I bet slavery is pretty hurtful too, maybe they shouldn't read books that have it either.
Shit better not read about the Old West either unless you offend an Indian.
We don't need to be going back through our old literature and making sure we're always been at war with Eurasia.
History involves some pretty ugly stuff. A curriculum that tries to whitewash the ugly bits out is not doing its students a service.
I'm assuming that teachers don't just throw Huckleberry Finn at students without discussing the historical and cultural context of the book. If students are too young or immature to deal with reading Huckleberry Finn (or Merchant of Venice, or excepts from Mein Kampf or Hitler's speeches) because doing so might hurt their feelings, then it's best to leave those works out of the classroom.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
You could if you could show some actual harm, so I guess you're right. You aren't going to convince me.
Also, you're stretching the definition you posted, as your use in no way fits "one's capacity as a censor."
Are you being purposefully obtuse or did you just not read the definition that is bolded, italicized and underlined?
There is more than one definition of the word. No one is stretching anything.
No, I did did not read the definition that I quote verbatim in the very text you're responding to. I just highlighted a random block of text from the thread with my eyes closed and copy-pasted it. In fact, I can niether speak English nor read in any language, and am just pounding on the keyboard of my typewriter.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
Can you show me one case that started like that, even ignoring the fact that "PC reasons" is a meaningless term for anything the person using it doesn't like?
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
You could if you could show some actual harm, so I guess you're right. You aren't going to convince me.
Also, you're stretching the definition you posted, as your use in no way fits "one's capacity as a censor."
Are you being purposefully obtuse or did you just not read the definition that is bolded, italicized and underlined?
There is more than one definition of the word. No one is stretching anything.
No, I did did not read the definition that I quote verbatim in the very text you're responding to. I just highlighted a random block of text from the thread with my eyes closed and copy-pasted it. In fact, I can niether speak English nor read in any language, and am just pounding on the keyboard of my typewriter.
Again, thanks for not contributing in any way, shape or form.
If you're not going to argue in good faith, don't bother responding to my posts. Thanks.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
Can you show me one case that started like that, even ignoring the fact that "PC reasons" is a meaningless term for anything the person using it doesn't like?
How about Rosa's Law?
A group is annoyed by something they see as not being PC and they lobby to have it changed.
It's changed.
Other people will now follow suit for fear of being seen as bad, un-PC people.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
You're operating under an incorrect definition of censor, the correct one is in the quote tree.
I didn't argue that. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Remind me why this example of censorship is bad? And don't give be some sort of blanket "censorship is EVIL" reason. I can give a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the school would not want to provide the original text, and since students can get another copy of the original text it's not as though their experience of reading Mark Twain is forever ruined. The school is providing an option.
I would also appreciate it if you could tell me that claiming an altered version of the text should not exist is not a form of censorship in itself. If believing that people have the right to alter texts and print them is a form of censorship, then hell yes I'm pro censorship because I think people should have the right to print whatever they goddamn want.
If some private book circle wants to engage in selective reading and ignore part of the context in which a given piece of literature was written it, because that context - while historically well documented - is uncomfortable, they're totally free to do so.
Why a system that claims to set out to advance the education of it's charges would be allowed to do the same, I don't see.
An insitution that claims it's primary goal is education should not censor a given historical work, where understanding the context in which it was written is actually one of the more important points of reading the work in the first place. I'm not going to say that all censorship is bad, but as someone said, back in the day, even the good guys were racist assholes. This is something that has to be aknowledged, and dealt with.
Not swept under the rug with we've always been at war with Eurasia, sorrywheredidthatcomefrom, they didn't really use these offensive words because they weren't out to offend. Proper education, in a democratic society, should not be 'optional', it should be the rock-solid Mission Statement of the entire educational system.
Freedom of speech does not mean the right to say whatever you want in any place at any time without consequence. This particularly applies to schools. If a kid or parent in a school started shouting racial slurs, they would be asked to leave. That's not censorship, it's creating a respectful school environment. That should also apply to coursework. I would expect (and I'm sure you would too) a school to fire a teacher who assigned Mein Kampf on the spot. You might learn a lot about Nazi Germany from reading it, but it's supremely offensive and there are plenty of other ways to learn about Nazis and WWII. Huck Finn is not in the same boat as Mein Kampf, not even close, but there are plenty of other good books about the antebellum south for school-age children that could be read intead of Huck Finn, so why not do just that?
I would expect no such thing. Though I'd question assigning the entire book, assigning passages of Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches to a class of high school history students would be perfectly legitimate in a discussion about WWII, Nazi ideology and the like. We were assigned such reading in high school and no one had issues with it. We also watched portions of Triumph of the Will when discussing propaganda.
It certainly gave us an understanding of the underpinnings of the ideology that drove the Holocaust.
But, I suppose since some people might have been offended because Hitler said bad things about Jews, we should have ignored that important historical lesson.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
You could if you could show some actual harm, so I guess you're right. You aren't going to convince me.
Also, you're stretching the definition you posted, as your use in no way fits "one's capacity as a censor."
Are you being purposefully obtuse or did you just not read the definition that is bolded, italicized and underlined?
There is more than one definition of the word. No one is stretching anything.
No, I did did not read the definition that I quote verbatim in the very text you're responding to. I just highlighted a random block of text from the thread with my eyes closed and copy-pasted it. In fact, I can niether speak English nor read in any language, and am just pounding on the keyboard of my typewriter.
Again, thanks for not contributing in any way, shape or form.
If you're not going to argue in good faith, don't bother responding to my posts. Thanks.
Just because an argument hurts your precious ego by calling you out doesn't mean that it's not a contribution to debate. You posted a well know fallacy and dodged an argument and I called you out on both, so now you're having a hissy fit and refusing to debate. Which one of us is arguing in bad faith?
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
Can you show me one case that started like that, even ignoring the fact that "PC reasons" is a meaningless term for anything the person using it doesn't like?
How about Rosa's Law?
A group is annoyed by something they see as not being PC and they lobby to have it changed.
It's changed.
Other people will now follow suit for fear of being seen as bad, un-PC people.
You mean the law in which government documents were updated to reflect the presiding medical consensus?
Just because an argument hurts your precious ego by calling you out doesn't mean that it's not a contribution to debate. You posted a well know fallacy and dodged an argument and I called you out on both, so now you're having a hissy fit and refusing to debate. Which one of us is arguing in bad faith?
Nothing hurt my ego and I'm not having a hissy fit. I have quite the flaccid e-peen in this particular discussion. I'm not taking it as seriously as you think, apparently.
I didn't post any fallacy. And what argument did I dodge?
You are arguing in bad faith by seemingly completely ignoring a valid definition of a word and then telling us that we're stretching it.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
Can you show me one case that started like that, even ignoring the fact that "PC reasons" is a meaningless term for anything the person using it doesn't like?
How about Rosa's Law?
A group is annoyed by something they see as not being PC and they lobby to have it changed.
It's changed.
Other people will now follow suit for fear of being seen as bad, un-PC people.
You mean the law in which government documents were updated to reflect the presiding medical consensus?
Thank you for proving my point.
If your point was that things are becoming increasingly more PC in this country and now other entities besides the federal government will also change their verbiage so as not to be seen as terrible, then you're welcome.
If you meant anything else, then I helped you prove nothing.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
There is a stark different between asking people to be more sensitive in present day language, and asking people to re-edit established literature.
Suppose that someone wanted to edit the movie "Psycho" so that Norman Bates was no longer a serial killer. Would anyone complain, "You see? This is why we shouldn't look down on murder."
HEY GUYS WOULDN"T IT BE TERRIBLE IF HUCK FINN WAS CENSORED
GOOD THING NOBODY'S PROPOSING THAT, BECAUSE CENSORING MEANS ELIMINATING ALL COPIES OF A TEXT, LIKE BURNING THEM OR SOME SHIT, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE TEXT
CAN YOU FUCKERS PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS SO I CAN STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS THNX
cen·sor
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor. 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Would someone like to claim that this isn't what is being done? Becuase that's exactly what's being done.
You can stop typing in all caps now.
Generally that's in the context of, say, a TV show being censored before airing -- the primary (and perhaps only) way people will see or interact with that show is on broadcast, and if the word is bleeped or, even worse, pre-emptively removed, then it is permanently changed. In the context of books, this would be if it were censored before being published by the editor, or by a review board that prohibited certain words in all printed material nation-wide.
Also, you know, it's government-mandated.
I guess you think that, even if there were no FCC rules, if private companies voluntarily decided not to show naked tits, hardcore fucking, f-bomb and n-bombs and intravenous drug use before 7 PM (you know, out of respect to families or some other tyrannical notion), that would be censorship?
Well, if that is your definition of censorship, then I can safely say that I don't care about censorship.
You can't just change the definition of a word dramatically and then expect that I will happily go along with you and import all the meaning and impact of a much narrower, much more meaningful definition of the word.
The argument about censorship is fucking dumb. Whether or not this editing of huck finn rises to the level of whatever definition of censorship you care to find ought to be irrelevant to this discussion, because editing and re-releasing Twain's (or anyone else's) work vis a vis the modern perspective is a perfectly valid form of cultural criticism.
It's just that in this case, it's a profoundly dumb cultural criticism.
This publishing company is basically saying that there is a need to release a sanitized version of historic texts, because Americans are too stupid or too reactionary or both to grapple with the simple realities of our own history.
A school shouldn't assign Mein Kampf? Of course it should! What kind of a myopic view of history is it that says students shouldn't be assigned primary documents?
If students aren't mature enough to address Mein Kampf or Huck Finn or anything in between, the solution isn't to dumb those books down or to remove some of their essential meaning, it's to assign something appropriate for the maturity level of the students.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
There is a stark different between asking people to be more sensitive in present day language, and asking people to re-edit established literature.
Suppose that someone wanted to edit the movie "Psycho" so that Norman Bates was no longer a serial killer. Would anyone complain, "You see? This is why we shouldn't look down on murder."
"Psycho" is offensive to the sanity challenged community. If you would like to add it to your Netflix Queue please search under the new title "Murderpus Rex"
Just because an argument hurts your precious ego by calling you out doesn't mean that it's not a contribution to debate. You posted a well know fallacy and dodged an argument and I called you out on both, so now you're having a hissy fit and refusing to debate. Which one of us is arguing in bad faith?
Nothing hurt my ego and I'm not having a hissy fit. I have quite the flaccid e-peen in this particular discussion. I'm not taking it as seriously as you think, apparently.
I didn't post any fallacy. And what argument did I dodge?
You are arguing in bad faith by seemingly completely ignoring a valid definition of a word and then telling us that we're stretching it.
You posted a slippery slope. That's a fallacy.
You dodged my assertion that you were ignoring half of the definition you yourself posted by asking if I'd read the quotation I'd posted.
Only if people stop calling this vocabulary evolution when it isn't. Its changing classical literature so you find it less offensive.
Which is not censorship unless it's mandated, universal, government-controlled, etc.
There will still be a shitload of Huck Finn Classic(TM) floating around. In, say, that very school's libraries.
Again, we've asked you again and again to draw a logical line between your definition of censorship, and saying that it's "censorship" to exclude Hustler from the curriculum of high school students, and you refuse to do so. You just keep repeating "it's censorship!" as if us disagreeing with you is something to disgusting and anti-liberty that it would debase liberty itself for you to even explain yourself.
The colloquial use of the term is valid. The sanitization of a text by partial removal of words, images, etc. is considered a form of censorship.
Yes but if the regular version is still widely available...
This isn't like publishing companies editing out references to Communism during the Red Scare because they don't want to be subpoenaed -- this is one editor taking a public domain work and replacing a word because they think there will be a market for it.
THAT
IS
NOT
CENSORSHIP
This whole argument is a red-herring
But, even if it is "a form" of censorship, then it's a form so distinct that applying to that form the same moral weight as government-sanctioned book-burnings or Newspeak is fucking absurd.
Again, we've asked you again and again to draw a logical line between your definition of censorship, and saying that it's "censorship" to exclude Hustler from the curriculum of high school students, and you refuse to do so. You just keep repeating "it's censorship!" as if us disagreeing with you is something to disgusting and anti-liberty that it would debase liberty itself for you to even explain yourself.
The difference is choosing something with educational merit or not. Don't choose to teach Hustler. Fine, not censorship any more than anything else you didn't teach.
Choose to teach something only after you edit it to be less offensive: censorship.
You are running under a silly threshold for censorship Fartacus. The radio censors lyrics. That I can go buy the uncensored songs doesn't make what the radio does any less a case of censorship. Claiming its only censorship if you can't get access to the pure version is false.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
Thank (insert higher being here) someone posted this.
Slippery slope is not an excuse to ignore reasonably foreseeable consequences.
"If we execute this obviously guilty monster, in the future a likely innocent person might be executed due to racism and violation of due process!"
"Slippery slope."
Oh, wait...
I'm not even refering to Newspeak, actually, but rather the Ministry of Truth, and their propensity to rewrite history (very literally) in line with accepted view at the time.
Which still isn't what's being done.
Look up what "analogy" or "draw a parallel to" means. If it was 100% the same thing with no variance, then it wouldn't be a fucking analogy, it would be what we are talking about.
I guess I could spell this out more simply for people who have a hard-on for bitching about 1984 references:
It is reasonably likely that if we get into the habit of editing content of well established literature to reduce its offensiveness, this will be abused by government officials and ideologues to further agendas you or I may not agree with. If we keep literature as-is but contextualize it and promote critical thinking and understanding historical eras, this will be more difficult to subvert for several reasons, one of which is regardless of what is said about the text, the students at least have the original text of it to read for themselves.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor. 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Would someone like to claim that this isn't what is being done? Becuase that's exactly what's being done.
You can stop typing in all caps now.
You can still go to the bookstore and pick up a copy of Huck Finn in its perfect, unblemished form.
Hell a kid reading the book can still go and pick one up in its perfect, unblemished form for $4.99, he just won't be given it by the school. From a practical standpoint, it's moot, besides people getting their undies in a bunch at the prospect of providing an altered text in any way shape or form.
You're operating under an incorrect definition of censor, the correct one is in the quote tree.
Actually, you'll note that the definition in the quote tree is definition #7 -- indicating both that (A) there is not one single definition of censorship, and (B) the one you are cherry-picking is not at the top because it is far from the most common.
Contextually, you were using this definition:
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
Specifically with a connotative addition of government mandate, etc.
You're trying to import the moral weight and meaning of "censorship" as meant in 1984 or other discourse on liberty and tyranny (book burnings, banned books, government-approved news, violence against dissidents, etc) to a literal, denotative definition that has nothing to do with the above mentioned versions.
What you are doing is common but intellectually dishonest -- it's like Ludwig von Mises trying to important the weight of the word "rationality" to describe all human action even though he twisted the meaning of the word so severely it no longer meant the same thing; well if it doesn't mean the same thing, then why would I give it the same weight?
You've done the same. You're using the moral force of the argument against true or severe or whatever-you-want-to-call it censorship -- censorship that alters permanently, universally, initially, or otherwise suppresses objectionable material.
In this case no objectionable material is being suppressed -- no one is advocating reducing the circulation of Huck Finn or locking it away or replacing all the old versions with the new one. Instead, a new material is being offered in a marketplace as a desirable alternative.
By your logic, the Chevy Volt is censorship because it deleted the internal combustion engine from the car!
Changing something isn't censorship. Releasing a different, updated or remixed version isn't censorship. Declining to sell or distribute a particular piece of media isn't censorship. Censorship is a governmental authority exercising power to make media unavailable.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Again, we've asked you again and again to draw a logical line between your definition of censorship, and saying that it's "censorship" to exclude Hustler from the curriculum of high school students, and you refuse to do so. You just keep repeating "it's censorship!" as if us disagreeing with you is something to disgusting and anti-liberty that it would debase liberty itself for you to even explain yourself.
The difference is choosing something with educational merit or not. Don't choose to teach Hustler. Fine, not censorship any more than anything else you didn't teach.
Choose to teach something only after you edit it to be less offensive: censorship.
You are running under a silly threshold for censorship Fartacus. The radio censors lyrics. That I can go buy the uncensored songs doesn't make what the radio does any less a case of censorship. Claiming its only censorship if you can't get access to the pure version is false.
OK, but that's censorship I don't care about -- because I can go buy the uncensored song.
The radio station -- a private company trying to make money -- has no obligation to play songs with the vulgar language intact.
We can gripe about the government restricting their ability to do so, but again I don't much care because it's rather easy to circumvent.
This is actually even less of a serious case of censorship than the government censoring radio because this is a private company choosing to voluntarily edit and re-publish Huckleberry Finn because they think they can make a buck off it, and schools might prefer it, as might many private individuals and institutions.
edit: No one is forcing them to edit it, or fining publishers who don't. It's not really even comparable to radio censorship.
And also, if you want to call this censorship -- fine! Be my guest. But don't expect me to act like a blind fool and treat it with equal severity as a government-sanctioned book-burning because they have the same word attached to them (by you). If you are incapable of seeing difference in degree, well then I'm not sure how you get through life, let alone have any idea of what a thoughtful debate looks like.
Again, we've asked you again and again to draw a logical line between your definition of censorship, and saying that it's "censorship" to exclude Hustler from the curriculum of high school students, and you refuse to do so. You just keep repeating "it's censorship!" as if us disagreeing with you is something to disgusting and anti-liberty that it would debase liberty itself for you to even explain yourself.
The difference is choosing something with educational merit or not. Don't choose to teach Hustler. Fine, not censorship any more than anything else you didn't teach.
Choose to teach something only after you edit it to be less offensive: censorship.
You are running under a silly threshold for censorship Fartacus. The radio censors lyrics. That I can go buy the uncensored songs doesn't make what the radio does any less a case of censorship. Claiming its only censorship if you can't get access to the pure version is false.
Yes it is. If you even google "slippery slope," you get lists of fallacies.
Your own definition of "censorship" used the phrase "in the capacity of a censor." Which of these does your usage pertain to?
1.
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.
any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3.
an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4.
(in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5.
(in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.
Hey to the people it hurts, it often isn't! But I'm glad you've got the credentials to tell all black people how to feel.
My girlfriend -- someone who knows I love her and whom I treat with utmost respect always -- does not allow me to say the n-word, even when quoting (including quoting her, as she uses it all the time), or in discussing it politically or philosophically.
Why? Because hearing any white person say it makes her uncomfortable -- at best. Even someone she trusts and loves.
But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
That one.
And its only a slippery slope if there is no logical chain of action and consequence in the theorized set of out comes.
But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?
If her proposed alternative is to filter out the word from classical literature? Yes.
Anyway, I'm at work and prolonged debates are a bit of a distraction and its hard for me to keep up with both. I'll pick this one up again in a few hours.
Just because an argument hurts your precious ego by calling you out doesn't mean that it's not a contribution to debate. You posted a well know fallacy and dodged an argument and I called you out on both, so now you're having a hissy fit and refusing to debate. Which one of us is arguing in bad faith?
Nothing hurt my ego and I'm not having a hissy fit. I have quite the flaccid e-peen in this particular discussion. I'm not taking it as seriously as you think, apparently.
I didn't post any fallacy. And what argument did I dodge?
You are arguing in bad faith by seemingly completely ignoring a valid definition of a word and then telling us that we're stretching it.
You posted a slippery slope. That's a fallacy.
You dodged my assertion that you were ignoring half of the definition you yourself posted by asking if I'd read the quotation I'd posted.
I didn't post a slippery slope fallacy. Continuing to say it does not make it any more true. Forseeable and reasonable consequences of an action do not equal a slippery slope.
How was I ignoring half the defintion that I posted? Since you apparently can't look up definitions to words yourself, I'll just lay everything out and maybe we can figure out what your beef with me is (courtesy of Dictionary.com).
cen·sor /ˈsɛnsər/
[sen-ser]
–noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Definition 1 doesn't really apply to this situation, as it really only refers to a censor in a governmental capacity.
But definitions 2 and 3 definitely apply. The company publishing this version of Huck Finn are both critical of the language used in the book and are supervising the manners and morality of others by removing content they deem objectionable.
Which leads to definition 7, which has already been posted.
The publishing company is acting as a censor to censor something. I'm not really sure how I can make this any clearer.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I would agree that putting this on the level of government sponsored suppression of information is absurd, fartacus
However it plucks the same western democratic value strings. People don't like the idea of artistic integrity being compromised by altering the piece based on its audience.
Really I feel that if the class cannot handle the n bomb, you should not teach them huck Finn. One of the more important conversations about the book is the one about racism, simply because the word is used. If you change that, you're not really teaching Huck Finn. I would say the same of Faulkner or Conrad.
In high school, as I mentioned, it's important to be more sensitive to students' emotional needs, and if having an obligatory discussion of racism through reading racist language is too difficult for them, then so be it; you don't want to alienate them or make them feel unsafe in their school.
I have found that black students are usually pretty interested in discussing racism and engaging the topic if that is one of the explicit goals of that part of the curriculum, but I live in Canada, and I have only taught university students, so my anecdote is not resoundingly powerful.
Do you understand how stupid this dictionaryfight is for the purpose of this discussion?
Even if this is "censorship," it's "censorship" that should be allowed. What point are you trying to make?
edit: also, the fact that the dictionary includes colloquial/conversational usages that fall outside the academic/official meaning of the word "censorship" doesn't really strengthen your case. Can I also bring urbandictionary's definition into this discussion?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I guess you think that, even if there were no FCC rules, if private companies voluntarily decided not to show naked tits, hardcore fucking, f-bomb and n-bombs and intravenous drug use before 7 PM (you know, out of respect to families or some other tyrannical notion), that would be censorship?
Technically, it would be.
But trying to equate historical literature used for the purposes of educating to a TV show that is purely for entertainment's sake is a pretty terrible argument to make. They're not the same thing and I'm pretty sure that you know that.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
And also, if you want to call this censorship -- fine! Be my guest. But don't expect me to act like a blind fool and treat it with equal severity as a government-sanctioned book-burning because they have the same word attached to them (by you). If you are incapable of seeing difference in degree, well then I'm not sure how you get through life, let alone have any idea of what a thoughtful debate looks like.
And are readers going to be informed this is an edited version of the book and told what was changed? Because if not, it absolutely is the same thing, particularly if this given copy is mandated by schools (you know, government institutions).
I object to being intentionally deceived by omission and I'm an adult who considers myself above the median in terms of ability to find and evaluate information. Doing the same to children is simply gross falsehood.
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.
Hey to the people it hurts, it often isn't! But I'm glad you've got the credentials to tell all black people how to feel.
My girlfriend -- someone who knows I love her and whom I treat with utmost respect always -- does not allow me to say the n-word, even when quoting (including quoting her, as she uses it all the time), or in discussing it politically or philosophically.
Why? Because hearing any white person say it makes her uncomfortable -- at best. Even someone she trusts and loves.
But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?
Yes, she should. I understand the value of context, but being so hypersensitive that you cannot stand hearing your own words said by someone else is hypocritical and over reactionary.
Fine. Let's make everything "safe and comfortable". Let's edit everything ever so that no one is ever offended. Wouldn't want people talking about anything controversial in school, now would we? No, we need to coddle children so that they're used to not having any of their views challenged. That will certainly prepare them for the real world.
You're right. Making children read a hateful word that they've doubtless had hurled at them dozens or hundreds of times throughout their life in the specific intent to hurt them -- that's just "challenging their views."
We should definitely make sure to challenge everyone's views. We should read some books that call atheists heathens and liars and hell-bound satanist scum -- hell we should probably just have kids read the Bible in class! That would really "challenge the values" of those coddled Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Atheists! Plus, it's classic literature!
Now, I brought that up because I wanted to point out an example of something many people believe sincerely, and an example of tradition that would hurt you, and see if you feel the same way.
Personally, I have no problem leaving the Bible out of English classrooms, even though it has had huge literary impact, is a classic, and is culturally important. I suppose you disagree.
Also, I'd like to mention that no one here has actually advocated for "mak[ing] everything safe and comfortable." That's your willful misinterpretation of our stance. No one here has suggested editing everything so no one is ever offended -- clearly that's impossible anyway, since the acting of editing is offensive to many, such as yourself.
What we advocated is that maybe it's not goddamn immoral or the end of liberal democracy as we know it if someone decides to print a Huck Finn edition with the n-word edited out, and maybe some schools choose to teach it.
And, yes, I think there is some merit to saying "Hm, we have a group of students who are caused discomfort or harm by reading this book in our curriculum. That could conflict with our educational goals by making them perform poorly on this specific assignment, but also by making them feel alienated and unwelcome in our institution, something this group struggles with already. Is the unique educational value of this book worth that harm? If so, is there a way to retain the educational value of the book while making the group in question feel more welcome and valued?"
That is a super reasonable question to ask and discussion to have. It's not even remotely analogous to "mak[ing] everything safe and comfortable" or ensuring that "no one is ever offended."
It's responding to a specific, oft-vocalized complaint by a group of students who are not being well-served by being made to read that book.
While we're at it, let's never talk about slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights movement, the Trail of Tears or the way the United States put Asian-American people in internment camps in the 1940's. We might offend someone, right?
Funny, most oppressed groups never have a problem with that stuff. In fact, historically, the censorship side has been on the side of not teaching about these things because it would offend whites. Including the history and suffering of oppressed groups is sort of the opposite of the goals we're talking about: making sure all students, including those of oppressed/non-privileged groups feel valued and welcomed.
Though, sometimes, it is an issue. For instance, my mom once taught a book on Vietnam in her English class, and one of her Hmong students became visibly upset -- upon talking to him individually, he became so angry he came to tears, and spoke about how reading about this made him hate America, hate what happened to his family, hate white people. It dredged up real and painful emotion for him.
And yet it's her job to educate this boy. Does that mean we excise the teaching of Vietnam from all school curricula? No. It's historically important. But maybe you do have to occasionally tailor certain curricula to certain students with a bit of individual attention -- I mean, it's not like the kid didn't know about what happened in the Vietnam war; his family suffered atrocities and fled the country.
Huck Finn, however, is not the Vietnam war -- there is no replacement for teaching the Vietnam War. You cannot teach the Koren War as a substitute and still get the basic idea across, whereas Huck Finn arguably doesn't deliver anything that other books can't deliver just as well. And maybe it delivers the same exact content with no meaningful distortion if a single word is edited out and replaced.
So it's not really a valid comparison, and even more to the point, you're arguing against something no one was arguing for. And you eliminated real complexity that exists in the teaching of minority students, which you would know if you were a teacher, for instance, or knew people of color.
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.
Hey to the people it hurts, it often isn't! But I'm glad you've got the credentials to tell all black people how to feel.
My girlfriend -- someone who knows I love her and whom I treat with utmost respect always -- does not allow me to say the n-word, even when quoting (including quoting her, as she uses it all the time), or in discussing it politically or philosophically.
Why? Because hearing any white person say it makes her uncomfortable -- at best. Even someone she trusts and loves.
But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?
So Styro points out that context matters. You bring up your girlfriend, who thinks it's offensive when you use the word, but uses it herself. I would, from this, infer that your girlfriend - like Styro - by using the word herself and not being offended by it, also believes context matters.
If she also thinks classical literature written centuries ago is a less acceptable context than the words that come out of her own mouth today, then I would consider this a problem, yes. But she's certainly grasped the salient point already - context matters.
There are pages and pages being written as if the only choices are to censor the work and teach it, or teach the uncensored work to all children everywhere.
Occasionally someone will interject that, hey, maybe you can not publish a censored copy and only teach it in the appropriate setting!
But those replies are being swept aside by outrage.
Posts
I'm assuming that teachers don't just throw Huckleberry Finn at students without discussing the historical and cultural context of the book. If students are too young or immature to deal with reading Huckleberry Finn (or Merchant of Venice, or excepts from Mein Kampf or Hitler's speeches) because doing so might hurt their feelings, then it's best to leave those works out of the classroom.
Rigorous Scholarship
No, I did did not read the definition that I quote verbatim in the very text you're responding to. I just highlighted a random block of text from the thread with my eyes closed and copy-pasted it. In fact, I can niether speak English nor read in any language, and am just pounding on the keyboard of my typewriter.
Congratulations! You made a post that didn't make any point whatsoever!
And it would be a slippery slope if there were not proof that something like that could happen. But there is. This country is becoming increasingly more PC (as has been shown in this thread) for fear of "hurting someone's feelings" and those things could certainly happen. Would you like to explain to me why they wouldn't ever happen?
Slippery slope = "Once people can gay marry, they're going to marry dogs and/or toasters!"
Not slippery slope = "One company edits a book for PC reasons, others might follow suit for fear of bothering people"
This is why censorship is something we can give no ground on.
Can you show me one case that started like that, even ignoring the fact that "PC reasons" is a meaningless term for anything the person using it doesn't like?
Again, thanks for not contributing in any way, shape or form.
If you're not going to argue in good faith, don't bother responding to my posts. Thanks.
How about Rosa's Law?
A group is annoyed by something they see as not being PC and they lobby to have it changed.
It's changed.
Other people will now follow suit for fear of being seen as bad, un-PC people.
Why a system that claims to set out to advance the education of it's charges would be allowed to do the same, I don't see.
An insitution that claims it's primary goal is education should not censor a given historical work, where understanding the context in which it was written is actually one of the more important points of reading the work in the first place. I'm not going to say that all censorship is bad, but as someone said, back in the day, even the good guys were racist assholes. This is something that has to be aknowledged, and dealt with.
Not swept under the rug with we've always been at war with Eurasia, sorrywheredidthatcomefrom, they didn't really use these offensive words because they weren't out to offend. Proper education, in a democratic society, should not be 'optional', it should be the rock-solid Mission Statement of the entire educational system.
It certainly gave us an understanding of the underpinnings of the ideology that drove the Holocaust.
But, I suppose since some people might have been offended because Hitler said bad things about Jews, we should have ignored that important historical lesson.
Rigorous Scholarship
Just because an argument hurts your precious ego by calling you out doesn't mean that it's not a contribution to debate. You posted a well know fallacy and dodged an argument and I called you out on both, so now you're having a hissy fit and refusing to debate. Which one of us is arguing in bad faith?
You mean the law in which government documents were updated to reflect the presiding medical consensus?
Thank you for proving my point.
Fixed that for you.
Your point has not been proven, and he has not done it for you.
Don't be a dick.
EDIT: Are you still contesting this is not censorship when the definition was already posted?
Nothing hurt my ego and I'm not having a hissy fit. I have quite the flaccid e-peen in this particular discussion. I'm not taking it as seriously as you think, apparently.
I didn't post any fallacy. And what argument did I dodge?
You are arguing in bad faith by seemingly completely ignoring a valid definition of a word and then telling us that we're stretching it.
If your point was that things are becoming increasingly more PC in this country and now other entities besides the federal government will also change their verbiage so as not to be seen as terrible, then you're welcome.
If you meant anything else, then I helped you prove nothing.
Suppose that someone wanted to edit the movie "Psycho" so that Norman Bates was no longer a serial killer. Would anyone complain, "You see? This is why we shouldn't look down on murder."
Generally that's in the context of, say, a TV show being censored before airing -- the primary (and perhaps only) way people will see or interact with that show is on broadcast, and if the word is bleeped or, even worse, pre-emptively removed, then it is permanently changed. In the context of books, this would be if it were censored before being published by the editor, or by a review board that prohibited certain words in all printed material nation-wide.
Also, you know, it's government-mandated.
I guess you think that, even if there were no FCC rules, if private companies voluntarily decided not to show naked tits, hardcore fucking, f-bomb and n-bombs and intravenous drug use before 7 PM (you know, out of respect to families or some other tyrannical notion), that would be censorship?
Well, if that is your definition of censorship, then I can safely say that I don't care about censorship.
You can't just change the definition of a word dramatically and then expect that I will happily go along with you and import all the meaning and impact of a much narrower, much more meaningful definition of the word.
It's just that in this case, it's a profoundly dumb cultural criticism.
This publishing company is basically saying that there is a need to release a sanitized version of historic texts, because Americans are too stupid or too reactionary or both to grapple with the simple realities of our own history.
A school shouldn't assign Mein Kampf? Of course it should! What kind of a myopic view of history is it that says students shouldn't be assigned primary documents?
If students aren't mature enough to address Mein Kampf or Huck Finn or anything in between, the solution isn't to dumb those books down or to remove some of their essential meaning, it's to assign something appropriate for the maturity level of the students.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"Psycho" is offensive to the sanity challenged community. If you would like to add it to your Netflix Queue please search under the new title "Murderpus Rex"
You posted a slippery slope. That's a fallacy.
You dodged my assertion that you were ignoring half of the definition you yourself posted by asking if I'd read the quotation I'd posted.
Which is not censorship unless it's mandated, universal, government-controlled, etc.
There will still be a shitload of Huck Finn Classic(TM) floating around. In, say, that very school's libraries.
Again, we've asked you again and again to draw a logical line between your definition of censorship, and saying that it's "censorship" to exclude Hustler from the curriculum of high school students, and you refuse to do so. You just keep repeating "it's censorship!" as if us disagreeing with you is something to disgusting and anti-liberty that it would debase liberty itself for you to even explain yourself.
Which is hilarious and not very convincing.
Yes but if the regular version is still widely available...
This isn't like publishing companies editing out references to Communism during the Red Scare because they don't want to be subpoenaed -- this is one editor taking a public domain work and replacing a word because they think there will be a market for it.
THAT
IS
NOT
CENSORSHIP
This whole argument is a red-herring
But, even if it is "a form" of censorship, then it's a form so distinct that applying to that form the same moral weight as government-sanctioned book-burnings or Newspeak is fucking absurd.
No, no its not.
The difference is choosing something with educational merit or not. Don't choose to teach Hustler. Fine, not censorship any more than anything else you didn't teach.
Choose to teach something only after you edit it to be less offensive: censorship.
You are running under a silly threshold for censorship Fartacus. The radio censors lyrics. That I can go buy the uncensored songs doesn't make what the radio does any less a case of censorship. Claiming its only censorship if you can't get access to the pure version is false.
Thank (insert higher being here) someone posted this.
Slippery slope is not an excuse to ignore reasonably foreseeable consequences.
"If we execute this obviously guilty monster, in the future a likely innocent person might be executed due to racism and violation of due process!"
"Slippery slope."
Oh, wait...
Look up what "analogy" or "draw a parallel to" means. If it was 100% the same thing with no variance, then it wouldn't be a fucking analogy, it would be what we are talking about.
I guess I could spell this out more simply for people who have a hard-on for bitching about 1984 references:
It is reasonably likely that if we get into the habit of editing content of well established literature to reduce its offensiveness, this will be abused by government officials and ideologues to further agendas you or I may not agree with. If we keep literature as-is but contextualize it and promote critical thinking and understanding historical eras, this will be more difficult to subvert for several reasons, one of which is regardless of what is said about the text, the students at least have the original text of it to read for themselves.
Actually, you'll note that the definition in the quote tree is definition #7 -- indicating both that (A) there is not one single definition of censorship, and (B) the one you are cherry-picking is not at the top because it is far from the most common.
Contextually, you were using this definition:
Specifically with a connotative addition of government mandate, etc.
You're trying to import the moral weight and meaning of "censorship" as meant in 1984 or other discourse on liberty and tyranny (book burnings, banned books, government-approved news, violence against dissidents, etc) to a literal, denotative definition that has nothing to do with the above mentioned versions.
What you are doing is common but intellectually dishonest -- it's like Ludwig von Mises trying to important the weight of the word "rationality" to describe all human action even though he twisted the meaning of the word so severely it no longer meant the same thing; well if it doesn't mean the same thing, then why would I give it the same weight?
You've done the same. You're using the moral force of the argument against true or severe or whatever-you-want-to-call it censorship -- censorship that alters permanently, universally, initially, or otherwise suppresses objectionable material.
In this case no objectionable material is being suppressed -- no one is advocating reducing the circulation of Huck Finn or locking it away or replacing all the old versions with the new one. Instead, a new material is being offered in a marketplace as a desirable alternative.
By your logic, the Chevy Volt is censorship because it deleted the internal combustion engine from the car!
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
OK, but that's censorship I don't care about -- because I can go buy the uncensored song.
The radio station -- a private company trying to make money -- has no obligation to play songs with the vulgar language intact.
We can gripe about the government restricting their ability to do so, but again I don't much care because it's rather easy to circumvent.
This is actually even less of a serious case of censorship than the government censoring radio because this is a private company choosing to voluntarily edit and re-publish Huckleberry Finn because they think they can make a buck off it, and schools might prefer it, as might many private individuals and institutions.
edit: No one is forcing them to edit it, or fining publishers who don't. It's not really even comparable to radio censorship.
And also, if you want to call this censorship -- fine! Be my guest. But don't expect me to act like a blind fool and treat it with equal severity as a government-sanctioned book-burning because they have the same word attached to them (by you). If you are incapable of seeing difference in degree, well then I'm not sure how you get through life, let alone have any idea of what a thoughtful debate looks like.
Yes it is. If you even google "slippery slope," you get lists of fallacies.
Your own definition of "censorship" used the phrase "in the capacity of a censor." Which of these does your usage pertain to?
Hey to the people it hurts, it often isn't! But I'm glad you've got the credentials to tell all black people how to feel.
My girlfriend -- someone who knows I love her and whom I treat with utmost respect always -- does not allow me to say the n-word, even when quoting (including quoting her, as she uses it all the time), or in discussing it politically or philosophically.
Why? Because hearing any white person say it makes her uncomfortable -- at best. Even someone she trusts and loves.
But I guess she should just sack up and get over it, right?
That one.
And its only a slippery slope if there is no logical chain of action and consequence in the theorized set of out comes.
If her proposed alternative is to filter out the word from classical literature? Yes.
Anyway, I'm at work and prolonged debates are a bit of a distraction and its hard for me to keep up with both. I'll pick this one up again in a few hours.
I didn't post a slippery slope fallacy. Continuing to say it does not make it any more true. Forseeable and reasonable consequences of an action do not equal a slippery slope.
How was I ignoring half the defintion that I posted? Since you apparently can't look up definitions to words yourself, I'll just lay everything out and maybe we can figure out what your beef with me is (courtesy of Dictionary.com).
cen·sor /ˈsɛnsər/
[sen-ser]
–noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Definition 1 doesn't really apply to this situation, as it really only refers to a censor in a governmental capacity.
But definitions 2 and 3 definitely apply. The company publishing this version of Huck Finn are both critical of the language used in the book and are supervising the manners and morality of others by removing content they deem objectionable.
Which leads to definition 7, which has already been posted.
The publishing company is acting as a censor to censor something. I'm not really sure how I can make this any clearer.
However it plucks the same western democratic value strings. People don't like the idea of artistic integrity being compromised by altering the piece based on its audience.
Really I feel that if the class cannot handle the n bomb, you should not teach them huck Finn. One of the more important conversations about the book is the one about racism, simply because the word is used. If you change that, you're not really teaching Huck Finn. I would say the same of Faulkner or Conrad.
In high school, as I mentioned, it's important to be more sensitive to students' emotional needs, and if having an obligatory discussion of racism through reading racist language is too difficult for them, then so be it; you don't want to alienate them or make them feel unsafe in their school.
I have found that black students are usually pretty interested in discussing racism and engaging the topic if that is one of the explicit goals of that part of the curriculum, but I live in Canada, and I have only taught university students, so my anecdote is not resoundingly powerful.
Even if this is "censorship," it's "censorship" that should be allowed. What point are you trying to make?
edit: also, the fact that the dictionary includes colloquial/conversational usages that fall outside the academic/official meaning of the word "censorship" doesn't really strengthen your case. Can I also bring urbandictionary's definition into this discussion?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Technically, it would be.
But trying to equate historical literature used for the purposes of educating to a TV show that is purely for entertainment's sake is a pretty terrible argument to make. They're not the same thing and I'm pretty sure that you know that.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And are readers going to be informed this is an edited version of the book and told what was changed? Because if not, it absolutely is the same thing, particularly if this given copy is mandated by schools (you know, government institutions).
I object to being intentionally deceived by omission and I'm an adult who considers myself above the median in terms of ability to find and evaluate information. Doing the same to children is simply gross falsehood.
Yes, she should. I understand the value of context, but being so hypersensitive that you cannot stand hearing your own words said by someone else is hypocritical and over reactionary.
You're right. Making children read a hateful word that they've doubtless had hurled at them dozens or hundreds of times throughout their life in the specific intent to hurt them -- that's just "challenging their views."
We should definitely make sure to challenge everyone's views. We should read some books that call atheists heathens and liars and hell-bound satanist scum -- hell we should probably just have kids read the Bible in class! That would really "challenge the values" of those coddled Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Atheists! Plus, it's classic literature!
Now, I brought that up because I wanted to point out an example of something many people believe sincerely, and an example of tradition that would hurt you, and see if you feel the same way.
Personally, I have no problem leaving the Bible out of English classrooms, even though it has had huge literary impact, is a classic, and is culturally important. I suppose you disagree.
Also, I'd like to mention that no one here has actually advocated for "mak[ing] everything safe and comfortable." That's your willful misinterpretation of our stance. No one here has suggested editing everything so no one is ever offended -- clearly that's impossible anyway, since the acting of editing is offensive to many, such as yourself.
What we advocated is that maybe it's not goddamn immoral or the end of liberal democracy as we know it if someone decides to print a Huck Finn edition with the n-word edited out, and maybe some schools choose to teach it.
And, yes, I think there is some merit to saying "Hm, we have a group of students who are caused discomfort or harm by reading this book in our curriculum. That could conflict with our educational goals by making them perform poorly on this specific assignment, but also by making them feel alienated and unwelcome in our institution, something this group struggles with already. Is the unique educational value of this book worth that harm? If so, is there a way to retain the educational value of the book while making the group in question feel more welcome and valued?"
That is a super reasonable question to ask and discussion to have. It's not even remotely analogous to "mak[ing] everything safe and comfortable" or ensuring that "no one is ever offended."
It's responding to a specific, oft-vocalized complaint by a group of students who are not being well-served by being made to read that book.
Funny, most oppressed groups never have a problem with that stuff. In fact, historically, the censorship side has been on the side of not teaching about these things because it would offend whites. Including the history and suffering of oppressed groups is sort of the opposite of the goals we're talking about: making sure all students, including those of oppressed/non-privileged groups feel valued and welcomed.
Though, sometimes, it is an issue. For instance, my mom once taught a book on Vietnam in her English class, and one of her Hmong students became visibly upset -- upon talking to him individually, he became so angry he came to tears, and spoke about how reading about this made him hate America, hate what happened to his family, hate white people. It dredged up real and painful emotion for him.
And yet it's her job to educate this boy. Does that mean we excise the teaching of Vietnam from all school curricula? No. It's historically important. But maybe you do have to occasionally tailor certain curricula to certain students with a bit of individual attention -- I mean, it's not like the kid didn't know about what happened in the Vietnam war; his family suffered atrocities and fled the country.
Huck Finn, however, is not the Vietnam war -- there is no replacement for teaching the Vietnam War. You cannot teach the Koren War as a substitute and still get the basic idea across, whereas Huck Finn arguably doesn't deliver anything that other books can't deliver just as well. And maybe it delivers the same exact content with no meaningful distortion if a single word is edited out and replaced.
So it's not really a valid comparison, and even more to the point, you're arguing against something no one was arguing for. And you eliminated real complexity that exists in the teaching of minority students, which you would know if you were a teacher, for instance, or knew people of color.
If she also thinks classical literature written centuries ago is a less acceptable context than the words that come out of her own mouth today, then I would consider this a problem, yes. But she's certainly grasped the salient point already - context matters.
Occasionally someone will interject that, hey, maybe you can not publish a censored copy and only teach it in the appropriate setting!
But those replies are being swept aside by outrage.