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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.

This is why i would have made the decision not to publish it anymore, if it were my decision. This is what kids do with stereotypes. Wise decision. Also, imagine being a Kindergarten teacher and reading these books to a class with kids from mixed backgrounds. Ugh.

The Asians of this country are kicking the white man's butt in college and work. Not sure what you mean by helpers. More like, wow, that's really cool. I want to be like the Chinese. Can we eat with chopsticks? That's how it would go down in our house.

Translation: Me any my family are not offended, therefore, nobody should be offended.

No, if we are looking at current society, in what area of America are Asians seen as merely "helpers"? Jews and Asians are doing just fine in America to the point where people are being racist against them to help bring up the black and Hispanic population. Also, there is nothing in this image that depicts them as helpers.

You just keep proving my point, dude. You are not offended, and you don't think anyone else should be offended. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

DP. It's only offensive if someone says so. Fine let them say so. Is mere offense really harm?

DP. No, it's not harm. And it's no harm to stop publishing the book either.

Why not?

To clarify. Why is not harmful? People say it is, even if you don't and use this as a reason.

Then people say "I wish they kept the book in print," and you assume that those people have no valid reason to even say that? Do you really think people want things for no good reason?

If some people say the book causes harm and some people say stopping to publish the book causes harm and neither has any concrete evidence, then it's all just a matter of opinion.

And yet, only the owner of the copyright has a right to decide what to do. And they did. You lost.

So it's all about power, not racism after all?

It all boils down to rights. The publisher has the right to decide according to our Constitution.

Yes that's true. And we have the right to criticize that decision. I say that they were wrong because the standard of racism that they used is wrong. If everybody on this page just accepted that and said "you are entitled to your opinion" we'd have no argument. But they keep trying to prove me wrong, and they can't. They don't know why they can't so they make stuff up and call me names. Racist, idiot, psychopath, nihilist, Jordan Peterson fan etc. What is going on here? What exactly is wrong with my opinion other than only a so-so could think that? Maybe nothing is wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.

This is why i would have made the decision not to publish it anymore, if it were my decision. This is what kids do with stereotypes. Wise decision. Also, imagine being a Kindergarten teacher and reading these books to a class with kids from mixed backgrounds. Ugh.

The Asians of this country are kicking the white man's butt in college and work. Not sure what you mean by helpers. More like, wow, that's really cool. I want to be like the Chinese. Can we eat with chopsticks? That's how it would go down in our house.

Translation: Me any my family are not offended, therefore, nobody should be offended.

No, if we are looking at current society, in what area of America are Asians seen as merely "helpers"? Jews and Asians are doing just fine in America to the point where people are being racist against them to help bring up the black and Hispanic population. Also, there is nothing in this image that depicts them as helpers.

You just keep proving my point, dude. You are not offended, and you don't think anyone else should be offended. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

DP. It's only offensive if someone says so. Fine let them say so. Is mere offense really harm?

DP. No, it's not harm. And it's no harm to stop publishing the book either.

Why not?

To clarify. Why is not harmful? People say it is, even if you don't and use this as a reason.

Then people say "I wish they kept the book in print," and you assume that those people have no valid reason to even say that? Do you really think people want things for no good reason?

If some people say the book causes harm and some people say stopping to publish the book causes harm and neither has any concrete evidence, then it's all just a matter of opinion.

And yet, only the owner of the copyright has a right to decide what to do. And they did. You lost.

So it's all about power, not racism after all?

It all boils down to rights. The publisher has the right to decide according to our Constitution.

Yes that's true. And we have the right to criticize that decision. I say that they were wrong because the standard of racism that they used is wrong. If everybody on this page just accepted that and said "you are entitled to your opinion" we'd have no argument. But they keep trying to prove me wrong, and they can't. They don't know why they can't so they make stuff up and call me names. Racist, idiot, psychopath, nihilist, Jordan Peterson fan etc. What is going on here? What exactly is wrong with my opinion other than only a so-so could think that? Maybe nothing is wrong?

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR OP your opinion is just in the minority. Why do you care that people disagree with you, so much so that a publisher decides it also disagrees with you? What harm do you think is being perpetrated here? Really. I want to know. What is it you fear is being lost? There are better books in the catalogue that don’t have the same problems. No one is cancelling Seuss.

Oh, my opinion is definitely in the minority. It's an even smaller minority than you think. That's why you all keep taking wrong guesses and wonder what it "really" is. I could try to tell you, but you probably won't like it. Want me to try anyway? If you don't get it you don't, but will you think I'm idiot because you don't get it, or admit that other people might have a valid opinion too.

You made your opinion clear many times. You don’t see a problem with the books. There’s no guessing going on here.

You didn’t answer my question.

The harm is that in using a subjective standard that favors some people over others, those who are disadvantaged by this in some way also suffer a type of "harm." You call yourself empathetic because you extend your empathy to certain races. But you don't extend your empathy to others whom you disagree with. This harmful to them and they are telling you so. You think the harm to them doesn't count. It is your right to think that. I think that's wrong. Sorry I have empathy for people who don't count. It apparently makes me a bad person. I'm okay with that.

Harmful to whom and how, do tell.

Who is harmed by stopping publication?

It has been trickling down into schools where teachers and parents decide not to read Dr. Seuss anymore or much less. In addition, his name is being harmed unnecessarily. It goes beyond just the stopping of a publication which is allowed by law, but still people can decide it wasn't a good decision and speak out about it.

Well I'm sure the foundation did this to preserve their sales of other books. For them it's a monetary decision. Based on "the mob" saying they won't buy Dr. Seuss otherwise. But it's gone farther to where teachers don't want to read Dr. Seuss and are smearing the name. It's just a complete overreaction of a famous author who was anti-racist in most of his work.

So who was harmed by stopping publication?

[Anonymous]

It has been trickling down into schools where teachers and parents decide not to read Dr. Seuss anymore or much less. In addition, his name is being harmed unnecessarily. It goes beyond just the stopping of a publication which is allowed by law, but still people can decide it wasn't a good decision and speak out about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.

This is why i would have made the decision not to publish it anymore, if it were my decision. This is what kids do with stereotypes. Wise decision. Also, imagine being a Kindergarten teacher and reading these books to a class with kids from mixed backgrounds. Ugh.

The Asians of this country are kicking the white man's butt in college and work. Not sure what you mean by helpers. More like, wow, that's really cool. I want to be like the Chinese. Can we eat with chopsticks? That's how it would go down in our house.

Translation: Me any my family are not offended, therefore, nobody should be offended.

No, if we are looking at current society, in what area of America are Asians seen as merely "helpers"? Jews and Asians are doing just fine in America to the point where people are being racist against them to help bring up the black and Hispanic population. Also, there is nothing in this image that depicts them as helpers.

Read. The. Thread. It’s a reference to the problematic content in “if I ran the zoo”. And yes, Asian people have definitely been seen as a subservient class in this economy for the larger part of its existence. Perpetuating imagery that reinforces that is bad.

We all read the thread, but I don't know anybody who has that stereotype anymore, nor have I seen in publications. Maybe if you read Stormfront you will, but more likely you'll hear more about how smart the Chinese and we will become their servants.

So if that stereotype no longer exist exists how does an old book perpetuate that, seeing that i apparently didn't.

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding but are you seriously arguing that because the stereotype is outdated, there is no problem with it? Seriously?

Not quite. If the stereotype no longer exists, what is the harm of reading about it? If it's that bad, we'd have to sanitize every history book in the world and throw out half the literature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.

This is why i would have made the decision not to publish it anymore, if it were my decision. This is what kids do with stereotypes. Wise decision. Also, imagine being a Kindergarten teacher and reading these books to a class with kids from mixed backgrounds. Ugh.

The Asians of this country are kicking the white man's butt in college and work. Not sure what you mean by helpers. More like, wow, that's really cool. I want to be like the Chinese. Can we eat with chopsticks? That's how it would go down in our house.

Translation: Me any my family are not offended, therefore, nobody should be offended.

No, if we are looking at current society, in what area of America are Asians seen as merely "helpers"? Jews and Asians are doing just fine in America to the point where people are being racist against them to help bring up the black and Hispanic population. Also, there is nothing in this image that depicts them as helpers.

You just keep proving my point, dude. You are not offended, and you don't think anyone else should be offended. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

DP. It's only offensive if someone says so. Fine let them say so. Is mere offense really harm?

DP. No, it's not harm. And it's no harm to stop publishing the book either.

Why not?

To clarify. Why is not harmful? People say it is, even if you don't and use this as a reason.

Then people say "I wish they kept the book in print," and you assume that those people have no valid reason to even say that? Do you really think people want things for no good reason?

If some people say the book causes harm and some people say stopping to publish the book causes harm and neither has any concrete evidence, then it's all just a matter of opinion.

And yet, only the owner of the copyright has a right to decide what to do. And they did. You lost.

So it's all about power, not racism after all?

It all boils down to rights. The publisher has the right to decide according to our Constitution.

Yes that's true. And we have the right to criticize that decision. I say that they were wrong because the standard of racism that they used is wrong. If everybody on this page just accepted that and said "you are entitled to your opinion" we'd have no argument. But they keep trying to prove me wrong, and they can't. They don't know why they can't so they make stuff up and call me names. Racist, idiot, psychopath, nihilist, Jordan Peterson fan etc. What is going on here? What exactly is wrong with my opinion other than only a so-so could think that? Maybe nothing is wrong?

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

Well if school districts tell teachers they can't use a certain book it is censorship in the school arena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has been trickling down into schools where teachers and parents decide not to read Dr. Seuss anymore or much less. In addition, his name is being harmed unnecessarily. It goes beyond just the stopping of a publication which is allowed by law, but still people can decide it wasn't a good decision and speak out about it.

So no harm to a person. Just to the name of a dead man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.

This is why i would have made the decision not to publish it anymore, if it were my decision. This is what kids do with stereotypes. Wise decision. Also, imagine being a Kindergarten teacher and reading these books to a class with kids from mixed backgrounds. Ugh.

The Asians of this country are kicking the white man's butt in college and work. Not sure what you mean by helpers. More like, wow, that's really cool. I want to be like the Chinese. Can we eat with chopsticks? That's how it would go down in our house.

Translation: Me any my family are not offended, therefore, nobody should be offended.

No, if we are looking at current society, in what area of America are Asians seen as merely "helpers"? Jews and Asians are doing just fine in America to the point where people are being racist against them to help bring up the black and Hispanic population. Also, there is nothing in this image that depicts them as helpers.

You just keep proving my point, dude. You are not offended, and you don't think anyone else should be offended. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

DP. It's only offensive if someone says so. Fine let them say so. Is mere offense really harm?

DP. No, it's not harm. And it's no harm to stop publishing the book either.

Why not?

To clarify. Why is not harmful? People say it is, even if you don't and use this as a reason.

Then people say "I wish they kept the book in print," and you assume that those people have no valid reason to even say that? Do you really think people want things for no good reason?

If some people say the book causes harm and some people say stopping to publish the book causes harm and neither has any concrete evidence, then it's all just a matter of opinion.

And yet, only the owner of the copyright has a right to decide what to do. And they did. You lost.

So it's all about power, not racism after all?

It all boils down to rights. The publisher has the right to decide according to our Constitution.

Yes that's true. And we have the right to criticize that decision. I say that they were wrong because the standard of racism that they used is wrong. If everybody on this page just accepted that and said "you are entitled to your opinion" we'd have no argument. But they keep trying to prove me wrong, and they can't. They don't know why they can't so they make stuff up and call me names. Racist, idiot, psychopath, nihilist, Jordan Peterson fan etc. What is going on here? What exactly is wrong with my opinion other than only a so-so could think that? Maybe nothing is wrong?

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been trickling down into schools where teachers and parents decide not to read Dr. Seuss anymore or much less. In addition, his name is being harmed unnecessarily. It goes beyond just the stopping of a publication which is allowed by law, but still people can decide it wasn't a good decision and speak out about it.

So no harm to a person. Just to the name of a dead man?

Harm to people who like the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.

This is why i would have made the decision not to publish it anymore, if it were my decision. This is what kids do with stereotypes. Wise decision. Also, imagine being a Kindergarten teacher and reading these books to a class with kids from mixed backgrounds. Ugh.

The Asians of this country are kicking the white man's butt in college and work. Not sure what you mean by helpers. More like, wow, that's really cool. I want to be like the Chinese. Can we eat with chopsticks? That's how it would go down in our house.

Translation: Me any my family are not offended, therefore, nobody should be offended.

No, if we are looking at current society, in what area of America are Asians seen as merely "helpers"? Jews and Asians are doing just fine in America to the point where people are being racist against them to help bring up the black and Hispanic population. Also, there is nothing in this image that depicts them as helpers.

You just keep proving my point, dude. You are not offended, and you don't think anyone else should be offended. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

DP. It's only offensive if someone says so. Fine let them say so. Is mere offense really harm?

DP. No, it's not harm. And it's no harm to stop publishing the book either.

Why not?

To clarify. Why is not harmful? People say it is, even if you don't and use this as a reason.

Then people say "I wish they kept the book in print," and you assume that those people have no valid reason to even say that? Do you really think people want things for no good reason?

If some people say the book causes harm and some people say stopping to publish the book causes harm and neither has any concrete evidence, then it's all just a matter of opinion.

And yet, only the owner of the copyright has a right to decide what to do. And they did. You lost.

So it's all about power, not racism after all?

It all boils down to rights. The publisher has the right to decide according to our Constitution.

Yes that's true. And we have the right to criticize that decision. I say that they were wrong because the standard of racism that they used is wrong. If everybody on this page just accepted that and said "you are entitled to your opinion" we'd have no argument. But they keep trying to prove me wrong, and they can't. They don't know why they can't so they make stuff up and call me names. Racist, idiot, psychopath, nihilist, Jordan Peterson fan etc. What is going on here? What exactly is wrong with my opinion other than only a so-so could think that? Maybe nothing is wrong?

Exactly! You are well within your rights to criticize the decision. And I fully support that right.

But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

Well if school districts tell teachers they can't use a certain book it is censorship in the school arena.

No, that's not censorship either. Employers have a right to set work protocols and standards. If you don't like it, you are free to find employment elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been trickling down into schools where teachers and parents decide not to read Dr. Seuss anymore or much less. In addition, his name is being harmed unnecessarily. It goes beyond just the stopping of a publication which is allowed by law, but still people can decide it wasn't a good decision and speak out about it.

So no harm to a person. Just to the name of a dead man?

Harm to people who like the book.

What harm is caused to them?

[Anonymous]

so if school districts want to ban Playboy Magazine from schools, is that censorship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But when posters like OP say this is "censorship" (not you, I think), that isn't a matter of opinion. That is factually wrong.

That may be technically true, but part of the problem here is that this is now a widespread cultural phenomenon. Many people say "times change" and that's true, but this change is so new that we don't have a widely accepted word for it yet. Calling it "publisher's rights" doesn't capture it because it isn't really about their rights and it's way bigger than just publishing. "Cancel culture" is a better term, but that's too perjorative. What do you think it is?

I would just call it PC culture. (Cancel culture is more extreme.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so if school districts want to ban Playboy Magazine from schools, is that censorship?

Yes. It may be censorship that the majority agrees to, but it's still censorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if school districts want to ban Playboy Magazine from schools, is that censorship?

Yes. It may be censorship that the majority agrees to, but it's still censorship.

No, it isn't. Employees generally have to do what employers tell them to do at work or be fired. (There are plenty of exceptions to this.)