# Some Dr.Seuss books taken down



## WiiMiiSwitch (Mar 4, 2021)

Some Dr.Seuss books were taken down by the publisher due to racist pictures. eBay listings were also banned
Some of the books include
"If I ran the Zoo"
 "The Cat's Quizzer" (I own this one)
 “McElligot’s Pool
 “Scrambled Eggs Super!”
 “On Beyond Zebra!”
  "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street" 
If you own one of these keep it, because they'll end up like a 1999 Charizard Pokemon card


----------



## linuxares (Mar 4, 2021)

https://gbatemp.net/threads/user-submitted-news-post-guide.502691/


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Mar 4, 2021)

linuxares said:


> https://gbatemp.net/threads/user-submitted-news-post-guide.502691/


Didn't know there was a page. Thanks for it, I'll be sure to use it next time if I were to write more user submitted news


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 4, 2021)

the snowflakes are running the earth...


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 4, 2021)

Do we have examples of the pictures and possibly attempts at an explanation?

Alas "prove it" has to be my response to cries of racism these days as it seems to be thrown around endlessly and without merit an awful lot of the time.


----------



## izy (Mar 4, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Do we have examples of the pictures and possibly attempts at an explanation?
> 
> Alas "prove it" has to be my response to cries of racism these days as it seems to be thrown around endlessly and without merit an awful lot of the time.



the cats quizzer is this







if i ran a zoo


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 4, 2021)

That offends sensibilities so hard that things have to be memory holed?

Yay censorship.


----------



## Shenrai (Mar 4, 2021)

I am just kind of getting tired of anything anyone finds remotely offensive gets removed. I mean if you find these books offensive just don't read them or buy them for your children? Its as easy as that. I sincerely doubt any children reading these books growing up, like me, thought anything analogous to society in any way, shape or form.


----------



## izy (Mar 4, 2021)

mc elligots pool is banned because of the term eskimo


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 4, 2021)

squee666 said:


> mc elligots pool is banned because of the term eskimo


Ok, that one seems like a stretch


----------



## izy (Mar 4, 2021)

basically people being supersensitive

my mum owns a golliwog cup but apparently thats rascist now lol the only rascism in all of this is the people being offended on behalf of others when no one actually cares


scrambled eggs super







on beyond zebra






And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 4, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Didn't know there was a page. Thanks for it, I'll be sure to use it next time if I were to write more user submitted news


You can edit your post and potentially have it front paged. Just saying.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 4, 2021)

Suprisied this thread hasn't turned into a political shitstorm yet


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 4, 2021)

I wish they did a few things differently. They could have released the books with a memo explaining that the images were a product of their time and that they don’t endorse them. Or quietly stop publishing the books and literally don’t bring attention to the fact that they stopped publishing them. They could have also done both and brought the awareness they wanted and quietly stopped publishing the books.


----------



## Shenrai (Mar 4, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I wish they did a few things differently. They could have released the books with a memo explaining that the images were a product of their time and that they don’t endorse them. Or quietly stop publishing the books and literally don’t bring attention to the fact that they stopped publishing them. They could have also done both and brought the awareness they wanted and quietly stopped publishing the books.



This is pretty good. While I don't agree with an outright end to publishing the books, a memo would have served as a cautionary warning that would provide awareness.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 4, 2021)

Shenrai said:


> This is pretty good. While I don't agree with an outright end to publishing the books, a memo would have served as a cautionary warning that would provide awareness.


I don't agree with stopping production either but if they were deadset on stopping production, it would have been wiser to not bring attention to stopping production, which is where my third option seems to fit better. They could both get the awareness they were looking to get and stop production without causing much of a scene. They could have even quietly phased out production by slowly decreasing the amount they sent out over time. It's not that I want them to stop producing these books but more or less suggesting alternatives that they would get less guff from doing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 4, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I wish they did a few things differently. They could have released the books with a memo explaining that the images were a product of their time and that they don’t endorse them. Or quietly stop publishing the books and literally don’t bring attention to the fact that they stopped publishing them. They could have also done both and brought the awareness they wanted and quietly stopped publishing the books.


You agree with their determinations here? That such images/stories should not be (re)published or otherwise warrant an explanation? Even if I think doing the "must be super sensitive to all" thing is stupid I still reckon I grasp the workflow for it, and with that I completely fail to see the problem with "scrambled eggs super" (middle eastern guy fetching an egg). More generally if I am to use a more common standard of "should not denigrate those of other races/ethnicities/cultures" then... yeah not seeing it.

About as close as I could get is spazz (though maybe with one z) tends to be considered a rather offensive term in the UK ( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nintendo-withdraws-game-that-taunts-spastics-g98bklwb5rz )... I would say like retard is in the US but even that is not widely accepted as offensive yet and levels wise not even close.

If I squint then maybe the long necked creature's pole bearers (themselves clearly not human, like most things in such books) might almost look similar to some of the those African tribal sendups but that probably says more about the viewer than anything else.

Better do a song now I am on the subject


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Mar 4, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Do we have examples of the pictures and possibly attempts at an explanation?
> 
> Alas "prove it" has to be my response to cries of racism these days as it seems to be thrown around endlessly and without merit an awful lot of the time.


The publisher sadly hasn't revealed what was racist

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



squee666 said:


> the cats quizzer is this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh god


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 4, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> You agree with their determinations here? That such images/stories should not be (re)published or otherwise warrant an explanation? Even if I think doing the "must be super sensitive to all" thing is stupid I still reckon I grasp the workflow for it, and with that I completely fail to see the problem with "scrambled eggs super" (middle eastern guy fetching an egg). More generally if I am to use a more common standard of "should not denigrate those of other races/ethnicities/cultures" then... yeah not seeing it.
> 
> About as close as I could get is spazz (though maybe with one z) tends to be considered a rather offensive term in the UK ( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nintendo-withdraws-game-that-taunts-spastics-g98bklwb5rz )... I would say like retard is in the US but even that is not widely accepted as offensive yet and levels wise not even close.
> 
> ...



I don't feel like my suggestions were that problematic and I even said that I didn't agree with them stopping production. What I explained are possible ways they could have gone about doing this that would have either been seen better by most or possibly avoided the most controversy. My suggestions do not mean endorsement.


----------



## Crazynoob458 (Mar 4, 2021)

my childhood
im actually sad


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 5, 2021)

For any inverse-snowflakes who are shooketh that these will no longer be published:

This was not government regulation or mandate. This was a private company in a capitalist system looking at revenue from these particular books and comparing it to the potential for lost profit through damage to the brand. They came to the determination that the latter was greater than the former. This being the case, one of two things is true:

These books are still somewhat popular, but a significant majority of people would object to the imagery, making the brand out of sync with societal norms and probably unable to sell to a large audience.


These books aren't particularly popular, making the very small fraction of people who would be "offended" by the imagery worth more than the loss of sales.
Considering that "Cat in the Hat" was considered to have similar imagery but will still be printed, my guess is it was #2.

If you are still raging with a free speech justice boner, I encourage you to approach the publisher and make an offer for the publishing rights.

Beyond this, taking books out of circulation will require us to write new ones. This is stimulating the economy and creating good paying jobs for modern children's book authors. Why are you so against a healthy job market? "If I Ran The Zoo" was published 70 years ago - pay someone to draw some new pictures, damnit.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 5, 2021)

some of these i didn't know even existed just goes to show you the tolerance in the past is no where near it is today i bet pretty much all trump supporters are fuming


----------



## Jayro (Mar 5, 2021)

I hate censorship in every form of it's existence.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 5, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> For any inverse-snowflakes who are shooketh that these will no longer be published:
> 
> This was not government regulation or mandate. This was a private company in a capitalist system looking at revenue from these particular books and comparing it to the potential for lost profit through damage to the brand. They came to the determination that the latter was greater than the former. This being the case, one of two things is true:
> 
> ...


Ah the old censorship is only censorship when the government (or maybe religion acting as de facto government) does it line. Do we have to do this one again?

Majority? Seems like something that you would have to qualify there. Most times we look at things like this others would claim a vocal minority, and companies thinking twitter = the population at large, which is also a claim but eh.

Equally I am still at a loss as to what was so offensive about it as to deem this sort of thing necessary.

The profits of creative destruction? Are you the villain from the fifth element?



Lilith Valentine said:


> I don't feel like my suggestions were that problematic and I even said that I didn't agree with them stopping production. What I explained are possible ways they could have gone about doing this that would have either been seen better by most or possibly avoided the most controversy. My suggestions do not mean endorsement.


Do we care about avoiding controversy as a general concept? I can understand why the business would possibly want to.


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 5, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Ah the old censorship is only censorship when the government (or maybe religion acting as de facto government) does it line. Do we have to do this one again?



Are you arguing that publishers have a sacred duty to publish all books forever? You have a very high expectation of publishers.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 5, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> Are you arguing that publishers have a sacred duty to publish all books forever? You have a very high expectation of publishers.


Not at all. Questioning their rationales, motives, logic and actions however is well within the remit of others though.


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 5, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Not at all. Questioning their rationales, motives, logic and actions however is well within the remit of others though.



Lol, fair enough. Have fun questioning!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 5, 2021)

Suess was a very different man at the end of his career than he was at the beginning of it.  I think he himself would be fine with these particular books being pulled from publication, if not being in full support of it.  Spare me the faux-outrage over the possibility that all records of these books existing are suddenly and simultaneously going to disappear.


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (Mar 5, 2021)

You'd think in the internet era, with all the shit you see online everyday, that like most would've grown a backbone or numb towards this kinda stuff. Or just, y'know, understand it was a product of the times.
Bah.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 5, 2021)

I'm gonna write a bunch of racist books, pull em from the shelves, and make a zillion bucks whining about how cancel culture can't take a joke


----------



## nine0nine (Mar 5, 2021)

meeh, I can see why this is happening, the depictions of racial stereotypes goes against the grain these days but I don't agree with it. I was (accidently) reading an article on Dr Seuss a while back that suggested all his books should be removed from schools due to these images and the fact the Doc wrote a blackface play way back. 

I wonder Would Nintendo be have been able to create Mario in 2021 without some PC activist chastising them for stereotyping Italians?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

nine0nine said:


> meeh, I can see why this is happening, the depictions of racial stereotypes goes against the grain these days but I don't agree with it. I was (accidently) reading an article on Dr Seuss a while back that suggested all his books should be removed from schools due to these images and the fact the Doc wrote a blackface play way back.
> 
> I wonder Would Nintendo be have been able to create Mario in 2021 without some PC activist chastising them for stereotyping Italians?


Considering the fact no one has said that about mario today, I'm guessing the answer is yes


----------



## Xzi (Mar 5, 2021)

DarkCoffe64 said:


> You'd think in the internet era, with all the shit you see online everyday, that like most would've grown a backbone or numb towards this kinda stuff. Or just, y'know, understand it was a product of the times.
> Bah.


People do understand that these books were a product of their time, which is why they weren't selling and the publisher unilaterally decided to pull them.  The "I collect racist memorabilia" demographic apparently isn't a large enough economic force to keep products and media from the 50s/60s in high demand.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

I don't particularly care since you can read these books pretty easily online and it was the publisher's decision anyway. I can understand why they wouldn't feel great about it.

I honestly don't think people really cared about these books anyways until false outrage was generated by conservative media pundits about their publisher deciding to pull them. Looking at Google Trends basically confirms this.




Publishers pull books all the time, there are so many more important things to worry about than this.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Mar 5, 2021)

Heaven forbid we say japanese and chinese have eyes a certain way. Heaven forbid we say african tribes might have certain features. Afterall, we live in a day and age where facts are just not acceptable.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Heaven forbid we say japanese and chinese have eyes a certain way. Heaven forbid we say african tribes might have certain features. Afterall, we live in a day and age where facts are just not acceptable.


Cringe. You know those depictions are based on racist caricatures, stop being obtuse.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Heaven forbid we say japanese and chinese have eyes a certain way. Heaven forbid we say african tribes might have certain features. Afterall, we live in a day and age where facts are just not acceptable.


Have you ever seen an actual black or Asian person?


----------



## MadonnaProject (Mar 5, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Have you ever seen an actual black or Asian person?



I am actually biracial. Asian & African. You, however sound like what we like to call a "typical white guy". Talking down to people, out your arse. Without having a clue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> Cringe. You know those depictions are based on racist caricatures, stop being obtuse.



Caricatures are often exaggerated, its what makes them "caricatures". This applies to all races. Look at popeye, or any other cartoon. In fact it also applies to animals. If you find it cringe thats on you. People who are grown up, tend to develop thicker skin and realise there's real problems to life.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> I am actually biracial. Asian & African. You, however sound like what we like to call a "typical white guy". Talking down to people, out your arse. Without having a clue.




Last I checked, this wasn't white


----------



## Louse (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Heaven forbid we say japanese and chinese have eyes a certain way. Heaven forbid we say african tribes might have certain features. Afterall, we live in a day and age where facts are just not acceptable.



While I'm all for a censor-less landscape for art and discourse, children's entertainment should be regulated to protect our young _impressionable _minds. Kids don't have the skills yet to separate a racist stereotype from very useful life lesson.

Leaving this content in is just kinda bad, at least in its current state. It would just cause more people to get the wrong idea about people that they don't know. We don't need more of you.



MadonnaProject said:


> I am actually biracial. Asian & African. You, however sound like what we like to call a "typical white guy". Talking down to people, out your arse. Without having a clue.



sure™


----------



## MadonnaProject (Mar 5, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> I'm not white, actually



Then act with some dignity, less entitlement and a bit of respect for the truth and fact.

Stop feigning white privilege and ignorance.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Caricatures are often exaggerated, its what makes them "caricatures". This applies to all races. Look at popeye, or any other cartoon. In fact it also applies to animals. If you find it cringe thats on you. People who are grown up, tend to develop thicker skin and realise there's real problems to life.


Of course but these characters are based on racist caricatures specifically designed to dehumanize Black and Asian people. This is very obvious, especially in the context of the time. I could show you some examples but I'd rather not make this thread even worse.

I never said it was racist because they were caricatures, I just acknowledged that they were racist caricatures. Obviously, not all caricatures are racist.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Mar 5, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> While I'm all for a censor-less landscape for art and discourse, children's entertainment should be regulated to protect our young _impressionable _minds. Kids don't have the skills yet to separate a racist stereotype from very useful life lesson.
> 
> Leaving this content in is just kinda bad, at least in its current state. It would just cause more people to get the wrong idea about people that they don't know. We don't need more of you.



Only there are studies which show children have an innate natural bias towards gender and race.

When a kid asks you "Daddy why does my friend Kelly have different eyes to mine" You don't jump on them and say "REEEE RACISSS", You calmly explain to them "Kelly's eyes are different because she is "x" and they are beautiful in their own way".

Oh wait, that would mean no drama and a missed opportunity to signal your virtue and highlight another's "ignorance".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Seliph said:


> Of course but these characters are based on racist caricatures specifically designed to dehumanize Black and Asian people. This is very obvious, especially in the context of the time. I could show you some examples but I'd rather not make this thread even worse.
> 
> I never said it was racist because they were caricatures, I just acknowledged that they were racist caricatures. Obviously, not all caricatures are racist.



I am african AND asian. I don't feel dehumanised by some silly sketches, because I know my worth. Its a part of history which we can harken back to and say "oh look, that was then and now we don't say things like that".

But what do I care. Do as you want. I've wasted enough time on this ridiculous topic.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Only there are studies which show children have an innate natural bias towards gender and race.
> 
> When a kid asks you "Daddy why does my friend Kelly have different eyes to mine" You don't jump on them and say "REEEE RACISSS", You calmly explain to them "Kelly's eyes are different because she is "x" and they are beautiful in their own way".
> 
> ...


Fuck it, I'll bite the bait, you see, the thing is, we don't teach kids about Asians using caricatures

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

we teach them about Asians using *gasp* actual Asian people


----------



## MadonnaProject (Mar 5, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> we teach them about Asians using *gasp* actual Asian people



That quite literally was my example. My point either went over your head or under your radar. I've said what I wanted. Ciao.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> That quite literally was my example. My point either went over your head or under your radar. I've said what I wanted. Ciao.


I'm aware, only thing is that the post you're responding to is saying we shouldn't put caricatures in children's books, so it's not completely out of the water to think you think we should put caricatures in children's books

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MadonnaProject said:


> I am african AND asian. I don't feel dehumanised by some silly sketches, because I know my worth. Its a part of history which we can harken back to and say "oh look, that was then and now we don't say things like that".


Funny you say that since it is seems to contrast your previous statement


MadonnaProject said:


> Heaven forbid we say japanese and chinese have eyes a certain way. Heaven forbid we say african tribes might have certain features. Afterall, we live in a day and age where facts are just not acceptable.


Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8


----------



## Shenrai (Mar 5, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> While I'm all for a censor-less landscape for art and discourse, children's entertainment should be regulated to protect our young _impressionable _minds. Kids don't have the skills yet to separate a racist stereotype from very useful life lesson.
> 
> Leaving this content in is just kinda bad, at least in its current state. It would just cause more people to get the wrong idea about people that they don't know. We don't need more of you.


I don't really understand this. These books have been read to children for quite a bit of time and I sincerely doubt any child looked at the pictures and thought anything more than "gee what funny looking creatures".  Only until they grow up do they see any sort of caricature being displayed here.  Impressionable minds only happen when the concept is being blatantly forced upon their throats.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

Shenrai said:


> I don't really understand this. These books have been read to children for quite a bit of time and I sincerely doubt any child looked at the pictures and thought anything more than "gee what funny looking creatures".  Only until they grow up do they see any sort of caricature being displayed here.  Impressionable minds only happen when the concept is being blatantly forced upon their throats.


The thing is that if you're raised in an environment where racist caricatures are normalized then that shapes how you view those caricatures later in life. If caricatures like this are "funny looking creatures" to you as a kid, would you be able to understand later in life that when one of these caricatures is used it is used to harm and otherize people not like you? Otherwise, you'll have people defending stuff worse than this like the Aunt Jemima lady logo which was a racist caricature of a real woman whose life was ruined by the company that profited off her image.

It's very important to learn early on what is and isn't okay otherwise you'll carry your ingrained biases into adulthood.

It's like kids chanting "smear the queer" and other things on the playground. Sure they might not understand what it means but just letting kids say things like that uncritically makes it seem like it's okay to say things that are homophobic and actively alienates people who really are gay and really do face violence because of it.


----------



## Shenrai (Mar 5, 2021)

Seliph said:


> The thing is that if you're raised in an environment where racist caricatures are normalized then that shapes how you view those caricatures later in life. If caricatures like this are "funny looking creatures" to you as a kid, would you be able to understand later in life that when one of these caricatures is used it is used to harm and otherize people not like you? Otherwise, you'll have people defending stuff worse than this like the Aunt Jemima lady logo which was a racist caricature of a real woman whose life was ruined by the company that profited off her image.
> 
> It's very important to learn early on what is and isn't okay otherwise you'll carry your ingrained biases into adulthood.



Would this issue be more aligned with parenting than anything? Of course I could not differentiate this without guidance but I had parents who taught me early on. Do we really need to replace parenting by not having the materials be shown to children to begin with?


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

Shenrai said:


> Would this issue be more aligned with parenting than anything? Of course I could not differentiate this without guidance but I had parents who taught me early on. Do we really need to replace parenting by not having the materials be shown to children to begin with?


Why not? I don't see how material like this adds to anything. It's not productive, creative or interesting to use these tired old depictions. Of course parents can guide their children in regards to material like this but some parents won't do that or don't care to do that, simply getting rid of racist depictions of people is super easy to do and doesn't harm anyone. The point of children's media is to be enriching and uncritically showing kids material like this in the media you create is counterintuitive to that goal.


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 5, 2021)

oh well!  we get what we lazy peasants get!
tomorrow will be hamburgers.  And next year Facebook and Twitter will be our Government!


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

Cylent1 said:


> .....and you all thought Trump was Hitler!
> You all need to be smacked upside the head whoever voted for the drunk on power asshat dictators into office!


You do realize this was done by a private company? Not the Democrats? I can't stand Liberals but at least know what you're talking about


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 5, 2021)

I do realize that but it is the Democratic base pushing for the cancel culture!


----------



## Crazynoob458 (Mar 5, 2021)

this place became the politics forum


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

It's just the same thing over and over again every day lmao


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 5, 2021)

Crazynoob458 said:


> this place became the politics forum


And the "You be better off switchingfrom SXOS  to Atmos because  it's way better" forum!


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

Crazynoob458 said:


> this place became the politics forum


We haven't insulted lgbtq people yet, so not completely


----------



## Shenrai (Mar 5, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Why not? I don't see how material like this adds to anything. It's not productive, creative or interesting to use these tired old depictions. Of course parents can guide their children in regards to material like this but some parents won't do that or don't care to do that, simply getting rid of racist depictions of people is super easy to do and doesn't harm anyone. The point of children's media is to be enriching and uncritically showing kids material like this in the media you create is counterintuitive to that goal.



I guess I kind of just feel annoyed that a big part of my childhood, and I assume others, is being rejected because of some aspect that has not actually caused any particular harm whatsoever than what an imaginary scenario could be. There are other solutions that could have been done in its stead. I understand your point, however.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 5, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> We haven't insulted lgbtq people yet, so not completely


God I hate gay people so much


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 5, 2021)

Yeah, this forum has always been pretty toxic, tbh. You wouldn't think that it would be, considering gamers have traditionally been nerds on the fringes of society. You would think that we all would have learned from that and used it to make a generally positive space.

LOL nyet

Just tired of people shrieking at both ends of the spectrum anymore. Hoping politics in the USA will go back to being quiet(er) now. Please I'm so sick of this shit...

EDIT: ----------------------------------------------------

Only semi-related but I think of this clip from Star Trek whenever any of these political topics come up anymore...


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2021)

Seliph said:


> God I hate gay people so much


Now we're talking


----------



## KimKong (Mar 7, 2021)

I'm so sick of this kind of stuff..... People need to grow up and stop this nonsense of being offended by every little thing from past generations way of life.. Sheesh!


----------



## RichardTheKing (Mar 8, 2021)

I hate censorship, and how sensitive society has become over the last decade.
Something decades-old and beloved now offends you? Shout and yell and kick up a fuss about "ThIs pRoMoTeS rAcIsM!" or SeXiSm or similar, and because the 'offended' minority is the loudest, you'll get a response - positive for you, negative for every sane person.

Bloody hell. Just bring these books back; they're not harming anyone. Seuss wasn't trying to spread racism at all; he just lived in a time that allowed for such imagery, and he was known for being anti-racism (he even grew to hate the anti-Japanese propaganda he made during WW2, from what I've read).


----------



## Viri (Mar 8, 2021)

KimKong said:


> I'm so sick of this kind of stuff..... People need to grow up and stop this nonsense of being offended by every little thing from past generations way of life.. Sheesh!


I've grown used to it, and often try to guess the very next thing the outrage crowd will go after next.


----------



## Minox (Mar 8, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I wish they did a few things differently. They could have released the books with a memo explaining that the images were a product of their time and that they don’t endorse them. Or quietly stop publishing the books and literally don’t bring attention to the fact that they stopped publishing them. They could have also done both and brought the awareness they wanted and quietly stopped publishing the books.


I would agree with this. They have no obligation to continue publishing these books if they feel uncomfortable doing so, but actively censoring/trying to memory hole something that is part of history is not only a bad idea, it also sets a bad precedent for the future.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Mar 8, 2021)

You know, at the very least, when it comes to fundamentalist Christians, no one gave a rat's ass about their protests against degeneracy because a lot of it was ridiculous.

Thing is, I'd rather have them as opposed to the current SJW mob that rules Twitter and the like. These people are such fucking pussies that I imagine they'd faint at the sight of someone bleeding severely IRL. It used to be journalism was all about getting things straight from the site of the news story itself. Not a set, not some staged false flag with actors, but they tried to get to the bottom of things, regardless of politicians, criminals, and others who tried to bribe them to cover up the things that these SJWs are actually trying to shield.

1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Harrison Bergeron, I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, The Gulag Archipelago, etc., are all warnings against governments who strip the people of their rights by force, and it seems like the leftists would rather use those books as guides. The fact that people on this forum (and don't try to hide it, you know who you are) would rather a government tell people how to live their life with the penalty for not doing so to be imprisonment, or worse, death by the hands of the government, goes to show how truly ill-informed people are about the history from doing rigorous independent study of world events.

March 5, 1770; the date of the Boston Massacre by the hands of the British Empire ruled by a King who wanted those who lived in the UK at the time to go to the church denomination that he mandated. Innocent people, who only wanted their interests to be represented, and the ability to have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and to not have to be forced to provide housing to British soldiers like the citizens of what was at the time the American colony like second-class citizens, and to be able to have the right to say whatever they want, believe whatever they want, assemble with whomever they choose, and for the press to be able to say whatever it wants, even if its a load of lies that people should sue and take them to court for, and the right to bear their own arms without the fear of the government using state power to take all of that away under the guise of peace and safety that is only promised for as long as it serves the interests of the elite in society. These people didn't want free handouts from the government using others' money; they wanted to be self sufficient, and independent of a despotic tyrant who's interests were more about himself than it was others.

Or how about every Communist country where Communism in some form was tried, a lot of people died due to starvation because of government overreach making the pursuit of happiness a less favorable alternative to wallowing in decadence because of the elites' selfishness? Why do you think Fauci is so vilified by mainly conservatives? Because they see a man who's using a crisis in coordination with others who would rather advance their own interests than those of the people they serve. And what do you know? His daughter is a software engineer for Twitter!

Don't believe me?

https://heavy.com/news/2020/03/anthony-fauci-daughters-children-family/

Isn't that convenient? Corporations being nationalized by the government to advance government policies and interests through subtle and not-so-subtle means.


That is true oppression; the power of the state being used authoritatively to trample down on those who it disagrees with.

I mean, what's next? Is King of Fighters XV gonna get cancelled, or Mai Shiranui's appearance covered up because it offends a bunch of fake Christians who don't understand anything about the Constitution _as it was written _and not as a living document? Because I feel like this Puritanism towards anything extreme nowadays is affecting everything.

You can't offend anyone's senses, so tone down the blood and gore in the Resident Evil games for all regions. The finishers the monsters do on the player characters in the RE2 Remake are ruined because a lot of the time, they cut away because of laws in Japan that shouldn't have anything to do with those of us in the US who enjoy edgier stuff. Or how about Mortal Kombat 11 going woke with Jax's arcade ladder ending, and the very obvious jabs at Trump by making Shao Kahn say, "let's Make Outworld Great Again," like its edgy to hate on the Republican candidate in industries that clearly are skewed more to the left.

Then, we now have Japan and games that get localized over here taking the freakin' sissy pill with Catherine: Full Body. Now, I have to admit, I haven't played Catherine...anything yet, so IDK the full context, but from what I understand, one of the characters is a female who transitions to a male, and in the original game, she wasn't romanceable. Now, in the remaster, they added her in as a path you can take, and my understanding is that the route's ideal ending is that this character (Rin is her name, I believe) is apparently talked out of transitioning to becoming male, and is told that she's fine the way she is or something. What I heard is that REEEEEEESetERA threw a temper tantrum, and whoever works the HR at these companies apparently assumes that whatever stink is being raised on forums like that one, GameFAQs (which is so heavily compromised you can't even swear without it being censored automatically when you post on the message boards), NeoGAF, Twitter, Reddit, and others is what the majority of society thinks, when the fact is, people like Censored Gaming on YT will point out differences made here and there. I doubt most of the people who were looking forward to Catherine Full Body who would actually even buy it in the first place would have cared one way or the other how the game got translated, but apparently, even the translators didn't want to do the job of translating the game as it was written, with whatever necessary localizations need to happen in these kinds of translations. You know what would happen if I said to my supervisor at my job tomorrow, "well, I know I should uphold standards of quality in doing my job, but because what's written on this label isn't to my liking, I refuse to do it." I'd be fired and out of work and the ability to find another job in no time flat!


Not even fan translations are safe from this woke BS. There was an individual working on a fan translation for Goemon 3 who's work was harassed to the point of him quitting from working on the scene entirely because he decided to use the word "t******" as it was written in the game's script. Mind you, this is a game from the 90's, but people would rather plug their ears and put on their blinders to context and take a moral high ground that not even the God of the actual King James Bible as it is written would care about!

Its like everyone thinks that, by being nice, polite, and not upholding standards, they get some sort of morality boost that will get them into Heaven, when the fact is, no religion in the world, when you look at the documents people base the belief systems of their particular distro of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. as they were written, and you critically examine, think about, and rigorously research what those documents put forth, you'd understand that this fake morality isn't getting anyone into Heaven, which, as far as I'm concerned, the whole concept of the afterlife was nothing more than an invention by the elite to lull people into trusting these systems by exploiting their fear of the unknown, by branding those who they don't like as being a part of the out group, and using that as justification for pathological acts that are also condemned by Christianity for sure when one interprets it accurately.

What I know for sure though is that with this new religion that is nothing but a humanistic (and by extension, atheist) set of excuses that constantly contradict each other that I see among Reddit, Twitter, GameFAQs, and even this site is making people not depend on others. People who, clearly, have enough time on their hands to be making posts all day that I couldn't afford to do about how socialism should be tried, or elements of it should be attempted, who have no idea what it is they're advocating for! 

How would you like it if I sold you a nice looking hamburger, but when you went to eat it, it made you sick and sent you to the ER? You'd have grounds to sue me in a fair and just legal system, which the US doesn't have for as long as the Totalitarian-wannabes keep putting family members and others in favorable positions locally, statewide, and federally. If the government was doing that, and you had no rights, you would probably be left for dead, because human life in these systems is valued less over politicians' and bureaucrats' wallets and families, who get preferential treatment over those on medical waitlists in the country thanks to bribes and other forms of corruption.


But then again, I guess stuff like this isn't as bright, happy, or cheery as Nintendo releasing more DLC for Pokemon Sword and Shield, or as I like to call it and a lot of Nintendo's other games: "Pokemon for Switch, with two sets of spawning Pokemon that could be in one game, but are split apart because it ultimately nets us more cash!"





(I'm posting this even though I'm probably gonna regret it. Hell, for all I know, no one may read it. Or if they do, they're gonna intentionally misinterpret/misread it.)


----------



## Nerdtendo (Mar 8, 2021)

Everything's racist now. The "how old do you have to be to be japanese" is pretty lighthearted. It clearly isn't trying to be offensive.

It seems like a case of white people getting offended on behalf of not white people. Reminds me of one of my Asian friends. Since we were little, he would always make stereotypical asian jokes for fun, and he made it clear that I could join in because stereotypes are funny. I make stereotypical jokes about white people because it's funny. Sometimes people will tell me "aren't you white??" After I make a stereotypical joke. Obviously I'm white. Obviously what I'm saying is a joke. Obviously I'm not out to slander your great great grandcousin thrice removed. Get off of Twitter and take a chill pill. Honestly, I'd suggest removing yourself from as much social media as possible. Did wonders for my mental state.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Silent_Gunner said:


> You know, at the very least, when it comes to fundamentalist Christians, no one gave a rat's ass about their protests against degeneracy because a lot of it was ridiculous.
> 
> Thing is, I'd rather have them as opposed to the current SJW mob that rules Twitter and the like. These people are such fucking pussies that I imagine they'd faint at the sight of someone bleeding severely IRL. It used to be journalism was all about getting things straight from the site of the news story itself. Not a set, not some staged false flag with actors, but they tried to get to the bottom of things, regardless of politicians, criminals, and others who tried to bribe them to cover up the things that these SJWs are actually trying to shield.
> 
> ...



I really like what you said about people trying to accrue fake morality points to get into heaven. At first I wasn't following the religion thread but now I see where you're coming from. It doesn't make sense that people are trying to get offended on behalf of others like it makes them "holier" people. This belief isn't even if exclusive to religious people. In fact, I usually observe this kind of behaviour in atheist circles which is baffling because I'd expect it to be the other way around.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> I don't particularly care since you can read these books pretty easily online and it was the publisher's decision anyway. I can understand why they wouldn't feel great about it.
> 
> I honestly don't think people really cared about these books anyways until false outrage was generated by conservative media pundits about their publisher deciding to pull them. Looking at Google Trends basically confirms this.
> 
> ...


You misspelled "Seuss", by the way, so that graph likely isn't as accurate as it could be...


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 8, 2021)

I remembered some of them. Sad, indeed. I hate the future. Missed the 1990's and before that. Less sensitive. But......Now and the future are too much sensitive those days. Crazy.


----------



## Esdeath (Mar 8, 2021)

Never read dr seuss since it isn't really popular / known here, but from what I see every character is exaggerated and it is more like a style. Too bad those snowflakes don't go after those comics where every white dude has glasses, a big nose and is just terribly drawn.


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> those comics where every white dude has glasses, a big nose and is just terribly drawn.



what comics?


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 8, 2021)

I Hate Gay People! I can't stand them!.................! .................. Oh wait... I'm Gay!...... Never mind


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

RichardTheKing said:


> You misspelled "Seuss", by the way, so that graph likely isn't as accurate as it could be...







Oh lol idk how I missed that. it still looks basically the same when spelled right though.


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> Never read dr seuss since it isn't really popular / known here, but from what I see every character is exaggerated and it is more like a style. Too bad those snowflakes don't go after those comics where every white dude has glasses, a big nose and is just terribly drawn.



i require the sauce for white racism comics


----------



## Esdeath (Mar 8, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> what comics?


meant caricature, my bad


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

gimme


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> meant caricature, my bad


I'm also interested to see these caricatures


----------



## Esdeath (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> I'm also interested to see these caricatures


talking about this kind


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> talking about this kind


That is literally just some guy lmao - not a racist caricature.


----------



## Esdeath (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> That is literally just some guy lmao - not a racist caricature.


see my post #70 thats my point, they all portray guys like this, but nobody cares since it is an art style and not actuall ysaying all white man are fat ugly guys


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> see my post #70 thats my point, they all portray guys like this, but nobody cares since it is an art style and not actuall ysaying all white man are fat ugly guys


First of all not all white men are portrayed like that but second of all you need to understand context. There is a clear difference between depictions of Asian and Black people based on propaganda designed by white people to dehumanize them and depictions of a white guy drawn by a white guy. White people were never at the butt end of Jim Crow or Yellow Peril.

Anti-black caricatures were developed during jim crow to otherize black people and justify segregation, anti-Asian caricatures were developed during WW2 and the Yellow Peril to dehumanize Asian people and justify Japanese internment camps and deportation/mistreatment of Chinese immigrants. The caricature of a white guy you gave me was literally just a boomer comic designed by a white guy to make bad commentary about younger generations, entirely different.

Like I said earlier, just because it's a caricature doesn't make it racist. You need to understand the intent behind a caricature and you need to understand who is designing the caricature. I see nothing racist about a white dude designing a caricature of a white dude for his lame boomer comic. I see everything racist about Black and Asian caricatures based on propaganda designed by white people to demonize non-white people.


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

^^^ Agreed.

That comic isn't even really a good representation of the stereotypes of white people. It's not as much a 'white' caricature, as it is a parody of the cultural divide between generations. The implication is that the age difference and the wisdom that such age brings is the difference between these two parties.


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

There really isn't such a thing as racist caricatures against white people anyways. Looking up "racist caricature of a white person" makes this pretty evident because all you see is caricatures of non-white people instead.

This is because these caricatures were all designed by the white hegemony to justify many things. Slavery, Jim Crow, the genocide and rezoning of indigenous people, the deportation and mistreatment of Chinese workers, the internment of Japanese citizens, the list goes on and on. If you can dehumanize another group of people, if you can convince the majority of your populace to think of other races/ethnicities as less than yourself then you can justify as many atrocities against them as you want. That's how the holocaust happened, that's how apartheid happened in South Africa.

This is why you don't see caricatures of white people because there's no need for them. Specifically in the context of the US (where most of these caricatures were developed), we have lived in a nation run by white people for white people, designing anti-white caricatures would be counterintuitive to that and therefore it makes sense why they wouldn't be designed. It's not like we're gonna commit atrocities against ourselves.

TLDR: caricatures of white people aren't racist because racist caricatures of white people do not exist since there was never a need for their creation.


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

this thread makes me sad


----------



## Windaga (Mar 8, 2021)

We had our first discussion about this during our Dept. of Education meeting this past Friday.

It was a shit storm. I thought Betsy DeVos' election made enemies among teachers. I saw grown adults arguing like children about something that should be kind of obvious.

"YOU SNOWFLAKES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING WHATS NEXT INDIAN BURNS??"

"JUST BECAUSE YOU GREW UP WITH IT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT"

"YOU'RE SO SENSTITIVE"

"OR MAYBE YOU'RE INSENSITIVE, EVER THINK ABOUT THAT?"

"....guys erm, we need to go over the budget for Q2..."

"YOU LIBERALS ARE OFFENDED BY EVERYTHING. CAT IN THE HAT IS NOT RACIST"

"WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CAT IN THE HAT"

"FIRST ITS LAND O LAKES..."

"WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BUTTER"

It was supposed to be an hour meeting. We have to hold it again this Friday because literally nothing got done. We would've ignored it and moved on, but considering it was the Head of State and the Lead Dean, every interruption was met with "WE'RE NOT DONE." 

So how was everyone else's weekend


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Windaga said:


> We had our first discussion about this during our Dept. of Education meeting this past Friday.
> 
> It was a shit storm. I thought Betsy DeVos' election made enemies among teachers. I saw grown adults arguing like children about something that should be kind of obvious.
> 
> ...


Lmao that's why I hate discussions about stuff like this because they're always just used to divert from real problems that need to be addressed. Plus they're just annoying.

Anyways I had a lovely weekend


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Anyways I had a lovely weekend



What did you do?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

Windaga said:


> So how was everyone else's weekend


Decent, I was off of the temp for a lot of it, and a break from here was really what I needed


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> What did you do?


Nothing much really, just went to work on Saturday and took care of myself on Sunday by taking a nice long shower and I played The Messenger and read about Soviet city planning as well after cooking some good food. Not very interesting but relaxing!


----------



## AncientBoi (Mar 8, 2021)

Me being the oldest, didn't see any racism in it. I think it's more of the people reading to much into the these Iconic books. such a shame.


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

OldBoi said:


> such a shame.


Times change, now it's bad for business. That's all it really is.
I hope for a revised version for kids, as well as the preservation of the original art for historical and critical reasons.

Love seuss's works, but he was like hella racist tho

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I suppose you find a lot of these kinda things in old art, like in Lovecraft's works and the like (key example: cat).
Difference being, the audience is, on average, more mature than the demographic that Seuss Inc. is shootin' for.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> old art, like in Lovecraft's works and the like (key example: cat).


To be more specific, his cat's name


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> (key example: cat)


 He had a cat? What was its name?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> He had a cat? What was its name?


Well..uhhhh


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Well..uhhhh


I can't find it anywhere could you tell me please I need to know


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

No, don't do it Scott! 
You don't know what you're messing with!


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Say it Scott

say it now


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Say it Scott
> 
> say it now


Ni-(user was banned for this post)


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Ni-(user was banned for this post)


Oh god oh fuck


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

First name: N-word, last name: man
he's the be-loved cat of the Lovecraft clan


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

I had no idea lovecraft was a gamer


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 8, 2021)

As an interesting aside here, this isn't really "cancel culture" as much as it is "outrage capitalism." It's genius marketing. Just pick some politically spicy topic, take a non-stance on it, and watch the internet explode talking about your brand. Much more effective than any of the more traditional advertising avenues that most of us have grown numb to by this point.

Don't believe it? This is now a 6 page thread talking about _some of the least popular_ books by a children's author... so unpopular they weren't even worth printing anymore... on an internet forum dedicated to gaming. Probably the most effective $10 the Dr. Seuss estate ever spent on a press release.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> Don't believe it? This is now a 6 page thread talking about _some of the least popular_ books by a children's author... so unpopular they weren't even worth printing anymore... on an internet forum dedicated to gaming. Probably the most effective $10 the Dr. Seuss estate ever spent on a press release.


That's actually a pretty valid point


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> That's actually a pretty valid point



What can I say? I'm a genius. A god amongst men, really.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> What can I say? I'm a genius. A god amongst men, really.


A god what? 

*insert imposter is sus joke here*


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

PityOnU said:


> What can I say? I'm a genius. A god amongst men, really.


The reincarnation of Marx


----------



## MikaDubbz (Mar 8, 2021)

Why not just continue to sell them online exclusively for adults that understand context and would like to continue to own it for historical and/or collecting purposes?

I think Warner Bros handled this kinda stuff perfectly when they released every Looney Tunes cartoon on DVDs.  The DVD set with the outdated and racist depictions was first of all marketed on the spine specifically for adult collectors, and then the DVDs had this perfect disclaimer when you start them up:

"The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in the U.S society. These depictions were wrong then and they are wrong today. While the following does not represent the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming that these prejudices never existed."

That right there is how we SHOULD be handling media that has grown outdated in our ever increasing PC culture.  If you want to keep this stuff away from kids, then ok, I can kinda get that, but to remove and delete this content entirely is the opposite of progress.  We can't simply pretend the past never happened, no matter how hard we try, if we do, then we'll only be doomed to repeat ourselves.  It's important to retain this kind of content just as it always was else we'll never truly learn.  But yeah, just keep it only accessible to adults and give such a disclaimer and I think that truly is the best way to handle this kind of content.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Why not just continue to sell them online exclusively for adults that understand context and would like to continue to own it for historical and/or collecting purposes?
> 
> I think Warner Bros handled this kinda stuff perfectly when they released every Looney Tunes cartoon on DVDs.  The DVD set with the outdated and racist depictions was first of all marketed on the spine specifically for adult collectors, and then the DVDs had this perfect disclaimer when you start them up:
> 
> ...


Eh, but then they wouldn't get all the free marketing from the outrage, which was the real goal here


----------



## MikaDubbz (Mar 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> Eh, but then they wouldn't get all the free marketing from the outrage, which was the real goal here



But is this kind of coverage really going to lead to more sales of the books that the publisher does continue to sell?  Seems to me that this will only piss off more people than anything and will only encourage such people to stop buying Dr. Seuss books entirely in an effort to protest the move by the publisher.


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

The new decrease in availability coupled with the outrage will increase demand, and therefore increase its relative value when it is next released. When you think of it like that, it's devilishly simple and seems to be effective.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Mar 8, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> The new decrease in availability coupled with the outrage will increase demand, and therefore increase its relative value when it is next released. When you think of it like that, it's devilishly simple and seems to be effective.


But the publisher is never gonna sell these books again as they are.  At best they'll remove or censor the images in question making the new prints worth far less than the original prints.  And they aren't gonna be making money from the sales of the old prints since they wont be in production, it will be 3rd party collectors exchanging the bigger money for the books as they were.


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 8, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> But the publisher is never gonna sell these books again as they are.  At best they'll remove or censor the images in question making the new prints worth far less than the original prints.  And they aren't gonna be making money from the sales of the old prints since they wont be in production, it will be 3rd party collectors exchanging the bigger money for the books as they were.



Dr. Seuss wrote many books, many of which (the more popular ones) are still in print:

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...en-eggs-and-ham-reading-i-still-like-dr-seuss

And now everyone is talking about them.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 8, 2021)

the worst part about bigots and assholes seeing this and whining about "cancel culture" (translation: consequences), "SJWs" (translation: anti-bigots) and other laughably misused snarl words...
is that in this case *the first move was made by the publisher.*
this wasn't a response to a callout, this was _the publisher realizing some of the older and more obscure books had some seriously racist imagery in them and deciding to stop publishing them._
not only are all the accusations of "SJWs" trying to "memory hole" anything that isn't "politically correct" (note how many damn quotes I have to use, because not only has SJW been degraded into a derogatory term out of the right's hatred for equality and activism but the other terms are so detached from any legitimate meaning they might as well be speaking their own language) absurd as is since it really shouldn't be this hard to understand the simple concept that bigotry is bad and should not be a source of profit...
_but we didn't even fucking do this one!_


----------



## Louse (Mar 8, 2021)

''intellectuals'' when companies exploit workers and bribe government officials: i sleep

right-boys when company take book off stores to save face: *real shit?*


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> the worst part about bigots and assholes seeing this and whining about "cancel culture" (translation: consequences), "SJWs" (translation: anti-bigots) and other laughably misused snarl words...
> is that in this case *the first move was made by the publisher.*
> this wasn't a response to a callout, this was _the publisher realizing some of the older and more obscure books had some seriously racist imagery in them and deciding to stop publishing them._
> not only are all the accusations of "SJWs" trying to "memory hole" anything that isn't "politically correct" (note how many damn quotes I have to use, because not only has SJW been degraded into a derogatory term out of the right's hatred for equality and activism but the other terms are so detached from any legitimate meaning they might as well be speaking their own language) absurd as is since it really shouldn't be this hard to understand the simple concept that bigotry is bad and should not be a source of profit...
> _but we didn't even fucking do this one!_


Does it have to be in response to a callout or does the mere anticipation of one? As I understand they dragged in some consultancy firm to seek and destroy works that might cause offence (or would that be harm?), presumably to head it off at the pass. It was also framed as doing it for that purpose -- if the historical preservation society owning the rights decided that in this day of print on demand wherein I can seemingly buy an out of print 600 page book with nice pictures that is as thick as two of my finger joints for £20 that only the cat in the hat, horton hears a who, grinch, green eggs and ham and whatever other ones they have made cartoons/films of are the only ones that sell then so it goes. Attempting to do something to win brownie points with the perpetually offended... that is a rather different approach to the world.
Most witch hunts don't catch that many of the witches of the day, however the atmosphere that they create is also quite destructive and probably best avoided.

I am still also struggling to see what was so troubling about a bunch of those, and I would like to believe I understood the "everything is racist and must tear it down" mindset enough to anticipate the reactions and approaches used.

This also says nothing of ebay in turn banning such things.


----------



## Plasmaster09 (Mar 8, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Does it have to be in response to a callout or does the mere anticipation of one? As I understand they dragged in some consultancy firm to seek and destroy works that might cause offence (or would that be harm?), presumably to head it off at the pass. It was also framed as doing it for that purpose -- if the historical preservation society owning the rights decided that in this day of print on demand wherein I can seemingly buy an out of print 600 page book with nice pictures that is as thick as two of my finger joints for £20 that only the cat in the hat, horton hears a who, grinch, green eggs and ham and whatever other ones they have made cartoons/films of are the only ones that sell then so it goes. Attempting to do something to win brownie points with the perpetually offended... that is a rather different approach to the world.
> Most witch hunts don't catch that many of the witches of the day, however the atmosphere that they create is also quite destructive and probably best avoided.
> 
> I am still also struggling to see what was so troubling about a bunch of those, and I would like to believe I understood the "everything is racist and must tear it down" mindset enough to anticipate the reactions and approaches used.
> ...


Calling bigotry callouts _witch hunts? _Nice Trumpian rhetoric. Completely removes any semblance of blame from the called-out, while simultaneously accusing the caller of either ignorant, needless destruction and/or deliberate targeted 'cancellation'. Thing is, it's bullshit and we all know it. I agree that the publishers should have taken a different route, but if anyone, blame _them. _Don't blame us, nor accuse us of being "perpetually offended", etc. There's a significant difference between the straw comparisons you and others sharing your view on this have made and what's actually happening. In this case, even if it WAS due to a direct callout or anticipation thereof, it wasn't "everything is racist and must be torn down" or anything of the sort. The offending images were in fact offending, with pretty blatant stereotypes or racist depictions in each. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand, but I guess I'm asking a little too much from mister "white privilege *doesn't exist*".
In addition, there's the matter of context. In this case, this small move by the publisher snowballed into people digging up Dr. Seuss's rich and absolutely _wonderful _history as a creator of extraordinarily racist propaganda! Ironically, had the right-wing crowd not immediately reacted as if some angry mob of torch-and-pitchfork-equipped ess-jay-double-yous dared to erase IMPORTANT LITERARY WORKS THEY HELD SO DEAR (despite the books in question being laughably obscure as is, compared to the more well known ones you mentioned that lack that kind of offensive material)... we wouldn't have the perfect contextual evidence we needed to defend against said absurd reactions!
This time, try actually putting yourself in the shoes of someone of a minority group. In a somewhat obscure book, there are images and descriptions that either paint your group in a negative light or overly generalize the entirety of your group into a stereotype that _has been previously and historically USED to paint it in a negative light._ Does it warrant completely stopping the book's publishing entirely? Eh, probably not, though it depends on the frequency and the context. Is it bigoted enough that taking offense to it is justified? *Of course it is! *If minor wrongs are allowed with zero consequences and negative reactions thereof are frowned upon, then they eventually become normalized- into the very sorts of privilege and systemic bigotry you still deny to this day.


----------



## PityOnU (Mar 8, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Does it have to be in response to a callout or does the mere anticipation of one? As I understand they dragged in some consultancy firm to seek and destroy works that might cause offence (or would that be harm?), presumably to head it off at the pass. It was also framed as doing it for that purpose -- if the historical preservation society owning the rights decided that in this day of print on demand wherein I can seemingly buy an out of print 600 page book with nice pictures that is as thick as two of my finger joints for £20 that only the cat in the hat, horton hears a who, grinch, green eggs and ham and whatever other ones they have made cartoons/films of are the only ones that sell then so it goes. Attempting to do something to win brownie points with the perpetually offended... that is a rather different approach to the world.
> Most witch hunts don't catch that many of the witches of the day, however the atmosphere that they create is also quite destructive and probably best avoided.
> 
> I am still also struggling to see what was so troubling about a bunch of those, and I would like to believe I understood the "everything is racist and must tear it down" mindset enough to anticipate the reactions and approaches used.
> ...



It's okay, you don't have to agree with them. Everyone is entitled to their opinions!

Thinking about it, I suppose that includes those people who would say they were offended by these. No need to be offended over them being offended! You do you!


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

Wow, this is 6 pages of people arguing about books for children


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

You guys are never gonna guess what Doctor Seuss named The Cat in the Hat


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> You guys are never gonna guess what Doctor Seuss named The Cat in the Hat


That's a hard one


----------



## Seliph (Mar 8, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> That's a hard one


If I must say so he actually named the Cat in the Hat's real name after after Lovecraft's cat, citing Lovecraft as a "profound influence on his life and works". Of course you won't find this information online but I swear I didn't make it up.

I found The Lorax to be very Lovecraftian to be honest


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Of course you won't find this information online but I swear I didn't make it up.


Source(s):dude trust me


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 8, 2021)

Plasmaster09 said:


> Calling bigotry callouts _witch hunts? _Nice Trumpian rhetoric. Completely removes any semblance of blame from the called-out, while simultaneously accusing the caller of either ignorant, needless destruction and/or deliberate targeted 'cancellation'. Thing is, it's bullshit and we all know it. I agree that the publishers should have taken a different route, but if anyone, blame _them. _Don't blame us, nor accuse us of being "perpetually offended", etc. There's a significant difference between the straw comparisons you and others sharing your view on this have made and what's actually happening. In this case, even if it WAS due to a direct callout or anticipation thereof, it wasn't "everything is racist and must be torn down" or anything of the sort. The offending images were in fact offending, with pretty blatant stereotypes or racist depictions in each. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand, but I guess I'm asking a little too much from mister "white privilege *doesn't exist*".
> In addition, there's the matter of context. In this case, this small move by the publisher snowballed into people digging up Dr. Seuss's rich and absolutely _wonderful _history as a creator of extraordinarily racist propaganda! Ironically, had the right-wing crowd not immediately reacted as if some angry mob of torch-and-pitchfork-equipped ess-jay-double-yous dared to erase IMPORTANT LITERARY WORKS THEY HELD SO DEAR (despite the books in question being laughably obscure as is, compared to the more well known ones you mentioned that lack that kind of offensive material)... we wouldn't have the perfect contextual evidence we needed to defend against said absurd reactions!
> This time, try actually putting yourself in the shoes of someone of a minority group. In a somewhat obscure book, there are images and descriptions that either paint your group in a negative light or overly generalize the entirety of your group into a stereotype that _has been previously and historically USED to paint it in a negative light._ Does it warrant completely stopping the book's publishing entirely? Eh, probably not, though it depends on the frequency and the context. Is it bigoted enough that taking offense to it is justified? *Of course it is! *If minor wrongs are allowed with zero consequences and negative reactions thereof are frowned upon, then they eventually become normalized- into the very sorts of privilege and systemic bigotry you still deny to this day.


Once more you seem kind of upset, and better upset at me despite us aligning in so many ways on what we would like to see in the world. Still amusing as ever. I will similarly reaffirm my opinions that white privilege is a historical concept at best and today if any exists it is so minor as to be lost in the noise, thus a useless world view or tool of analysis. You might also be guilty of projection or assuming I speak of certain parties, groups and mindsets when I fact do not.

Sometimes there are bigotries and idiocies that could well need calling out. Many times there are not. In recent times much of what I would see as harmless has been taken out (and that is before getting into the utterly nuts territory of "cultural appropriation"), deemed harmful and otherwise forced to adjust to a lens (which I don't necessarily agree with or see the merits in) of the day. If it is the latter then witch hunts seems a fitting term. There is a difference, I would view this as a witch hunt.
I dislike censorship, I dislike revisionism, I dislike history being lost. This even if I thought there was some harms involved.

Stereotypes. Maybe. If indeed those earlier pictures are the offending articles I not seeing the harm, or even them rising to the level of "harmful stereotype" like that stuff with the Persona game the other month or the real fun historical ones like the black brute. Not seeing them espousing a world view where those dirty non purple eyed people are inferior.
Racist. That is a harder call still from where I sit.

As far as the person. Don't give a shit in this instance. I am still on the works in question.

Similarly publishers and historical preservation groups are perpetually in need of money. If they did not deem it a necessary step then they would not have paid a consultancy firm. Jumping at shadows maybe (though you seem to think it had merit, though whether that is your own post hoc rationalisation we might debate a different day) but enough that I note it here and enough that I consider it a negative force upon the world.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Mar 9, 2021)

man 2021 is crazy who even cares about Dr. Seuss anymore XD I read his books when I was 5


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 9, 2021)

Maybe it's time people stop reading too far into these things and grow a fucking pair for once. You know, instead of going full Fahrenheit 451 on books?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 9, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> man 2021 is crazy who even cares about Dr. Seuss anymore XD I read his books when I was 5





			
				Martin Niemöller 1946 said:
			
		

> First they came for the Communists
> And I did not speak out
> Because I was not a Communist
> 
> ...



Much the same applies to censorship. Be it from religious weirdos wanting things not ordained in their particular translation and interpretation of a given religious book, those that think a depiction of a fictional violent act will in turn make people violent, those weirdos that think having a past be accessible means the future will be tainted and whatever other reasons people have for wanting to burn books or stop the spread of information. Let it start happening and it tends not to stop, and when someone does bring out Mr Rifle to end it, or maybe just tech advances such that it is basically impossible to stop*, all you don't know what will have been lost (be it historical items or works never made/distributed) in the meantime. You also have the problem of "well you have already established a precedent that moral panics are justifiable reasons for censorship" and then the opposite political party with opposite views gets in and suddenly all you hold dear is called into question.

*the invention/introduction of the printing press back when vs the church, more recently the ability to self publish all sorts of things but not necessarily on the internet (typesetting on a press is difficult, typesetting on an electronic typewriter from the early 90s will have you begging me for even a copy of notepad on the PC but still 10000x easier than grabbing letters/words out of a case and lining it all up before messing around with ink), the breakup of cinema monopolies (see block booking) in turn more or less ending Hays code as independents could do what they like, cable/satellite TV being optional and thus not restricted by the FTC as hard and yielding the boom there, and obviously now the internet for the last few decades all being things responsible for big upsets against censorship and usually more tech based than societal shifts or shooting their way out.

So yeah we could have a debate as to the relative merits of Dr Seuss, could be interesting as his philosophy of "use a core set of words and go from there" was a fairly radical and ultimately successful step in the history of such books. Even without that though there are those that will oppose censorship on principle -- "I may not care for what you have to say, I will however defend your right to say it to the death" and all that. Whether they stick to the general principle or pick apart the specific reasoning of the instance in question might vary between people (both approaches have merit) but hey.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 9, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Much the same applies to censorship


I mean, it's not like there's a huge dr.suess fan base that's gonna stick up for me if something I like gets removed


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Mar 17, 2021)

shitposting aside, I think instead of removing these they could've taken the dc approach of putting a disclaimer that says something like "hey, these aren't ok now and weren't ok then"


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 17, 2021)

Biden America where books get burn


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Mar 17, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> shitposting aside, I think instead of removing these they could've taken the dc approach of putting a disclaimer that says something like "hey, these aren't ok now and weren't ok then"


yeah its better to educate people about history rather than pretending it didn't happen


----------



## Louse (Mar 17, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden America where books get burn


CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

You are the 1 MILLIONTH person who unironically quoted anti-establishment material to support the establishment!

Your prize: a free copy of 1984 to misinterpret!


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 18, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden America where books get burn


LOL this sort of stuff has been happening for years long before biden! the snowflakes are taking ova


----------



## Louse (Mar 18, 2021)

Bladexdsl said:


> LOL this sort of stuff has been happening for years long before biden! the snowflakes are taking ova


good


----------



## ChaosEternal (Mar 18, 2021)

0xFFFFFFFF said:


> CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
> 
> You are the 1 MILLIONTH person who unironically quoted anti-establishment material to support the establishment!
> 
> Your prize: a free copy of 1984 to misinterpret!


Or perhaps over the last 70~ years that anti-establishment became the establishment. If we turned away from "book-burning" in the past and are now turning towards it again, will it only be appropriate to quote that once it has become official policy? Here's a quote from Bradbury himself, assuming you're referring to Fahrenheit 451: 





> I wrote this book at a time when I was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago. Too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning. Many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time. And of course, things have changed a lot in four years. Things are going back in a very healthy direction. But at the time I wanted to do some sort of story where I could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.


 I see no reason why that warning is invalid simple because book banning is not official government policy at the moment. I don't personally think that we're at risk of returning to the days of the Red Scare, but I cannot agree that Fahrenheit 451 can only be referenced when you're referring to circumstances identical to the historical events which prompted its writing.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Mar 18, 2021)

But for real, did anybody even care about these books before this happened? I've got too many things going on in my life to be worried about some old kiddies books being taken out of print


----------

