Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Langue_doc]

Pardon the triple post, but now it's James Bond who's on the chopping block.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/james-bond-ian-fleming-books-rewritten-b2289747.html

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/james-bond-novels-edited-racism-1235536164/

[Parasaurolophus]

Pardon the triple post, but now it's James Bond who's on the chopping block.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/james-bond-ian-fleming-books-rewritten-b2289747.html

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/james-bond-novels-edited-racism-1235536164/

The things they've left in are... Wow. If you're going to rewrite, commit to it.

[dismalist]

As long as both the originals and the rewritten are readily available, there is no censorship problem. We have the used book market and libraries. There is, however, an information problem that honest labeling would solve, but that publishers have no interest in or obligation to provide.

The publishers that re-write want to make money. A rewritten Goldfinger, written by Puffin Penner, would not sell nearly as much as a rewritten version with Ian Fleming as author.

The source of the problem is copyright protection. It lasts too long, far too long [70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication]. In 1790 it started off at 14 years, renewable once. Thus the owner of the copyright can re-write a book [under the right to derivative works] and keep the original name and author, although s/he is deceased!  That's misleading advertising. And we can't get reprinting of the original until the copyright runs out.

The publishers are exploiting an information asymmetry, made possible by a bad law.

[Wahoo Redux]

As long as both the originals and the rewritten are readily available, there is no censorship problem. We have the used book market and libraries.

Well Big-D (ye who have no problem with anything as long as there is "competition"), you are right, of course. 

But it is always the same dynamic with free speech: sure, do whatever you want within the confines of the law (just ask Tucker Carlson about Dominion right now) but expect to face the consequences of the free market and the other people who also have free speech.  In other words, don't be a nincompoop and make bad business decisions thru de facto private censorship (as Scott Adams knows and Elon Musk will soon find out).

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Stanford Faculty Concerned About Bias Reporting System

Russell Berman, a comparative literature professor, told The Wall Street Journal the system "reminds me of McCarthyism," referring to an era of U.S. politics when many were blacklisted and had careers ruined because of thinly sourced accusations that they were Communist sympathizers or otherwise disloyal.

National Review: Stanford Faculty Demand End to Anonymous Student Bias Reports

he inciting incident was a "Protected Identity Harm" report filed to Stanford last month against a student who was photographed reading Mein Kampf. This reporting mechanism is Stanford's system to address incidents where a student or community member feels attacked due to their identity.

<snip>

When a report is filed, an inquiry is triggered within 48 hours. Both parties are contacted, and though participation in the inquiry is voluntary, professors argued it might not feel that way to accused students.

[marshwiggle]

IHE: Stanford Faculty Concerned About Bias Reporting System

Russell Berman, a comparative literature professor, told The Wall Street Journal the system "reminds me of McCarthyism," referring to an era of U.S. politics when many were blacklisted and had careers ruined because of thinly sourced accusations that they were Communist sympathizers or otherwise disloyal.

National Review: Stanford Faculty Demand End to Anonymous Student Bias Reports

he inciting incident was a "Protected Identity Harm" report filed to Stanford last month against a student who was photographed reading Mein Kampf. This reporting mechanism is Stanford's system to address incidents where a student or community member feels attacked due to their identity.

<snip>

When a report is filed, an inquiry is triggered within 48 hours. Both parties are contacted, and though participation in the inquiry is voluntary, professors argued it might not feel that way to accused students.

Yeah, the "option" of being tried "in absentia" probably isn't really comforting to most people.

[apl68]

IHE: Stanford Faculty Concerned About Bias Reporting System

Russell Berman, a comparative literature professor, told The Wall Street Journal the system "reminds me of McCarthyism," referring to an era of U.S. politics when many were blacklisted and had careers ruined because of thinly sourced accusations that they were Communist sympathizers or otherwise disloyal.

National Review: Stanford Faculty Demand End to Anonymous Student Bias Reports

he inciting incident was a "Protected Identity Harm" report filed to Stanford last month against a student who was photographed reading Mein Kampf. This reporting mechanism is Stanford's system to address incidents where a student or community member feels attacked due to their identity.

<snip>

When a report is filed, an inquiry is triggered within 48 hours. Both parties are contacted, and though participation in the inquiry is voluntary, professors argued it might not feel that way to accused students.

Well, with student shootings now being a thing on our college campuses, I can see wanting to keep an eye out for potential threats.  But reporting somebody merely for being spotted reading a controversial (to put it mildly) book--which might well have been part of an assignment of some sort?  Far too hair-trigger response there. I can see myself getting reported at Stanford for being so bold as to be caught reading a New Testament in public.

[waterboy]

I consider myself an old-school liberal, but the crazies on both side of the political spectrum are infuriating.  Is there no common sense middle anymore?

[marshwiggle]

I consider myself an old-school liberal, but the crazies on both side of the political spectrum are infuriating.  Is there no common sense middle anymore?

It cannot speak its name, since now you're either a <whatever>-ist or an anti-<whatever>-ist. The ideas that there are any statements, ideas, policies, etc. that are not clearly "good" or "bad", but have positive and negative elements, is heresy.

[dismalist]

I consider myself an old-school liberal, but the crazies on both side of the political spectrum are infuriating.  Is there no common sense middle anymore?

I consider myself old-old, very old school liberal -- classical liberal. :-)

Much has been written about the causes of political polarization, everything from more homogeneous neighborhoods to more homogeneous Supreme Courts. That's all true, though of course its endogenous. It's equally true that little of the population watches Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, the former Clinton News Network. Maybe 1.6 million for Fox and 1.3 million for MSNBC + CNN. Under three million total out of a population of over 330 million, less than one per cent of the population. Not even worth thinking about.

I think the most powerful hypothesis is the attempted democratization of elections, especially but not only for President, that commenced in 1968. Used to be there were a few primaries to select candidates. But these were not determinative. Rather, they gave information to the back room old boys in smoke filled rooms who decided upon the candidates. And those old boys, political hacks, really, wanted only one thing -- to win. They were picking winners.

Since 1968 primaries have become determinative. Who votes in primaries? Only ideologues care enough! A few extremists. The poor candidates: Appeal to the madmen voting in the primary, then try to stay sane for the general. Then support the madmen once elected to get re-elected. A hard act. Much easier to let the courts do stuff, e.g. Then get the right people onto the courts. Another example is ruling by decree, or trying to. In the US ruling by decree is called Executive Order, which binds bureaucrats only but of course can spill out to the rest of the society. But that can stop at the Supreme Court, so get the Court on your side for that reason as well.

On balance, it seems that an effort to democratize has led to the opposite result, with lots of casualties along the way.

[ciao_yall]

I consider myself an old-school liberal, but the crazies on both side of the political spectrum are infuriating.  Is there no common sense middle anymore?

I consider myself old-old, very old school liberal -- classical liberal. :-)

Much has been written about the causes of political polarization, everything from more homogeneous neighborhoods to more homogeneous Supreme Courts. That's all true, though of course its endogenous. It's equally true that little of the population watches Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, the former Clinton News Network. Maybe 1.6 million for Fox and 1.3 million for MSNBC + CNN. Under three million total out of a population of over 330 million, less than one per cent of the population. Not even worth thinking about.

I think the most powerful hypothesis is the attempted democratization of elections, especially but not only for President, that commenced in 1968. Used to be there were a few primaries to select candidates. But these were not determinative. Rather, they gave information to the back room old boys in smoke filled rooms who decided upon the candidates. And those old boys, political hacks, really, wanted only one thing -- to win. They were picking winners.

Since 1968 primaries have become determinative. Who votes in primaries? Only ideologues care enough! A few extremists. The poor candidates: Appeal to the madmen voting in the primary, then try to stay sane for the general. Then support the madmen once elected to get re-elected. A hard act. Much easier to let the courts do stuff, e.g. Then get the right people onto the courts. Another example is ruling by decree, or trying to. In the US ruling by decree is called Executive Order, which binds bureaucrats only but of course can spill out to the rest of the society. But that can stop at the Supreme Court, so get the Court on your side for that reason as well.

On balance, it seems that an effort to democratize has led to the opposite result, with lots of casualties along the way.

What do you think of the law in Australia that requires everyone to vote?

[dismalist]

I consider myself an old-school liberal, but the crazies on both side of the political spectrum are infuriating.  Is there no common sense middle anymore?

I consider myself old-old, very old school liberal -- classical liberal. :-)

Much has been written about the causes of political polarization, everything from more homogeneous neighborhoods to more homogeneous Supreme Courts. That's all true, though of course its endogenous. It's equally true that little of the population watches Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, the former Clinton News Network. Maybe 1.6 million for Fox and 1.3 million for MSNBC + CNN. Under three million total out of a population of over 330 million, less than one per cent of the population. Not even worth thinking about.

I think the most powerful hypothesis is the attempted democratization of elections, especially but not only for President, that commenced in 1968. Used to be there were a few primaries to select candidates. But these were not determinative. Rather, they gave information to the back room old boys in smoke filled rooms who decided upon the candidates. And those old boys, political hacks, really, wanted only one thing -- to win. They were picking winners.

Since 1968 primaries have become determinative. Who votes in primaries? Only ideologues care enough! A few extremists. The poor candidates: Appeal to the madmen voting in the primary, then try to stay sane for the general. Then support the madmen once elected to get re-elected. A hard act. Much easier to let the courts do stuff, e.g. Then get the right people onto the courts. Another example is ruling by decree, or trying to. In the US ruling by decree is called Executive Order, which binds bureaucrats only but of course can spill out to the rest of the society. But that can stop at the Supreme Court, so get the Court on your side for that reason as well.

On balance, it seems that an effort to democratize has led to the opposite result, with lots of casualties along the way.

What do you think of the law in Australia that requires everyone to vote?

Good question.

I don't think the problem is with the general, so there is no need to require voting. If people don't vote, they're equally happy with any candidate or are pissed off with all candidates! [We might want to know why election participation is low, i.e is which of these reasons apply. :-)]

There is a more general reason to not vote: Probability I can determine the outcome is effectively zero. Therefore it does not pay to become expert on the issues. And I do not vote. Requiring voting will bring in more of such uninformed voters. I don't think we want that.

Political parties know this and that's why they turn to emotion rather than reason. For an individual, voting is expressive, not determinative.

Still, my problem is not with voting in general, but with the use of primaries to determine candidates. I don't think this problem can be overcome by requiring people to vote in primaries, for all the reasons above. It seems a less democratic method of determining candidates, not victors, is better than  what we do now.

[marshwiggle]

Much has been written about the causes of political polarization, everything from more homogeneous neighborhoods to more homogeneous Supreme Courts. That's all true, though of course its endogenous. It's equally true that little of the population watches Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, the former Clinton News Network. Maybe 1.6 million for Fox and 1.3 million for MSNBC + CNN. Under three million total out of a population of over 330 million, less than one per cent of the population. Not even worth thinking about.

I think the most powerful hypothesis is the attempted democratization of elections, especially but not only for President, that commenced in 1968. Used to be there were a few primaries to select candidates. But these were not determinative. Rather, they gave information to the back room old boys in smoke filled rooms who decided upon the candidates. And those old boys, political hacks, really, wanted only one thing -- to win. They were picking winners.

If political polarization was only a problem in the US, this might be the case. To the extent that it's a global phenomenon, it can't be entirely due to something so specific to the US.

[dismalist]

Much has been written about the causes of political polarization, everything from more homogeneous neighborhoods to more homogeneous Supreme Courts. That's all true, though of course its endogenous. It's equally true that little of the population watches Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, the former Clinton News Network. Maybe 1.6 million for Fox and 1.3 million for MSNBC + CNN. Under three million total out of a population of over 330 million, less than one per cent of the population. Not even worth thinking about.

I think the most powerful hypothesis is the attempted democratization of elections, especially but not only for President, that commenced in 1968. Used to be there were a few primaries to select candidates. But these were not determinative. Rather, they gave information to the back room old boys in smoke filled rooms who decided upon the candidates. And those old boys, political hacks, really, wanted only one thing -- to win. They were picking winners.

If political polarization was only a problem in the US, this might be the case. To the extent that it's a global phenomenon, it can't be entirely due to something so specific to the US.

I knew that should be addressed, and am glad you did, Marsh. Political polarization is not a global phenomenon. It's restricted to the northwest European democracies, perhaps without France, plus the United States, and perhaps Australia and New Zealand, and a country of which I know little, Canada. It doesn't seem to be true in the Nordic democracies, a nice test case therefore.

I think the source of the problem -- democratize everything in sight -- is broadly true across northwest European democracies and the rest of the white West. Willy Brandt explicitly: Wir wollen mehr Demokratie wagen! [Let's dare more democracy.] Such ideas captured voters from 1968 onwards all over the white West.

My guess at the broader intermediate cause is that democratization opened universities, and ideology was propagated from there to the rest of society. But look, polarization, and indeed, violence, between opposing factions in the political spectrum used to be common. Why are we so squeamish?

How these ideas affected practice in different places would require a dissertation to enumerate and explain, something I am not prepared to undertake. Instead, people can suggest competing hypotheses and we can have fun dissecting them. :-)

[spork]

[. . . ]
I think the source of the problem -- democratize everything in sight -- is broadly true across northwest European democracies and the rest of the white West.

[. . . ]

A summary of Karen Stenner's research on the authoritarian predisposition: https://hopenothate.org.uk/2020/11/01/authoritarianism/.

Related: Lily Tsai's work on authoritarian leaders gaining popularity by punishing perceived wrongdoers.