Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

I very much support the LGBT community, which includes friends, relatives, and current/previous grad students.  I have no issues with rainbows.

Despite this, I don't think trans women that went through male puberty should compete in sports with women or necessarily go to women's prison (although I would also be concerned about sending them to a men's prison for their safety).  I really doubt there is even consensus on these items within the LGBT community.

You are the only one making this black and white, I suppose because it helps you justify your bigoted stance.  You suggest you are not a bigot, and somewhere in the middle, yet here you are online arguing in support of bigotry because you have declared it is all or nothing.  You avoid addressing any of the "middle" questions and only raise the extremes.  Very classic strawman tactics.

How have I argued "in support of bigotry"? I have said that I understand why some people would not want to use rainbow symbolism. If you think that's some how "dangerous" to LGBTQ people, then I'd say that's an "all or nothing" stance.

Do you think those people would object to a song about people getting along with each other but without the rainbow symbolism? If they really don't like the "getting along" message then they should be equally opposed to that. I would guess there are countless songs with a similar message but without the symbolism that would be perfectly acceptable. However, the people who want the rainbow symbolism wouldn't want those songs because they lack the rainbow symbolism.

What both sides implicitly agree on is that the rainbow symbolism is not there by accident, and the same explicit message without the symbolism wouldn't be any problem at all.

[Kron3007]

I very much support the LGBT community, which includes friends, relatives, and current/previous grad students.  I have no issues with rainbows.

Despite this, I don't think trans women that went through male puberty should compete in sports with women or necessarily go to women's prison (although I would also be concerned about sending them to a men's prison for their safety).  I really doubt there is even consensus on these items within the LGBT community.

You are the only one making this black and white, I suppose because it helps you justify your bigoted stance.  You suggest you are not a bigot, and somewhere in the middle, yet here you are online arguing in support of bigotry because you have declared it is all or nothing.  You avoid addressing any of the "middle" questions and only raise the extremes.  Very classic strawman tactics.

How have I argued "in support of bigotry"? I have said that I understand why some people would not want to use rainbow symbolism. If you think that's some how "dangerous" to LGBTQ people, then I'd say that's an "all or nothing" stance.

Do you think those people would object to a song about people getting along with each other but without the rainbow symbolism? If they really don't like the "getting along" message then they should be equally opposed to that. I would guess there are countless songs with a similar message but without the symbolism that would be perfectly acceptable. However, the people who want the rainbow symbolism wouldn't want those songs because they lack the rainbow symbolism.

What both sides implicitly agree on is that the rainbow symbolism is not there by accident, and the same explicit message without the symbolism wouldn't be any problem at all.

Perhaps that was hyperbolic, but being against inclusivity (that is the meaning of the rainbow), is by definition bigoted.  By framing this as an all or nothing belief, you justify being against inclusivity because it would mean you want trans women competing in the Olympics in the women's category.  This is obviously false (as it doesn't apply to me or most people), and only serves to excuse bigotry.

It is one thing not to fly the flag, it is quite different (and bigoted) to ban shows (and books) that have it included.  Ironically, this loops back to the original post about cancel culture.  Conservatives are happy to cancel rainbows yet decry so called cancel culture.

[marshwiggle]

How have I argued "in support of bigotry"? I have said that I understand why some people would not want to use rainbow symbolism. If you think that's some how "dangerous" to LGBTQ people, then I'd say that's an "all or nothing" stance.

Do you think those people would object to a song about people getting along with each other but without the rainbow symbolism? If they really don't like the "getting along" message then they should be equally opposed to that. I would guess there are countless songs with a similar message but without the symbolism that would be perfectly acceptable. However, the people who want the rainbow symbolism wouldn't want those songs because they lack the rainbow symbolism.

What both sides implicitly agree on is that the rainbow symbolism is not there by accident, and the same explicit message without the symbolism wouldn't be any problem at all.

Perhaps that was hyperbolic, but being against inclusivity (that is the meaning of the rainbow), is by definition bigoted.  By framing this as an all or nothing belief, you justify being against inclusivity because it would mean you want trans women competing in the Olympics in the women's category.  This is obviously false (as it doesn't apply to me or most people), and only serves to excuse bigotry.

For the vast majority of interactions between people, "inclusivity" comes down to normal human courtesy. Only a very small portion of people would consider rudeness an appropriate general response to someone who is "different". That has nothing to do with rainbows, and it has nothing to do with government policies and rules about things like Olympic competition.

The only reason there is such a push for "inclusivity" is because of these sorts of situations where there is a genuine difference of opinion that often has nothing to do with "bigotry" but often is due to things like protecting women (such a sports and prisons).

"Be polite to everyone by default" isn't likely to get any serious pushback from anyone.

It is one thing not to fly the flag, it is quite different (and bigoted) to ban shows (and books) that have it included.  Ironically, this loops back to the original post about cancel culture.  Conservatives are happy to cancel rainbows yet decry so called cancel culture.

I'm more of a middle-of-the-road person than a conservative, and both sides do their share of cancelling. My approach is to try and avoid as many of the "symbols" used by both sides because reality is much more nuanced than the loud people at either extreme would like to admit.
(So, if a school were singing "Rainbowland" I wouldn't refuse to sing it, but I'd rather they just have something with the same theme minus the specific symbolism.)

[Wahoo Redux]

You're much less middle-of-the-road then you think, Marshy.

[nebo113]

MTG might not agree.  "Be polite to everyone by default" isn't likely to get any serious pushback from anyone.   

According to her, "...Democrats are "pedophiles." On "60 Minutes," Stahl pressed Greene on her use of the slur, and the Georgia Republican defiantly responded that it's the truth: "They support grooming children."

[marshwiggle]

MTG might not agree.  "Be polite to everyone by default" isn't likely to get any serious pushback from anyone.   

According to her, "...Democrats are "pedophiles." On "60 Minutes," Stahl pressed Greene on her use of the slur, and the Georgia Republican defiantly responded that it's the truth: "They support grooming children."

Do her kids go to the school that wanted to sing "Rainbowland"?

[MarathonRunner]

all kinds of identity factors doesn't need to "identify" as some sort of "ally", since they don't see being enemies as any sort of normal alternative. And people who do that can rightfully take offense at being accused of mistreating people, not because of what they have done, but simply because they have refused to virtue-signal.

There ARE enemies.

We need to be allies to help defend good people from bigots.

Let's try an analogy.

I would guess that everyone on here is against cheaters. (Or against cheating.)

However, when the topic is discussed, there are always a range of opinions on what to do about specific cases. This is for at least 2 reasons:

• Cheating requires intent, and without looking inside someone's head that's often impossible to establish.
• Even when a person's intentions are clear, what constitutes cheating is a matter of debate.

Probably everyone would agree that someone sitting down and directly copying the work of another person and submitting it under their own name with no indication of its origin would count as cheating. But there are lots of less obvious things.

For instance, suppose a person wrote a paper entirely on their own, and then ran it through some sort of thing like ChatGPT to clean up the language. Some instructors would be adamant that it was cheating, while others would be equally adamant that it wasn't, especially if the person was a non-native English speaker, and depending on the discipline.

People have often asked what percentage similarity on a TurnItIn report should be automatically treated as cheating. The easiest way to reduce cheating as much as possible would be to prosecute every case of suspected cheating. That would certainly reduce cheating, but it would also foster an extremely adversarial and paranoid atmosphere, and would drive away even many non-cheating students who didn't want to live under that level of suspicion.

There are behaviours that would pretty universally be identified as bigotry, but there are all kinds of things that are open to interpretation. Probably most people would be "allies" when it comes to the universally-identified bigotry, but like the case for cheating, where there is no clear consensus many people would rather avoid the hostile atmosphere of hyper-vigilance.

Should the rainbow be edited out of Genesis?   

No, and neither should the word "gay" be edited out of old books when it meant happy. Whether someone chooses to quote from an old book which uses the word in its earlier sense is up to them.

You know that the crop which is now called "canola" used to be called "rape seed"? I don't think the change is a bad thing, even though no-one has suggested people growing it are potential sex offenders.

It's still called rape seed in Germany. Canola came about in Canada, hence the Can at the start of the word. Rapeseed and rapeseed oil are the terms still used in much of Europe, at least the countries I've lived in and/or visited. Rapsöl is the name for Canola oil in Germany.

[marshwiggle]

You know that the crop which is now called "canola" used to be called "rape seed"? I don't think the change is a bad thing, even though no-one has suggested people growing it are potential sex offenders.

It's still called rape seed in Germany. Canola came about in Canada, hence the Can at the start of the word. Rapeseed and rapeseed oil are the terms still used in much of Europe, at least the countries I've lived in and/or visited. Rapsöl is the name for Canola oil in Germany.

Interesting. From a quick google search, it seems the German word for "rape" is not at all similar, so there wouldn't be the same problem with its use (as far as I can tell).

[Wahoo Redux]

You know that the crop which is now called "canola" used to be called "rape seed"? I don't think the change is a bad thing, even though no-one has suggested people growing it are potential sex offenders.

It's still called rape seed in Germany. Canola came about in Canada, hence the Can at the start of the word. Rapeseed and rapeseed oil are the terms still used in much of Europe, at least the countries I've lived in and/or visited. Rapsöl is the name for Canola oil in Germany.

Interesting. From a quick google search, it seems the German word for "rape" is not at all similar, so there wouldn't be the same problem with its use (as far as I can tell).

It's a silly example, Marshseed, and not at all the issue at hand.

[Kron3007]

all kinds of identity factors doesn't need to "identify" as some sort of "ally", since they don't see being enemies as any sort of normal alternative. And people who do that can rightfully take offense at being accused of mistreating people, not because of what they have done, but simply because they have refused to virtue-signal.

There ARE enemies.

We need to be allies to help defend good people from bigots.

Let's try an analogy.

I would guess that everyone on here is against cheaters. (Or against cheating.)

However, when the topic is discussed, there are always a range of opinions on what to do about specific cases. This is for at least 2 reasons:

• Cheating requires intent, and without looking inside someone's head that's often impossible to establish.
• Even when a person's intentions are clear, what constitutes cheating is a matter of debate.

Probably everyone would agree that someone sitting down and directly copying the work of another person and submitting it under their own name with no indication of its origin would count as cheating. But there are lots of less obvious things.

For instance, suppose a person wrote a paper entirely on their own, and then ran it through some sort of thing like ChatGPT to clean up the language. Some instructors would be adamant that it was cheating, while others would be equally adamant that it wasn't, especially if the person was a non-native English speaker, and depending on the discipline.

People have often asked what percentage similarity on a TurnItIn report should be automatically treated as cheating. The easiest way to reduce cheating as much as possible would be to prosecute every case of suspected cheating. That would certainly reduce cheating, but it would also foster an extremely adversarial and paranoid atmosphere, and would drive away even many non-cheating students who didn't want to live under that level of suspicion.

There are behaviours that would pretty universally be identified as bigotry, but there are all kinds of things that are open to interpretation. Probably most people would be "allies" when it comes to the universally-identified bigotry, but like the case for cheating, where there is no clear consensus many people would rather avoid the hostile atmosphere of hyper-vigilance.

Should the rainbow be edited out of Genesis?   

No, and neither should the word "gay" be edited out of old books when it meant happy. Whether someone chooses to quote from an old book which uses the word in its earlier sense is up to them.

You know that the crop which is now called "canola" used to be called "rape seed"? I don't think the change is a bad thing, even though no-one has suggested people growing it are potential sex offenders.

It's still called rape seed in Germany. Canola came about in Canada, hence the Can at the start of the word. Rapeseed and rapeseed oil are the terms still used in much of Europe, at least the countries I've lived in and/or visited. Rapsöl is the name for Canola oil in Germany.

Canola refers to a specific type of rape seed that was bred (in Canada) to have better qualities as a cooking oil.  Traditional rape seed is used for industrial applications and is thought to be somewhat toxic.  The re-branding as Canola was in part for marketing, but also to differentiate it from the industrial version.  You will not sell much oil if people think it is toxic, or perhaps if it is called rape seed?.

The terms may be used interchangeably in some regions, but they are two different things, or rather one is a specific type of the other.  All canola is rape seed, but not all rape seed is canola I suppose.  You could still grow and process rape seed in Canada, and refer to it as such, we just grow a lot more canola than rape seed.
   
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[nebo113]

MTG might not agree.  "Be polite to everyone by default" isn't likely to get any serious pushback from anyone.   

According to her, "...Democrats are "pedophiles." On "60 Minutes," Stahl pressed Greene on her use of the slur, and the Georgia Republican defiantly responded that it's the truth: "They support grooming children."

Do her kids go to the school that wanted to sing "Rainbowland"?

Rainbows equal pedophiles to you?

[ciao_yall]

I'm here on vacation during Semana Santa where people process through the street wearing medieval costumes dating back several centuries. These have been co-opted for the past 100 years or so by a group in the United States.

So, what if, at an American university, a group of Spanish Catholic students wanted to share their culture with their new friends by having a procession, with traditional costumes, to show the joy and solemnity of Semana Santa?

[marshwiggle]

MTG might not agree.  "Be polite to everyone by default" isn't likely to get any serious pushback from anyone.   

According to her, "...Democrats are "pedophiles." On "60 Minutes," Stahl pressed Greene on her use of the slur, and the Georgia Republican defiantly responded that it's the truth: "They support grooming children."

Do her kids go to the school that wanted to sing "Rainbowland"?

Rainbows equal pedophiles to you?

Not at all. I just wasn't sure how her statements have any relevance to the parents at the school in question.

I'm here on vacation during Semana Santa where people process through the street wearing medieval costumes dating back several centuries. These have been co-opted for the past 100 years or so by a group in the United States.

So, what if, at an American university, a group of Spanish Catholic students wanted to share their culture with their new friends by having a procession, with traditional costumes, to show the joy and solemnity of Semana Santa?

Wow! I did not know about that. It would indeed be interesting to see how that would be received.

[Wahoo Redux]

Illustrated Anne Frank book removed by Florida school

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A high school along Florida's Atlantic Coast has removed a graphic novel based on the diary of Anne Frank after a leader of a conservative advocacy group challenged it, claiming it minimized the Holocaust.

"Anne Frank's Diary: The Graphic Adaptation" was removed from a library at Vero Beach High School after a leader of Moms for Liberty in Indian River County raised an objection. The school's principal agreed with the objection, and the book was removed last month.

The book at one point shows the protagonist walking in a park, enchanted by female nude statues, and later proposing to a friend that they show each other their breasts.

*****

Besides the Anne Frank graphic novel, Moms for Liberty in Indian River County objected to three books in the "Assassination Classroom" series, and they also were removed.

Moms for Liberty leader Jennifer Pippin said the Anne Frank graphic novel violated state standards to teach the Holocaust accurately.

*****

The American Library Association reported last month that there were more than 1,200 demands to censor library books last year in the U.S., the highest number since the association began tracking more than 20 years ago.

[Anselm]

I'm here on vacation during Semana Santa where people process through the street wearing medieval costumes dating back several centuries. These have been co-opted for the past 100 years or so by a group in the United States.

So, what if, at an American university, a group of Spanish Catholic students wanted to share their culture with their new friends by having a procession, with traditional costumes, to show the joy and solemnity of Semana Santa?

Good question and this reminds me of the historically peaceful use of the swastika by many cultures.  I would advise people to avoid doing it out in public because of the confusion it will certainly create.   According to this source, the pointed hood was a creation of Hollywood and not borrowed from Spaniards.

https://newrepublic.com/article/127242/klan-got-hood