Nobody is suggesting that eBay should be forced to facilitate the sale of a patticular book.

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.

Indeed, the arbitrariness of the leftist standards, and how easily and frequently they are liable to change, is in fact the point.

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.

"Racism" has come to mean something more like "unclean thoughts" or "original sin" where everyone has it even if you didn't do anything. Every media cycle we get mad and burn a witch who didn't try hard enough to atone for these unclean thoughts.

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.

It's enforcement for the sake of enforcement.

"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.

And the definition of "promoting" includes someone else digging up something obscure that's tied to you and sounds vaguely racist. In other words, someone else promoting your unclean thoughts counts as you promoting them.

> 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.

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.

> No one is trying to cancel Dr Seuss. No one is suggesting that he was a bad or hateful person.

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.

Obama is very much not a leftist.

He's a liberal. Sadly, the Left is pushing out liberals and abandoning liberal principles.

I'd say while that's true, it's a reaction the 'liberals' essentially having won. Biden one, one of the most right-wing of Democrats, instead of Bernie. Most of the 'left' seems very deflated, based on articles and podcasts I've listened to. They've all but given up.

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.

That's all fine. You think eBay should sell those books. I do too.

My question is, who's decision is it to make?

Yours? Mine? The government's (through laws or regulations)? Or ebay's?

To answer directly, it's not eBay's decision because eBay is not a single person. I guess it's the CEOs, or someone under them, or maybe the board, or the shareholders.

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.

Parents should be the ones deciding what their children should and should not read, not corporations.

But they aren't deciding what your children read. Just what they list.

Yes, in the same way people who participate in book burnings also arent deciding what you read, just what they burn.

"They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em" -RATM

The problem here, as I see it, is that Silicon Valley is becoming increasingly interested in moderating and enforcing social policy.

If this doesn't scare you, it should.

What scares me is the implication here that someone should be dictating social policy to companies and people.

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.

Social policy should be dictated by a government that is "by the people, for the people". We the People should be able to make these decisions, by a vote, on our own behalf. That was the plan.

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.

Boy do I miss the days when SV was a libertarian paradise. I’d love to read a book or essay describing how we went from cypherpunks to left-wing moral crusaders in less than a generation.

It's simple: money.

"The Internet" became "social media", which quickly became "the media".

Game, set, match.

> If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book?

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.

> 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.

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.

You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it.

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 can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it.

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.

It's easy to talk in platitudes that Nazis' free speech should be silenced when you've never lived somewhere with no free speech or been accused of being a Nazi.

Glad to see people probably over 100 are participating in hacker news.

Unless you grew up in Weimar Germany, you have never seen your country taken over by Nazis

I'll have to cast doubt on you living in a country occupied by the Nazis. Where and when are you talking about?

>Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet.

>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.

> Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet.

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.