The Banning of Dr. Seuss
The Washington Free Beacon also reported that the rule change appears inconsistent across Amazon’s seller guidelines, suggesting that the change was recent and that Amazon has yet to bring the full site into compliance.
“The company’s content guidelines previously contained no mention of hate speech,” the Free Beacon noted. “In an apparent contradiction, Amazon’s ‘Seller Central‘ page on ‘offensive and controversial materials’ currently exempts books from bans on other products that ‘promote hatred.'”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-amazon-quietly-debuted-new-policy-ending-sales-of-books-labeled-hate-speech
Ahavati said:
Josh, yes; everyone has the right to be offended or not REMAIN offended by their own choice; however, that isn't the issue. The issue here is how that offense is projected onto others in a toxic manner, thus violating the personal rights and choices of others.
Fair point.
But I'm wondering that if the toxicity is 'merely' words, then we still have the choice of how we respond. And as you imply, we may instinctively react and feel offended, but by choice we do not have to remain in that state of mind. I agree.
Given the stratospheric rise in toxic responses infiltrating any attempt at real debate (mainly on the internet, which is mainly words/verbal), we need a strategy. This might be to switch off and not engage at all. Or if choosing to engage, be prepared to look in the mirror. If "A" is not offensive, then people will find something else to be offended about. Maybe it boils down to personal awareness and 'processing' having one's buttons pushed - and then responding from a 'neutral' space.
Josh, yes; everyone has the right to be offended or not REMAIN offended by their own choice; however, that isn't the issue. The issue here is how that offense is projected onto others in a toxic manner, thus violating the personal rights and choices of others.
Fair point.
But I'm wondering that if the toxicity is 'merely' words, then we still have the choice of how we respond. And as you imply, we may instinctively react and feel offended, but by choice we do not have to remain in that state of mind. I agree.
Given the stratospheric rise in toxic responses infiltrating any attempt at real debate (mainly on the internet, which is mainly words/verbal), we need a strategy. This might be to switch off and not engage at all. Or if choosing to engage, be prepared to look in the mirror. If "A" is not offensive, then people will find something else to be offended about. Maybe it boils down to personal awareness and 'processing' having one's buttons pushed - and then responding from a 'neutral' space.
Josh said:Since when did anyone have the right not to be offended? It's a simple choice - humans are sovereign beings and anyone can choose to be offended or not to be offended.
To answer this: a significant other might be offended at the expression of individuality in their spouse, but we typically give them no excuse to become toxic and abusive over their offended senses. They are supposed to be accepting and supportive.
The husband and wife are a microcosm of society. If we cannot be safe as ourselves at home and in society - without others reading offense into everything like big victims - then people who are just innocently being themselves will be crushed, perhaps to death.
With everything, we must not forget that if we are toxic, civil company may have to part ways with us to maintain themselves.
We do not have to buy certain books or listen to any one podcast. But those who have become a publicly traded platform for self publishing have contractual obligations.
The free market works well in work, friends and romance.
Authoritarianism does not.
To answer this: a significant other might be offended at the expression of individuality in their spouse, but we typically give them no excuse to become toxic and abusive over their offended senses. They are supposed to be accepting and supportive.
The husband and wife are a microcosm of society. If we cannot be safe as ourselves at home and in society - without others reading offense into everything like big victims - then people who are just innocently being themselves will be crushed, perhaps to death.
With everything, we must not forget that if we are toxic, civil company may have to part ways with us to maintain themselves.
We do not have to buy certain books or listen to any one podcast. But those who have become a publicly traded platform for self publishing have contractual obligations.
The free market works well in work, friends and romance.
Authoritarianism does not.
Josh said:
Fair point.
But I'm wondering that if the toxicity is 'merely' words, then we still have the choice of how we respond. And as you imply, we may instinctively react and feel offended, but by choice we do not have to remain in that state of mind. I agree.
Given the stratospheric rise in toxic responses infiltrating any attempt at real debate (mainly on the internet, which is mainly words/verbal), we need a strategy. This might be to switch off and not engage at all. Or if choosing to engage, be prepared to look in the mirror. If "A" is not offensive, then people will find something else to be offended about. Maybe it boils down to personal awareness and 'processing' having one's buttons pushed - and then responding from a 'neutral' space.
I agree, Josh. And, in an ideal world this would be ideal. And for the most part here on DU, more than many members, such as yourself, are capable of having an intelligent discussion on whatever topic they choose to engage in a non-toxic manner. However, we live in a world where many deal with mental issues and aren't capable ( whether of their own volition or lack of resources such as counseling, medication, etc. ) of processing through a neutral filter. They become tunnel-visioned, filled with resentment, bitterness, or flat out hatred and judgement for anyone who doesn't think as they do.
And then there are those who like to stir the pot out and fan the flames ( particularly of misperception ) for the drama it creates. They are not likely going to change and it certainly isn't our job to change them.
Sometimes all we can do is establish our own emotional boundaries and ignore who we feel are toxic members for the sake of peace ( having recognized their repetitive antics ), and focus on intelligent discussion with intelligent, non-toxic members.
Their life, after all, is their own, as are their choices. That does not mean, however, we are forced to be a part of it regardless of their attempts to insert themselves into our lives.
Everything is here to serve us. Everything, and one we meet.
Fair point.
But I'm wondering that if the toxicity is 'merely' words, then we still have the choice of how we respond. And as you imply, we may instinctively react and feel offended, but by choice we do not have to remain in that state of mind. I agree.
Given the stratospheric rise in toxic responses infiltrating any attempt at real debate (mainly on the internet, which is mainly words/verbal), we need a strategy. This might be to switch off and not engage at all. Or if choosing to engage, be prepared to look in the mirror. If "A" is not offensive, then people will find something else to be offended about. Maybe it boils down to personal awareness and 'processing' having one's buttons pushed - and then responding from a 'neutral' space.
I agree, Josh. And, in an ideal world this would be ideal. And for the most part here on DU, more than many members, such as yourself, are capable of having an intelligent discussion on whatever topic they choose to engage in a non-toxic manner. However, we live in a world where many deal with mental issues and aren't capable ( whether of their own volition or lack of resources such as counseling, medication, etc. ) of processing through a neutral filter. They become tunnel-visioned, filled with resentment, bitterness, or flat out hatred and judgement for anyone who doesn't think as they do.
And then there are those who like to stir the pot out and fan the flames ( particularly of misperception ) for the drama it creates. They are not likely going to change and it certainly isn't our job to change them.
Sometimes all we can do is establish our own emotional boundaries and ignore who we feel are toxic members for the sake of peace ( having recognized their repetitive antics ), and focus on intelligent discussion with intelligent, non-toxic members.
Their life, after all, is their own, as are their choices. That does not mean, however, we are forced to be a part of it regardless of their attempts to insert themselves into our lives.
Everything is here to serve us. Everything, and one we meet.
Ahavati said:This is an interesting counter to the echo of the conservative "cancel culture" being yodeled out across the nation:
Why the decision to pull 6 Dr. Seuss books is an important move for diversity
[ . . . ]
Conservative critics, meanwhile, are blaming the decision to stop publishing the six books on "cancel culture," with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeting, "When history looks back at this time it will be held up as an example of a depraved sociopolitical purge driven by hysteria and lunacy." A common refrain is that Seuss — who died in 1991 and wrote the majority of the offending books in the 1950s, with the most recent published in 1976 — is being unfairly held to standards set by modern-day PC culture.
But book industry professionals object to this being framed as a cancellation of Dr. Seuss — whose remaining titles, including The Lorax, which was removed from a California school district's reading list in 1988 for being too liberal on environmental issues — will continue to be published and licensed.
Deborah Caldwell Stone, director of the American Library Association's (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom, notes to Yahoo Life that the Dr. Seuss Enterprises' move is "well within their rights" and doesn't mean that the six titles will necessarily be banned.
[ . . . ]
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dr-seuss-books-no-longer-being-published-racist-images-diversity-024246847.html
The Lorax is my all time Seuss favorite!
If only he was alive today to write about all these ridiculous politicians.
Why the decision to pull 6 Dr. Seuss books is an important move for diversity
[ . . . ]
Conservative critics, meanwhile, are blaming the decision to stop publishing the six books on "cancel culture," with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeting, "When history looks back at this time it will be held up as an example of a depraved sociopolitical purge driven by hysteria and lunacy." A common refrain is that Seuss — who died in 1991 and wrote the majority of the offending books in the 1950s, with the most recent published in 1976 — is being unfairly held to standards set by modern-day PC culture.
But book industry professionals object to this being framed as a cancellation of Dr. Seuss — whose remaining titles, including The Lorax, which was removed from a California school district's reading list in 1988 for being too liberal on environmental issues — will continue to be published and licensed.
Deborah Caldwell Stone, director of the American Library Association's (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom, notes to Yahoo Life that the Dr. Seuss Enterprises' move is "well within their rights" and doesn't mean that the six titles will necessarily be banned.
[ . . . ]
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dr-seuss-books-no-longer-being-published-racist-images-diversity-024246847.html
The Lorax is my all time Seuss favorite!
If only he was alive today to write about all these ridiculous politicians.
The marketing manager at Doctor Seuss Enterprises is a genius.
All they did was announce the discontinuation of six of their least popular titles due to “racism”. I have two of those six books at home, talk about storm in a tea cup, they aren’t particularly racist, what they are is sub-par, his other books are so much better. Of course that triggers the right wing media cry babies to denounce this as akin to book burning. This of course is supported by their brainless right wing trolls on social media platforms, Internet forums etc. screaming nonsense like cancel culture, Fascism etc. Then we have the left wing cry babies fighting with the right wing cry babies, turning this into a major problem.
It’s a non-issue. Meanwhile, Doctor Seuss Enterprises rides the huge wave of free advertising all the way to the bank.
Genius.
All they did was announce the discontinuation of six of their least popular titles due to “racism”. I have two of those six books at home, talk about storm in a tea cup, they aren’t particularly racist, what they are is sub-par, his other books are so much better. Of course that triggers the right wing media cry babies to denounce this as akin to book burning. This of course is supported by their brainless right wing trolls on social media platforms, Internet forums etc. screaming nonsense like cancel culture, Fascism etc. Then we have the left wing cry babies fighting with the right wing cry babies, turning this into a major problem.
It’s a non-issue. Meanwhile, Doctor Seuss Enterprises rides the huge wave of free advertising all the way to the bank.
Genius.
Valeriyabeyond said:
The matter of offense was known before you stated it otherwise you would not have
The comment may have been directed towards Lep but the intent was to prove offence by using a label that you knew was derogatory
Knowing someone would be offended to prove your point and following through is being cruel
It doesn't seem to be an innocent act on your part
It was intended to offend perpetrated by someone who follows up by saying "what, I didn't mean anything by it?"
no, val.
if you want to see it that way, your business.
again I do not need you fucking telling me what to do, thank you. so if that is what you are getting at, please know that it i take no particular notice.
as evidenced by the opening of “please do not take this offensively” i clearly did not intend to cause offence, but yes, i did know i was about to use an offensive word.
like i said earlier, intent is important, but as feral did take offence regardless, i tried to indicate that i understood why, and apologise. i also tried to explain why i used the word.
beyond that, there’s fuck all i can do.
have a lovely day.
The matter of offense was known before you stated it otherwise you would not have
The comment may have been directed towards Lep but the intent was to prove offence by using a label that you knew was derogatory
Knowing someone would be offended to prove your point and following through is being cruel
It doesn't seem to be an innocent act on your part
It was intended to offend perpetrated by someone who follows up by saying "what, I didn't mean anything by it?"
no, val.
if you want to see it that way, your business.
again I do not need you fucking telling me what to do, thank you. so if that is what you are getting at, please know that it i take no particular notice.
as evidenced by the opening of “please do not take this offensively” i clearly did not intend to cause offence, but yes, i did know i was about to use an offensive word.
like i said earlier, intent is important, but as feral did take offence regardless, i tried to indicate that i understood why, and apologise. i also tried to explain why i used the word.
beyond that, there’s fuck all i can do.
have a lovely day.
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
anna_grin said:
no, val.
if you want to see it that way, your business.
again I do not need you fucking telling me what to do, thank you. so if that is what you are getting at, please know that it i take no particular notice.
as evidenced by the opening of “please do not take this offensively” i clearly did not intend to cause offence, but yes, i did know i was about to use an offensive word.
like i said earlier, intent is important, but as feral did take offence regardless, i tried to indicate that i understood why, and apologise. i also tried to explain why i used the word.
beyond that, there’s fuck all i can do.
have a lovely day.
In otder to offend someone within a group or individually three things are needed a perpetrater, a target, and an audience
There may be a perpetrator and an audience, but unless the target carries the insult, there will be no offence.
Deliberate offenses can be recognized by an excuse before the statement. or a pre emptive strike you could call it.
To say " no offense" literally means, the intentions are there and are being masked by ignorance, or an apology all with the purpose of putting the offense onto the target making it their fault they were offended and not the perpetrator
The intent to offend is basic, and boils down to pecking order or an attempt to place oneself at a level where they have a following or an audience to feel superior.
no, val.
if you want to see it that way, your business.
again I do not need you fucking telling me what to do, thank you. so if that is what you are getting at, please know that it i take no particular notice.
as evidenced by the opening of “please do not take this offensively” i clearly did not intend to cause offence, but yes, i did know i was about to use an offensive word.
like i said earlier, intent is important, but as feral did take offence regardless, i tried to indicate that i understood why, and apologise. i also tried to explain why i used the word.
beyond that, there’s fuck all i can do.
have a lovely day.
In otder to offend someone within a group or individually three things are needed a perpetrater, a target, and an audience
There may be a perpetrator and an audience, but unless the target carries the insult, there will be no offence.
Deliberate offenses can be recognized by an excuse before the statement. or a pre emptive strike you could call it.
To say " no offense" literally means, the intentions are there and are being masked by ignorance, or an apology all with the purpose of putting the offense onto the target making it their fault they were offended and not the perpetrator
The intent to offend is basic, and boils down to pecking order or an attempt to place oneself at a level where they have a following or an audience to feel superior.
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
