But lets see the Positive side: Now the Nazis wont have to burn thousands of books, saving tons of co2 in their Plan to take over the world with propaganda. So, yay for the envoirment I guess
But lets see the Positive side: Now the Nazis wont have to burn thousands of books, saving tons of co2 in their Plan to take over the world with propaganda. So, yay for the envoirment I guess
Honest question, how is this different from the left doing the same? Take this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl_revision_controversy
As an outsider, it seems the USA is currently in a culture war, and neither side minds burning & changing the books they deem offensive?
I’m all for the Trump hate, what’s happening there is insane, but the American left wing being bothered by books being changed seems pretty hypocritical seeing recent events…
A punchier example would be And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie - the best selling murder mystery of all time - which was first published as Ten Little Niggers
Is indeed a fine example. Keeps raising the same questions: is it ok to rewrite books? We’re supposed to be outraged when maga does it, but it’s ok if we do it?
I mean it’s not an easy question to answer is it? How is my ideological position that ‘nigger’ is not acceptable and removing it makes the book suitable for modern readers any different from someone else’s ideological position that, e.g., ‘transgender’ is not acceptable and removing it makes whatever book suitable for modern readers?
Indeed, that’s why i hate it that so many people here are raging about this while it’s something both sides are doing…
I get all the Trump & conservatives hate, but sometimes this community is raging over something that’s just done by both sides… So being outraged about it is pretty hypocritical…
@Hossenfeffer @racemaniac n*r is deemed a slur *by the group it is used about*. “Transgender” is not. Changing references to be more inclusive/respectful of a group is very different to erasing the existence of a group entirely.
Yes, I agree.
But surely you can acknowledge the possibility that some people believe transgenderism is an affront to god and an existential threat to children, or whatever, then their position is not dissimilar.
That’s the issue. What makes ‘this is offensive’ more valid than ‘this is dangerous’?
This is just another front in the war between religion and reason.
@Hossenfeffer well “this is offensive [to the subject]” is more valid than “this is dangerous [to the reader]” for one. A subject can’t choose what the reader thinks of them afterwards - they have to hope that the reader understands enough context to realise they are, actually, equally human. A reader, in contrast, gets to choose whether they agree with the premise. Otherwise history would have destroyed all copies of every religious book, or Mein Kampf or the Little Red Book or Das Kapital.
@Hossenfeffer as with everything it usually boils down to who has the power/control. An (adult) reader can choose what they read or how they interpret it, and can also often control what a child reads and how that child interprets it too. A subject cannot choose how they are read about, so it is up to the writer and publisher to control that message and reduce misinterpretation where possible. It’s a similar framework to cultural appropriation or “doing an accent”. Are you punching up or down?
@Hossenfeffer but when it comes down to it I think really we’ve ceded our understanding of morality to “the market” anyway. It’s bad when politicians say to do it but if “the people” follow (or if, for example, we regulate schools so they *have* to follow) and that’s the only way to make it sell then it’s ok. Majority rules, I guess. But my personal feeling is that when it comes to pure morality it’s about where the power lies. And often that’s the power of controlling the narrative.
Have you, as a foreigner, been caught up by the American political-polarization bugtm!? Here are a few warning signs that you may be affected.
If you suspect that you or a loved one suffer from this syndrome, please turn off the devices and go outside.
The controversy you pointed out is about someone who was writing factually false information and feeding hate against people who should be covered under the freedom of speech. The ban happened during his life, and not years after he died. Therefore his works were not a peace of gone culture, but hate in the present of time.
If I follow your argumentation, that being that you should allow people write false information feeding hate against specific people just living their life in peace, you should be against censoring Hate speech against Lgbtqia+ people too, or the better question would be: where do you draw the line? At Jews? At queer people?
I have honestly no clue what you’re trying to say???
If you read the wiki page i linked, it’s about changing his books after his death, so not things about when he was still alive? Is also not about a ban? Did you even read the wiki? It literally starts with "Puffin Books, the children’s imprint of the British publisher Penguin Books, expurgated various works by British author Roald Dahl in 2023, sparking controversy. "
And you’re talking about hate against races, but the wiki talks about removing the word queer (which used to just be a synonym for strange), removing all kinds of gendered language (not sons & daughters, but children, etc…). So rewriting the books to fit your narrative.
My argumentation is simple: the right wing can’t change books, but the leftwing can? Both sides seem to be trying to rewrite history, that’s all. Whether what’s in the books is acceptable or not, who cares. If the book is no longer appropriate, don’t read it but complaining about the other side rewriting books seems hypocritical. That’s all. You can just not recommend books to readers and suggest more modern alternatives that are more appropriate, or read the old works taking in mind the era they were written in.
I am with you on this one. I do think it would be appropriate to have a disclaimer in the beginning, saying that these words used to have a different meaning, and that in the context of the time they were written they meant different things than today.
There is a German book where this is done that uses the N word for people of color.
This is the more appropriate way of handling this, because i am totally with you: we shouldn’t change what was written in books. If we start doing that, we destroy what authors have done, and in a sense we also edit history, because in this case we try to erase that these words were used in another context back in the days.
Indeed
And that also bothers me about threads like this… both sides in the USA seem to be guilty of this, so to now call it propaganda & nazism when the right is doing it… It’s of course true, but the left wing is doing the exact same, so you can’t really be that outraged… You’re both doing the same thing :s
didn’t know JK Rowling is into Lemmy now
Ah yeah, going for the insult rather than engaging with a difficult talking point…
I for sure hate trans people when i say it’s hypocritical to complain about the right wing changing books to fit what they view as correct, when the left wing is doing the exact same (strange… my point isn’t even about trans people it seems… how peculiar).
I haven’t even said that i have a problem with more gender neutral language, i just gave it as en example of what it’s about since the parent post was all about hate speech, (and there was some issue with that too in his childrens books, but afaik hardly any).
And i focused on that because OP made it sound as if just hate speech was being targetted, not rewriting old works to fit very left wing desires about how gender is mentioned.
But the question remains: if the right does it, it’s Nazism, when the left does it, it’s… <???> (at least totally not Nazism, because when we do something that we claim is blatant Nazism when the others do it, it’s ok, because obviously, we’re not Nazis, even when we do things that we call out as blatantly Nazism when others do it).
(and why am i trying to call this out: because i hate hypocrisy & polarization. It’s fair to disagree with that, but then calling it Nazism and being all wronged about it while the American left wing is doing the exact same, and then get’s called out the exact same by de maga idiots… That’s just stupid on both sides, and i’d prefer our side to be genuine and honest, and not be all offended when others do the same thing they’re doing)