> Calling it violent is a poor way to get people to see your side. We will have to disagree. I call it like I see it. Its an insidious but violent attack on sh

> Calling it violent is a poor way to get people to see your side. We will have to disagree. I call it like I see it. Its an insidious but violent attack on shared cultural experiences. You either defend your culture and way of life or you don't, and recognition of the attack for what it is, is absolutely necessary to come to that understanding. Some of us operate on a larger world view and time horizon and know just how much darkness is out there, and the insidious ways it creeps in. Moreso than others who would snipe at word usage for something as serious as this. Let me ask you, do you think these changes will impact you personally if you are late in your adult life? No? Who do you think they will impact the most and how? Who is the target audience of those books... its children who have no previous experience of the stories, or world experience to compare against, who often read these books prior to the age of reason or shortly after. Children who through social intelligence absorb what they read and experience like a sponge, and then imitate. In other words they read these at the point before or at which they can only just begin to biologically think critically, and tell and detect lies. So why would you go through the expense of doing these things, it certainly isn't to align with a minority groups temporary message that will burn out in a few years. So why would you do this... nothing productive or good comes to mind except to alter a future generations ideology for some intended private purpose. Its taking classic works, changing them to a slightly different message, and then calling them the same thing (when the original message is lost). Its a fundamental act of corruption of a shared cultural medium, which when internalized and permanent becomes a part of people's identity, or if it constantly changes does not. What could they gain from indoctrinating millions of children who might even be required to read these books in their public education classes at an age where they can't recognize the harms of internalizing aspects? What happens to people psychologically when you have no shared cultural mores or folkways. Do you think they develop to become well adjusted individuals? or does the civilization inevitably start to tear itself apart, jumping at shadows and perceived slights. I can't think of a more serious matter with the stakes higher. If you aren't willing to defend what's important (i.e. your future) it calls into question deep issues of why you do anything, or shouldn't do anything. You might end up with something like Brave New World, if we survive at all. Businesses have no right to interfere with children's development, and this change would do just that in a un-quantifiable way. Its an unprofitable choice, so there's clearly some alternative motive to justify the cost. The firm should only have profit motive, what profit motive could justify the expenses for these changes.