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:“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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

DP here. None of what you said is the real issue. In fact, the real issue is that you think the issue is about what you would have picked up from this book.

No, the issue is not that my opinion is wrong. The issue is that the people who think they are right literally have nothing to go on other than their own opinions. It's a house of cards. They list arbitrary features and say that's what they mean. But that meaning only exist because people say it does. Which is you can only tell me I'm wrong, but like all the other smart people on this thread, you can't actually tell me why. So you just say I am wrong and make that the issue. Seems pretty dumb if you ask me, but you didn't ask, so whatever.

[Anonymous]

Next time someone says they can't pronounce my name, I'm going to gasp and act extremely offended.

Signed,
A Polish person with a long last name ending in SKI

PS Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

Of course it's on me, that's the point. I don't see it, you do. What does that say about you? That you are right? That you are smarter? That you are better? That you are antiracist? Why? Would you be a totally different person if you didn't see it? What does it mean to you? Why do none of ask yourselves that question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

AND, to say nothing of the stereotype that cats are very, very bad.

And what's with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish? Clearly it's a hierarchy that suggests blue blooded fish are twice better than red fish.

--

We have collectively lost our minds. He wrote much of the stuff over a hundred years ago. Meanwhile it's ok for Borat to prance down the red carpet RIGHT NOW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

AND, to say nothing of the stereotype that cats are very, very bad.

And what's with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish? Clearly it's a hierarchy that suggests blue blooded fish are twice better than red fish.

--

We have collectively lost our minds. He wrote much of the stuff over a hundred years ago. Meanwhile it's ok for Borat to prance down the red carpet RIGHT NOW.

What year do you think it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

AND, to say nothing of the stereotype that cats are very, very bad.

And what's with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish? Clearly it's a hierarchy that suggests blue blooded fish are twice better than red fish.

--

We have collectively lost our minds. He wrote much of the stuff over a hundred years ago. Meanwhile it's ok for Borat to prance down the red carpet RIGHT NOW.

What year do you think it is?

Does this mean you will go for Huck Finn next? It's much worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

AND, to say nothing of the stereotype that cats are very, very bad.

And what's with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish? Clearly it's a hierarchy that suggests blue blooded fish are twice better than red fish.

--

We have collectively lost our minds. He wrote much of the stuff over a hundred years ago. Meanwhile it's ok for Borat to prance down the red carpet RIGHT NOW.

What year do you think it is?

Does this mean you will go for Huck Finn next? It's much worse.

I didn't "go for" anything and I'm not sure what Huck Finn has to do with your inability to figure out when 100 years ago was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.“

But it’s totally fine! Says OP

Yup, nothing racist here

Subjective standard again. I had that book as a kid. I sure didn't get the message they think I got.

And apparently you are still oblivious as an adult.

Well the problem with this whole unconscious bias thing. I didn't get the message that white people are dominant in that picture. I got one guy on top, others below and the guys on the bottom happen to be Asian. I can't prove that I did not pick up an unconscious bias, but they can't prove that I did. So how do they know if I did or I didn't?

Because now, in hindsight and as an adult, probably educated, if you don't see the unconscious bias and racism in the image, then that is on you.

Of course it's on me, that's the point. I don't see it, you do. What does that say about you? That you are right? That you are smarter? That you are better? That you are antiracist? Why? Would you be a totally different person if you didn't see it? What does it mean to you? Why do none of ask yourselves that question?

The only thing any of us can do is listen. If many in an affected community are telling you something, perhaps you might give it some importance? Asians have been telling you that they find “Chinaman” “yellow” and “slant eyes” demeaning. You might consider their perspective and say ok, I can see why one might find that picture offensive even if all *I* see is a couple of guys. And no, finding the minority of Asians that feel that “slant eyes” is just a description and not racist at all does not change that many in that group do. I believe you if you say this wouldn’t bother you. Can you see why it might bother some?

If you can understand why it might bother some people, the next question to ask yourself is whether there is any downside to stopping using the phrase. If the answer is “seems like a dumb thing to get hung up on, but I am not walking in their shoes, so fine - no skin off my back”, why not stop using it? What are you gaining by refusing categorically to listen to those who tell you it’s hurtful?

[Anonymous]

So the gist of this thread is that people who are not offended by racial and ethnic slurs directed at other people insist that means those things aren’t offensive to anyone who matters. On the other hand the same people are perpetually offended by other people pointing out that racial and ethnic slurs are in fact demeaning to the people targeted by them. So bigots are objecting to cancelling bigotry but they do want to cancel objections to bigotry.

[DraD]

Same here, it’s so messed up...

What passes for “leftwing” in US politics has become almost the inverse of leftwing politics. In the early 2000s it was religious conservatives burning JK Rowling’s books and in 2020 it is the “self identified left”. Unfortunately, its not looking like a phase either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next time someone says they can't pronounce my name, I'm going to gasp and act extremely offended.

Signed,
A Polish person with a long last name ending in SKI

PS Give me a break.

How old are you??? I'm asking because you don't have to be all that old to remember when 'Polish Jokes' were everywhere. Did you then or do you know find Polish jokes to be majorly offensive??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with that book. If you don’t want to read it to your kids, don’t read it.

I would never read this new genre of trans kids books in my home but it would NEVER have occurred to me to try to ban them from publication or sale.

Are you reality challenged or something? No one banned it. JFC talking to maga is like talking to a block of cheese.

eBay has banned the sale of existing copies of the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with that book. If you don’t want to read it to your kids, don’t read it.

I would never read this new genre of trans kids books in my home but it would NEVER have occurred to me to try to ban them from publication or sale.

If you suddenly acquired the publishing rights to them would you continue to publish them with your name on the cover?

I would happily place my name wherever it is appropriate for a publisher to do so, yes.

But I am not afraid of ideas. I would publish a lot of books, with all sorts of ideas!!!

[Anonymous]

Your forefathers carved the greatest nation the world has ever seen out of a wild continent and you are afraid of children’s books from a different era.

You are weak. You betray or patrimony.