6 ms·

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

by 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?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    The intention is the difference. The value of a book is that you experience the world through a viewpoint that is different than your own. That viewpoint may not be pretty, or fun, or something you agree with. Honestly - most of the books that I value challenge me by exposing me to something raw and unfiltered that I have not experienced myself. --- That editor also doesn't have the experiences of the author, and changing word choice is changing the world that author is speaking about. If the author's goal is to actually tell a genuine story that they connect with - to expose the world to their own thoughts and feelings and history - then changing those things is not trivial. --- I don't want to read a bland mash of "editor approved" stories. I want to read stories that are told by individuals, with all their quirks and intricacies. I want to hear their opinions and words. Not some filtered, white washed, toned down version of them. I want to make up my own mind about whether that story was valuable, or touching, or compelling, or horrible, or repelling. I don't want to never hear it in the first place because an editor decided they didn't like it and struck it out. --- Basically - if the author doesn't give a shit and is just trying to sell the most books... fine. Go with the editor's picks for the words. Let them control the narrative and story. They have the most experience with selling books and their advice is probably decent. If the goal is to write down a story that is meaningful to the author... don't change the author's words.
    - slg 4y ago
      How can you know the author's intentions? How is this type of analyzing of their thoughts not "thought policing" them?
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. I'm not acting as thought police because I literally didn't police their thoughts - I left them the fuck alone. --- I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way).
- Zetice 4y ago
  Is it authoritarian? What "authority" is stepping in here? Isn't it the rights holder making this decision? That's what I'm not getting; this isn't an external entity, it's the people who own the rights. Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want with their property, even if you disagree with it?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Ah yes - ownership of ideas and thoughts and stories. Fun aspects of capitalism. This book should be public domain. The author has been dead for 33 years. I honestly don't give a flying fuck about who "owns the rights" to this story at this point. But my broader point is salient outside of this - I think you're removing value from stories by trying to remove ugly parts. The world is ugly, hiding that and papering over it doesn't do anyone any favors. It's also beautiful and wondrous. How can we experience the highs without the lows? The good without the bad? How can we know what the past was like when we change it to suit our mood? When we wash it away and drown it out. When we cannot to learn from it, because we have no idea what it even was? When we have nothing but a caricature of it hanging out to dry, with the complexity and nuance tossed aside, wrung out from it like it was a rag to be cleaned.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      I don't think there's a ton of value in calling a little girl "ugly and beastly" instead of just "beastly", but if you do think that, it sounds like you can still show your children how to call people names, and that's my point. Nothing is being taken away here, only new things are being added. That's what I don't understand; why would you be upset about that?
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        I guess my thoughts are this - If you want to write a book that doesn't call folks ugly, go knock yourself out. I'm all here for that and I support you. You may or may not find success, and that's life. If you want to edit the words of a story because you find them unpleasant... if you want to censor an author after his death because you might sell more books... Then I find you ugly. You are willing to throw away content you disagree with, instead of tackling it head on, so both ugly and cowardly. Where does it stop? What content is "you approved" in a way that we can all live with? If we happen to live in a spot where those words are also owned, and we've decided that I don't have the rights to copy and distribute the original words because of the greed of Disney... then I find you both ugly and authoritarian in ways that are uncomfortable. I strongly dislike you.
ARandomerDude 4y ago
The problem is censorship. Say something the powerful disagree with and it will be judged offensive. You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communist Manifesto without being "edited" until your book simply affirms the status quo.
- dingusdew 4y ago
  [dead]
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communist Manifesto without being "edited" until your book simply affirms the status quo. You can.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Who is censoring in this case?
  - cld8483 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - Zetice 4y ago
      So the content owners? So you're saying if I buy something I shouldn't be allowed to make changes?
      - cld8483 4y ago
        [flagged]
        Zetice 4y ago
        Why are we talking about legality? Do you believe that ownership is categorically a legal concept? And wouldn't it be censorship to prevent me from publishing a clean version of Huck Finn? If his uncensored story exists, and my publishing of an alternative version in no way removes those works from circulation, there's not really an argument in place that I'm censoring anything.
rocmcd 4y ago
> What is so bad about being aware of what content we show children? That is not and has never been the problem. If you are a parent of a young child, then you should absolutely be aware of the content your child is seeing/reading. I doubt you will find anyone that disagrees. The problem is the revisionist approach to rewriting works to appease modern readers' (apparently delicate) sensibilities. Personally, I see this as shielding readers from harsh truths of the past (and in some cases just reality). Mr. Dahl is long dead, and yet we feel like we need to rewrite his words to ensure we don't accidentally offend someone. I mean, can you imagine a child reading the word <looks around> "fat"? Or "female"? My god, they would never be the same.
ars 4y ago
Presumably you also support making sure there are no gay or transgender characters in children's works? Or is it only your personal values you want reflected in books?
- Zetice 4y ago
  I'm confused about why my personal values wouldn't be reflected in my recommendations for how to publish and write stories.
  - ars 4y ago
    Are your truly incapable of seeing the problem? I'll help you, you wrote: publishing a “clean” version What if your version of clean is my version of horribly offensive? Are you really unable to see that people might have different opinions of things? If that's really true, I fear your have been "cleaning" your content far far too much.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Then you'd be wrong and I'd be right. There are merits to this argument, not everyone's opinion is equally valid.
version_five 4y ago
This kind of post is the SJW equivalent of the alt-right "just asking questions" posts people complain about. Pretending that politically motivated censorship is "just being intentional" is just a weasel-ish way of trying to give equal play to a fringe and ideologically motivated agenda
- Zetice 4y ago
  To be clear, the "agenda" here is to help kids grow up healthy and happy. We can disagree on how to accomplish that, but the nefarious insinuation is a little silly, no?

by Zetice 4y ago

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?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  The intention is the difference. The value of a book is that you experience the world through a viewpoint that is different than your own. That viewpoint may not be pretty, or fun, or something you agree with. Honestly - most of the books that I value challenge me by exposing me to something raw and unfiltered that I have not experienced myself. --- That editor also doesn't have the experiences of the author, and changing word choice is changing the world that author is speaking about. If the author's goal is to actually tell a genuine story that they connect with - to expose the world to their own thoughts and feelings and history - then changing those things is not trivial. --- I don't want to read a bland mash of "editor approved" stories. I want to read stories that are told by individuals, with all their quirks and intricacies. I want to hear their opinions and words. Not some filtered, white washed, toned down version of them. I want to make up my own mind about whether that story was valuable, or touching, or compelling, or horrible, or repelling. I don't want to never hear it in the first place because an editor decided they didn't like it and struck it out. --- Basically - if the author doesn't give a shit and is just trying to sell the most books... fine. Go with the editor's picks for the words. Let them control the narrative and story. They have the most experience with selling books and their advice is probably decent. If the goal is to write down a story that is meaningful to the author... don't change the author's words.
  - slg 4y ago
    How can you know the author's intentions? How is this type of analyzing of their thoughts not "thought policing" them?
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      Easy - I started by not fucking changing the words they wrote down, because I assumed they intended to write them down. I'm not acting as thought police because I literally didn't police their thoughts - I left them the fuck alone. --- I'm struggling to tell if your comment is satire or not, because it's pretty dense (and not in the "filled with words" kind of way).
Zetice 4y ago
Is it authoritarian? What "authority" is stepping in here? Isn't it the rights holder making this decision? That's what I'm not getting; this isn't an external entity, it's the people who own the rights. Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want with their property, even if you disagree with it?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Ah yes - ownership of ideas and thoughts and stories. Fun aspects of capitalism. This book should be public domain. The author has been dead for 33 years. I honestly don't give a flying fuck about who "owns the rights" to this story at this point. But my broader point is salient outside of this - I think you're removing value from stories by trying to remove ugly parts. The world is ugly, hiding that and papering over it doesn't do anyone any favors. It's also beautiful and wondrous. How can we experience the highs without the lows? The good without the bad? How can we know what the past was like when we change it to suit our mood? When we wash it away and drown it out. When we cannot to learn from it, because we have no idea what it even was? When we have nothing but a caricature of it hanging out to dry, with the complexity and nuance tossed aside, wrung out from it like it was a rag to be cleaned.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    I don't think there's a ton of value in calling a little girl "ugly and beastly" instead of just "beastly", but if you do think that, it sounds like you can still show your children how to call people names, and that's my point. Nothing is being taken away here, only new things are being added. That's what I don't understand; why would you be upset about that?
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      I guess my thoughts are this - If you want to write a book that doesn't call folks ugly, go knock yourself out. I'm all here for that and I support you. You may or may not find success, and that's life. If you want to edit the words of a story because you find them unpleasant... if you want to censor an author after his death because you might sell more books... Then I find you ugly. You are willing to throw away content you disagree with, instead of tackling it head on, so both ugly and cowardly. Where does it stop? What content is "you approved" in a way that we can all live with? If we happen to live in a spot where those words are also owned, and we've decided that I don't have the rights to copy and distribute the original words because of the greed of Disney... then I find you both ugly and authoritarian in ways that are uncomfortable. I strongly dislike you.

ARandomerDude 4y ago

The problem is censorship. Say something the powerful disagree with and it will be judged offensive. You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communist Manifesto without being "edited" until your book simply affirms the status quo.

dingusdew 4y ago
[dead]
lostlogin 4y ago
> You should be able to publish Animal Farm or the Communist Manifesto without being "edited" until your book simply affirms the status quo. You can.
Zetice 4y ago
Who is censoring in this case?
- cld8483 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Zetice 4y ago
    So the content owners? So you're saying if I buy something I shouldn't be allowed to make changes?
    - cld8483 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - Zetice 4y ago
        Why are we talking about legality? Do you believe that ownership is categorically a legal concept? And wouldn't it be censorship to prevent me from publishing a clean version of Huck Finn? If his uncensored story exists, and my publishing of an alternative version in no way removes those works from circulation, there's not really an argument in place that I'm censoring anything.

rocmcd 4y ago

> What is so bad about being aware of what content we show children? That is not and has never been the problem. If you are a parent of a young child, then you should absolutely be aware of the content your child is seeing/reading. I doubt you will find anyone that disagrees. The problem is the revisionist approach to rewriting works to appease modern readers' (apparently delicate) sensibilities. Personally, I see this as shielding readers from harsh truths of the past (and in some cases just reality). Mr. Dahl is long dead, and yet we feel like we need to rewrite his words to ensure we don't accidentally offend someone. I mean, can you imagine a child reading the word <looks around> "fat"? Or "female"? My god, they would never be the same.

ars 4y ago

Presumably you also support making sure there are no gay or transgender characters in children's works? Or is it only your personal values you want reflected in books?

Zetice 4y ago
I'm confused about why my personal values wouldn't be reflected in my recommendations for how to publish and write stories.
- ars 4y ago
  Are your truly incapable of seeing the problem? I'll help you, you wrote: publishing a “clean” version What if your version of clean is my version of horribly offensive? Are you really unable to see that people might have different opinions of things? If that's really true, I fear your have been "cleaning" your content far far too much.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Then you'd be wrong and I'd be right. There are merits to this argument, not everyone's opinion is equally valid.

version_five 4y ago

This kind of post is the SJW equivalent of the alt-right "just asking questions" posts people complain about. Pretending that politically motivated censorship is "just being intentional" is just a weasel-ish way of trying to give equal play to a fringe and ideologically motivated agenda

Zetice 4y ago
To be clear, the "agenda" here is to help kids grow up healthy and happy. We can disagree on how to accomplish that, but the nefarious insinuation is a little silly, no?