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

[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.

No one is asking you to apologize for practicing Christianity or any other religion. However, it is a fact that Christianity led to the idea of white people as a superior race and it was directly used as a justification for slavery. When one "spreads the faith," it by definition means coercing, by logic or force, others to practice the religion. And, when when you see where the Evangelicals are now, using Christianity to justify wholly un-Jesus practices, then is exposes some serious flaws in the current situation as it relates to the religion.

[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.

And in this case, people were not buying it, so the publishers announced they were going to sop publishing it. And the so-called freemarketcapitalistsGOP went batshit over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a Republican but definitely The Lorax should not be banned. And neither should Catcher in the Rye or Huckleberry Finn or almost any of the other books that have been targeted over the years. I do not see this as a right / left issue.

[Anonymous]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824%3famp=1

eBay won’t let you sell or buy the handful of Seuss books because they’ve been deemed offensive.

This is the ripple effect. While the Seuss publishers can make a business decision not to publish, the reality is the accompanying rhetoric has an impact. The takeaway is racism, and it will likely impact the entire catalogue.

Let’s see how book sales of the cat in the hat do year over year moving forward. My guess is there will be a dramatic decrease because most people won’t want to inadvertently offend anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you! You got my point!

Your side is doing the exact same thing. All you did here was get a publisher to join you. The other side, in their own subjectivity are unhappy, but shouldn't their own feelings account for something, somehow?

I think those feelings should count in way that still honors your feelings. And someday they will. But that would require both of you to have empathy for people you currently hate.

Thar's my point. Pictures in or out, I don't care. Stop the hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And in this case, people were not buying it, so the publishers announced they were going to sop publishing it. And the so-called freemarketcapitalistsGOP went batshit over it.

Sure. It's hard to explain why because they are just as subjective as you admitted you are. Stop the hate.

[Anonymous]

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

You call me these high brow insults to exclude me. But I have done nothing hurtful to anyone. All I did was dissent from your opinion. I'm a dissenter, not a psychopath. Dissenters often get treated like this, is that right?

[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.

Who asked the publisher not to print it? Where are you getting that from?

People weren't really buying these books. Likely because they saw something about them that made them uncomfortable. Perhaps without thinking about them too much. Then the publisher examined the book, realized the sales weren't great and also realized they didn't want to publish the book because they appreciated why so many Americans had stopped buying it. The public "asked the publisher not to print it" using free market techniques and free market techniques only. They weren't banned, no laws were passed to stop the publishing of the book, the government was in no way involved. So whats the problem exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824%3famp=1

eBay won’t let you sell or buy the handful of Seuss books because they’ve been deemed offensive.

This is the ripple effect. While the Seuss publishers can make a business decision not to publish, the reality is the accompanying rhetoric has an impact. The takeaway is racism, and it will likely impact the entire catalogue.

Let’s see how book sales of the cat in the hat do year over year moving forward. My guess is there will be a dramatic decrease because most people won’t want to inadvertently offend anyone.

Next it will be Babar. Then Curious George. Old TV shows and movies will continue to disappear. People will continue to be fired for saying the wrong thing on social media. Witch Hunts do not end on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824%3famp=1

eBay won’t let you sell or buy the handful of Seuss books because they’ve been deemed offensive.

This is the ripple effect. While the Seuss publishers can make a business decision not to publish, the reality is the accompanying rhetoric has an impact. The takeaway is racism, and it will likely impact the entire catalogue.

Let’s see how book sales of the cat in the hat do year over year moving forward. My guess is there will be a dramatic decrease because most people won’t want to inadvertently offend anyone.

Next it will be Babar. Then Curious George. Old TV shows and movies will continue to disappear. People will continue to be fired for saying the wrong thing on social media. Witch Hunts do not end on their own.

Yeah, that's why there aren't any good minstrel shows anymore. Cancel culture!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824%3famp=1

eBay won’t let you sell or buy the handful of Seuss books because they’ve been deemed offensive.

This is the ripple effect. While the Seuss publishers can make a business decision not to publish, the reality is the accompanying rhetoric has an impact. The takeaway is racism, and it will likely impact the entire catalogue.

Let’s see how book sales of the cat in the hat do year over year moving forward. My guess is there will be a dramatic decrease because most people won’t want to inadvertently offend anyone.

But that is exactly what the "marketplace of ideas" is. Things stand or fall on their own merit. If someone "attacks" a product or puts out a better one (as seen by the consumer), and the marketplace listens, then the product will lose its standing. That is exactly how the whole thing is supposed to work. Most of the time, conservatives don't want to see intervention from government or anyone else in upsetting this process.

For the record, I don't think the "cat in the hat" will suffer long term. But I may very well be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who asked the publisher not to print it? Where are you getting that from?

People weren't really buying these books. Likely because they saw something about them that made them uncomfortable. Perhaps without thinking about them too much. Then the publisher examined the book, realized the sales weren't great and also realized they didn't want to publish the book because they appreciated why so many Americans had stopped buying it. The public "asked the publisher not to print it" using free market techniques and free market techniques only. They weren't banned, no laws were passed to stop the publishing of the book, the government was in no way involved. So whats the problem exactly?

The idea that those images are racist has been pushed for years by certain scholars and interest groups aligned with their philosophy. Same type of people are pushing to drop Huck Finn from school curriculums because it has the n-word. Same people are pushing the whole idea that words and images are harmful and therefore must not be said/spread/shown. This is all around and you are part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/ebay-removes-discontinued-dr-seuss-books-1573824%3famp=1

eBay won’t let you sell or buy the handful of Seuss books because they’ve been deemed offensive.

This is the ripple effect. While the Seuss publishers can make a business decision not to publish, the reality is the accompanying rhetoric has an impact. The takeaway is racism, and it will likely impact the entire catalogue.

Let’s see how book sales of the cat in the hat do year over year moving forward. My guess is there will be a dramatic decrease because most people won’t want to inadvertently offend anyone.

Next it will be Babar. Then Curious George. Old TV shows and movies will continue to disappear. People will continue to be fired for saying the wrong thing on social media. Witch Hunts do not end on their own.

You know, it can be hard to see a childhood favorite book no longer be as special to your kids as it was to you. I can sympathize with that. But children's literature, like all other preferences, change over time. I read "the very hungry caterpillar" over and over again to my kids when they were little. I don't know what I will be reading to their kids. Perhaps it will be "the very hungry caterpillar". Maybe something else will pop up. Maybe my kids will ask me not to read "the very hungry caterpillar" for reasons I can't at this time imagine. None of these outcomes are problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who asked the publisher not to print it? Where are you getting that from?

People weren't really buying these books. Likely because they saw something about them that made them uncomfortable. Perhaps without thinking about them too much. Then the publisher examined the book, realized the sales weren't great and also realized they didn't want to publish the book because they appreciated why so many Americans had stopped buying it. The public "asked the publisher not to print it" using free market techniques and free market techniques only. They weren't banned, no laws were passed to stop the publishing of the book, the government was in no way involved. So whats the problem exactly?

The idea that those images are racist has been pushed for years by certain scholars and interest groups aligned with their philosophy. Same type of people are pushing to drop Huck Finn from school curriculums because it has the n-word. Same people are pushing the whole idea that words and images are harmful and therefore must not be said/spread/shown. This is all around and you are part of it.

The idea that these images are racist started with the affected groups and then spread to scholarship and interest groups. Sure. I can buy that. And eventually more people agreed with that interpretation than did not which put pressure on the publisher. That is exactly how the free market works. No body forced the publisher to do anything except be a little more tuned to their consumers. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You call me these high brow insults to exclude me. But I have done nothing hurtful to anyone. All I did was dissent from your opinion. I'm a dissenter, not a psychopath. Dissenters often get treated like this, is that right?

Funny you knew I was talking about you? You’re the guy who thinks there’s no such thing as right or wrong? Psycho much?