Political Correctness

[Danoff]

Well I think that's a pretty poor attitude and you should definitely reevaluate it. I'm not a fan of Garth Brooks or Taylor Swift but not a single pixel of me thinks they should should stop and the reason is because I respect their freedom of expression. A "market" has nothing to do with that.

By not buying their albums you're encouraging them to stop. But other people are supporting them, so they won't. I do think Kanye should stop. Not only is he terrible, he's destroying the musical tastes of everyone who listens to his "music". He's an abomination and I wish people would stop buying his stuff so that he'd go away. But they don't, so I can pound sand.

There is no "market" for logic. This market you speak of doesn't dictate anything at all, it's merely a consequence of rational thought. A market doesn't allow these artists to create, rationality does. An attitude that doesn't respect that is rude at minimum.

That depends on what you mean by "create". If you mean whether they will express themselves at all. Sure, the market doesn't determine that. If you mean whether their expression is actually heard, circulated, shared, yes the market dictates that. Garth Brooks would be off doing something else for a living if nobody liked his music.

Logic is not really here or there in this discussion. How logical is it to buy Eminem's albums or go to his concerts? The question is almost nonsensical. All that matters, with regard to whether he keeps producing art for consumption, is whether he has a following. In particular, it helps to have a following that is willing to buy stuff. As long as that's the case, he'll (likely) keep making music (if he feels like it), and whoever doesn't like it can just deal with it.

Edit: And as I'm free to think your opinion is rude, you're free to think Eminem's content is rude, but I don't wish you would ever stop expressing your opinion, and I'd hope you wouldn't wish anybody else would stop expressing theirs.

If you did wish I would stop expressing my opinion, what difference would that make?

 

[UKMikey]

Well I think that's a pretty poor attitude and you should definitely reevaluate it. I'm not a fan of Garth Brooks or Taylor Swift but not a single pixel of me thinks they should should stop and the reason is because I respect their freedom of expression. A "market" has nothing to do with that. There is no "market" for logic. This market you speak of doesn't dictate anything at all, it's merely a consequence of rational thought. A market doesn't allow these artists to create, rationality does. An attitude that doesn't respect that is rude at minimum.

Edit: And as I'm free to think your opinion is rude, you're free to think Eminem's content is rude, but I don't wish you would ever stop expressing your opinion, and I'd hope you wouldn't wish anybody else would stop expressing theirs.

Don't you think the zoomers who don't want to buy Eminem's records have a right to express their opinions too or is this a paradox of intolerance thing? The market dictates whether he stays in business or not and with one hundred million records plus sold so far, I don't think he's going away anytime soon, zoomers or no zoomers.

[EDIT] I don't believe it's a paradox of intolerance thing. They're not trying to deny Eminem's right to exist and even if they did I doubt they'd achieve their goal. What's the difference between this and the equally unsuccessful Beatles bonfires of the sixties?

 

[Biggles]

"Banning" being the operative word here. Sometimes older literature is not necessarily the greatest thing to teach young kids. Why is this surprising to anyone?

I was looking for a somewhat more thoughtful response. I don't know what point you at are in your child rearing, but I have adult daughters I have navigated through childhood. As a parent, your attitude to these issues is what makes the most impact. However, it is unavoidable that your kids will be influenced by the world around them. It's not a matter of "teaching" older literature to kids - the material is out there. The cultural world is full - I mean absolutely chock-a-block - with literature, art, movies etc. that includes questionable messages. Most of it has racial & ethnic stereotyping, at best, & flat out racism at worst. And don't even get me started on sexism & sexual stereotyping.

This is not a simple issue. To take Dr. Seuss as an example: there's no question that he wasn't "racist". His books are basically anti-racist. Nevertheless, he was a man of his time & ethnic stereotyping crept into some of his books. I have three of the books in question. The "racist" elements are definitely there - I can't remember if they stood out to me at the time I was reading them to my kids. They are not that prominent in the overall flow of the stories & I doubt they would make much, or any, impact on the thinking of a child. However, they are definitely offensive to the ethnic groups depicted - Asians & Africans - & that, I imagine, is why the publisher has decided to no longer print them.

This is not a black & white, binary issue. Everything & anything is increasingly being considered potentially offensive today. "Gone With the Wind" is unquestionably racist ... but not as racist as "The Birth of a Nation". Possibly it's less racist than "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom", which is somewhat more racist than "The Blind Side". Somehow, some kind of consensus on how to address this will need to be arrived at. I don't think a libertarian who denies that income inequality is even an issue in today's society is going to have an easy time leading the way.

 

[Danoff]

I was looking for a somewhat more thoughtful response. I don't know what point you at are in your child rearing, but I have adult daughters I have navigated through childhood.

We're talking about Dr. Seuss...

As a parent, your attitude to these issues is what makes the most impact. However, it is unavoidable that your kids will be influenced by the world around them. It's not a matter of "teaching" older literature to kids - the material is out there. The cultural world is full - I mean absolutely chock-a-block - with literature, art, movies etc. that includes questionable messages. Most of it has racial & ethnic stereotyping, at best, & flat out racism at worst. And don't even get me started on sexism & sexual stereotyping.

This is not a simple issue. To take Dr. Seuss as an example: there's no question that he wasn't "racist". His books are basically anti-racist. Nevertheless, he was a man of his time & ethnic stereotyping crept into some of his books. I have three of the books in question. The "racist" elements are definitely there - I can't remember if they stood out to me at the time I was reading them to my kids. They are not that prominent in the overall flow of the stories & I doubt they would make much, or any, impact on the thinking of a child. However, they are definitely offensive to the ethnic groups depicted - Asians & Africans - & that, I imagine, is why the publisher has decided to no longer print them.

This is not a black & white, binary issue. Everything & anything is increasingly being considered potentially offensive today. "Gone With the Wind" is unquestionably racist ... but not as racist as "The Birth of a Nation". Possibly it's less racist than "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom", which is somewhat more racist than "The Blind Side". Somehow, some kind of consensus on how to address this will need to be arrived at.

Not really. It mostly comes down to what's in demand and what isn't. What on Earth is there to have a consensus about? First of all, a consensus isn't going to happen. Second of all, a consensus isn't going to necessarily change my demand for particular material. The extent for consensus is just sufficient demand that the book gets published. In this case, the publisher felt that the costs were too high. What else is there to talk about? Do we reach some sort of consensus where we say that these kids' books are important historical artifacts and therefore must be published at some prescribe rate? That's not doing anyone any good. Are we reaching some sort of consensus and saying publishers cannot sell the book even though people want it? That's also not doing anyone any good. So what are we talking about?

I don't think a libertarian who denies that income inequality is even an issue in today's society is going to have an easy time leading the way.

I see that you're taking shots. I don't have a good understanding of why.

 

[Liquid]

 

[UKMikey]

I told you they'd deliberately mix up Scrambled Egg Super and Green Eggs And Ham. Aside from the rifle (if unlicensed) I'm not sure which of those things Chynah Biden wants to take from Tom, just to add another lie to his blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Biggles]

"Banning" being the operative word here. Sometimes older literature is not necessarily the greatest thing to teach young kids. Why is this surprising to anyone?

I see that you're taking shots. I don't have a good understanding of why.

While there are a handful of pages in the 60 books written by Dr. Seuss that are questionable, he most definitely didn't promote racism. I would be much more concerned about adolescence boys who read Ayn Rand & are influenced by the racist claptrap she promoted:

"As to the Indians ... I do not think they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn't conquer; Americans did not conquer that country. If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.

I will go further. Let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves about.

Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it is great that some people did, and discovered here what they couldn’t do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any racist Indians today, do not believe to this day: respect for individual rights."

(Ayn Rand address to the graduating class West Point Academy, March 6th, 1974)

As sickening an expression of racism & ignorance as you're likely to find in recent history. It could as well have been written after the Ghent Treaty of 1814, when the shocked British negotiator, Henry Goulburn remarked:

"Till I came here, I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is in the heart of every American to extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory."

 

[Danoff]

While there are a handful of pages in the 60 books written by Dr. Seuss that are questionable, he most definitely didn't promote racism. I would be much more concerned about adolescence boys who read Ayn Rand & are influenced by the racist claptrap she promoted:

"As to the Indians ... I do not think they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn't conquer; Americans did not conquer that country. If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.

I will go further. Let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves about.

Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it is great that some people did, and discovered here what they couldn’t do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any racist Indians today, do not believe to this day: respect for individual rights."

(Ayn Rand address to the graduating class West Point Academy, March 6th, 1974)

As sickening an expression of racism & ignorance as you're likely to find in recent history. It could as well have been written after the Ghent Treaty of 1814, when the shocked British negotiator, Henry Goulburn remarked:

"Till I came here, I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is in the heart of every American to extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory."

Are you suggesting that I am calling for the discontinued publication of (select ones of) Dr. Seuss's books? I don't think I'd teach Ayn Rand's comments there to target ages for Dr. Seuss's books either, if that's what you're implying.

You seem to be really confused about something. I'm not sure what it is. You think that I consider Dr. Seuss's writings to be offensive? You think that I think that the publisher's actions are necessary? You think it's up to me in any way? You think I consider something which might be considered offensive not worthy of learning, or discussing? For some reason you're trying to draw a parallel between a speech made to graduates and a book published for preschoolers...

I think I need you to clarify.

Edit:

Specifically regarding Rand, if you wanted to come up with a reason to persuade people to boycott her books in order to get them to stop being published, I'd think the rampant sexism in the books would be a much better reason than her comments outside of her publications. I mean sure, if you want to go full cancel culture I suppose a speech would be in play. But the actual publications themselves contain plenty of sexism to go after. They even glorify rape (The Fountainhead). Definitely not the greatest material to read to preschoolers.

Also very little rhyming.

 

[Veinz]

Amazon had to change their app logo (below) because some people were offended by it. Their reason? It reminds them of Hitler. LOL

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/business/amazon-logo-hitler-mustache.html

 

[UKMikey]

Amazon had to change their app logo (below) because some people were offended by it. Their reason? It reminds them of Hitler. LOL

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/business/amazon-logo-hitler-mustache.html

You've been tree'd by @TenEightyOne.

 

[Brett]

Change or not, I do not really understand why the blue part is even included.

 

[Tornado]

Teen Vogue's Alexi McCammond called out for "past racist and homophobic tweets"


I mean notwithstanding "Disney fires director of billion dollar franchise for a joke he told half a decade before they hired him in the first place" level laughable overreactions, is the desired
Woke Twitter endgame for people who did something a decade ago when they were teenagers for them to never be employed anywhere?
I find situations like this interesting specifically when they come up because there's functionally an entire generation of people who were open books and idiots on social media in high school (I think Generation Z are better at hiding it, but I strongly doubt they are actually any better in behavior when teenagers) who are of age to enter professional level fields now who are being pilloried for stuff they said years ago as teenagers.

 

[Biggles]

Are you suggesting that I am calling for the discontinued publication of (select ones of) Dr. Seuss's books? I don't think I'd teach Ayn Rand's comments there to target ages for Dr. Seuss's books either, if that's what you're implying.

You seem to be really confused about something. I'm not sure what it is. You think that I consider Dr. Seuss's writings to be offensive? You think that I think that the publisher's actions are necessary? You think it's up to me in any way? You think I consider something which might be considered offensive not worthy of learning, or discussing? For some reason you're trying to draw a parallel between a speech made to graduates and a book published for preschoolers...

I think I need you to clarify.

Edit:

Specifically regarding Rand, if you wanted to come up with a reason to persuade people to boycott her books in order to get them to stop being published, I'd think the rampant sexism in the books would be a much better reason than her comments outside of her publications. I mean sure, if you want to go full cancel culture I suppose a speech would be in play. But the actual publications themselves contain plenty of sexism to go after. They even glorify rape (The Fountainhead). Definitely not the greatest material to read to preschoolers.

Also very little rhyming.

I don't think Rand's books should be banned, nor do I think Theodor Geisel's books should be "banned". I agree with you (I imagine) that the Dr. Seuss books in question weren't actually "banned" - the estate/publisher came to the decision that not to continue to print the few books with questionable elements was in the best interests of the overall brand. However ... I don't think that the few books in question actively promote racism to young kids. The reason for concern is more that they are potentially offensive to certain ethnic groups. That I see as a legitimate concern.

Ayn Rand is a different matter. Her writing - both fiction & non-fiction is a motherlode of bad ideas ... and those bad ideas have continued to influence generations of young, & not-so-young people. Rand was a clever woman with a heavy baggage of life-defining experiences that influenced her political thinking. Both her novels & her philosophy should be little more than a historical footnote nowadays. Her speech at West Point, including her comments about the indigenous peoples of North America (about whom she very obviously knew almost nothing) was apparently greeted with enthusiastic applause. This would suggest that the extreme racist views expressed may have had a significant influence on her audience which was comprised of the incoming generation of US military leaders. That's a huge concern. That toxic mix of Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism & racism seems to be a continuing theme in American society ... still very much in evidence in Trumpism.

 

[Liquid]

Teen Vogue's Alexi McCammond called out for "past racist and homophobic tweets"


I mean notwithstanding "Disney fires director of billion dollar franchise for a joke he told half a decade before they hired him in the first place" level laughable overreactions, is the desired
Woke Twitter endgame for people who did something a decade ago when they were teenagers for them to never be employed anywhere?
I find situations like this interesting specifically when they come up because there's functionally an entire generation of people who were open books and idiots on social media in high school (I think Generation Z are better at hiding it, but I strongly doubt they are actually any better in behavior when teenagers) who are of age to enter professional level fields now who are being pilloried for stuff they said years ago as teenagers.

Slightly related: Most of my family members (parents, aunties and uncles) are Gen X. They often say how grateful they are that there wasn't any social media and very few records of what they got up to when they were teenagers.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Slightly related: Most of my family members (parents, aunties and uncles) are Gen X. They often say how grateful they are that there wasn't any social media and very few records of what they got up to when they were teenagers.

This got me thinking - who's to know how people would view your post in the Prejudice thread in 30 years time, and, in turn, how they would view you.

You never see good press. You never hear good stories. I don't know if there is good press or if there are good stories to be heard but I can't say I have ever experienced them. I have never had much interaction with Romani people but with Irish travellers in particular, I cannot help but admit that my interactions have been negative on the whole. I try not to let it cloud my judgement, I like to consider myself someone who gives every individual the chance of a good first impression and benefit of the doubt but growing up around travellers and the negative storm that follows them, it has been difficult to do so.

Change the subject and would it be acceptable to write today?

You never see good press. You never hear good stories. I don't know if there is good press or if there are good stories to be heard but I can't say I have ever experienced them. I have never had much interaction with Africans but with Somalis in particular, I cannot help but admit that my interactions have been negative on the whole. I try not to let it cloud my judgement, I like to consider myself someone who gives every individual the chance of a good first impression and benefit of the doubt but growing up around Somalis and the negative storm that follows them, it has been difficult to do so.

For the record, I don't see you as prejudiced judging from your posts on here, but I thought it interesting to see how "we" * accept certain views that will likely not be acceptable in decades to come, and if we should be punished for it (in the present or future).

*We as in the wider community

 

[Moglet]

Teen Vogue's Alexi McCammond called out for "past racist and homophobic tweets"


I mean notwithstanding "Disney fires director of billion dollar franchise for a joke he told half a decade before they hired him in the first place" level laughable overreactions, is the desired
Woke Twitter endgame for people who did something a decade ago when they were teenagers for them to never be employed anywhere?
I find situations like this interesting specifically when they come up because there's functionally an entire generation of people who were open books and idiots on social media in high school (I think Generation Z are better at hiding it, but I strongly doubt they are actually any better in behavior when teenagers) who are of age to enter professional level fields now who are being pilloried for stuff they said years ago as teenagers.

I usually believe in calling people out for any ****** behaviour but this is the perfect example of it getting out of hand. It's perfectly reasonable to expect people to change their opinions over time yet some people don't seem to let this fly and will try and reprimand someone for mistakes that they may have admitted to and grown from. This is where "cancel culture" can become toxic and can ruin lives. On the other hand there are adults in professional positions who continue to say offensive things online and blame "cancel culture" when people turn around and call them out on it which really isn't helping matters. Now everyone assumes that it's "liberals trying to shut down other opinions" and cases like Alexi McCammond are tarred with the same brush.

I'm very glad that social media wasn't a thing when I was growing up as I imagine I'd have been called out on opinions I held as a teenager or even into my early twenties. I've done a complete u-turn in a lot of ways and hate who I used to be.

 

[ryzno]

Bye bye Pepe Le Pew...

 

[Scaff]

Amazon had to change their app logo (below) because some people were offended by it. Their reason? It reminds them of Hitler. LOL

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/business/amazon-logo-hitler-mustache.html

Or as seems to be the case from the text of the article, some people said 'that looks a bit like Hitlers' tach' and Amazon just tweaked it, as I'm not getting much sense of outrage from people in the article at all.

 

[Danoff]

Sexual harassment skunk was creepy even when I was a kid... over 30 years ago. Also, it was a crap cartoon. So who cares?

=====================

I don't think Rand's books should be banned, nor do I think Theodor Geisel's books should be "banned". I agree with you (I imagine) that the Dr. Seuss books in question weren't actually "banned" - the estate/publisher came to the decision that not to continue to print the few books with questionable elements was in the best interests of the overall brand. However ... I don't think that the few books in question actively promote racism to young kids. The reason for concern is more that they are potentially offensive to certain ethnic groups. That I see as a legitimate concern.

Ok great. So I have no idea why you immediately started taking shots at me. The rest of this is just the non-sequitur you brought up for... no apparent reason.

Ayn Rand is a different matter.

Indeed. So why did you bring it up? You went to Rand specifically to make a point about Dr. Seuss. I was as confused then as I am now about why.

This would suggest that the extreme racist views expressed may have had a significant influence on her audience

You're trying, intentionally, to paint with a very broad brush to cover the details. I've had this particular debate with you, I don't care to do it again.

That toxic mix of Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism & racism seems to be a continuing theme in American society ... still very much in evidence in Trumpism.

...what conclusion would you like me to draw from this? That her books should be "cancelled"? Fine, don't buy them.

 

[ryzno]

Also, it was a crap cartoon.

Well I can tell what kinda kid you were...

 

[huskeR32]

Well I can tell what kinda kid you were...

A pretty sizable chunk of your posts on this site have lectured people to not read more into your comments than what you explicitly say.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well this is interesting:

 

[UKMikey]

Well this is interesting:

What's interesting about it?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well this is interesting:

That you didn't include the exorcism context, or the possible reason for the challenge before banishing 'the fiend'?

 

[MatskiMonk]

What's interesting about it?

It's actually Tom Cruise, and he's doing a deep-fake to undermine Christianity (or whatever), via the use of click-baity videos, which in a roundabout way really makes it pro-scientology propaganda.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What's interesting about it?

I read a few replies and saw him called a "Leftist" and someone with a "woke agenda" but after looking at it today the majority just seem to be saying he has misunderstood scripture so maybe this belongs in the God thread (or maybe a Christian thread).

I actually think it's a pretty valid interpretation (I couldn't remember the story in question even though we had to study the Gospel of Mark in my Catholic school).

 

[Biggles]

You're trying, intentionally, to paint with a very broad brush to cover the details. I've had this particular debate with you, I don't care to do it again.

...what conclusion would you like me to draw from this? That her books should be "cancelled"? Fine, don't buy them.

There's never been any satisfactory resolution to "this particular debate" to my mind. I am trying to elicit a response from you, as an apparent fan of Ayn Rand, as to whether or not you agree with her statements, because to my understanding she seems to be justifying genocide ... & doing it in front of the West Point class who will be responsible for leading the US military over the coming decades? In comparison, the Dr. Seuss issue is very, very small potatoes.

 

[Danoff]

There's never been any satisfactory resolution to "this particular debate" to my mind. I am trying to elicit a response from you, as an apparent fan of Ayn Rand, as to whether or not you agree with her statements, because to my understanding she seems to be justifying genocide ... & doing it in front of the West Point class who will be responsible for leading the US military over the coming decades? In comparison, the Dr. Seuss issue is very, very small potatoes.

There was a discussion here. What part do you want to rehash?

 

[Biggles]

There was a discussion here. What part do you want to rehash?

I was under the impression that you gained something in insight & wisdom over the last few years, Clearly I'm mistaken, if you think Rand's view are acceptable & justifiable.

 

[Danoff]

I was under the impression that you gained something in insight & wisdom over the last few years, Clearly I'm mistaken, if you think Rand's view are acceptable & justifiable.

Do you find that this kind of nonsense is persuasive to people often? Is this how you engage in intellectual discussion, or persuade people that you're correct, or keep an open and understanding mind about others? Obviously it's none of those things. What you've attempted to do here is hand me the false dichotomy of either arguing with myself or lacking insight and wisdom. Honest question, does this get you results a lot? Because it's manipulation.

You brought this up, do you want to have a discussion? Do you want to demonize? What's the goal?