The Culture Wars

There seems to be a bunch of people who legitimately believe that telling the nation it’s cold outside is some sort of insidious nanny state communism by stealth.

I thought that these people loved the cold? You know, 'cause it proves that global warming ain't real!
 
What a sequence in this thread, a guy who says real alpha men eat raw meat and then a post about how gas stoves are the pillar of western civilization.
 
You'd think he'd have nice warm hands standing over that gas stove really wouldn't you?
 
What a sequence in this thread, a guy who says real alpha men eat raw meat and then a post about how gas stoves are the pillar of western civilization.

:lol:
Stupidity is growing exponentially
 
after the gas stoves thing, people in the comments were saying that there's no way bans on leaded petrol or asbestos would be possible in the current US. and next day ...



genuinely hope each and every one of them gets lung cancer
 
anyway
giphy.gif
 
after the gas stoves thing, people in the comments were saying that there's no way bans on leaded petrol or asbestos would be possible in the current US. and next day ...



genuinely hope each and every one of them gets lung cancer


Is slavery the 2nd most American of all pleasures?
 
What is it about tobacco that triggers them so.

Gee, Tucker, that's a tough one. Must be either:

A: because they're woke liberal snowflakes
B: CANCER
C: Why does he always look as if someone farted
 
"Salman Rushdie leads criticism of ‘absurd’ Roald Dahl censorship."


Salman Rushdie has spoken out against recent reports that passages have been rewritten in some of Roald Dahl’s books to remove language that may be considered offensive.

A report on Friday 17 February detailed some of the changes made to the author’s work after feedback from sensitivity readers.

One example of a change made to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is that Augustus Gloop is now described as “enormous” rather than “fat”. Elsewhere, a character in The Twits, Mrs Twit, is now just described as “beastly” rather than “ugly and beastly”, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Rushdie is one of several literary figures to express disapproval about the changes made to the children’s books. Reacting on Twitter, the Satanic Verses author wrote on Saturday (18 February): “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”

Comedian David Baddiel posted a screenshot of one of the changes to a passage in The Twits. Though the version republished in 2001 reads: “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth”, the new edit takes out the reference to a “double chin”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...sorship-reaction-salman-rushdie-b2285246.html
 
What a bunch of snowflakes, a company changing their products because they want to is censorship?
 
What a bunch of snowflakes, a company changing their products because they want to is censorship?
General consensus on Reddit seems to be that it was an unnecessary thing to do, and a disclaimer message would have been better.
 
General consensus on Reddit seems to be that it was an unnecessary thing to do, and a disclaimer message would have been better.
I agree, but it's not censorship. Censorship would be an authority forcing them to make the changes against their will. If they're doing it because they think it's the best way to go forward it's just a decision like any other.
 
I agree, but it's not censorship. Censorship would be an authority forcing them to make the changes against their will. If they're doing it because they think it's the best way to go forward it's just a decision like any other.

Why are you nit-picking about semantics here? Who cares if it fits the technical definition of censorship? The reason people are annoyed is obvious. Changing classic texts to preserve the feelings of the easily offended. Snowflakes is a shitty term but it’s clearly more applicable to those the changes are being made for than those who resent them.
 
Why are you nit-picking about semantics here? Who cares if it fits the technical definition of censorship? The reason people are annoyed is obvious. Changing classic texts to preserve the feelings of the easily offended. Snowflakes is a shitty term but it’s clearly more applicable to those the changes are being made for than those who resent them.
Semantics? I know people who suffered because of actual censorship and had their careers destroyed. A publisher changing a text in agreement with the author's estate is not it. I don't think it's semantics at all.

People who really want to can buy the old editions. People making a storm about this on social media are acting like snowflakes. And yeah, it's a crap term.
 
Sorry but this is a total load of old bollocks. Changing the text to classic books is ridiculous - if you really are concerned about offending anyone then put a disclaimer at the start of the book and the reader can then MAKE THEIR OWN MIND UP whether they wish to read the book or not. I don't need, nor want, somebody else making that decision for me.
 
Sorry but this is a total load of old bollocks. Changing the text to classic books is ridiculous - if you really are concerned about offending anyone then put a disclaimer at the start of the book and the reader can then MAKE THEIR OWN MIND UP whether they wish to read the book or not. I don't need, nor want, somebody else making that decision for me.

Roald Dahl himself totally remade the Oompa Loompas 10 year after he wrote the book, because the depiction was criticized as racist. Most people have already been reading a revised version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, they just didn't know. I know I didn't as a kid.

There is something different between the actual author approving changes being made for commercial reasons (Dahl also agreed to make Charlie white before publication, he was supposed to be black) and an estate sitting on the rights to the work of a dead author approving changes being made for commercial reasons, at least it feels different, but it's hard to avoid that given the copyright rules. I think Netflix owns Dahl's works now?
 
This is a good move and will hopefully protect our children from needing to think critically, the likes of which should never be applied to literature.
It's literally Helen Lovejoy esque.
 
Roald Dahl himself totally remade the Oompa Loompas 10 year after he wrote the book, because the depiction was criticized as racist. Most people have already been reading a revised version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, they just didn't know. I know I didn't as a kid.

There is something different between the actual author approving changes being made for commercial reasons (Dahl also agreed to make Charlie white before publication, he was supposed to be black) and an estate sitting on the rights to the work of a dead author approving changes being made for commercial reasons, at least it feels different, but it's hard to avoid that given the copyright rules. I think Netflix owns Dahl's works now?

Yes and that's fine because it was the actual author deciding to change the text. This is something quite different.
 
Sorry but this is a total load of old bollocks. Changing the text to classic books is ridiculous - if you really are concerned about offending anyone then put a disclaimer at the start of the book and the reader can then MAKE THEIR OWN MIND UP whether they wish to read the book or not. I don't need, nor want, somebody else making that decision for me.
I agree. the disclaimer should read “this book is written by a raging antisemite” that should help folks make up their mind accordingly.
 
For the most part, I have no interest in 'the culture wars' and as soon as anyone mentions the word 'woke' I roll my eyes...but how anyone can defend this Dahl 'censorship' is beyond me.
 
The mechanism behind these changes is almost irrelevant. If Netflix are really doing this to make the Dahl “franchise” more profitable then that’s obviously a bit grim but the bigger picture is a culture where they think those changes will be positively received. It’s definitely for the best that we’ve moved on from unkind language and stereotypes but there’s a fine line between that sort of progress and a world full of horribly bland and anodyne children’s literature with all the sharp edges removed to appease the most easily offended.
 
It's not a new thing to revise an author's works. The most sold mystery book of all time And Then There Were None for decades was sold as Ten Little Indians which itself was a correction on the initial title of Ten Little n-word. However that is warranted rather than changing Augustus Gloop being described as fat to enormous. Because the entire rationale of the descriptions in Willy Wonka were based on the punishments being dished out to the children being themed on the sin. In the case of Augustus his sin was gluttony. I don't think something like that requires washing down otherwise we're assuming today's kids need to be sheltered as if they're not emotionally intelligent enough as we were at that age which I don't think is true at all.
 
I agree. the disclaimer should read “this book is written by a raging antisemite” that should help folks make up their mind accordingly.

'who was also a decorated war hero and spy' if you would like to give some balance of course.
 
Relating villains or shady characters with undesirable appearance traits is basically everywhere, especially in childrens and young adult fiction.

If anyone doesn't like that then the answer should be obvious - write your own novels without any of that unkind language and see if they sell. Rather than taking a metaphorical blow torch to other authors' works.

Unless there's more money in writing a completely new children's book than publishing a new version of a super popular book that you already have the right to publish, then that answer is the opposite of obvious. Especially considering they're publishers: they can do both. They are doing both. This is a business decision.
 
Unless there's more money in writing a completely new children's book than publishing a new version of a super popular book that you already have the right to publish, then that answer is the opposite of obvious. Especially considering they're publishers: they can do both. They are doing both. This is a business decision.
I don't think the debate is about whether or not the publisher is able to do this, they clearly can - it's about whether they should do it at all.
 
I don't think the debate is about whether or not the publisher is able to do this, they clearly can - it's about whether they should do it at all.

'Should' in what meaning? Financially, morally?