Something Completely Different

Comments?

Roald Dahl books changed to remove "offensive" words (https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2023/0218/1357463-roald-dahl/?at_medium=email&at_emailtype=retention&at_campaign=website&at_creation=News%20Newsletter%20&at_link=Automated%20Newsletter&at_recipient_list=2&at_send_date=20230218)

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 18, 2023, 10:41 PMComments?

 Roald Dahl books changed to remove "offensive" words  (https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2023/0218/1357463-roald-dahl/?at_medium=email&at_emailtype=retention&at_campaign=website&at_creation=News%20Newsletter%20&at_link=Automated%20Newsletter&at_recipient_list=2&at_send_date=20230218)

you make knives dull enough and they become spoons

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 18, 2023, 10:41 PMComments?

 Roald Dahl books changed to remove "offensive" words  (https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2023/0218/1357463-roald-dahl/?at_medium=email&at_emailtype=retention&at_campaign=website&at_creation=News%20Newsletter%20&at_link=Automated%20Newsletter&at_recipient_list=2&at_send_date=20230218)

I think my main comment would be: who gives a shit?

people who care about the sanctity of literature

don't ban books don't burn books don't change the words

it's important and always wrong

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 18, 2023, 10:41 PMComments?

 Roald Dahl books changed to remove "offensive" words  (https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2023/0218/1357463-roald-dahl/?at_medium=email&at_emailtype=retention&at_campaign=website&at_creation=News%20Newsletter%20&at_link=Automated%20Newsletter&at_recipient_list=2&at_send_date=20230218)

I read most of his books as kid and loved them. I can't remember anything offensive in them.

Removing the word 'fat' is pathetic really, if I remember correctly in either The Twits or Matilda it was the wife that was fat and the husband that was skinny and he was described as such, I wonder if that was removed also.

If you start cleaning up Roald Dahl, where do you stop? There's adult on child violence and various nasty things.

I don't worry so much about them being edited as long as the books very clearly state that this has been done. In other words, I would like to be able to find the X-rated snapshot-of-that-time immoral children's book if I want it.

There are so many children stories and authors who I'm sure would love not to have to compete with the long dead for readers. Can't they just read those authors' books instead?

QuoteI don't worry so much about them being edited as long as the books very clearly state that this has been done. In other words, I would like to be able to find the X-rated snapshot-of-that-time immoral children's book if I want it.

i was thinking that too but even children's books need edges - if you want kids to read the experience needs some sauce

Of course. My kids love spooky, weird stuff (much like their dad) and I don't mind. What I think is generally important is separating fact from fiction and separating humour from values. That doesn't mean you should joke about anything, but you should generally be allowed to laugh at things that are horrible. I believe it's healthy to be able to sometimes laugh at absurdity and tragedy.

Some people seem to think laughing at something means condoning whatever it is that made you laugh. I'd be in trouble then, having just enjoyed Meet the Feebles  :laughing:

The scene in Matilda comes to mind where the teacher picks up the girl by her pig tails and throws her out of the schoolyard.

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 10:17 AM

QuoteI don't worry so much about them being edited as long as the books very clearly state that this has been done. In other words, I would like to be able to find the X-rated snapshot-of-that-time immoral children's book if I want it.

i was thinking that too but even children's books need edges - if you want kids to read the experience needs some sauce

yes, and also I don't think it's healthy to only feed a child books that pretend no bad or messy things exist.

I agree books shouldn't be edited (although I also agree it's not that bad when the editing is clearly declared somewhere). And with Roald Dahl I don't even see why one would want to do that (from what I can remember). His books contain violence and macabre things but in a way that the average kid can cope with just fine; I think censoring stuff like that is a kind of gross moral prudishness. The main issue with his books is that they're often just mean-spirited (because from what I know, the guy himself was like that) but in the exact same petty way that every child also is and recognises as such. I don't believe it will negatively influence a child, if anything it will relieve them to know adults can be like that too.

This doesn't justify panic about 'wokeness going too far' though. Right-wing media just seizes on anything like this and then amplifies it, takes it out of context and screams about it, making it all sound much worse than it is. Thats why so many men scream about 'wokeness' like it's the biggest threat to their existence, even though they've never personally had any issues from it and there are plenty of actual threats in their lives

it's not just roseanne being taken off her own show or these books being censored or a professor being forced to apologize when he did nothing wrong or a great journalist being fired or hate forest being removed from spotify or the turner diaries not being available hardly anywhere or a kid losing his scholarship for rapping along with a song or a popular tv cooking personality from kentucky losing her show

obviously it's the collective

when other people start having a say on what i have access to i take that seriously and i'm glad there's a conservative backlash against it - liberals should be for free speech as well and not just in the confines of the first amendment - and nods to the fact that the right are the most dangerous aggressors against free speech and thought but being less egregious than your opponent doesn't get you a pass

It's weird how in the US, this censorship seems associated with the left and liberals (?). How is it liberal to be for censorship?

If I Google the definition of liberal, this comes up immediately:

willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

Here in Norway, I consider myself a leftist liberal. But to me, that also means I'd defend others right to hold and express views that I find offensive.

In the US it's just right wing cranks who like to accuse the left of censorship. Meanwhile, it's the right who is actually trying ban stuff. 

QuoteHow is it liberal to be for censorship?

a lot of younger people feel that personal and psychological safety and comfort trumps hate speech and they claim that it's not censorship unless the state explicitly bans it

Does anyone doubt Fat Albert will be next? Or Ugly Betty? I mean, once this starts where the hell does it stop? I do worry about this; it's not a case of who's doing it but why it has to be done. Why can't things just be left as they are? It's like a whitewashing/revising of history and/or fiction. Are we trying to pretend the attitudes (as such) espoused in harmless children's books never existed? Did one kid never call another fat, or skinny, or specky? All our kids are perfect paragons of nature, are they?

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 04:40 PMDoes anyone doubt Fat Albert will be next? Or Ugly Betty? I mean, once this starts where the hell does it stop? I do worry about this; it's not a case of who's doing it but why it has to be done. Why can't things just be left as they are? It's like a whitewashing/revising of history and/or fiction. Are we trying to pretend the attitudes (as such) espoused in harmless children's books never existed? Did one kid never call another fat, or skinny, or specky? All our kids are perfect paragons of nature, are they?

You realize the story you posted is about a publisher trying to sell more books, right?

Yes. it's also clear he changed the words he did due to a fear of backlash from certain quarters in the wake of all this idea that certain things are not acceptable. You think he would have done this had there not been a worry that it would impact sales?

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 05:03 PMYes. it's also clear he changed the words he did due to a fear of backlash from certain quarters in the wake of all this idea that certain things are not acceptable. You think he would have done this had there not been a worry that it would impact sales?

I have no doubt it's entirely about making money. I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond that.

I'm not sure if Fat Albert is what you want to use as a perfect example either. (You do know that's Bill Cosby, right?

 

Quote from: Janszoon on Feb 19, 2023, 05:42 PM

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 05:03 PMYes. it's also clear he changed the words he did due to a fear of backlash from certain quarters in the wake of all this idea that certain things are not acceptable. You think he would have done this had there not been a worry that it would impact sales?

I have no doubt it's entirely about making money. I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond that.

What I'm saying - and I think I made it pretty clear - is that Dahl and his publishers would, let's say ten years ago, five even, have seen no reason to have to amend the books. Now they do, because of the way these things are looked at. I'm saying that the thinking on some sides has made it dangerous, that is, to sales, to include certain words or phrases that there should be no harm in including. As long as the idea is not to mock the, let's call it condition - whether it's fat, small, ugly, gay - or, if it is, to ensure the mocking is dealt with in the story, why should it not be left in? Like I said, does everything now that seems even mildly offensive have to be excised from past books? And if, using the word "fat" (which was mentioned), that word is removed, how will that help the problem of child obesity? I haven't read these books, but if a story is about, say, a child who gets fat from overeating, and that's removed, or made less of an issue, how then can any child know that overeating is not healthy? Most of these are supposedly moral tales. So you remove the moral? Makes no sense. I'm skinny as a rake. Some people are fat. I'm going bald and have buck teeth. None of these conditions offend me, and if they did, what would it matter? Taking the words away is not going to change anything. I'll still be skinny, balding with buck teeth. And old.

Quote from: Rubber Soul on Feb 19, 2023, 06:22 PMI'm not sure if Fat Albert is what you want to use as a perfect example either. (You do know that's Bill Cosby, right?

I did not. But take anything: Little Lulu and Tubby. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Where does it stop?

Quote from: Rubber Soul on Feb 19, 2023, 06:22 PMI'm not sure if Fat Albert is what you want to use as a perfect example either. (You do know that's Bill Cosby, right?

i wanna know if he gave all these drunk skinny white girls with limited drug experience quaaludes where the hell are dead ones?

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 06:30 PMI did not. But take anything: Little Lulu and Tubby. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Where does it stop?

When people finally take a deep breath. Both sides are guilty of censorship for different reasons. The left tried to ban Mark Twain for offensive language at a time when it was normal. Twain was an abolitionist. As for the right, well, anything non-biblical would be offensive to them. If some of them had it their way, we'd only have the Bible and Mein Kampf to read.

But common sense ultimately takes over. Right now Dahl and the Dr. Seuss survivors are living in fear, but in time, things will calm down. At least that's what history has taught us.

Quote from: Rubber Soul on Feb 19, 2023, 06:38 PM

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 06:30 PMI did not. But take anything: Little Lulu and Tubby. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Where does it stop?

When people finally take a deep breath. Both sides are guilty of censorship for different reasons. The left tried to ban Mark Twain for offensive language at a time when it was normal. Twain was an abolitionist. As for the right, well, anything non-biblical would be offensive to them. If some of them had it their way, we'd only have the Bible and Mein Kampf to read.

But common sense ultimately takes over. Right now Dahl and the Dr. Seuss survivors are living in fear, but in time, things will calm down. At least that's what history has taught us.

i'm pretty sure the clear lesson from history is that people who ignore the first wave of fascism end up with totalitarian governments

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 06:32 PMi wanna know if he gave all these drunk skinny white girls with limited drug experience quaaludes where the hell are dead ones?

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 06:44 PMi'm pretty sure the clear lesson from history is that people who ignore the first wave of fascism end up with totalitarian governments

True. But we also get to the point when we get tired of being told what we can and cannot read. Heck, they couldn't even ban porn, what makes you think they'll succeed at banning children's' books?.

My guess is they'll push everyone to the point where they say enough. The only question will be how much damage is done in the meantime.

Quote from: Rubber Soul on Feb 19, 2023, 06:52 PM

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 06:44 PMi'm pretty sure the clear lesson from history is that people who ignore the first wave of fascism end up with totalitarian governments

True. But we also get to the point when we get tired of being told what we can and cannot read. Heck, they couldn't even ban porn, what makes you think they'll succeed at banning children's' books?.

My guess is they'll push everyone to the point where they say enough. The only question will be how much damage is done in the meantime.

i thought america was like any other place on earth where you have to remain diligent about protecting your liberties before totalitarianism takes hold

if i knew we had a magic "enough" button i could've saved a fortune in antidepressants and anxiety medication

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 12:49 PMit's not just roseanne being taken off her own show or these books being censored or a professor being forced to apologize when he did nothing wrong or a great journalist being fired or hate forest being removed from spotify or the turner diaries not being available hardly anywhere or a kid losing his scholarship for rapping along with a song or a popular tv cooking personality from kentucky losing her show

obviously it's the collective

when other people start having a say on what i have access to i take that seriously and i'm glad there's a conservative backlash against it - liberals should be for free speech as well and not just in the confines of the first amendment - and nods to the fact that the right are the most dangerous aggressors against free speech and thought but being less egregious than your opponent doesn't get you a pass

What Janszoon says is true. Every political persuasion has narrow-minded and intolerant members. Those are often the loudest ones. The difference is that with left-wing progressive politics it's just that, and the right wing stirs up paranoia about it on purpose. Meanwhile in right-wing politics the intolerance and censorship is a systematic part of the ideology. So what you get is right-wing politicians acting indignant about 'wokeness destroying free speech' while simultaneously trying to impose things like the don't say gay law. The danger is there, and any un-nuanced anti woke rhetoric helps to fuel it

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 06:30 PMWhat I'm saying - and I think I made it pretty clear - is that Dahl and his publishers would, let's say ten years ago, five even, have seen no reason to have to amend the books. Now they do, because of the way these things are looked at. I'm saying that the thinking on some sides has made it dangerous, that is, to sales, to include certain words or phrases that there should be no harm in including. As long as the idea is not to mock the, let's call it condition - whether it's fat, small, ugly, gay - or, if it is, to ensure the mocking is dealt with in the story, why should it not be left in? Like I said, does everything now that seems even mildly offensive have to be excised from past books? And if, using the word "fat" (which was mentioned), that word is removed, how will that help the problem of child obesity? I haven't read these books, but if a story is about, say, a child who gets fat from overeating, and that's removed, or made less of an issue, how then can any child know that overeating is not healthy? Most of these are supposedly moral tales. So you remove the moral? Makes no sense. I'm skinny as a rake. Some people are fat. I'm going bald and have buck teeth. None of these conditions offend me, and if they did, what would it matter? Taking the words away is not going to change anything. I'll still be skinny, balding with buck teeth. And old.

The article you posted mentions that Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were described as black in the original edition of the book but changed to white in the early 70s. So I think it's pretty clear that changes to books are not a new phenomenon. Going back further, whole sections of Frankenstein were altered for the 1831 edition, and the altered version is the one that most people have read. A few years ago, I was even surprised to discover that a lot of the US editions of Discworld books swap British terms for their American counterparts ("noughts and crosses" becomes "tic-tac-toe", for example). Some of these changes may be good, some may be bad, and some may just be stupid (I think you and I will both agree the Discworld changes fall into the third category), but I'm just saying it's something that's gone on for a very long time, it's driven by publishers wanting to sell more books, and even if it's sometimes dumb, it's far from being one of the major problems in the world today.

Quote from: Janszoon on Feb 19, 2023, 07:20 PM

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 06:30 PMWhat I'm saying - and I think I made it pretty clear - is that Dahl and his publishers would, let's say ten years ago, five even, have seen no reason to have to amend the books. Now they do, because of the way these things are looked at. I'm saying that the thinking on some sides has made it dangerous, that is, to sales, to include certain words or phrases that there should be no harm in including. As long as the idea is not to mock the, let's call it condition - whether it's fat, small, ugly, gay - or, if it is, to ensure the mocking is dealt with in the story, why should it not be left in? Like I said, does everything now that seems even mildly offensive have to be excised from past books? And if, using the word "fat" (which was mentioned), that word is removed, how will that help the problem of child obesity? I haven't read these books, but if a story is about, say, a child who gets fat from overeating, and that's removed, or made less of an issue, how then can any child know that overeating is not healthy? Most of these are supposedly moral tales. So you remove the moral? Makes no sense. I'm skinny as a rake. Some people are fat. I'm going bald and have buck teeth. None of these conditions offend me, and if they did, what would it matter? Taking the words away is not going to change anything. I'll still be skinny, balding with buck teeth. And old.

The article you posted mentions that Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were described as black in the original edition of the book but changed to white in the early 70s. So I think it's pretty clear that changes to books are not a new phenomenon. Going back further, whole sections of Frankenstein were altered for the 1831 edition, and the altered version is the one that most people have read. A few years ago, I was even surprised to discover that a lot of the US editions of Discworld books swap British terms for their American counterparts ("noughts and crosses" becomes "tic-tac-toe", for example). Some of these changes may be good, some may be bad, and some may just be stupid (I think you and I will both agree the Discworld changes fall into the third category), but I'm just saying it's something that's gone on for a very long time, it's driven by publishers wanting to sell more books, and even if it's sometimes dumb, it's far from being one of the major problems in the world today.

this also. As if certain words being avoided because they're bad for sales is anything new.

I see two generalizations that I find somewhat difficult about this discussion.

The term wokeness seems to be generalized to encompass a lot of stuff, from general awareness about racial prejudice to now censoring children's books. Is that right that this is all part of the same movement? To me, I'd think someone could be for awareness to prejudice (sounds great) and still not be for tossing kids out of school for rapping, censoring Dahl, etc.

Then it seems wokeness is "owned" by the political left and used by the right as a way to attack the left. Noone likes to be subjected to moral superiority, so that sounds like a great narrative to weaponize. But isn't this also a bit simple? Won't f.ex. censoring Roald Dahl have supporters and detractors both among democrats and republicans?

These broad stroke generalizations just seem to make it harder to have a discussion that's very meaningful, I think. Maybe one could poke a hole in them.

Quote from: Guybrush on Feb 19, 2023, 07:35 PMI see two generalizations that I find somewhat difficult about this discussion.

The term wokeness seems to be generalized to encompass a lot of stuff, from general awareness about racial prejudice to now censoring children's books. Is that right that this is all part of the same movement? To me, I'd think someone could be for awareness to prejudice (sounds great) and still not be for tossing kids out of school for rapping, censoring Dahl, etc.

Then it seems wokeness is "owned" by the political left and used by the right as a way to attack the left. Noone likes to be subjected to moral superiority, so that sounds like a great narrative to weaponize. But isn't this also a bit simple? Won't f.ex. censoring Roald Dahl have supporters and detractors both among democrats and republicans?

These broad stroke generalizations just seem to make it harder to have a discussion that's very meaningful, I think. Maybe one could poke a hole in them.

The term "woke" is about awareness of racism, but in the past few years conservatives have decided to start using it to refer to pretty much anything in society that they don't like. 

wokeness can still be bad even if people who are against it often support worse things hate it

yes a lot of people are anti-woke because they're racist and homophobic

that doesn't mean it's not an ideology that's way out of hand -

it's like people on the cultural left think well as long as i always disagree with tucker carlson i'm always right - that's stupid -

the right have bad intentions (from pretty much all of our perspectives but they don't think so) and the left have good intentions

when they involve censorship they're both bad whatever the intentions

and it's nothing new? that's supposed to be an argument? news flash the past sucked

This generalising of conservatives and the right wing is getting a bit silly now.

Wokeness is more than just being aware of racism, you can say it meant x, y or z originally but people use it now to describe the extreme behaviour and daft beliefs of the left. For example the idea that you can't be racist to whites, wearing safety pins or the 'ban bossy' campaign. That's what people disagree with when they criticise wokeness, and then people on the other side act like they're supporting racism... 'but but... wokeness just means awareness of racism 🥺'

Welp, if conservatives decide to muddy the waters when it comes to discussing race I guess everyone just needs to go along with them.

Everything is the fault of conservatives.

Poor oppressed conservatives.

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 08:35 PMwokeness can still be bad even if people who are against it often support worse things hate it

yes a lot of people are anti-woke because they're racist and homophobic

that doesn't mean it's not an ideology that's way out of hand -

it's like people on the cultural left think well as long as i always disagree with tucker carlson i'm always right - that's stupid -

the right have bad intentions (from pretty much all of our perspectives but they don't think so) and the left have good intentions

when they involve censorship they're both bad whatever the intentions

and it's nothing new? that's supposed to be an argument? news flash the past sucked

Dude the 'nothing new' thing was just a reply to trollheart because he claimed that it was new.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that 'wokeness' as some kind of coherent threathening ideology that's representative of the left is a fearmongering fiction from the right, and reactions to it are way out of proportion. I'm not saying disapproval of censorship is unreasonable

Aimed at Janszoon but the bloody quote system here is ridiculous, so I can't be arsed:

I take your point about changing from black to orange for the grunka-lunkas sorry Oompah Lumpahs (maybe Trump supporters will have something to say about that  :laughing: ) but when you're changing words that are still used and have perfectly sensible meanings and connotations, in case someone takes offence, I think it's the wrong thing to do. Dahl removes "fat" (I mean, that's what the title of the article refers to) and changes it to "enormous". Um, how does that make ANY difference? So at least he's not saying "negative thin" or some shite like that, but I still think it's pandering. Of course he wants to sell books (and not die: he must be near it now; he looked pretty unhealthy when I watched Tales of the Unexpected recently, and that was in the 1970s/80s) and so is buying in to the whole "don't offend/don't risk offending" idea, instead of letting people make their own minds up. I find it a little insulting to be honest.

In the Pratchett example, that's not an example necessarily of almost self-censorship; that's just the kind of thing that made the producers of The Madness of King George change it from the original title of The Madness of King George III, in case Americans thought it was a sequel!  :laughing:

But if there is an "enough" button, I think it's time someone pressed it. It's all fucking empty rhetoric anyway. Think because certain words and ideas disappear/are banned they will just vanish from life? It's living in a fantasy, Utopian land where everything is fine DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR no everything is fine.

People would do better to change their own attitudes and behaviour without having to be scared into it. I had a crazy encounter some years ago when I was on some trivia website and used the word "oriental", and was told rather snippily that it is now considered racist and I should use Asian instead. For the love of sanity! How is oriental an insult? People still make Irish jokes, you know. The idea you can remove things from society by pretending they don't exist is moronic. Meanwhile, nothing changes in reality but we all feel better? As we say here in Ireland, me bollocks.

QuoteWhat I'm trying to explain to you is that 'wokeness' as some kind of coherent threathening ideology that's representative of the left is a fearmongering fiction from the right, and reactions to it are way out of proportion.

tell that to donald mcneil

tell that jason kilborn

two examples that have rippling effects that erode journalistic and academic freedom

those are not fictions - they really happened

the fact that a law school and the most prestigious newspaper in the united states with all the institutional power instilled in them took these actions indicate that it's a real problem

i don't know how anyone could possibly think i don't understand conservative political tactics so let's not do things like censoring professors and journalists (or comics) that give conservatives ammunition because what they're saying is actually correct

academic freedom matters
journalistic freedom matters

those statements might be hypocritical coming from the right but they still weild the full power of the truth

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 10:27 PMPeople would do better to change their own attitudes and behaviour without having to be scared into it. I had a crazy encounter some years ago when I was on some trivia website and used the word "oriental", and was told rather snippily that it is now considered racist and I should use Asian instead. For the love of sanity! How is oriental an insult? People still make Irish jokes, you know. The idea you can remove things from society by pretending they don't exist is moronic. Meanwhile, nothing changes in reality but we all feel better? As we say here in Ireland, me bollocks.

I dare you to find an "oriental" twice your size and explain that to him.

Quote from: Rubber Soul on Feb 19, 2023, 10:47 PM

Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 19, 2023, 10:27 PMPeople would do better to change their own attitudes and behaviour without having to be scared into it. I had a crazy encounter some years ago when I was on some trivia website and used the word "oriental", and was told rather snippily that it is now considered racist and I should use Asian instead. For the love of sanity! How is oriental an insult? People still make Irish jokes, you know. The idea you can remove things from society by pretending they don't exist is moronic. Meanwhile, nothing changes in reality but we all feel better? As we say here in Ireland, me bollocks.

I dare you to find an "oriental" twice your size and explain that to him.

they dgaf about that word - that's just something white liberals made up

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 10:49 PMthey dgaf about that word - that's just something white liberals made up

Better not tell them whiteys about Negros Oriental in the Philippines.

I'd rather we don't start listing slurs or offensive terms. I don't always know what's offensive about a word, but I still try to be attentive to the people who might take offense. A slur word and its use is probably not important to me, but it may be very important to someone else and ruin their day or their month, so it seems better to be considerate.

True. I just don't see how it is a slur. Still, if it is, it is. Just don't call me a Paddy.

You can call me a Mick.

Actually, you can call me whatever you like. Just don't call me too early in the morning.

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 19, 2023, 10:34 PM

QuoteWhat I'm trying to explain to you is that 'wokeness' as some kind of coherent threathening ideology that's representative of the left is a fearmongering fiction from the right, and reactions to it are way out of proportion.

tell that to donald mcneil

tell that jason kilborn

two examples that have rippling effects that erode journalistic and academic freedom

those are not fictions - they really happened

the fact that a law school and the most prestigious newspaper in the united states with all the institutional power instilled in them took these actions indicate that it's a real problem

i don't know how anyone could possibly think i don't understand conservative political tactics so let's not do things like censoring professors and journalists (or comics) that give conservatives ammunition because what they're saying is actually correct

academic freedom matters
journalistic freedom matters

those statements might be hypocritical coming from the right but they still weild the full power of the truth

again, I know that those things matter and I don't disagree with you there, but this rhetoric still hides a leap of reasoning. Anyway I don't think we'll convince each other

just remember that the same political sort that doesn't question runaway wokeness also had nothing to say about queer oppression until it became vogue - oh they're all onboard now that it's part of their tribe's political narrative but they had nothing to say about and did nothing to fight homophobia and related issues when it was still fringe - obama opposed gay marriage and so did the typical democrat just as recently as that - without even giving it a second thought they rejected queer love - now they got a lot to say

the common thread in their thinking is they're sheep

Do you know it was actually then VP Biden who convinced Obama to ultimately support gay marriage? Yes, maybe it was a populist move on Obama's part, but we got gay marriage nonetheless. Sometimes you have to hear the people truly speak before something is actually done.

As a non-Christian Rubber Soul's username offends me, as I do not believe, and never have done, in even the very concept, never mind the existence of rubber. Please change it. Thank you.

Quote from: Rubber Soul on Feb 20, 2023, 01:07 PMDo you know it was actually then VP Biden who convinced Obama to ultimately support gay marriage? Yes, maybe it was a populist move on Obama's part, but we got gay marriage nonetheless. Sometimes you have to hear the people truly speak before something is actually done.

so marriage equality was delayed for decades because biden was too cowardly to speak out while he was supporting ridiculous prison sentences for marijuana possession and refusing amnesty for people who wouldn't go to SE asia to murder people during the vietnam war - what a champ - so glad we waited

Quote

• SCD should have an environment that promotes friendship and trust between members
• SCD should be a community that's fun to engage with and that rewards participation
• SCD should be thriving and should attract new members
• SCD forums should be responsive, reliable and make for a good user experience

If threads like this continue to dominate the discussion here, they're going to be a major obstacle to this community's stated goals.

Quote from: Janszoon on Feb 20, 2023, 02:06 PM

Quote

• SCD should have an environment that promotes friendship and trust between members
• SCD should be a community that's fun to engage with and that rewards participation
• SCD should be thriving and should attract new members
• SCD forums should be responsive, reliable and make for a good user experience

If threads like this continue to dominate the discussion here, they're going to be a major obstacle to this community's stated goals.

classic liberal play to silence anything that doesn't say hooray for our side

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 20, 2023, 02:54 PMclassic liberal play to silence anything that doesn't say hooray for our side

I share this concern and am not the only one as this has been discussed.

What I also want is for this forum to be a place where people can discuss their interests. But if that's gonna get in the way of our other goals, then we should do something about it.

The language and rhetoric used to discuss this seems rather charged. I already mentioned how this issue seems to be politicized and simplified into this right/left narrative. I already mentioned how there are forces in the US that would like to control your opinions and weaponise your rhetoric. The shape this discussion takes in the US (in particular) is very conflict oriented.

I wanted to point this out so you could reflect on that, hopefully shake loose from it and not bring that cultural war to these forums.

I like you, OH. You seem compassionate about the less fortunate and near militant in the face of injustice. But here we're in a thread with a very loaded title and you'd take away Jans' agency by labeling his opinion as typical libertarian. This labeling is just another example of the war language that gets dragged into this.

I still don't want to have to lock this up and for now will try one last appeal - to everyone and not just OH. Please try to discuss this in a respectful and civilized manner. If that doesn't work out from here on, I'll lock it up.

Edit:

One thing that doesn't seem right is the Roald Dahl discussion taking over the wokeness thread. This was a move by the Roald Dahl estate and a London publishing house and could have / should have been its own thread as it's not specifically about awareness to racial prejudice. Hence, I'll split it to its own topic.

To be clear about my previous comment, I wasn't posting the goals to say I thought this thread, or any other, should be locked. My point was, if the goals of this community include being friendly and attracting new members, we should all be focusing more on threads that aren't going to turn people off.

Actually, what OH said was liberal. There is a big difference between liberal and libertarian. Libertarianism is a conservative philosophy that believes in a very limited government while liberalism tends to believe more in an activist government that is meant to support the rights of the disadvantaged.

Anyway, the labeling of left or right as inherently evil doesn't get us very far. Thanks, Guybrush, for keeping an eye on us.

Thanks RS! Both for your kind words and for pointing out the right way to use these terms. I'm a little confused as you can probably tell :laughing:

I just want to know when Rubber Soul will change his name. I choose not to recognise the existence of rubber, so surely this is a direct insult to me?

What does Paul McCartney do to help his wife's injured foot?

Rubber Soul.

Paul went from rubber soles to barefoot.

Here he is walking across Abbey Roald.  What a Dahl. 

(https://wrnr.com/assets/images/Bobby%20Blogz/abbey/paul.jpg)

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/roald-dahl-censored-gbr-scli-intl

QuoteThese revisions have been worked on by "sensitivity readers" from an organization called Inclusive Minds, which describes itself as "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion, diversity, equality and accessibility in children's literature, and are committed to changing the face of children's books."

In a lengthy report published on Saturday, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph revealed that it had found hundreds of changes across the author's many children's books. Close analysis by its journalists revealed that language relating to gender, race, weight, mental health and violence had been cut or rewritten. This included removing words such as "fat" and "ugly," as well as descriptions using the colors black and white.

this is why this definitely belonged in the anti-woke thread - this kind of hypersensitivity to people's feelings at the expense of free expression is exactly the type of woke insanity that i'm talking about

who cares? salman rushdie cares

note this is cnn not fox news

and i mean "sensitivity readers"???

it saddens me that so many people can't see how hostile that is to free expression

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 21, 2023, 12:23 PMthis is why this definitely belonged in the anti-woke thread - this kind of hypersensitivity to people's feelings at the expense of free expression is exactly the type of woke insanity that i'm talking about

who cares? salman rushdie cares

note this is cnn not fox news

and i mean "sensitivity readers"???

it saddens me that so many people can't see how hostile that is to free expression

"Sensitivity Readers" from an organization called Inclusive Minds, sounds like something out of '1984' by George Orwell.

Quote from: TheNonSexual OccultHawk on Feb 21, 2023, 12:23 PMhttps://www.cnn.com/style/article/roald-dahl-censored-gbr-scli-intl

QuoteThese revisions have been worked on by "sensitivity readers" from an organization called Inclusive Minds, which describes itself as "a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion, diversity, equality and accessibility in children's literature, and are committed to changing the face of children's books."

In a lengthy report published on Saturday, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph revealed that it had found hundreds of changes across the author's many children's books. Close analysis by its journalists revealed that language relating to gender, race, weight, mental health and violence had been cut or rewritten. This included removing words such as "fat" and "ugly," as well as descriptions using the colors black and white.

this is why this definitely belonged in the anti-woke thread - this kind of hypersensitivity to people's feelings at the expense of free expression is exactly the type of woke insanity that i'm talking about

who cares? salman rushdie cares

note this is cnn not fox news

and i mean "sensitivity readers"???

it saddens me that so many people can't see how hostile that is to free expression

When I read that article, these are a couple of the things I see:

• It seems to have been an initiative started by the Dahl estate in cooperation with publisher which means it's not censoring forced upon them, but something they've decided to do themselves
• People asked, including Rushdie, the British prime minister, various unnamed authors, Suzanne Nossel - all criticize this editing decision

Hence, there's nothing 1984 about this.

Quote from: Guybrush on Feb 21, 2023, 05:31 PMHence, there's nothing 1984 about this.

Exactly. I think it's valid to say this editorial decision is silly, but the slippery slope doomsaying in this thread is pretty over the top.

it's 1984 adjacent

Quote"Sensitivity Readers" from an organization called Inclusive Minds, sounds like something out of '1984' by George Orwell.

the thought police, thoughtcrime, unperson, doublethink newspeak ministry of truth


any 8th grader can see how it's not exactly like 1984 which totally misses the point of what we were supposed to learn

when there's a weird committee deciding what words are in and what words are out and they use copyright laws to force the change in publication that's a bit of surveillance capitalism doing its ugly thing

orwell wasn't trying to prove he was nostradamus he was telling us what to look at for from any controlling entity and we ignore this at our own peril

the fact that it's self-imposed is actually even more disturbing

Quote from: Janszoon on Feb 21, 2023, 05:42 PM

Quote from: Guybrush on Feb 21, 2023, 05:31 PMHence, there's nothing 1984 about this.

Exactly. I think it's valid to say this editorial decision is silly, but the slippery slope doomsaying in this thread is pretty over the top.

if this wasn't one example out of hundreds you'd be right - that's why it should've stayed in the anti-woke thread

Penguin to publish 'classic' Roald Dahl books after backlash (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/penguin-publish-classic-roald-dahl-books-after-backlash-97441400)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 24, 2023, 02:27 PMPenguin to publish 'classic' Roald Dahl books after backlash (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/penguin-publish-classic-roald-dahl-books-after-backlash-97441400)

ah the classic "new coke" scam

lol good for them - make a dollar yo

I read about 10 Roald Dahl books recently from a little set I ended up with. I hadn't read any of his book since I was a kid and I find this utterly hilarious but not surprising. When I was finishing the books on Goodreads, I ended up reading some of the reviews and some were pretty woke and in line with this article 😂

I just watched a couple of the Wes Anderson directed movie versions of Roald Dahl short stories that were recently released on Netflix and they were quite good, I thought 🙂

I've seen The Rat Catcher and Poison so far. Looking forward to the rest!