6 ms·

> And "Politically Incorrect" is sure a gentle way of describing the content. Maybe you should quote the line from the article you linked which describes some o

> And "Politically Incorrect" is sure a gentle way of describing the content. Maybe you should quote the line from the article you linked which describes some of the "politically incorrect" bits? Or do you recognize that they're actually pretty offensive. 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 the Woke Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all instructed 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. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."

delecti 6y ago
By my count, there are somewhere in the range of ~70 Dr. Seuss books (I'm too lazy to count, and that's more than enough for my point). They've stopped publishing six of them. That's less than 10%. He hasn't been cancelled, it's just that a few of the more egregious books are being discontinued. Horton Hears a Who? Still a great message. The Grinch? Still great, both versions (there might be a third now, who can keep track). People making a big deal out of the cancelling are blowing it into a far bigger thing than it is. He's not being cancelled, those works are just being recognized as offensive. There's no gotcha to Obama having praised some of his books, because those books are still worthy of praise.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  "What's the problem banning a few controversial books? We still publish thousands of books we deem acceptable!" > He hasn't been cancelled, it's just that a few of the more egregious books are being discontinued. Horton Hears a Who? Still a great message. The Grinch? Still great You are clearly in favor of banning ideas you disagree with. Nice to see you are fine with the publication of books when you approve of their "message".
  - delecti 6y ago
    You keep saying "banned", but they aren't. I agree banning ideas is bad, but that's not happening here.
    - NeverFade 6y ago
      If an idea can't be communicated, for example because books carrying it are systematically cancelled, then that idea is being banned. This is what happens when Amazon, for example, bans books that express views of transgenderism with which Amazon employees disagree.
  - citizenkeen 6y ago
    Who is doing the banning? ebay can't can books, and hasn't. The publisher can't ban books, and hasn't. The rights holder can't ban books, and hasn't. Who is doing the banning?
    - NeverFade 6y ago
      eBay can ban sales of books on its platform, and has done so. The copyright holder / publisher can prevent any publication of books it holds copyright to, and has done so. Distributors of books, like Amazon, can stop selling books they disagree with, and have now starting doing that too. So the answer to your question is: all the above.
  - ericb 6y ago
    Free speech is not the right to force others to repeat your speech. It is also not the right to a loudspeaker or megaphone. Free speech gets you the right to say it, but makes no promises about others being forced to listen, forced to spread it for you or forced to repeat it for you. Don't impinge their freedom in the name of your own.
    - mancerayder 6y ago
      How is the existence of a book, "... the right to force others to repeat your speech"? People want the book removed because it exists, someplace - not because someone has a metaphorical megaphone. Let's stop with the metaphors, by the way. This isn't literary critique, or English Literature 301. It's a discussion of censorship. Stopping someone-who-isn't-you from reading a work that has nothing to do with you, is censorship.
vineyardmike 6y ago
> Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. This is a true statement. His behavior always showed this regardless of what obama said. Unlike your orwellian quote, we're not rewriting history, just changing our tolerances.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence for that at all, or is this standard counterfactual leftist revisionism? Also, if Dr. Seuss was always so racist, how come the left embraced him until very very recently? Are you seriously claiming that all the many people on the left, including Obama, were embracing a clear and known racist as recently as a few months ago?
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    TLDR: The past accepting something is not indication that the future must or should accept. I don't really think this is a good-faith argument based on the language of the first sentence, but i'll reply anyways... Yes the evidence is his clearly documented body of work. He used many racial stereotypes and derogatory imagery. He has images of Japanese Americans, Africans, East Asians, and they all use stereotypes and caricatures that are negative. I can't speak for "the left" but he was embraced by most people because he was popular and many of his stories and books were benign. Lots of bad behavior was embraced by both left and right Americans throughout history. Past acceptance is not indication that the future must accept. Yes. I am making the claim that people, including Obama (who is not the only image of the left, and not particularly important figure in a literary sense) were embracing Dr. Seuss. A lot of his more objectionable work is rather unpopular, so its not crazy to think that his supporters did not audit his behavior. There is no doubt that people were embracing him. There is no doubt that much of his behavior is racist. There is no contraction here. People have embraced bad people before and that is (somewhat) ok as look as society learns and grows and corrects their behavior. This is the learning and growing. A book that sold 7k copies over the last few years is no longer in print because it portrayed people in bad ways.

delecti 6y ago

By my count, there are somewhere in the range of ~70 Dr. Seuss books (I'm too lazy to count, and that's more than enough for my point). They've stopped publishing six of them. That's less than 10%. He hasn't been cancelled, it's just that a few of the more egregious books are being discontinued. Horton Hears a Who? Still a great message. The Grinch? Still great, both versions (there might be a third now, who can keep track). People making a big deal out of the cancelling are blowing it into a far bigger thing than it is. He's not being cancelled, those works are just being recognized as offensive. There's no gotcha to Obama having praised some of his books, because those books are still worthy of praise.

NeverFade 6y ago
"What's the problem banning a few controversial books? We still publish thousands of books we deem acceptable!" > He hasn't been cancelled, it's just that a few of the more egregious books are being discontinued. Horton Hears a Who? Still a great message. The Grinch? Still great You are clearly in favor of banning ideas you disagree with. Nice to see you are fine with the publication of books when you approve of their "message".
- delecti 6y ago
  You keep saying "banned", but they aren't. I agree banning ideas is bad, but that's not happening here.
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    If an idea can't be communicated, for example because books carrying it are systematically cancelled, then that idea is being banned. This is what happens when Amazon, for example, bans books that express views of transgenderism with which Amazon employees disagree.
- citizenkeen 6y ago
  Who is doing the banning? ebay can't can books, and hasn't. The publisher can't ban books, and hasn't. The rights holder can't ban books, and hasn't. Who is doing the banning?
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    eBay can ban sales of books on its platform, and has done so. The copyright holder / publisher can prevent any publication of books it holds copyright to, and has done so. Distributors of books, like Amazon, can stop selling books they disagree with, and have now starting doing that too. So the answer to your question is: all the above.
- ericb 6y ago
  Free speech is not the right to force others to repeat your speech. It is also not the right to a loudspeaker or megaphone. Free speech gets you the right to say it, but makes no promises about others being forced to listen, forced to spread it for you or forced to repeat it for you. Don't impinge their freedom in the name of your own.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    How is the existence of a book, "... the right to force others to repeat your speech"? People want the book removed because it exists, someplace - not because someone has a metaphorical megaphone. Let's stop with the metaphors, by the way. This isn't literary critique, or English Literature 301. It's a discussion of censorship. Stopping someone-who-isn't-you from reading a work that has nothing to do with you, is censorship.

vineyardmike 6y ago

> Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist. This is a true statement. His behavior always showed this regardless of what obama said. Unlike your orwellian quote, we're not rewriting history, just changing our tolerances.

NeverFade 6y ago
Do you have any evidence for that at all, or is this standard counterfactual leftist revisionism? Also, if Dr. Seuss was always so racist, how come the left embraced him until very very recently? Are you seriously claiming that all the many people on the left, including Obama, were embracing a clear and known racist as recently as a few months ago?
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  TLDR: The past accepting something is not indication that the future must or should accept. I don't really think this is a good-faith argument based on the language of the first sentence, but i'll reply anyways... Yes the evidence is his clearly documented body of work. He used many racial stereotypes and derogatory imagery. He has images of Japanese Americans, Africans, East Asians, and they all use stereotypes and caricatures that are negative. I can't speak for "the left" but he was embraced by most people because he was popular and many of his stories and books were benign. Lots of bad behavior was embraced by both left and right Americans throughout history. Past acceptance is not indication that the future must accept. Yes. I am making the claim that people, including Obama (who is not the only image of the left, and not particularly important figure in a literary sense) were embracing Dr. Seuss. A lot of his more objectionable work is rather unpopular, so its not crazy to think that his supporters did not audit his behavior. There is no doubt that people were embracing him. There is no doubt that much of his behavior is racist. There is no contraction here. People have embraced bad people before and that is (somewhat) ok as look as society learns and grows and corrects their behavior. This is the learning and growing. A book that sold 7k copies over the last few years is no longer in print because it portrayed people in bad ways.