Some Dr.Seuss books taken down

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 The DVD set with the outdated and racist depictions was first of all marketed on the spine specifically for adult collectors, and then the DVDs had this perfect disclaimer when you start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:

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Some Dr.Seuss books taken down

Secretly three raccoons in a trench coat

Well-Known Member

Secretly three raccoons in a trench coat

Well-Known Member

Secretly three raccoons in a trench coat

Best Girl ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ

Well-Known Member

Secretly three raccoons in a trench coat

Well-Known Member

go play rez

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Social Justice Potato

go play rez

Techromancer

Social Justice Potato

Well-Known Member

Secretly three raccoons in a trench coat

Best Girl ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ

Secretly three raccoons in a trench coat

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum