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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ a)I want the right to complain about something without my motives being questioned each and every time I make any type of complaint.
b) I want some consensus or rational standard for what is racist and what is not because we sure as hell don't have it now.

The alternative is we talk this through, somehow. But that doesn't happen anymore, anywhere. And if people think they are right and everyone else is wrong, so shove it, don't be so surprised next time someone shoves back.“

You sure don’t like free speech. Maybe start with understanding what that means. Expect pushback, expect people to question your motives. Expect people to ask you why you don’t think something is racist if you loudly protest that it isn’t. Seriously. Listen to yourself. You want consensus? Geez. Not gonna happen. So many mental gymnastics because you can’t admit that maybe you were blind.

Seriously, you are full of it. NOBODY was interested in a serious discussion on this thread. And nowhere else too. OF COURSE I expect pushback. And the way shove, you'll get a harder pushback next time. I told you what I want, and still think I didn't mean it. That's your blindness, which you can't admit yourself either. As long as you do that, people will do it to you, worse and worse each time. Where does end? None of you seem to have thought about that. Time for you to self reflect.

You don’t seem to understand what I wrote. You said you want to complain without anyone questioning your motives. That’s not how free speech works. You want a consensus on what racism means, also not how freedom of thought works. The books have really questionable and racist content in them, if you’ve even looked. If you have and don’t see it, expect a lot of people to disagree.

I did look. The point is that anyone who does question it gets called racist or otherwise doing something dufferent, not given an explanation. Read this thread if you think you are doing something different. If that's how you choose to use your free speech that's up to you of course. Good for you. You struck a blow against racism. Yeah, right.

Holy haddock, you just want an explanation why stereotypes are racist? JFC, you could have just asked that question. Here’s a good explainer: https://www.verywellmind.com/harmful-psychological-effects-of-racial-stereotyping-5069394 TLDR: everyone stereotypes (it’s evolutionary! brains like shortcuts!). But stereotypes can become generalizations. Left unexamined, these generalizations can affect how we actually treat people in the real world. So ask yourself: do we really need stereotypes in children’s books?

There is no evidence that seeing this type of image causes racist behavior. The article said that, pointed out some plausible examples, many of which were overt messages rather than just pictures, but did not provide any real evidence because. It's all totally subjective. It's their own stereorype about how people form stereotypes. Even when you look in the academic literature. I looked, it isn't their and they admit the standard is subjective, so the academics just decide based on their own subjective guess then try to convince others they are right.

So get either get me a rational standard or admit it's subjective.

My bad. I thought you were asking in good faith. I should have known better than to try to engage with someone who knows everything and has nothing to learn.

No you did not believe you were speaking to someone acting in good faith. I disagreed with the article and you just can't handle that. You don't bieve such a good faith disagreement is possible, which means you had bad faith all along.

No, truly I thought you might read something about an issue that you indicated you were ignorant of. It’s not just that you disagreed with the article, it’s that you just glibly dismissed it because you’re looking for some totally objective definition. But only you are the arbiter of objective, because again, you know everything and have nothing to learn. Even though studies repeatedly show that subjective stereotypes contribute to objectively worse outcomes, you know it everything.

So the next time someone calls you a racist, please know: you’ve earned it!

I didn't earn it, I was already racist because of the color of my skin.

Also, you made assumption that I didn't know about that. I did actually. I already looked into the basis of the ideas, concluded they have insufficient research, therefore no authority.

[Anonymous]

Private bakers can't be forced to bake "gay" cakes.

Private organizations can't be forced to reprint racist books.

See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Now do Coke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private bakers can't be forced to bake "gay" cakes.

Private organizations can't be forced to reprint racist books.

See how that works?

Works fine. But OP wants to debate what racism means, as if there is a uniformly accepted definition possible. When really it’s about a society determining norms for itself, like it has here. The books in question are out of fashion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we review the list of books conservatives burned or canceled for years?

To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses, 1984, Lord of the Flies, etc etc?

That’s interesting because I can purchase all of those books on Amazon.

That is because the publishers continue to publish them, of course. So, we're back to the original point. The Seuss estate made a business decision to cease publishing the titles in question. How is that censorship or cancel culture? And, more to the point, why are so many people going to the mat to demand that imagery that EVERYONE acknowledges is racist, be preserved for future generations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first book of an all time great author and illustrator has been removed from print due to political pressure. For those trying to claim this is some sort of commercial decision - take a look at Amazon's Best Seller List.

This has already been discussed. Try to keep up.

It has, and you are being called out once again on your political motives, as is the publisher

Eh. Go read the only book in your possession, a tatty old copy of Little Black Sambo. Hey, it’s only subjective, right?

In an effort to derail this from devolving further, did you know that Little Black Sambo doesn't have any black characters? It takes place in India and its characters are Indian.

[Anonymous]

There is not one child that will be harmed through not having access to any of the no longer published books. Not one. The republicans on here arguing for keeping them in print are doing so from a place of self entered privilege and nothing else. Perhaps the GOP can purchase the copyrights and enter the publishing industry? Mulberry Street can be changed to MAGA Street. Come to think about Trump does kind of look like a Dr. Seuss character... Coincidence? Putin hears a Who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not one child that will be harmed through not having access to any of the no longer published books. Not one. The republicans on here arguing for keeping them in print are doing so from a place of self entered privilege and nothing else. Perhaps the GOP can purchase the copyrights and enter the publishing industry? Mulberry Street can be changed to MAGA Street. Come to think about Trump does kind of look like a Dr. Seuss character... Coincidence? Putin hears a Who?

I don't think any child will by harmed by keeping it either. Not one. So why get rid of it?

Also, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican? OP is not.

Finally, how exactly am I privileged? I have NO power whatsoever over the decision. Where is the privilege?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private bakers can't be forced to bake "gay" cakes.

Private organizations can't be forced to reprint racist books.

See how that works?

No, because I agree that they shouldn't be forced in both cases and I have no idea why leople think I wouldn't think that.

[Anonymous]

Is eBay really banning the sale of ALL Seuss books (not just the six or so take out of print by the publisher) but still allowing the sale Mein Kampf? If true, we are in a really, really weird distorted / demented place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not one child that will be harmed through not having access to any of the no longer published books. Not one. The republicans on here arguing for keeping them in print are doing so from a place of self entered privilege and nothing else. Perhaps the GOP can purchase the copyrights and enter the publishing industry? Mulberry Street can be changed to MAGA Street. Come to think about Trump does kind of look like a Dr. Seuss character... Coincidence? Putin hears a Who?

I don't think any child will by harmed by keeping it either. Not one. So why get rid of it?

Also, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican? OP is not.

Finally, how exactly am I privileged? I have NO power whatsoever over the decision. Where is the privilege?

The publisher determined that they no longer wished to put the books out. It’s their decision, not yours. If you don’t agree, get with your buddies over at National Review, purchase the rights, and put it back out on the street.
As to privilege, imagery and language in those books was problematic and you display your privilege through not acknowledging this, what others plainly feel.
Move on! Start planning your stage design for next year’s CPAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not one child that will be harmed through not having access to any of the no longer published books. Not one. The republicans on here arguing for keeping them in print are doing so from a place of self entered privilege and nothing else. Perhaps the GOP can purchase the copyrights and enter the publishing industry? Mulberry Street can be changed to MAGA Street. Come to think about Trump does kind of look like a Dr. Seuss character... Coincidence? Putin hears a Who?

I don't think any child will by harmed by keeping it either. Not one. So why get rid of it?

Also, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican? OP is not.

Finally, how exactly am I privileged? I have NO power whatsoever over the decision. Where is the privilege?

The publisher determined that they no longer wished to put the books out. It’s their decision, not yours. If you don’t agree, get with your buddies over at National Review, purchase the rights, and put it back out on the street.
As to privilege, imagery and language in those books was problematic and you display your privilege through not acknowledging this, what others plainly feel.
Move on! Start planning your stage design for next year’s CPAC.

I thought privilege was some kind of benefit. I got nothing out of this one. And what kind of privilege is failure to acknowledge something? Doesn't everyone have that opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not one child that will be harmed through not having access to any of the no longer published books. Not one. The republicans on here arguing for keeping them in print are doing so from a place of self entered privilege and nothing else. Perhaps the GOP can purchase the copyrights and enter the publishing industry? Mulberry Street can be changed to MAGA Street. Come to think about Trump does kind of look like a Dr. Seuss character... Coincidence? Putin hears a Who?

I don't think any child will by harmed by keeping it either. Not one. So why get rid of it?

Also, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican? OP is not.

Finally, how exactly am I privileged? I have NO power whatsoever over the decision. Where is the privilege?

The publisher determined that they no longer wished to put the books out. It’s their decision, not yours. If you don’t agree, get with your buddies over at National Review, purchase the rights, and put it back out on the street.
As to privilege, imagery and language in those books was problematic and you display your privilege through not acknowledging this, what others plainly feel.
Move on! Start planning your stage design for next year’s CPAC.

And what is your response to ebay pulling the listings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is not one child that will be harmed through not having access to any of the no longer published books. Not one. The republicans on here arguing for keeping them in print are doing so from a place of self entered privilege and nothing else. Perhaps the GOP can purchase the copyrights and enter the publishing industry? Mulberry Street can be changed to MAGA Street. Come to think about Trump does kind of look like a Dr. Seuss character... Coincidence? Putin hears a Who?

I don't think any child will by harmed by keeping it either. Not one. So why get rid of it?

Also, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican? OP is not.

Finally, how exactly am I privileged? I have NO power whatsoever over the decision. Where is the privilege?

The publisher determined that they no longer wished to put the books out. It’s their decision, not yours. If you don’t agree, get with your buddies over at National Review, purchase the rights, and put it back out on the street.
As to privilege, imagery and language in those books was problematic and you display your privilege through not acknowledging this, what others plainly feel.
Move on! Start planning your stage design for next year’s CPAC.

I thought privilege was some kind of benefit. I got nothing out of this one. And what kind of privilege is failure to acknowledge something? Doesn't everyone have that right?

meant right not opinion.

[Anonymous]

So there are 500,000 dead, the economy is teetering, President Biden has a wildly popular bill to address both the economy and COVID and the GOP is distracting you all with this idiocy.

Congrats.