Go to first unread
Back
to top
Your thoughts on Dr Seuss and racism?
Watch
Report
#41
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Depends on the context, if they were being used as a tool to offend then yes. But if they are being used as a means of teaching about the past then no.
Depends on the context, if they were being used as a tool to offend then yes. But if they are being used as a means of teaching about the past then no.
0
reply
Report
#42
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Let's suppose that it wasn't being used as a means of teaching the past. If a childrens book contained those caricatures, would it be wrong for a publisher to refuse printing / selling the book?
Let's suppose that it wasn't being used as a means of teaching the past. If a childrens book contained those caricatures, would it be wrong for a publisher to refuse printing / selling the book?
0
reply
Report
#43
(Original post by Ascend)
In light of the current woke zeitgeist and its successful pressure campaigns, I'd say the term is accurate. It's like saying someone like Donald McNeil simply resigned (cancelled himself) and was not fired
In light of the current woke zeitgeist and its successful pressure campaigns, I'd say the term is accurate. It's like saying someone like Donald McNeil simply resigned (cancelled himself) and was not fired
0
reply
Report
#44
(Original post by DiddyDec)
No, not if the books were written today.
No, not if the books were written today.
0
reply
Report
#45
(Original post by SHallowvale)
So why would make it wrong for a publisher to refuse printing / selling such a book that was made in the past?
So why would make it wrong for a publisher to refuse printing / selling such a book that was made in the past?
Would you support the removing of all literature and art that could be deemed offensive?
0
reply
Report
#46
It doesn't do much of value to the teaching of critical thinking to just censor/remove art which one happens to find objectionable in some respect or other, nor would one ever learn much of the past in that way, or of the importance of context. And it is very amenable to a slippery slope. Increasingly I find "slippery slopes" - far from being a fallacy - to be something closer to an inevitability when it comes to the tendency to abuse power.
1
reply
Report
#47
(Original post by DiddyDec)
As I have already said, it is classic literature and art.
Would you support the removing of all literature and art that could be deemed offensive?
As I have already said, it is classic literature and art.
Would you support the removing of all literature and art that could be deemed offensive?
0
reply
Report
#48
(Original post by TCA2b)
It doesn't do much of value to the teaching of critical thinking to just censor/remove art which one happens to find objectionable in some respect or other, nor would one ever learn much of the past in that way, or of the importance of context. And it is very amenable to a slippery slope. Increasingly I find "slippery slopes" - far from being a fallacy - to be something closer to an inevitability when it comes to the tendency to abuse power.
It doesn't do much of value to the teaching of critical thinking to just censor/remove art which one happens to find objectionable in some respect or other, nor would one ever learn much of the past in that way, or of the importance of context. And it is very amenable to a slippery slope. Increasingly I find "slippery slopes" - far from being a fallacy - to be something closer to an inevitability when it comes to the tendency to abuse power.
0
reply
Report
#49
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Clearly it is classic literature and art, that's sort of the definition of "a book that was made in the past". My question is why the age of a book should take precedent over it's content?
Clearly it is classic literature and art, that's sort of the definition of "a book that was made in the past". My question is why the age of a book should take precedent over it's content?
So I ask again, would you support the removal of all works of art and literature that could be deemed offensive?
0
reply
Report
#50
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Oh? Your last reply gave the impression that you took the joke seriously.
Oh? Your last reply gave the impression that you took the joke seriously.
I think Stewart Lee is wrong although I appreciate his comedic talent.
0
reply
Report
#51
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Because works of art and literature should be viewed in the context in which they were created. I think children to do have the capacity to see it in context, maybe not all children but then again not all adults understand context either.
So I ask again, would you support the removal of all works of art and literature that could be deemed offensive?
Because works of art and literature should be viewed in the context in which they were created. I think children to do have the capacity to see it in context, maybe not all children but then again not all adults understand context either.
So I ask again, would you support the removal of all works of art and literature that could be deemed offensive?
Apologies, I missed this question earlier. My answer would be no.
0
reply
Report
#52
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
But you're not joking in the context as in you support censorship Via the above justification.
I think Stewart Lee is wrong although I appreciate his comedic talent.
But you're not joking in the context as in you support censorship Via the above justification.
I think Stewart Lee is wrong although I appreciate his comedic talent.
I don't object to the 'censorship' that has occured here, if you can call it that.
0
reply
Report
#53
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why would you think that children do have the capacity to see it in that context? If a child simply picks one of these books off the shelf then I doubt they will already know that both A) the book is old and B) it's depictions of certain characters aren't acceptable now but were in the past. If they are being given these books for that intention, i.e. to teach them about caricatures, then I see your point but I don't think this would apply in most circumstances.
Apologies, I missed this question earlier. My answer would be no.
Why would you think that children do have the capacity to see it in that context? If a child simply picks one of these books off the shelf then I doubt they will already know that both A) the book is old and B) it's depictions of certain characters aren't acceptable now but were in the past. If they are being given these books for that intention, i.e. to teach them about caricatures, then I see your point but I don't think this would apply in most circumstances.
Apologies, I missed this question earlier. My answer would be no.
0
reply
Report
#54
They don't like the books with racist caricatures that, i'd presume, Dr. Suess didn't even like. He made the sneeches book during the Civil Rights movement, so while I understand how those books could make people uncomfortable, I think it'd be safe enough to assume that he wouldn't like those books anyways.
0
reply
Report
#55
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
They don't like the books with racist caricatures that, i'd presume, Dr. Suess didn't even like. He made the sneeches book during the Civil Rights movement, so while I understand how those books could make people uncomfortable, I think it'd be safe enough to assume that he wouldn't like those books anyways.
They don't like the books with racist caricatures that, i'd presume, Dr. Suess didn't even like. He made the sneeches book during the Civil Rights movement, so while I understand how those books could make people uncomfortable, I think it'd be safe enough to assume that he wouldn't like those books anyways.
0
reply
Report
#56
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
...why wouldn't he like them, he wrote them?!
...why wouldn't he like them, he wrote them?!
0
reply
Report
#57
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You said, "And this is the problem. We go from popular children books to writing racial abuse in excrement.". This implied that you believe that I think caricatures in books and racial abuse are analogous, which I don't.
I don't object to the 'censorship' that has occured here, if you can call it that.
You said, "And this is the problem. We go from popular children books to writing racial abuse in excrement.". This implied that you believe that I think caricatures in books and racial abuse are analogous, which I don't.
I don't object to the 'censorship' that has occured here, if you can call it that.
0
reply
Report
#58
(Original post by Ascend)
Meanwhile, Dr. Seuss book sales soar and a lucrative market for the cancelled books has been created.
You'd think leftist censors would have learned a thing or two from autocrats and theocrats who've also fallen into the Streisand effect trap.
Meanwhile, Dr. Seuss book sales soar and a lucrative market for the cancelled books has been created.
You'd think leftist censors would have learned a thing or two from autocrats and theocrats who've also fallen into the Streisand effect trap.
They have. They've learnt it's far better to censor people via proxy.
Censorship by corporations is still censorship
Last edited by Starship Trooper; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#59
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Attachment 1006474
They have. They've learnt it's far better to censor people via proxy.
Censorship by corporations is still censorship
Attachment 1006474
They have. They've learnt it's far better to censor people via proxy.
Censorship by corporations is still censorship
0
reply
Report
#60
(Original post by DiddyDec)
If they are just reading it then they likely won't see any issues with it because racism is a learnt trait rather than innate. It won't turn them into overnight racists.
If they are just reading it then they likely won't see any issues with it because racism is a learnt trait rather than innate. It won't turn them into overnight racists.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
