Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters

[CriticalGaming]

That's racism (or sexism or homophobia) to the person being subjected to it. 9 out of 10 people you meet on a day can be perfectly normal and nice, but then you're minding your own business and someone decides to hurt an insult based on your skin color at you.

So what you are basically saying is that there are a few assholes out in the world and because you have a small chance of encountering an asshole, the world is overwhelmed with said assholes. Effectively stating in your reply that you must perpetually live in fear because someone somewhere MIGHT at some point call you a Fa**** or a tranny and therefore the world is a terrrible place and we should cull all those who MIGHT have negative opinions or thoughts about us.

Yeah that isn't how the world is ever going to work. And what do you think goes through a bigot's mind when you snap at them for being a bigot? Furthermore what do you think happens to someone who has a maybe slightly contrary opinion towards a particular culture or group and there get lambasted for daring to think such a thing? Do you think anyone goes, "Whoa, oh my gosh, you're right I am a total piece of shit for thinking."

Christopher Titus is a comedian who had a special in which he spoke a lot of about his divorce. And he said something that really resonates through out this rise of outrage culture. He said, "When my wife was on the stand telling the judge about how I abused and beat her on a regular basis I found myself losing my mind. I had never touched my wife in such a way, ever! I never even THOUGHT of hitting a woman ANY women let alone my wife. But while I sat there in court and has to listen to her lie under oath about how much of a wife beater I was...Well I never wanted to be a wife beater until I was accused of being a wife beater. I wanted to jump out of my seat and say, 'Your Honor! Can I have five minutes to make her not a liar?"'

And that's a lot of what i see happening online when people call celebrities or pieces of media sexist, homophobic, whatever the flavor of "ists" or "phobics" fit whatever narrative that accuser wants to apply.

Like your statement above, I don't doubt that if you are black or gay or trans, you occasionally might hear the N-word or someone mutter something phobic near you. But i don't believe it's as often as people say it is. Because I've gone places with my friends, gay friends, black friends, and never once has there been even a negative glance towards them. Maybe it's because I'm white and I offer them some sort of white protection simply being near them, I don't think so, but let's say that's possible and I have magical anti-racism super powers.

There was a twitter thread I saw where the trans community was upset that Alabama is voting to make hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery illegal to give to minors, kids basically. And people are going nuts saying that they are voting to murder trans people and making trans people an actual crime, when that isn't the case at all. It's simply to prevent permanent alterations to child who cannot legally make decisions. Yet like most things in the social justice outcries, things have to be over exaggerated and conflated to something that it isn't and what further harms the cause for the LBGTQ crowd is that there is no listening to reason. It's ether a catastrophic hate crime or nothing and there is no inbetween.

When people can't hold reasonable discussions, or come to reasonable middle grounds, you'll ultimately have something like the Senate or state governments make decisions that will best protect the people in the best way they can which is always going to be erring on the side of caution. To protect kids, to protect doctors from lawsuit, and so on.

Here is the article if you are interested. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-senate-bans-hormone-therapy-surgery-felony-transgender-youth/

EDIT: I think the article has been updated since I first saw it and the law passed the first approval process and now moves to the House for voting.

 

[Silvanus]

People calling for to go for the tweet yes.
People calling for her to go for her the latter part of her response no because

Not a great look. to call people outraged at it (including members of staff at the school and board members).

The "Crux" of her response was to claim (and I can believe this) that the tweet was a deliberately over the top deliberately provocative tweet designed to push the subject of books and textbooks and curriculum material to the forefront of discussion. It's a very very stupid move that seemingly has taken over activists of "Well as long a we force this issue to the forefront it doesn't matter how we do it or whatever lies we tell or things we misrepresent or how over the top the claim is in fact the more over the top the better".

That's still an expression of opinion. Why is that not off-limits?

If they define Alt-right yes subjective. If they don't then no as it's being used as a pejorative label.

So what? A pejorative label is the opinion of the speaker; it's not demonstrably false. You believe we shouldn't be able to describe public figures in a pejorative sense? I can't call the President untrustworthy, etc? Do you see how dangerous this line of thinking is?

Because there is little difference other than the person saying the message.

To see no difference between what Gina Carano posted and what the Auschwitz Museum posted is so blindingly, transparently ludicrous that I can't take it the least bit seriously. The Auschwitz Museum would be fucking disgusted by the equivalence you're drawing here.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There was a twitter thread I saw where the trans community was upset that Alabama is voting to make hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery illegal to give to minors, kids basically. And people are going nuts saying that they are voting to murder trans people and making trans people an actual crime, when that isn't the case at all. It's simply to prevent permanent alterations to child who cannot legally make decisions. Yet like most things in the social justice outcries, things have to be over exaggerated and conflated to something that it isn't and what further harms the cause for the LBGTQ crowd is that there is no listening to reason. It's ether a catastrophic hate crime or nothing and there is no inbetween.

When people can't hold reasonable discussions, or come to reasonable middle grounds, you'll ultimately have something like the Senate or state governments make decisions that will best protect the people in the best way they can which is always going to be erring on the side of caution. To protect kids, to protect doctors from lawsuit, and so on.

Here is the article if you are interested. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-senate-bans-hormone-therapy-surgery-felony-transgender-youth/

EDIT: I think the article has been updated since I first saw it and the law passed the first approval process and now moves to the House for voting.

How are you "protecting doctors from lawsuits" when you're making it a felony for doctors to provide care for teens? What's the "reasonable middle ground" when you have politically motivated adults on one side and actual doctors who work with kids on the other? Why do puberty blockers and hormones have such distinct differences from any other medical procedure a child *can* consent to, and why are they blocking 18 year old adults too?

How are you having a "reasonable discussion" when you're flat out ignoring damn near every civil rights, LGBT advocacy, and medical group in the western world?

This bill will hurt people, and it's being crafted by people that don't think trans people should exist. That's the point of the bill. They don't give the slightest shit about "protection", if they didn't they wouldn't be making school officials and doctors out trans kids to their parents. The worst thing in the world for these fucks is to see a trans gal happy in her body. This is just repackaged homophobia from when I was a kid, when therapists and schools were forced by law to out potentially gay kids to their parents, and that hurt/killed a lot of gay kids.

 

[Nick Calandra]

The white, straight dude doesn't think the world is racist or homophobic. Well, thank God that the least abused group in society doesn't feel abused. The thing about those t hings is that they don't need to be violent. They don't even need to be conscious desires to hurt someone else on any level, because they are a set of beliefs the racist/homophobe/whateverphobe holds and it is the actions that stem from them that become the problem.

But let me circle back to the first paragraph I quoted, because it is important. I am sure most on this forum have watched How I Met Your Mother. There's a running arc where Barney loses a bet to Marshall and Marshall is given five free slaps to Barney at any time and place. Marshall turns it into a sadistic game, where he raises his hand near Barney as to scare him and starts a website called Slapsgiving with a countdown. Near the end of the Slapsgiving episode Barney breaks down and admits that it isn't the slap to come that's so bad, it is never knowing if any given moment is the moment when he gets slapped, living with the fear of a slap hovering over him constantly.

That's racism (or sexism or homophobia) to the person being subjected to it. 9 out of 10 people you meet on a day can be perfectly normal and nice, but then you're minding your own business and someone decides to hurt an insult based on your skin color at you. And you never know who that person is, so you constantly go around being low key prepared for someone to insult you. The slap can come at any time. For those of us who don't experience it on the daily (or only experience it infrequently) it is hard to understand just how much of a psychological toll this takes. Even if only 1 in 10 or 1 in 50 does it, to the person subjected it is still a lot of people being racist to them.

That was a really great way to describe how marginalized groups feel on a day to day basis, also never thought about that arc in HIMYM that way, so that was a really interesting parallel.

I wish the people that downplay some of these things just because they don't live them or see it themselves would just knock it off. Everyone lives their own life experience, and just cause you don't see it or think the media is playing it up (which I'm not denying exists because the media definitely stokes some of this stuff) would just get out more and talk to more people about their lived experience.

You never know what someone else is going through, and the more you learn, the better you can understand and empathize with them and also realize you don't need to voice every thought in your head about it online. Who are you or anyone else to say what someone else is feeling, and unfortunately marginalized groups go through that song and dance every single day.

People need to do a better job of just listening and stop feeling the need to share their "opinion" on other people's experiences. You can a learn a lot more from just listening and empathizing with people than having to try and find an explanation, combat or downplay other people's experiences all the time.

I don't even think it's just limited to marginalized communities either, that feeling, as someone that just recently closed a decade-long chapter of their life of being emotionally abused by someone I still care about and not feeling like I can talk about it without it being downplayed because I'm a straight white guy.

Not something I'll ever talk about on social media, but just a fact of the matter that people aren't exactly empathetic on social media and we could all use a bit more of that for everyone I think.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Right, they aren't removing the ones in circulation, so it's not really censorship, is it? Note: it was you who said it was censorship.



That quote isn't from one of the publishers, it's from (as noted in the article) 'Samuel Karnick, a senior fellow and director for publications at the Heartland Institute'. I hadn't heard of the Heartland Institute, but it didn't sound like a publisher of children's books, so I checked. It's 'an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank'. You think that might influence his perspective a little bit?

What the publisher (Random House) actually said was ' We respect the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises (DSE) and the work of the panel that reviewed this content last year, and their recommendation.'



They why are so many people crying about companies no longer wanting to produce racist literature?

And Stanley Kubrick only removed A Clockwork Orange from Circulation in the UK............right?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's still an expression of opinion. Why is that not off-limits?

Yes but then she's more outright attacking and belittling staff she's expected to work with in her response more directly as they were the people being addressed as part of the response in a rather more public manner. At that stage that really is creating a hostile work environment and showing what would be hostile attitudes towards co-workers.

So what? A pejorative label is the opinion of the speaker; it's not demonstrably false. You believe we shouldn't be able to describe public figures in a pejorative sense? I can't call the President untrustworthy, etc? Do you see how dangerous this line of thinking is?

A pejorative can be false or used falsely. In the case I mentioned with a member of the house of lords being called a pedophile it was used because some people disliked him and so they subjectively believed it was applicable. Plenty of tags and terms have and do get weaponised and used maliciously. There's a difference between saying "I believe they are [insert label]" and "They are [insert label]" one is no presenting it as a subjective statement of opinion but an objective statement of fact that they are that

To see no difference between what Gina Carano posted and what the Auschwitz Museum posted is so blindingly, transparently ludicrous that I can't take it the least bit seriously. The Auschwitz Museum would be fucking disgusted by the equivalence you're drawing here.

OK then what are the substantial difference in message between the two?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

How are you "protecting doctors from lawsuits" when you're making it a felony for doctors to provide care for teens? What's the "reasonable middle ground" when you have politically motivated adults on one side and actual doctors who work with kids on the other? Why do puberty blockers and hormones have such distinct differences from any other medical procedure a child *can* consent to, and why are they blocking 18 year old adults too?

How are you having a "reasonable discussion" when you're flat out ignoring damn near every civil rights, LGBT advocacy, and medical group in the western world?

This bill will hurt people, and it's being crafted by people that don't think trans people should exist. That's the point of the bill. They don't give the slightest shit about "protection", if they didn't they wouldn't be making school officials and doctors out trans kids to their parents. The worst thing in the world for these fucks is to see a trans gal happy in her body. This is just repackaged homophobia from when I was a kid, when therapists and schools were forced by law to out potentially gay kids to their parents, and that hurt/killed a lot of gay kids.

Ok I'm going to step in here for what it's worth.

Part of the issue is there are 3 main categories.

Transgender individuals
Gender non conforming individuals & or non standard gender expressing individuals
A 3rd group I won't name because well lets say it often induces rage even acknowledging them existing.

All 3 display some level of dysphoria or lack of connection to their birth gender or expected behaviours often associated with their birth gender. To quote a youtuber I watch "I grew up feeling weird, I liked building stuff, using power tools getting messy and going exploring I hated most girly stuff growing up and now well I've discovered stuff that is girly that I like, I've discovered I do like wearing dresses sometimes and I've always been quite caring or acting like the mother of groups I'm with or so I'm told by others"

The issue being the 3 groups are pretty hard to tell apart which is why diagnosis can take time and in childhood it's even harder to tell them apart. Hormones can make a person infertile that's the difference.

The former leading researcher into Trans individuals Dr Zucker I think he was called urged caution in rushing to transition everyone as a solution as it can cause other issues later. To put it another way just because Chemo kills cancer doesn't mean Chemo is always used. Transitioning is seen as a solution for all 3 groups but 1 of those 3 it's a temporary solution that can cause more trouble in the future. So no not all medical advice does agree with the one side and it's just biased politicians on the other.

Will the bill hurt people? Kinda yes because Transitioning early on can be more beneficial to those where it would be a permanent benfit.
Will not passing the bill leave the potential to hurt people? Kinda yes because as I said one of those groups has issues later and the issue is transitioning only makes them the gender who they're performing like not necessarily the gender they identify as

 

[Baffle]

And Stanley Kubrick only removed A Clockwork Orange from Circulation in the UK............right?

I've seen it (it's really not very good), so not sure what point you're trying to make. You've somehow censored your own point.

 

[Hawki]

Storytelling & plot are valid grounds for criticism, and the political stances a game takes are a part of that. It's perfectly valid to criticise the plot of a game if it makes a crass/ shitty political argument

I don't know about that.

For instance, veering from games for a moment, I disagree with the themes of Starship Troopers (the book), but still like the novel. On the other hand, I agree with the themes of His Dark Materials, but detest the trilogy. "Bad themes = bad work" isn't really grounds for criticism in of itself, not unless those themes are utterly repugnant.

I used Battlefield 3 as an example, but the difference between it and, say, Ace Combat: Assault Horizon is that while both have motifs I'm not fond of, Assault Horizon is competently presented and told. Battlefield 3 isn't.

My point is that the mere presence of characters from minority groups is not some great "political point", but status-quo warriors seem to think it is. Christ, I'm sick of people talking about the mere presence of somebody like me existing in a game is an objectionable political statement.

You're not the only one.

 

[Hawki]

Sure. I thought the 2016 Ghostbusters film was a pretty forgettable rehash. Criticise the lack of imagination or the writing, and we're golden. Criticise the fact they're women, and we're not golden. And disguise a gripe about the latter as a gripe about the former, and we're not golden either.

I agree with that mostly (I actually liked the film), but you had people arguing that people who didn't like it were mysogenist. Remember James Rolfe?

Cancel Culture is just the new Political Correctness Gone Wild, pushed by the same shitheads that need outrage to stay relevant.

Cancel culture will remain an issue as long as, among other things, people lose their jobs over it.

Also, I'm sick of cancel culture being cast as a recent phenomeon. It's certainly been amplified recently, but whereas a few decades ago, it was mainly the right that was big on cancel culture, these days, it's mostly from the left.

to the largest wholesale genocide in global history.

That's...debatable.

The Holocaust is remembered for the mechanical efficiency, but in terms of actual death toll, that's harder to quantify. Depends on how you classify genocide.

 

[Hawki]

The only reason defenders are crawling out of the woodwork now is because the free-speech argument has been co-opted by a right-wing culture-war crowd.

No, not really. I don't deny that there's some right-wing opportunism involved, but the problem of censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, is recognised across the spectrum, and that includes those on the left. Last statistics I read was that about 67% of US students were self-censoring.

That arguably doesn't affect me too much, but what happens in the US tends to find its way to the rest of the world, for good or ill.

Cancel Culture is so bad....

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2023

Every year, the American Library Association compiles a list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books based on reports from the field and media coverage.

www.ala.org

I wonder if I can find a common theme in the top book censored (or attempted to be censored) in America....

I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic. Cancel culture is bad, and you've given us a list reminding us why cancel culture is bad. It reminds me of one of the libraries I work at, where there's a banned book list put up in one of the work areas as a kind of "fuck you" to censors (said list including The Diary of Anne Frank and The Chronicles of Narnia).

Again, since I feel I have to reiterate this, cancel culture isn't exclusively a left-wing phenomenon, nor is political correctness. Both are found on the right as well. So I don't care who's doing it, I'd prefer that they just don't do it, period. What's strange about cancel culture today (this is documented in The Coddling of the American Mind) is that in the 60s, US students were protesting against censorship, whereas by the 2000s/2010s, US students were arguing FOR censorship. The whole stuff with trigger warnings, microaggressions, heckling speakers, etc. We can debate why and how that is (certainly Haidt put form his own arguments), but I'm not sure how you can deny that this is a condition that exists.

So, yes, cancel culture is arguably a bit different from today in that a lot of it is bottom up rather than top down, but the culture itself is intact.

 

[Hawki]

Problem is it wasn't really made up it was based on

Norwegian heavy water sabotage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know that, but it's not doing anything that Medal of Honour didn't do previously.

Also the dev team claimed the story mode would tell the real untold stories of real event in World War II.

Which is mostly true. Nordlys taking liberties doesn't drag down the other stories with it. And it's not as if the other stories are perfect in terms of accuracy either.

Yet....... the big push as been for 007 to be played by a woman next and as a lot of the stories are adaptation of the novels they're going to have to have Bond as a lesbian for them to work or suddenly Bond Hunks will be a thing more often lol

If James Bond becomes a woman, then that'll be a silly move, but it hasn't happened yet.

Want to fight the culture war? Focus on the battles that are being waged.

Yes and no, the overall thing is environmental protection yes each is their own thing but in the cases there is a bit of a difference in the messaging (these are based on Doctor Who).

Also plastic waste does contribute to climate change more directly too.

Decomposing Plastic Revealed as Hidden Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Plastic production is expected to increase dramatically over the next decade.

www.globalcitizen.org

Yes, plastic contributes, but it's minor compared to the major sources of emissions.

 

[Hawki]

The only reason defenders are crawling out of the woodwork now is because the free-speech argument has been co-opted by a right-wing culture-war crowd.

No, not really. I don't deny that there's some right-wing opportunism involved, but the problem of censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, is recognised across the spectrum, and that includes those on the left. Last statistics I read was that about 67% of US students were self-censoring.

That arguably doesn't affect me too much, but what happens in the US tends to find its way to the rest of the world, for good or ill.

Cancel Culture is so bad....

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2023

Every year, the American Library Association compiles a list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books based on reports from the field and media coverage.

www.ala.org

I wonder if I can find a common theme in the top book censored (or attempted to be censored) in America....

I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic. Cancel culture is bad, and you've given us a list reminding us why cancel culture is bad. It reminds me of one of the libraries I work at, where there's a banned book list put up in one of the work areas as a kind of "fuck you" to censors (said list including The Diary of Anne Frank and The Chronicles of Narnia).

Again, since I feel I have to reiterate this, cancel culture isn't exclusively a left-wing phenomenon, nor is political correctness. Both are found on the right as well. So I don't care who's doing it, I'd prefer that they just don't do it, period. What's strange about cancel culture today (this is documented in The Coddling of the American Mind) is that in the 60s, US students were protesting against censorship, whereas by the 2000s/2010s, US students were arguing FOR censorship. The whole stuff with trigger warnings, microaggressions, heckling speakers, etc. We can debate why and how that is (certainly Haidt put form his own arguments), but I'm not sure how you can deny that this is a condition that exists.

So, yes, cancel culture is arguably a bit different from today in that a lot of it is bottom up rather than top down, but the culture itself is intact.

 

[Hawki]

Problem is it wasn't really made up it was based on

Norwegian heavy water sabotage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know that, but it's not doing anything that Medal of Honour didn't do previously.

Also the dev team claimed the story mode would tell the real untold stories of real event in World War II.

Which is mostly true. Nordlys taking liberties doesn't drag down the other stories with it. And it's not as if the other stories are perfect in terms of accuracy either.

Yet....... the big push as been for 007 to be played by a woman next and as a lot of the stories are adaptation of the novels they're going to have to have Bond as a lesbian for them to work or suddenly Bond Hunks will be a thing more often lol

If James Bond becomes a woman, then that'll be a silly move, but it hasn't happened yet.

Want to fight the culture war? Focus on the battles that are being waged.

Yes and no, the overall thing is environmental protection yes each is their own thing but in the cases there is a bit of a difference in the messaging (these are based on Doctor Who).

Also plastic waste does contribute to climate change more directly too.

Decomposing Plastic Revealed as Hidden Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Plastic production is expected to increase dramatically over the next decade.

www.globalcitizen.org

Yes, plastic contributes, but it's minor compared to the major sources of emissions.

Are you saying the Dr. Seuss estate should be obliged to continue producing material they're don't want to because you like racist imagery in the children's books you read? I think that if someone did a bad thing once, they shouldn't be obliged to keep doing it just because someone else gets off on it. Bonkers idea.

I for one am not, but it's bizzare that the books were de-listed on Ebay.

A publisher has every right to cease production of a work. It's another to hinder people to sell that work when they already own it.

They why are so many people crying about companies no longer wanting to produce racist literature?

In this case?

a) Lots of people would disagree that the works in question were racist.

b) Given the current climate, it's understandable that people would see the move as political.

c) People see it as a potential prelude to other works being removed, such as Cat in the Hat and the Sneetches

d) Steps were taken to curtail the ability sell copies of the works that they already owned

To reiterate my own stance, the estate has the right to no longer publish the works. But I can't deny the climate around it, nor the fact that attempts were made to curtail selling them.

Were the works racist? I don't know, and unless I fork over hundreds of even thousands of dollars (or get really lucky) I'll never be able to find out. Which isn't the worst thing in the world - I was never that into Seuss as a kid - but I'd like to think that in the digital age we live in, the sum total of human works would be available to be consumed. But I guess not.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I'm not sure how else you can interpret this;






Pascal compared a political group to a political group. Carano compared a political group to an ethnic group suffering a genocide. This is a false equivalence.



Fucking hell, I'm not going to watch a moron like Yiannopolous mouthing off. If you need that to make your point, the point isn't worth making.

The truth is that the employer retains rights over employment. PR is unavoidably going to be a major part of that. And saying stuff that's massively inflammatory is bad for PR. The solution to this, for the employee, is not to just bring about a situation where they can say whatever they want and the public can't respond. It's to not be a douchebag.

As I've said already, professional news outlets have a greater responsibility to weigh words and vet factual claims. But you don't appear to be talking about those; you appear to just be taking issue with the fact that people found what other people said objectionable and complained about it. Big whoop; that's the right to reply.

Carano’s point was it started with politics, like pretty much anything. Hitler would’ve went after the Bolshevik communists regardless of the amount of Jews ascribing to the movement.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The biggest problem with all of this is that people use these labels to split people into groups.

Right versus Left. Lbgtq versus straight. Color versus white. Vagina versus dicks.

And furthermore every "injustice" that someone feels often just has to be taken at the offended's word.

"That thing was racist?"

"How was that racist?"

"You cant possibly understand whitey"

In what world can people and society function or inprove if that is the attitude. Where one side is instantly vilified and there is no getting out of it. The offender is "canceled" without recourse or any even logic.

There is no possible defense you can have because one offense means you are evil forever.

I pointed this out in The Last of Us 2 where the bartender called Ellie and Dina a bad word. But he was drunk and the next day he knew he had fucked up and asked Ellie be brought to the bar to apologize. People make mistakes and normal people accept apologies. But not Ellie and not the woke, Ellie refuses his apologies and gives away his "bigot" sandwiches which even Jessie wasnt sure why she was still upset.

Gina apologized. Too bad you're fired.

And you cant speak out about anything because if you do you are a villain no more what actions you are calling out.

Even worse is when you offer out a gesture to try and bridge the gap between factions, and these are factions dont get twisted, those factions will snap back at you because it is never good enough. Like Hogwarts....remember? That game this thread was about.

 

[Baffle]

I for one am not, but it's bizzare that the books were de-listed on Ebay.

A publisher has every right to cease production of a work. It's another to hinder people to sell that work when they already own it.

Actually that does surprise me, because eBay will sell any old shit as long as they get their cut. But it's still not censorship to not let people sell them (i.e. people are allowed to sell them, but not on eBay). Physical bookstores have also come out and said they've no intention of taking them in trade, nor should they be obliged to. There is, no doubt, plenty of ways that people who love racist kids' lit. can trade in it.

In this case?

a) Lots of people would disagree that the works in question were racist.

Right, but they are.

b) Given the current climate, it's understandable that people would see the move as political.

Yes, it is political. It's recognising that the author's politics were, at the time of writing, rubbish.

c) People see it as a potential prelude to other works being removed, such as Cat in the Hat and the Sneetches

Have seen Cat in the Hat mentioned, but I don't know why it would be removed. Not familiar with it or Sneetches. But, you know, if the content is objectionable, chuck it on the fire.

d) Steps were taken to curtail the ability sell copies of the works that they already owned

Yeah, eBay won't let me list my dog eggs either. Writing to my MP.

 

[Hawki]

Actually that does surprise me, because eBay will sell any old shit as long as they get their cut. But it's still not censorship to not let people sell them (i.e. people are allowed to sell them, but not on eBay). Physical bookstores have also come out and said they've no intention of taking them in trade, nor should they be obliged to. There is, no doubt, plenty of ways that people who love racist kids' lit. can trade in it.

mein kampf: Search Result | eBay

Find great deals on eBay for mein kampf. Shop with confidence.

www.ebay.com.au

This is a work that Ebay still allows people to sell.

Yes, you're right, it's under Ebay's purview to not sell certain works, but in what world is Seuss deemed a greater threat to impressionable minds than Hitler?

Right, but they are.

That's not really an argument.

Yes, it is political. It's recognising that the author's politics were, at the time of writing, rubbish.

Again, not an argument.

Mulberry Street was published in 1937, On Beyond Zebra was published in 1955. If the argument is "the author's politics were rubbish" over a two decade period, then that's a lot of other works you can remove as well.

Furthermore, if you're arguing that an author's views taint all their work ipso facto, then take Roald Dahl for instance. His anti-semitism was well documented, but none of his books have been removed. In part because you wouldn't find it in any of the works.

Have seen Cat in the Hat mentioned, but I don't know why it would be removed. Not familiar with it or Sneetches. But, you know, if the content is objectionable, chuck it on the fire.

Cat in the Hat is said to promote minstrilism. Sneetches is said to be problematic because the titular Sneetches are prejudiced against each other in regards to their appearance, but by the story's end, agree to treat each other equally. It's come under criticism recently because the Sneetches are simply acting colour-blind rather than working together to dismantle systems of oppression and structural racism.

...or something.

Yeah, eBay won't let me list my dog eggs either. Writing to my MP.

Dogs don't lay eggs. Nice false equivalance.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I know that, but it's not doing anything that Medal of Honour didn't do previously.

I don't remember that game ever claiming it was going to tell real stories though. Which EA / Dice did with Battlefield V

Which is mostly true. Nordlys taking liberties doesn't drag down the other stories with it. And it's not as if the other stories are perfect in terms of accuracy either.

No-one expects perfect accuracy but when you're pushing it as telling real stories and how the real involvement of women in World War II is rarely covered you kind of have to actually cover such stories or the statement rings hollow and just like trying to look good without really caring. The WWE Philanthropy approach.

If James Bond becomes a woman, then that'll be a silly move, but it hasn't happened yet.

Want to fight the culture war? Focus on the battles that are being waged.

Problem being it's far harder to fight a change that's been made than to prevent the initial change. There was very much (and will again be) a push to make 007 a woman by people who wish to "claim" the property as theirs or "Take it away from those awful people" they don't like or whatever. For them it's not about the franchise it's about the name and status of it and being a show of power.

Yes, plastic contributes, but it's minor compared to the major sources of emissions.

comparatively minor but still worth mentioning and worth at least trying to care about.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Also as no-one has posted it here's Troy Leavitt's response to the articles and claims against him and talking about leaving the studio.


TLDW:
No he wasn't pushed out, he left of his own accord due to family issues
Yes he considers it cancel culture what was being tried to be done and especially so if the articles aren't corrected.
He disputes some of the claims made against him as very much misrepresenting him.
He may make more videos going forward too if he feels like it but as is he's doing a 2nd fantasy novel first.