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
Thats not our burden of proof.
You know those school with gang violence. They read n
in mark twain and bam, gang fight.
Seriously? We're editing out a word because it's not okay to call someone that?
It's not acceptable to call someone a dirty, shit-eating cunt. There are books with worse language than that, and we're not trying to edit all of those.
If you're explaining what the word means, and effectively telling the class, "Okay, every time you see the word 'slave', substitute the word 'n
' and that's what was originally there," then what the hell is the point? What special damage is done by seeing those six letters in sequence that is not done by simply knowing that word is supposed to be there?
There is no benefit for this kind of editing for which the rationale doesn't fold backwards on itself the second you look at it cross-eyed.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
How do you not have burden of proof? You keep claiming that the change is some sort of travesty. That is a positive claim.
I've laid out why you have burden and on what.
Hell even the most basic claim, thats its needed, hasn't been shown.
I'd like you to answer this when you get a chance Schrodinger.
Presumably in such classrooms you would also not be allowed to say "goddamn" or "shit" or whatnot, correct?
What other books do we need to edit? Let me know so I can start crusading. I assume we should start with Catcher In the Rye?
Also, if the reason is "we can't say that word in the classroom!" then can't we just not do out-loud readings of that book? I don't recall ever doing those in high-school, and I'm pretty sure it didn't affect my education adversely.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
By listing negative claims that I have to somehow prove.
The fact of the matter is that I've proven that your claims have the burden of proof by showing how they can be proven. Show me a test of my claims that the passing of would make them proven in your consideration?
Again, you're wrong on what is proving a negative and proving that something won't happen.
Prove you won't float away if you jump off the ground. Oh there you go. Proved.
But here's a positive to prove. Show its needed. No one here has shown this is some real issue. Are people getting in gang fights over n
Jim? Are just doing this because some kid somewhere got sad?
No dude. Those are all subjective, not factual. Deflecting with "You can't prove a negative" shows extreme ignorance of WHY you cannot prove a negative.
Just forget he said "prove", it's a little out of place and is confusing you. There's no magic "test" for either position. Just support your arguments.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
The book as written should make you feel a bit uncomfortable. Replacing the n word neuters a chunk of the impact.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.
Are we going to go through and clean out everything someone got sad over? Do we get to decide what offense is legit and what isnt?
Lord of the flies
Gone with the wind
Of mice and men
To kill a mockingbird
I can't prove that. I can prove that I stayed earthbound THIS TIME, but I may have gotten lucky.
For the test
A) I never said anything about gangs. That's your own strawman.
B) I never said that would happen, only that there were schools which were concerned with the eventuality, which is clearly true GIVEN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS. Of course, we've had someone post on this thread that he would have been harassed even worse were the book part of Canadian curricula, but you've chosen to ignore that, haven't you?
Now, any tests for the other two claims you claimed I had been making?
Show that this is even necessary. The only thing anyone said is hey some people find this offensive.
It may be, it may not be. I just disagree with the assertion that using the text does any sort of harm other than the slight difference between primary sources and highly reliable secondary sources. If someone thinks it'll make the class more welcoming, what's the big deal?
You might want to let the mods know about this glorious revelation.
So you want to go about changing classic literature because hey maybe someone won't like this word.
Yeah thats not ok.
"Change" like adjusting the format to fit your printing presses or subbing an inconsequential word or "change" like actually playing with plot elements of symbolism?
I suppose we'll be arguing about paperback editions of pre-paperback works next, as that's a pretty big change to a book.
Oh you know, going through and changing words so someone won't get offended.
Changing literature because it makes someone offended is fucking stupid and is one step from removing a book from the library because someone might get offended.
So you don't feel there's any change in meaning for the reader between
and
Is this getting ignored? Under what criteria should we allow or ban the use of the N word in art, music, literature, culture?
You can't be selective using arbitrary criteria.
We already have that rule on this board when we have to use "n-word."
So...
It's a good thing nothing we write on the penny-arcade forums could possibly be misconstrued as literature and that the internet wouldn't have a field day abusing the word.
Talk about ignoring context.
which is a good idea.
Murder in Mississippi presents the use of the word as a bad thing. Which is was, in the era it was use, and which is still true today.
Huck Finn portrays it ambiguously. Which it was, in the era, but not true today.
You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.
I'd really like to hear an answer to this, Is there a qualitative difference in experience for the modern reader between those to versions, or not?
Only in the modern usage of the former word, but at least we're arguing substantively.
So there is, then, a significant difference for the modern reader between the two versions and the change you are dismissing as minor is not, in fact, slight and inconsequential
What if we call Heck Finn "a book" instead? Is it okay now?
And it's not like an immature HS student in the south will assume that it's okay to start using the N-word because "I'm just quoting Huck Finn."
No one is saying, "All schools have to do this." But there are some schools where they've decided, "You know, a lot of kids love using that word enough already, better not give them an excuse."
So in other words, unless the work is moralizing and providing a lesson (ie, using the n word is bad, pedophelia is bad), it should be censored? That is to say books that contain content that is deemed socially unacceptable should be censored?
I think that eliminates literature with homosexual sex in every region but the northeast and california.
See what I mean? This censorship is purely subjective. That's problematic because it's cherry picking.
Lolita?
Hey, you know, feel free to call me a thin-skinned pussy and whatever, but it kind of sucked to have my entire class calling me N
every time the teachers turned their backs, and I'm having trouble thinking of ways it could have been positive to re-introduce the subject in an official capacity, with the teacher then intoning that it was a bad thing. Cause, you know, they already knew that. They already knew that to use the word was upsetting. This is not news to people.
I'm not taking a stance on the word change myself, as I've said, I'm rather conflicted about it, so I'm mostly staying out of the thread because this debate feels rather personal. But whatever! Some black people use the N word so I guess we're all totally cool with it!
Okay, thin-skinned pussy checking out. Carry on.
And how is the misinterpretations of a modern reader in any way related to author intent? Translating the work would be a big change for the people speaking the language the work is being translated into, but I think we can all agree that the assertion that the concept of translation tramples on author intent is ridiculous.
The idea that pedophilia and incest is wrong is subjective?
By that logic, how in the world do teachers decide on anything, ever?
Sounds like you had a problem before Huckleberry Finn was talked about.
Don't project an issue with these people onto the book.
Feel free to project it on music videos.
No - the idea that you can't write, teach, or talk about a story involving pedophilia regardless of its merits without it being CENSORED is subjective.