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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's like a Rorschach test or the difference between art and smut when it comes to nudes. And yes, there is a subjective line. But in this particular case, if you don't see the implicit racism/bias in that image, then you are on the wrong side of it, disagree all you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!

Great, then just own it that you are willing to push racism and racist ideas on to society. That is fine. That is your right, but then don't be surprised if the people who are the target of your racism push back on it. That isn't being a lib, that isn't being a snowflake, that isn't cancel culture, it is a marketplace of idea where there is a fair exchange and consequences. It is called accountability, and the right simply doesn't want to be held accountable for its words and actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!

Choosing what ideas are published in your name isn't fear, it's just exercising freedom of speech. Framing it as fear is just a silly way of shaming people who choose to use their freedom of speech in ways you dislike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It isn't about being "afraid" - it is about evolving as a species and understanding common respect for our fellow man.

300 years ago, people were stolen from their lands and brought to this country to work under a whip or gun. Part of the justiification of that action was the propaganda that people of color were born inferior to those with white skin. Africa was a wild, untamed continent full of sub-human species. That people who practiced other religions (Islam/Hindu etc) were inferior to those who practiced Christianity. The illustrative depictions of people of color were literally those of monkeys or something akin to the Chinaman here.

If you don't understand why the depiction of people of color in these books isn't a follow on from that, and if you don't understand how it is scientifically and socially wrong to have created those depictions, to have propagated those depictions, and to have conducted a centuries long psyops campaign around it that continues with "Welfare Queens" and "diseased immigrants" then I don't know what to tell you. Humans are supposed to be rational and learn and evolve, but it is clear that there are a large number of Americans who simply refuse or are too thick to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It isn't about being "afraid" - it is about evolving as a species and understanding common respect for our fellow man.

300 years ago, people were stolen from their lands and brought to this country to work under a whip or gun. Part of the justiification of that action was the propaganda that people of color were born inferior to those with white skin. Africa was a wild, untamed continent full of sub-human species. That people who practiced other religions (Islam/Hindu etc) were inferior to those who practiced Christianity. The illustrative depictions of people of color were literally those of monkeys or something akin to the Chinaman here.

If you don't understand why the depiction of people of color in these books isn't a follow on from that, and if you don't understand how it is scientifically and socially wrong to have created those depictions, to have propagated those depictions, and to have conducted a centuries long psyops campaign around it that continues with "Welfare Queens" and "diseased immigrants" then I don't know what to tell you. Humans are supposed to be rational and learn and evolve, but it is clear that there are a large number of Americans who simply refuse or are too thick to get it.

I don’t apologize for being of European descent. I don’t apologize for being Christian. I am glad the faith was spread to the new world.

Slavery was the buggiest single mistake in the history of the republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It isn't about being "afraid" - it is about evolving as a species and understanding common respect for our fellow man.

300 years ago, people were stolen from their lands and brought to this country to work under a whip or gun. Part of the justiification of that action was the propaganda that people of color were born inferior to those with white skin. Africa was a wild, untamed continent full of sub-human species. That people who practiced other religions (Islam/Hindu etc) were inferior to those who practiced Christianity. The illustrative depictions of people of color were literally those of monkeys or something akin to the Chinaman here.

If you don't understand why the depiction of people of color in these books isn't a follow on from that, and if you don't understand how it is scientifically and socially wrong to have created those depictions, to have propagated those depictions, and to have conducted a centuries long psyops campaign around it that continues with "Welfare Queens" and "diseased immigrants" then I don't know what to tell you. Humans are supposed to be rational and learn and evolve, but it is clear that there are a large number of Americans who simply refuse or are too thick to get it.

I don’t apologize for being of European descent. I don’t apologize for being Christian. I am glad the faith was spread to the new world.

Slavery was the buggiest single mistake in the history of the republic.

Um the Indians?

[Anonymous]

Dr. Seuss wrote a book about saving trees and Republicans went ripshit over it.

But he redeemed himself in their eyes when they found other books with images of black people portrayed as savages.

Fascinating...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's like a Rorschach test or the difference between art and smut when it comes to nudes. And yes, there is a subjective line. But in this particular case, if you don't see the implicit racism/bias in that image,then you are on the wrong side of it, disagree all you like.

If it's subjective, there is no right or wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's like a Rorschach test or the difference between art and smut when it comes to nudes. And yes, there is a subjective line. But in this particular case, if you don't see the implicit racism/bias in that image,then you are on the wrong side of it, disagree all you like.

If it's subjective, there is no right or wrong.

Oh no, not you again.

-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!

Great, then just own it that you are willing to push racism and racist ideas on to society. That is fine. That is your right, but then don't be surprised if the people who are the target of your racism push back on it. That isn't being a lib, that isn't being a snowflake, that isn't cancel culture, it is a marketplace of idea where there is a fair exchange and consequences. It is called accountability, and the right simply doesn't want to be held accountable for its words and actions.

You are just using different names for the same thing. You call it "marketplace of ideas" rather than "cancel culture" but in a true marketplace, yiu don't ask publishers not to print something, you just don't buy it.

[Anonymous]

The resident nihilist has entered the building. Pay no mind to the psychopath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's like a Rorschach test or the difference between art and smut when it comes to nudes. And yes, there is a subjective line. But in this particular case, if you don't see the implicit racism/bias in that image,then you are on the wrong side of it, disagree all you like.

If it's subjective, there is no right or wrong.

Oh no, not you again.

-DP

I am glad you find me annoying. You might develop some empathy for those who find your side annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!

Great, then just own it that you are willing to push racism and racist ideas on to society. That is fine. That is your right, but then don't be surprised if the people who are the target of your racism push back on it. That isn't being a lib, that isn't being a snowflake, that isn't cancel culture, it is a marketplace of idea where there is a fair exchange and consequences. It is called accountability, and the right simply doesn't want to be held accountable for its words and actions.

You are just using different names for the same thing. You call it "marketplace of ideas" rather than "cancel culture" but in a true marketplace, yiu don't ask publishers not to print something, you just don't buy it.

Wrong-o! In a free society, your voice can sometimes mean more than your dollar. Some ideas are good, some are bad, and publishers don’t JUST make decisions about what to publish based on the money they could make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Seuss wrote a book about saving trees and Republicans went ripshit over it.

But he redeemed himself in their eyes when they found other books with images of black people portrayed as savages.

Fascinating...

+1

So I guess Republicans now embrace The Lorax and reject calls to ban it from schools and libraries? Let’s hear from you Repubs on this matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's like a Rorschach test or the difference between art and smut when it comes to nudes. And yes, there is a subjective line. But in this particular case, if you don't see the implicit racism/bias in that image,then you are on the wrong side of it, disagree all you like.

If it's subjective, there is no right or wrong.

Oh no, not you again.

-DP

I am glad you find me annoying. You might develop some empathy for those who find your side annoying.

No, this isn’t about sides. This about you taking positions, here and in other threads, that amount to “I can never be wrong because opinions are just opinions and there is no right or wrong”. If you believed that, you wouldn’t be here arguing about them. You’re a fake.