- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 21,655
he had a succession of accounts with cyber and smith in their name, and with similar blue-on-black profile pics, that kept getting banned in pre-musk twitter.What makes you think that's Destiny?
he had a succession of accounts with cyber and smith in their name, and with similar blue-on-black profile pics, that kept getting banned in pre-musk twitter.What makes you think that's Destiny?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I thought that these people loved the cold? You know, 'cause it proves that global warming ain't real!There seems to be a bunch of people who legitimately believe that telling the nation it’s cold outside is some sort of insidious nanny state communism by stealth.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What a sequence in this thread, a guy who says real alpha men eat raw meat and then a post about how gas stoves are the pillar of western civilization.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Come on Gaetz, do this for real.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Is slavery the 2nd most American of all pleasures?after the gas stoves thing, people in the comments were saying that there's no way bans on leaded petrol or asbestos would be possible in the current US. and next day ...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
genuinely hope each and every one of them gets lung cancer
Bowling?Is slavery the 2nd most American of all pleasures?
Not sure the founding fathers were much into it tbf. Tobacco and slavery yes, big fans.Bowling?
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...sorship-reaction-salman-rushdie-b2285246.htmlSalman Rushdie has spoken out against recent reports that passages have been rewritten in some of Roald Dahl’s books to remove language that may be considered offensive.
A report on Friday 17 February detailed some of the changes made to the author’s work after feedback from sensitivity readers.
One example of a change made to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is that Augustus Gloop is now described as “enormous” rather than “fat”. Elsewhere, a character in The Twits, Mrs Twit, is now just described as “beastly” rather than “ugly and beastly”, according to The Daily Telegraph.
Rushdie is one of several literary figures to express disapproval about the changes made to the children’s books. Reacting on Twitter, the Satanic Verses author wrote on Saturday (18 February): “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”
Comedian David Baddiel posted a screenshot of one of the changes to a passage in The Twits. Though the version republished in 2001 reads: “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth”, the new edit takes out the reference to a “double chin”.
Interesting, from what I remember Roald Dahl was really critical of Rushdie and The Satanic Verses and basically argued that he deserved the fatwa."Salman Rushdie leads criticism of ‘absurd’ Roald Dahl censorship."
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...sorship-reaction-salman-rushdie-b2285246.html
General consensus on Reddit seems to be that it was an unnecessary thing to do, and a disclaimer message would have been better.What a bunch of snowflakes, a company changing their products because they want to is censorship?
As a non-ugly person, I can't really comment on this."Salman Rushdie leads criticism of ‘absurd’ Roald Dahl censorship."
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...sorship-reaction-salman-rushdie-b2285246.html
I agree, but it's not censorship. Censorship would be an authority forcing them to make the changes against their will. If they're doing it because they think it's the best way to go forward it's just a decision like any other.General consensus on Reddit seems to be that it was an unnecessary thing to do, and a disclaimer message would have been better.
Why are you nit-picking about semantics here? Who cares if it fits the technical definition of censorship? The reason people are annoyed is obvious. Changing classic texts to preserve the feelings of the easily offended. Snowflakes is a shitty term but it’s clearly more applicable to those the changes are being made for than those who resent them.I agree, but it's not censorship. Censorship would be an authority forcing them to make the changes against their will. If they're doing it because they think it's the best way to go forward it's just a decision like any other.
Semantics? I know people who suffered because of actual censorship and had their careers destroyed. A publisher changing a text in agreement with the author's estate is not it. I don't think it's semantics at all.Why are you nit-picking about semantics here? Who cares if it fits the technical definition of censorship? The reason people are annoyed is obvious. Changing classic texts to preserve the feelings of the easily offended. Snowflakes is a shitty term but it’s clearly more applicable to those the changes are being made for than those who resent them.
Roald Dahl himself totally remade the Oompa Loompas 10 year after he wrote the book, because the depiction was criticized as racist. Most people have already been reading a revised version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, they just didn't know. I know I didn't as a kid.Sorry but this is a total load of old bollocks. Changing the text to classic books is ridiculous - if you really are concerned about offending anyone then put a disclaimer at the start of the book and the reader can then MAKE THEIR OWN MIND UP whether they wish to read the book or not. I don't need, nor want, somebody else making that decision for me.
It's literally Helen Lovejoy esque.This is a good move and will hopefully protect our children from needing to think critically, the likes of which should never be applied to literature.
Yes and that's fine because it was the actual author deciding to change the text. This is something quite different.Roald Dahl himself totally remade the Oompa Loompas 10 year after he wrote the book, because the depiction was criticized as racist. Most people have already been reading a revised version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, they just didn't know. I know I didn't as a kid.
There is something different between the actual author approving changes being made for commercial reasons (Dahl also agreed to make Charlie white before publication, he was supposed to be black) and an estate sitting on the rights to the work of a dead author approving changes being made for commercial reasons, at least it feels different, but it's hard to avoid that given the copyright rules. I think Netflix owns Dahl's works now?
I agree. the disclaimer should read “this book is written by a raging antisemite” that should help folks make up their mind accordingly.Sorry but this is a total load of old bollocks. Changing the text to classic books is ridiculous - if you really are concerned about offending anyone then put a disclaimer at the start of the book and the reader can then MAKE THEIR OWN MIND UP whether they wish to read the book or not. I don't need, nor want, somebody else making that decision for me.
Relating villains or shady characters with undesirable appearance traits is basically everywhere, especially in childrens and young adult fiction.It’s definitely for the best that we’ve moved on from unkind language and stereotypes but there’s a fine line between that sort of progress and a world full of horribly bland and anodyne children’s literature with all the sharp edges removed to appease the most easily offended.