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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I am guessing one of the posters on here is subscribing to one of the latest theories that “some words can be physically harmful” and should be banned when they advocate for banning books or taking them out of print rather than having them exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another culture wars non-issue to prop up the failing Republican party and distract from the looting of the middle and working classes and the destruction of the planet for profit.

At first glance yes, but then you dig deeper into what tenured professors are teaching, what young people feel is important (racial justice) and their advocacy efforts, and some of the proposed solutions to accomplish these goals (ending standardized testing in schools, showing math work is racist, banh mi sandwiches that aren’t authentic enough in university dining halls, Smith college and careers being ruined without sufficient proof of racism, and people write scathing purity tests that shut people down or ostracize them if they don’t conform or bend in every way, or opposing views or general dissent being quashed, or high schools not being allowed to use math tests for entry) I mean i don’t trust most people. I especially don’t after so many votes for Trump. But I also don’t trust people on this. People want simple answers to complex issues. If no one is allowed to critique the so called answers to solving racial equity for fear of being branded racist then what happens? Social discord and entrenchment and all that other dystopian bad sht.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Books and other media with racist or other problematic imagery should definitely be consigned to the ash heap of history. There is zero reason people should be exposed to or worry about being exposed to offensive pictures, words, symbols, etc. The only people crying about this know full well how these and similar content are used to reinforce their undeserved privilege.

That’s not exactly what’s happening. I wouldn’t say burn the books or erase their memory. Just let people decide if they want to sell and study them or not, lol.

There is utility in studying works of literature that embrace problematic themes. I mean what would English Ph.D’s do otherwise?

I don't think that's what happens when you stock it in the children's picture book section of the book store or library. What happens is that children see racist depictions of minorities and think they are just like funny pictures of his other characters. Two year olds do not engage in literary criticism.

What's ironic is that it's not children who are asking for these books to be removed, but adults, the same adults who grew up reading books like this.

And no child is being harmed by removing these books from the shelves. The only ones going through pearl clutching histrionics are Republicans because they benefit from these books reinforcing their privilege to their next generation. Boo hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

[Anonymous]

I remember years ago reading about new editions published in the 70s and 80s of noir novels originally published in the 40s and 50s in which racial and ethnic slurs from the originals were removed but profanity and sexually explicit scenes censored from the originals were reinstated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember years ago reading about new editions published in the 70s and 80s of noir novels originally published in the 40s and 50s in which racial and ethnic slurs from the originals were removed but profanity and sexually explicit scenes censored from the originals were reinstated.

That would seem to be a better solution. They already did it once to the Mulberry book. Other than publisher discretion and all that crap, it doesn't seem like they really considered this or any other alternative viewpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Books and other media with racist or other problematic imagery should definitely be consigned to the ash heap of history. There is zero reason people should be exposed to or worry about being exposed to offensive pictures, words, symbols, etc. The only people crying about this know full well how these and similar content are used to reinforce their undeserved privilege.

That’s not exactly what’s happening. I wouldn’t say burn the books or erase their memory. Just let people decide if they want to sell and study them or not, lol.

There is utility in studying works of literature that embrace problematic themes. I mean what would English Ph.D’s do otherwise?

I don't think that's what happens when you stock it in the children's picture book section of the book store or library. What happens is that children see racist depictions of minorities and think they are just like funny pictures of his other characters. Two year olds do not engage in literary criticism.

What's ironic is that it's not children who are asking for these books to be removed, but adults, the same adults who grew up reading books like this.

And no child is being harmed by removing these books from the shelves. The only ones going through pearl clutching histrionics are Republicans because they benefit from these books reinforcing their privilege to their next generation. Boo hoo.

The only people who think there is some kind of benefit to this particular image are clearly lying and have no proof of any benefit to anyone other than booksellers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

I don't think it is true that only racists are upset by this. I think the non-racists upset by this decision feel very entitled. They think they should have access to everything, without actually paying for it. They don't understand how free speech works-- they think freedom is getting whatever *they* want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

You are right. Because the “solution” is to mandate publishers publish everything anyone wants. That’s not freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember years ago reading about new editions published in the 70s and 80s of noir novels originally published in the 40s and 50s in which racial and ethnic slurs from the originals were removed but profanity and sexually explicit scenes censored from the originals were reinstated.

That would seem to be a better solution. They already did it once to the Mulberry book. Other than publisher discretion and all that crap, it doesn't seem like they really considered this or any other alternative viewpoint.

Maybe they did and decided it wouldn't be profitable. Did you forget that we are talking about a business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember years ago reading about new editions published in the 70s and 80s of noir novels originally published in the 40s and 50s in which racial and ethnic slurs from the originals were removed but profanity and sexually explicit scenes censored from the originals were reinstated.

That would seem to be a better solution. They already did it once to the Mulberry book. Other than publisher discretion and all that crap, it doesn't seem like they really considered this or any other alternative viewpoint.

Maybe they did and decided it wouldn't be profitable. Did you forget that we are talking about a business?

Maybe they did, but thet sure don't sound that way and neither does anyone else defending their decision. I've pretty much decided to go by my own subjective judgement of your motives, since that's what everyone else does. Did you forget that your motives are highly questionable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

You are right. Because the “solution” is to mandate publishers publish everything anyone wants. That’s not freedom.

Your argument is a disingenuous attempt to deny your complicity in supporting publishing elites denying our rights to read books. And you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

I don't think it is true that only racists are upset by this. I think the non-racists upset by this decision feel very entitled. They think they should have access to everything, without actually paying for it. They don't understand how free speech works-- they think freedom is getting whatever *they* want.

You are just replacing one bad faith argument with another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

You are right. Because the “solution” is to mandate publishers publish everything anyone wants. That’s not freedom.

Your argument is a disingenuous attempt to deny your complicity in supporting publishing elites denying our rights to read books. And you know it.

Uh no, I’m not the one being disingenuous. Choosing not to publish material you find harmful or distasteful is a freedom that I care very deeply about.