. And that just isn’t going to happen broadly speaking.

How do you know what other people really care about? Are you God? So what if the sales of the book were not great? You know why they weren't great? Because they were already being pulled from the shelves due bogus charges of racism.

And no they don't want racist tropes because they don't think that was racist to begin with. Can't talk about chopsticks now? Really?

How many of these books did you own as a child and how many of them did you buy for your child or for other children as an adult?

I buy children's books all the time. I have never bought one of the titles that are no longer being published. No one - no grandparent, no aunt or uncle, godparent, friend, -- no one ever once gave us one of those titles as a gift.

Let's take a poll to see who else never bought one of those titles when they were in print or never received one or never owned them growing up.

I don't care what you think. I told you I care, that should be good enough.

^^^Has never owned any of these Dr. Seuss books or bought them or read them.

Sure, whatever you say. You don't know me or care about me. You made up your own story anyway. Good job.

You only care about scrubbing old books you claim nobody cares about and don't know anything about. Somebody told you it was racist, so you believe it and that's good enough for you.

That’s right. You don’t need to prove that it’s racist. You just need to believe it or come up with something stupid like "highly likely".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discussing this issue with my 17 year old and she reminded me how she got a class project cancelled in the 4th grade after she loudly announced that Dr Seuss cheated on his wife while she had cancer and she died of a broken heart. I’m not sure what filters the school was using for kids doing online research projects, but that’s the info she found interesting and chose to share.

What a creep!

Who?

The guy who cheated on his wife while she had cancer, leaving her to die with a broken heart, of course. That was your esteemed Dr. Seuss. Who else could it be? You're not implying the teenaged daughter is the creep, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

Because they based their decision on a ridiculous study published in the journal "Research on Diversity in Youth Literature." ( Yes, really)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html


"That study, published in 2019, examined 50 books by Dr. Seuss and found 43 out of the 45 characters of color have "characteristics aligning with the definition of Orientalism," or the stereotypical, offensive portrayal of Asia. The two "African" characters, the study says, both have anti-Black characteristics."

"In ("The Cat's Quizzer"), the Japanese character is referred to as 'a Japanese,' has a bright yellow face, and is standing on what appears to be Mt. Fuji," the authors wrote.
Regarding "If I Ran the Zoo," the study points out another example of Orientalism and White supremacy.
"The three (and only three) Asian characters who are not wearing conical hats are carrying a White male on their heads in 'If I Ran the Zoo.' The White male is not only on top of, and being carried by, these Asian characters, but he is also holding a gun, illustrating dominance. The text beneath the Asian characters describes them as 'helpers who all wear their eyes at a slant' from 'countries no one can spell,'" the study authors wrote.

The study also argues that since the majority of human characters in Dr. Seuss' books are White, his works -- inadvertently or not -- center Whiteness and thus perpetuate White supremacy.

So what. They're a company. They can do what they want. You obviously dislike the company's choices. Sorry. Maybe you should boycott all of his works.

DP. Based on that logic, about 95 per cent of the books ever published fail the test.

Wait, you actually think that 95% of the books that have ever been published are about white people?