4 ms·

But aren't there lots of books/movies/etc that are "pretty far from what most people would see as 'fine' now"? I watched Birth of a Nation in college for a fil

by slibhb 6y ago

But aren't there lots of books/movies/etc that are "pretty far from what most people would see as 'fine' now"? I watched Birth of a Nation in college for a film class. It's considered the one of the first feature films. Now I don't particularly like Birth of a Nation, I'm not attached to it (I feel asleep during the screening). I'm also not attached to Dr. Suess. But I know there are definitely things that I am attached to that the "powers that be" will deem too offensive to publish or distribute any longer. And so I find this turn of events disturbing. I want them to keep publishing these books as long as there is demand and, by arguing for that, I am defending the "offensive" things that I do like. This is all very basic liberalism. I'm an atheist but I will defend people's right to worship and, in doing so, I am defending my own right not to worship. It's disturbing to me to see how the basic tenets of liberal civilization have become cliche in people's minds.

kolektiv 6y ago
I think were there sufficient demand to counterbalance the potential awkwardness of publishing something which will offend, they would still be publishing it. Nobody is stopping them doing so. Indeed, if someone felt so strongly about this that they wished to see it re-published, there is probably a sum of money which would acquire the rights and allow them to do so. This book has not been banned. Should someone acquire the rights to it and decide to publish, they may do so unhindered. There are, however, many creative works which are no longer published because they are just too far from what people would see as fine now. They're generally unlamented, but nothing is stopping someone from publishing them again, if they fancy losing money.
- slibhb 6y ago
  > I think were there sufficient demand to counterbalance the potential awkwardness of publishing something which will offend, they would still be publishing it. Do you have any evidence that customer demand is driving this decision? Anyway I think you're missing the point entirely. These books no longer being published is part of a broader pattern in which an intolerant minority dictates things to a mostly indifferent majority. Should 5% of the population dictate to 95% of the population? If most people find X offensive, I think it's fine if that gets priced into a publisher's decision. But if 5% of people (who graduated from elite colleges and were quickly hired by venerable institutions) find X offensive while the rest of the population doesn't give a shit, then I think those 5% should shove it.
  - watwut 6y ago
    If most people are indifderent to some book, the book wont sell amd wont be printed anymore. You need people who actually like and want it for it to continue to be in print. Or I guess shorter copyright, so that it is on guttenberg.
tablespoon 6y ago
> This is all very basic liberalism. I'm an atheist but I will defend people's right to worship and, in doing so, I am defending my own right not to worship. It's disturbing to me to see how the basic tenets of liberal civilization have become cliche in people's minds. I don't recall where I read this idea, but liberalism is a particular trade off between two social goods: justice and peace. A big diverse group of people will have factions with incompatible ideas of what justice is, and will tend to fight each other over them. Liberalism is mainly compelling when people are sick of those fights, and are willing to trade the pursuit of justice (and some other things) for peace. However, the more successful it is, the more valuable justice and those other things become, and Liberalism becomes less compelling.
- slibhb 6y ago
  That's a very interesting idea.
jfengel 6y ago
You want to force them to keep publishing these books? That doesn't sound very liberal to me.
edbob 6y ago
> This is all very basic liberalism. I'm an atheist but I will defend people's right to worship and, in doing so, I am defending my own right not to worship. It's disturbing to me to see how the basic tenets of liberal civilization have become cliche in people's minds. The woke bullying and intimidation tactics are just too powerful at shutting down debate. It's no longer even permissible to agree on goals but disagree on the means. Disagreement is seen as evidence of bad faith and of secretly being a fascist. E.g., suppose that one values racial equality highly but thinks that defunding police is harmful to this end (see [0] for some evidence that decreased policing harms the poor). It will be extremely difficult for you to advocate this position without being constantly derailed, because people have been trained to see any kind of noncomformity as suspicious. They won't outright accuse you of racism usually, but they will say that you might be racist or that you sound similar to a secret racist. This is incredibly effective at derailing the discussion and avoiding any real debate. Even if you manage to make your points well, they will be forever tainted by the stain of the baseless accusations. You lose even if you win. I think most people are still reasonable and still value liberal civilization, but they're either too terrified to speak out or they're isolated from what's going on and don't see a problem. Of course, by the time the problems are so widespread that everyone can see them, it may be too late to do anything about it. Control over information is the most powerful political tool one can have, and the woke left are too intoxicated with this power to heed any warnings. [0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/policing-the-police.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/po...

by slibhb 6y ago

kolektiv 6y ago

I think were there sufficient demand to counterbalance the potential awkwardness of publishing something which will offend, they would still be publishing it. Nobody is stopping them doing so. Indeed, if someone felt so strongly about this that they wished to see it re-published, there is probably a sum of money which would acquire the rights and allow them to do so. This book has not been banned. Should someone acquire the rights to it and decide to publish, they may do so unhindered. There are, however, many creative works which are no longer published because they are just too far from what people would see as fine now. They're generally unlamented, but nothing is stopping someone from publishing them again, if they fancy losing money.

slibhb 6y ago
> I think were there sufficient demand to counterbalance the potential awkwardness of publishing something which will offend, they would still be publishing it. Do you have any evidence that customer demand is driving this decision? Anyway I think you're missing the point entirely. These books no longer being published is part of a broader pattern in which an intolerant minority dictates things to a mostly indifferent majority. Should 5% of the population dictate to 95% of the population? If most people find X offensive, I think it's fine if that gets priced into a publisher's decision. But if 5% of people (who graduated from elite colleges and were quickly hired by venerable institutions) find X offensive while the rest of the population doesn't give a shit, then I think those 5% should shove it.
- watwut 6y ago
  If most people are indifderent to some book, the book wont sell amd wont be printed anymore. You need people who actually like and want it for it to continue to be in print. Or I guess shorter copyright, so that it is on guttenberg.

tablespoon 6y ago

slibhb 6y ago
That's a very interesting idea.

jfengel 6y ago

You want to force them to keep publishing these books? That doesn't sound very liberal to me.

edbob 6y ago

> This is all very basic liberalism. I'm an atheist but I will defend people's right to worship and, in doing so, I am defending my own right not to worship. It's disturbing to me to see how the basic tenets of liberal civilization have become cliche in people's minds. The woke bullying and intimidation tactics are just too powerful at shutting down debate. It's no longer even permissible to agree on goals but disagree on the means. Disagreement is seen as evidence of bad faith and of secretly being a fascist. E.g., suppose that one values racial equality highly but thinks that defunding police is harmful to this end (see [0] for some evidence that decreased policing harms the poor). It will be extremely difficult for you to advocate this position without being constantly derailed, because people have been trained to see any kind of noncomformity as suspicious. They won't outright accuse you of racism usually, but they will say that you might be racist or that you sound similar to a secret racist. This is incredibly effective at derailing the discussion and avoiding any real debate. Even if you manage to make your points well, they will be forever tainted by the stain of the baseless accusations. You lose even if you win. I think most people are still reasonable and still value liberal civilization, but they're either too terrified to speak out or they're isolated from what's going on and don't see a problem. Of course, by the time the problems are so widespread that everyone can see them, it may be too late to do anything about it. Control over information is the most powerful political tool one can have, and the woke left are too intoxicated with this power to heed any warnings. [0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/policing-the-police.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/po...