Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.

I am. And I did. IMO it's not racist. Period.

Are you referring to the original edition or the 1970's update where he removed the pigtails and bright yellow skin coloration?

The update. But the big change was taking out "Chinaman." I'm sort of indifferent to the changing the pigtails and skin color. It would be racist to do that today. But a lot of historical works are full of offensive imagery. I've actually read these works with my own kid and point out offense parts and explain why we don't do that anymore abd you should call out anyone who does. I don't see what's wrong with that.

DP. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s also nothing wrong with a publisher deciding it doesn’t even want to keep printing new copies of old books.

I didn't say the publisher couldn't do this if they wanted to. Everyone thinks I did, but I definitely didn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

You are right. Because the “solution” is to mandate publishers publish everything anyone wants. That’s not freedom.

Your argument is a disingenuous attempt to deny your complicity in supporting publishing elites denying our rights to read books. And you know it.

Uh no, I’m not the one being disingenuous. Choosing not to publish material you find harmful or distasteful is a freedom that I care very deeply about.

What you really want is people not to see what YOU don't want them to see. You are not defending publisher's rights. Why would you even care about this stupid children's book or this two bit publisher?

I want all publishers to be free from any government interference. Let markets decide. And I care because it’s of professional and academic interest to me. Why do you care that a publisher is deciding to pull offensive material? Do you think you’re losing something of value?

Sorry no. You can't win this argument. Frustrating right? You are using a subjective standard and so am I. Because everyone thinks I don't know how publishing works, including, apparently you. Or thinks I am right winger. Or has some other motive. They believe everything except my actual motives even when I tell them.

If you that bit frustrating, consider how other people feel when you use bad faith arguments assuming things like I want to force publishers to publish. Nobody anywhere said that. I sure didn't.

I disagree, dr Seuss did write some classics but not all of his output is brilliant and only the mulberry street book from the six that have been pulled is a classic. It is a business decision, tbh I have a few Seuss books but not those ones, if they had been selling like hot cakes, they wouldn’t have been pulled. No one is pulling the Lorax or the grinch from publication. There are so many brilliant picture books out there, some of them are written by him and he did start the modern picture book oeuvre. It’s funny watching conservatives getting all bent out of shape because they don’t as a general rule like his work and they supposedly support publishers making their own business decisions. Some of the outrage is because it’s a popular staple that was dropped suddenly and I think that it might be reinstated quietly with altered iconography

Are those outraged by this as outraged by the President trying to cancel his vice president via insurrection?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.

I am. And I did. IMO it's not racist. Period.

Are you referring to the original edition or the 1970's update where he removed the pigtails and bright yellow skin coloration?

The update. But the big change was taking out "Chinaman." I'm sort of indifferent to the changing the pigtails and skin color. It would be racist to do that today. But a lot of historical works are full of offensive imagery. I've actually read these works with my own kid and point out offense parts and explain why we don't do that anymore abd you should call out anyone who does. I don't see what's wrong with that.

DP. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s also nothing wrong with a publisher deciding it doesn’t even want to keep printing new copies of old books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.

I am. And I did. IMO it's not racist. Period.

Are you referring to the original edition or the 1970's update where he removed the pigtails and bright yellow skin coloration?

The update. But the big change was taking out "Chinaman." I'm sort of indifferent to the changing the pigtails and skin color. It would be racist to do that today. But a lot of historical works are full of offensive imagery. I've actually read these works with my own kid and point out offense parts and explain why we don't do that anymore abd you should call out anyone who does. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Maybe this is as simple as not enough sales were being generated due to the outdatedness of the books so they are not being published (no profit)? It happens to books all the time. The books are still on shelves and in used stores, etc. anyway. They are not "pulled" or "censored". I just don't see why this is a big deal. If they were such great books, they would survive and continue to be published (demand rules everything in business). There is plenty of racism in other books that have survived, but those are true classics of writing and in demand for that reason. Dr. Seuss is not at that level . . . let's face it. There are lots of great children's books out there that have beautiful artwork. Much more beautiful than the Seuss drawings. Sorry, but that's how it is. My kid loved other books much more than the Seuss books . . . books with more story plot for one thing. People act like there is only one children's author on the planet.

Anonymous wrote:To whomever keeps bringing up banh mi: calling pulled pork and coleslaw on ciabatta a banh mi is just wrong and disgusting. I dont care whether doing so is racist or not. It is not what it is. If one is trying to make a banh mi then they should at least try and get at least one of the ingredients correct.

I agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.

I am. And I did. IMO it's not racist. Period.

Are you referring to the original edition or the 1970's update where he removed the pigtails and bright yellow skin coloration?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.

I am. And I did. IMO it's not racist. Period.

Well they owner of the intellectual property disagrees, so they can do what they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

You are right. Because the “solution” is to mandate publishers publish everything anyone wants. That’s not freedom.

Your argument is a disingenuous attempt to deny your complicity in supporting publishing elites denying our rights to read books. And you know it.

Uh no, I’m not the one being disingenuous. Choosing not to publish material you find harmful or distasteful is a freedom that I care very deeply about.

What you really want is people not to see what YOU don't want them to see. You are not defending publisher's rights. Why would you even care about this stupid children's book or this two bit publisher?

I want all publishers to be free from any government interference. Let markets decide. And I care because it’s of professional and academic interest to me. Why do you care that a publisher is deciding to pull offensive material? Do you think you’re losing something of value?

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.

I am. And I did. IMO it's not racist. Period.

To whomever keeps bringing up banh mi: calling pulled pork and coleslaw on ciabatta a banh mi is just wrong and disgusting. I dont care whether doing so is racist or not. It is not what it is. If one is trying to make a banh mi then they should at least try and get at least one of the ingredients correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The real problem is that you think the real problem is whatever you think the real problem is”

You guys are insufferable.

There’s no problem with a publisher deciding it doesn’t want to sell a certain book anymore. Literally happens every day. If you’re concerned that our culture doesn’t value racist stereotypes anymore, then I can’t help you. The world has changed. Consumers don’t want to buy certain things anymore, publishers don’t publish it. That’s how free markets and free speech work.

The apparently want to buy these books, so consumer tastes haven't really changed, the publisher decided to change it for them. Why do you even care that people are talking about these books? Were you alive for New Coke? When Coca Cola told people their tastes had changed and people said, "Hell no it didn't!" It was national news for months until it changed back.

And this too is how free speech works. Pretty damn disingenuous to see it's free speech to withdraw a book but not free speech to complain about it.

I don’t think there’s a critical market segment that will change the publisher’s mind on this, but if there is, that’s fine. Publishers exercise this kind of discretion every single day. Only certain kinds of people seem to get upset about decisions based on the desire not to propagate racist stereotypes—racists. You might be one.

The only people who think this way are racist totalitarians. There appears to be a critical need for appeasement of the racist totalitarian demographic.

You are right. Because the “solution” is to mandate publishers publish everything anyone wants. That’s not freedom.

Your argument is a disingenuous attempt to deny your complicity in supporting publishing elites denying our rights to read books. And you know it.

Uh no, I’m not the one being disingenuous. Choosing not to publish material you find harmful or distasteful is a freedom that I care very deeply about.

What you really want is people not to see what YOU don't want them to see. You are not defending publisher's rights. Why would you even care about this stupid children's book or this two bit publisher?

It’s funny, none of the whiners in here are defending the actual material.