Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

What are you talking about? This is how things have always evolved. There is nothing new here. How do you think older mores died away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

I really doubt they were losing money. Those books cost nothing to print and sales were low but steady. Furthermorez they actually purpose was to keep Seuss's books in print. Plus they said that they cancelled book because the specific images were racist. So why are you making up a story that this was strictly a money decision?

As I said, "cancel culture" is not a good term. But we have no other term for "removing a statement or image from social circulation due to the perception of racism, whether voluntarily or involuntarily."

Whatever that is, it's less than 10 years old and growing fast. They were isolated cases before that. There were other reasons things get "cancelled." But this particular reason and social process is new.

Anonymous wrote:OP: You're getting exactly what you voted for. Celebrate it!

Biden has exactly what to do with this?

It was debated in-house for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Ok, fine. In PC culture, I tentatively suggest that the standard for speech is whether or not certain racial groups are offended (or thought to be offended). The older standard was more like, being offended is not a type of harm, therefore it doesn't count. At worst, it is rude, but even there, it's not a big deal and nobody gets cancelled for rudeness.

Changing the standard has significant concequences that we are just beginning to see.

Cancelling slavery had impact too, and we are still trying to repair our society. Things take time, but I would hope people can sacrifice their outrage over "cancel culture" so we can evolve to a better place where were are more mindful and respectful of all members of our human family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Still a type of "censorship" but it's accepted that Playboy doesn't belong in school, so no one complains. The Playboy readers are 'harmed" but we've decided that they don't count.

I'm putting the words in quotes because it's not about the definition of the words. It's about that the type of action that is really the same, but society has decided to come down on one side to benefit children. Even if they had a logically airtight First Amendment case, Playboy would lose.

So nudity is bad, but racist imagery isn't? So we shouldn't cancel racist imagery?

Surprised the eBay decision isn't more what's discussed here, especially when while various Dr Seus books have been banned there, Mein Kempf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are still ok.

It's almost like this stuff isn't about substance at all, but more like virtue signaling bandwagons.

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

So it is PC when Trump "cancels" Rove?
Or when Newt "cancels" Teletubies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So a publisher cancelling their own books is "cancel culture?"

How about you take over the publishing of money-losing books and start subsidizing the publisher?

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.

Suess's family made this decision themselves. No one is harming anyone. If anything, they are removing the "offensive" material so that which remains are the beloved volumes that are not offensive.

OP: You're getting exactly what you voted for. Celebrate it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, many people have told you what they think is bad and why. You’re just ignoring them instead of engaging, because you want your opinion to appear unchallenged. It’s getting a little old.

I engaged a lot. I told that all of you have the same problem that ylu think this racist by some objective standard, but it isn't. It's totally subjective. My opinion is subjective too. That's because is there no possible objective standard. The fact that we are repeatedly using a new subjective standards while other people use other subjective standards is a big deal. But you don't realize this because you think this new standard is still objective.

Cultural mores and standards are ALWAYS subjective. ALWAYS. But they evolve. And the context matters. Calling someone a negro or colored was once considered respectful. Calling someone a negro or colored today would get you some eyerolls. The words haven't changed but the societal context has.

Of course. But not everyone agrees on every change. What if some people really don't like the change. You can't always just wait for them to die. Sometimes they fight back. And if you say, you don't have the power to stop us, what do you think they do then? Go away? Historically they often don't and their fight against the change wons or it gets delayed another generation, and the fight resumes, only bigger abd badder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, many people have told you what they think is bad and why. You’re just ignoring them instead of engaging, because you want your opinion to appear unchallenged. It’s getting a little old.

I engaged a lot. I told that all of you have the same problem that ylu think this racist by some objective standard, but it isn't. It's totally subjective. My opinion is subjective too. That's because is there no possible objective standard. The fact that we are repeatedly using a new subjective standards while other people use other subjective standards is a big deal. But you don't realize this because you think this new standard is still objective.

Cultural mores and standards are ALWAYS subjective. ALWAYS. But they evolve. And the context matters. Calling someone a negro or colored was once considered respectful. Calling someone a negro or colored today would get you some eyerolls. The words haven't changed but the societal context has.

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Ok, fine. In PC culture, I tentatively suggest that the standard for speech is whether or not certain racial groups are offended (or thought to be offended). The older standard was more like, being offended is not a type of harm, therefore it doesn't count. At worst, it is rude, but even there, it's not a big deal and nobody gets cancelled for rudeness.

Changing the standard has significant concequences that we are just beginning to see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Still a type of "censorship" but it's accepted that Playboy doesn't belong in school, so no one complains. The Playboy readers are 'harmed" but we've decided that they don't count.

I'm putting the words in quotes because it's not about the definition of the words. It's about that the type of action that is really the same, but society has decided to come down on one side to benefit children. Even if they had a logically airtight First Amendment case, Playboy would lose.

Can you give an example of something that isn't censorship? Because it seems to me, according to your definition, literally every action a human takes that affects another human could be censorship.

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Still a type of "censorship" but it's accepted that Playboy doesn't belong in school, so no one complains. The Playboy readers are 'harmed" but we've decided that they don't count.

I'm putting the words in quotes because it's not about the definition of the words. It's about that the type of action that is really the same, but society has decided to come down on one side to benefit children. Even if they had a logically airtight First Amendment case, Playboy would lose.