5 ms·

Nobody is suggesting that eBay should be forced to facilitate the sale of a patticular book. The concern is over what society feels is shameful and how it's ha

Nobody is suggesting that eBay should be forced to facilitate the sale of a patticular book. The concern is over what society feels is shameful and how it's handled. Right now we are ashamed of things we shouldn't be and the remedy we're choosing is exclusion. That doesn't sound like a formula for success. On top of that, this is all being pushed by a tiny minority that has gained more power than we realized. Surely some tiny fraction of people think Dr. Seuss is offensive. A tiny fraction of people overall, a tiny fraction of eBay employees/shareholders, etc. It's always concerning when these tiny minority views can push everyone else around.

jmull 6y ago
That's all fine. You think eBay should sell those books. I do too. My question is, who's decision is it to make? Yours? Mine? The government's (through laws or regulations)? Or ebay's?
- chmod600 6y ago
  To answer directly, it's not eBay's decision because eBay is not a single person. I guess it's the CEOs, or someone under them, or maybe the board, or the shareholders. I don't want to override the decision. But there is a disturbing context to the decision that's worth discussing. Why are people making these decisions? Why are they coordinated and collective? Who are the beneficiaries? And have we, as voters, shareholders, etc., put trust in the wrong leaders? Maybe all this crazy stuff professors have been promoting all this time wasn't just for attention. Maybe they meant it and taught their students to do it. And we are now seeing the results.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Parents should be the ones deciding what their children should and should not read, not corporations.
  - jmull 6y ago
    But they aren't deciding what your children read. Just what they list.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      Yes, in the same way people who participate in book burnings also arent deciding what you read, just what they burn. "They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em" -RATM
NeverFade 6y ago
Indeed, the arbitrariness of the leftist standards, and how easily and frequently they are liable to change, is in fact the point. President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015: https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-praised-dr-seuss-during-presidency/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai... But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered." The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, erase and cancel "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.
- chmod600 6y ago
  "Racism" has come to mean something more like "unclean thoughts" or "original sin" where everyone has it even if you didn't do anything. Every media cycle we get mad and burn a witch who didn't try hard enough to atone for these unclean thoughts. Sometimes it's just for the sake of fear, sometimes it's for convenience. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who initiated this Dr Seuss hate have a stockpile of his books.
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    It's enforcement for the sake of enforcement. "Racism" used to mean that you were actually and actively promoting a racist mindset. Now the Leftist Mob persecutes people for, essentially, making mistakes that superficially look like racism. Donald G. McNeil was fired and cancelled from the New York Times for asking whether someone used a racial slur, in the context of talking about racial slurs. A Chinese professor was cancelled for teaching a Mandarin word that sounds (vaguely) like a racial slur. Nobody really thinks any of these people are racist. But control must be enforced, that is the point. Catching someone uttering a "forbidden word" is just an excuse. The point isn't to eliminate racism, sexism, or any of these other bigoted discriminations which have long been illegal in the US. The point is to exercise absolute control over our thoughts, expressions, and behavior - and make us accept that control, view it as normal, justifiable, and even desirable.

jmull 6y ago

That's all fine. You think eBay should sell those books. I do too. My question is, who's decision is it to make? Yours? Mine? The government's (through laws or regulations)? Or ebay's?

chmod600 6y ago
To answer directly, it's not eBay's decision because eBay is not a single person. I guess it's the CEOs, or someone under them, or maybe the board, or the shareholders. I don't want to override the decision. But there is a disturbing context to the decision that's worth discussing. Why are people making these decisions? Why are they coordinated and collective? Who are the beneficiaries? And have we, as voters, shareholders, etc., put trust in the wrong leaders? Maybe all this crazy stuff professors have been promoting all this time wasn't just for attention. Maybe they meant it and taught their students to do it. And we are now seeing the results.
loveistheanswer 6y ago
Parents should be the ones deciding what their children should and should not read, not corporations.
- jmull 6y ago
  But they aren't deciding what your children read. Just what they list.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    Yes, in the same way people who participate in book burnings also arent deciding what you read, just what they burn. "They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em" -RATM

NeverFade 6y ago

Indeed, the arbitrariness of the leftist standards, and how easily and frequently they are liable to change, is in fact the point. President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015: https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-praised-dr-seuss-during-presidency/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai... But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered." The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, erase and cancel "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command. The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.

chmod600 6y ago
"Racism" has come to mean something more like "unclean thoughts" or "original sin" where everyone has it even if you didn't do anything. Every media cycle we get mad and burn a witch who didn't try hard enough to atone for these unclean thoughts. Sometimes it's just for the sake of fear, sometimes it's for convenience. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who initiated this Dr Seuss hate have a stockpile of his books.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  It's enforcement for the sake of enforcement. "Racism" used to mean that you were actually and actively promoting a racist mindset. Now the Leftist Mob persecutes people for, essentially, making mistakes that superficially look like racism. Donald G. McNeil was fired and cancelled from the New York Times for asking whether someone used a racial slur, in the context of talking about racial slurs. A Chinese professor was cancelled for teaching a Mandarin word that sounds (vaguely) like a racial slur. Nobody really thinks any of these people are racist. But control must be enforced, that is the point. Catching someone uttering a "forbidden word" is just an excuse. The point isn't to eliminate racism, sexism, or any of these other bigoted discriminations which have long been illegal in the US. The point is to exercise absolute control over our thoughts, expressions, and behavior - and make us accept that control, view it as normal, justifiable, and even desirable.