But lets see the Positive side: Now the Nazis wont have to burn thousands of books, saving tons of co2 in their Plan to take over the world with propaganda. So, yay for the envoirment I guess
But lets see the Positive side: Now the Nazis wont have to burn thousands of books, saving tons of co2 in their Plan to take over the world with propaganda. So, yay for the envoirment I guess
Is indeed a fine example. Keeps raising the same questions: is it ok to rewrite books? We’re supposed to be outraged when maga does it, but it’s ok if we do it?
I mean it’s not an easy question to answer is it? How is my ideological position that ‘nigger’ is not acceptable and removing it makes the book suitable for modern readers any different from someone else’s ideological position that, e.g., ‘transgender’ is not acceptable and removing it makes whatever book suitable for modern readers?
Indeed, that’s why i hate it that so many people here are raging about this while it’s something both sides are doing…
I get all the Trump & conservatives hate, but sometimes this community is raging over something that’s just done by both sides… So being outraged about it is pretty hypocritical…
@Hossenfeffer @racemaniac n*r is deemed a slur *by the group it is used about*. “Transgender” is not. Changing references to be more inclusive/respectful of a group is very different to erasing the existence of a group entirely.
Yes, I agree.
But surely you can acknowledge the possibility that some people believe transgenderism is an affront to god and an existential threat to children, or whatever, then their position is not dissimilar.
That’s the issue. What makes ‘this is offensive’ more valid than ‘this is dangerous’?
This is just another front in the war between religion and reason.
@Hossenfeffer well “this is offensive [to the subject]” is more valid than “this is dangerous [to the reader]” for one. A subject can’t choose what the reader thinks of them afterwards - they have to hope that the reader understands enough context to realise they are, actually, equally human. A reader, in contrast, gets to choose whether they agree with the premise. Otherwise history would have destroyed all copies of every religious book, or Mein Kampf or the Little Red Book or Das Kapital.
@Hossenfeffer as with everything it usually boils down to who has the power/control. An (adult) reader can choose what they read or how they interpret it, and can also often control what a child reads and how that child interprets it too. A subject cannot choose how they are read about, so it is up to the writer and publisher to control that message and reduce misinterpretation where possible. It’s a similar framework to cultural appropriation or “doing an accent”. Are you punching up or down?
@Hossenfeffer but when it comes down to it I think really we’ve ceded our understanding of morality to “the market” anyway. It’s bad when politicians say to do it but if “the people” follow (or if, for example, we regulate schools so they *have* to follow) and that’s the only way to make it sell then it’s ok. Majority rules, I guess. But my personal feeling is that when it comes to pure morality it’s about where the power lies. And often that’s the power of controlling the narrative.
I mean, I don’t disagree with anything you say, but that’s because I have a progressive mindset. Which kind of was the point.