2 ms·

There's nothing new about publishers revising books to suit current sensibilities. This has been happening throughout the Western world (and no doubt elsewhere)

by foldr 4y ago

There's nothing new about publishers revising books to suit current sensibilities. This has been happening throughout the Western world (and no doubt elsewhere) since the invention of the printing press. Any given changes have to be evaluated on their own merits; no doubt some of them may be silly. But a brief look at history shows that there's very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship that you're Godwinning this thread with.

the_third_wave 4y ago
The comparison is more to "socialist realism" so the term "Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi equivalent of the Soviet censorship campaign. As to there being "very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship" I mention I can only shake my head in disbelief. The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive, it is not an organic change where publishers simply follow the demands of the market. It is not the market - i.e. potential readers - which demands these changes but bureaucrats or - more applicable - apparatchiks.
- foldr 4y ago
  >The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive Then this “inclusion directive” must have been adopted a very long time ago. Someone else has mentioned that this very book was retitled in 1940 due to its original title including the ’n’ word. One wonders why the apparatchiks aren’t censoring the Daily Telegraph too. The answer, of course, is that their powers of censorship (and indeed their very existence) are largely imaginary. >"Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi ... Err, ok. You mentioned the Nazis and also made another outrageous historical comparison that's hardly any better considered.

by foldr 4y ago

the_third_wave 4y ago

The comparison is more to "socialist realism" so the term "Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi equivalent of the Soviet censorship campaign. As to there being "very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship" I mention I can only shake my head in disbelief. The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive, it is not an organic change where publishers simply follow the demands of the market. It is not the market - i.e. potential readers - which demands these changes but bureaucrats or - more applicable - apparatchiks.

foldr 4y ago
>The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive Then this “inclusion directive” must have been adopted a very long time ago. Someone else has mentioned that this very book was retitled in 1940 due to its original title including the ’n’ word. One wonders why the apparatchiks aren’t censoring the Daily Telegraph too. The answer, of course, is that their powers of censorship (and indeed their very existence) are largely imaginary. >"Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi ... Err, ok. You mentioned the Nazis and also made another outrageous historical comparison that's hardly any better considered.