5 ms·

I was thinking the other day about what books and movies I need to save for my kids before they are all censored. It's really sad that availability is limited b

I was thinking the other day about what books and movies I need to save for my kids before they are all censored. It's really sad that availability is limited by people's sensitivity, and now that so much is subscription based, it will only get worse.

maxwell 6y ago
Why I'm keeping/copying the DVDs and VHSs, creating archival SD cards and drives, and so on. How long until more Simpsons episodes get pulled? "We need to pass the torch, and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light. We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with." https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1312&_nkw=mulberry+st&_sacat=0 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m...
coolspot 6y ago
New neuralink update will fix these intrusive thoughts.
headhuntermdk 6y ago
Its called accountability
mcphage 6y ago
> what books and movies I need to save for my kids before they are all censored Are you keeping them because they're books and movies that mean something to you, or are you keeping them because they have objectionable content?
- diggernet 6y ago
  How about because they are good stories, often with important messages, and any objectionable content is often a reflection of the times and not intended to be hurtful? > And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, features a “Chinese boy” with a rice bowl and chopsticks This is the level we've stooped to now? Should Chinese restaurants stop offering chopsticks?
  - eesmith 6y ago
    It's not only chopsticks. It's odd the article says "boy" when the original 1937 Seuss description was "Chinaman"[1], and the updated 1973 version was "Chinese man". Also updated was the removal of the character's pigtail and the yellow skin. It kept the slanted-eyes and pointed hat, which was part of the racist stereotype depiction of the era. See Seuss's war-time cartoons at https://apjjf.org/2017/16/Minear.html https://apjjf.org/2017/16/Minear.html for other examples of slanted eyes in how he portrayed Americans of Japanese descent as 5th columnists ready to blow up the West Coast. That was mentioned in the article; I link to it to provide context. Seuss made those edits in 1973 because he changed as a person. As he grew older, he worked to fight stereotypes and xenophobia. It appears the 1937 depiction was intended to be hurtful, in that it dehumanizes the character by reducing him to a stereotype. Seuss found it problematic enough to change it. How can you determine if the 1973 edit removed all of the intended sting? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(term)#Literary_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(term)#Literary_use points out that by 1937 "Chinaman" was a widely-used derogatory term, to the point that in 1929 Ronald Knox's "Ten Commandments" of Detective Fiction included 'No Chinaman must figure in the story. (Note: This is a reference to common use of heavily stereotyped Asian characters in detective fiction of the time)', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Knox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Knox .
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    Why does intention matter? A 6 year old kid born 60 years after something was written does not know anything about any supposed intention. They only know what the material itself says. If the material does not stand on it's own, then it serves no valid purpose to artficialy prop it up. It's not censorship to remove something from being actively fed to children. It's still allowed to exist as historical artifacts. No one arrests you for posessing a copy. You are not Jesus's persecuted followers hiding from the Romans.
    - ilyaeck 6y ago
      "No one arrests you for possessing a copy"... YET
    - 6y ago
- IAmWorried 6y ago
  Your definition of objectionable isn't my definition of objectionable. There was once a time when having a thick skin was lauded. Now, it seems we are in a race to pander to the most thin skinned people around.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > Your definition of objectionable isn't my definition of objectionable It's not, I'm just wondering the rationale. For my part: I'm not going to get rid of my copies of those 3 Seuss books I love—but nor am I going to grab copies of the other 3 just because they're no longer being printed. Edit: ha! I even called it "banned", when it's anything but. Removed!
    - IAmWorried 6y ago
      Fair enough. I can tell you that I read Scrambled Eggs Super and Mulberry Street when I was a kid, and I don't have any plans to pick up the other banned ones - but my natural gut reaction to any instances like this is disgust, because I find that generally the things being banned such as the Muppets would only offend someone who is looking for a reason to be offended.
sigmaprimus 6y ago
Which ever way You decide which to save is fine, as long as You don't use "Eeny,meeny,miny,moe" that method was canceled a decade ago.
klipklop 6y ago
This is exactly why I bought a copy of Tropic Thunder on blu ray. I suspect that one day this movie will not be on streaming services.

maxwell 6y ago

Why I'm keeping/copying the DVDs and VHSs, creating archival SD cards and drives, and so on. How long until more Simpsons episodes get pulled? "We need to pass the torch, and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light. We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with." https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1312&_nkw=mulberry+st&_sacat=0 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m...

coolspot 6y ago

New neuralink update will fix these intrusive thoughts.

headhuntermdk 6y ago

Its called accountability

mcphage 6y ago

> what books and movies I need to save for my kids before they are all censored Are you keeping them because they're books and movies that mean something to you, or are you keeping them because they have objectionable content?

diggernet 6y ago
How about because they are good stories, often with important messages, and any objectionable content is often a reflection of the times and not intended to be hurtful? > And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, features a “Chinese boy” with a rice bowl and chopsticks This is the level we've stooped to now? Should Chinese restaurants stop offering chopsticks?
- eesmith 6y ago
  It's not only chopsticks. It's odd the article says "boy" when the original 1937 Seuss description was "Chinaman"[1], and the updated 1973 version was "Chinese man". Also updated was the removal of the character's pigtail and the yellow skin. It kept the slanted-eyes and pointed hat, which was part of the racist stereotype depiction of the era. See Seuss's war-time cartoons at https://apjjf.org/2017/16/Minear.html https://apjjf.org/2017/16/Minear.html for other examples of slanted eyes in how he portrayed Americans of Japanese descent as 5th columnists ready to blow up the West Coast. That was mentioned in the article; I link to it to provide context. Seuss made those edits in 1973 because he changed as a person. As he grew older, he worked to fight stereotypes and xenophobia. It appears the 1937 depiction was intended to be hurtful, in that it dehumanizes the character by reducing him to a stereotype. Seuss found it problematic enough to change it. How can you determine if the 1973 edit removed all of the intended sting? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(term)#Literary_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(term)#Literary_use points out that by 1937 "Chinaman" was a widely-used derogatory term, to the point that in 1929 Ronald Knox's "Ten Commandments" of Detective Fiction included 'No Chinaman must figure in the story. (Note: This is a reference to common use of heavily stereotyped Asian characters in detective fiction of the time)', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Knox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Knox .
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  Why does intention matter? A 6 year old kid born 60 years after something was written does not know anything about any supposed intention. They only know what the material itself says. If the material does not stand on it's own, then it serves no valid purpose to artficialy prop it up. It's not censorship to remove something from being actively fed to children. It's still allowed to exist as historical artifacts. No one arrests you for posessing a copy. You are not Jesus's persecuted followers hiding from the Romans.
  - ilyaeck 6y ago
    "No one arrests you for possessing a copy"... YET
  - 6y ago
IAmWorried 6y ago
Your definition of objectionable isn't my definition of objectionable. There was once a time when having a thick skin was lauded. Now, it seems we are in a race to pander to the most thin skinned people around.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > Your definition of objectionable isn't my definition of objectionable It's not, I'm just wondering the rationale. For my part: I'm not going to get rid of my copies of those 3 Seuss books I love—but nor am I going to grab copies of the other 3 just because they're no longer being printed. Edit: ha! I even called it "banned", when it's anything but. Removed!
  - IAmWorried 6y ago
    Fair enough. I can tell you that I read Scrambled Eggs Super and Mulberry Street when I was a kid, and I don't have any plans to pick up the other banned ones - but my natural gut reaction to any instances like this is disgust, because I find that generally the things being banned such as the Muppets would only offend someone who is looking for a reason to be offended.

sigmaprimus 6y ago

Which ever way You decide which to save is fine, as long as You don't use "Eeny,meeny,miny,moe" that method was canceled a decade ago.

klipklop 6y ago

This is exactly why I bought a copy of Tropic Thunder on blu ray. I suspect that one day this movie will not be on streaming services.