Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Rosa's Law or How much PC is too much PC?
Posts
Definition 2 doesn't apply to this case, as the only thing that's happening is a group releasing its own reprint of a work. Definition 3 doesn't make any sense in the definition of censorship you're trying to apply it to ("to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as an adverse critic; faultfinder?" when did a critic ever do that?). As for definition 7, not only can you not have the capacity of a verb, but it has the same problem that you keep denying.
Also, your last paragraph is the most hilariously circular argument I've ever seen. You are literally stating that it's censorship because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify because it's being done by a censor, who we can identify because he's practicing censorship, which we can identify...
Great, someone's going to have to bowlderize The Divine Comedy now...
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
...
Okay. Let's do that.
I totally think the Bible should be studied as literature.
"abandon all hope, all ye who debate here."
A valid point, but I think we can draw some distinctions here.
1) We can teach about suffering without making students suffer themselves, or suffer in certain ways
The point here is that we can and should teach about our legacy of racism, and the issues we continue to have as a country with regards to race relations and racism. I'm not sure if it's necessary to include material that members of oppressed minority groups find hurtful or offensive to do so, though.
Again, I think the willingness of people here to say "IF YOU CENSOR HUCK FINN WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT TALK ABOUT SLAVERY AT ALL" is indicative of their own myopia. Do you see black students and families and groups clamoring to have slavery taught about less? Do you see the Anti-Defamation League asking for people to talk about the Holocaust less? Quite the opposite.
Clearly, people who are actually members of oppressed groups can see a difference that you can't -- one is offensive and the other isn't. Where some people see "well they're offended and that's dumb because this is all the same to me" clearly they see nuance and distinction that makes one thing worthy of offense and the other not.
2) What kind of feelings are useful to experience for students? Yes, some discomfort may be good for students to experience -- to know what their country has done, or other countries, to see suffering and to feel empathic pain for those who suffered is a kind of suffering itself. Perhaps useful suffering.
That, to me, does not seem identical to the alienation that black students often feel when Huck Finn is read -- when they have to hear their white teacher or their white classmates recite a word that is painful for them to hear. That is the suffering of disrespect, exclusion, of not having one's wishes listened to or ones preferences respected. I don't think it hurts white students to hear or read the N-word in Huck Finn.
3) Does the equality of suffering matter? Is it different when only a small group of students is made to suffer, from when all the students in a class must suffer the discomfort of witnessing something unpleasant but true? Does selective suffering promote alienation and discontent within the suffering group? Does this magnify existing inequalities and problems in the system?
Over and over again, I find everyone on the other side of this debate unwilling to make distinction or see nuance.
Censorship is censorship, it is equally bad in all cases.
Offense is offense, it is equally harmless or harmful in all cases.
Censorship is always worse than offense.
Etc.
That, I think, should set off alarm bells. If you can't draw distinctions, you're probably not making the best argument.
The same people who insist that the confederate flag is simply a symbol of "history" and that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery tend to also be the ones who come down on PC the hardest.
On the contrary, it sounds like making everything "safe and comfortable" is exactly what you're talking about.
And there's a level of education at which that is entirely appropriate! And at that level, confrontational or emotionally challenging subjects shouldn't be taught. If reading the racist language in Huck Finn is such a tremendous barrier for students, they probably weren't equipped to address the material anyway.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
It's still a big slippery slope from publishers choosing to excise that word (again, I'm not sure what we really lose, even if all the copies of Huck Finn in the world were replaced with edited versions, but then again I'm not an Aspergers nerd who cares when comic-book movies change the suit design of my favorite heroes, either) to book burnings and Nazis.
Also, I find your reasoning implausible, because at the very least any mainstream always creates an opposition -- niche marketing. If most publishers switched to an edited version, it would create a market niche for un-edited versions specifically touting how unedited they are. Anything else is extremely unlikely, if history is any indication.
It is plausible that perhaps a slight majority of Huck Finn publishings might become edited (plausible, but not probable -- I personally find it unlikely) but that doesn't come close to proving an entire slippery slope chain of logic to Nazi book burnings.
So, no, you just made a huge slippery slope argument.
edit: I mean we've already given huge ground over the years to censorship for obscenity in movies, TV, radio, and other media, especially broadcast media.
But, in fact, that level of censorship has decreased over the years, not increased. And we certainly haven't gotten to Nazi book burnings. Why is that? Doesn't that fly in the face of what you believe?
I'm ok with leaving the Bible out of the classroom. I am, in fact, completely ok with leaving Huck Finn out of the classroom. The book itself isn't all that important, just the issue behind what the publishing company is doing.
I just find it quite silly that people are editing literature that we know is dated and we know will have some old terms in it. My only fear is that by white-washing (white-wash/Huck Finn teehee) older literature, we may eventually do it a disservice. Editing a word or two out of Huck Finn may not be a big deal, but what if a publisher decides that they want to edit The Color Purple? Or Roots? Or some other piece of literature that they find offensive? Simple censoring can always lead to bigger instances of it.
And don't say "slippery slope". That phrase hasn't been properly attributed to me in this thread one time.
Again, I fully support the publishing company in their right to edit the book. Do I think it's stupid? Yep. But free speech and all that. They can do what they want. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't censorship and that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them.
And I would thank you to keep your assumptions about who I do and don't know to yourself.
Into MMA, pro wrestling, fitness, health, drinking coffee and reading.
Height: 5' 11" Weight: 217 Goal: 200
Fine. You don't agree with me. Believe whatever you want.
I'm officially done debating the word "censorship" with any and all persons in this thread. Moving on.
Into MMA, pro wrestling, fitness, health, drinking coffee and reading.
Height: 5' 11" Weight: 217 Goal: 200
If she signed up for a literature class and demanded that the works in question be sanitized of any words she doesn't like, that's a wholly different situation.
And, honestly, anyone who uses racial slurs but objects to others doing the same is a hypocrite.
Rigorous Scholarship
Black Heimdal wasn't black because people found White Heimdal offensive.
Also is it just me or does it seem rather offensive that it would be so easy to change an authors work after he died to meet with the times. Stan Lee is still alive, he can give his input on changes to his work. I don't think that Mark Twain will be weighing in on this any time soon.
Earlier in this thread, we had a bunch of anti-PC people complaining about how "mentally disabled" was stupid, because obnoxious kids would find a way to turn that into an insult. But these same obnoxious kids won't do the same thing with the N-word?
I'm kind of divided on this issue. But I'm okay with sanitizing Huck Finn as long as people understand that it's a sanitized version, and that the original version used language that wouldn't be acceptable today.
I don't want it to be like how they sanitized Thanksgiving to take out all of the references where the Pilgrims were celebrating the deaths of colored people, or the fact that the Pilgrims were essentially looting them blind.
Actually, all the looting came later. A month or so later, but still later.
On the other hand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw
I have no scholarly training in history, but I'm pretty sure that by that time, the primary moral justification for the most heinous shit imaginable was firmly lodged in generally prevailing ideas regarding the importance of 'race'. Many different cultures throughout human history has accepted the practice of slavery, but this last incarnation before it was gradually eradicated was - and again, correct me if I'm wrong - firmly based on ideals of racial superiority.
There is a massive difference between a system in which you can become a slave based on, say, an inability to pay your debts, and a system in which it is the colour of your skin is enough to make you property. The historical distinction between 'slave' and 'we believe you deserve to be a slave because of the colour of your skin' is important.
invoking "privilege" or "entitlement" to dismiss someone else's arguments or perspectives is an infractable offense
we don't dismiss people because of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender around here
Isn't possible that your girlfriend is actually wrong, that she is in fact overly sensitive? Should we really cater to everyone who is overly sensitive about things? I mean this is where it gets waaaay subjective about what is too sensitive and what is not. But to me, your girlfriend being offended by you quoting someone or using the word in some political or philosophical context is definitely overly sensitive. In my mind she is clearly in the wrong to be offended by using the word in that context. I could come up with lots of hyperbolic examples of people being offended when they have no right to be but I am sure you see where I am coming from.
I think that baking the term "slave" a catchall for black people is just as effective as having the characters simply use a slur.
Yeah, I think probably just not teaching it is better too.
But whatever it's not that big a deal, you know?
Society will not come crumbling down, no one is being hurt by this.
Good luck with that!
I'm glad you feel comfortable telling other people how to feel. I don't, and I'm glad that people I know have the decency to respect my wishes when I don't want them to say certain things that bother me, because of this thing called decency.
It's not goddamn tyranny to ask something of someone that is super reasonable and not hard to do.
How exactly does it hurt me to not say the N-word around her? What point am I proving to her by saying it anyway? It bothers her, it costs me nothing. How is this even unclear?
yes but in this case the most important context is "is a white person saying it."
you don't get to decide what the important context is -- the people the word is designed to offend do
I am fine with this
i have said this at the beginning of the thread
there are probably more productive ways to deal with the book than editing it, like just not teaching it, or teaching it in college, or whatever
and literally no one in the thread has argued that all copies should be edited
Interesting...
So if Mark Twain had been black, instead of a progressive Caucasian, she'd have no problem with the book?
but you have to deal with the fact that it's a bigger barrier for some students than others and there's no other way to slice it
And then there's the fact that the things that make the work inappropriate for the setting are vestigial to the work, so that it can be made appropriate for the setting and therefor be utilized with no loss.
OK, let's talk about that disservice. What would it be? How big would it be?
This thread has taken two tacks thus far:
1) It's a disservice to the book!
Response: What is the disservice? Also, here is the benefit: XYZ
2) Nevermind, it's censorship!
Response: No not really.
3) IT'S CENSORSHIP
Response: NOT REALLY
4) SHUT UP NAZI
Response: NO YOU SHUT UP MORON
5) IT'S STILL CENSORSHIP
Response: OK, maybe it is, but by this definition it doesn't really warrant the response you've afforded it.
6) It's a disservice.
Response: What is the disservice?
You're being taught edited versions great works of literature because it makes someone feel bad?
Somehow I don't think that's what will happen -- Native Americans generally aren't the ones clamoring for the Disney version of Thanksgiving. Whites are.
Everyone in this thread who keeps comparing removing the N-word to "whitewashing" is being disingenuous. The same people who want the Confederate flag to still fly over the capitol of their state are people who want the N-word left in Huck Finn, and oppressed groups generally like to have offensive words removed but the memory of their suffering retained. White groups generally want the opposite.
It may seem like a contradiction, but the racists and the oppressed both seem to get it just fine, so maybe it's something that needs to be looked at a little more carefully.
It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.
Rigorous Scholarship
So?
And how, exactly, does the word change in any way impact any message?
So that's bad? Unless of course you're a better writer than Twain.
Come again Deebaser?
Soooo maybe it's not a good idea to change a great work of american fiction that has a lot to offer us about the time it was written as to not offend someones sensitivities?
Because the n-word and slave have entirely different meanings and connotations.
never mind me, Today's set of "Use Cases" have made me functionally retarded.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
Why is that bad? You have yet to demonstrate any harm or loss caused by a word substitution in a single edition. Really, if something this small can cause significant harm to western civilization, the various versions of Twain's autobiography would have caused the apocalypse by now.
Do you have total control over your feelings? What do I lose by respecting her feelings?
It's also perfectly rational, I feel.
The word being spoken by a white person has an association with unpleasant emotion. I mean, I guess we could put all black people in therapy to break that association, or something, but that seems just a tiny bit extreme.
It causes her discomfort. It costs me nothing not to do it. Why is this a hard choice? Why should she conform to me, instead of the other way around, even though that would be difficult to her, although it's easy for me to conform to her wishes?