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
OH wow, I've never been told to clean up my OWN community before worrying about what white people do. That's new!
Your issue was downright harassment. It's different context than what's being discussed. No one is being harassed by the book's use of the word or in any of those videos I linked.
They play music videos in high school English classes now?
No - I was pointing out a double standard in your evaluation, but feel free to get more worked up.
It's not like I never knew what it was like to be rejected by the white majority and mexican minorities growing up.
Damn being a half-blood!
I'm not talking about the author's intent. For the purposes of this discussion I don't give two shits about the author's intent.
I'm talking about preserving the impact of the book as an artifact from another era for the modern reader. For that, you can't occupy this bloody Heisenberg Uncertantity position you're trying to hang out in.
Either the change has a significant impact on how the modern reader perceives it (in which case, you have altered the artistic value of the work as a window into another era) or it has no impact at all (in which case, what's the bloody point?)
You don't get to play silly buggers and claim that the change makes the experience different for the modern reader by making it more comfortable AND that the change is totally minor guys practically a typo chill out don't make a mountain out of a mole-hill.
That position is bloody logically contradictory.
You realize that this is the entire point, right?
There are some towns where people are really, really racist against black people.
And there are some black people who say, "Hey, we're up for teaching Huck Finn in the classroom, but we would hate to give the racist kids more encouragement."
You realize that this is specious logic for censoring something?
It really isn't, since the issue being discussed is that teachers can use their discretion based on how students (and their parents) are feeling about the subject matter, and isn't a nationwide ban-hammer forcing a change on everyone everywhere for all time.
I don't get worked up by racism bingos.
I'm saying that it doesn't change any of the actual meanings of the work, with the only change being for the kind of people who argue with the author when he tells them that their interpretation is totally wrong.
Basically, you're bitching about Seamus Heaney updating the English of Beowulf.
So we get to let some people live in ignorance and others don't?
Once again - the word cunt offends me almost as much as the N word. Why aren't we removing that from literature? How about Pussy huh? Have you thought about how shitty it must feel to have something that is biologically tied to your body embody everything that is weak and powerless?
Yet we don't go around censoring every use of it in literature, even though it IS extremely negative and inherently sexist.
You really think teachers have that much control over their classrooms these days?
I'm a woman, so yeah, I have an idea.
Shifting goal posts. You blame the literature - he says the literature isn't the problem, it was these kids. Then you go onto say that the teacher can't control the kids.
So which is it? The kids or the literature?
And what is the bigger problem? The book or the fact that your teacher couldn't control the class?
Hint: The fucking teacher and the kids.
Pretty amusing considering how you just used it up there.
Guess the idea wasn't abhorrent enough to you.
You fail at critical reading forever.
Hey, how about you notice how I didn't come down either way on the word change for starters, and also that my original response was to be insulted by the notion that the only acceptable response to the topic were patronizing white folk and oversensitive black people?
Wow you had a shitty english class then.
And yet here we are on a board, where we're not allowed to use the same word in question.
I actually remember the day it was banned. It was right after the Michael Richards controversy, and people were debating whether or not black people should be offended. A lot of people were throwing around the phrase really casually as if it was no big deal.
And then the word was banned. If people wanted to discuss Michael Richards, they could. But they couldn't use that word anymore. Everyone knew what the word was. But the point was, "Hey, it's not okay to use this word casually anymore."
The search engine thing is an extension of that. Yes, the owners were probably annoyed that it was showing up in search engines. But the reason they got annoyed is because they didn't want potential surfers to get the impression that this is a board where the word gets used casually.
And so, here we are.
And you are basing this appeal to the unfallable trump card of Author's Intent on, what, your psychic power to reach beyond the grave and double-check with him?
Huckleberry Finn is the product of another era; what the reader finds in it helps them come to understand what that era was like. Monkeying with the text of it for the purposes of changing the meaning they find there is changing the only meaning worth talking about. You can't dodge this by claiming to Know The Will of Twain and arguing that relative to whatever you decide that is, the change is inconsequential.
Except that I'm not.
Middle-English Beowulf is updated to modern English in order to provide meaning to the modern reader.
Changing the text of Huckleberry Finn, which is completely readable to the modern reader, because you don't care for the meaning the modern reader finds there is not only wildly different, it's reprehensible.
Yeah, I'm ignoring him now, so this discussion just got shorter.
Yes. Are you insinuating that teachers are not capable of teaching and students are not capable of learning from the teacher?
I was taught racism was bad when I read Huck Finn in high school...pretty sure I was able to understand it. Even if I didn't have a teacher to tell me this was a major theme of the book that I'd be able to glean it from the text. It's a pretty obvious theme.
It got updated because for many its nearly impossible to understand, not because someone found it offensive,
I'm pretty sure he was arguing that this wasn't the correct response.
And what, this board is infallible?
The n-word ban here is also pretty specious. But it's a play-ground, not an important work of art from another era, and it isn't being enforced by changing people's words after the fact.
Forum discussions does not literature make.
Ignored you first!
You mean you were a racist before, and the book changed your mind? You learned that racism was bad from Huck Finn, and had no inkling of this before being taught the book? You casually referred to black people as n
before, and Huck Finn showed you the error of your ways?
Attack that man made of straw!
Either way - what you're saying is kind of lacking an argument.
I'm being ignored now by someone? The hell did I do? I thought my posts were pretty innocuous.
No. The teacher explained the major themes of the book (or maybe the class discussed them, guided by the teacher, what have you) through teaching. One of those major themes was anti-racism. I learned this about the book. It reinforced my already anti-racist disposition.
I have never referred to black people as n
. I have also never referred to women as cunts. I have also never referred to homosexuals as fags. I have also never referred to anyone as a n
, a cunt, a fag, etc etc etc, regardless of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc. I find labels disgusting and often useless. Even as a joke. Even as categories.
But I know that there are people who do not and I know that it is a problem in our society. A major problem. A problem that should be talked about openly and head-on. Doing so lends itself to an honest discussion.
If you quoted the book directly on this board, without the "*******", would the mod change it after the fact?
Remember, you're quoting literature.
He already pointed out that the board's logic was specious.
Connecting the dots suggests that he would find this specious as well.
And, once again: THE BEHAVIOUR OF AN INTERNET CHAT BOARD IS STILL UTERLY IRRELEVANT TO HUCKLEBERRY FINN AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF CHANGING IT
Appealing to this forum's rules is just about the worst attempt to use the Appeal to Authority fallacy I have ever witnessed.
And classrooms can't use specious logic because...?