The Politics Megathread

[wowfucktron]

@immortalartisan
That printing company owns the entire Geisel estate. They have effectively ended the print run of said book.

There's a massive difference between a company stopping their own individual print run and stopping every existing print run. Of course the business has its own free will, BUT I feel like Geisel's works should become public domain if this is how this is going to play out.

FYI, all of Dr. Seuss's works become public property in 2053.

 

[Richman]

It's gonna be a while before I can legally pirate them.

It's pass my bedtime I'm tired so I'll retire.

 

[okdudeswow]

Now scanlating Suess-sensei's latest works. SKILLED re-drawers required!

TL Notes: That two page spread in the last chapter...

 

[bigtiddyoneesan]

@Richman
go for it muchacho

Spoiler

 

[Richman]

@bigtiddyoneesan

SONZAII ECKSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!​

Alright, now to ZZzZZzZZZZZZzzzzz...

 

[Tamerlane]

@wowfucktron

Not even close. I'd drop more hints, but I don't want a certain cherokee princess to hex me with the souls of all the slaves her ancestors had acquired from the white man.

@okdudeswow

You say that but Seuss had a large impact on children's literature and not only had a distinctive poetic meter across his books and art style, but also incorporated a lot of interesting themes that were not so clear-cut, such as the fact The Lorax is meant to be very ambiguous about not only the future, but the fact the Onceler isn't an evil villain and has some interesting justifications which don't paint him as entirely bad, or the book he wrote which is an allegory for nuclear war and mutually assured destruction.

Not to mention that his book about the Sneetches is not only an allegory for tribalism, but is applicable to racism along with other superficial characteristics and ideas of ingroup/outgroup, which includes Racism, if you're so included.

If you discredit Seuss, you also have to discredit the works of Lewis Carol because they're for kids and the Odyssesy/Illaid because they were mandatory for Ancient Greek education. It's not the most solid point, my dude. Studying children's books or stories meant for kids lend great value to culture because it's meant to be formative and to teach lessons or morals which that culture considers important, and a holistic study of Americana and American culture would have to include Seuss just as it would include a Robert Frost or a Mark Twain.

@immortalartisan

I don't really find that to be a compelling counter given the books were censored because of people who were so desperate to be triggered that they went to fucking "children's books."

I can flip the tables around just as easily on this, which is why it's not productive to the conservation.

Also, I've never really supported the whole "it's a private business, they can do whatever they want," not only because of my liberal beliefs, but because it can potentially be used to justify anything. Plus it doesn't remove my right to say what I think they're doing is wrong, which leads us back to where we started.

 

[wowfucktron]

@tamerlane
Don't worry my Jewish witchcraft will keep you safe, for a price of course.

*coughing and hacking*
For a mere dollar,
I shall cease her holler,
Protection upon this student,
Have all of his actions be prudent!
*bank tiller noises*

 

[immortalartisan]

@tamerlane I thought private corporations could do what ever they want was a major part of anti big government republicans? And why we can’t have socialism things like public education, free healthcare, or welfare programs

 

[okdudeswow]

@Tamerlane
Suess isn't Homer. Children's books change. No kid is reading pulp novels from the 30's anymore.
What a leap saying I have to discredit the Odyssey of all things? When did I suggest Suess was "mandatory"? The books in question aren't even popular works in comparison. Besides, being the first to do it doesn't mean Suess made the "best" allegories or the most effective teaching structure. Historical value is seprate from educational value and relevancy. Consumer views change. Certainly there is a lot of emotional attachment to the books from those who grew up with them though.

 

[Tamerlane]

I thought private corporations could do what ever they want was a major part of anti big government republicans?

During the Bush Era when Neoconservatives made up most of the party, sure, but I think we’re going to see a shift away into a more liberal Republican Party, with most of the old guard being replaced by a younger, more populistic generation.

Even then, it’s not just Republicans criticizing the issue, so it’s not necessarily relevant as an appeal to hypocrisy when people like me have always found that argument lacking and potentially could justify anything. I’m against neoliberalism as much as the next guy, my dude

And why we can’t have socialism things like public education, free healthcare, or welfare programs

This is drifting away from the main topic, though I should point out a few things:

Publicly funded alternatives like public schools or welfare are not socialism, but social programs. Socialism would entail the abolition of private property and the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers. The conflation of government/tax funded programs and socialism is an old strawman from the right the left apparently took seriously

Even then, we have welfare and we have public education, and affordable healthcare is still in the works. It’s just that the government is really inefficient and throwing more money at it isn’t going to make it more effective, and might make it worse with welfare not increasing productivity.


I’ll respond to the other guy later, I’m tired but Jesus Christ I am not looking forward to it
@immortalartisan

 

[immortalartisan]

@tamerlane the whole social programs being socialism was a joke

 

[ColorfulSoy]

@immortalartisan
What is that? A satire or sarcasm? Can't tell because you always said something weird.

 

[immortalartisan]

@ColorfulSoy both

 

[ColorfulSoy]

That's not how it works.

Do you even know whats the difference?

 

[okdudeswow]

@Tamerlane Then don't. The value of art is subjective. It's not an exaggeration that if you're looking for pure educational value, the Suess books could easily be replaced.
Again, I don't "have to" discredit these other famous children's authors your brought up simply to strenghen your argument and broaden the scope of the discussion into historical value.
You also misunderstood my argument. I'm not disparaging childrens' literature as a whole because they're for children, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't NEED to be Suess. He is not the end-all master of teaching colors and rhymes. So who cares if some of his works fall out if relevancy and popularity over time? We don't need to defend it as some sacred text. It's the same thing that happens when adults complain about children's TV shows being diffrent from when they were young in reboots.

 

[Stupid_Goo]

Lowkey amused how I went to bed after discussing what the definition of "family" is and what technically defines one, to more Republican & Democrat talks - which, explain sum'n to me here:
Democrat - Democracy?
Republican - Republic?
Are the states a Republic? Or the "United States"? 🤔

And then we go on to Dr. Seuss (this is how to spell the name, btw - not Suess (looks more like sus to me)) and offending minorities.
Can't comment on this because personally, when I see someone getting verbally aggressive over sum'n (IE swearing or yelling/shouting), they's likely offended (not that I've seen any Innuits in the flesh complaining about being called Eskimos (not even on shows involving places like Alaska or wherever else they might be at... North Pole? 🤔 ))

Also by the way, explain satire to me - pretty sure the definition of that was ruined for me ever since that time PewDiePie made that joke on Nazis and Jews and got his contract and his Youtube Original show canceled - which I never understood why when he seems like a bit of an idiot to begin with; don't people have a higher tolerance for stupidity these daya? 🤔

 

[nutman451]

Who cares? It's a kids book. They go out of print all the time. What is Suess some kind of pinnacle of children's literature so advanced it MUST be preserved? Pfft

I care, and everyone else should care? why? because every book, no matter who wrote it or where it came from deserves to be available for anyone to read.

My problem with the whole controversy is the printing companies (and the distributors) explanation as to why they stopped printing Dr. Seuss books. They used a moral argument in order to stop the distribution of this book, if accepted, will set up a moral precedent that allows anyone to stop the distribution of certain books (and thus ideas) from reaching anyone who's willing to read them.

If allowed to continue, this will give anyone and everyone moral ground to begin pulling out other books from the public's reach.

If we concede pulling out a few Seuss books because of perceived racism, then what's stopping them from pulling out ALL of Seuss's book? After all, it's ACCEPTED that he has a propensity for racism. Why don't we pull out Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? There's racism in that book. Let's pull out ALL of the books before 1865, because all of them was made before the abolishment of slavery which is totally racist. Let's remove the bible, since it doesn't mention that slavery is verboten, thus it's racist. Let's also remove classical Greek philosophy, because those racists that explain the racist bible often use greek philosophy to explain their racist ideas, and those ancient Greek thinkers were definitely sexist. Oh and western scientists too, after all they were white pople and some are even christian, we have to cancel all the racists.

And after all that, what do you have left? NOTHING, every idea that connects us to the past silenced because someone in the present doesn't like them. Then we're all isolated, with nothing connecting us to past glories, lessons, and ideals. Everyone will have to start from scratch, rebuilding their own identities, and it will most definitely never be the same, and in the meantime everyone is vulnerable to more malicious ideas, because we have nothing else to support us, no culture nor principles to cling to and make us strong.

I mean it’s a bloody private business choosing out of its own free will to stop production of a few books.

Gay cakes, Female Testicles, "No-blacks allowed", oh my!

Though I agree with the sentiment, there have been various examples where businesses abuse their customers while being protected by the freedoms given to private businesses. See mass deplatforming of then President Donald Trump and the discrimination of blacks by business owners.

but also examples against the argument of forcing businesses to serve every customer. See the gay cake controversy and the Jessica Yaniv vs Salon Lawsuit.

At this point I don't know what to advocate for because each side leaves the other party vulnerable to abuse.

explain satire to me

In my own understanding, Satire is a form of parody that leads to a point/argument that are often times political or moral.

Parody is the subversion of an established work often for comedic purposes.

An example of a parody is Weird Al Yankovic's party in the CIA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-CG5w4YwOI

An example of a Satire is Chris Ray Gun's Ain't no rest for the Triggered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYd5cRlROE

@okdudeswow
@immortalartisan
@Stupid_Goo

 

[Wollff]

If allowed to continue, this will give anyone and everyone moral ground to begin pulling out other books from the public's reach.

You are conflating two things here.

One is the fact that publishers sometimes stop printing books. That's not a problem. That happens. They are free to make that decision for whatever reason they want, and neither you, nor me, nor any PC brigade have any say on the matter, in either direction. The publisher can print, or stop printing, whatever the fuck they want, for whatever reason they want. Fact is: There are lots and lots of books which are out of print. Do you want to force publishers to keep printing every out of print book? No? Good. Then we have cleared up that part. We are not going to do that.

Because there is a well tested solution to this problem of maintaining access to books, even if they go out of print: Libraries.

And that's the second aspect to this controversy: Access to printed books in libraries. Completely different issue. But as I understand the current state of the controversy, nobody even proposes to pull books from the public's reach by pulling them from libraries. What is happening, is that those controversial books for now are wandering off the shelves of the "Childrens' literature"-sections, because we are having a controversy if having those books in this section of the library is still appropriate. And since it might not be appropriate to have them there anymore, libraries currently debate the question on where to best put them then.

What libraries are not doing, is burning those books. If you have a strong interest in Dr Seuss, nobody wants to deny you your right to research and read all of his books, in the same way that nobody wants to deny you your right to read The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Lolita, or whatever other controversial literature you prefer. You might just not find those books in the "Childrens' literature"-section of your local library. And maybe your local library will not even display those books publicly, and you might have to specifically ask for them to be brought from the archives, when they don't display them on their shelves. That happens, because libraries pretty much always have many more books, than what they can publicly display.

So some libraries are currently not displaying some Dr Seuss books on their shelves anymore. But as I understand it, that's all that it happening. What is not happening, and what nobody wants to happen, and what nobody even proposes, is libraries saying: "Well, we have that book but we are not lending it out to anyone!", or: "We have had this book, but we destroyed it, because it is evil!"

Since, AFAIK, that does not happen, since nobody of relevance proposes that, since no libraries want to implement this, and since everyone is pretty much in agreement that everyone who really wants to read a specific Dr Seuss book should be able to read it... The controversy is pretty much a nothing-burger.

 

[Denrick19]

@wowfucktron

Eh ok, you seem like you argue mainly for fun and don't really change your mind much so I guess we can agree to disagree.

But I promise you, you aren't in some "silent majority" lol, me and you are just some weird dudes who read too much manga like there's a reason you aren't saying your opinions on a more known platform.

EDIT: Hot take but "sIlEnt mAjOriTy" is one of the biggest political copes ever.

 

[nutman451]

@Wollff

One is the fact that publishers sometimes stop printing books. That's not a problem. That happens.

Though I have some contention with publishers being allowed to stop printing books for any reason, I do agree that they should be allowed to stop printing books because it's no longer profitable. I honestly don't want to force companies to print books for no good reason.

But I can't help but find the reasoning for these books to be pulled out to be wrong. Stopping a book from reaching other people just because there are negative elements (and ignoring positive elements that can be found in said book) sets up bad precedent. If it was for practical reasons, then I have no problems at all, but all I've seen (which isn't much, I admit) are moral arguments, which shouldn't be accepted.

The reason I brought up this argument is because how cancel culture is used to silence ideas by calling it racist/homophobic/fascist or any kind of (often false) negative attribution which convinced publishers to reconsider publishing books with said ideas. One such example is Andy Ngo's book Unmasked, which got pulled out from several outlets because they are convinced (or threatened) by Antifa.

What is not happening, and what nobody wants to happen, and what nobody even proposes, is libraries saying: "Well, we have that book but we are not lending it out to anyone!", or: "We have had this book, but we destroyed it, because it is evil!"

But that's what will happen in the future, because by agreeing with the notion that these Dr. Seuss books are racist and thus ought to be removed from children's section, it sets up precedent that other Dr. Seuss books may have racism in them, or that Dr. Seuss is a racist himself, or that other books can be marked as racist and must be pulled out.

This isn't mentioning that certain groups (though not libraries) have done Seuss book burning events that creates the idea that these books should not be accepted and must be kept away from the public.

Since, AFAIK, that does not happen, since nobody of relevance proposes that, since no libraries want to implement this, and since everyone is pretty much in agreement that everyone who really wants to read a specific Dr Seuss book should be able to read it... The controversy is pretty much a nothing-burger.

If this is indeed the consensus, though I think this controversy is a prelude to a wider problem, I'm willing to let the issue go rather than bashing a dead horse.

Edit : Aside from that I have no problems with your arguments, I do feel like we're talking pass each other, but I think that happens often in debates.