The Culture Wars

entropy said:
how exactly does it give ‘balance’?
Click to expand...

Well if you are saying that you would just put 'this man was a raging anti-semite' as if this is a balanced view of a human being then I'm sorry but I don't agree. I think human beings are a bit more complex than that and just because somebody may have views 50 years ago that we don't agree with doesn't mean that any positive things that person may also have done gets totally washed away. Maybe I'm on my own here I don't know but I'm fairly sure that every single one of us has thoughts, opinions, on certain things that somebody somewhere may find highly offensive - does that define us as people? Or do we consider a person holistically and acknowledge the faults (which we all have) but can still celebrate the positive aspects of that individual.
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
'Should' in what meaning? Financially, morally?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I'd say it's 'morally' - but to me, if an author creates a piece of work then that work should remain in the form that the author intended. Even if it may now be seen as horribly offensive - as long as people are made aware of the type of content they can expect to see within it I think people should be free to choose whether they wish to read it rather than have somebody decide for me.
 
balaks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. We're not doing our children any favours either by shielding them from words that some find unpleasant. How are you going to teach them any critical thinking skills if they're never confronted with unpleasantness?
 
balaks said:
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.
Click to expand...

It’s not about should they do it it’s about why they think these changes are necessary. What has happened to our culture that would make anyone think these changes need to be made?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s not about should they do it it’s about why they think these changes are necessary. What has happened to our culture that would make anyone think these changes need to be made?
Click to expand...
I do find it very strange that this was ever seen as a good thing to do. I find it difficult to understand how this benefits anyone.
 
balaks said:
I'm not sure if I'd say it's 'morally' - but to me, if an author creates a piece of work then that work should remain in the form that the author intended. Even if it may now be seen as horribly offensive - as long as people are made aware of the type of content they can expect to see within it I think people should be free to choose whether they wish to read it rather than have somebody decide for me.
Click to expand...

Ok. I'm not very unsympathetic to that view, but I don't see much opposition to how we deal with copyright so I think people either don't care, don't think about it or disagree. Dahl wrote the stuff, but Netflix owns the words now. Dahl died, we have decided that you can transfer ownership of these things so it went to the family, and they sold it on to Netflix for an enormous amount of money. Netflix can now do whatever they want with it, because it's theirs. If they couldn't change things they'd probably want to pay less. Then Puffin asks for permission because they think it will sell better, Netflix says yes because why would they care?

I think most of the opposition is because people don't like the specific changes, rather than there being any principles at stake.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Ok. I'm not very unsympathetic to that view, but I don't see much opposition to how we deal with copyright so I think people either don't care, don't think about it or disagree. Dahl wrote the stuff, but Netflix owns the words now. Dahl died, we have decided that you can transfer ownership of these things so it went to the family, and they sold it on to Netflix for an enormous amount of money. Netflix can now do whatever they want with it, because it's theirs. If they couldn't change things they'd probably want to pay less. Then Puffin asks for permission because they think it will sell better, Netflix says yes because why would they care?

I think most of the opposition is because people don't like the specific changes, rather than there being any principles at stake.
Click to expand...
I think it is the principle of the thing rather than the specifics of this case that I find very troubling.
 
“In the version first published, [the Oompa-Loompas were] a tribe of 3,000 amiable black pygmies who have been imported by Mr. Willy Wonka from ‘the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had been before.’ Mr. Wonka keeps them in the factory, where they have replaced the sacked white workers. Wonka’s little slaves are delighted with their new circumstances, and particularly with their diet of chocolate. Before they lived on green caterpillars, beetles, eucalyptus leaves, ‘and the bark of the bong-bong tree.'”

https://www.roalddahlfans.com/dahls...y/politically-correct-oompa-loompa-evolution/

charoompa1.gif
 
Frosty said:
“In the version first published, [the Oompa-Loompas were] a tribe of 3,000 amiable black pygmies who have been imported by Mr. Willy Wonka from ‘the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had been before.’ Mr. Wonka keeps them in the factory, where they have replaced the sacked white workers. Wonka’s little slaves are delighted with their new circumstances, and particularly with their diet of chocolate. Before they lived on green caterpillars, beetles, eucalyptus leaves, ‘and the bark of the bong-bong tree.'”

https://www.roalddahlfans.com/dahls...y/politically-correct-oompa-loompa-evolution/

charoompa1.gif
Click to expand...

Yes we all know that - the author himself changed the wording around that - there is no issue with an author changing his own text. What we are talking about is somebody else deciding to change the text of something they did not write because they want to sanitise it (in this case).
 
balaks said:
Yes we all know that - the author himself changed the wording around that - there is no issue with an author changing his own text. What we are talking about is somebody else deciding to change the text of something they did not write because they want to sanitise it (in this case).
Click to expand...

No, his estate have changed the texts, who are the only ones given permission to do so.

In the background of increasing calls to move Dahl's literature off the curriculum given its age in favour of newer texts.

And now everyone is talking about the importance of his works for children and their education.

I reckon they have played this like a blinder.
 
hobbers said:
The business decision would be to publish the books with minimal changes, not waste money and time on an outside company to provide sensitivity readers.
Click to expand...

Alright. Maybe if you send them an email they'll hire you on as an consultant for next time?

Financially what matters here is the change in sales based on these revisions and costs related to the changes.

Some people will undoubtedly buy books who otherwise wouldn't, especially because of all the publicity. Of all the people reacting negatively, extremely few of them matter. You're only relevant if you're someone who would have bought a newly printed Roald Dahl book, but now won't. I already own copies of most of his books, so I'm irrelevant. I also would probably have bought older versions anyway because they're cheaper, so I'm doubly irrelevant. You're not going to buy the book, so your opinion doesn't matter to them either.

I'm betting that this will increase sales, at least short term, but I have no idea by how much. I also have no idea how much they've spent on this. So, I've no idea if it'll end up as a profitable decision or not. But, I'm pretty sure that big publishers who make these kinds of decisions for a living have thought more about this than the two minutes you and me have. They're not doing this for fun, they're not doing it as part of a culture war.
 
balaks said:
Well if you are saying that you would just put 'this man was a raging anti-semite' as if this is a balanced view of a human being then I'm sorry but I don't agree. I think human beings are a bit more complex than that and just because somebody may have views 50 years ago that we don't agree with doesn't mean that any positive things that person may also have done gets totally washed away. Maybe I'm on my own here I don't know but I'm fairly sure that every single one of us has thoughts, opinions, on certain things that somebody somewhere may find highly offensive - does that define us as people? Or do we consider a person holistically and acknowledge the faults (which we all have) but can still celebrate the positive aspects of that individual.
Click to expand...
he died in 1990 and claimed to be a proud antisemite even while on his deathbed. so it wasn’t so long ago.
 
balaks said:
Your point being?
Click to expand...
balaks said:
Well if you are saying that you would just put 'this man was a raging anti-semite' as if this is a balanced view of a human being then I'm sorry but I don't agree. I think human beings are a bit more complex than that and just because somebody may have views 50 years ago that we don't agree with doesn't mean that any positive things that person may also have done gets totally washed away. Maybe I'm on my own here I don't know but I'm fairly sure that every single one of us has thoughts, opinions, on certain things that somebody somewhere may find highly offensive - does that define us as people? Or do we consider a person holistically and acknowledge the faults (which we all have) but can still celebrate the positive aspects of that individual.
Click to expand...
 
NotThatSoph said:
Alright. Maybe if you send them an email they'll hire you on as an consultant for next time?

Financially what matters here is the change in sales based on these revisions and costs related to the changes.

Some people will undoubtedly buy books who otherwise wouldn't, especially because of all the publicity. Of all the people reacting negatively, extremely few of them matter. You're only relevant if you're someone who would have bought a newly printed Roald Dahl book, but now won't. I already own copies of most of his books, so I'm irrelevant. I also would probably have bought older versions anyway because they're cheaper, so I'm doubly irrelevant. You're not going to buy the book, so your opinion doesn't matter to them either.

I'm betting that this will increase sales, at least short term, but I have no idea by how much. I also have no idea how much they've spent on this. So, I've no idea if it'll end up as a profitable decision or not. But, I'm pretty sure that big publishers who make these kinds of decisions for a living have thought more about this than the two minutes you and me have. They're not doing this for fun, they're not doing it as part of a culture war.
Click to expand...

They’re not doing it as part of a culture war. They’re doing it because of the culture war. There’s evidently money to be made in optimising your brand for the tastes of the over-sensitive “woke, liberal snowflakes” (aka people who buy books).
 
Last edited:
@entropy I don't think that the length of time is that relevant whether it was 50 years ago 33 years ago personally - if that is your argument? I'm really not clear on the point you are trying to make sorry.
 
These things are so hard as I often find myself trying to defend progressive moves in society against people labelling others 'snowflakes' or 'woke' (e.g. the whole pronoun argument), but this is something that I feel oversteps the mark and gives a lot of ammunition for people to get their backs up in faux outrage about the wider direction of travel for society. There should just have been a disclaimer and be done with it.
 
hodgey123 said:
These things are so hard as I often find myself trying to defend progressive moves in society against people labelling others 'snowflakes' or 'woke' (e.g. the whole pronoun argument), but this is something that I feel oversteps the mark and gives a lot of ammunition for people to get their backs up in faux outrage about the wider direction of travel for society. There should just have been a disclaimer and be done with it.
Click to expand...

The only disclaimer or content warning that these (or any) books should need is the date of first publication.
 
hodgey123 said:
These things are so hard as I often find myself trying to defend progressive moves in society against people labelling others 'snowflakes' or 'woke' (e.g. the whole pronoun argument), but this is something that I feel oversteps the mark and gives a lot of ammunition for people to get their backs up in faux outrage about the wider direction of travel for society. There should just have been a disclaimer and be done with it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything progressive about retrospectively changing text just because somebody thinks some people might get offended. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
balaks said:
Well if you are saying that you would just put 'this man was a raging anti-semite' as if this is a balanced view of a human being then I'm sorry but I don't agree. I think human beings are a bit more complex than that and just because somebody may have views 50 years ago that we don't agree with doesn't mean that any positive things that person may also have done gets totally washed away. Maybe I'm on my own here I don't know but I'm fairly sure that every single one of us has thoughts, opinions, on certain things that somebody somewhere may find highly offensive - does that define us as people? Or do we consider a person holistically and acknowledge the faults (which we all have) but can still celebrate the positive aspects of that individual.
Click to expand...
a. my point is that this long winding post is absolute garbage.

b. if someone spends their entire life being a proud antisemite then it should most definitely be front and center of how they should be described. there isn’t two sides to this argument.
 
entropy said:
a. my point is that this long winding post is absolute garbage.

b. if someone spends their entire life being a proud antisemite then it should most definitely be front and center of how they should be described. there isn’t two sides to this argument.
Click to expand...

a. ok, but maybe some explanation on why you think this would be good - otherwise i'll happily disregard your opinion.

b. It's not about having 'two sides' to this argument - again, this is evidence of your black and white thinking on this and probably a lot of other things - life is not black and white, life is in the grey areas and so are people - people are more than one particular opinion they may hold. That's my view and why I'm also happy to assume you have something more to offer rather than this rather weak and ill-thought out 'argument'.
 
balaks said:
I don't think there is anything progressive about retrospectively changing text just because somebody thinks some people might get offended. Quite the opposite in fact.
Click to expand...

That is what I am saying! But there is no doubt that this type of thing (which is going too far) will now be picked up in arguments by people who say "you can't say anything anymore", "PC gone mad" etc. for example, and conflated with issues about how to address people by their preferred pronouns, etc.
 
hodgey123 said:
That is what I am saying! But there is no doubt that this type of thing (which is going too far) will now be picked up in arguments by people who say "you can't say anything anymore", "PC gone mad" etc. for example, and conflated with issues about how to address people by their preferred pronouns, etc.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think anybody in this thread has said anything close to that.
 
balaks said:
a. ok, but maybe some explanation on why you think this would be good - otherwise i'll happily disregard your opinion.

b. It's not about having 'two sides' to this argument - again, this is evidence of your black and white thinking on this and probably a lot of other things - life is not black and white, life is in the grey areas and so are people - people are more than one particular opinion they may hold. That's my view and why I'm also happy to assume you have something more to offer rather than this rather weak and ill-thought out 'argument'.
Click to expand...
everyone: hitler is a rabid antisemite
balaks: actually it is more complicated than that. people are complex and you shouldn’t define them based on views they held 50 years ago
 
entropy said:
everyone: hitler is a rabid antisemite
balaks: actually it is more complicated than that. people are complex and you shouldn’t define them based on views they held 50 years ago
Click to expand...

"Say the line...YAY!!"
 
entropy said:
everyone: hitler is a rabid antisemite
balaks: actually it is more complicated than that. people are complex and you shouldn’t define them based on views they held 50 years ago
Click to expand...

Ok straight to the obvious Hitler example - right well if that's how you want to play it thats ok. So the difference here is quite obvious to almost everybody I would hope however if you really want me to explain this then fine. If you genuinely don't see a difference between a man who held anti-semitic views and who then killed millions of people and went on a genocidal rampage across Europe and a man who held anti-semitic views, however was also a war hero in WW2 (yes he actually fought against the Nazi's), put himself at risk by spying during the war and then wrote a series of much loved children's books then I think we really are in trouble.

To you (I can only assume from the way you are trying to 'debate' this) - because they both held anti-semitic views then they should both be seen as equally evil (presumably) and bad. To me, I can see beyond the fact that both men held views I fundamentally disagree with however I can also see the other things that they offered (much in the case of Dahl and absolutely nothing in the case of Hitler).

So you could put at the front of Mein Kampf that the author was an anti-semite and I might agree with that, however he was also much more than that (and worse) as he was also responsible for the deaths of millions of people - i'd probably want to add that in too. Likewise with Dahl - yes he was an anti-semite but he also did a lot more in his life than hold views I disagree with. I'm happy to acknowledge the anti-semitic views but also acknowledge the positive and good things he did with his life.
 
Last edited:
Not much notice of kids teaching/education until I had my daughters grow up. I've seen the school curriculum now and I quite like it
Its a lot more thoughtful than before. Plenty of conservative Muslim parents take issue with LBGT content but I quite like how it is compared to before.

Maybe go about things like the disclaimer disney use for their movies that use racial stereotypes by prefacing it stating how it might not be acceptable today but preserving art also important

I think personally the reaction to these changes agreed by estate aren't as big a deal as its being made out with these changes literally dominating the news cycle.

I also don't think the world we live in necessarily cocoons off kids from unpleasantness. But its good that society is at least trying to move forwards in ways generally, and I don't think we are overly PC/woke etc in the aggregate
 
I'm not a fan of altering, removing or banning historical works. By all means add a disclaimer at the beginning of the book, film, album or video game. And if it's particularly egregious then you don't need to promote it anymore. But removal or alteration is just stupid.
 
entropy said:
everyone: hitler is a rabid antisemite
balaks: actually it is more complicated than that. people are complex and you shouldn’t define them based on views they held 50 years ago
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
This Roald Dahl stuff is utterly moronic and just pointlessly adds fuel to fire to the 'anti-woke' brigade. Diverts attention from the actual important issues which sets a very dangerous precedent.
 
Samid said:
This Roald Dahl stuff is utterly moronic and just pointlessly adds fuel to fire to the 'anti-woke' brigade. Diverts attention from the actual important issues which sets a very dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it's not really a "woke brigade gone mad" thing though. It's the people who own the rights to publish Dahl's books trying to prolong the shelf-life of their product, just as they did in the 1970s when they realised the oompa loompas being African tribesmen wasn't a great look and re-wrote their appearance for the new edition.

Whenever there's a backlash against something like this the anger is always misdirected, and always rooted in a couple of fundamentally faulty premises. The first of which is this bizarre idea that, in a world where there is more media available than anyone could possibly consume, it's somehow unusual for people to be discerning about the media they choose to spend their time and money on. People act as it Roald Dahl books have some sort of divine right to be read simply because they used to be popular and that the alternative is the kid sitting silently in a room with no books. In reality, Roald Dahl books are a drop in the ocean, if a kid doesn't get bought The Witches, they'll get bought one of a million other equally worthwhile children's books and probably be more than happy with that.

Which sort of leads me to the second faulty premise, which is this idea that "woke people" actively campaign for these sorts of changes. In reality, people who are uncomfortable with some of the weird stuff in Roald Dahl (or who just don't like his books) will just buy different books and leave his work well alone. There's no moral crusade to censor Dahl, there are consumers making perfectly normal consumer choices, and publishers censoring Dahl because they think it's their best shot at continuing to make money off his books in an increasingly competitive field.
 
balaks said:
Ok straight to the obvious Hitler example - right well if that's how you want to play it thats ok. So the difference here is quite obvious to almost everybody I would hope however if you really want me to explain this then fine. If you genuinely don't see a difference between a man who held anti-semitic views and who then killed millions of people and went on a genocidal rampage across Europe and a man who held anti-semitic views, however was also a war hero in WW2 (yes he actually fought against the Nazi's), put himself at risk by spying during the war and then wrote a series of much loved children's books then I think we really are in trouble.

To you (I can only assume from the way you are trying to 'debate' this) - because they both held anti-semitic views then they should both be seen as equally evil (presumably) and bad. To me, I can see beyond the fact that both men held views I fundamentally disagree with however I can also see the other things that they offered (much in the case of Dahl and absolutely nothing in the case of Hitler).

So you could put at the front of Mein Kampf that the author was an anti-semite and I might agree with that, however he was also much more than that (and worse) as he was also responsible for the deaths of millions of people - i'd probably want to add that in too. Likewise with Dahl - yes he was an anti-semite but he also did a lot more in his life than hold views I disagree with. I'm happy to acknowledge the anti-semitic views but also acknowledge the positive and good things he did with his life.
Click to expand...
long winding nonsense. how someone can excuse antisemitism while getting worked up about cancel culture is beyond me.
 
entropy said:
so he doesn’t have a problem with a disclaimer reading “this book was written by an antisemite”?
Click to expand...

You don’t think there are valid objections to that outside of excusing anti-semitism?

You’re being very disingenuous.
 
Eriku said:
You don’t think there are valid objections to that outside of excusing anti-semitism?

You’re being very disingenuous.
Click to expand...
wtf are valid objections to antisemitism? it definitely ain’t balaks argument that he held objectionable views 50 years ago and it shouldn’t define him.
 
entropy said:
wtf are valid objections to antisemitism? it definitely ain’t balaks argument that he held objectionable views 50 years ago and it shouldn’t define him.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about valid objections to anti-semitism?

The point was about being reductive and boiling someone down to their worst stance. You bringing up Hitler at the drop of a hat did nothing to dispel any such concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.