55 ms·
Who are these censored books for? Like why ruin books instead of just reading things you want to read instead? Milquetoast books exist for the people who want
by donatj 4y ago
Who are these censored books for? Like why ruin books instead of just reading things you want to read instead?
Milquetoast books exist for the people who want them. Why do this.
- fullshark 4y agoProgressive activists
- idontwantthis 4y agoBut who, specifically? I haven’t heard of anyone demanding this.
- serf 4y agoa guess : the conflict inherent with the decision creates renewed interest in older franchises. might be a way to trade some short-term public outrage into revenue.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoThese nutcases worked on the Roald Dahl edits https://www.inclusiveminds.com/ https://www.inclusiveminds.com/
- hackernewds 4y agoWhat was non-inclusive about Ronald Dahl?
- tohnjitor 4y agoApparently everything
- hellisothers 4y agoYea man, if you’re trying to prevent children from being uncomfortable and scared then you’re going to love Roald Dahl brand kindling. The books a great, but they’re scary and unapologetic in a slow burn way.
- TheHappyOddish 4y agoHi there fellow human! Your comment has unfortunately been found offensive. Don't worry though, we've updated the offensive language (n*tcases) to one deemed less offensive (weirdos). As you're now aware of this program, you won't be notified of future edits. Thanks for keeping this community safe and inclusive!
- monero-xmr 4y agoYou are hired for a DEI role, you need to fill up the hours of a full time job. After policing everyone internally such that nothing interesting is mentioned anymore, you make yourself useful by getting out the sharpie and censoring words.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoThere is probably no publicly known figurehead or group demanding this. But this kind of thing doesn’t require that. All it takes is a group of likeminded and ideologically motivated employees at publisher pushing to have it done.
- asfarley 4y agoManufacturing consent
- defrost 4y agoUnlikely. It's literally Scholastic middle management editors making busy work for themselves and to justify Scholastic taking a percentage on Yet Another Edition Release. There's a long history of publishers kicking popular works down the road again and again to keep extracting $$$'s and "cleaning up" potentially offensive language is just another manufactured reason to pretend to be brushing up and fettling old works as new again.
- junofan 4y agoThese books came out coincident with a movie in 2018. No other excuse needed to re-release. I also think you underestimate how organized these activists are.
- defrost 4y ago> I also think you underestimate how organized these activists are. By all means do please link to the lobby campaign demanding changes to R.L.Stine.
- hackernewds 4y ago> It's literally activists making busy work for themselves ftfy. they need something to protest as well, as an occupation
- miguelazo 4y agoBS. This a very narrow, extreme and ahistorical extrapolation of identity politics.
- swatcoder 4y agoPublishers developed an industry of sensitivity editors, and they’ve mostly been effective in helping new work maintain an author’s vision while avoiding scandal (scandals are more expensive than editors). For new work, it’s a collaborative editing process no different than line editing for style/grammar or story editing for engagement, and authors are involved in the process. But what happens any time you have a whole department built around a new process? Some exec tries to start using it in new places. Thankfully, performing sensitivity edits to reprinted classics seems to be producing its own scandals and — since the whole thing is about avoiding scandals (to the publisher) - hopefully it won’t last.
- tonfreed 4y agoI said this in the last thread on this topic, it's not a conspiracy, it's a grift. Publishers are being pressured by a loud minority on social media and in their HR departments to hire diversity "experts" to review their content. I don't have specific examples, but I would be completely unsurprised if there was similar grifts 20 years ago with religious sensitivity readers or further back for people reviewing comics and music for "unacceptable" content.