These are some children's books that contain illustrations that some people find offensive and the publisher (and sellers) are deciding they no longer want to be associated with and sell to children. There are internet forums where the images are available and people can view them without the police knocking your door down, and I'm sure these are available in 2nd hand bookshops.
The actions of the publisher and ebay enhance the first (freedom from) without inhibiting the second much (freedom to) for those that really want to view the images.
There's a difference between "utterly repugnant" content being available and it being casually given to children, and people and companies being forced to sell it.
The fact that a few people might still be able to view images of these books (illegally, as they are copyrighted) on some tiny closed forum on the internet isn't a real comfort.
In the Soviet Union, there were also tiny isolated pockets where "forbidden books" were surreptitiously copied and read. However, the project to ban them was still very successful overall. The average subject of the Soviet regime would not have access to these books.
This is very much what is happening in the US right now. These books are being banned, and the next generations of US readers will have no access to them. The fact that one person in ten thousand might be able to find a used copy at a rare used bookstore (and pay pay thousands of dollars for it) doesn't really change anything, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
This is book-banning, pure and simple.
> The actions of the publisher and ebay enhance the first (freedom from)
I would also like to thank our cultural commissars at Amazon and eBay for "freeing" us from dangerous ideas by forcibly preventing us from buying and selling the books which contain them.
eBay just took away the freedom of private individuals to sell books they legally own to each other.
You are calling this "freedom", using the word to refer to its exact opposite. This is Newspeak.
The books are available on Amazon.
> This is book-banning, pure and simple.
I'd wager that sales of these six books will be higher in the next week than they were in the last two years combined.
The Dr. Seuss books were banned not just by eBay but also by their publisher, which holds the copyright, so you can still buy them used on Amazon... for $1,500+ per copy: https://www.wane.com/news/prices-skyrocket-for-dr-seuss-book...
The reality is that these books will not be accessible to the vast majority of future American readers. This is just a fact at this point.
It doesn't even matter if Amazon keeps selling them, as the publisher banned them, so the number of (legal) copies will dwindle to zero. Also, with Amazon starting to ban books on similar political grounds, saying "but Amazon didn't ban this specific book (yet)" or "you can still get a copy at some obscure second-hand stores" is burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the reality of what is happening.
For the record, the same whitewashing (wokewashing?) happened to the Richard Scarry books which are all "abridged" because they were so offensively conservative about the role of women.
https://www.upworthy.com/8-changes-that-were-made-to-a-class...
Sometimes it's because the copyright holders (which are not the authors) decided to stop publishing them for political reasons. This decision is all too easy to make when you are a massive copyright holder like Disney. The result is that these massive copyright holders can decide which ideas are allowed, and which ideas will be banned.
In other cases, these book bans are executed by large book distributors, like Amazon: https://ncac.org/news/amazon-book-removal. These are done very much against the wishes of the author, publisher, and copyright holder.
In still other cases, the book ban is enacted by a secondary market distributor, forcibly preventing one private legal owner of the work from selling it to another reader. This is what's happening here with eBay and the Dr. Seuss books.
This is a multi-pronged attack on the freedom to express and distribute ideas. And yes, it's all legal, much like the commissar control of all book publications under the Soviet regime.
That's just not true. This was Random House Books' decision, not eBay or Amazon. The marketplaces are just following orders.
> The decision won’t affect Dr. Seuss’s best-known works, which publisher Random House Books for Young Readers and several booksellers on Tuesday said would remain available to customers.
> The review of the six books at issue was conducted last year by Dr. Seuss Enterprises LP, which oversees Dr. Seuss’s publishing interests and ancillary areas.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/six-dr-seuss-books-are-dropped-...
First of all, hat-tip for using that chilling phrase in this unintentionally appropriate context.
Furthermore, eBay is a secondary market bookseller. As such, they facilitate legal sales of privately-owned books between individuals. They have absolutely no duty to "follow orders" by a publisher. In fact, publishers would shut down all secondary markets if they could - it would help their sales of new books.
Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that a publisher "ordered" eBay to stop selling the books, and such "order" would be invalid and ridiculous.
This is a decision by eBay to flex their corporate muscles to ban books they find politically disagreeable.
They're not deciding which ideas are allowed or banned.
They're not stopping anyone else from creating, espousing, publishing any other ideas at all. There's thousands of publishers, and even the very biggest only hold a tiny fraction of the publishing market, so this complaint seems quite overblown.
Should a publisher be forced to publish things they choose not to? I'd prefer not. There's plenty of others. And the internet makes it easy to post any ideas you choose, vastly easier than at any point in history for individuals to make their ideas available to billions of people.
Did google “ban” reader when they discontinued it?
...and the people with the copyright to the book thought about it and decided they do not want to distribute their book.
Are they not entitled to decide for themselves what to do with what's theirs?
If somebody were to publish the 6 banned Seuss books and get sued by the estate, they'd be able to make a compelling legal argument that the copyright laws that allow the estate to effectively ban books for 95 years are unconstitutional though they'd probably need a different Supreme Court to have a chance of winning and actually making the "science and useful arts" clause mean something again. It would probably be ill-advised to even attempt a challenge to copyright law on these grounds with the current court as it could lead to another bad precedent like Eldred v. Ashcroft (the "perpetual copyright is constitutional if Congress extends the terms every 20 years via Mickey Mouse Protection Acts" case where the FSF filed a brief in support of the plaintiff). I think a more productive course of action would be to use the right wing outrage over this to push for an "abandonware" exception to copyright law (basically a "keep it in print or lose your copyright" requirement) and possibly copyright term reduction. Given that the political party that is traditionally more supportive of corporate interests is now furious about corporate censorship, there is now a golden opportunity to roll back corporate power and those on both sides who share that goal (albeit for different reasons) should work together for the greater good.
So in essence, you could aim the current copyright law is inconsistent with the constitution.
I am not a legal scholar so I have no idea how naive this argument might be from a constitutional law perspective. I have a feeling it would be pretty naive, to be honest.
Let's move away from the Dr. Seuss example and look at another instance of where artists have used their exclusive right to restrict distribution of their work. In 2015 the Wu Tang Clan produced a single copy of their 7th album "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin". The album itself then went on a tour of its own and was showcased at museums until it was eventually sold to the infamous "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli for $2 million. The contract he had to sign included the following genius clause:
"The buying party also agrees that, at any time during the stipulated 88 year period, the seller may legally plan and attempt to execute one (1) heist or caper to steal back Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, which, if successful, would return all ownership rights to the seller. Said heist or caper can only be undertaken by currently active members of the Wu-Tang Clan and/or actor Bill Murray, with no legal repercussions." [1]
The legend behind this album has now birthed a forthcoming Netflix documentary [2]. So here is a situation where the author's exclusive control over their art has birthed not just a documentary, which is art, but a legal document which I would classify as art. None of this would be possible in a world where an author's exclusive copyright doesn't exist or could be infringed if they choose to restrict distribution of their work. So I would disagree with your conclusion that it's hard to claim that restricting the distribution of work doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
[1]: https://gizmodo.com/bill-murray-can-legally-steal-the-2-mill...
[2]: https://www.engadget.com/netflix-martin-shkreli-wu-tang-albu...
You say that eBay is preventing one private owner from selling to another private buyer, but what’s the alternative? To force eBay to facilitate the transaction? How is that freedom? The owner and buyer are still free to sell and buy this book, just not thorough eBay. If there is enough demand for this kind of transaction then the market will find a way to facilitate it. That’s capitalism.
Do you honestly believe you're "suppressing art" if you fail to force the rightful owners if said art to go against their own will and instead follow your orders and desires on what others should do with what's rightfully theirs?
It sounds an awful lot like your are not as much interested in anyone's freedom as you're interested in imposing your personal will into everyone around you.
My opinion is that copyright should be limited to the lifetime of the author, at which point it goes into public domain. In this particular case, that would mean the books would have been in the public domain for a long time now and there wouldn't be a controversy over this particular issue.
But the issue could still arise if the author were alive. Imagine Dr. Seuss were alive today and made this decision himself. It's the same controversy: person/entity with control over IP makes a decision on distribution of IP, people get upset. But that's the deal - you want to promote the useful arts by granting limited monopoly rights over art, then you better actually grant limited monopoly rights over art. That means the right to not publish the art.
Do you really have issues with the changes they made? They weren't abridged but just edited to show both sexes and different races doing jobs other than being maids and housewives. I'm not sure replacing milkman, fireman and cowboys with firefighters, gardeners and scientists is 'woke'
I do have a problem if they ban the older editions.
I don't see how they are "banned". Banning means "forbidden, disallowed, illegal". The older editions do not fall under any of the definitions. They are harder to get, because the author stopped selling them. You can still find them somewhere, and if you already have them you can keep them, they are just less convenient to acquire than they used to be.
You’re trying too hard to defend the indefensible. eBay and Amazon stopped the used book market for these not just the publisher and rights holder.
According to your take no book has ever been banned in the US and people who complained about book banning were clutching pearls.
In the case of Dr. Seuss books, the near-simultaneous decision of the copyright owner to stop publishing them and of the largest online reselling market, eBay, to forbid selling and buying them, makes them, if not literally banned, vastly more inaccessible than many many other books that have been covered under the Banned Books Weeks event, written about in the media, celebrated by liberal readers (in those prior ages where liberal readers thought that right to read was more important than right to forbid) and so on. Your narrow-minded insistence on literalism is just a way of displaying your ignorance and unwillingness to engage with these difficult questions.
Discontinuing the printing is different than preventing sales of used copies.
I'm with you; I don't think ebay should be forced to sell anything, but I think it was a bad decision to knee jerk ban auctions for the books in the news this week when they sell literal nazi medals.
I'm not angry with ebay, but I think they made a stupid choice and that they have highlighted how few alternative ways there are to purchase used books.
Upside is that it's good they are highlighting it now, finally. It's a very peculiar flex for them to decide to do, reselling books has a very long history of court cases saying the publisher cannot control the sale of an original purchased copy.
Dr Seuss passed away in 1991, about 30 years ago, so he isn’t capable of being embarrassed any more.
This is an incomplete story. The company convened a panel of outside "experts" to make these determinations:
> Dr. Seuss Enterprises said that it had consulted a panel of experts including educators in reviewing its catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication of the six titles.
> In a statement to the Associated Press, Seuss Enterprises said it is “committed to listening and learning and will continue to review our entire portfolio.”
https://deadline.com/2021/03/dr-seuss-books-canceled-no-long...
Unlike other so-called "cancel culture" stories, the pressure campaign didn't play out publicly. But the language is the same and strongly suggests that the publisher is deferring to the judgment of outside "experts", hoping this will keep them in the good graces of the increasingly woke publishing and education worlds.
It's been a problem for years that there's been so redress available when a publisher either owns an IP and refuses to sell or license it freely, or when an IP falls into unclear ownership and the same basic thing results.
This all has nothing to do with anything political (because these are not being suppressed by a government, and citizens and organizations are free to choose their own speech and associations) and everything to do with just how garbage copyright law is.
You are talking about works that became incidentally unavailable for commercial reasons (not that many people are interested in 22 year-old strategy video games). The Dr. Seuss books are an example of intentional book banning on political grounds.
Their publisher also didn't "shut down": they delibrately decided to stop publishing these books because they deemed them Politically Incorrect:
https://apnews.com/article/dr-seuss-books-racist-images-d8ed...
> “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises told The Associated Press in a statement that coincided with the late author and illustrator’s birthday.
And now eBay has decided that if you legally own a copy, you can't sell it to another reader, because it contains Dangerous Ideas from which the American mind must be protected.
And "Politically Incorrect" is sure a gentle way of describing the content. Maybe you should quote the line from the article you linked which describes some of the "politically incorrect" bits? Or do you recognize that they're actually pretty offensive. I sure wouldn't want to use my printing equipment to print copies of that "Politically Incorrect" book either, and I'd have a problem with the suggestion that someone should be able to force me to.
President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015:
https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai...
But now the Woke Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all instructed to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist.
To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
People making a big deal out of the cancelling are blowing it into a far bigger thing than it is. He's not being cancelled, those works are just being recognized as offensive. There's no gotcha to Obama having praised some of his books, because those books are still worthy of praise.
> He hasn't been cancelled, it's just that a few of the more egregious books are being discontinued. Horton Hears a Who? Still a great message. The Grinch? Still great
You are clearly in favor of banning ideas you disagree with. Nice to see you are fine with the publication of books when you approve of their "message".
People want the book removed because it exists, someplace - not because someone has a metaphorical megaphone. Let's stop with the metaphors, by the way. This isn't literary critique, or English Literature 301. It's a discussion of censorship. Stopping someone-who-isn't-you from reading a work that has nothing to do with you, is censorship.
Wait, sorry, is someone confiscating the book? Burning it? Requiring it be burned? Arresting people who have it? Arresting the people who wrote it? Legally compelling the publisher to edit it? Legally compelling distributors not to distribute it?
As far as I can tell, everyone complaining is upset that distributors don't want to tarnish their brand with certain content, and authors and stakeholders have decided that certain content doesn't match their modern brands. None of these are censorship!
As an author, you are free to write dumb things. As a bookstore, I am free to not sell the the dumb things you wrote. That's not censorship.
As a publisher, I am free not to publish the dumb stuff you wrote for you. That's the metaphorical megaphone, in case that is unclear, and no one can force a publisher to give you one.
Yes, we won't be sending people with the naughty Dr. Seuss books to the gulag. No one is saying that. We're concerned about monopoly power combined with wokist ideology.
The Hollywood Blacklist was completely voluntary on the part of the movie studios which enforced it, a decision of certain private companies not to -- how did you phrase it? -- "tarnish their brand" by collaborating with people suspected of Communist tendencies. It is held to be morally repugnant today, and somehow I doubt you would defend it with the same argument you use in the Dr. Seuss case.
I worry about the authoritarian leanings of anyone who doesn't draw this distinction.
Some private actor X performs an action Y which other people Z find reprehensible. The action Y is within X's legal rights to perform.
You can focus on how reprehensible Y is and how Z are right to condemn it. Or you could focus on how X should be totally free to do Y if X so desires, even if we don't like Y.
What usually happens is that if you feel Z are right or you wish to support Z or you wish to not be seen as supporting "enemies" of Z, you will focus on condemning Y. It won't even occur to you to emphasize that doing Y is legal; if pressed you'll freely admit it is, but to you focusing on how Y is legal will look like hypocritical attempts to evade the real issue, which is the terribleness of Y.
On the other hand, if you dislike Z or like the "enemies" of Z, you will focus on how Y is legal and how Z's dangerous rhetoric about Y poses a real danger of conflating Y with actually illegal acts. You might or might not agree that Y is terrible, but to you it will seem a decidedly minor concern compared to the dangerous rhetoric issuing from Z.
The book exists. The publisher's just decided they won't sell it anymore.
Stop misrepresenting facts.
"“EBay is currently sweeping our marketplace to remove these items,” a spokeswoman for the company said in an email. New copies of the six books were no longer for sale online at major retailers such as Barnes & Noble on Thursday afternoon, which put eBay among the most prominent platforms for the books to be sold."
The copyright holder / publisher can prevent any publication of books it holds copyright to, and has done so.
Distributors of books, like Amazon, can stop selling books they disagree with, and have now starting doing that too.
So the answer to your question is: all the above.
This is what happens when Amazon, for example, bans books that express views of transgenderism with which Amazon employees disagree.
This is a true statement. His behavior always showed this regardless of what obama said. Unlike your orwellian quote, we're not rewriting history, just changing our tolerances.
Also, if Dr. Seuss was always so racist, how come the left embraced him until very very recently?
Are you seriously claiming that all the many people on the left, including Obama, were embracing a clear and known racist as recently as a few months ago?
I don't really think this is a good-faith argument based on the language of the first sentence, but i'll reply anyways...
Yes the evidence is his clearly documented body of work. He used many racial stereotypes and derogatory imagery. He has images of Japanese Americans, Africans, East Asians, and they all use stereotypes and caricatures that are negative.
I can't speak for "the left" but he was embraced by most people because he was popular and many of his stories and books were benign. Lots of bad behavior was embraced by both left and right Americans throughout history. Past acceptance is not indication that the future must accept.
Yes. I am making the claim that people, including Obama (who is not the only image of the left, and not particularly important figure in a literary sense) were embracing Dr. Seuss. A lot of his more objectionable work is rather unpopular, so its not crazy to think that his supporters did not audit his behavior.
There is no doubt that people were embracing him. There is no doubt that much of his behavior is racist. There is no contraction here. People have embraced bad people before and that is (somewhat) ok as look as society learns and grows and corrects their behavior. This is the learning and growing. A book that sold 7k copies over the last few years is no longer in print because it portrayed people in bad ways.
Have you actually seen the imagery? This is not a good-faith characterization of what is happening. The images are just rude racist imagery (saying a chinese person has "slanted eyes" for example) that the IP owners were embarrassed by.
No, it really isn't. When a book edition goes out of print that does not mean it's banned. If the editor decides not to invest in a re-edit ion that does not mean it's banned. If you go to a book store and it doesn't have a book that does not mean it's banned. If you go to a library and it doesn't have a book in its inventory that does not mean it's banned.
If you lack arguments, please don't fabricate lies and misrepresentations like that. That only makes you look dishonest and desperate to grasp to an argument that even yourself acknowledge has no basis nor merit.
I recently started a game of Alpha Centauri again. Good times.
As always, the only dynamic considered here by the publisher is money. They have made a calculation that doing this will benefit their bottom line in the long run. That's the free market and the way the system is designed to work. You may not like their decision, but it's their decision to make. That's the freedom they enjoy under our system. You have the freedom to complain about it and no one will stop you, but everyone is free to act however they best they see fit.
> And now eBay has decided that if you legally own a copy, you can't sell it to another reader, because it contains Dangerous Ideas from which the American mind must be protected.
eBay has not decided this. They have no power to decide this for you in our free market capitalist system. They have decided they don't want to facilitate the transaction, which is their right as a free enterprise. If you own the book you are still free to sell it to anyone you want. eBay is not going to help you though, and forcing them to do so would be against free market principles.
If I'm Disney, and I own millions of works, I can start banning some of them on a whim. My bottom line won't be meaningfully affected.
> They have decided they don't want to facilitate the transaction, which is their right as a free enterprise.
It was the legal right (duty, in fact) of Soviet commissars to vet any book before publication. The net effect was book-banning.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it won't lead to catastrophic consequences.
Standard Oil's complete monopolistic takeover of the US oil market was also legal at its time. Then we decided we can't live with these results and made laws against them.
The topic of discussion is a single publisher making a decision for themselves. You are all the way over in Soviet land talking about book banning and government censorship. None of that is happening, and the slope isn't nearly as slippery as you're imagining. Anyone in this country is free to write, publish, and sell works with content identical to those in the books Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to stop publishing, as long as they don't have images and words similar enough to violate their copyright. The ideas contained within are not banned by any government or monopoly.
I had a great chuckle at this.
The issue that is being tossed into a big pile of other issues is simple. Ebay, a private company, has taken the path of banning the sale of those now-discontinued books. This action is totally within their rights and is fully legal for them to do. You can, rightly, talk about the content of _this specific book_ as much as you want, but that's not the broader issue here. What is riling up some people is the idea that in the US we are, ostensibly, a country founded on freedom and they feel like that freedom is being encroach upon. You seem to feel like them banning the sale of the book is no big deal, but they are in a large market position and them preventing the secondary market sale has a large impact.
The even bigger issue is that what we are seeing are very vocal groups that push the idea that we have to prevent these kinds of thoughts from being in our society at all. They force these ideas onto the greater community as a whole by attacking any entity they deem as non-compliant. As a result you have companies preempt that attack and voluntarily comply. To use the theme from the previous poster, they are voluntarily banning or self-censoring. This _is_ an attack on freedom though. You cannot have freedom of speech if you make it so only the speech you _like_ is effectively allowed. And I purposefully said effectively and not legally.
This obviously doesn't get into the broader topics of corporate censorship. I have many thoughts, some of them conflicting, about that as a whole. The simplest distillation would be that as long as your free speech is not encroaching into illegal territory then I don't feel like you should be excluded from society, even if your communications are repugnant.
So, back to where this started. You claim the 'slope isn't nearly as slippery' as they were imagining. Perhaps today that is the case. Maybe it's the same next week or next year. At some point the thoughts being attacked may very well align with your personal beliefs and _then_ the shape of the slope will be drastically different _for you_.
I don't see the problem here. The copyright owner's no longer wish to distribute certain items in their intellectual property collection? So? I don't see people concerned that Disney isn't pulling "Song of the South" out of their vault, or isn't streaming it on Disney+.
What's the alternative you want? The government to FORCE artists to publish? FORCE Ebay to list these particular Dr. Seuss books? What the hell?? Isn't that worse?
Yes, this is all legal. However, legally, the commissars of the Soviet Union also had the right and the power to ban ideas, books, works of art, and every form of expression.
The problem is the result: a small elite group of cultural commissars controlling the flow of ideas, and shutting undesirable ideas out of the public discourse and the public mind.
That is how totalitarian regimes are created and maintained.
Incidentally, the "government force" in copyright protection is the protection of copyright. That was done for the explicit purpose of fostering the publication of works, since the American lawmakers could never imagine that there will come a time in which huge corporations will ban books on political grounds.
All the government has to do is to stop enforcing copyright protection for copyright-owners who no longer publish the copyrighted works. Guaranteed other publishers will pick up these Dr. Seuss books, since he is by far the most popular children's books author of our time.
As things stand, bid these books adieu. Your children will not be able to read them.
The publisher deciding to no longer sell some part of their work is entirely different. It makes no difference to your ability to enjoy a copy you own or to sell it to someone else. Nor does it affect your ability to create a similar illustrated children's book including whatever stereotypes you desire. No one is 'banning' you from doing this, although it might diminish their opinion of you.
Once expressions of ideas are effectively banned, you are in a totalitarian, oppressive regime. It doesn't matter whether that banning was done by the state or by huge monopolistic corporations: the end result is the same.
Also, in this case, while corporations are leading the way, we also see increasingly loud calls for our government to step in and criminalize some forms of speech, for example those deemed "hate speech": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html
This is really a two-pronged attack on free speech and the free exchange of ideas: in the private sphere, individuals and companies move to effectively ban certain expressions, such as the publication of "objectionable" books. In the public sphere, there are moves to criminalize "objectionable" expressions.
The actions in each sphere reciprocally support each other, and normalize the idea that the free exchange of ideas must be policed and restricted.
It was public criticism, or the fear of public criticism that led them to make this decision in the first place, so this seems like a perfectly fine line of argument to make. (ie, that this was a poor decision on their part.)
I do not like to see what I am seeing in this HN thread. I think that not propagating offensive, dehumanizing views publicly seems perfectly wise.
People who actually supported slavery, or Jim Crow, I would say are in fact evil, regardless of whether those views were acceptable in some circles.
You really must pay attention to intent, and this is a major failing of the modern edge of these progressive movements. If suddenly, some phrase quickly falls out of fashion, an I use the old antiquated phrase, it must matter whether I actually had any racist intent. Just the fact that I haven't kept up with the newest moral outrage is not enough on its own.
Ok, sure, this is a fair point in general, but how is it exactly applicable here?
Let's take the example of "If I Ran the Zoo", since it's one of the only images [0][1] I can find.
The synopsis of the book seems to be a child daydreaming about the animals he would keep at his zoo. Whether or not the "Africans" in this book are one of those animals is not clear to me, but this is a representation of African / Black people as literal monkeys.
How you can try to imply that representing black people as monkeys is not racism, given the hundreds of years of insults in that vein, pseudoscience from slave owners and sympathizers suggesting the same, and indeed all the folk with the moral failings of the time that you suggest who would hold and perpetuate this viewpoint?
> Dr Suess is not evil because he could not predict where the moral zeitgeist would lead us
I completely fail to see how you can infer that a publisher not generating additional copies of prose that has found itself in a morally compromised position implies that Dr Suess is evil, or that anyone thinks that.
Indeed, I believe Dr Suess to have published 60 or more books in his career, so merely 10% of his career publications have been selected to cease being replicated further because they partook and perpetuated the darker side of a slaver society's worldview. This is not saying the man was evil or that his works were nefarious, it is saying that science and society have moved us beyond those viewpoints and propagating them further does us no good.
Indeed, I'm not even sure how this is being portrayed as "canceling" or any such thing. A publisher with control over the book rights stopped producing the book rights. Your entire rant is predicated around this being a retaliatory act for perceived evils, but that's incredibly lacking in nuance.
Children develop their worldview thru the mediums of information they interact with, and to for a publisher to refine its selection to prevent children growing up with unconscious cognitive biases that are dated, far outside, and even contrary to mainstream societal views of our time is just a complete non-issue.
[0] image: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png [1] article: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no...
I was originally going to issue a rebuttal based on my reading of "If I Ran the Zoo." But, it occurs to me that you can't really be very offended if you haven't even read the story. What's there to be offended by? You don't even know the context of the image which offends you.
>I completely fail to see how you can infer that a publisher not generating additional copies of prose that has found itself in a morally compromised position implies that Dr Suess is evil, or that anyone thinks that.
Although I still disagree with the publisher's decision, I take your point here.
>because they partook and perpetuated the darker side of a slaver society's worldview
What exactly is a "slaver society?" Dr. Seuss was born in 1904, after slavery was abolished. I doubt he was much of a "slaver," as in "someone who literally obtains slaves."
>Children develop their worldview thru the mediums of information they interact with,
Yes, precisely, and I don't believe it's appropriate that children learn to fear and ban ideas which they find distasteful.
Excuse me? Those monkeys in that picture are representing African humans. I know perfectly well what I've just seen, because I read the article I linked. Perhaps you have failed to do so?
> What exactly is a "slaver society"? Dr. Seuss was born in 1904
Ok, and the Tulsa Race Massacre was in 1921. State-backed murder of black people for the crime of being successful. The south was clearly deeply unhappy about their loss of slaves and backed a set of increasingly "plausibly deniable" laws over time that were designed to segregate, undermine, and condemn to failure Black people in the USA.
If you really think "slaver society" is an overkill to describe an entire region of the USA with extremely racist ideals towards people they consider slaves, let's instead say "because they partook and perpetuated the darker side of a society that wishes they were still slavers". I'm so sorry I was slightly pedantic for you
> I don't believe it's appropriate that children learn to fear and ban ideas which they find distasteful
What kind of horseshit disingenuous representation of the situation is that? These Fox News - not legally a news corporation btw - talking points are so stupid. Once again, just like the "USSR book banning" fear mongering analogy above, you are acting as someone who pretends that a private business ceasing publication of books with societally repulsive views is somehow analogous to "banning ideas".
I hope children grow up and learn that condemning and removing from modern discourse historical or traditional views that no longer match up with the ethical framework of society is the only way we can continue to increase human rights in the face of governments and billionaires increasingly concerned with removing those.
Your framing doesn't follow from your logic in any way, and you don't play with pedantry particularly impressively.
For the record, I don't watch Fox news, and I dislike it quite a bit.
Indeed, the fact that the first time you've ever hopped into a conversation around book publishing is to decry the fact that a publisher isn't generating more pictures of Africans represented as monkeys distances us even further.
Finally, the fact that you don't think "slaver society viewpoints" persisted in a society that murdered an entire city block of Black people merely for being Black people really hammers home how ignorant you are.
If you do not like Fox News, you should question why you are parroting their ridiculous mischaracterizations of a private corporation's normal business actions.
On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning. The reason is that if a view truly has merit it should be able to stand up to healthy debate on it's own merits.
I agree with what you wrote here, but if you believe this I'm confused why you would take issue with what happened here. This is exactly what has played out. These books were created and published in an open market. Remember, in free markets there is the possibility of failure. That's what you're seeing right here. The publisher of these ideas have determined that they have failed in the market.
So what's the problem? No "large un-elected ministry acceptability" caused this to happen. It was the marketplace that rejected these ideas, and the publisher didn't want to bear the cost of continued publication, which they are free to do. Everyone involved exercised their individual freedoms in the marketplace. The system is working as intended. Where is the failure?
The marketplace hasn't rejected these ideas. The holders of the copyright - a law enforced by the government - have rejected these ideas and no one can oppose them. Because of copyright, no other publisher can publish these books in the marketplace. Ergo - no free market and an effective ban on the books.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises has decided to stop publication of their particular expression of these ideas because the ideas themselves are not popular enough to financially justify their continued publication. That's the method by which the whole system works. Ideas flourish in the marketplace when people support them. When people support an idea, it achieves financial success for those that express it. People who express unpopular ideas difficult to find financial success due to a lack of a support base.
How else do you imagine the marketplace of ideas works, and what exactly do you think happens to ideas that are rejected by the marketplace?
There is no flourishing of the market place here - it has been implicitly denied. If there were no copyright - you can be bet your years salary that there would be folks willing to publish these books for the audience that wishes to read them.
Remove the copyright - make it a true free market and THEN let's see if your argument that the ideas themselves are not popular enough holds true. Besides your statement of financial justification is utterly false. Dr Seuss tops the list of top 10 children's books.
No, its fascist ultra-left ideology that is responsible for these implicit bans. Some folks want to dictate what other should read - capitalism doesn't even come into the picture.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2019/03/01/dr-seus...
And I’m not trying to move any goalposts. In several conversations here I’ve been assured that the actual problem is not the discontinuation of these specific books, but the larger picture wherein under some slippery slope argument the general ideas could be eventually banned outright. But apologies if this is not your position and you take issue with the ability of these companies to control their own IP. I would agree with you there.
But at the same time I also recognize that copyright is built into our Constitution and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. So under that framework, I don’t see anything wrong with what Dr. Seuss Enterprises did. Copyright gives them freedom over the creative works they own. The freedom to distribute and the freedom not to distribute. Without the freedom to not distribute works, the decision to publish any works becomes risky for the author, because it cannot be undone, ever. This is going to have the necessary effect of reducing the number of ideas that are expressed, as riskier ideas cannot be retracted by their authors. After all, this is the general idea behind the concept of copyright and underpins the entire marketplace of ideas.
I have no doubt that if copyright were abolished, others would pick up the unpublished works and attempt to distribute them. But this comes at a cost of time and money. What if they don’t sell enough copies to recoup the effort, and they go out of business, thereby halting publication? What if seeing this failure, no one else takes up the mantle of publishing these books? We are in the exact same situation. Would you say they are banned? Of course not, they have just failed financially, which is what happens all the time to books, and what happened in this case.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises surmised that the continued publication of these books would hurt them financially. As your link indicates, they publish a number of very popular books, but notably none of the books in your link are being discontinued. We already know the ideas aren’t very popular because they don’t sell well as it is. If they were popular, they would be on your list.
Anyway, tldr; don’t blame leftist ideology for the perceived failure of a system of, by, and for capitalists.
I highly doubt this. I do not dehumanize others nor believe that likening enslaved races to monkeys is in any way appropriate. Besides, you are discussing free speech here - Dr Seuss in no way had his free speech curtailed. He is dead.
> Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas
This is a meaningless feel-goodism.
Freedom of speech protects citizens against government retaliation or censorship for most categories of speech, notably carving out exceptions for calls to violence / treason etc.. Freedom of speech basically means you can say whatever the hell you want if it's not too overtly tearing at the fabric of society.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence; I can say 2+2 = 5 but that doesn't make it smart. People will call me an idiot, and they have that right.
Freedom of speech doesn't protect authors from not "eternally having their works published by their copyright holders even after the author's lifetime has ended", and that is literally the only thing I can see you arguing for here. A publisher who owns the rights to these books has stopped generating more copies of them. What is wrong with that?
> On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning
So, when you see Dr Seuss' publisher stop generating additional copies of books they believe further ideas and sentiments they wish to have no part of - surely, they are free to do this - you are automatically discrediting what group for this banning, exactly?
These are both very much among his classics.
Nobody will miss these books because they have been erased. Nobody missed banned books in the USSR either.
I'm sure some people will miss these books, but for those people they can go ahead and find a collector's copy on a marketplace, use a library which has them, find some other private holder, or use the internet to enjoy them in whatever capacity. This is because these books are not banned by a centralized government, but instead have been selected to cease publication by a private corporation.
These books arent gone, you can still find them and they are documented for historical purposes, but as a society we have decided that there is no need for them as childrens books. Nobody cares about the hundreds of books that go out of print every year
The books will be preserved, much like banned books in the Soviet unions typically were preserved, in some government archive.
The millions of readers of our generation, who had access to these books because they were offered for sale, will no longer have access to them.
My parents read these books to me. I will not be able to read them to my children.
"Nobody will miss them" is an incredibly false and irrelevant argument. Nobody "missed" all the books in the Soviet union that were blocked by the commissars and never published. How is that a valid justification for this happening in the US now?
You are justifying book banning, pure and simple, and you are using any available argument, and many dishonest ones, to do it. Ultimately, you yourself don't understand why you do this. You just follow the cancel mob.
I am a member of a minority that is supposed to be offended by these books. I am not. I would bet anything that you were not personally offended if you ever read them, too.
But the Cancel Mob has mobilized and you are mindlessly following, because it is the convenient choice, the easy choice, the SAFE choice.
I found it for you, free for anyone with an internet connection to read. It was the first result when i googled the name of the story internet archive
This was nothing special, a low volume book taken out of print, politicized by people like you.
This decision - to cease publishing select Dr Seuss books - was taken, with no external pressures, by the private corporation and legal owner of these books.
There is no “Cancel Mob” mobilizing here, except perhaps the right wing one that is acting as if a business is not free to remove some part of their inventory on a whim.
Your analogies to the USSR banning books is completely inappropriate as the USSR was a centralized government banning books. A private corporation is certainly not compelled to produce or sell any product they do not wish to continue to sell, and the books remain legal to possess, sell, or trade because no rights have been infringed by the US government nor any legal actions or pressures issued on this topic.
I did ask a question. “Hilarious” how you missed that.
This have some logic to it in a child mind because they could assume they would know best how to take care of those animals.
It's obviously a caricature but nowhere does it say African people are animals or monkey. This is all originating from your own racism.
Man, isn't it just fantastic how easily you make my point for me. This is also the viewpoint that Dr Seuss' publishers imagined the public at large would hold, so accordingly they have ceased to publish a book that represents "Africans" with this picture:
https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png
So, now you see the issue yes?
Article I pulled the image from: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no...
Edit: I am unable to respond directly. The Africans are the monkeys holding the rod in that picture, that is the entire point of this whole "ceasing publication" business
Are you going to say the cat in the hat is offensive for people with Cleft lip ?
Your ridiculous deflection is saddening. You yourself stated the criteria the publisher made their decision under, and now you will act like you have not said it
Edit: the very image you linked shows "the African island of Yerka", where they're retrieving the bird from, and you expect me to believe you can't see the implication that the monkeys in skirts holding the shaped bar the bird resides on are the African residents of that island?
Slavery is terrible, and since black people were enslaved, literature about Black American's lives from before 1865 is not acceptable. This is bad.
I would guess that eventually (if these books are popular enough) they will be edited and brought up to date like Richard Scary books:
https://www.upworthy.com/8-changes-that-were-made-to-a-class...
"Thousands of books go out of print every year, so what's the problem with us banning these specific books for political reasons?"
"Does it really matter that we banned these dozens of books? Thousands others were not banned, and are available to the Soviet reader at the nearest bookstores!"
This is a slipper slope, and we're already sliding quite deeply into it. Amazon just banned a book about transgenderism that it considered "offensive":
https://ncac.org/news/amazon-book-removal
This is clearly the Soviet case: it's not banning a single book, it's banning the ideas that it presents, for being Politically Incorrect. Once the book is unavailable, American readers will not have access to these ideas anywhere. Any other book presenting these same ideas will also be banned on the same grounds.
This is precisely what was happening in the Soviet Union and similar totalitarian regimes that banned "forbidden / politically-incorrect" ideas.
This is not fighting corporations, this is getting bogged down in culture wars
And the term censorship is broad, and isn't specific to private entities versus government. Just because we don't have a Soviet-style government (good), doesn't mean that automatically everything is free and open. If I buy out all of a particular work of art and burn it in a bonfire, I've committed censorship. If not illegal, it should at least elicit some moral eyebrow-raising, no?
What is wrong is pulling it from stock as well as secondary marketplaces.
What if the Christian or Muslim clerics get to say what books should be pulled too?
As an immigrant from a Muslim country I’m super excited about this. I’m going to ban sex scenes on TV so I don’t have to skip past them.
Considering they were not that popular to begin with, it seems like only a few thousand Americans would really be without access.
We decided it'd be a lark, but the return probably wouldn't beat printing Bibles.
Really, all you'd need to do to make the point to yourself that belief isn't a finite resource here is change your mind.
Have you looked up the definition of the word "banned"?
"to prohibit, forbid, or bar;"
These books are no longer being published; this is a legal freedom that the publisher has. They are no longer sold on Amazon; this is a freedom Amazon has. They are still available somewhere in the US, they are still legal to read, and they are still legal to own. This isn't banning, this is becoming distasteful to the market.
They have simply become less convenient to acquire.
I'm reminded of In-Q-Tel at times like these. I defy anyone to find more than 20% of wildly successful "tech giants" who have not received government funding and support. It's not a free market when some get tax breaks and government money. If you get those things, your utmost law should be the law that governs the government in your region. This will never happen, of course.
In FY19 the us government spent 4.5 trillion dollars.
To put that in perspective (these are the top 5 companies in the world by market cap and some quick googling): Saudi Aramco spent 150 Billion, Apple spent about 200 Billion, Microsoft was 82 Billion, Amazon spent 265 Billion and Google spent 127 Billion.
Combined the top 5 companies in the world spent less in an entire year than the US government spent in a single quarter (824B/year vs. 1,125B).
There is so much spend that it is difficult to have a company that in some way doesn't either directly do business with the USG or benefit within 1 degree of separation from USG spending.
Even absent any controversy about racially insensitive artwork (I mean seriously: there are africans drawn as half-monkeys and a chinese man whose eyes are slanted lines! This is not stuff modern kids should be presented with), these definitely aren't "classics".
But as far as a place to find them for adults who want to read them, that will curate them for posterity: have you tried the library?
Yeah, and black people commonly use the N-word among themselves too. That doesn't mean it isn't offensive for me to use it.
What if the character is laughing and their eyes are virtually shut? Sorry, Ray, you need to draw the eyes, I can’t. Ok, now I can draw the hair.
You have to take into consideration history and changing sentiments when looking at these things.
For example, a white man overly emphasizing asian-ness to an extent that it caricatures them and makes them a one-dimensional "other" is MUCH different than an asian culture portraying themselves this way in a better context.
Same with words like the b-word... a man using this word towards a woman is (usually) incredibly offensive. A woman using this word towards another woman CAN be endearing in the right context, or used to cut her down.
Words and depictions of people are HIGHLY context sensitive!
In "Tropic Thunder" (2008) Robert Downey Jr. famously wore blackface. Of course I doubt he could do it today, but is that because it would be genuinely offensive, too controversial or both?
They were using blackface as a way to talk about race issues rather than the offensive way it has been used in other contexts.
Whether or not that kind of thing would fly today is a different question. I certainly hope that people could look at things holistically and not just have a knee-jerk reaction to something like this. I'm also interested in what black people think about this, because ultimately that's what matters most.
Although it is a bit ironic to see so many saviors valiantly offended. The entire SJW thing is more alienating than run of the mill, day to day racism. The gymnastics people pull off are astounding. Next they claim they're doing it on my behalf. Perhaps they'll call me a racist for disagreeing online. Those looking to be offended will always find a way. At a certain point we have to stop indulging them.
Dr. Seuss had some offensive cartoons in his early days, but I don't see that as illustrative of his entire character. I don't recall being offended as a child.
A lot of music is misogynistic and violent, same as old movies, books and so on. Sure, don’t frivolously add to it to cause pain, but don’t ban things that are today anachronistic but when produced were uncontroversial.
Let’s say hypothetically the Great Wall of China was built by prisoners of war, slaves and other spoils of war. Do we then not visit them? Are they denounced?
One source among many: https://www.history.com/news/when-dr-seuss-went-to-war
It’s not like they were known for being chivalrous (Bataan).
There's a distinction here between demonizing the enemy you're fighting against and demonizing the citizens of your own country for having a particular national origin. The cartoon here implies that Japanese-Americans (depicted the same way as the Japanese emperor in other cartoons) are traitors. And Dr. Seuss was German-American himself and did not try to imply through his cartoons that German-Americans or Italian-Americans are traitors.
As it regards “murder”. I think people get overly excited about nuclear bombs. We Capet bombed Germany and Japan. Japan carpet bombed China. Germany sent over their V1 & V2s. Many more of your ‘civilians’ died in the carpet bombing campaigns. You also forget that in Japan the Emperor was a cult-like hero. The majority would have walked over a cliff for him. It wasn’t a bunch of innocents we were fighting in either theater.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_German_America...
Japanese internment isn't considered problematic because it led to Japanese nationals that were supporting the Japanese war efforts being interned. It's problematic because it was indiscriminate and race-based - nearly all Japanese Americans in the continental US ended in internment camps. There's no comparison here - Japanese Americans were treated substantially worse than even German nationals, actual citizens of the country the US was at war with.
> You also forget that in Japan the Emperor was a cult-like hero. The majority would have walked over a cliff for him.
I'm struggling to find a charitable interpretation for this. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that it's okay to consider Americans of national origin X traitors if the US is at war with X and the country X happens to be led by a cult-like hero?
I wonder if _some_ may feel guilt for their own past actions or a historical burden unfairly hefted upon them. Instead of approaching that, it _may_ be easier to externalize and blame others. This _could_ explain the rampant accusations of racism. It is easy to see how this could become a self-perpetuating feedback loop.
It’s like how white people think they invented colorism, even though the preference for fairer skin in women exists throughout the pre-colonial historical record in India, Africa, and Asia. (As a dark skinned person whose half white daughter came out darker than him, I applaud the trend away from fairer skin as a beauty standard! But white people thinking they invented the beauty standard to begin with is self-centered and paternalistic: https://quillette.com/2019/02/13/the-origins-of-colourism/ We had colorism in India long before white people.)
In India that meant dark skinned Dravidian natives were ruled by the light skinned upper classes or castes. As a result of minimal intermarriage, these Central Asian genes are found mostly in “groups of priestly status”, ie, Brahmins. This led to the standard of beauty becoming ingrained.
There’s other factors as well, in that it’s a status symbol for some families to make their women stay at home rather than work. Not having to work in the fields means you don’t get tanned, making such people appear more beautiful by this standard.
Side note, I’d like to apologise to the Indians who believe that they’re the original inhabitants of the country and that “others” (ie, Muslims) are “invaders”. However, notwithstanding your hurt feelings, you still gotta face facts.
Source - A new study squelches a treasured theory about Indians’ origins. The Aryans did not come from India; they conquered it (https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/04/05/a-new-study-squelc...)
People act like Indians had this authentic indigenous culture before British colonization, overlooking that it’s the synthesis of wave after wave of colonization over millennium. I spoke English, even before coming to America, because of British colonialism. But I’ve got a Hebrew last name because Muslims colonized India before the British and brought it over from the Middle East. The food I grew up eating is a product of those same Muslim invaders, plus ingredients (chili peppers) sourced from Europeans who got them from the Americas. If you removed the layers of colonization from the culture I’m not sure what you’d have left.
The British, of course, are themselves the result of wave after wave of colonization to the British isles. If you peeled away the influences of the Norman colonizers, the Saxons, the Romans, the Vikings, etc., what would be left?
Japanese used to have a stigma related to being tanned as it represented manual labor. Not being tanned meant you didn’t work like a peasant. In western society oddly being tanned was associated with having leisure time to tan. All in all ‘not tanning’ was all around better than foot binding as a status marker.
Now, in Japan you see two situations people who want to look untanned and others who want to look ultra tanned (really dark make up).
I’m sure this will make these ultra sensitive types go into a tailspin.
Now in South Asia there is a tendency for middle class women to lighten their skin tone. Is that good, bad? I dunno. That should be up to them. To me it’s no different from other make up or getting hair transplants or nosejobs or other cosmetic surgery. But some people want to jam their preconception on other people’s freedoms.
White people engage in other forms of plastic surgery because various media has told them a certain form is the most beautiful. The difference here is that Western media has clearly spent over a century villianizing certain with Asian traits.
Wonder if Classical Japanese art like this[1] will get banned?
Interestingly lots of Manga and Anime go the other way and give people vertical eye shapes (buggs bunny eyes).
[1] https://spokenvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Utamaro-...
I do see woodcuts using the same eye rendering for demons and other underworld characters, but I hope those don’t get banned by a foreign culture because it thinks it misrepresents its own people.
At this point people are on a veritable ‘witch-hunt’ looking for their witches and waiting for Bradburys Firemen to come burn them.
Those woodcuts you are referring to have a much different context. There's a big difference between a white man caracituring based on race and an asian culture using this depiction on their own terms.
And I don’t think things can only be described by people on their own terms. If it were the case then only descendants of imperialists (Japanese in Asia, Britons in India and America, etc) could talk about the aftermath. And only Africans can talk about things Africans and only Mexicans about Mexico, etc. That’s untenable.
I respect your difference in opinion. I'm interested in how asian / black people feel about these Dr. Seuss books.
> And only Africans can talk about things Africans and only Mexicans about Mexico, etc. That’s untenable
I really don't think anybody is suggesting that
Which Asian and Black people? Inevitably, it seems like it’s some professor of ethnic studies that are consulted about these questions. (That’s actually exactly what happened here to decide on what Dr. Seuss books were racist.) But think about that for a moment. Do you think the opinions of a random white Columbia University social sciences professor are a fair gauge of “how white people feel” about some issue? Obviously not. Then why would you assume the same is true as to people of color?
As a person of color I am vigorously opposed to this trend of putting professors and activists in charge of speaking for people of color. It’s totally distorting the conversation we are having with the rest of America, and also amongst ourselves. My mom and aunts, immigrants from Muslim countries, fret over their kids being exposed to western moral values (divorce, premarital sex, disrespect for elders, aggressive individualism, etc.) I have never heard them complain about some depiction in some book or movie. Meanwhile, professors and activists are making a huge deal about pictures and depictions in our name. But they are simultaneously working with white social progressives to undermine things that typical people in these communities care a lot more about. It’s perverse.
How are you just ignoring his WWII career as a propaganda artist? I linked you one of the tamer examples, but he was creating cartoons depicting both Japanese and Germans as the evil enemy.
He was making anti-Japan propaganda, there's no doubt he made them into evil characters.
Proof
http://keyeventsofworldwar2.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6/4/19640...
If that's how you view war propaganda, clearly nearly a century after the war things influenced by such propaganda should not be exposed to young children.
Even "bad guys" can be good characters [0], the most complex/nuanced characters are also complex. Start dictating that <x> characters can't have negative attributes, and you end up with boring, simplistic caricatures of <x> thrown in as tokens, but never managing the highlight (because why would you want boring, restricted characters to be in central roles?).
[0]: Is Gregory House a good character? Is "Dexter"? What about characters from the shield, or breaking bad?
As for common, the estimates I can find show between 1/5th and 1/3rd of South Korean woman receive double eyelid surgery.
The kind of ridiculous physical caricature we see in this kind of artwork (slanted eyes and buck teeth on asians, long arms, huge lips and a completely non-representative chimpanzee circle around the mouth on africans, etc...) only makes sense when viewed from outside, in the "look at these strange and alien people" sense. No one drawing themself reaches for tropes like this.
Chinese: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=S...
Korean: https://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/25/2007052...
Japanese: https://www.irasutoya.com/2018/06/blog-post_724.html
Among other genres.
Maybe your mental model of people drawing themselves with "slanted eye representation" is more specific in nature?
I haven't seen the other tropes you've mentioned though.
It doesn't strike you as odd that in this whole enormous controversy which has consumed right wing media all week and driven this thousand+ comment thread to the top of HN...
... that no one thought to show you the actual artwork in question, and that you never looked it up for yourself?
Seriously, it's pretty bad. Go look.
My prior comment was in response to this gap.
With regards to the controversy stirred up by right-wing propaganda, Aesop's fable of the bull and the gnat applies for me.
Peace.
I’m looking forward to Banned Book Week this year. It’s always interesting to see what small percentage of people are serious about their principles.
If you were a Librarian and the Washington Post called to ask you whether you were going to keep circulating the books that everybody-even-the-publisher has acknowledged are racist, don’t you think you might interpret that as pressure to pull them? How about if Karen comes in and holds one of them in front of your face from the shelf and starts loudly demanding that racism not be allowed in your community any longer. Do you honestly think that won’t/hasn’t happened?
https://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-librarians-praise-decisio...
I'm sure there are plenty of Christian book stores / libraries out there who are unwilling to stock The God Delusion. And why would a LGBTQ bookstore sell LGBTQ hate propaganda?
I guess this could be taken to an extreme. Maybe a library in a highly conservative town chooses to not stock anything that has a hint of left-wing ideology, and maybe they have internet filters to block any left-wing web sites, and they only put front-and-center highly right-wing books.
I don't know, it's complicated.
The truth is, there is already plenty interference is private business, but it (seems) to not be evenly applied. If I request a library stock (or borrow) a book that I'd like to read, I don't consider political aesthetics to be a valid reason to refuse.
> I'm sure there are plenty of Christian book stores / libraries out there who are unwilling to stock The God Delusion
Do you mean a normal bookstore owned by Christians, or a specialist bookstore that only stocks christian literature? If the store could refuse any non-christian material (e.g. a cookbook) as well as Dawkins books, I'm not sure if that's censorship - a greengrocer can also refuse to stock The God Delusion on similarly reasonable grounds.
I think we've decided as a society that sexual orientation is a protected group. You cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. But I think you can still discriminate based on views of what is racist and what is not? If a white guy walks into black-owned barber shop and throws around racial slurs at the barbers, can the owners of that barber shop refuse him service and kick him out? I certainly hope so... but am I being hypocritical?
Honestly I'm out of my depth here. I have opinions but I don't think my opinions are necessarily as informed as I want them to be.
What kind of example is this? Does it matter what the respective races are? How is this equivalent to the wedding-cake example?
As for "sexual orientation is a protected group"; religion is also protected.
But for the rest of it, I get what you’re saying. I definitely want to live in a world where there are Christian booksellers selling their curated collections, and left wing revolutionary bookstores selling theirs. That only adds to diversity of expression. On the other hand, if I started to see large numbers of previously neutral purveyors of books saying they wouldn’t carry anything that offends the church I’d criticize that. I don’t want to live under a new puritanism, even if everybody forwarding it is entirely within their rights to do so.
Doesn't the fact that there are more books in existence than any library can possibly stock forces them to pick and choose what gets onto shelves? That filter process cannot be divorced from people's values and baises unless we went with some sort of random selection of all texts that have ever existed, which would result in complete nonsense. We pick winners and losers all the time and not everybody is going to agree with those choices.
I guess I don't see it as unreasonable for a library to not want to stock what they view as racially insensitive books, especially kids books. But of course, people are going to disagree with exactly what that means. Maybe somebody out there truly thinks Green Eggs & Ham shouldn't be stocked because it glorifies exploiting animals for their meat and eggs. There's just no pleasing everybody I guess
Maybe we’ll get there. In my lifetime censors have been mostly concerned with childrens’ books with supernatural themes and more recently lgbt stories. I’d guess that’s still where most of the library “book banning” is focused.
Yet.
And it's tiresome and boring to hear people pretend that any reasonable line will be drawn. History is full of racially "insensitive" things. What, are we going to make sure "modern kids" don't see that stuff too? What a nullified and pretentious existence.
>have you tried the library?
I have, and it turns out that the same people who think banning books is fine also run the library. Oh the irony!
Isn't that also true of violence in games and movies?
Or any morally repugnant behaviour, now that we mention it?
In fact, why let them read anything except the Bible?
We all grew up with those bugs bunny cartoons with the same depictions, some even going so far as to depict them as cannibals, and I can't say either of those made our generation really think that of either of those ethnic groups. I think it was a realistic trope that 90s kids usually watched cartoons in groups after school with every ethnic group, that Sunny Delight commercial comes to mind [0], as does Dave Chapelle's joke about purple drink.
People need to realize that the World is messy, and racism and prejudice exits in all walks of life: none greater than in social class, which transcends ethnicity. And the sooner children realize that the sooner they will be able to acknowledge it and develop a sense of agency in the World to deal with an imperfect World.
Instead, all this re-enforces is a helicopter parents 'Karen' antics on to their children in which complaining to no end is the only way to get one's point of view, that ultimately drives to discord in Society: be it person or on social media--with the latter being critical to sustaining it's way over-valuations which mask their Black Mirroresque business models which that often provoke this type of behaviour and should really be the focus here and not canceling Dr. Suess books.
Sidenote: I'm sure their is some SJW interpretation for canceling Sunny Delight to be made about this as well as the kid was 'accosted only after a white aggressor perpetuated violence which provoked the black one to do the same' type narrative, but either way it's just best to ignore them.
Some parents are totally clueless.
This is like expecting that children would develop phobia to birds after playing angry birds (have you seen this very obvious slanted eyebrows in the main character?).
A figure with slanted eyes pose the same danger currently as giving your son a tin toy with sharp angles. Could cut their skin if one single child in the planet would find that stuff remotely funny, or accept to play with it for money.
This old fart WWII bomb has been inactivated long time ago. Just can't compete the thousands of positive asian characters that are the bread and butter in the journey of the western child. Unlike 1945 farmers, the pokemon generation are very aware of anything remotely related with japanese culture. Can talk for hours about their favourite asian characters, specially the evil ones, that they absolutely adore.
My wife and I help guide the convo and but they draw their own conclusions. Critical thinking is a muscle which must be exercised and grown.
I find as a parent that I sometimes lump in my younger one with my older one and unfairly (to the younger) compare them to each other, even though the older one is just so much more developed. This sometimes ends up with me putting too high of expectations on the younger one unintentionally, and she feels inadequate.
Not trying to get all advicey here, but I know I have a hard time addressing each child at their own age and level, and while maybe the 4 year old appears to be keeping up, a 4 year olds’ brain is just not as developed as a 13 year old.
Don't outsource your tesponsibility to help guide the next generation. Don't shelter them from your idea of obcenity either. If you respect their capabilities; you let them set their boundaries on their own.
I swear this wokeness movement is getting so tone deaf they don't realize they're becoming the radical pearl clutchers that the actual Liberal's fought against the auspices of to make sure that knowledge was shared.
When you're in stark opposition to the cause of a bunch of Librarians, you're almost certainly in the wrong.
Yes, they do! I was explaining just this to my kids yesterday, in the context of this very controversy. I don't understand why you think I should have read them those particular books to them when they were toddlers. Seriously, that stuff is pretty vile.
I don’t think that falls under ‘freedom to’, because nobody can list it going forward either.
Wherever you stand on the issue of whether or not Ebay can/should be able to ban Dr. Seuss books on their marketplace that fact alone is damn weird.
From the article at least, it appears eBay will also remove those books.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180705090957/https://www.ebay....
The 2018 one probibits "items that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance, or promote organizations with such views"
I am not sure to what extent or in what ways it has been enforced against what sorts of items. Perhaps it has been enforced unevenly or mostly not? I suspect that nazi memorabilia, at least, has been consistently rejected for a while.
But the policy is not new.
The today one at that URL gets into a lot more specific details than the 2018 one, including prohibiting "Items with racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise demeaning portrayals, for example through caricatures or other exaggerated features, including figurines, cartoons, housewares, historical advertisements, and golliwogs"
It looks like those details were there as early as Nov 2020, not sure how long before that. But that predates the current Seuss controversy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112030930/https://www.ebay....
In closing, the Internet Archive is doing some really important work. I should go send them some bucks again.
"Every book is a children's book, if the kid can read."
Mitch Hedberg
But seriously, is who the book is aimed at relevant?
In WWII Bayer used slave labor in its factories that were inside of concentration camps.
This is not like Facebook amplifying someone's vile posts and showing them to hundreds or thousands of people. It's just a 1:1 transaction for a physical object that contains racist depictions.
If the enforcement effort is nontrivial (e.g., moderating a global social media platform), this dynamic is a moat for the company doing the enforcement. Every time they introduce a new rule that the majority of their users don’t care much about, they strengthen the moat. So over time they’ll find an equilibrium with the strictest rules they can get away with.
I don’t mean this happens intentionally, but rather in an evolutionary, survival of the fittest sort of way.
Mein Kampf is listed as a Best Seller on Amazon.
Edit: I'm not sure why I was downvoted. What I wrote is literally true. There is a Best Seller badge next to the first version that is listed, when searching for Mein Kampf.
Hum... No, it's just a monopolist that gatekeeps a lot of people's right to commerce.
Are you claiming that the governments of the places it's relevant shouldn't care about what they do?
Or are you just trying to suggest that Dr. Seuss is somehow comparable to Adolf Hitler?
Really? Trying the "check availability" feature on https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mein-kampf-hitler-adolf/112..., for example, it looks like most local B&N outlets have it in stock.
Apparently, eBay has no problem with Adolf Hitler, but Dr. Seuss somehow is a horrible racist.
This seller has several listings of memorabilia.
Though you are largely correct, the "think of the children" angle is unnecessary to your argument and fundamentally flawed. Pornography and other materials that ought not end up in the hands of children are available on both eBay and Amazon, neither of which allow young children to have their own accounts.
Are you saying your bannings are the true bannings and others are illegitimate bannings? Or should they all be equally banned?
Are religious conservatives okay to get their list of bad books banned?
Isn't Ebay acting here similarly over a preemptive concern of blowback from a small group of determined activists?
Freedom to cower.
What do you think eBay is?
Here is something from 1981 for your daily dose of irony: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/opinion-censors-play-...
"The Pico case is only part of a pattern of intense local battles erupting around the country as opposing forces arm themselves for what could become a destructive war over books in America’s schools and school libraries. The insurgents, whose ideological supply lines extend deep into the right wing and its quasi-religious satellites, are well organized; and the advocates of civil liberty in the nation’s schools are reading reports from the front with alarm. “The community of the book,” as Random House vice president Anthony Shulte calls it, is beginning to prepare for a long struggle whose outcome is by no means clear."
...
"Unfortunately for the nation’s authors, their publishers, and readers, the AAP report understates the magnitude of the movement to ban books. Ira Glasser, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calls the proliferating challenges to books “an epidemic of future shock” among individuals who “have little more in common than insecurity and fear of a world they can no longer understand.” Judith Krug, director of the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee, is alarmed that the number of reported incidents of attempted book censorship in school and public libraries ballooned immediately after the Nov. 4 election of Ronald Reagan, and has continued at a record rate along with the rising fortunes of the new right."
[p.s. I'ts even better than I thought. I missed the sidebar on the above 1981 page on Seuss:
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-dr-seuss-contro...]
Wonderful. And where do tech monopolies figure in the world view you've expounded ?
The libertarian argument used to support censorship is that a private group or business is free to do what it wants. However this misses the increasingly apparent fact that an insufficiently politically correct business in this environment is quickly targeted and perhaps even 'cancelled'.
So we have a systemic problem. Private entities are not truly free just as the de facto government is not truly accountable.
It is time to declare the old argument, since it's a private company it can do what it wants, and free speech should not apply, dead and outmoded. Yes, the 1st Amendment. But it's time to rethink the entire moral fabric that has informed us before the Internet Age.
What I find positively shocking is that, myself as a lifelong progressive, am seeing Woke people using that free market argument, to promote censorship and what they call antiracism. I think it goes hand in hand with large megacorporations like Amazon and Bloomberg promoting wokist ideology.
Bottom line, they want more, not less control over our minds. They know what's good. We must ask someone with a Ph.D. in __ Studies to tell us what our ethical path should be. It's positively insane.
You forgot to add: "to someone, probably a minority, possibly entirely wrong".
Because it seems like you are implying that it's option C by making this comment.
The problem is you didn't focus on the real critical issue: why do the ends justify the means? "The ends" for medicine is saving thousands of lives. The ends for bullying is making one person feel better about themselves (maybe?).
This is the question you need to ask when you wonder "should we ban a book".
Maybe it's more important to look at the overall impact on society as it is right now, and in the context of where we want it to evolve, rather than what particular individuals may like.
Imagine if Australia bookstores followed the principle that even if a minority (and in this case, a very important minority as the aboriginal people are the "original owners" of the land) does not like a book, it should not be made available... you wouldn't be allowed to sell any books that contained or even mentioned deceased people.
But now, imagine that the British had not invaded and forcibly taken over Australia, so that the aboriginal people would be the current rules of the country. Now, you would probably expect no bookstores to want to offend their customers, so they would, presumably, avoid selling most books, arguably.
So, yes, I think that whether or not it's a minority that takes a certain stand makes a whole world of difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_avoidanc...
What is a culture if not the rules and customs a large majority of a certain population agrees on?
Some cultures try to accomodate minorities, but there's always a threshold to what's tolerated even in the most open societies. A certain minority may not like something the majority does, but unless there's very little cost for the majority to stop doing that, they won't, even if that offends some groups.
There's no way around this because there will always be groups who take offense in things you may consider completely and utterly harmless (I gave the example of Australia aborigines not being comfortable with talking about or depicting deceased people - obviously a problem in the age of movies and books). A society that tried to acommodate every group's sensibilities would be completely unable to function.
The more distant the groups, the more patently obvious this becomes. If you are not sure what I am talking about you probably should try to learn more about other cultures.
Oh my... I suppose you're writing this from prison as if you don't care about what society thinks you certainly must disagree with many laws of that society...
This is a really childish argument and thinking there's an absolute truth is an obvious sign of your lack of understanding of what humanity even means.
There is no absolute truth. Nothing has inherent value, not even life. We only give value to life (and really different values depending on what type of life we're talking about) because we have an obvious interest in keeping our species alive, but this is not inherently good, or an absolute truth in any way.
You now come up with an argument that's drowning in your own culture and the very recent past of your own society and you don't even realize that, thinking there's some kind of absolute truth behind your position. There isn't. You're so deep into your society mindset you're compleetely incapable of thinking outside of that.
You seem to be trying to refer to Sam Harris' Moral Landscape without actually understanding at all what he means.
I'm basing my understanding on the Two Concepts of Liberty by Isaiah Berlin.
> Freedom of speech ... means you are not bound and limited by something external
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
My answer to this situation is similar to that of Justice Holmes, we need a free marketplace of ideas as well as a free marketplace of products. Breaking up monopolies in commerce and discourse goes a long way towards those goals.
How is my 6 years old son supposed to draw an ancient Chinese villager without being racist ?
Throughout history society has decided what (legal) things are acceptable in public - public executions, graphic sexuality, violence. Today, (I think) the majority of society seem to have accepted that racism and racist stereotypes are bad and don't want to see them in childrens books, TV programs and films etc.
This is different from Mein Kampf or Marquis de Sade, or Lolita being available in bookshops - the majority of people reading them would know what they were getting into.
You do realize your comment perverts the very meaning of the word "freedom" to mean the opposite of its actual meaning, right?
You are "freeing" people from the freedom to access information and ideas you find unacceptable.
That is not freedom, that is the opposite of freedom.
Banning "unacceptable" ideas is the staple of Orwell's 1984, and appropriately, we are starting to use Newspeak as well: "Freedom is Slavery".
> Throughout history society has decided what (legal) things are acceptable in public
This is a dominant used book seller banning private individuals from selling a book to each other to read in private settings. Nothing about this is "public".
> This is different from Mein Kampf or Marquis de Sade, or Lolita
As if anyone will be surprised when our new commissar overlords at eBay and Amazon ban these books next.
It's not a perversion at all; in fact, this sense of freedom being more than raw ability to "do whatever you want" was recognized as early as Rousseau and possibly even earlier. This also led to the creation of the concepts of positive and negative liberty. "Freedom from" is absolutely a valid form of freedom, and a core one in our society. It's why things which aren't harms (and sometimes barely even hurts) are prohibited - public nudity, playing loud music on a bus, and other forms of nuisance. The canonical example is the fact that there is no harm-based reason to ban corpse desecration. In fact, it's a law based on the offence principle. There is some space in our society for laws like that, but we need to be careful with them, of course.
This case is even more benign - we have here a company refusing to sell these items. You speak of 'information and ideas', but these ideas can still manifest even on Ebay. No 'unacceptable idea' has been 'banned'. I'm not sure who you're saying is using Newspeak. As was pointed out by Marcuse in the 60s we're well past Orwell - now the contradiction is hidden in the noun itself.
What we describe as 'free societies' are full of restrictions on some freedom to ensure the development and use of greater freedoms. That's a core part of liberal society.
What the woke mob is doing right now is to extend this paradoxical definition of "freedom" to the extent that nobody will have any (real) freedom at all.
In a nutshell, the woke argument is: "I should have the 'freedom' from being offended, and this 'freedom' overrides and cancels all your freedoms."
For example, in this case: "I am offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, will read a book containing ideas I dislike, therefore your very important rights to publish and read such books are hereby revoked".
This is the same line of reasoning that led to the establishment of totalitarian utopias (favored by Marcuse) which inevitably end up as 1984-style dystopia.
All views of freedom are paradoxical other than the most basic view, which is that everyone has the freedom to do anything to anyone. The law provides freedom from armed bandits, or the worry of armed bandits, attacking you at night. At least, it aims to. Property rights provide freedom from your things being appropriated by others (including a government). The right to representation at trial provides freedom to fair judgements in the legal system. This isn't a dystopia.
>In a nutshell, the woke argument is: "I should have the 'freedom' from being offended, and this 'freedom' overrides and cancels all your freedoms."
Nobody has made that argument, but as I mentioned, the canonical case is corpse desecration. People in general desire freedom from that offense, and this freedom overrides and cancels the freedom to desecrate corpses.
>For example, in this case: "I am offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, will read a book containing ideas I dislike, therefore your very important rights to publish and read such books are hereby revoked".
I don't think we should do that, and I don't think the "woke mob" in general really thinks that either. Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago.
No, there is a valid view of individual freedom that is limited by other people's freedom. In fact, that's the traditional American view of freedom.
I have the freedom to do anything that doesn't actively restrict the freedom of others. I can walk into an empty space. I can't walk into a space you occupy.
> Political philosophy consists of more than a worrisome story written eighty years ago.
If only 1984 was just "a worrisome story written eighty years ago".
Instead, it describes the totalitarian regime created by Marxist takeover of the Soviet union.
We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society.
Books are being banned. Ideas are becoming unacceptable, shunned, erased from public discourse, and from our memories.
President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015:
https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai...
But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist.
And his books are, accordingly, being erased. Cancelled.
To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered."
The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command.
The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.
Exactly! In this way, your freedom is limited for the sake of other freedoms. However, as with the corpse desecration example, your freedom is also limited for the sake of various freedom froms. With assault, for example, there is no freedom to write and post threatening letters. If I receive a threatening letter, my freedom to do things hasn't been impacted. However, my freedom from threats has been impacted. Even the traditional American view of freedom is very widely restrictive, and for good reason.
>We are now experiencing an attempted Marxist takeover of our own society.
If this is a 'Marxist takeover', I'd have to say the Marxists are doing a pretty poor job of it. I don't recall Marx writing that racist depictions in children's books shouldn't be sold at auction, though.
>But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist.
No, you're not. Who's forcing you to say that? In fact, who's even forcing you to accept that view? The very fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that this isn't happening.
>but to condition us to reject, ban, and shun "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command.
This is conspiratorial thinking. We are already conditioned to shun unacceptable ideas, thoughts and expressions; it comes from two elements of our world - freedom of association, and moral autonomy.
>The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.
I'm a leftist and I don't share that view, at least. I can't really think of anyone who does. All the leftists with influence (from Marx to academics) has never shared this view. In fact, they called out the capitalist regulation of consciousness and its control through culture. The 'leftists' were the first to systematically investigate the role of ideology in the modern world.
If we are all "free" to not ever be offended, then nobody has any sort of freedom at all, because any expression or action might be offensive to someone, somewhere, at some point.
As soon as anyone is willing to claim offense (which is actively encouraged by the left), whatever happens to offend them is banned and cancelled.
We are actively cancelling books, people, scientific research, and numerous other ideas and expressions. Our politicians are explicitly promoting government-mandated limits on "offensive speech".
If you object or resist any of these social trends, you are a bigot, and you will be cancelled.
We are not yet in a 1984 zero-freedom Marxist dystopia, but we are well on our way there. The ideological foundations for this dystopia have been laid and accepted by most on the left, including those unaware of their ultimate outcome.
Marx and his original supporters likewise didn't intend or foresee the Soviet totalitarian dystopia that resulted from their ideology.
Much like leftists today, they excused incursions on individual freedom because it will lead to "greater good" such as "freedom from harm", "freedom from want", etc.
It ended with gulags, commissars, purges, mass executions, genocide, and the elimination of all actual human freedoms in pursuit of some idealized, self-contradictory mirage of "perfect freedom".
This was not intended, but it's also not an accident. Once you ideologically commit to sacrificing individual freedom in pursuit of other goals (social justice, a socialist Utopia, etc) then totalitarian oppression becomes a distinct possibility - arguably, an inevitability.
But the decision to stop selling this book was made by capitalists in a capitalist system. Marxists and leftists have nothing to do with this. You say "Once you ideologically commit to sacrificing individual freedom in pursuit of other goals (social justice, a socialist Utopia, etc) then totalitarian oppression becomes a distinct possibility", but this decision is due to individual freedom at its height. It's a perfect example of the exercise of individual freedom in the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, any other outcome would be a contraction of individual freedom.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to stop publishing the book. That is, they exercised their individual freedom to stop publishing the book. No one made this decision for them except for themselves, particularly not the government. In fact, it's only due to their limited monopoly over the rights of this work that they are able to have this freedom. Marxists and leftists would disagree with the concept of "intellectual property" outright. Dr. Seuss Enterprises would not be able to stop the publication of these books under a Marxist system because they would not have the right to make that decision; anyone could decide to publish them if Dr. Seuss Enterprises didn't want to. It sounds like maybe you are taking the Marxist position on this one.
eBay decided to stop selling the books. It is their right as a corporation to decide what they want and what they don't want on their platform. This decision was made by the capitalists who own and control the eBay corporation. The alternative would be the government forcing them to sell the books on their platform. How would that in pursuit of individual freedom? Marxists and leftists would say that the workers at eBay should make this decision, for they are the ones who should own and control eBay. But I fail to see how capitalists deciding what they should do with their platform, under a capitalist system, is somehow a reflection of Marxist ideology gone haywire.
If anything your problem is with capitalism.
Your imagined "takeover" is merely a 21st century re-imagining of literal nazi propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism
The idea that we're "being bullied" into believing that a man who drew extremely racist anti-Japanese war propaganda was perhaps not beyond reproach in terms of his views on race is, itself, revisionism. When you say "he was never racist", you're either woefully misinformed or lying.
He very much was racist; and after the war, regretted it, and ended up campaigning against the sorts of "America first" views he once championed.
Did you actually read the article? The owners and publishers of the books decided they contained images that they felt were offensive and didn't want to be associated with so stopped publishing. Should they be forced to continue? Why are their rights different from yours?
The 'ideas' in the books are still available to view on the internet, you can print them out and share them with your friends. The originals may be copyrighted but you can make similar pictures with the same ideas and sell your own books containing them.
Do we want to live in a society where certain corporations decide which training wheels to put on us? The discussion isn't about their legal right, but about what their policy should be when X group comes along saying Y is offensive. I doubt these decisions were made from a cynical bottom-line perspective. No one as far as I'm aware was boycotting these places because they sold offensive children's books. The most disturbing thing to me is they did it purely because they thought it was the right thing to do. Their policy is what we're saying is wrong.
We 'attack' ideas all the time; in fact, that's what most of us are doing on HN. There's nothing wrong with such an 'attack' on an idea. In fact, if you open Ebay right now, you'll likely find works of philosophy and law debating whether parents and teachers can use offensive works to a productive end.
>The discussion isn't about their legal right, but about what their policy should be when X group comes along saying Y is offensive.
That's a good question, but it does not demand an answer culminating in an accusation that actually rather reasonable answers constitute an attack on the very idea of freedom. We recognize 'offense' even in law in every country on the planet, and it seems to me that so long as corporations have less power than governments, there is at least some room for reasoning from moral or practical principles that are not available (nor do we wish to be available) in law.
The very fact that it's a not a legal question actually seems to tilt the scales towards reasons why a private entity should exercise moral autonomy in the market.
>The most disturbing thing to me is they did it purely because they thought it was the right thing to do. Their policy is what we're saying is wrong.
This isn't disturbing to me; the market is a big part of our social life, and with the law generally more restricted on dealing with moral issues, actors in the market can step in and make those decisions for themselves. There is nothing repugnant about acting on the basis of what you find wrong or right. There may be something wrong with the moral reasoning of Seuss' estate and Ebay (if it even is moral reasoning - to a consequentialist this wouldn't even matter). But the form of the decision (moral reasoning) and its content (the morality of facilitating the sale of racist caricatures, if the books really are that bad) are two different questions.
I have zero problem with a stock exchange refusing to sell tobacco or even alcohol or strip club stocks. I may disagree with them - maybe I think alcohol and strip clubs are not morally wrong businesses. But I can't see any reason to disagree with their exercise of moral autonomy. Their exercise of moral autonomy is a contribution to the moral discourse, and censorship of that discourse is a bigger concern, and not merely from theoretical reasons.
To me these externally imposed training wheels hurt our ability to move forward. The _policy_ is misguided, and hiding the past destines us to repeat it. These companies are entering the business of vigilante thought police, there's really no other way to explain what's happening here.
Freedom from saying forbidden words, freedom from thinking forbidden thoughts, freedom from all the people who write, research, or joke about controversial subjects, freedom from anything that could potentially offend or upset anyone ever, freedom from anything that doesn't comply with the dogma.
Boy, I can't wait to be liberated from all the wrongthink!
What's funny is that it's the publishing house themselves that decided to stop selling the book. Shouldn't they have the freedom to decide that?
You don't have that right. The world is not safe. Nowhere are you guaranteed happiness, or refuge from upsetting ideas. You are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. The outcome is a function of how fast your legs are.
In a nation that sincerely values the concept of Liberty, the Public Safety (a subset of which is your presumed "freedom from") always takes a second seat. To have it any other way is to put an end to the very ideal at the center of the United States. Liberty is scary. Freedom makes no guarantees. Non-hackers can feel free to not consume in their own spaces, but don't start trying to dictate what others should or should not have access to.
No, it's predominantly white-driven top-down (upper 20% income bracket) classism run amok, proping up specialist careers and pretending to be about "caring" and "wokeness".
>there is no power structure wielding a “cancel button” here.
Yeah, no "power structure", just the mainstream media, the corporate world, ad agencies, governments, government agencies, web-mobs, FAANG - the biggest tech companies in the world plus Clouldflare and others, payment processors, the "good society" class wise and so on, with an increasing number of BS laws on their side too...
I'm pretty sure most people are in agreement that racist caricatures are bad.
> Yeah, no "power structure", just the mainstream media, the corporate world, ad agencies, governments, government agencies, web-mobs, FAANG - the biggest tech companies in the world plus Clouldflare and others, payment processors, the "good society" class wise and so on, with an increasing number of BS laws on their side too...
My wording could have been better, but my meaning was that this "cancellation" (which is really just people acknowledging that something is bad) is not applied by some power structure, and is certainly not a weapon that can be aimed at arbitrary concepts at will. I agree that free speech is important, but hate speech is not.
I am pretty sure it’s the opposite considering how the concept of racism has morphed in recent years.
> my meaning was that this "cancellation" (which is really just people acknowledging that something is bad) is not applied by some power structure
This is oxymoronic. Perhaps you misunderstand what power structure means. It doesn’t have to be a legal institution or centralized in any way.
I'm pretty sure most people are in agreement that wiping out history and culture is bad.
The question is what is the appropriate tradeoff. Should new editions of these books be published, targeted to children? Probably not. Should they be effectively banned from being sold (used)? At least not without due consideration to the alternatives, like marking them.
Else, few, and only fringe usually crazy people would not agree that e.g. slavery, seggregation, jim crow, redlining, etc, were and are bad.
But a certain modern "anti-racism" is not used against the establishment or the white privileged class, and is not even driven by blacks themselves demanding justice.
It's driven by upper middle class whites and their wanabees in-preparation (e.g. higher end college students), against lower class whites.
And as such, it's not just classist, but also blind to the injustices working class whites and "white trash", blacks, latinos, etc, face because of poverty and inequality - it serves as a class signal to perpetuate 'woke white supremacy' (and as a career to some).
Then again, what I know? I'm not American, and we have been actual slaves ourselves in my country...
This is kind of like: should you be advertising cigarettes to minors? (Should you be advertising those at all?)
I do think it's quite painful to be cutting out culturally important artifacts like this, but I also understand the argument to do so, and it has pretty much nothing to do with upper-class vs. lower-class.
Most of the issues with these books seems fairly minor; it sounds like it should be feasible to release a new edition avoiding the negative stereotypes while retaining pretty much all of the cultural value. Not sure why the publisher didn't try to do that... or maybe they are, and this is just the way they're doing that so as to also hype up the new edition for sales. Who knows. (Yes, I realize eBay's decision is technically distinct from the publishers, but clearly they're trying to avoid negative PR here, i.e. being risk-averse by just following somebody else's lead - I doubt any of these dominos would have fallen without the publishers choices).
Either that or caricatures like "my opponents don't think racism is bad" are unhelpful straw-man arguments.
I would love to believe that, but there's been too much evidence lately that some people love racist caricatures.
That include anybody that cares to point me to HN guidelines. Have a nice weekend, but fuck off in the mean time
Do you feel threatened? Fuck off.
Do you feel like an idiot? Fuck off.
Do you feel I'm having a bad day? Fuck off.
For the record. This post on Dr. Seuss has no place on HN. If it is allowed on HN but dissent ideas are not, then fuck off together with your woke HN points. I'm sick of idiots turned social warriors. Fuck off
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
"If you "denigrate" someone, you attempt to blacken their reputation. It makes sense, therefore, that "denigrate" can be traced back to the Latin verb denigrare, meaning "to blacken.""
I wonder if Illirik is brave enough to make a selfie with one of the yesterday-OK, today-awful Dr. Seuss books and publish it on the social networks. Just to test how many conscientious minds will try to get him fired.
IMHO they are just stereotypical, but engaging in visual stereotypes is not the same as racism.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/elena-guthrie/racism-white-...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/03/raceintheuk....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/19/... ( https://archive.md/Tm3KK )
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/loreal-paris...
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-korver-racism-white-people-nba...
Of course, in practice, the demons are regular people with stones in their hands ...
... we've managed to turn magic and superstition into reality, just not in a way we expected.
Maybe illirik should consider that the cancel culture weapon could just as easily be turned on them.
Bezos was chatting with MBS on WhatsApp before MBS allegedly hacked him. It seems more likely he wasn't hacked by MBS and the culprit was his girlfriend's brother. Maybe Jeff and MBS are due to mend their friendship?
Those people then receiving retribution for some action (whether they deem it reasonable or not) doesn't necessarily imply that they've come to see things your way.
[1] https://modelcitizen.substack.com/p/undefined-cancel-game
This has nothing to do with conscientiousness. Buying a book to read at home by yourself is not the business of anyone else and neither eBay nor anyone else should be dictating what you're allowed to read.
To fix your analogy: Someone comes to YOUR house and demands you release a "problematic" work of fiction to the public from your private collection because people are censoring it and people need to see its no big deal. You refuse, because it's yours and you don't feel like it... maybe you agree with the rabble? Either way... you know your rights.
If you want to defeat cancel culture you should advocate for LESS property rights, less market "freedom", and strong labor protections. This whole idea that you can somehow defeat a moral panic with some sort of counter moral panic (or backlash) has been tried for over 40 years - it's not working.
Not really. It's more like Person A wants to sell a book. Person B wants to buy a book. Persons C through Z, who are not involved, haven't read the book, have no intention of ever having anything to do with the book, but saw a tweet that said it was bad, interject themselves and decide that persons A and B are not allowed to conduct their transaction.
Instead hire buyers to vet the merchandise you’re selling and stand behind it and take responsibility for it. You don’t get to have it both ways.
"Whatever it is, you can get it on eBay". Unless of course it offends someone.
If you want to live a life of restrictions you are more than free to do so. What you may not do is impose them on others.
Is there a line, in your conception, between what eBay should be forced to sell, and what they are allowed to prohibit? For instance, explicit pornography is legal. Should eBay be forced to sell explicit pornography? If so, is there anything in your mind that they should not be forced to sell on their website?
eBay is not selling anything. The users on eBay are selling things and they can choose what to sell or not sell. If Wal-Mart wants to decide not to sell the book, fine. If you purport to offer a marketplace where other people can sell and buy things, you should not be involving yourself in the customers' transactions unless they are illegal.
If the public doesn’t want to buy porn there, they won’t and the stand will go out of business.
If they do want to buy porn there, why do you think the farmers market owners should be allowed to dictate what adults are and are not allowed to buy?
What if you wanted to set up a stand that sold books exclusively by African-American authors and they told you you weren’t allowed to do that. Is that ok?
Its obviously not ok, but its not ok because its racist
eBay is not the government. They are not arbiters of what we are and are not allowed to do. Many people have sacrificed their lives to ensure that we are not governed by arbitrary tyrants that we have no say in, and it's frankly shocking that people are now like "Well, they paid a lawyer to set up a C-Corp in Delaware so I guess it's fine that they decide what we're allowed to read now".
Unless you think that businesses, schools, and families should also be prohibited from blocking pornography, or should otherwise be forced to facilitate access to eBay, your suggestion is untenable from a business perspective.
Besides this is a ridiculous strawman. "If you allow people to sell Dr. Suess books, you must therefore also plaster the front page in explicit pornography." Obviously not.
The Internet is increasingly winner-take-all and is controlled by fewer and fewer larger and larger companies. Allowing a handful of corporations unrestricted reign to dictate what we are allowed to say to each other is antithetical to a free society. Reductio ad absurdum arguments are not going to help you when cabal of corporate censors with no accountability decide to eject you from society for daring to question the intellectual fashion of the moment.
You may have identified a real problem in society, but you have not proposed a viable solution.
"forced to allow"
vs.
"prevented from denying"
Think about that difference.
I can't kick you out of my bar for being black, but I can kick you out for being loud.
If eBay decided to delist all copies of White Fragility we should oppose that too. Ideas need to be freely exchanged and debated not forcibly censored by whoever happens to have power at the moment.
You have many existing mechanisms for expressing that disagreement, including protest, and starting your own business and competing. If people agree with your values, you will succeed.
eBay choosing to delist all copies of a book is eBay exercising their own freedom of expression. Having the government coming along and censoring that freedom seems counter to the idea that "Ideas need to be freely exchanged ... not forcibly censored".
Do you think a bookshop should be free to choose to sell books written in German or not? If they have that freedom, what's that freedom called?
> eBay is (should be) a neutral party
There's no such thing as "neutral". People, organisations etc. have values which they try and reflect through their actions and practices.
> The person offering the book for sale is speaking for themselves, not for eBay. If people decide they don't want to buy the book, that's fine, but it is not eBay's speech
Are advocating that eBay should be forced to pay to do business that the shareholders, board and employees disagree with? Forced by the government?
Yes, exactly like if the shareholders, board, and employees didn't want to do business with Black people, the government forces them to do so anyway. It absolutely boggles the mind that the justification comes down to "well, some people don't want to do that". Tough shit! If you don't want to deal with all kinds of people from all walks of life with all kinds of backgrounds and opinions, don't run a public-facing business.
Do I disagree with the Dr. Seuss delisting? Yes. Do I think government regulations would be more harmful than helpful in this case? Yes.
If eBay was a monopoly, I'd be much more concerned (all the more reason for robust anti-trust legislation). But in practice, if you want to sell a Dr. Seuss book, take your business elsewhere.
Similarly, today we can look at what's happening and say "Hey this isn't great that businesses are allowed to restrict our speech and narrow down the realm of ideas to the least common denominator. It is destructive to the public discourse that a small group of people can claim outrage and shut down whoever they want", so we can decide not to let businesses do that, just like we decided not to let them refuse service to protected groups.
Who gets to decide that throwing them out is allowed or not?
There absolutely is. Ebay is nipping in the bud a potential social media lynching.
One misstep nowadays and the CEO spends weeks grovelling about how they're still learning and are determined to do better and thank you Twitter mob for pointing this out.
You can't buy Doctor Seuss, but you can buy "The Anarchist Arsenal", hydrogen peroxide, acetone and a few pounds of screws in the same cart.
Edited typo by / buy
You may think that some of these demands have gone too far, and you may believe that some institutions have been too obsequious in adhering to these demands, but surely you must admit that the use of the word “lynching” in this context is offensive, no?
I disagree with you, but I have to say, well done. Point made.
This is different than using the word “master” to describe the trunk branch of a repository, because when we are talking about a “master branch” it is not in the context of a discussion of offensive racial caricatures being removed from eBay’s website.
As a member of a "minority group* myself, there's no connection to "minority groups demanding respect" here, just the typical outrage over the wildest reaches by those who feel they represent everyone else. By the way, treating people as monolithic groups is where bigotry comes from in the first place so why don't we just stop doing that all together?
If I were trying to win any popularity contests, I wouldn't be discussing this topic on HN. It's risky business!
> Nothing is rude and offensive on its own, nor do you know what everyone else thinks.
I'm not purporting to know what everyone else thinks, only that given the context, the usage of this particular word in this particular situation is offensive.
It's a strange thing for you to insinuate that I feel that I "represent everyone else." Is it not enough for me to be speaking for myself? And what's wrong with users of this website speaking up to negotiate the standards of discourse we all follow here? As I've commented elsewhere, there is a standard of civility, respect and politeness that we all expect from interactions on HN. What that standard comprises should be discussed from time to time.
> As a member of a "minority group myself, there's no connection to "minority groups demanding respect" here..*
If you are going to quote me, then please quote me accurately. I didn't equate OP's "social media lynching" with "minority groups demanding respect". The language I used referred to specific (albeit hypothetical) individuals doing a specific thing. I wrote that "members of those same minority groups" were using "cultural power...to demand respect". It is you who are talking about monolithic groups here—I'm talking about individuals.
If you are a member of one of the minority groups in the US that were historically terrorized by lynch mobs, or were ridiculed in the popular press by the kinds of caricatures that are referenced by the article, then absolutely your opinions on this matter are salient.
It shouldn't require membership in any particular group to view the juxtaposition within OP's metaphor as offensive, however.
The "potential social media lynching" that OP accused eBay of kowtowing to must by its nature be perpetrated by individuals who don't want denigrating, racist caricatures to be promoted and popularized. This is a straw-man in OP's argument, so we don't know precisely who OP would be referring to, but it's not too big a stretch to interpret OP's comment as referring to individuals whose ethnicities are being ridiculed in these books, including African, Native American, Chinese and Arab ethnicities. In fact, a brief search of media reports regarding this controversy would reveal that many prominent commentators on the subject have been African-American and Hispanic educators. Most of this actual commentary has been well-reasoned and civilized, however, and is not at all mob-like.
In contrast, "lynching" in the United States primarily existed as a tool by which white mobs terrorized non-white communities into social, economic and political subservience, by murdering people. Take a look at some of the pictures, and read some of the history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
Lynching is not just some better-forgotten historical grievance. It was a tool for genocide and white supremacy—a tool used to rob Mexican and indigenous landowners of their property, and to keep black people subjugated and to deprive them of political power and economic independence. The last known lynching in the United States took place less than 40 years ago—within my own lifetime. The downstream effects of this violence persist today.
Lynching was also part of a continuum of white supremacist culture that included ethnic caricatures that were intended to ridicule subjugated people, and which had the effect of dehumanizing those people. Dehumanization is a necessary precursor to mob violence, and lynchings would not have been possible without the cruel, dehumanizing propaganda that promoted white-supremacy in the United States for more than 100 years after the civil war.
OP's metaphorical lynch mob would include individuals whose ancestors were terrorized by actual lynch mobs. To convert metaphor to simile, OP was saying that these individuals whose ancestors were terrorized by lynch mobs are themselves like a lynch mob when they complain about the on-going, present-day publication of imagery that was originally created to promote the persecution of those same ancestors.
Is this not offensive on its face? Even if you disagree with these people, how can you not see OP's metaphor as demeaning towards them? And even if you don't care about offending people in the wider world, what about those of us on this website who also fit the same description? Is it not rude to us?
Look, I don't want anyone to be shamed, punished, penalized or "canceled" here. That would be ridiculous. I wasn't even looking for any kind of apology. I'm just hoping that the standards of civility and respect followed by members of the HN community can incorporate an awareness of what this kind of language really means to some of us.
There are some things that no civilized person will say in polite society—that idea, I think, is not controversial. Let this particular use of the word "lynching" be one of those things.
Again, it's offensive to you.
I disagree, as I understand that the metaphor is about mob justice without evidence or due process; a concept that is well understood and easily separated from social history. If you truly think it's about individuals then I'm not sure what there is to discuss on such a subjective matter.
Pointing out that certain usage of language can be offensive? That we shouldn’t be unintentional when causing offense? That if we cause offense intentionally, we shouldn’t be surprised by the reaction of the party we have purposely insulted?
A surprisingly common phenomenon.
I wasn’t badly offended. I was offended enough to take the time to write these comments.
Keep in mind that on HN, rude and offensive comments are down-voted all the time. There is a politeness standard on this website, and perhaps that standard should incorporate the use of language like this!
Perhaps it's better if we all act like adults capable of understanding nuance in a discussion.
Perhaps the heart of the issue here is that when the sensitivities of certain people are not deemed to be worthy of polite respect, we are implicitly deciding that those people are not worthy of being our peers.
Reciprocation. Politeness goes both ways. Giving your peer the respect in understanding that clearly s/he was not invoking a term for its racial connotations is part of that.
> Perhaps the heart of the issue here is that when the sensitivities of certain people are not deemed to be worthy of polite respect, we are implicitly deciding that those people are not worthy of being our peers.
Yep. That's the "woke" movement in a nutshell.
The rest of us will just treat each other like adults capable of understanding nuance.
Is some behavior only rude if the person knows that it will be offensive? I think if a 16 year old picks his nose in a job interview, you’d still think he was rude, even if you knew his parents didn’t raise him right.
When I was growing up, we used the word “gyp” as a synonym for “cheat”. As in “Don’t g** me out of what you owe me!” Earlier generations would use the word “jew” as a verb in a similar way.
As kids, we were ignorant of the origin of these words. Does that fact make our use of them them less offensive and rude? What would you tell your kid if you heard him say to a friend, “You better not j** me out of what you owe me!” Personally, I would be mortified, even if I knew it came from a place of ignorance.
What’s the difference here?
If this were a peer you knew and respected personally, calling them out in front of other peers and suggesting others might think he meant it in a racist way when it doesn't relate to the issue at hand would be impolite. It implies you might think the speaker intended to invoke racist connotations, which derails the conversation and raises questions about the potential racism of the speaker in the minds of other participants.
> As kids, were ignorant of the origin of these words. Does that fact make our use of them them less offensive and rude?
The issue here isn't ignorance. Your examples are racial slurs. "Lynch" is not a racial term, nor is "firehose" or "bus". There are potentially offensive connotations to all of those words based on prior history, yet somehow we are able to grasp the nuance when used in a different context. At least today.
> What’s the difference here?
The meanings of the words.
Being able to make a theoretical case as to how something could be offensive (if framed in a way it was not framed) is not the same as usage of a racial slur. Dropping the n-word casually is not equivalent to using a branch named "master" in your git repo. We're way past "politeness" and well into viewpoint enforcement, and I think you know this.
Can some be ignored or do all have to be taken equally serious?
Because otherwise I'm sure you'll agree there's no end in sight. You're offended by my insensitivities, I am by yours, people start making things up just to silence people they don't like etc
In this context the word lynching clearly has nothing to do with hanging people from trees. Taking those words literally and then screaming intolerance will only lead to more misery.
Do you really think that's what's going on here? I see it differently.
Being polite is often about self-imposed constraints. We constrain our actions and our language as a sign of respect. Do we do it for everyone? No. But we do it for people we care to show respect to.
In the United States, after the Civil War, lynching primarily existed as a tool by which white mobs terrorized non-white communities into social and political subservience, by murdering people. By one measure, three-quarters of lynching victims were black, when only 12% of the population was black. In parts of the old south-west, lynching was part of a successful ethnic-cleansing effort to expel Mexican landowners from lands that white settlers wanted for themselves. Take a look at some of the pictures, read some of the history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
This violent history hits hard when you identify with the victims, when those victims resemble your grandparents and great-grandparents, when you know that your grandparents and great-grandparents were also subject to painful repression within the same cultural and historical context. The word has a different energy.
I didn't take your use of thee word literally. I used the word "non-metaphorical" in my original comment because I wanted to flag that I understood you used the term metaphorically. There are some words, in some contexts that are offensive when used metaphorically.
Just to be clear, I'm not offended by you, nor do I think you are intolerant. I just thought that the word you used in the way you used it was offensive enough given the context to say something about it.
If you didn't have a sense before of how the word might be taken as offensive in the way that you used it, now you do. Do what you will with that information.
Good luck.
How do you deal with bad actors? How do companies like ebay deal with bad actors in this realm?
So his usage seems quite correct.
This is hardly an isolated occurrance, as you well know.
So we have all of Big Tech acting in concert to ban what they deem wrongthink -- but, oh no, that's definitely not a power structure! Nothing to see here, folks!
It’s this that dominates the meeting of their leadership, who are always just hanging out with each other, combing through a list of things to cancel, put together a coordinated plan to cancel the thing, and then — in secret, nobody should know! - execute on that. Because what else could they possibly be bothered with?
[Before anyone makes assumptions about my political views, i'm fine with publishers no longer publishing if tastes change, but i can't abide banning the sale of books in general. I don't really care what the content is]
[1] https://www.ebay.ca/itm/MEIN-KAMPF-1939-Complete-Unabridged-...
So yes, we do need distributed everything.
If the only store within a 2-hour drive is walmart, walmart is your equivalent of the soviet centrally-planned economy.
People getting that book have some idea what they are getting I hope.
I do not want racist stereotypes in books I read with my children
However children aren't the only people who read books like this. Dr Suess is one of the most influential children's authors. All of his books are certainly worthy of study from an academic perspective due to their long lasting influence.
The flaw in the argument is that Mein Kampf is not a children’s book. If hitler wrote a popular racist book series for kids, eBay would likely delist that too.
Objectively false. eBay responded to a headline and will continue to permit the sale of many works of similar nature because it is ultimately apathetic
Leaving aside the question of whether the books in question actually denigrate people, what makes this case so special that eBay takes action? eBay is losing money by not allowing sales of the books; presumably they either feel like they would lose even more money if they did allow it or feel that the books are morally repugnant enough to be worth the loss. Any other options?
The second option does not seem to hold water given all the other things eBay allows. The first option leaves the question of why they would lose money. Digging into that is where you find the power structure you are refusing to see.
We stumbled into accepting dictatorships in the emerging virtual realms without even realizing it.
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9318259/White-House...
Doesn’t this phrase imply that someone is being harmed? Who is being harmed in this case?
The estate that controls the publication rights is deciding not to publish these books, and eBay is deciding not to list the books on its own platform. No one is being penalized or punished, and these entities are acting fully within their rights.
So the harm seems proportional to the harm done by refusing to bake that wedding cake for the gay couple.
Market economies allow for stupid mistakes. It really is civilized when the blast radius of such mistakes is "people who get all their books from ebay" instead of "everyone in the country."
Of course you do. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the government gave itself the power and created the bureaucratic machinery to stop people denigrating their fellow man? It would be a dystopian nightmare.
You're allowed to criticize anything, but if you knowingly publish lies, especially maliciously, then it crosses the line.
I'm curious: do you believe that there is anything that one does not have the right to say?
This is completely false. It's nothing more than a mis-quoted opinion of a justice in a very old case which was eventually overturned and allowed exactly this kind of speech.
Please inform yourself of the laws you're claiming exist before you try to make arguments about them.
I don't understand their decision here, but so what? It's their store, why should you or I tell or anyone else them what to sell?
Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. I think you're doing the same thing here. The difference are the specifics of the ideology. If you support liberty only for things you agree with, you don't support liberty.
I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak.
The concern is over what society feels is shameful and how it's handled. Right now we are ashamed of things we shouldn't be and the remedy we're choosing is exclusion. That doesn't sound like a formula for success.
On top of that, this is all being pushed by a tiny minority that has gained more power than we realized. Surely some tiny fraction of people think Dr. Seuss is offensive. A tiny fraction of people overall, a tiny fraction of eBay employees/shareholders, etc. It's always concerning when these tiny minority views can push everyone else around.
President Obama praised, quoted, and recommended Dr. Seuss's books in official press releases throughout his presidency, all the way to his last year as president - 2015:
https://nypost.com/2021/03/03/barack-and-michelle-obama-prai...
But now, barely 6 years later, the Leftist Mob has come for Dr. Seuss, and we're all bullied to recite that Dr. Seuss is racist, was racist, has always been racist.
To quote Orwell: "The past was alterable. The past never had been altered."
The real point isn't that Dr. Seuss is actually racist (he never was), but to condition us to reject, ban, erase and cancel "unacceptable" ideas, thoughts, and expressions - on social command.
The overarching theme here is control: in the leftist vision, society must control and regulate the consciousness of all its members, in order to create a perfect Utopian centrally-controlled society.
Sometimes it's just for the sake of fear, sometimes it's for convenience. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who initiated this Dr Seuss hate have a stockpile of his books.
"Racism" used to mean that you were actually and actively promoting a racist mindset. Now the Leftist Mob persecutes people for, essentially, making mistakes that superficially look like racism. Donald G. McNeil was fired and cancelled from the New York Times for asking whether someone used a racial slur, in the context of talking about racial slurs. A Chinese professor was cancelled for teaching a Mandarin word that sounds (vaguely) like a racial slur.
Nobody really thinks any of these people are racist. But control must be enforced, that is the point. Catching someone uttering a "forbidden word" is just an excuse.
The point isn't to eliminate racism, sexism, or any of these other bigoted discriminations which have long been illegal in the US. The point is to exercise absolute control over our thoughts, expressions, and behavior - and make us accept that control, view it as normal, justifiable, and even desirable.
What? No one is trying to cancel Dr Seuss. No one is suggesting that he was a bad or hateful person. His estate has decided to no longer publish a small number of his books. They are doing this because they feel that they contain hurtful stereotypes: https://www.seussville.com/statement-from-dr-seuss-enterpris...
I have used stereotypes and language in the past that, in retrospect, I recognize as hurtful, despite thinking it was not a big deal at the time. I no longer use those terms, or tell those jokes. That is part of maturing as a person.
The estate has a duty to protect the legacy of Dr Seuss, which was very positive and inclusive. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that, were Dr Seuss still alive, he might consider whether a Chinese-American child would feel uncomfortable with the images in "And To Think I Saw It On Mulberry Street", or whether an African-American child would feel uncomfortable reading "If I Ran the Zoo", and revise those works.
This is factually false, as we have people in this comment thread who claim that Dr Seuss was always a clear, known racist:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26360503
I'm sure some people who support the cancellation of 6 of his books see it, like you, as just these 6 books being cancelled, and not as a complete destruction and cancellation of Dr. Seuss as a person.
However, as we've all seen in past cancellations, once you start labeling any specific act of a person as "cancelable", the mob will typically proceed to label the entire person cancelable.
This really is the normal progression, and we already see it in comments like the one I linked. If Dr. Seuss somehow escapes this fate, and isn't labeled overall "objectionable" and canceled wholesale - then it would be an exception, likely made precisely because he is such a mainstream figure, because he was in fact highly liberal even in his time, and in order to make this argument that you just made: that we are merely cancelling 6 of his books, and not all his books and everything about him.
In other words, parts of the mob decided that at this point, it will be a little too shocking to cancel such a mainstream, beloved, liberal figure, so unlike practically every other instance of Cancel Culture, in which the entire person and everything pertaining to them was canceled as soon as any "sin" was found, in this case only these specific books will be canceled.
Normally Dr. Seuss and his entire legacy would labeled "objectionable" and canceled, and parts of the mob are certainly eager to do that, as in the comment I've linked.
As someone who read Dr. Seuss as a child, I disagree that there are any "hurtful" representations in his books. There are cartoonish representations, which also exist in many, many other mediums, notably caricatures, cartoons, and animated shorts.
Incidentally, I am a member of one of these minorities who were supposed to be "offended" by these depictions. I am not.
This is all an instance of Cancel Culture, par excellence. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, and to pretend that nobody is trying to cancel Dr. Seuss is demonstrably false.
That said, I'm interested to know more about why you're sad about this. As in, the current liberal reality is so removed from anything leftists want or care about, and it seems so impossible to achieve any of the 'leftist' goals, that abandonment is more something to accept and be depressed about, rather than something that is actively pursued.
Personally I don't know how to feel about all this. In part, it's just different being a leftie in a European social democracy. But also I feel a lot can be achieved even in a climate that in general seems to stacked against leftist goals. It's understandable to be dejected that Bernie lost, or whatever, but something like, say, fighting for worker rights at Amazon can be a worthy battle to engage in.
My question is, who's decision is it to make?
Yours? Mine? The government's (through laws or regulations)? Or ebay's?
I don't want to override the decision. But there is a disturbing context to the decision that's worth discussing.
Why are people making these decisions? Why are they coordinated and collective? Who are the beneficiaries?
And have we, as voters, shareholders, etc., put trust in the wrong leaders? Maybe all this crazy stuff professors have been promoting all this time wasn't just for attention. Maybe they meant it and taught their students to do it. And we are now seeing the results.
"They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em" -RATM
If this doesn't scare you, it should.
What are you suggesting? If a company is branded "Silicon Valley" it should no longer be allowed to make their own content decisions? If not them, then *who will make those decisions for them?*
A political government board? Talk about scary.
Obviously, the American political system is not in an ideal state (to put it mildly), but at least the sweeping bureaucratic inefficiencies make it hard enough to really change the temperature of the water by more than a few degrees in either direction.
"Silicon Valley" is just shorthand for "massive tech monopolies that have an outsized, inescapable, and pervasive influence on the way that every living person goes about their daily business"; and when you have amoral, profit-driven corporations that can "move fast and break things" - who are incentivized to wield their influence in whatever way serves their immediate interests - the human condition be damned, well... you end up where we are, here, now.
I am suggesting that we are not prepared to regulate companies like FAANG & Friends in a way that keeps them from remaking humanity in their own image as a means to their own ends. I am suggesting that it is horrifying that privately-held companies without any incentive to be responsible for the consequences of their actions against humanity, writ large, are able to effect social policy so much.
"The Internet" became "social media", which quickly became "the media".
Game, set, match.
Not exactly, no. Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Also ebay isn't a bookseller choosing what books to stock; it's just an exchange for buyers and sellers to directly transact with each other.
Sure, of course there are ground rules. Things that are illegal are not permitted. But what are you suggesting the rule would be that would apply in this case?
And by rule, we're taking about a law, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be binding and we're right back to where eBay is within its rights to decide not sell (or list, if you prefer) these books.
To be clear, I think it's fine to complain about ebay's stance here. I don't agree with it. But you can't do it in the name of free speech or liberty generally as the previous poster is attempting to do.
People can say that they really think eBay is doing the wrong thing, and maybe even boycott them, without necessarily saying they should be forced by law to stock children's books that became out of fashion thirty seconds ago.
You have the luxury of never having seen your country and culture being taken over by Nazis. Never living with the regret of being tolerant of Nazis. I have. It sucks.
It's so easy to talk in platitudes like this when you know your own life won't be affected in any way. How about supporting the right of QAnon adherents to spread their poisonous propaganda? What about when you see it's support growing rapidly? Would you still support it if it looked like you might be living in a society where the majority are QAnoners?
I know the answer to that question. And so do you.
Unless you grew up in Weimar Germany, you have never seen your country taken over by Nazis
>I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak.
That is essentially what the woke crazies do all the time by getting people fired and other economic consequences if they don't fall in line.
Conversely, I think other people are criticizing the decision of the company, and the company culture that lead to the decision. That's different than compelling speech or considering using the gov't to compel speech.
I would argue that what ebay is doing is simply a permutation of this idea. Woke companies deciding what is and what is not suitable for you to spend your money on (shaming you for not spending your earned value on something 'worthy'). Meanwhile they don't seem to have a problem with mein kempf or however its spelled.
You mean like Twitter?
So far, the big platforms seem to be digging the hole of censorship deeper, and small platforms like Parler are deplatformed.
Unless we find a way to circumvent the tight control that smartphone manufacturers have over devices they sell, the only possible haven of free speech would be web on a Windows PC with some specific browsers. Because Google adding you to a list of dirty webs means that people using Chrome won't get to your website.
We've seen revolutions before and they were not pretty.
Society will run away from this and the pendulum will swing again toward Morton Downy Jr., The Man Show, Politically Incorrect, 101 Ways TO Kill A Cat, Jerry Springer, etc.
The big platforms will quietly acquiesce to the public's "new found" acceptance of the risqué.
Deplatforming is an extreme measure when they perceive an existential threat like "abetting an insurrection."
Some users are bound to replay real-world conflicts there. Israelis and Palestinians will scream at each other, Europeans will draw Muhammad cartoons, Rs and Ds will love each other unconditionally as usual... and all this attention sells ads, but also creates uncomfortable side effects.
Political outrage drives engagement much more than cute cats.
AWS pulled the plug on Parler a few days after the Capitol riot, and then justified it with evidence of posts from before the riot. If the riot had not happened, then surely Parler would still be hosted on AWS today.
So the big players are not proactively censoring anything; it's all engagement metrics, then CYA when shit hits the fan. But take heart: that means that small platforms really can live under the radar.
Nobody is going to pull that particular plug.
Is that true though? The government is doing nothing here. There's nothing stopping anybody from owning these book or passing them around to somebody else. There's nobody in government stopping somebody from publishing these books.
What's happening is that a few megacorporations have acquired so much power they are beyond influencing. Are a few angry people going to vote with their wallets to defeat eBay? Please, there is no recourse - eBay has essentially no competition in its sector and is accountable to nobody but their shareholders.
And the publisher? Well, the publishers have lobbied for our politicians to grant them infinite copyright, so now they can do as they wish with our culture. If they choose to bury it and stop publishing, this is the right our politicians have agreed to give to them.
This isn't really a free speech issue at its heart, even if it feels like it. This is really a power imbalance where control in all sectors of commerce (and in almost every aspect of our lives) is being distilled into a handful of unassailable monopolists to whom our politicians have gradually ceded their power.
What is the difference now, except that racially-insensitive material has replaced, say, pro-Soviet material as being too controversial for the biggest platforms to want to sully their brands with it?
Progressives aren’t stopping you from reading racist books to your children.... just don’t expect most people to want to sell them to you or pat you on the back for making the next generation toxic against fellow citizens.
> when your speech offends someone
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Stephen Fry
This is precisely the same logic that led the Conquistadors to systematically destroy the history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
The people that do want to sell them to you aren't allowed to do so.. meaning you are prevented in reading them.
But I don't think any one is getting these books to teach their children to be racist, or that reading children this would have that effect. An image of African tribesmen is not even racist. It was historically accurate as of 1937. Any one reading kids this book would undoubtedly explain the book is 80 years old and a product of its time.
EBay has a right to do any thing it wants, but I think it overreacted because of pressure from people who are uptight and looking for dragons to slay and people to push around.
Also, maybe teaching your children to be toxic towards anything won't really improve the world they will have to live in?
these rights are supposed to protect compensation, not as a means of suppression or censorship.
Why should society protect IP for this purpose, or compensate IP owners for which there are no damages?
Also, being tolerant to intolerance breeds autocratic and non free societies. A lesson mankind seems to have to learn over and over and over again. My children will be taught that you do not suffer the Nazi, the Communist, the self-righteous conservative calling for a ban or the SJW.
could you provide some examples of what you are referring to here?
Propaganda has been very strong the last few years, and people feel like defending racism is actually some sort of legitimate fight because they actually believe that things like Antifa, Social-Justice-Warriors, and government bans initiated by progressives are real organized things. They are invented ideas and tools used by propagandists to keep people divided and working against the interests of other Americans.
Did you even go through this list?
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks...
Most of them might be "banned" in a few select conservative/christian schools and that's it. Come up with actual examples of the things you are claiming or stop fear-mongering.
Wrong. From the third paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
"""Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[4]"""
First, offensive caricatures can fall squarely into "libel" and "slander" and harming someone's dignity.
Second, EBay is not being forced to delist the books by the government.
The problem is that over time companies are consolidating into a few monopolies which are entirely out of public control, and these companies effectively control almost all distribution.
It depends what “power controlling entity” you see being the risk - is it the elected government or is it large powerful corporations with unelected leadership?
It is the same core sport, just a different team playing with less rules.
The problem is Far bigger than that, and the implications are indeed frightening. And Why is that... simply because a societal precedent has been set which could allow the Government to use this as a linchpin to control All speech and by default All Thought. When you control what people can say you also control what they think.
These companies don't operate on the same kind of logic as the courts do - this sets no precedent. Amazon and eBay could block the sale of any book tomorrow if they wanted to; they could have done it yesterday, as well. The real power these structures espouse is to get us bickering over children's books, rather than devoting our energies towards things that actually matter.
I did Not say "Legal Precedent". And it is Absolutely an "example" of Society believing that certain ideas, and not necessarily racism (and to be clear if you are a racist you are a complete idiot, and beneath contempt); should Not be allowed to be expressed.
Took a while to find a comment that sees to the heart of the issue.
I'm not American, and in my country quite some speech is forbidden or can get you jailed (fuck de koning!).
So maybe for me such state censorship 'forbidding speech' is clearer distinct from 'decreasing the reach of speech'?
But more important than that is the societal aspect: censorship is ultimately a propaganda tool. You don't have to imprison people to silence ideas; simply hiding them from the public is more than enough.
The reason this is the more important of the two is because it is what influences public opinion. Propaganda is an incredibly powerful political tool and freedom of expression is, also an opposing force to it.
If you want to host some incredibly terrible text or blog, and magically no DDoS protection provider at all wants to protect you because you're such a terrible person, your reach is 0%, you are knocked off instantly and down 24/7. The government or state never had to say a thing.
In many parts of US, Walmart might be the only store people have access to, it is infeasible to get anywhere else. Having to drive several hours to the nearest city is practically reducing reach to nothing.
This obviously doesn't apply to people that can pop on Craigslist and pick up a copy of a book, or order it from eBay, or any of the hundreds of other shops that might have it. But there is a huge amount of the country where you are quite literally down to one or two retailers. Partially due to those one or two retailers completely taking over the area and outpricing every small shop there is.
Why should freedom of speech apply only to authorities from the public sector?
I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up
What is freedom of association, isn't that different from freedom of speech?
>I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up
I think you're probably right about that. Maybe another option could be to create a publicly funded, rather than corporate advertising funded, "town square" social media platform as a viable alternative, where all lawful speech could be voiced and protected?
A school district in Virginia said over the weekend that it had advised schools to de-emphasize Dr. Seuss books on “Read Across America Day,” a national literacy program that takes place each year on March 2, the anniversary of Mr. Geisel’s birth.
“Research in recent years has revealed strong racial undertones in many books written/illustrated by Dr. Seuss,” according to the statement by the district, Loudoun County Public Schools.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/books/dr-seuss-mulberry-s...
And do you work for the publisher? Or are you just pretending like you know that Karen never called the publisher?
I think the pressure to enforce covid lockdowns is as ridiculous as these people wanting to censure Dr Seuss. Where I'm at we're back to lockdowns on Sundays only, so stupid.
Basically we need to get on with life and ignore the overly-anxious who want to control/censure everyone.
Obviously there's the issue of protection of speech from government (protected by first amendment) vs. corporations (undermined by first amendment); but that's not the point I'm interested in.
There is a huge difference in speech that intentionally conveys an unpopular opinion for the sake of discussion, and speech in which that's not the point at all, and instead merely casually includes something toxic, or even accidentally. Essentially: whether the potentially unpopular or toxic message is explicit, vs. implicit.
The first category of speech (explicitly controversial) is highly important when it comes to transparency and the ability to think and debate clearly about uncomfortable issues. As far as I know, this is actually the only reason to protect speech in the first place; transparency and healthy debate matter.
The second category of speech (implicitly controversial) happens to be protected by the first amendment too; but it's more like collateral damage due to a limitations in the law (including because the distinction isn't always obvious).
Ideally, we'd replace the first amendment with something that more strongly protects the explicit category - even from corporate control - and at least tries to avoid protecting the second category, because such protections are easily abused (e.g. they're the reason why it's legal for a few corporations to effectively muzzle speech, and why it's so hard to control fake news).
As applied to dr. Seuss books - clearly there's no issue with transparency or debate here; no explicit point is being muzzled. There's no risk to free speech here, even if we happen to disagree on the policy of it's removal.
Put it this way: sometimes controlling speech (regardless of who is doing so) is harmful to free and open debate, hence it's worth protecting free speech. But conversely it does not hold that every infringement upon "free speech" necessarily impacts transparent and open debate. Quite the opposite; some forms of control can actually support transparency and open debate, e.g. control over spam and sheer volume (and this is one of the places where our current laws fail).
TL;DR: Slapping a "ZOMG free speech is under attack" statement under anything that happens to exercise editorial control misses the point of free speech in the first place. While we may have opinions on the specifics here, there is no question at all that this specific action does not harm the open, transparent debate needed for a healthy democracy. (And on a technical level it's alas the case that free speech is only protected from infringements by the state, not other powerful actors).
People (eg, sex workers) have been getting deplatformed (often with the government assisting in - or requiring - the deplatforming!) for decades, and I didn’t hear the free-speech / right-wing types complaining.
But now that some private companies don’t want to support racism, it’s a brand new problem we need to fight against? :P
(I agree with the overall point that censorship is a two sided blade; just find it funny when some people think that this is new, when in fact it’s been happening for longer than I’ve been alive, it just seems new to them because they’ve never been on the receiving end before)
The case of the Dr. Seuss Estate deciding not to reprint these books, it's the estate itself making their own decision what's best for the estate they're managing, and is not remotely comparable to censorship, deplatforming or any form of "cancel culture". Ebay banning other people's books arguably is.
I’m neither a lawyer nor an American (I assume we’re talking about America here), but my reading and experience would suggest that the first is glorified, the second is tolerated, and the third can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of fines even if it’s a fraction of a second by accident (eg the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show being a particularly well-publicised incident. The $550,000 fine was eventually dismissed, but only because “it’s unfair to apply this rule retroactively”, not because there’s anything wrong with the rule...)
- violence: tolerated
- nipple: becoming more accepted, barring antiquated FCC rules that only really impact things like Superbowl. streaming seems to completely allow it.
- dirty words (f-bomb, s-bomb, etc.): roughly same as nipple. Yippie kie-yay Mister Falcon.
- racism: depictions of historical racism, e.g. History Channel are fine. racial slurs, racialized depictions (Apu on Simpsons) risk randomly getting episodes or entire series effectively banned (delisted and never shown again). applies to actors' and producers' personal lives, twitter feeds, etc.
- sexism, other-isms: racism-lite. there is a bigger emphasis on sexism in personal lives vs. racism in the actual show content. Seinfeld wasn't cancelled over Michael Richard's Laugh Factory incident and there are tons of sexist tropes on 80's/90's sitcoms that haven't haven't (yet) resulted in cancellation.
IMO “Government requires a filter” is a waaaay bigger problem than “private company decides to stop selling a thing"
Probably because of her wealth it allows her to be honest on twitter about how she feels about gender identity , the problem is the platform she chose to express those views i.e twitter , it tends to amplify a certain group think.
What we are seeing here is a consequence of our capitalist society. It is now more profitable for eBay and other companies to pull or ban things that may cause controversy. There's no censorship here. You can find these books at other retailers. In fact, you're likely to see some businesses thrive by specifically carrying the things that other retailers refuse to carry.
And the first amendment is not a definition of freedom of speech. Read it again.
But for those of us under pandemic lockdown, all human contact outside the home is over private companies' platforms. Seems to me if you're banned from all the major private platforms that's de factor censorship, if not de jure government censorship.
More broadly, this also seems like a gigantic political victory for republicans: A few months ago the most high profile banned-on-all-major-platforms story was about Parler, a site that had literally been used to coordinate an attempt to overthrow democracy. Hardly an argument that a big 'cancel culture' exists or is running out of control!
Now, the most high-profile story is about a beloved children's author and famed anti-fascist getting banned? You couldn't ask for better evidence of a 'cancel culture' run amok.
In simple terms, is it a good idea to ban algebra if a vocal enough community of anti-algebra people convince ebay to not list it?
Is it OK for them to delist other things like spam and porn if enough people don't want to see them? If not, we're looking at a very different internet
If so, we can probably reason about the merits of delisting based on whether we feel algebra might be good and early twentieth century casual racism the rightsholders have disavowed might be bad (or at least, not so good eBay ought to feel compelled to incur reputational damage to continue to distribute it).
unlike adult content or spam, casual racism is an idea so important platforms ought not to impede its spread is an argument of course, just not a freedom of speech one.
I will open by saying that, from my perspective, in accordance with Sturgeon's law, 80% of books on Ebay and Amazon ARE spam and should be delisted for the well-being of general populace and positive feeling of accomplishment for busy-bodies, who seem to be running those operations. If we start removing spam, we better get the proper authorities ready to remove the superfluous, pointless and downright dangerous material that spam produces.
Still, is your standard 'did enough people complain'? If so, that is a bad standard, and most certainly not how internet was devised, or was intended to work.
I think the issue I have with 'casual rasism' in this book is that I do not see it, and yet my access to the book is limited, because sufficient amount of people whined. In short, I do not buy this argument.
But lets say I do, and we want to talk spreading bad ideas. US is ok with allowing Mein Kampf. How is it different? Why are those ideas ok to spread, but not that one? How is attempting to destroy an entire population less offensive than 'casual racism'? Do we have some sort of diagram that shows how victimhood is rated?
The answer is really simple. It is not better or worse. It is just an idea. And if 'casual racism' is an idea, then its spread is absofuckinglutely a freedom of speech issue. Just not one one can easily get behind, because it is, well, bad. But that does not mean you can just pretend it does not exist.
No, though obviously it is a factor. I'm pretty sure it's not eBay's standard either. The rights holders, who are extremely familiar with the content, took the view the books are too racist to continue selling; eBay could have chosen to argue the other side and profit from people buying second hand copies at absurd prices to own the libs, but I don't see any particular reason why it should. Frankly categorising spam is at least as prone to disagreement as categorising racism, and I don't think spam has worse consequences. It possible the Seuss Foundation and eBay are excessively prudish about some of the books and certainly eBay's moderation policies are inconsistently applied, but that doesn't imply a website adding a few books to the list of stuff it doesn't want to sell on the grounds of they're bad enough for the publisher to have unpublished is a particularly chilling violation of speech. The internet has been prudish for a long time, as anyone trying to use Big Tech to sell nudes knows, and I really don't see racism as a less sensitive subject than sex.
As for how the internet was imagined to work, I'm pretty sure it's expected to work in exactly the same way as things normally do in Western democracies: people and corporations are generally free to choose who they do business with and what they sell except in very specific circumstances where it is deemed harmful (like refusing to do business with a particular race, or using market power to squeeze a competitor, or being a public utility). It is possible to argue that racism is an intrinsically valuable idea which deserves this sort of special protection which other forms of speech don't, and it's also possible to argue that the risks of curtailing good ideas by restricting any kind of communication is so severe that major retail platforms should be treated like ISPs and not allowed to have any influence on what's distributed by their service at all. But one of those involves explicitly privileging racism and the other throws out the possibility of those platforms attempting even the most cursory moderation, and probably other stuff most people here endorse like centrally-administered spam filters and ad blocking services too. Beyond those arguments we're not discussing speech right principles, we're discussing the details of what's silly [not] to ban.
Some organizations decide [some] ads are too disgusting to host, others decide the same thing about [some] racism. I find the intersection of people on here who believe the former is fantastic and the latter is chilling quite strange. Frankly I'm more uncomfortable about racism than ads, and I use uBlock's list of undesirable content as much as everyone else here.
I do appreciate the civil reply and agree that moderation is not consistent though.
In US, the entire market is divvied up between various oligopolies. You can name an industry and you can usually find 3-4 dominant companies that drive the market. Ebay and Amazon have ridiculous market power and reach ( reinforced by Covid ), which effectively means that if book is not available on their virtual shelves, that book does not exist for the general population. Ergo, removal from Ebay equals removing of an idea from the 'marketplace of ideas'.
I am oversimplifying, but not by a lot.
If eBay was a tiny company, it would be nothing, but you cannot ignore the effects of scale and market dominance here.
It is similar to the smartphone world: if Google and Apple block you, in practice you are destroyed.
The kerfuffle is about values and whether moral people have power.
If as a society we allow companies, that are equal to (if not more powerful than) the government we elect, to pick and choose what parts of public discourse are acceptable or not, we have no one but ourselves to blame when this inevitably goes pear-shaped.
Like many other things in the past, what is legal right now may not be ethically and morally correct in the future.
You are correct that society as we know it does not cease to function immediately after the giants like amazon, facebook, twitter, ebay, etc. take a specific action like banning a book or banning a user. However, the longer term implications are far more concerning and the time to start contemplating these issues was yesterday (or any other time in the last few years). The next best time is now.
There's probably a useful discussion about whether orphaned works should be protected by copyright.
But it's madness to suggest that once a publisher has published a book they're somehow compelled to continue publishing that book in perpetuity.
I don't think(?) eBay globally banned selling of past copies of Meinkampf while the copyright was cleverly held by a German State. Doing so is pretending copyright is a right that extends to sold property that is a copy, extending a right too far, while banning a class of books like MeinKampf for your own reasons is perfectly valid.
If they want to ban racist children's media on their platform then they should. That includes a lot of TinTin, popeye, Tom and Jerry, etc, that has never been classified as racist by some copyright holder.
edit- s/published/printed
Of course, if you believe that copyright should prevent the resale of goods, that's an entirely different story that ignores the current state of affairs in the world and the legislated rights of people in many countries (where there are such laws that prohibit limiting the resale of goods).
Well, after WWII, the USA engaged in their "denazification" of Germany, where they censored and burned Nazi materials.
Which side would you say they were on?
https://www.amazon.com/If-Ran-Zoo-Classic-Seuss/dp/039480081...
This questionable book that Dr. Seuss Enterprises no longer wishes to publish can be at your front door tomorrow. Enjoy.
Relegating books to a market outside of the largest sellers basically amounts to erasing them. Sure, in this case people could still find them, because they are from a famous author. But what about unknown writers, with views that don't align with what is approved by the PC crowd?
For the record, I have never read a Dr. Seuss book and don't encourage racial stereotyping, but there are other edgy subjects (like the legalization of certain substances) that I can imagine becoming less fashionable at some point in time. I don't want to see books supporting this idea suppressed at some point in the future.
We should be very careful with this new self regulating market, that follows the loudest outcry to determine what they allow to be sold.
The government isn’t involved. Or should it be and it force you to sell everything?
There are surely going to be more voices advocating for removing racist stuff than those arguing to keep it. One side inherently has the advantage. So without the government getting involved, what exactly are y’all suggesting?
Obviously every free market is self regulating, but we never had this mixture of a limited selection in dominating online sellers and the amplifying effect the internet has on any kind of outcry.
The government has nothing to do with my argument. We don't need laws against this (yet), but we should keep an eye out for changes that will push counterculture underground. Dialogue beats suppression any day in my book.
We have more selection at our finger tips than any time in history. I guarantee if I wanted those books, I could find them without leaving my desk.
What we are seeing is not an inevitable consequence of capitalism and reducing it to a profit motive misses much of the picture. It may benefit eBay's bottom line, but there other other factors at play.
For example, the public expectations of private companies are changing, as more people want them to act as arbiters of morality. Similarly, corporations are increasingly adding social ideals to their objectives. While there is clearly a PR aspect at play, corporate leaders and shareholders can and do balance moral objectives against their bottom line.
I think what people are reacting to is the feeling that they are loosing control to corporations over the direction of social change. Just as individuals can feel disempowered in the face of corporate influence in political arena, individuals feel disempowered by corporate influence in field of morality and social change.
That is a massive non-sequitur. How do you even know what are the skin colors of individual people who defend the books? Are people of certain colors obliged to have the same values?
This is going to lead to reverse-dox revenge killings.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises stopped printing these books because they decided the books were insensitive and offensive. Should we force them to print more of these books?
If a dominant player (Amazon, Apple) blacklists you, it is not a drop of water, it is a devastating tsunami.
It is rational to concentrate on tsunamis and ignore mere drops.
They can stop printing. But it is hard for me to defend Amazon, Ebay, et al with 'they can do what they want on their platform'.
If your argument is that eBay and Amazon are so critical to the fabric of the internet that special rules must apply to them, I wholeheartedly disagree.
I do think, however, that the current situation is no longer acceptable. I don't know whether as a society we should consider some sort of limit on influence a given company has, but that is actually what is needed. If Ebay was a corner store, I would not give half a shit that it stopped carrying Seuss. When a publicly traded company does it, it quickly becomes problematic.
The freedom of a giant, monopolistic company is not aligned with the freedom of humans.
We already have precedents for conpanies being forced to impartiality- utilities. Ebay's a utility, the modern large-scale version of the ground a flea market sits on.
Yes, it is a form of censorship. It is completely legal. people can still have an opinion if HN should engage in censorship, and if the criteria are appropriate.
>Should we force them to print more of these books?
Of course not!
Flagging and moderation on HN is not censorship, because the content doesn't disappear. Am I the only one that browses HN with "showdead" enabled?
Similarly, I think that eBay's actions are paternalistic, heavy handed, and part of a trend I do not support. I would encourage others who feel this way to let ebay know.
A store should not have the freedom to determine what it sells?
The question above can be modified to make it reflect the current argument more accurately to: should HN censor all earlier posts and comments, based on the most recent changes in sensitivities?
Edit: question above, not yours
After Charlottesville, the AHA put out a statement making it clear that removing confederate statues from public view was absolutely not “erasing history”. Nobody listened to them. People just kept going on about the left erasing the past. This made it clear that this was just a culture war rather than honest concern.
If you are worried about erasing the past, get the opinion of some historians.
What worries me is the voluntary whitewashing and consequent suppression of alternative media by companies whose judgement is solely based on PR.
A publisher choosing not to reprint works that contain questionable content is completely understandable and well within their right. Nobody is arguing they have to print these books. But when the biggest open marketplaces begin to decide what is allowed for resale, that is something else entirely.
It's a slippery slope to let public outcry determine what is easily available and what is not.
Then why was that the entire content of your post?
> We all know history is written by the victors.
It isn't. All of the history professors I know cringe at this phrase.
How do you know this?
Maybe efforts in previous years made them do it now?
I don't know how often I've had to point this out, but the US constitution is irrelevant here. You might as well refer to your favourite monty python sketch for all I care.
Free speech is about protecting the right of the un-popular and views that some may find utterly repugnant. Why? because, as we are seeing with all of the woke craziness, when you don't stand up for everyones ability (including views you do not like) to freely speak, the censorship will end up being turned against you.
The key things with all of this, is that if enough people were to collectively have the courage to push back against this craziness it would stop...people recognizing that there is a problem is a good first step.