3 ms·

> Twitter driven social pressure campaigns trying to eliminate the entire library of his books overnight by personally targeting a handful of people with the po

> Twitter driven social pressure campaigns trying to eliminate the entire library of his books overnight by personally targeting a handful of people with the power to pull the books from shelves isn't a reasonable way for society to make these decisions. That’s not what happened. Do you have a source? Because reliable sources make it clear that the publisher has been working on this internally for months[2], after years of criticism from educators.[2] Your stance is “some people might think vicious racism is bad but nobody is allowed to criticize it, especially not teachers who work with young children.” Obviously that is transparently indefensible so you have to resort to flagrant lies about a Twitter cancellation mob plotting to take away all of Dr. Seuss. It’s pathetic, and I’m tired of pretending you people are discussing this with even a modicum of good faith. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-s... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/reckoning-dr-seuss-racist-imagery-has-been-years-making-n1259330 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/reckoning-dr-seuss-racis...

ltbarcly3 6y ago
> Your stance is “some people might think vicious racism is bad but nobody is allowed to criticize it, especially not teachers who work with young children.” I don't think you read what I said at all. Going through life literally making up quotes for people you want to argue with, and then getting upset about the quote that you made up is pretty lazy. I think there's even a name for doing this. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the publisher to stop printing, or to modify books that have racist imagery. I don't think social media campaigns forcing quick decisions on things is a good way to do it. I misunderstood the details of what is going on with Dr. Seuss books, and you could have just pointed that out without the bluster. I think Gina should have been fired. I think she should have been fired a year or more ago, whenever they realized she was vocally racist on the set of the show. However, they didn't fire her a year ago, or two years ago, whenever they realized it. They kept employing her all with the knowledge she was a racist. They only revisited that decision when pressure mounted to stop employing her. You might call this a check and balance, and I guess I agree with that. However, do you think, for one second, that the same execs that kept employing someone who was very vocally and indisputably racist when it was convenient for them are capable of making any moral stand on anything? When the cancel brigade comes for the next actor, they will be fired too, and it doesn't matter what the facts of the situation are. This is my point, so try quoting that. EDIT: yes I'm disagreeing with myself here, in GP I said I don't care. I don't care from the standpoint of whether I will watch the show, but I do agree with the point made that other people working on the show shouldn't be subjected to having to work with a bigot I think it's easy to approve of a process, like social media driven firings, when you agree with the outcome. However, if the process is broken, it's just a matter of time before it has consequences that are broken too. You have illustrated my point about execs having a hard time explaining a nuanced decisions perfectly. Just by discussing this topic and not automatically agreeing with whatever you say, you have accused me of defending racism and attacking free speech.

ltbarcly3 6y ago

> Your stance is “some people might think vicious racism is bad but nobody is allowed to criticize it, especially not teachers who work with young children.” I don't think you read what I said at all. Going through life literally making up quotes for people you want to argue with, and then getting upset about the quote that you made up is pretty lazy. I think there's even a name for doing this. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the publisher to stop printing, or to modify books that have racist imagery. I don't think social media campaigns forcing quick decisions on things is a good way to do it. I misunderstood the details of what is going on with Dr. Seuss books, and you could have just pointed that out without the bluster. I think Gina should have been fired. I think she should have been fired a year or more ago, whenever they realized she was vocally racist on the set of the show. However, they didn't fire her a year ago, or two years ago, whenever they realized it. They kept employing her all with the knowledge she was a racist. They only revisited that decision when pressure mounted to stop employing her. You might call this a check and balance, and I guess I agree with that. However, do you think, for one second, that the same execs that kept employing someone who was very vocally and indisputably racist when it was convenient for them are capable of making any moral stand on anything? When the cancel brigade comes for the next actor, they will be fired too, and it doesn't matter what the facts of the situation are. This is my point, so try quoting that. EDIT: yes I'm disagreeing with myself here, in GP I said I don't care. I don't care from the standpoint of whether I will watch the show, but I do agree with the point made that other people working on the show shouldn't be subjected to having to work with a bigot I think it's easy to approve of a process, like social media driven firings, when you agree with the outcome. However, if the process is broken, it's just a matter of time before it has consequences that are broken too. You have illustrated my point about execs having a hard time explaining a nuanced decisions perfectly. Just by discussing this topic and not automatically agreeing with whatever you say, you have accused me of defending racism and attacking free speech.