7 ms·

Oh, this is so terribly sad.

flir 4y ago
Reason's pretty niche, of course, and the first nine paras there are about an agent. A perspective closer to the centre of society: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-moaning-sensitivity-readers-diversity-publishing https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-m...
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  Dunno, Rosenfield's take seems a lot more reasonable than the pandering Guardian article that also infantilizes the reader by saying they are just moaning about sensitivity editors while using new words like "cisgender" that 90% of society doesn't even know. The Guardian might be closer to your views. Fine. But why try to appeal to some notion of the center of society instead of just posting the link? I'd wager outside of HN and Twitter, the Guardian article is obnoxious and trite.
- yosefk 4y ago
  Isn't Reason, niche as it might be, closer to the center of society than The Guardian, which is somewhat closer to the left side of society?
  - cableshaft 4y ago
    At least according to AllSides, while The Guardian leans left a bit more than Reason leans right, it's not too much different. Guardian[1] has -2.4 out of -6, while Reason[2] is 1.8 out of +6. From what articles I've seen from Reason, they seemed to clearly lean right to me, that's why your comment came across as odd, albeit technically correct (it is slightly closer to center than the Guardian). Your comment suggested to me that they are a lot more in the middle than that, though. [1]: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian [2]: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reason https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reason
    - yosefk 4y ago
      Technically correct is the best kind of correct! Anyway, it sort of depends on the definition of "left" and "right"; not sure how allsides.com defines them. Reason seems to be "libertarian", which is a mix of positions one might call [maybe even rather far-]left and [rather far-]right, and one might perhaps say that "the average" of these positions (if you could take a scalar average in a vector space, which of course what allsides.com does by necessity and so are we in this conversation) is "center." The Guardian is seemingly "left" in most ways according to typical current definitions.
      - flir 4y ago
        Political opinion is a phase space with so many dimensions we're really on a hiding to nothing even discussing it. (And for added complexity, that link I gave was to Comment Is Free).
- danenania 4y ago
  As someone who reads both Reason and the Guardian (I like to hear different perspectives), it's a bit silly to say the Guardian is close to the center. It's clearly and proudly on the left. Afaik, it's one of the most left-leaning major English language newspapers.
  - flir 4y ago
    I reckon Granuiad's less left than Libertarianism is right. Certainly more people vote centre-left than vote Libertarian. Ymmv.
    - danenania 4y ago
      Maybe? It's hard to judge, especially since Libertarianism is a bit of a weird animal that doesn't map cleanly to the right--it tends to have more in common with the left on social issues, though identity politics is a big exception. I wouldn't say Reason or the Guardian provide anything close to a centrist perspective. I wouldn't even call Guardian center-left. Center-left is like the furthest right it goes. The average article is well left of center-left.
      - flir 4y ago
        They were pretty anti-Corbyn when he was in charge. That's one reason I peg them as centre-left. And they're currently cheerleading the centre-left version of Labour that's polling at 50% - that's why I reckon they're closer to the centre of politics (as measured by support) than Reason is.
        cld8483 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - cld8483 4y ago
    Real left-leaning English newspapers haven't been tried, or something like that... But yes, to say that somebody is a "Guardian reader" is say they are somewhere in the left to center-left part of the spectrum.
Zetice 4y ago
What is so bad about being aware of what content we show children? I can understand not wanting to ban the original works, but a) publishing a “clean” version and b) encouraging authors to be intentional with their words going forward doesn’t seem that bad to me.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Being aware of content shown to children is fine (although by the time they're a young adult, I would argue most content is appropriate literature). Encouraging the sort of thought police present here sets off all sorts of alarm bells. I would argue this idea is fundamentally contrarian to a true liberal value set. Being liberal (in the traditional sense) means being willing to engage with all sorts of content - especially content that you might not agree with. Simply disagreeing with content is a poor, poor excuse for removing it from the public space. Instead it should be countered with a compelling set of ideas that help the public understand why you don't agree with it. Basically - policing books like this is WRONG. It's exactly the same thought process that leads to people calling for the ban of books they don't like. It's an authoritarian thought process that doesn't actually provide a compelling argument against an idea to win - instead it claims victory by removing any trace of the argument in the first place. It's whitewashing in the extreme. It's the good intention that paves the road to Fahrenheit 451. It's a fucking disgrace of an approach. If you don't like what those books say... buckle up and explain that to your kids. Don't hide it from them. You aren't doing them any favors that way.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Encouraging the sort of thought police present here sets off all sorts of alarm bells. What is the difference between "thought police" and simple editing? For example, if I wrote a book and used a word like "gypped", I would appreciate an editor saying "Change this word to something like 'swindled'. 'Gypped' is derived from 'Gypsy' and is inherently an insult to the Romani people." Is that the editor being the "thought police" or them doing their job well? Is the objection to the Dahl changes simply that this is happening after the books were already published?
roflyear 4y ago
Been happening since the beginning of time with publishing. There are stories written about authors meeting with execs who want to basically completely rewrite things. It isn't like you can't publish your book. Some publishers just decided to implement this workflow. I think it's pretty dumb but it definitely isn't anything new.

flir 4y ago

Reason's pretty niche, of course, and the first nine paras there are about an agent. A perspective closer to the centre of society: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-moaning-sensitivity-readers-diversity-publishing https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/stop-m...

hombre_fatal 4y ago
Dunno, Rosenfield's take seems a lot more reasonable than the pandering Guardian article that also infantilizes the reader by saying they are just moaning about sensitivity editors while using new words like "cisgender" that 90% of society doesn't even know. The Guardian might be closer to your views. Fine. But why try to appeal to some notion of the center of society instead of just posting the link? I'd wager outside of HN and Twitter, the Guardian article is obnoxious and trite.
yosefk 4y ago
Isn't Reason, niche as it might be, closer to the center of society than The Guardian, which is somewhat closer to the left side of society?
- cableshaft 4y ago
  At least according to AllSides, while The Guardian leans left a bit more than Reason leans right, it's not too much different. Guardian[1] has -2.4 out of -6, while Reason[2] is 1.8 out of +6. From what articles I've seen from Reason, they seemed to clearly lean right to me, that's why your comment came across as odd, albeit technically correct (it is slightly closer to center than the Guardian). Your comment suggested to me that they are a lot more in the middle than that, though. [1]: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian https://www.allsides.com/news-source/guardian [2]: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reason https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reason
  - yosefk 4y ago
    Technically correct is the best kind of correct! Anyway, it sort of depends on the definition of "left" and "right"; not sure how allsides.com defines them. Reason seems to be "libertarian", which is a mix of positions one might call [maybe even rather far-]left and [rather far-]right, and one might perhaps say that "the average" of these positions (if you could take a scalar average in a vector space, which of course what allsides.com does by necessity and so are we in this conversation) is "center." The Guardian is seemingly "left" in most ways according to typical current definitions.
    - flir 4y ago
      Political opinion is a phase space with so many dimensions we're really on a hiding to nothing even discussing it. (And for added complexity, that link I gave was to Comment Is Free).
danenania 4y ago
As someone who reads both Reason and the Guardian (I like to hear different perspectives), it's a bit silly to say the Guardian is close to the center. It's clearly and proudly on the left. Afaik, it's one of the most left-leaning major English language newspapers.
- flir 4y ago
  I reckon Granuiad's less left than Libertarianism is right. Certainly more people vote centre-left than vote Libertarian. Ymmv.
  - danenania 4y ago
    Maybe? It's hard to judge, especially since Libertarianism is a bit of a weird animal that doesn't map cleanly to the right--it tends to have more in common with the left on social issues, though identity politics is a big exception. I wouldn't say Reason or the Guardian provide anything close to a centrist perspective. I wouldn't even call Guardian center-left. Center-left is like the furthest right it goes. The average article is well left of center-left.
    - flir 4y ago
      They were pretty anti-Corbyn when he was in charge. That's one reason I peg them as centre-left. And they're currently cheerleading the centre-left version of Labour that's polling at 50% - that's why I reckon they're closer to the centre of politics (as measured by support) than Reason is.
      - cld8483 4y ago
        [flagged]
- cld8483 4y ago
  Real left-leaning English newspapers haven't been tried, or something like that... But yes, to say that somebody is a "Guardian reader" is say they are somewhere in the left to center-left part of the spectrum.

Zetice 4y ago

What is so bad about being aware of what content we show children? I can understand not wanting to ban the original works, but a) publishing a “clean” version and b) encouraging authors to be intentional with their words going forward doesn’t seem that bad to me.

horsawlarway 4y ago
Being aware of content shown to children is fine (although by the time they're a young adult, I would argue most content is appropriate literature). Encouraging the sort of thought police present here sets off all sorts of alarm bells. I would argue this idea is fundamentally contrarian to a true liberal value set. Being liberal (in the traditional sense) means being willing to engage with all sorts of content - especially content that you might not agree with. Simply disagreeing with content is a poor, poor excuse for removing it from the public space. Instead it should be countered with a compelling set of ideas that help the public understand why you don't agree with it. Basically - policing books like this is WRONG. It's exactly the same thought process that leads to people calling for the ban of books they don't like. It's an authoritarian thought process that doesn't actually provide a compelling argument against an idea to win - instead it claims victory by removing any trace of the argument in the first place. It's whitewashing in the extreme. It's the good intention that paves the road to Fahrenheit 451. It's a fucking disgrace of an approach. If you don't like what those books say... buckle up and explain that to your kids. Don't hide it from them. You aren't doing them any favors that way.
- slg 4y ago
  >Encouraging the sort of thought police present here sets off all sorts of alarm bells. What is the difference between "thought police" and simple editing? For example, if I wrote a book and used a word like "gypped", I would appreciate an editor saying "Change this word to something like 'swindled'. 'Gypped' is derived from 'Gypsy' and is inherently an insult to the Romani people." Is that the editor being the "thought police" or them doing their job well? Is the objection to the Dahl changes simply that this is happening after the books were already published?

roflyear 4y ago

Been happening since the beginning of time with publishing. There are stories written about authors meeting with execs who want to basically completely rewrite things. It isn't like you can't publish your book. Some publishers just decided to implement this workflow. I think it's pretty dumb but it definitely isn't anything new.