4 ms·
That negative public response came from all sides of the political spectrum, of course. If this hypothesis is accurate, it seems as if the problem might have be
by BryantD 4y ago
That negative public response came from all sides of the political spectrum, of course. If this hypothesis is accurate, it seems as if the problem might have been that the publisher uncritically accepted the hostile framing of "woke." Turns out it's not actually about censorship.
- bee_rider 4y agoThat’s an interesting point. Of course, corporations are willing to accept socially progressive language as a business matter, but they aren’t really “of the progress movement” so to speak.
- baobabKoodaa 4y agoAll sides? Including left? Examples?
- yowzadave 4y agoIt seems like virtually everyone is against it--it would be harder to find a leftist in favor of the bowdlerization than one against it: https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/roald-dahl-censorship/ https://www.salon.com/2023/02/22/roald-dahl-censorship/
- MikePlacid 4y ago“ It feels like a bait and switch, ignoring the very real issues with the writer while labeling as bad, wrong or offensive words that have no such inherent value.” I read this as: editors are changing just some words in order to save Dahl, who should be banned completely. And Salon author calls their own stance “against censorship”. Hm.