Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

This guy is just plain stupid. 

Professor suspended after saying it would be ‘more admirable to kill’ racist speakers than protest

This sort of rhetoric is dangerous and viable grounds for dismissal. 

The kicker is that he was worried that right-wing speakers only come to campus to provoke a reaction to discredit the left----which is largely true.

Seriously? That's the only reason they speak? I guess we might as well stop all public talks if nobody ever comes to them with their minds not already made up.
If all public "discourse" is really just preaching to the appropriate choir, (including, presumably, discussions here), then we might as well just all shut up and go home.

Yeah, I think the main reason that conservative provocateurs target college campuses is for the headlines.  It is certainly what you find on YouTube and the agitprop websites.

In every case I've heard of, they were invited to speak by some group on campus. Of course, you can say that the groups who invited them are just trying to get headlines, (and which may be true in some cases), but that's different than speakers inviting themselves to campuses. (And from many of the accounts I've read, getting yelled at and shouted down was not a fun experience for most of them, who are usually academics. There might be a few shock jocks, who enjoy the rage, but they're a minority.)

[Wahoo Redux]

In every case I've heard of, they were invited to speak by some group on campus. Of course, you can say that the groups who invited them are just trying to get headlines, (and which may be true in some cases), but that's different than speakers inviting themselves to campuses. (And from many of the accounts I've read, getting yelled at and shouted down was not a fun experience for most of them, who are usually academics. There might be a few shock jocks, who enjoy the rage, but they're a minority.)

Why not invite P. J. O'Rourke (when he was alive)?

[jimbogumbo]

Maybe prisms are next?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wisconsin-school-district-bans-first-grade-class-singing-controversial-rcna77145

[nebo113]

Maybe prisms are next?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wisconsin-school-district-bans-first-grade-class-singing-controversial-rcna77145

Will Noah's rainbow be excised from the Bible....or should the Bible be banned altogether?

[marshwiggle]

Maybe prisms are next?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wisconsin-school-district-bans-first-grade-class-singing-controversial-rcna77145

Will Noah's rainbow be excised from the Bible....or should the Bible be banned altogether?

It's clear from the article that the rainbow was being used for a specific purpose.

Tempel said the controversy over the song was much bigger than her classroom.

"The Rainbowland story is about much more than a banned song. The result of the political pushback on LGBTQ+ inclusivity and rights in schools is unfolding and it’s tragic," she tweeted.

Whenever some image, concept, song, etc. gets co-opted for a specific message, its use will decline unless it's for that purpose. It's a natural consequence- if using the symbol is supposed to show support for <X>, then anyone who doesn't support <X> will avoid using the symbol for anything else.

People don't like to be railroaded into any sort of cause, and they also don't like being considered too stupid to catch on that they're unconsciously supporting a cause by using some supposedly innocuous symbol.
 

[jimbogumbo]

Maybe prisms are next?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wisconsin-school-district-bans-first-grade-class-singing-controversial-rcna77145

Will Noah's rainbow be excised from the Bible....or should the Bible be banned altogether?

It's clear from the article that the rainbow was being used for a specific purpose.

Tempel said the controversy over the song was much bigger than her classroom.

"The Rainbowland story is about much more than a banned song. The result of the political pushback on LGBTQ+ inclusivity and rights in schools is unfolding and it’s tragic," she tweeted.

Whenever some image, concept, song, etc. gets co-opted for a specific message, its use will decline unless it's for that purpose. It's a natural consequence- if using the symbol is supposed to show support for <X>, then anyone who doesn't support <X> will avoid using the symbol for anything else.

People don't like to be railroaded into any sort of cause, and they also don't like being considered too stupid to catch on that they're unconsciously supporting a cause by using some supposedly innocuous symbol.
 

Read the lyrics and then judge.

[Wahoo Redux]

Living in a Rainbowland
Where everything goes as planned
And I smile
'Cause I know if we try, we could really make a difference in this world
I won't give up, I'll sleep a wink
It's the only thought I think, you know where I stand
I believe we can start living in a Rainbowland
Living in a Rainbowland
Where you and I go hand in hand
Oh, I'd be lying if I said this was fine
All the hurt and the hate going on here
We are rainbows, me and you
Every color, every hue
Let's shine on through
Together, we can start living in a Rainbowland
Living in a Rainbowland
The skies are blue and things are grand
Wouldn't it be nice to live in paradise
Where we're free to be exactly who we are
Let's all dig down deep inside
Brush the judgment and fear aside
Make wrong things right
And end the fight
'Cause I promise ain't nobody gonna win (come on)
Living in a Rainbowland
Where you and I go hand in hand
Oh, I'd be lying if I said this was fine
All the hurt and the hate going on here
We are rainbows, me and you
Every color, every hue
Let's shine on through
Together, we can start living in a Rainbowland
Living in a Rainbowland
Where you and I go hand in hand together (let's do it together)
Chase dreams forever
I know there's gonna be a greener land
We are rainbows, me and you
Every color, every hue
Let's shine on
Together, we can start living in a Rainbowland

[waterboy]

Ahhh.....subversive!  Deeply subversive!

[marshwiggle]

Whenever some image, concept, song, etc. gets co-opted for a specific message, its use will decline unless it's for that purpose. It's a natural consequence- if using the symbol is supposed to show support for <X>, then anyone who doesn't support <X> will avoid using the symbol for anything else.

People don't like to be railroaded into any sort of cause, and they also don't like being considered too stupid to catch on that they're unconsciously supporting a cause by using some supposedly innocuous symbol.
 

Read the lyrics and then judge.

That totally misses my point.

How about something like this, from the "other side"?
Signs of hate: Parental guide to far-right codes, symbols and acronyms

People from all over the political spectrum are concerned about symbols which may imply support for causes with which they don't agree, regardless of the explicit context in which the symbol is used.

[jimbogumbo]

Whenever some image, concept, song, etc. gets co-opted for a specific message, its use will decline unless it's for that purpose. It's a natural consequence- if using the symbol is supposed to show support for <X>, then anyone who doesn't support <X> will avoid using the symbol for anything else.

People don't like to be railroaded into any sort of cause, and they also don't like being considered too stupid to catch on that they're unconsciously supporting a cause by using some supposedly innocuous symbol.
 

Read the lyrics and then judge.

That totally misses my point.

How about something like this, from the "other side"?
Signs of hate: Parental guide to far-right codes, symbols and acronyms

People from all over the political spectrum are concerned about symbols which may imply support for causes with which they don't agree, regardless of the explicit context in which the symbol is used.

No, I got you point. But if you mean any symbol that might stand for something, then the world is now officially mad. They almost wouldn't let them perform Rainbow Connection. Somewhere Over the Rainbow under suspicion maybe? I mean, it was Judy Garland, and those gays sure like her, so yeah, let's ban it?

[marshwiggle]

Whenever some image, concept, song, etc. gets co-opted for a specific message, its use will decline unless it's for that purpose. It's a natural consequence- if using the symbol is supposed to show support for <X>, then anyone who doesn't support <X> will avoid using the symbol for anything else.

People don't like to be railroaded into any sort of cause, and they also don't like being considered too stupid to catch on that they're unconsciously supporting a cause by using some supposedly innocuous symbol.
 

Read the lyrics and then judge.

That totally misses my point.

How about something like this, from the "other side"?
Signs of hate: Parental guide to far-right codes, symbols and acronyms

People from all over the political spectrum are concerned about symbols which may imply support for causes with which they don't agree, regardless of the explicit context in which the symbol is used.

No, I got you point. But if you mean any symbol that might stand for something, then the world is now officially mad. They almost wouldn't let them perform Rainbow Connection. Somewhere Over the Rainbow under suspicion maybe? I mean, it was Judy Garland, and those gays sure like her, so yeah, let's ban it?

I doubt they would object to a performance of the Wizard of Oz. However, it was obvious that they had to have a song about rainbows specifically. The teacher even stated why. So any mention of rainbows would have been about the symbolic meaning, rather than just the atmospheric phenomenon.

FWIW, I tend to agree with you that trying to root out any possible symbol is hopeless.  Nevertheless when a symbol is being employed on purpose, it's not ridiculous for people to object to it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Zealotry generally requires a very simple answer to controversy.  Unless, of course, one talks about conservative speakers on college campuses.

[nebo113]

Ahhh.....subversive!  Deeply subversive!

Definitely subversive!   All that talk about getting along!  Dreadful, I tell you, dreadful.

[marshwiggle]

Ahhh.....subversive!  Deeply subversive!

Definitely subversive!   All that talk about getting along!  Dreadful, I tell you, dreadful.

What specific kinds of failure to "get along" are happening now that singing the song will fix?

[Wahoo Redux]

Ahhh.....subversive!  Deeply subversive!

Definitely subversive!   All that talk about getting along!  Dreadful, I tell you, dreadful.

What specific kinds of failure to "get along" are happening now that singing the song will fix?

Well, probably it will help fix the sort of ugly bigotry we see in some adults.  I mean, people are tying to ban it because its message is so powerful it will alter children's psychosexual development, right?

But they are wrong.  This is a song that empowers healthy self-esteem.

Better yet, let's just get real: no song will fix people not getting along.  The kids who would have sung this song would have forgotten about it two minutes after the show was over.  Nevertheless, it is a basically simplistic, affirmative ditty with lots of healthy messages for little kids.  The rainbow has always been a happy symbol because they are just cool. 

Or let's put it this way: the song is not dangerous for the psychosexual development of children unless the parents are hysterical bigots.  Reminds me a bit of the Tellytubby controversy.

I suppose we should remove God's covenant to Noah in the Bible then, huh? That might confuse kids who think that all the people and animals went all gay and stuff after that long confinement on a boat.