Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Sure, and you think it always worked the same, nobody noticed, and nobody had any complaints and it all went smoothly? Really? Is that what you learned from studying history? I sure didn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

OP is offended that people to portrayed fairly. Why would someone want to buy those books anyway?

Because this is the United States of America, and that is actually a highly offensive question. Even worse would be if you or any publisher ever decided not to print a book because they didn't think I should read it anymore. Which just happened. They didn't stop publishing these books because they were money losers. They stopped publishing because they thought they were too offensive to read. And they said so.

That is a big, big, change in American culture. And if you don't see how huge that is, and why the principle they used is so controversial, then all of you are the blind ones, not me. Open your eyes.

Thanks.

The only big big change is ash clowns Republicans are suddenly very certain that private businesses don’t get to make decisions for their own brand. What are you, some kind of pinko commie, PP? You want to run someone else’s business how you think they should run it, according to the GOP’s collective?

You’re being kept dumb on purpose and boy are you having a ball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

OP is offended that people to portrayed fairly. Why would someone want to buy those books anyway?

Because this is the United States of America, and that is actually a highly offensive question. Even worse would be if you or any publisher ever decided not to print a book because they didn't think I should read it anymore. Which just happened. They didn't stop publishing these books because they were money losers. They stopped publishing because they thought they were too offensive to read. And they said so.

That is a big, big, change in American culture. And if you don't see how huge that is, and why the principle they used is so controversial, then all of you are the blind ones, not me. Open your eyes.

Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

OP is offended that people to portrayed fairly. Why would someone want to buy those books anyway?

Because this is the United States of America, and that is actually a highly offensive question. Even worse would be if you or any publisher ever decided not to print a book because they didn't think I should read it anymore. Which just happened. They didn't stop publishing these books because they were money losers. They stopped publishing because they thought they were too offensive to read. And they said so.

That is a big, big, change in American culture. And if you don't see how huge that is, and why the principle they used is so controversial, then all of you are the blind ones, not me. Open your eyes.

Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

OP is offended that people to portrayed fairly. Why would someone want to buy those books anyway?

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.

Anonymous wrote:"Dr. Seuss Enterprises said it made the decision after consulting educators and reviewing its catalog."

Dr. Seuss had a long history of publishing racist and anti-Semitic work, spanning back to the 1920s when he was a student at Dartmouth College. There, Dr. Seuss once drew Black boxers as gorillas and perpetuated Jewish stereotypes by portraying Jewish characters as financially stingy.

Oh, the horror that the people who manage his estate might want to dial back the parts of his work that suck by today's standards. Why can't I just go eat in a Sambo's Restaurant, pour some Aunt Jemima over my pancakes, and read some Dr. Suess depicting black people as gorillas. Damn you liberals!!!

Anonymous wrote:Trans books for kids; dr suess cancelled.

Welcome to the clown world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

They are current, because they reflect our culture's shifting tastes. Racist caricatures were commonplace 60 years ago, because nobody thought twice about who it might hurt. Now, things are different, and that's okay!

And patently argument that racist caricatures being unacceptable is "hotly debated," but I guess that's why we're on page 55 of this thread.

Long before I got on thos thread other people were arguing about it and claiming that all the other people who were complaining about this decision were suffering from faux outrage and had nothing to complain about. Then you all complained about me. For a non existent argument with nothing to complain about, you all sure argue a lot.

Because you're lamenting the excesses of cancel culture (which is not the case here) and the lack of objectivity in cultural norms (which has never been the case), which is a silly argument and a dumb hill to die on, but whatever floats your boat dude. Have a good weekend.

Nope, that's not the hill I am standing on. I'm standing on a totally differently hill watching you throw rocks at other people and suggesting that *why might want to consider the real reason you throw such rocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Depends on context. Nudity doesn't belong in schools or in public. It's okay in sex shops and strip joints. But there is no logic to that. That's just what we do. Lots of past cultures allowed nudity in public. The early Christians didn't and that's why we don't.

Wait, who are YOU to say nudity isn't acceptable. You are cancelling my right to nudity.

Hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

They are current, because they reflect our culture's shifting tastes. Racist caricatures were commonplace 60 years ago, because nobody thought twice about who it might hurt. Now, things are different, and that's okay!

And patently argument that racist caricatures being unacceptable is "hotly debated," but I guess that's why we're on page 55 of this thread.

Long before I got on thos thread other people were arguing about it and claiming that all the other people who were complaining about this decision were suffering from faux outrage and had nothing to complain about. Then you all complained about me. For a non existent argument with nothing to complain about, you all sure argue a lot.

Because you're lamenting the excesses of cancel culture (which is not the case here) and the lack of objectivity in cultural norms (which has never been the case), which is a silly argument and a dumb hill to die on, but whatever floats your boat dude. Have a good weekend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you consider voluntary acts part of cancel culture? Isn't the point of cancel culture that the person or company faces negative consequences - boycotts, mean Tweets, etc - if they don't stop engaging in behavior that others find problematic?

Unless you can point to any evidence that the Seuss family was pressured into taking these books out of circulation, all of this handwringing about Dr Seuss' books being cancelled is just another culture war wedge issue contrived by Republicans. Voluntarily taking books with racist caricatures out of circulation because they do not honor Dr Seuss' legacy is hardly an example of cancel culture.

Forget the name! Look at the definition. That's new. Simply unheard of ten years ago. Nobody did that. That's why we still print Mein Kampf and you can buy it on Ebay. It's the most racist book in history. Nobody ever thought to cancel it.

You're missing the point. I'm not picking nits about the name, I'm talking about the distinction between caving to pressure from an outside group, and voluntarily making a decision that happens to dovetail with current cultural norms. I don't know how you could possibly make the argument that they're remotely the same thing.

They are not current. They are proposed norms. Accepted by some and not others. And being hotly debated too.

They are current, because they reflect our culture's shifting tastes. Racist caricatures were commonplace 60 years ago, because nobody thought twice about who it might hurt. Now, things are different, and that's okay!

And patently argument that racist caricatures being unacceptable is "hotly debated," but I guess that's why we're on page 55 of this thread.

Long before I got on thos thread other people were arguing about it and claiming that all the other people who were complaining about this decision were suffering from faux outrage and had nothing to complain about. Then you all complained about me. For a non existent argument with nothing to complain about, you all sure argue a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Depends on context. Nudity doesn't belong in schools or in public. It's okay in sex shops and strip joints. But there is no logic to that. That's just what we do. Lots of past cultures allowed nudity in public. The early Christians didn't and that's why we don't.