4 ms·

When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing a

When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children".

slg 3y ago
>When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. I don't buy this slippery slope argument. Where does it end? It ends wherever the rights holders of the books say it ends. If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. >We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children". This is a rather hyperbolic claim for changing a few sentences in a story about kids visiting a chocolate factory. No one is "controlling the masses" with Roald Dahl books. This isn't about changing the history books. It is ensuring that stories can still be enjoyed in the same way they were originally without being burdened with either an accompanied history lesson or what we now view as bigotry.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  > If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. > This isn't about changing the history books. That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. > what we now view as bigotry. "We"? who is "we"? If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard.
  - slg 3y ago
    >Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. What are you suggesting here? Should we curtail free speech by either restricting how a copyright holder can edit their work or that protests against those copyright holders should be limited? >That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. What are you suggesting here? Should history never be reevaluated with modern context? >"We"? who is "we"? Society > If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard. I imagine this isn't your intent, but this might not even be indirect enough to be considered a dog whistle. Comments like "They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture" are exact phrases we might expect in a racist manifesto. Considering the topic at hand and your previous questioning of my use of pronouns, maybe be a little more cautious about your "our"s and "they"s.
    - shapenamer 3y ago
      "Careful, sir. I think you've had too much to think. Any more comments like that and the thought police may be alerted. We wouldn't want that, would we?"
      - slg 3y ago
        I gave that person the benefit of the doubt. I didn't call them bigoted, I just told them to mind their phrasing. You are the one who is setting up a direct link between free thinking and bigotry. You might be telling on yourself.
    - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
      > What are you suggesting here? Should we curtail free speech by either restricting how a copyright holder can edit their work or that protests against those copyright holders should be limited? It's telling you use "copyright holder" and not "author". I wouldn't be against a law that forced them to slap a big "Edited without author's permission" label on such falsified books. I also don't buy your implied argument that if we can't find a perfect legislative solution to a problem, we shouldn't complain about it in the first place.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

slg 3y ago

>When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. I don't buy this slippery slope argument. Where does it end? It ends wherever the rights holders of the books say it ends. If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. >We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children". This is a rather hyperbolic claim for changing a few sentences in a story about kids visiting a chocolate factory. No one is "controlling the masses" with Roald Dahl books. This isn't about changing the history books. It is ensuring that stories can still be enjoyed in the same way they were originally without being burdened with either an accompanied history lesson or what we now view as bigotry.

nemo44x 3y ago
> If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. > This isn't about changing the history books. That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. > what we now view as bigotry. "We"? who is "we"? If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard.
- slg 3y ago
  >Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. What are you suggesting here? Should we curtail free speech by either restricting how a copyright holder can edit their work or that protests against those copyright holders should be limited? >That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. What are you suggesting here? Should history never be reevaluated with modern context? >"We"? who is "we"? Society > If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard. I imagine this isn't your intent, but this might not even be indirect enough to be considered a dog whistle. Comments like "They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture" are exact phrases we might expect in a racist manifesto. Considering the topic at hand and your previous questioning of my use of pronouns, maybe be a little more cautious about your "our"s and "they"s.
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    "Careful, sir. I think you've had too much to think. Any more comments like that and the thought police may be alerted. We wouldn't want that, would we?"
    - slg 3y ago
      I gave that person the benefit of the doubt. I didn't call them bigoted, I just told them to mind their phrasing. You are the one who is setting up a direct link between free thinking and bigotry. You might be telling on yourself.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    > What are you suggesting here? Should we curtail free speech by either restricting how a copyright holder can edit their work or that protests against those copyright holders should be limited? It's telling you use "copyright holder" and not "author". I wouldn't be against a law that forced them to slap a big "Edited without author's permission" label on such falsified books. I also don't buy your implied argument that if we can't find a perfect legislative solution to a problem, we shouldn't complain about it in the first place.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]