Funny events in anti-woke world

[bluegate]

Yes, and they're also developed enough to handle profanity or maybe a punch in the face. Can they handle something is the wrong question. Should they have to is the question.

Keeping with Anne Frank's diary's light sexual content, I'd say it's healthy for a child's development to read about experiences of similarly aged individuals.

It can provide context for thoughts or feelings they might be having themselves, it tells them that they aren't the only ones with certain feelings or thoughts and that they aren't weird for having them.

And for children who don't share those thoughts or feelings, it shows them how other people might have different thoughts and feelings than their own.

 

[Gordon_4]

Just because he had a family emergency happen doesn't mean somehow he shouldn't have ever got to make the film how he wanted, which he did in the end after a fan campaign for it.

The tragedy that befell the Snyder family with Autumn's suicide had no bearing on the fact Zack was making a shit superhero movie. Nor is either a cudgel to beat the film with, or a shield to deflect criticisms against it.

 

[thebobmaster]

I think we are forgetting the real issue with Anne Frank's diary. It's not just about mild sexual content. It's about mild LESBIAN sexual content. I don't think there would be nearly as much "this shouldn't be part of a girl's diary, harrumph" if it was a boy Anne Frank was thinking about.

 

[tstorm823]

I think we are forgetting the real issue with Anne Frank's diary. It's not just about mild sexual content. It's about mild LESBIAN sexual content. I don't think there would be nearly as much "this shouldn't be part of a girl's diary, harrumph" if it was a boy Anne Frank was thinking about.

You don't think there would be any concern if they had illustrated Anne Frank pressuring a boy to let her touch his penis?

Keeping with Anne Frank's diary's light sexual content, I'd say it's healthy for a child's development to read about experiences of similarly aged individuals.

It can provide context for thoughts or feelings they might be having themselves, it tells them that they aren't the only ones with certain feelings or thoughts and that they aren't weird for having them.

And for children who don't share those thoughts or feelings, it shows them how other people might have different thoughts and feelings than their own.

I don't think any of that is how children actually function. You have cause and effect backwards, I think. You don't grow as a person through the feelings of others, you start to understand the feelings of others when you grow as a person. The youngest infant can imitate other people and project feelings onto them, growth and real understanding come through your own experience.

But at any rate, your position doesn't support the conclusion. If it's a good thing to read about someone feeling like you, and a good thing to read about feeling you might not share, then why this specific type of feeling? Why can't you get the same result with any other subjects?

 

[BrawlMan]

Whatever other responses you have Dwarvenhobble, I am not wasting time on, because it's your usual nonsense, no evidence, bullshit. Have fun dealing with your usual insecurities, rage issues, and being the loyal attack dog for the Far Right, who will never get paid for it. Deal with the copium.

 

[Absent]

I think we are forgetting the real issue with Anne Frank's diary. It's not just about mild sexual content. It's about mild LESBIAN sexual content. I don't think there would be nearly as much "this shouldn't be part of a girl's diary, harrumph" if it was a boy Anne Frank was thinking about.

It's also in the general context of a crackdown on all educative books about the extreme-right (from nazism to slavery). There's always something with these, oh no the mice are too violent, oh no there is a naked, oh no the font is damaging to the children. But the underlying theme is oh no they are indoctrinating the children into seeing our values as the baddies'. And they still need pretexts. Just like they go after any LGBT-relative book, trying to find traumatic "pornography" in them.

Never take these people's explicit motives at face value.

 

[Ag3ma]

I don't think any of that is how children actually function. You have cause and effect backwards, I think. You don't grow as a person through the feelings of others, you start to understand the feelings of others when you grow as a person.

I don't think it's unidirectional. Fundamentally, one must experience the way other people think and feel to gain information from which to develop understanding. But understanding gained can then be applied back into deeper appreciation of how other people think and feel.

 

[bluegate]

then why this specific type of feeling? Why can't you get the same result with any other subjects?

Care to elaborate those questions because I have no idea what you're asking? It feels like I'm missing some context of a larger conversation.

 

[tstorm823]

Care to elaborate those questions because I have no idea what you're asking? It feels like I'm missing some context of a larger conversation.

We are discussing the inclusion of specifically sexual content in books, in this case the graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank's Diary. You said of the sexual content there that it can tell kids who may feel the same they aren't alone, and show kids who don't feel the same that people can have different feelings. Which is to say, you're justifying the value of that content to everyone, people who feel the same + people who don't feel the same = everyone.

But your argument as to why could equally apply to literally any feeling. Love, joy, anger, hatred, how much one enjoys fried mozzarella sticks... expressing anything someone feels accomplishes those things you said exactly the same: lets people who feel the same feel normal, and give exposure of people with different feelings to those who don't. If instead of a teenager's sexual thoughts, it was a teenager's violent thoughts, would you make the same argument? There are definitely children and teens with violent impulses who could feel normalized reading a book like that, and other readers might learn that people have different feelings than them, but is that a good thing?

 

[Ag3ma]

We are discussing the inclusion of specifically sexual content in books, in this case the graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank's Diary. You said of the sexual content there that it can tell kids who may feel the same they aren't alone, and show kids who don't feel the same that people can have different feelings. Which is to say, you're justifying the value of that content to everyone, people who feel the same + people who don't feel the same = everyone.

If one wishes to tell the world about Anne Frank, removing a significant chunk of the available information about her necessarily limits what someone will know about her. Part of the issue with Anne Frank's diary being so heavily edited for publication is that it inherently created an more unrealistic view of Anne Frank. Is that healthy? Do

There can certainly be a reason to select information - obviously, if one wishes to illustrate a specific point, removing irrelevant information tends to be good practice - but that should be a rational and justifiable decision.

 

[Hades]

I think we are forgetting the real issue with Anne Frank's diary. It's not just about mild sexual content. It's about mild LESBIAN sexual content. I don't think there would be nearly as much "this shouldn't be part of a girl's diary, harrumph" if it was a boy Anne Frank was thinking about.

Quite frankly I think the REAL issue is that she was a Jew forced into hiding and murdered by fascists. It’s the kind of bad PR a party leaning towards fascism wouldn’t want.

 

[Ag3ma]

Quite frankly I think the REAL issue is that she was a Jew forced into hiding and murdered by fascists. It’s the kind of bad PR a party leaning towards fascism wouldn’t want.

That's no biggie. As long as they can lean hard enough into support for Israel's apartheid, they can at least fend off the awkward anti-semitism angle.

 

[tstorm823]

that should be a rational and justifiable decision.

When the content is a young girl's sexual thoughts that she personally decided was not for public consumption, not illustrating it seems to me rational and justifiable.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You don't think there would be any concern if they had illustrated Anne Frank pressuring a boy to let her touch his penis?

The only concern there would be that it's historically inaccurate. Also, the "pressuring" in this case was 'show me yours I'll show you mine', which you can argue whether kids should be doing that, but kids do (or in this case did) do that. And nothing in that moment even came of it, it was teenaged curiosity that was rejected by the other. At worst it's a warts and all depiction of a historical figure, and that's only if you consider relatively innocent exploration of a teen girl bad. And even if you do consider it bad, why would you ignore or white wash the existence of it? If it's not bad it's not bad, if it is bad does that mean other historical figures should have their shameful skeletons hidden in the closet? Do we need to be respectful of historical figures dirty laundry?

When the content is a young girl's sexual thoughts that she personally decided was not for public consumption, not illustrating it seems to me rational and justifiable.

It's equally rational and justifiable to illustrate it as it was, which is what the author and illustrator decided to do and the Anne Frank Foundation fully supported.

 

[tstorm823]

The only concern there would be that it's historically inaccurate.

Disagree.

Also, the "pressuring" in this case was 'show me yours I'll show you mine',

"as proof of friendship". "Do this to prove you're my friend" is emotional blackmail.

Do we need to be respectful of historical figures dirty laundry?

It can certainly be a good thing to do so. It's not an absolute here, it's not "we must do this" or "we can't do that", it's "what could we do that is best?" You don't have to respect the dirty laundry of historical figures, but what is the message being sent when you make a Holocaust victim's dirty laundry required reading for middle schoolers? What's the take away there? Pretty sure it's "don't tell anyone your thoughts or feelings, and definitely don't write them down, or we might teach the things you want to hide to children in the future. You don't need to be respectful of Anne Frank specifically to see issues with teaching kids that the things they want to be secret will be blasted out to the world.

Why is it a good thing to put that content into schools? What is gained here? Actually justify it.

 

[Silvanus]

I do think there's a fair argument to be made that if Frank herself didn't want certain sections published, then that's a reasonable justification to withhold. That argument doesn't extend to Otto or to the publishers who also later made edits, but it does extend to Frank's own revisions. That said I don't have a massive issue with publishing both Version A and Version B. The more information available, the better, is also a very valid approach-- history is also about getting as well-rounded and informationally complete picture of the lives of those in the past as we can.

I also think any argument about "impropriety" is complete bunk. The publication is in part meant to be a snapshot of her life, including the mundanity and ordinary maturation, and this is part of that. Arguments about impropriety can fuck off-- and we know that religious conservatives have a specific bugbear about same-sex attraction and would want to falsify the historical record of it if they could, and that's where their specific issue is coming from. It's intentional erasure on their part.

 

[Absent]

I do think there's a fair argument to be made that if Frank herself didn't want certain sections published, then that's a reasonable justification to withhold. That argument doesn't extend to Otto or to the publishers who also later made edits, but it does extend to Frank's own revisions. That said I don't have a massive issue with publishing both Version A and Version B. The more information available, the better, is also a very valid approach-- history is also about getting as well-rounded and informationally complete picture of the lives of those in the past as we can.

There's a lot of things here. You can publish the diary (or a version of the diary) as its own thing, its own historical source, as you'd publish the letters or the journal of some deceased author. It's distinct from publishing the "intended book", the reworked text that Anne Frank meant to be her literary work later. And you can publish a biography, informed by all sorts of sources, and name it as you see fit.

There's been an excellent graphic novel about the life of Martha Jane Cannary. It's not Calamity Jane's self-biography, and it's not Calamity Jane's letters, but they make the bulk of it. It's not the book Calamity Jane would have published as Calamity Jane's book about Calamity Jane by Calamity Jane. And there was little oh no how dare they when it came out, because that couldn't be instrumentalized by fascists in their political censorship crusade like the diary versions of Anne Frank can.

Again, pure opportunism, hypocrisy and bad faith from the US extreme-right.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, by making a bad film. The Snyder cut itself-- the film as he wanted to make it, without the studio edits-- is still awful.

The tragedy that befell the Snyder family with Autumn's suicide had no bearing on the fact Zack was making a shit superhero movie. Nor is either a cudgel to beat the film with, or a shield to deflect criticisms against it.

Well you're entitled to that opinion.

I thought it was pretty good, far from perfect and no great but pretty good, which considering Snyder is basing a lot of his work on the comics of Frank Miller what we got as exceptional compared to the source work in this case. I mean we didn't gave Batman and Black canary shagging on pier in costume surrounded by unconscious goons so that's a step up to begin with.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Keeping with Anne Frank's diary's light sexual content, I'd say it's healthy for a child's development to read about experiences of similarly aged individuals.

It can provide context for thoughts or feelings they might be having themselves, it tells them that they aren't the only ones with certain feelings or thoughts and that they aren't weird for having them.

And for children who don't share those thoughts or feelings, it shows them how other people might have different thoughts and feelings than their own.

The issue I can see with this is the idea of focus in the lesson. If you're trying to do a quite series lesson about the Nazi oppression of genocide of the Jewish people then the sex stuff gets in the way a bit (again we're talking teenagers here so it's quite possible to distract them from the more serious lesson by having sex stuff in there)

 

[Casual Shinji]

"as proof of friendship". "Do this to prove you're my friend" is emotional blackmail.

Dude, they're kids. These are awkward attempts at exploring new feelings, not deliberate attempts at emotional blackmail. But even if they were I'd have no problem with their inclusion. If it happened it happened.

It can certainly be a good thing to do so. It's not an absolute here, it's not "we must do this" or "we can't do that", it's "what could we do that is best?" You don't have to respect the dirty laundry of historical figures, but what is the message being sent when you make a Holocaust victim's dirty laundry required reading for middle schoolers? What's the take away there? Pretty sure it's "don't tell anyone your thoughts or feelings, and definitely don't write them down, or we might teach the things you want to hide to children in the future. You don't need to be respectful of Anne Frank specifically to see issues with teaching kids that the things they want to be secret will be blasted out to the world.

Why is it a good thing to put that content into schools? What is gained here? Actually justify it.

I don't need to justify it. It's a fact that occured, pure and simple. But hey, here's a justification; it humanizes her. Instead of Anne Frank the symbol of the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people, we get to see a bit of Anne Frank the girl who has a crush on another girl.

The very nature of it being her diary, whether she planned to publish it into a book later or not, tells kids that one day some of their personal belongings will be found as well. And no, I doubt that's going send them into a tailspin of paranoia.