Originally posted by theBDub: A business decides not to sell one of their products, after receiving virtually no social blowback, and the Right calls it cancel culture. Color me surprised.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year [2020] to cease publication and licensing of the following titles: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer. These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.
I will color you naive also.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of unnamed experts, including educators (leftists).
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I see people framing this as a "thing" that's suddenly being caused or pushed by liberals and progressives.
Since Dr. Seuss Enterprises ceased publication and licensing of the affected titles, the prices have skyrocketed for them. Capitalism would have one think to bring them back and rake in the money.
You'll be credible when you can quote where I said Al, Jesse or BLM "control", Mr Alinskite. Companies are in a panic afraid that arsonists, assailants and extortionists will target them.
Per your copy and paste, an outside group was advising. I'm positive it contained non-White participants to advise of the offensive triggering portrayals. The panel was probably paid to advise, so is that considered a payoff not to picket...because we want to appease you on the front end?
Now let's imagine what would happen if the publisher didn't follow the direction of the panel. At the least bad publicity would result, and there's your opening for marches and shreiks of racism. And extortion payments. Investors want dividends not losses.
We all know that insiders in a corporation will sabotage employers by leaking unofficial or official memos and emails between people which will be presented as official policy and the result has resulted in Jesse and Al marching with Twauna Brawley demanding action, criminal charges and/or money.
So corporations want to appease on the front end. They have now invented diversity director positions as payoff, with hefty benefit packages. Think about the tension and divide that creates in the workplace. Imagine walking by one of these people who is holding a magic card in their pocket to be used at a whim.
Explain away.the historical proof of it happening, and consider Jesse Smollett with Chlamydia Harris supporting his claims. Even Michelle Obama got involved in running deflectionit appears.
You'll be credible when you stop trying to put everyday language in to lawyer / politician jargon. You are confusing enough. Are you trying to distract that fact with your reach of words ?
You'll be credible when you can quote where I said Al, Jesse or BLM "control", Mr Alinskite.
Rinselberg quoted the publisher, then posed a question. Within that question, he paraphrased your vague conjecture. In this instance, he was both credible and clearly understood.
Rinselberg quoted the publisher, then posed a question. Within that question, he paraphrased your vague conjecture. In this instance, he was both credible and clearly understood.
False as usual, willie. He's smarter than you, but just as biased. Thank you for agreeing that he can't find a quote but can only distort to deflect.
Learn from the mistakes of others, and from history.
It isn't just governments directly over-reaching. Sad thing is if the people don't think for themselves (which they are not taught or incentivised to do) they may become their own enslavers more than symbolically.
Deeper?
They are afraid of students "dealing with speech"...when did this babying garbage start?
Just research self censorship - why , how, what is the result
If you self censor yourself, think of the twisted learning experience your kids might have. If a society self censors itself, think of the twisted learning experience the kids in it might have.
Another concern regarding censorship is revision of history.
People here on Pennock's are making this way more complicated than it actually is.
As a private sector company, Dr Seuss Enterprises is free to continue publishing these books, and equally free to decide to stop publishing these books.
Dr Seuss Enterprises is also free to seek guidance and free to accept or decline that guidance from any person or group that has guidance to offer about these books.
House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went on YouTube (I guess) to publish a video of himself reading from one of the Dr Seuss books (but not any of the 6 books that are newly discontinued.)
If Kevin McCarthy has a serious "beef" about this, he will just have to find other children's books that he likes, or find someone to create new children's books that he likes. Maybe he could author new children's books himself.
This whole thing is Much Ado About Nothing.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-12-2021).]
On the other hand, self censorship is probably the most desired form of censorship by those who desire censorship.
Fear.
Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Should Disney be required to continue selling copies of Song of the South?
Should old racist toys be required to be sold? How about books that teach about “n*****s” as less than? Do we require all books that have ever been published to continue to be published?
If we aren’t allowed to self-censorship, what right to our own speech do we have? If we aren’t allowed to look on our past word choice, opinions, products, etc. and determine they don’t reflect us today, then how can we even make good decisions today?
These books weren’t outlawed, they were determined by the owner to not be worth publishing anymore. Remember: Everyone upset about this is upset about a private company making a private decision. If I hadn’t come to expect this, I’d call it shocking. But here we are.
Is it really self censorship, if the change is prompted by social norms changing and they as a company (or as individuals) do it as a pre-emptive move to head off criticism/backlash from specific demographics?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-13-2021).]
Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Should Disney be required to continue selling copies of Song of the South?
Should old racist toys be required to be sold? How about books that teach about “n*****s” as less than? Do we require all books that have ever been published to continue to be published?
If we aren’t allowed to self-censorship, what right to our own speech do we have? If we aren’t allowed to look on our past word choice, opinions, products, etc. and determine they don’t reflect us today, then how can we even make good decisions today?
These books weren’t outlawed, they were determined by the owner to not be worth publishing anymore. Remember: Everyone upset about this is upset about a private company making a private decision. If I hadn’t come to expect this, I’d call it shocking. But here we are.
All a company has to do is relinquish copyrights on any book or song or published piece. Let the marketplace determine what gets published. You cannot have it both ways. If it's that problematic then give up all rights to a work.
Like when the communist Stasi had 50% of the East German population spying on 100% of the population waiting for them to do something nonconforming to turn them in about?
Somewhere there is a boundary crossed. And if the threat of cancel culture isn't a real thing then it wouldn't be talked about as a reason.
Let's not gloss over the cry-bullying and criminality of that group.
Originally posted by Hudini: All a company has to do is relinquish copyrights on any book or song or published piece. Let the marketplace determine what gets published. You cannot have it both ways. If it's that problematic then give up all rights to a work.
Noooo. Dr Seuss Enterprises isn't just about making money. They have been entrusted with the responsibility of perpetuating and curating the memory of the life and works of Theodor Seuss Geisel. They have both the remit and the responsibility to think along the lines of "If Dr Seuss were alive today, how would he feel about some of his books? Would he want to have these particular books continue in publication, or would he want them to be discontinued, leaving only the original manuscripts and whatever copies have already been published as a legacy?"
They are not under any obligation to cede that privilege and responsibility to anyone else.
They could, but they are in no way obligated to do it. They are in no way obligated to turn Dr Seuss into Dr $euss. (See what I just did there?)
I don't think that Dr Seuss Enterprises is a publicly held corporation, but that wouldn't change the fundamentals here. If it were a publicly held corporation, the discontinuation of 6 of the more than 60 Dr Seuss titles could become some kind of issue between the CEO, the corporate Board of Directors and the stockholders, but that is not to say that the CEO and her management team would be under some arbitrary obligation to continue the publication of every title in the Dr Seuss catalog.
The fraudulence of this anti-Cancel Culture kerfuffle over the Seuss books is even apparent to Maple Buescher (of all people) who writes about it today online at Cleveland(.com).
Maple Buescher is a senior at Cleveland Heights High School.
"Dr. Seuss uproar is actually a reminder of how private enterprise is supposed to work" Maple Buescher; guest columnist for Cleveland(.com); March 14, 2021. https://www.cleveland.com/o...-maple-buescher.html
Here's Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio playing the "Stop Talking About Dr Seuss" card. https://youtu.be/5F80FHCB70k
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2021).]
Song of the South used to be available in Europe long, long after being dropped in America.
"Bystander Responsibility" is the term cry-bully & violent criminals are working up to attack those who don't join the mob. Silence is Violence. All this means is join us attacking people or we'll attack you too.
Should Disney be required to continue selling copies of Song of the South? ...
No. I understand we all seem to have our thought patterns on different things. Concerning ourselves with that we think the important aspect is. While dismissing the others view, as out if touch or not currently relevant, or an over the top cop out. I recognize that is also freedom of speech.
Is it really self censorship, if the change is prompted by social norms changing and they as a company (or as individuals) do it as a pre-emptive move to head off criticism/backlash from specific demographics?
All a company has to do is relinquish copyrights on any book or song or published piece. Let the marketplace determine what gets published. You cannot have it both ways. If it's that problematic then give up all rights to a work.
THAT is precisely why copyright should have the same legal protection as patents or trademarks.
Patents expire after 17 years and can be invalidated before then if they are not exercised, (used). After that they are in the public domain.
Trademarks expire after 10 years unless renewed and can also be invalidated before then if they are not exercised. After that they are in the public domain.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-14-2021).]
Song of the South used to be available in Europe long, long after being dropped in America.
"Bystander Responsibility" is the term cry-bully & violent criminals are working up to attack those who don't join the mob. Silence is Violence. All this means is join us attacking people or we'll attack you too.
Is it really self censorship, if the change is prompted by social norms changing and they as a company (or as individuals) do it as a pre-emptive move to head off criticism/backlash from specific demographics?
Is it really self censorship, if the change is prompted by social norms changing and they as a company (or as individuals) do it as a pre-emptive move to head off criticism/backlash from specific demographics?
The Mafia is a small "specific demographic" and capitulating to their extortion demands is "a pre-emptive move to head off" their "backlash".
There are a lot of honorable, honest, long term, brands (i.e. Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, etc.) that have capitulated to a small "demographic" in order to "preemptively move to head off criticism/backlash" from that mob.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."............... Sir Winston Churchill
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-15-2021).]
Originally posted by randye: The Mafia is a small "specific demographic" and capitulating to their extortion demands is "a pre-emptive move to head off" their "backlash".
There are a lot of honorable, honest, long term, brands (i.e. Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, etc.) that have capitulated to a small "demographic" in order to "preemptively move to head off criticism/backlash" from that mob.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."............... Sir Winston Churchill
'Ya know, that is a profound post. Because it is so true.
Noooo. Dr Seuss Enterprises isn't just about making money. They have been entrusted with the responsibility of perpetuating and curating the memory of the life and works of Theodor Seuss Geisel. They have both the remit and the responsibility to think along the lines of "If Dr Seuss were alive today, how would he feel about some of his books? Would he want to have these particular books continue in publication, or would he want them to be discontinued, leaving only the original manuscripts and whatever copies have already been published as a legacy?"
They are not under any obligation to cede that privilege and responsibility to anyone else.
They could, but they are in no way obligated to do it. They are in no way obligated to turn Dr Seuss into Dr $euss. (See what I just did there?)
I don't think that Dr Seuss Enterprises is a publicly held corporation, but that wouldn't change the fundamentals here. If it were a publicly held corporation, the discontinuation of 6 of the more than 60 Dr Seuss titles could become some kind of issue between the CEO, the corporate Board of Directors and the stockholders, but that is not to say that the CEO and her management team would be under some arbitrary obligation to continue the publication of every title in the Dr Seuss catalog.
The fraudulence of this anti-Cancel Culture kerfuffle over the Seuss books is even apparent to Maple Buescher (of all people) who writes about it today online at Cleveland(.com).
Maple Buescher is a senior at Cleveland Heights High School.
"Dr. Seuss uproar is actually a reminder of how private enterprise is supposed to work" Maple Buescher; guest columnist for Cleveland(.com); March 14, 2021. https://www.cleveland.com/o...-maple-buescher.html
Here's Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio playing the "Stop Talking About Dr Seuss" card. https://youtu.be/5F80FHCB70k
Similar to the Pontiac Fiero, if the sales justified it, the Fiero would still be produced and sold at dealerships. But, the reason they are offering for no longer selling the books is what stinks. Doesn't matter to me, my children are grown and I won't be buying any more books from Dr. Seuss. The publisher doesn't wish to be going against the grain of the current fad. Stuff happens.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-16-2021).]
You may still remember all the Obama birther baloney from DJT, and maybe (I remember) Newt Gringrich throwing "Kenyan anti-colonial attitudes" (or something along those lines) into that mix.
Ali Velshi is literally a Kenya-born Muslim. This is the first paragraph of his bio on the IMDb website:
quote
Born in Kenya and raised in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, [Ali Velshi] is the son of Murad Velshi, an Indian business owner in Africa and then in Canada, and the first Indian-Canadian elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. He is an Ismaili Muslim.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2021).]
Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Should Disney be required to continue selling copies of Song of the South?
Should old racist toys be required to be sold? How about books that teach about “n*****s” as less than? Do we require all books that have ever been published to continue to be published?
If we aren’t allowed to self-censorship, what right to our own speech do we have? If we aren’t allowed to look on our past word choice, opinions, products, etc. and determine they don’t reflect us today, then how can we even make good decisions today?
These books weren’t outlawed, they were determined by the owner to not be worth publishing anymore. Remember: Everyone upset about this is upset about a private company making a private decision. If I hadn’t come to expect this, I’d call it shocking. But here we are.
I think you're looking at this from a perspective different than others. I don't think anyone is saying that they should be FORCED to sell books that are distasteful or (whatever)... but there are a lot of books that are still currently being published that you can buy that would be considered distasteful.
Mein Kampf, by Hitler... for example, is a book that you can currently purchase off Amazon. I own a copy of it. Hopefully that isn't a shock to anyone. I am not anti-Semitic, and that shouldn't even need to be explained. My wife is Jewish, and I certainly do not support Socialism, let alone the National Socialist Workers Party. But I bought it because of history and wanting to understand what drove someone to do what they did. I have a lot of books that are distasteful, and some books that are very tasteful.
I think, with Dr. Seuss, for example... if there was something they found offensive, why not just change the artwork they felt was improper? Why is the Land-O-Lakes butter considered bigoted? Have any native American tribes complained?
The problem I have is that the overwhelming vast majority of "CHANGE" that is being made... is not done because some specific group is offended. It's being done entirely by young white Millennial progressives who believe that their intellect is superior, and that blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans are too stupid, weak, and victimized to have their own voice... so the white "intellectuals" need to be the voice for them.
Another great example is Florida State University. They have a guy who dresses up as a native American on a horse with feathers...and rides around. Their logo is a tomahawk, and also a native American head with feathers.
Sometimes the guy dressing up as the Indian is actually a white guy, sometimes it's an actual native American. Seeing this is extremely triggering to a white Millennial, and there have been huge movements to try to change it. No one bothered to ask the Seminole INDIANS about this. Finally, the Seminole Indian Tribe finally started combating the young uninformed white liberal, and has put out numerous statements that the tribe leadership is VERY proud of FSU's heritage, name, and branding, and they fully stand behind it.
I also put INDIAN in all caps because white liberals have also stated that the term Indian is offensive. In most "liberal" states, there's no such thing as native Americans. I actually never saw a native American until I actually moved to Florida. The native Americans (because of white liberals) pushed the native Americans to the central and southern states. So they never actually bother to ask them. "native American" is a term that was given to them by white liberals because Indian was deemed offensive.
In Florida, there are several native American tribes, and they all refer to themselves as Indians:
I'm just really, really tired of the "woke" movement... none of it has anything to do with making the world a better place... it's all done entirely for a political agenda.
The reality is... racism and bigotry is almost exclusively a leftist idea: - KKK: Founded by Democrat party leadership. - Jim Crowe: Was a Democrat - Eugenics: A "science" created by Margaret Sanger, a Democrat, to eliminate blacks. - Planned Parenthood: Created also by Margaret Sanger, a Democrat, to sterilize and abort black babies. Purposely placed in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods. - Internment Camps: Created by Democrat leadership and used to house Asians (primarily Japanese) in camps. - Confederacy: All Democrats - Anti Gay Legislation: The most anti-gay legislation ever passed in the history of America was during the election of President Obama in 2008 - Segregation: pushed ONLY by Democrats - Trail of Tears...
I'm not even beginning to scratch the surface.
Alternately, nearly every ACTUAL civil rights act was passed by either a majority Republican congress / senate, or by Republican presidents through executive action.
None of what the radical left does right now has anything to do with helping people. It has everything to do with pitting people against each other so they can better CONTROL different groups, and enslave groups by making them permanent victims, and dependent upon the Government. Every single law that Democrats propose or pass makes people dependent upon the government, and never seeks to actually solve a problem, just make it worse.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-03-2021).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think, with Dr. Seuss, for example... if there was something they found offensive, why not just change the artwork they felt was improper?
I think I remember reading about an effort (posthumously, with respect to Theodor Seuss Geisel) to change some of the artwork. But the consensus among the movers and shakers at Dr Seuss Enterprises was that they did not think that they could do it in a way that would have preserved the coherence of the books as they were created by Theodor Seuss Geisel, who died in 1991.
It's something to "drill down on" for anyone who is really, really into this story.
My takeaway from what I remember having read is that the ideas, in terms of how to revise some of the artwork, were deemed as about as efficacious as the metaphorical application of Lipstick to a Pig.
It's only six of the more than sixty Dr Seuss titles that have been discontinued, of which four are fairly obscure and the other two, better known but not at the very top of anyone's list of the most popular Dr Seuss books in the catalog.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-03-2021).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think I remember reading about an effort (posthumously, with respect to Theodor Seuss Geisel) to change some of the artwork. But the consensus among the movers and shakers at Dr Seuss Enterprises was that they did not think that they could do it in a way that would have preserved the coherence of the books as they were created by Theodor Seuss Geisel, who died in 1991.
My takeaway from what I remember having read is that the ideas, in terms of how to revise some of the artwork, were deemed as about as efficacious as the metaphorical application of Lipstick to a Pig.
It's something to "drill down on" for anyone who is really, really into this story.
Drill baby drill !
My guess is that you did not read any of the Dr Seuss canceled cultured books. The art work did not depict what the social justice warriors think Dr Seuss conveyed. Why were Dr Seuss's words attacked ?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think you're looking at this from a perspective different than others. I don't think anyone is saying that they should be FORCED to sell books that are distasteful or (whatever)... but there are a lot of books that are still currently being published that you can buy that would be considered distasteful.
Mein Kampf, by Hitler... for example, is a book that you can currently purchase off Amazon. I own a copy of it. Hopefully that isn't a shock to anyone. I am not anti-Semitic, and that shouldn't even need to be explained. My wife is Jewish, and I certainly do not support Socialism, let alone the National Socialist Workers Party. But I bought it because of history and wanting to understand what drove someone to do what they did. I have a lot of books that are distasteful, and some books that are very tasteful.
Agreed, and I also have Mein Kampf on my Kindle. I’ll admit, I don’t remember if I’ve read it or not. That is available for free and in the public domain though, right? At least in some countries.
I don’t believe in government censorship and understand the value of preserving history “as written” (ha) and not as desired.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I think, with Dr. Seuss, for example... if there was something they found offensive, why not just change the artwork they felt was improper? Why is the Land-O-Lakes butter considered bigoted? Have any native American tribes complained?
The problem I have is that the overwhelming vast majority of "CHANGE" that is being made... is not done because some specific group is offended. It's being done entirely by young white Millennial progressives who believe that their intellect is superior, and that blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans are too stupid, weak, and victimized to have their own voice... so the white "intellectuals" need to be the voice for them.
Another great example is Florida State University. They have a guy who dresses up as a native American on a horse with feathers...and rides around. Their logo is a tomahawk, and also a native American head with feathers.
Sometimes the guy dressing up as the Indian is actually a white guy, sometimes it's an actual native American. Seeing this is extremely triggering to a white Millennial, and there have been huge movements to try to change it. No one bothered to ask the Seminole INDIANS about this. Finally, the Seminole Indian Tribe finally started combating the young uninformed white liberal, and has put out numerous statements that the tribe leadership is VERY proud of FSU's heritage, name, and branding, and they fully stand behind it.
I also put INDIAN in all caps because white liberals have also stated that the term Indian is offensive. In most "liberal" states, there's no such thing as native Americans. I actually never saw a native American until I actually moved to Florida. The native Americans (because of white liberals) pushed the native Americans to the central and southern states. So they never actually bother to ask them. "native American" is a term that was given to them by white liberals because Indian was deemed offensive.
In Florida, there are several native American tribes, and they all refer to themselves as Indians:
I can proverbially share a beer over the annoyance of overreactions by people with “white guilt.” Ultimately, though, this is just that family/company making their own decisions about their own legacies. There was a ton of uproar about this on the right (at least on my Facebook), and I couldn’t help but feel like they were really missing the first sentence of the story—that this wasn’t “cancel culture,” it was just someone choosing to not publish their property.
Once this property enters the public domain, it can be published again.
Originally posted by cliffw: My guess is that you [rinselberg] did not read any of the Dr Seuss canceled cultured books. The art work did not depict what the social justice warriors think Dr Seuss conveyed. Why were Dr Seuss's words attacked?
I don't know if Dr Seuss's words [as distinct from his drawings] were condemned by the "social justice warriors" that cliffw is decrying.
I said that some consideration was given to changing some of the artwork before the idea was discarded.
Mr "cliffw" is subjecting my remark to a "tortuous" interpretation to make it confess to allegations that my remark was not intended to convey.
His guess about my not having read the books is spot on. I didn't read the books. Certainly not at any recent time, for sure.
This is a ti(a)t--a tempest in (a) teapot.
Do the people that are "worked up" about the discontinuation of the Dr Seuss books--just 6 of more than 60--think that the Republican Party should be a political party that is focused on governance, or do they think that the Republican Party's full time and fully compensated staffers, representatives and elected officials would be better served (and better serving) to abandon politics and governance altogether and take up residence in the nation's art and literary-focused institutions? Our libraries, publishing houses and museums. Our colleges and universities. Our top shelf literary and cultural magazines, like The Atlantic and Vanity Fair. (Although those are two that also do politics.)
I don't know if there's going to be a Presidential Library for Donald J. Trump--it seems like an oxymoron to have a Presidential Library to commemorate the nation's most functionally illiterate President--but if there were a Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, it would be a great place to have the Dr Seuss books. All of the Dr Seuss books, including the six titles that were just discontinued. That could be in the Melania Trump area, because of her interest in children. Her "Be Best" initiative.
The question then becomes--would that be the entire library? I guess there could be all of the more recent books that have been written about President Trump, starting with "Fire and Fury" and running the gamut to "A Very Stable Genius" and "Fear: Trump in the White House."
I've imagined the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library as a popup venue that could roam the country.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-05-2021).]
? I saw Footloose. I don't remember one person of color in it.
