5 ms·

There's some interesting threads here. I do understand the conversation around free speech and censorship has been top of mind lately, but IMO a lot of the comm

by aylmao 6y ago

There's some interesting threads here. I do understand the conversation around free speech and censorship has been top of mind lately, but IMO a lot of the comments here are getting carried away and missing a point that is crucial in this instance: these are children's books. As much as I disagree with book-burning and support not only free speech, but also the healthy debate around what it constitutes, I think all of that is rather unrelated to this specific article. Children don't have the same context or critical capacity to decide if a view is good or not. If a child encounters some sexist commentary, the child will absorb and imitate it. There's already a lot of institutionalized control over what children consume for this reason— from toys designed to stimulate their development and TV designed around safety and positive lessons, to school, where the curriculum is designed not only to develop mental ability but also healthy social skills. These are decisions institutions make, be it PBS, Hasbro, Scholastic, some bureau of education, etc. Let's make sure we don't end up in a Fahrenheit 451 situation, sure. These books are still going to exist, nobody is burning them or punishing whomever reads them— let's keep it that way. But when it comes to content that's widely available for children, I think the already established approach of constantly revising and improving what is easy to consume is a good one, and we should keep doing it.

thinkingemote 6y ago
Ironically, the books originally targeted for destruction in the novel Fahrenheit 451 were those that society universally found abhorrent to children - bigotry, pornography, racism, sexism etc. (The book then deals with the fallout from that in the years afterwards as any book gets targeted) "If a child encounters some sexist commentary, the child will absorb and imitate it." This therefore means that the millions in America and around the world that have read these childrens books as children, or who had these books read to them by their parents are racist and sexist now, right? Or do you believe that children do not really absorb and imitate things they read but in general they might? Are these books responsible for the shape of society now therefore? Where does your logic take us? Protecting children is more important than free speech is what I get from your comment. Is that correct?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This therefore means that the millions in America and around the world that have read these childrens books as children, or who had these books read to them by their parents are racist and sexist now. No, in the same way that not everyone who has been exposed to a potentially lethal environmental hazard is dead.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    User aylmao wrote: "Children don't have the same context or critical capacity to decide if a view is good or not. If a child encounters some sexist commentary, the child will absorb and imitate it." Do you agree with this? Would absorbing and imitating this make them sexist or give them sexist views? If someone who was exposed to a hazard damaged in some way, even if most would not be dead?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Would absorbing and imitating this make them sexist or give them sexist views? Not necessarily, just as absorbing virus particles of a potential deadly sort doesn't necessarily make you dead, even if you express symptoms. Kids, especially at the age Dr. Seuss content primarily targets, absorb and imitate lots of stuff without any initial understanding or with what would be, to adults, very bizarre understandings, it tends to take multiple exposures to different content with a given message before a pattern is recognized, and even more for that to be firmly internalized. Each additional exposure increases the risk, but exposure = durable racism or even exposure = necessary transitory impact on racial views is far too simplistic.
dx034 6y ago
I absolutely agree that showing certain racist depictions to children can create biases. But is the solution really to ban the whole story? I said it in other comments but with similar cases, publishers just changed illustrations or words in a text instead of unpublishing it. Dr Seuss Enterprise holds the copyright and has every right to just update the books. In none of those books the actual story is racist. In nearly all cases there's not even a single racist line in the text. Just the illustrations are.

by aylmao 6y ago

thinkingemote 6y ago

Ironically, the books originally targeted for destruction in the novel Fahrenheit 451 were those that society universally found abhorrent to children - bigotry, pornography, racism, sexism etc. (The book then deals with the fallout from that in the years afterwards as any book gets targeted) "If a child encounters some sexist commentary, the child will absorb and imitate it." This therefore means that the millions in America and around the world that have read these childrens books as children, or who had these books read to them by their parents are racist and sexist now, right? Or do you believe that children do not really absorb and imitate things they read but in general they might? Are these books responsible for the shape of society now therefore? Where does your logic take us? Protecting children is more important than free speech is what I get from your comment. Is that correct?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> This therefore means that the millions in America and around the world that have read these childrens books as children, or who had these books read to them by their parents are racist and sexist now. No, in the same way that not everyone who has been exposed to a potentially lethal environmental hazard is dead.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  User aylmao wrote: "Children don't have the same context or critical capacity to decide if a view is good or not. If a child encounters some sexist commentary, the child will absorb and imitate it." Do you agree with this? Would absorbing and imitating this make them sexist or give them sexist views? If someone who was exposed to a hazard damaged in some way, even if most would not be dead?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Would absorbing and imitating this make them sexist or give them sexist views? Not necessarily, just as absorbing virus particles of a potential deadly sort doesn't necessarily make you dead, even if you express symptoms. Kids, especially at the age Dr. Seuss content primarily targets, absorb and imitate lots of stuff without any initial understanding or with what would be, to adults, very bizarre understandings, it tends to take multiple exposures to different content with a given message before a pattern is recognized, and even more for that to be firmly internalized. Each additional exposure increases the risk, but exposure = durable racism or even exposure = necessary transitory impact on racial views is far too simplistic.

dx034 6y ago

I absolutely agree that showing certain racist depictions to children can create biases. But is the solution really to ban the whole story? I said it in other comments but with similar cases, publishers just changed illustrations or words in a text instead of unpublishing it. Dr Seuss Enterprise holds the copyright and has every right to just update the books. In none of those books the actual story is racist. In nearly all cases there's not even a single racist line in the text. Just the illustrations are.