Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Overtly stating that they are doing that, is indeed virtue signalling.

Simply not publishing in the future, without drawing attention, is the non-virtue-signal path, but is NOT what they have chosen to do.

"Why can't I find (foo DrSuess book) at the book store?"
"They dont publish it anymore."
"why not?"
"They never said."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Shouldn't you practice what you preach and not virtue signal about being anti-virtue signaling? Just disapprove in contented silence. 

[wierd]

*raises spock eyebrow*

[MrRoboto75]

Just disapprove in contented silence.

[dragdeler]

-

[bloop_bleep]

Didn't Dr. Seuss use to write political comic strips? I'd imagine that'd be more provocative than his childrens' books. I remember in particular one against 30s-era isolationism, with Italy and Germany sick in one bed from fascism and the US in the bed next to it looking self-absorbed and content. Maybe not the most provocative nowadays but others might have been.

[Vector]

Here's a pro-Japanese-internment political cartoon.

My feeling is that retracting the 6 books from publication with blatant caricatures allows them to save the rest of his work.

EDIT: There's apparently another planned attack on the Capitol somewhere between March 4 and March 6.

[Lord Shonus]

His "those were nasty foreign children and they don't matter" anti-isolationist tract gets a lot of play nowadays. He mostly disavowed his wartime work by the mid-50s, saying he had just gotten swept up in the hysteria, but his prewar work was fundamentally different.

[KittyTac]

- What happens to the people who create the prison environment?

Depends on what it is like. Even for those people, prison... well it shouldn't be a hotel room but it should be safe at least.

- Why do people actually shoot up places? Is imprisoning the individual the best route to preventing these kinds of crimes?

I only say to imprison them because I am morally opposed to the death penalty. They deserve the highest punishment they can get.

- Given that people like Kyle Rittenhouse are currently walking free and not considered to be "murderers," what does it actually mean to be a "murderer?" Why do we consider people like Kyle to not be a threat -- to not be part of the population justifying the carceral apparatus?

He should be considered a murderer.

- What would change, concretely, rather than through abstract measurements like "fairness" and "justice" if we had put Kyle behind bars? Would we be safer?

Yes. Slightly, but yes.

- Most rapists are walking around on the street without consequences. Are they a public threat?

Yes.

[KittyTac]

Though on a second thought it was self-defense... I don't think self-defense is murder.

[hector13]

What made it self-defense?

[Rolan7]

I have a radical suggestion:

If you find that bit of children's literature offensive, then create something to replace it with, and then subtly replace it.

Dont make a virtue signal that space aliens can see from alpha centauri out of it.

Okay I'll pour my heart into a stream-of-consciousness post on the inherent value of humankind.
Oh no, racists are still sharing copies of Birth Of A Nation and also their fresh antisemitic and white supremacist memes

but my marketplace of ideas!!

[wierd]

I have a radical suggestion:

If you find that bit of children's literature offensive, then create something to replace it with, and then subtly replace it.

Dont make a virtue signal that space aliens can see from alpha centauri out of it.

Okay I'll pour my heart into a stream-of-consciousness post on the inherent value of humankind.
Oh no, racists are still sharing copies of Birth Of A Nation and also their fresh antisemitic and white supremacist memes

but my marketplace of ideas!!

Short of burning books like in Fahrenheit 451, you will never be able to prevent the sharing of racist and or, destructive ideation or literature between generations (Especially since freedom of speech is a fucking constitutional right). It's LESS than pointless to try, because you just open the door wide for those tactics to be used to destroy more progressive ideation.

Instead, you should focus on rational thought, and proper education for children in public schools, so that they can be exposed to things that are not pure invective and hate.

[Vector]

The way you teach people to stop shitting in public (look up "open defecation") is by gradually impressing upon people that it's a bad idea. People then learn to bury their own feces. Slowly. The same tactics could of course to be used to support Traditionalism, everyone shall not just shit in public but also dig up turds that others attempt to bury.

You cannot entirely prevent people from shitting in public. People get sick. It's a thing that happens.

To me, this is the equivalent of someone taking a massive shit on the sidewalk in the moment when the culture is the process of changing and their wife comes by a little later and says: "you know, my husband really shouldn't have done that. I'm going to clean this up. We aren't doing this anymore, after all."

And of course, some people, who don't want to be shamed because shitting in public is Traditional and it was good enough for their ancestors and their sons and daughters should not be constrained by these strange new ideas, say: "look, why are you making a fuss. It's just a crap. You're just trying to look pro-"sanitation" so that you can have status in our new buried-feces culture. No one has made it the law to not shit in public--we have the right! And no one will ever make it so that we all stop shitting in public permanently anyway."


The problem here is that people keep talking about "opening the doors to canceling progressive ideation." It used to be the law or norm not 70 years ago that all books featuring queer romances end in tragedy. All.

What exactly do people think obscenity laws are supposed to police? Sure -- lots of unsavory things, loudly. But also, quietly burying the gays.

Without enormous pushback, it used to be the norm in fandom spaces that people would "warn" for homosexual romantic pairings in the same way people would "warn" for rape or gory violence. That was the case ... well, 10 years ago. I remember it changing.


OK, here's another consideration: these books are intended for children. Momma and Poppa, well-meaning but not inclined to think much of racial caricature, read the books to Baby. For Baby, seeing these racial caricatures as part of Storytime with Momma and Poppa absorb the message that it is normal for Black people to look like the caricatures in the book.

This is not challenged in the schools because if they do challenge it, even indirectly, Momma and Poppa will remember their own times as Maby and Paby, with their own parents, reading the comforting books, and they will put the teachers to the test and threaten to have them fired for "teaching propaganda," "bending to cancel culture," and "being racist to white people." Oh, and CENSORSHIP. BOOK BURNING. This is if the teachers don't themselves think that racial caricatures are A-OK -- remember, every Teacher was once a Taby.

(For your reference, the books burned in that famous picture in Nazi Germany were some of the earlier western books on research into LGBT matters and especially trans people.)

Baby grows up, therefore, without early challenge to racial caricatures, and it becomes part of the apparatus through which they see the world.

And of course, eventually Baby has Bbabies.

[wierd]

Sorry vector, but I wont buy your take. Not as tendered anyway.


It makes a fatal assumption, and runs with it, by begging the question that children raised in such a circumstance will never, and can never, question the conditions of their upbringing.  I can assure you, from personal experience, that this is not the case.


What allowed me to see past the bullshit of my **VERY** conservative, Limbaugh-listening, doomsday prepping upbringing, was exposure to good and correct rational thinking and quality educational materials.

I will tell you straight up, that fighting indoctrination with more indoctrination, is how you alienate kids that were like I was, and make them unwilling to listen to anything. (you instead trigger their very early, and forming, balogna detection kit, and trigger it hard, making them unwilling to listen to anything you say, and doom your position to the travails of the backfire effect.)

Virtue-signalling is what the "traditionalist" is doing, by shitting on the sidewalk as a public spectacle.  Doing your own version of it, by virtue signalling against him, does not really make your position look ideologically superior.  Correct and rational positions hold their own without such embellishment.  I also resent that you consider my position to be shitting on a metaphorical sidewalk.  Rather, it is "Instead of screaming at people, you should provide port-o-potties, and advertise how private and safe they are."

The correct course of action, is to stop pretending that children are tabula rasa sponges incapable of independent evaluation or thinking-- then accept that the circumstance is that the child is being exposed to dangerous ideation at home, and casually suggest mind-expanding literature to them, and asking them to explain why they have the feelings and reactions that they do, calmly and rationally. Support them, and tell them that it will be hard to make up their own minds, as they will be challenged constantly, but challenge is good, and assures that they fully understand, and own their choices.