[Pete Svarrior]

Ah, the lemon rule lol.

To my recollection, it was a highly advanced way of stopping people from linking to lemonparty. Kind of like how for the longest time "tfes.org" was replaced with "google.com"

[Roundy]

Ah, the lemon rule lol.

To my recollection, it was a highly advanced way of stopping people from linking to lemonparty. Kind of like how for the longest time "tfes.org" was replaced with "google.com"

Ha, I never thought of that but it makes sense.

[garygreen]

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

If I only censor things a little bit instead of a lot, that's okay in your world?

if you're not even going to bother reading what i write, then i'm not sure why i should do the same for you.

[Roundy]

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

I don't think that's true, and I'm having trouble finding a source that confirms it, and given that it's possible for one to censor oneself, it seems absurd. Can you link to something that supports it, or is it just your personal opinion?

[stack]

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

I don't think that's true, and I'm having trouble finding a source that confirms it, and given that it's possible for one to censor oneself, it seems absurd. Can you link to something that supports it, or is it just your personal opinion?

I don't think this fully supports that censorship of this type must always involve coercion, but here's more info on Dahl's changing up of the oompa-loopas in the early 70's and the pressure from the NAACP and others to do so:

Roald Dahl’s Anti-Black Racism
“In response, Dahl was shocked and sullen,” Eplett writes. “He found the NAACP to be unreasonable, telling Knopf editor Bob Bernstein he was unable to understand why they perceived his story as a ‘terrible dastardly anti-negro book,’ and described their attitude as ‘real Nazi stuff.’”
In the movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompa-Loompas are reimagined with orange skin. But it was only after a series of exchanges with Eleanor Cameron, a white children’s book author who objected to the racist content, that Dahl agreed to revise the book. In the 1974 edition, Oopma-Loompas became long-haired, rosy-cheeked, and white, hailing from the island of Loompaland. (Dahl’s widow revealed in 2017 that the original Charlie was intended to be a Black child.)

Interesting too that he was apparently pressured by his people to change the original draft(s) where he had Charlie as a black kid. From the interview with Dahl's widow and his biographer on BBC (2017), “I can tell you that it was his agent who thought it was a bad idea, when the book was first published, to have a Black hero,” Sturrock said. “She said people would ask: ‘Why?’”

[Action80]

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

Again with the Fred Rogers...

Maybe you really ought to look up what Fred Rogers thought about the gender of a mother and the gender of a father.

You know he changed his messages about gender roles and parents as times changed so that he would be more inclusive?  You too, can do this.  I know it.

100 percent wrong...

Incorrect. He changed the lyrics to “Everybody’s Fancy” in order to be more inclusive. People change, it’s ok. You don’t need to be scared.

No, he didn't. Somebody may have, but he didn't.

[stack]

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

Again with the Fred Rogers...

Maybe you really ought to look up what Fred Rogers thought about the gender of a mother and the gender of a father.

You know he changed his messages about gender roles and parents as times changed so that he would be more inclusive?  You too, can do this.  I know it.

100 percent wrong...

Incorrect. He changed the lyrics to “Everybody’s Fancy” in order to be more inclusive. People change, it’s ok. You don’t need to be scared.

No, he didn't. Somebody may have, but he didn't.

Apparently, you are incorrect...

THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHIVE - All Things Mister Rogers
Notes
Becoming more sensitive to gender issues, Fred Rogers slightly altered the third verse of this song for the You Are Special CD release:
- Original lyrics: "Only girls can be the mommies. Only boys can be the daddies."
- Altered lyrics: "Girls grow up to be the mommies. Boys grow up to be the daddies."

Released 1992

[Rushy]

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

If I only censor things a little bit instead of a lot, that's okay in your world?

if you're not even going to bother reading what i write, then i'm not sure why i should do the same for you.

"Dude, I just redefined what censor means, now I don't have to address your argument because I just don't consider censorship to be censorship, lmao, gg"

Very good meme, bravo. Maybe you should stick with the mockery shtick instead of letting the mask slip and pretend you had anything meaningful to write in the first place.

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

I don't think that's true, and I'm having trouble finding a source that confirms it, and given that it's possible for one to censor oneself, it seems absurd. Can you link to something that supports it, or is it just your personal opinion?

It seems absurd because it was the only way to make it seem like he had a salient point. Otherwise, he might accidentally agree with us after mocking us and calling us all 14 years old. No, he must disagree with us to the end.

[Action80]

Apparently, your sense of what is radical ideology and unjustifiable is different than some other folks. It seems that Fred Rogers was one of those 'other folks'.

Again with the Fred Rogers...

Maybe you really ought to look up what Fred Rogers thought about the gender of a mother and the gender of a father.

You know he changed his messages about gender roles and parents as times changed so that he would be more inclusive?  You too, can do this.  I know it.

100 percent wrong...

Incorrect. He changed the lyrics to “Everybody’s Fancy” in order to be more inclusive. People change, it’s ok. You don’t need to be scared.

No, he didn't. Somebody may have, but he didn't.

Apparently, you are incorrect...

THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHIVE - All Things Mister Rogers
Notes
Becoming more sensitive to gender issues, Fred Rogers slightly altered the third verse of this song for the You Are Special CD release:
- Original lyrics: "Only girls can be the mommies. Only boys can be the daddies."
- Altered lyrics: "Girls grow up to be the mommies. Boys grow up to be the daddies."

Released 1992

For only the second time, at least in all the days I have been posting here, it seems you and Rama were right.

Now tell me how an author revising his work equates to someone else revising the work post-mortem.

In addition, whatever revision Rogers did to his work changed nothing of the message. Girls are mommies, boys are daddies.

Pretty exclusive if you ask me.

Back to NAMBLA  and GLAAD for more lessons on effective delivery of propaganda.

[Action80]

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

"He was a delightful and gay young fellow..."

I'm pretty sure todays youth would default to, "He was a delightful and homosexual young fellow..."

"He ventured off to grab a faggot and then was headed back to the cabin to start a fire and cook some stew..."

I'm guessing here too the youth of today would not default to a bundle of sticks.

Only because illiterates, too fucking lazy to improve their language skills, default to the "I DEMAND SOMEONE CATER TO MY INEPTITUDE AND HURT FEELINGS!!!" approach.

And you and the other agent provocateurs'/chatbot GPTs' located on various forums across the internet gleefully cheer that shit on, like it is a fine position to have and life philosophy worthy of perpetuating and inculcating in today's populace.

That's okay. Every time I physically encounter one, I don't hesitate to label the bullshit out loud.

[Action80]

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

Because language changes.
The proper use of language also changes with the time.  And its always great to teach kids about older usages of a word or phrase, but unless they ask (and why would they if they know the word) they'll just make assumptions.  Which isn't what you want when they read.

Yeah, god forbid we forget history though.

It seems you are the type with little interest in what your own children do with their time.

When a kid reads something and they cannot understand the word within the context, they have options. Derive the meaning from a dictionary or other source material within the entire fucking text.

[Rama Set]

For only the second time, at least in all the days I have been posting here, it seems you and Rama were right.

Now tell me how an author revising his work equates to someone else revising the work post-mortem.

In addition, whatever revision Rogers did to his work changed nothing of the message. Girls are mommies, boys are daddies.

Pretty exclusive if you ask me.

Back to NAMBLA  and GLAAD for more lessons on effective delivery of propaganda.

Apology accepted.

[Алёна]

Ah, the lemon rule lol.

To my recollection, it was a highly advanced way of stopping people from linking to lemonparty. Kind of like how for the longest time "tfes.org" was replaced with "google.com"

Makes sense.
For those who don't know, Lemonparty is a shock/gore site.

[stack]

I can understand altering words to make it make sense to current child audiences.
Like changing "he was acting gay" to "he was acting happy" for books written when gay meant happy and not homosexual.

But beyond reading comprehension for children, I don't see the need to edit.
They're products of their time and its important for people to read and see how others were thought of in the past.
They need to critically think about race, for example, and these books help with that.

Gay doesn't mean happy? It has been synonomous with happy for as long as I remember.

It is but its hasn't been primarily used that way for several decades now.  So a 10 year old may be confused and use the current meaning instead of the one we know.  Which will give the wrong idea.

Why should we allow ten year olds to be blind to proper use of language within context?

"He was a delightful and gay young fellow..."

I'm pretty sure todays youth would default to, "He was a delightful and homosexual young fellow..."

"He ventured off to grab a faggot and then was headed back to the cabin to start a fire and cook some stew..."

I'm guessing here too the youth of today would not default to a bundle of sticks.

Only because illiterates, too fucking lazy to improve their language skills, default to the "I DEMAND SOMEONE CATER TO MY INEPTITUDE AND HURT FEELINGS!!!" approach.

Welcome to 2023.

[Action80]

Apology accepted.

Apology, my ass.

Back to your original post:

Sometimes Tom just happens to be right.

This isn’t that time. It’s really easy to justify not using the words Mother and Father in some contexts. When it is irrelevant which gender the parent is, including same sex couples is a better choice. Nothing is lost and something is gained.

In regards to the editing of Dahl’s books I’m not the biggest fan. It appears this wasn’t a unilateral move by the publisher, it was a 4 year project by the rights holder of the works, the publisher and a company that specializes in this sort of thing. There might be more at work than the top line story and I’m open to learning about that but if there isn’t more context then this is an example of progressive values gone too far.

Tom was talking specifically about the revisions to Dahl's work.

Nothing you posted justifies the removal of the words mother and father in the work of Dahl.

In other words, Tom is rigt, whether you like or not.

[Rama Set]

Apology, my ass.

Too much to expect.  Ah well.

Back to your original post:

Indeed!

Tom was talking specifically about the revisions to Dahl's work.

Nothing you posted justifies the removal of the words mother and father in the work of Dahl.

In other words, Tom is rigt, whether you like or not.

My point still stands.  Obviously we haven't read through all of the new versions, however unless there is a specific need to identify the gender of the parent, it is irrelevant.  This issue gets trumped by the larger issue of whether or not editing the author's work to appeal to modern sensibilities was appropriate, which I am not convinced it was, but in specific reference to the words Tom was SUPER CONCERNED about, it's not particularly difficult to justify the change.

[honk]

A couple of people mentioned removing words like "gay" and "queer" as a more acceptable example of something to revise, but I have to say that I don't agree with even that. I think it's good to teach kids that language changes over time and that words have meant different things at different times. If this is something that really needs to be spelled out to them, then new versions of older children's books could include annotations or footnotes explaining what unfamiliar words mean. There's something that strikes me as almost anti-intellectual about supposing that if kids are faced with something that they may not entirely understand, then we should just remove it entirely rather than help them understand it. Kids aren't stupid. If they're old enough to read by themselves, then they're old enough to understand context, and they're old enough to interpret the media they consume critically, even if they don't realize that's what they're doing.

[Action80]

To show you exactly how ridiculous all of this is, I was actually sanctioned and banned here for using the word abnormal, because some people want to think abnormal is personally insulting.

[Rama Set]

To show you exactly how ridiculous all of this is, I was actually sanctioned and banned here for using the word abnormal, because some people want to think abnormal is personally insulting.

Oh interesting, you actually don’t understand context.

[Action80]

To show you exactly how ridiculous all of this is, I was actually sanctioned and banned here for using the word abnormal, because some people want to think abnormal is personally insulting.

Oh interesting, you actually don’t understand context.

I exactly understand context. Next, you'll claim it is possible for context to allow the word normal to be deemed as insulting.