Cancel Culture

Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending

Banishing him from library shelves is a slippery slope.

|

Oh, the extreme places they'll go. Last week, when Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that it would no longer publish six Seuss books said to contain racially offensive imagery, foes of cancel culture (this author among them) cried foul. Many others shrugged, noting correctly that this isn't an issue of censorship: A book publisher is free to decide it wants to cease publishing a very old book.

But now those books are being pulled from the shelves of some public libraries as well. "We are part of the broader community who have identified these books as being harmful," Manny Figueiredo, director of education for a school board in Ontario, Canada, said in a statement. "The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared."

A journalist for the Toronto Star issued an impassioned plea for more libraries to take action—and for Dr. Seuss Enterprises to make amends for its historical failures.

It's not just Canada: The Chicago Public Library system agreed to remove the six books in question—And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, McElligot's Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, If I Ran the Zoo, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat's Quizzer—pending an investigation.

Disappearing books from library shelves gets us closer to the classic example of censorship, though of course a physical library possesses a finite amount of space and thus has to consider certain priorities. What's happening to Dr. Seuss is the result of a very specific kind of prioritization, however: One decided upon not by readers or the public at large, but by activist educators peddling a false narrative about the beloved child author's books and characters.

This narrative—the result of a highly misleading 2019 report on "Orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy in Dr. Seuss's children's books"—has quickly become influential, motivating much of the recent shift away from Seuss among certain government officials, educators, libraries, and even private publishers. Learning for Justice, an outgrowth of the undeservedly well-regarded Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the report as evidence that it had misjudged The Sneetches, a Seuss story about a group of birds—some with stars on their bellies, some without—who eventually come to realize that their superficial physical differences don't matter at all:

At Teaching Tolerance, we've even featured anti-racist activities built around the Dr. Seuss book The Sneetches. But when we re-evaluated, we found that the story is actually not as "anti-racist" as we once thought. …

The solution to the story's conflict is that the Plain-Belly Sneetches and Star-Bellied Sneetches simply get confused as to who is oppressed. As a result, they accept one another. This message of "acceptance" does not acknowledge structural power imbalances. It doesn't address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures. And instead of encouraging young readers to recognize and take action against injustice, the story promotes a race-neutral approach.

They actually had it right the first time. But nonracism—the idea that skin color should be overlooked—has lost popularity among progressive activists, and anti-racism—the idea that skin color matters a great deal—is in vogue. The former is an egalitarian message at the heart of many Dr. Seuss books; the latter is a smokescreen for all sorts of policies that have very little to do with combating racism: like abolishing standardized tests or spending more time renaming schools than reopening them.

There is certainly no obligation to read or teach Dr. Seuss, nor should Seuss defenders feel some moral or practical imperative to gloss over his imperfections. The man did draw racist caricatures, and some of his work can be read as a defense of Japanese internment. He was a flawed genius—but a genius nonetheless, and a towering figure in the world of children's literature. There is a disturbing trend among modern liberalism to seek to cast out all such flawed figures, which has the rest of us reasonably worried that no art or artist more than a few years old can possibly stand the test of time. (For another example of this, New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow recently accused Pepe Le Pew, the lovesick skunk from Looney Tunes, of perpetuating rape culture.)

There's not really a law or policy that could fix this problem—though Sonny Bunch's proposal to release now unpublishable works into the public domain is an interesting one—and so much of the pro-Seuss grousing in nonliberal circles can feel as performative as the anti-Seuss extremism. Yet there's good reason in this case to regard the slippery slope with suspicion. The report that led to the cancellation of the six books also stipulates that The Cat in the Hat embodies a "racist tradition" and that Horton Hears a Who! "reinforces themes of white supremacy."

I would not be surprised to find the entire Seuss canon under attack a few years from now. To quote the last lines of The Butter Battle Book, "Who's gonna drop it? Will you or will he?" (To which the narrator's grandpa replies: "Be patient. We'll see. We will see.")

NEXT: Elite Media Run Press Releases for Biden’s COVID Bill

Cancel Culture Literature

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

266 responses to “Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending

  1. I look forward to the book burnings.

    1. I’ve got one planned at my local synagogue. Racial hatred and bigotry have no home in America! We need to stand united against white supremacy especially during these days when anti-Asian attacks are on the rise because of Donald Trump’s carless, bigoted language.

      1. Will it be an indoor burning or is that a little too “Art Imitating Life?”

        By the way, Trump’s gone now, so you can shed the Pussy Hat, just like all the QAnon-ers can shed their MAGA hats.

        1. Witchhunters must be doubly masked and NAGA hatted before buttering and burning at the Green Eggs and Ham steak

          1. From the article…
            …that Horton Hears a Who! “reinforces themes of white supremacy.”

            What about “Horton Hires a Ho”? Would that be sexist, maybe?

            1. Fuck off sarc

              1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work CDEED from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..work92/7 online

            2. Only if it is Willy Horton.

              1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a-vfd chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                Here’s what I do.=========> USA ONLINE JOBS

      2. thank you, rabbi! very cool! as a fellow white person, i support you in every way!

    2. When’s “Banned Books Week” this year? I need some new BIPOC tranny YA books to read.

    3. “I love the smell of napalm burning literature in the morning … Smells like victory.” – some German guy once, probably

    4. Never happen. Too much greenhouse gas would be released.

      1. Could the books be used to feed goats?

        1. Could the books be burned on boats?
          Could the books be thrown in moats?

          1. But it’s racist if it floats

          2. I will not read them on a train
            I will not read them on a plane

            1. I cannot read them in the dark
              Please provide the burning spark

    5. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working RTS online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    6. “I look forward to the book burnings.”

      Liberal reply: “Book burnings aren’t Censorship! So what’s the big deal?”

  2. History is triggering! Ban it!

    1. There is no history outside of what the party declares to be true. Alternative histories are lies propagated by Russian agents or their white supremacist counterparts.

      1. It is approaching that point; my only question is what will be sufficient to cause the entire joke to implode upon itself? Will a plurality of Americans finally have “had enough” to push this nonsense into oblivion?

        Or will we just sheepishly go along, being busy with our daily lives, and just bemoan the unavoidable losses because a group of self styled elites in education and media said so?

        In other words, when the fuck will enough people get fighting mad?

        1. Or will we just sheepishly go along, being busy with our daily lives, and just bemoan the unavoidable losses because a group of self styled elites in education and media said so?

          I think people will sheepishly go along, at least for the foreseeable future. After the inevitable civil dissolution of this country, academics will begin to search for an explanation and, with time, conclude that these early decades of the twenty-first century should have been a warning that we were embarking on a path toward a fatal brand of economic and political regression.

          The question “How did it happen, and why?” will be answered, at least in part, with reference to these cultural paroxysms.

        2. Luckily people can still vote with their feet and use platforms that are tougher to censor.

          Eventually the public square of progressivism will be both literally and metaphorically empty

        3. It is approaching that point; my only question is what will be sufficient to cause the entire joke to implode upon itself? Will a plurality of Americans finally have “had enough” to push this nonsense into oblivion?

          Or will we just sheepishly go along, being busy with our daily lives, and just bemoan the unavoidable losses because a group of self styled elites in education and media said so?

          If I was a betting man my money would be on option B: just sheepishly go along. Most of us will just go along, hoping that if we keep our heads down maybe the cancellation mob won’t come for us. Until one day the mob will notice “Hey, those people are being oddly quiet. They must be hiding something, let’s get them too.”

        4. I suspect the house of cards will come crumbling down when the transgender movement backfires and several adults who transitioned as children come out and say the politicians, the doctors, the teachers, and the media all encouraged them to permanently mutilate their bodies because of an unquestionable ideology. Did the average Soviet citizen really believe anything their leaders said after Chernobyl nearly burned a hole in the ground?

          1. Based on what people I know who lived in Eastern Bloc nations have told me, no one really believed anything their leaders said before Chernobyl either.

          2. The Soviet union lasted for 7 decades

          3. Yes, the trans nonsense is or will soon be the last straw for a lot of folks – people who consider themselves “progressive” or at least non-conservative.

            Actual women who have given birth to children don’t want to hear about “menstruators” or “chestfeeding”.

        5. I watched a podcast on that subject yesterday. The speaker, a Psyh of some type, stated that he believes that the majority of Americans hate the WOKE and are beginning to tire of their nonsense. He also stated that WOKE nonsense is not nearly as widespread as Americans are led to believe. The Ivy League colleges on the East Coast, a few major schools on the west coast, and a few in Chicago are producing the majority of the nonsense. Some US colleges are following the woke bastards, but most colleges are not, especially in “fly over” states.
          On a positive note. The WOKE fear each other more than they fear the non-WOKE. They will continue to eat their own until the game stops being fun.

        6. It don’t matter how many people get mad. It’s when the pandering gets old that maybe some sanity returns.

      2. Winners have always written the history books.

        1. Genuine history is written for the winners…and those who want to be. Propaganda “history” is written to delude and those who live in the delusion may not live long.

          1. But Oz *is* great and powerful. Everyone says so!

        2. Not always true. The Afghans have never written history books. They have whipped the Brits, the Russians, and the US. They never lose because they have nothing to lose.

          1. Granted, history books, by themselves don’t equal victory, knowledge of both self and enemy are necessary and history books are a tangible hard-copy form of that knowledge.

            Perhaps if U.S. powers-that-be had read of Afghan history, they could have responded differently to Afghanistan and have been victorious and end the war on terms to our advantage.

    2. Is it as triggering as mean tweets? Because you never claimed this was an issue last year prior to the election even though it has been going on for a while, and openly on the left.

  3. Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending

    Because banning books is what fascists tend to do? Not the imagined fascists in the left’s collective fever dreams that they imagine are hiding behind every tree and under every rock, but real fascists. In other words, the ones they see when they look in the mirror.

    1. Sorry Adolph but freedom of association means I don’t have to print or publish your bigotry!

    2. Can you think of a single group that banned books, who didn’t turn out to be fascists?

      I can’t.

      1. To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn both use offensive racial slurs.

        1. The “Huckleberry Finn” will be better. Trust me.

        2. We cannot read them in a class
          We have to ban them all en masse

  4. some of his work can be read as a defense of Japanese internment.

    The one where the Cat in the Hat locks the nips up in concentration camps was my favorite Seuss story when I was but a pangopup.

    1. He does keep Thing 1 and Thing 2 locked up in a big red box…

      1. For good reason.

          1. Don’t let the red hair fool ya.

            1. I mean blue.

              Did I just do a racism? Oh, my.

      2. You cannot keep me in a box
        But I am silenced with a doxx

    2. “some of his work can be read as a defense of Japanese internment.”

      This is the root of the matter. In the theology of Wokeism, any participation in non-Woke attitudes, language, behaviors, etc as currently defined at any point in one’s life requires immediate excommunication and erasure from the public sphere.

      That Dr. Seuss created anti-Japanese work (during, you know, an actual war against them) is enough to ban everything he’s ever done – except for the fact that he is too dang popular. Just like statues, it will start with six ‘problematic’ works and eventually result in ‘One Fish, Two Fish’ being off the shelves.

      Dibs on being the rebel who memorizes the entire Seussian back catalogue when the Bradbury prophecy comes true.

  5. activist educators peddling a false narrative

    If they didn’t peddle false narratives they’d have no narratives to peddle.

    1. WHOOAH! Gloom, despair, and agony on me!

      1. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! ™ is very fashionable these days.

        1. To each generation their own. My generation watched and sang “Gloom Despair, and Agony On Me” on Hee-Haw back when there was that “crazy Asian war”, followed by Year Zero, The Killing Fields, OPEC Embargo, Nixon’s price controls, gas lines, Watergate, Patti Hearst kidnapped by the SLA, The Manson Family Murders, Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple,” Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran’s Ayatollah rising to power and taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, talk of Armageddon from TV preachers playing in the background the whole time…

          And when we sang that song “Gloom, Despair, and Agony on Me,” ‘Aye Gawd, we liked it!

          1. And dag-nabbit, we didn’t have an edit button back then either!

  6. “There is a disturbing trend among modern liberalism to seek to cast out all such flawed figures, which has the rest of us reasonably worried that no art or artist more than a few years old can possibly stand the test of time.”

    No.

    The disturbing part of the trend is that the cancellation is directed at anyone that may have once been venerated by society provided that person is white. All other racist views and perspectives, from all other races — however oblique or obvious — are permissible and, as the mask continues to slip, are increasingly being endorsed as desirable. Overt anti-white racism is sold to other anti-white racists as “equity.” See Ta-Nehisi Coates.

    1. Not only is my skin so pale
      but I am more than likely male

      1. golf clap

  7. I can’t help but roll my eyes when leftists defend cancel culture by saying “It’s a private company! They can do what they want!”

    FFS, you fuckers don’t believe that for one second. Just wait until a private company cuts something like White Fragility. You’ll be screaming so loud you’ll shit your pants.

    You’ll be within your rights to do so. While private companies do indeed have the right to do as they please in regard to what they sell, that doesn’t make them immune to criticism.

    1. Well, they already do not believe it. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and equivalent state counterparts.

    2. “FFS, you fuckers don’t believe that for one second.”

      They don’t believe in anything. It’s a culture of destruction. That’s why pointing out hypocrisy only emboldens them.

  8. “experiential knowledge” seems like a fancy way of saying “biased”

  9. It’s not just Canada: The Chicago Public Library system agreed to remove the six books in question.

    I worked in a public library back in the ’80s (a 2-year tour in the children’s section, no less). The librarians I knew would have fought to the death to keep a book from being censored.

    1. Sorry sweetie. Hate has no home in the public library!

    2. I spent much of my youth in a Chicago Public Library. It was the only place that you could go to escape the violent “denizens of the ghetto”. Will the demographics in the library change now that they are removing those offensive children’s books?
      The Cat in the Hat will now be redrawn with a face tattoo, sagging pants, and a new set of Jordans with the tag still on it.

      One rock, two rock, three rocks, Crack!
      We love cough syrup, speeders and Smack!

  10. I watched Dave Chapelle’s acceptance speech of the Mark Twain prize recently, which he turned into a defense of free speech.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwyeYmXjD1A

    In regards to genuinely racist comedians, Chapelle goes so far as to say that, “Sometimes, I even appreciate the artistry they paint their racist opinions with”.

    We are living through a period that’s even more conformist and judgmental than the 1950s, it’s just that the standards of acceptability have changed.

    1. P.S. Chappelle says, “The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out.”

      I’m surprised that hasn’t been taken down off of YouTube yet as “insurrectionist”.

      1. I’m surprised that hasn’t been taken down off of YouTube yet as “insurrectionist”.

        They’ll get to it eventually.

        1. Dave is worldwide. He cannot be cancelled.
          A patrol was approached by a pack of kids in Iraq. One little chubby kid ran up to one of the vehicles and yelled, “I’m Rick James, Bitch”!

      2. Chapelle is a comedy genius.

      3. Dave has WAY too much cultural cachet and “fuck you” money to be canceled, short of some kind of Bill Cosby-type of rape waterfall cascading down. This is a guy who quit his highly popular tv show and gave up millions of dollars specifically because he was worried that it was catering too much to bourgeoisie white sensibilities. He was raised by two college professors, one of whom was also a Universalist minister, and lives in an Ohio exurb of comm-symps. He’s not going to get canceled over saying shit that’s contrarian to the Woke Religion.

      4. He’s black. He can’t be racist. If he were a white comedian, it would have been already removed.

    2. The 1950s weren’t as conformist and judgmental as commies and feminists would have you believe.

      1. The 50’s were sort of the opposite of what is happening now – it had a conformist, restrictive dominant culture confronted by both movements to expand it’s benefits to specific and an active, growing subculture celebrated in media.

        Now we have a formerly pluralistic, individualistic dominant culture that is dealing with movements to exclude specific groups from it’s benefits and push them into subcultures reviled and ostracized in media.

  11. The people “burning books” are all people that Reason sides with regularly. Your friends are burning books dude. Why not just call them instead of crying about it on the internet?

    Grow a pair.

  12. On Beyond Zebra! … features a ““Nazzim of Bazzim,” a figure of unspecified nationality (but implied to be Arab) riding a camel-like creature called a “Spazzim.”

    The horror!

    1. Yes, offensive. If he was driving a plane into a building it would be so much less offensive.

      1. Redraw Nazz with a strap-on bomb
        The TSA will wave him on

  13. Always funny to see the “free market” people decry it working.

    Nothing more than a distraction for the idiots who are too concerned with this and not actual issues.

    1. Learn what a free market is, shitlunches.

    2. I won’t hire niggers.

      Free market?

      1. Just because you can post overtly racist disingenuous comments here does not mean you should. It is neither clever nor amusing.

        1. Perhaps once you get over the concern trolling, you can answer the question.

          Raspberry dumbass likes to skewer people he perceives to be conservatives over what he perceives to be their inconsistent invocation of free market economics.

          I think (though I am probably mistaken) that you can probably see that my response was an attempt to skewer him back and, in the process, expose the fact that his position is nonsensical because he does not believe in a free market at all — at least, not in any true sense of the word.

          But, if you are too upset about my use of the word NIGGER, then you should probably just move on and ignore me. Taking the time to signal your dissatisfaction with my rhetorical flourishes on an anonymous comment board is, to use your words, “neither clever nor amusing.”

          It’s fucking pathetic.

    3. Don’t take the bait.

      1. Explain to me how “private companies” such as public libraries banning books is a good thing.

    4. Except that, thanks to Disney, copyrights last for 95 years. That gives publishers the ability to completely censor because they have exclusive rights for most of a century.

      1. Disney and Sonny Bono.

        1. Sonny was working for Disney.

      2. Yup. It is their content.

        Since when is public domain a libertarian concept?

        So Bambi and Thumper should be public property now?

        The Seuss people made a terrible mistake. They should have held their ground.

        Cancel culture will abate when people say enough is enough.

        This just tips the scales in that direction.

        1. Look up the history of copyright. Historically it’s been much shorter than 95 years. It’s been lengthened only because of lobbying by Disney.

          I’m not arguing against copyright, though 95 years seems excessive to me.

        2. So Bambi and Thumper should be public property now?

          Their creator has been dead for 85 years. The movie is about 80 years old.

          Is Hamlet public property yet?

          1. Yet what he created is an ongoing enterprise. Tyrus Wong who worked with Disney studios actually created Bambi for the most part.

            Disney is working on a remake which will keep their copyrights going.

            I do not understand a libertarian position where property rights just go away after a period of time.

            1. I do not understand a libertarian position where property rights just go away after a period of time.

              I think the basic discussion hinges on the notion of whether or not an idea can be considered “property.”

              There is no law of scarcity that operates on ideas – “intellectual property” is 100% a fabrication of the state, in contrast to real property.

              And one can see Disney’s disingenuousness on this in their rapaciousness regarding claiming public domain culture-products, like Robin Hood, Snow White, or the Three Little Pigs, as their property which they look to the government to help them defend.

              100% of Shakespeare’s works were produced with no copyright protections whatsoever – which is good for him, because he would have been sued for plagiarism if there had been such protections.

              On the issue of expiration of rights, I think we can all agree that the works of Homer, for example, are now public domain, which would mean that at some point these property rights do “just go away,” eventually, no?

              The real question is “how long does a fictitious property right made up by the government properly last?”

          2. ^ This.

            Disney has perverted public domain, and pretty much erased it from existence, and nobody with any knowledge of the subject thinks otherwise from what I can gather.

            Oh, and every time Disney is just about to lose one of their properties they lobby the government to further extend the duration.

            It’s a perfect example of a large company wielding outsized influence on policy.

            Micky Mouse was created in 1928 according to the internet, so he’s just about a century old yet no one else is allowed to even come close to using that image. Even though the original creator is dead, and his kid is also dead as well. Go figure.

            1. Even though the original creator is dead

              And has been for over 50 years.

              However, to be fair to Echospinner’s point about an “ongoing enterprise,” Mickey at this point is essentially a trademark.

              At some point there’s a conversation to be had about “branding” and whether deliberately spoofing a trademark with the intent of undermining a brand reputation might be an attack on property rights. Like if I were to fill toothpaste containers with dog shit and put Crest labels on them and plant them on store shelves.

              However, in each case I think these are pragmatic questions in which we tolerate some infringement on absolute liberty due to an actual conflict of rights (like in cases of defamation), rather than that there’s any natural claim to be made on intellectual products as “property.”

              1. We don’t have this argument against personal reputation and branding (slander, libel, and 1st Ammendment), so why should we for businesses?

      3. It’s only 95 years after publication for works created for hire. Dr. Seuss owned the rights to his own books though so they are subject to a Life+70 years copyright. He died in 1991 though so you can look forward to enjoying all of his works entering the public domain on Jan 1st, 2062.

        1. “so you can look forward to enjoying all of his works entering the public domain on Jan 1st, 2062.”

          Woah. So much for getting Mulberry St. back in eleven years.

          1. In 12 years there will be no streets.

      4. So only eleven more years until we can get our “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” back.

        I showed it to my 14-yo Chinese daughter, and she is baffled. She can’t conceive how anyone (asian or otherwise) could be offended by a picture of a “Chinese man” in traditional Chinese garb, eating with traditional Chinese eating-utensils. Her first reaction was, “what, so we can only have white characters in books now?” She said almost the exact same sentence about the vaguely arab-ish, Nazzim of Bazzim, in On Beyond Zebra.

        1. Let me tell you ’bout Ahab The Arab……..

      5. You know, this is an overlooked point. Publishers stopping publication *is* censorship even if you subscribe to only-government-can-censor. Because if anyone else tries to publish those books, it’s the government which will enforce a copyright judgement on the new publisher. There’s even a possibility of a criminal case being brought for infringement.

  14. Found our near mint copy we saved of And to Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street. It is going for up to $600 on eBay.

    The world has gone mad. For all his creativity Dr Seuss could not have made this up.

  15. When it becomes public domain I hope some publisher fills the void.

    1. 95 years. Wow. Fuck Disney.

      1. Just them? Ignoring who in Congress were lobbied to lead the charge? Odd.

        http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/10/cq/disney.html

      2. 2042 will be the first year one of the banned books is able to published again without consent from Dr Seuss Enterprises. It will be 2052 before another can be done. All 6 will become public domain by 2061

  16. If it weren’t for the damn Sonny Bono Protect Disney’s Copyrights Act in the 90s, all of the “canceled” books would now be in the public domain, along with thousands and thousands of other books of the period that are more truly “canceled”, in that they are no longer published, have not been in decades, and physical copies are far harder to find than anything Seuss ever wrote.

    Without the emergency 1990’s 25-year extension of copyright, we would have a wealth of public domain material now that would include virtually every published item up to 1950. That would be real freedom, instead of a stupid culture war over what a copyright holder decides to no longer publish.

    1. Disney remakes their classics because they can still claim copyrights.

      The latest version of Lady and the Tramp is fun around here. The dogs bark back and respond.

      1. Disney remakes their classics because they can still claim copyrights.

        On things that were often public domain when they “discovered” them.

    2. Seizing intellectual property for the “public good” sounds a lot like what Venezuela did with private property.

      1. How do you “seize” intellectual property?

    3. thats not what cancelling means stop running cover for your people

  17. How will we know that Pepe la Pew is an idiot and his behavior repulsive if we never see him in action. By retold myth or legend? If we can have open borders we can certainly have the less harmful open books.

    1. The whole Pepe le Pew objections don’t make sense. Like you said, Pepe is a stinky, repulsive, French perv. He may be a mascot for sexual harassment, but he sure doesn’t make it look ok.

      1. Maybe the French government is secretly financing the anti-Le-Pew campaign.

        /just asking questions

      2. “The whole Pepe le Pew objections don’t make sense. Like you said, Pepe is a stinky, repulsive, French perv. He may be a mascot for sexual harassment, but he sure doesn’t make it look ok.”

        Does Pepe ever suffer any negative consequences for what amounts to sexual assault and stalking? (It isn’t just “harassment” when he grabs the cat and is kissing her as she struggles to get away.) No, she gets away temporarily, and he proceeds to start bouncing after her again. As much as I laughed at this when I was a kid, I now recognize it as an inappropriate attempt at humorously depicting something that is seriously traumatic for far too many women and girls.

        1. As much as I laughed at this when I was a kid

          Really? The lesson I took from those clips as a kid was that Pepe Le Pew was an idiot and an asshole (the fact that he’s a stereotype/caricature of a smelly, slimy, cosmopolitan Frenchman just emphasized this).

          If anyone comes away from watching those cartoons thinking, “You know, feeling women up is pretty cool, even when they resist,” then they clearly weren’t raised properly and are getting the wrong message.

            1. I thought the lesson was French guys suck and laugh at their repulsiveness.

          1. “Really? The lesson I took from those clips as a kid was that Pepe Le Pew was an idiot and an asshole…”

            You really didn’t find any humor in those cartoons at the time? How old were you when you first saw that character? I was probably 6 or 7. I didn’t have any real understanding of proper boundaries, and so a ‘playful’, but stinky, skunk trying to romance a cat just seemed funny. That was all I can imagine that the creators intended. The most straightforward interpretation of them is that the cat was rejecting him because he was a smelly skunk, and him being an ‘idiot’ was because he didn’t recognize that she wasn’t also a skunk. There is nothing in those shorts that hints that the creators were trying to say anything negative about Pepe le Pew’s actions. And I can say that because he never suffers any proportional consequences for those actions.

            I think that you are projecting your correct understanding of personal boundaries now onto what you thought when you were younger. The young kids that were the target audience aren’t going to understand what you are saying you got out of it.

            1. You really didn’t find any humor in those cartoons at the time?

              Yes. Reflect on what you were laughing at. Are you laughing at the cat?

              There is nothing in those shorts that hints that the creators were trying to say anything negative about Pepe le Pew’s actions.

              You can’t be serious. You understand that the entire premise is based on laughing at his expense?

              Do you think that his creators are also celebrating Yosemite Sam’s violent temper? That they’re promoting violence by not being more seriously critical of the fact that you shouldn’t just immediately shoot people in fits of annoyance?

              And I can say that because he never suffers any proportional consequences for those actions.

              Other than every single thing that happens to him in the course of his repeated and inevitable failures.

              We laugh at him because of his total lack of self-awareness, not because we think rape is funny.

            2. You really didn’t find any humor in those cartoons at the time? How old were you when you first saw that character? I was probably 6 or 7.

              The humor is in Pepe constantly getting rejected for, as Square pointed out, being a stupid, unself-aware jerk. Even as a little kid, I knew that no actual skunk would be dumb enough to get fooled by a white paint stripe down a black cat’s back.

              You really need to get off the college campus for a while, those mentally ill freaks are brainwashing you.

              1. “The humor is in Pepe constantly getting rejected for, as Square pointed out, being a stupid, unself-aware jerk.”

                Uh, no. He was constantly getting rejected because he was a smelly skunk. It’s in his fucking name.

            3. And wile e coyote was never a pancake for more than a couple seconds. Should they have been warning us about the inappropriateness of jumping off a cliff in an insufficient flying mechanism?

        2. So wait, you’re seriously asking this?

          Motherfucker, they don’t even DIE.

          1. “Motherfucker, they don’t even DIE.”

            Huh? When some gay guy starts pawing you and trying to kiss you as you squirm away, are you going to think, “Well, I didn’t die, so what consequences should he suffer?”

            Unwanted sexual contact is sexual assault, by definition. If you don’t think that it is traumatic to be assaulted, then feel free to try it.

            1. I think what he means is that in their universe, you can eat a stick of dynamite and explode into bits, and the only thing you will suffer is embarrassment.

              Because it’s freaking Looney Tunes.

        3. Like much of the WB cartoons Pepe is a spoof on Hollywood. He is a caricature of the Cary Grant style romance films of the day.

          1. “Like much of the WB cartoons Pepe is a spoof on Hollywood. He is a caricature of the Cary Grant style romance films of the day.”

            I’ve watched a few of the films of that era, but maybe not enough to have seen any where Cary Grant would kiss, hug, and grope a woman that clearly didn’t want him.

            1. Then comedy takes it past 11.

              Baby it’s cold outside.

        4. Fuck off, pussy

          1. Fuck off, asshole.

        5. Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I’ll be glad to mail you a hanky. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

        6. ” I now recognize it as an inappropriate attempt at humorously depicting something that is seriously traumatic for far too many women and girls.”

          Was your take away from Marvin the Martian that destroying inhabited planets is acceptable or from Yosemite Sam that it’s ok to shoot up a room when your upset about something?

          Those cartoons were chock full of hyperbolic examples of bad behavior. Kids understand that.

      3. Whenever someone says that a work “perpetuates” rape culture, or any other negative thing for that matter, what they mean is that it “depicts” it. These are pathetic, squeamish people who don’t like seeing certain unpleasant things depicted, and try to get it taken down by lying and saying that it harms people.

  18. I think they may have a point that it’s no longer acceptable to be good or mostly good. You have to join the cause and send in the membership fee to prove you ain’t faking so you can be approved for maximum purity.

    Dr. Seuss refused to do this, so he obviously carried the rival membership card.

    You cannot prove that a thing were against your cause. But you can prove that any thing has detracted from your cause whenever it becomes convenient to deny.

    Many people a long time ago decided that hundreds of books were “in,” but the reasoning has not left a paper trail suitable enough to stand up against the “absolute tradeoff” rationale where insight can be gained but includes unsightly detail, such as “Mohammad beat his wife” or “Chinamen had reason to smile under the pre-Communist regime” or “O’Henry was given the privilege despite being a murderer.”

    I don’t see how removing the idea that other odd persons were or weren’t fanged and clawed at any time in history does anything at all to advance a civil narrative. I do not see why declawing (no second-hand opinions) and spaying (homosexuality) all children and pointing them away from obvious examples of human decency, scarcely misguided, becomes necessary to achieve any tolerable goal.

    That said, what has been approved by these sorts of censors that purports to be far more decent than anything that has ever been censored?

  19. He was a flawed genius—but a genius nonetheless, and a towering figure in the world of children’s literature. There is a disturbing trend among modern liberalism to seek to cast out all such flawed figures, which has the rest of us reasonably worried that no art or artist more than a few years old can possibly stand the test of time.

    He is a towering figure in children’s literature among — GRANDPARENTS. And specifically grandparents of a generation that has ceased to read books and has become remarkably gullible re the little it does read.

    Which means a)Dr Seuss actually failed in the primary pedagogical objective of children’s literature and b)those grandparents are still focused on Dr Seuss because they are still trying to force their own stupidity and blindness on future generations.

    this isn’t about Dr Seuss. It’s about boomers and their continuing stupidity and attention-seeking.

    1. Why do you hate your grandparents?

      1. I love my grandparents. Your grandparents otoh?

        1. I loved them when they were alive. My maternal grandfather, a Russian immigrant, would get up in the morning and give me a breakfast to send me off to school. He made his own bread because American was ‘like cotton’ and we watched wrestling on TV on the weekends.

          I am one now. Greatest thing in the world.

          Had s’mores and backyard campfire yesterday with the g kids. They have a stack of Dr Seuss and other books.

          After school there are two questions. Are you hungry? And what did you learn today?

          1. I hope YOU bought Dr Seuss for your grandkids. And read to them. And share your stories with them. Because if you’re doing all that – it’s not really about Dr Seuss is it.

            I didn’t get much reading to me of ‘basic’ reader stuff like Dr Seuss. None from grandparents and not much from parents. What they provided was books. Tons of books on the shelf. Including Little Black Sambo which I’m sure is no longer a ‘grandparents gift’ (and it may well have been a hand-me-down even then). That said – basic reader stuff was irrelevant by age 4 or 5. I do remember Cat in the Hat – and the Dick and Jane books were still around in 1st grade or so. But honestly the whole point of a basic reader is to move on to real children’s literature. So maybe they shouldn’t be that ‘interesting’ and ‘special’.

            At any rate, there is imo three very different issues:
            What books are provided in public library and the school system – specifically for those kids who DON’T have the option of books at home
            What books are provided via charity or the little free libraries or hand-me-downs – same target market as above but an individual making the spending decisions
            What books are provided to your own children or grandchildren – where the ‘decision’ is really not a one-time thing at all.

            1. As for my kids – I read Dr Seuss to them. They were interested for awhile and then moved on. Grandkids hasn’t happened yet – but of all the things I’d like to share with them, Dr Seuss is probably #500 or lower. Actual books – that would be great and I fully intend to find out what sorts of real books are more recent (and that don’t have a movie).

    2. And here I thought your failed coronavirus predictions were the most horrendously stupid thing you’d ever written.

  20. Wow, the Chicago Public library suspended six books immediately pending investigation. Does the Chicago Police Department do that with its officers? (Maybe, but it would be a paid suspension)

    “so much of the pro-Seuss grousing in nonliberal circles can feel as performative as the anti-Seuss extremism”

    It’s like a reflex with Soave, he just has to both-sides everything.

    If it weren’t for what he calls “nonliberal circles,” this would simply be a matter of rarefied, polite debate among progs with a predetermined outcome in favor of censorship.

  21. Does anyone else remember the days when libraries were champions of controversial books? Moral nannies would complain that The Joy of Sex should be removed from the public library because some innocent child might stumble upon it. They wanted Catcher in the Rye tossed out because of nasty language and uncomfortable scenes. Some were upset about Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, or 1984 because they taught anti-authoritarianism.

    Back then, the libraries said, “We understand your concerns, but we’re a library and we don’t censor”. I foolishly thought that they had principles. Now I know that they simply liked those books. They’re more than willing to remove anything that they don’t like.

    1. Back then there were actual civil libertarians.

    2. Banning books has been a pastime in America since at least 1637. The author was a bit of a rebel and what would today be called an ‘environmentalist’ and among other things tried to erect a maypole in Plymouth. That was suppressed and he was ‘exiled’ – but he got a book deal – and that too was suppressed.

      Current childrens literature authors banned somewhere or other in the US include Roald Dahl, Maurice Sendak, Dr Seuss, JK Rowling, Mark Twain (of course), etc. Books include Charlotte’s Web, Diary of Anne Frank, Where’s Waldo, Winnie the Pooh, Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Merriam-Webster Dictionary

      Most of which are far more serious in their banning rationale than some ‘basic’ reader like Dr Seuss. Basing it on the chosen content/theme of the book rather than some circumstance of an obsolete time. My current state, Colorado, is particularly crappy with this practice – probably because both political sides are extreme and intolerant – R’s wannabe Bible Belt, D’s wannabe Bay Area – in close proximity.

    3. Libraries still make a thing out of Banned Books Week, but it’s books like Harry Potter or Lolita that offended a few Baptists somewhere decades ago – i.e. only nasty conservatives want to ban books.

      1. Oh for fucks sake. The reason conservatives get a reputation for wanting to ban books is because – conservatives tend to lead the most banned books list every year. Same with comic books – and plays – and music – and most other expressions of ‘culture’.

        Now maybe that entire organization has invented its banned books rankings from scratch for political/ideological reasons in order to hide the real banning – which is of presumably conservative/traditional books. In which case, the solution would be competition. Another bannedbooksweek organization that explicitly highlights all of the really banned books not the bogus banned books. Or maybe conservatives can bitch and moan about the first bannedbooksweek organization ‘deplatforming’ them and force them to include the really banned books that can only be provided by conservatives.

        1. It looks like a lot of those books are banned because they throw LGBTQP nonsense, or drugs and alcohol, or freaking suicide, at children. There’s no reason to subject children to such obscenity. Banning that crap seems entirely reasonable.

            1. It’s ok to have standards. It’s ok to have a society.

              1. It’s OK to have a sandwich.

              2. Its also okay to have a Free Society. Parents need to be responsible for their kids and their reading habits, not demanding government do it for them. Conservatives need to fight against the Cultural Left and not become like them. Ex. “You may have your books and magazines about sex and suicide, but you WILL NOT make my kids read them.”

      2. Imagine if a library had a banned books week where they read some of those books you’re not allowed to own in Germany. That would be pretty damn epic.

    4. Deciding not to buy a book in the first place has exactly the same effect as removing a book from circulation, other than the book never is available to be read.

  22. I’ve often thought we need a ‘refusal to publish moves the content into the public domain’ law. It would disrupt the limited-edition market but that might be a reasonable trade-off.

    But even under existing laws, refusal to publish significantly strengthens a Fair Use objection to a copyright claim. If you refuse to publish something, that would seem to put an upper bound of $0 on your claim for damages when I publish it for you.

    1. Ohoho. You sweet child. You believe that Copyright is a CIVIL matter where you can be held responsible for actual damages caused. That gets a hearty laugh from me. Good one.

      Copyright is a criminal matter my good sir and the damages I mean fines are dictated by statue.

      1. Damages (that is, lost profit potential) is one of the four elements of whether there was a copyright violation in the first place.

  23. Many others shrugged, noting correctly that this isn’t an issue of censorship: A book publisher is free to decide it wants to cease publishing a very old book.

    You spelled correctly wrong. It IS and issue of censorship, it’s just not an actionable one under the first amendment. Why… why are we so confused on the definition of censorship? WHY?

  24. When you’re banning Dr. Seuss, you’ve already slipped pretty far down the slope

    1. Yes. Back in Huckleberry Finn banning, claiming this leads to Dr Seuss banning would have been laughed as logical fallacy and conspiracy theory.

      Kind of like claiming tearing down confederate statues would lead to a war against our founding fathers.

      Slippery slope is not a fallacy when logic applied to one situation can be applied to another.

    2. Or are pretty much at the bottom.

      1. Lol

        We wish.

  25. Public libraries are blatant copyright violators anyway.

    Now Pepe Le Peu is being canceled from Space Jam 2, but not for portraying a negative stereotype of French people.

    1. I always thought he was a positive stereotype of French people.

    2. Um, in what way are public libraries violating copyright?

      “Now Pepe Le Peu is being canceled from Space Jam 2, but not for portraying a negative stereotype of French people.”

      Yeah. We should be able to show kids that it is funny and romantic for a guy to stalk a female and initiate unwanted sexual contact. I mean, have a sense of humor!

      1. You do realize the clip of him that got cut was Pepe getting dragged by LeBron for doing that very thing, right?

      2. “that it is funny and romantic ”

        It isn’t portrayed that way though. Just the opposite in fact.

        What the fuck is wrong with you that you got “PePe is the hero” out of it.

        1. It’s like thinking the moral of Don Quixote concerns the importance of having goals.

          1. Or thinking that he never got punished for trying to destroy someone’s property.

      3. I found the creep.

      4. Funny only in his idiocy.

      5. Yeah. We should be able to show kids that it is funny and romantic for a guy to stalk a female and initiate unwanted sexual contact. I mean, have a sense of humor!

        that’s not the ugly part. The ugly part is that his romantic attentions crossed racial lines.

        1. Racial? The guy was trying to fuck a completely different species of mammal because he was fooled by some spilled paint.

  26. “The solution to the story’s conflict is that the Plain-Belly Sneetches and Star-Bellied Sneetches simply get confused as to who is oppressed. As a result, they accept one another. This message of “acceptance” does not acknowledge structural power imbalances. It doesn’t address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures. And instead of encouraging young readers to recognize and take action against injustice, the story promotes a race-neutral approach.”

    Soave criticizes this statement, but it correctly recognizes the reality of race and related issues of discrimination in America. As a white man myself, it is very tempting to believe that being race-neutral (and gender-neutral) is the right way to be. As a utopian ideal, it would be, and the attitude behind is best captured by Chief Justice Roberts, in his plurality opinion in the case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

    The problem with this thinking is that prejudice and discrimination in the present are only part of the problem. The effect of all of the past prejudice and discrimination remains with us and will persist if we only try and be race-neutral now. Wave a magic wand and erase the prejudices of every living American, and the existing racial and ethnic disparities in economics, education, crime, political influence, and social standing would simply bring those negative opinions and views right back for many people.

    The argument seems to be that being race-neutral now will eventually lead to a color-blind society, therefore we only need to work for equality of opportunity. Any inequality of outcome is not something to try and correct. This is completely ignoring the extent to which inequality of outcome in the present makes actual equality of opportunity less of a reality.

    Bringing about real equality is going to take an active approach. There is no way around that. White people are going to have to accept that simply being race-neutral now is not going to be good enough to counter centuries of racism in the past.

    1. “The argument seems to be that being race-neutral now will eventually lead to a color-blind society”

      Well, in my case my argument is that being race-neutral now is good because racism and racial discrimination are bad, even if the victim of discrimination looks like (or is even related to) some criminal or oppressor, and even if the perpetrator of the discrimination looks like (or is even related to) a victim of crime or oppression.

      Once you make policy based on collective guilt – and how else could you build your utopia? – then it’s a game anyone can play so long as they have the power.

      If collective guilt can be imposed on whites for white crimes, why not on blacks for black crimes, etc?

      1. When you say a type of discrimination is necessarily “bad” I think you need to define for whom it is bad, and actually explain why. We’ve seen such social upheaval and destruction in America as our ability to discriminate in any way, within any category, has been removed that we ought to stop taking it as a given that any form of discrimination is inherently bad.

        1. Like I say, “racism and racial discrimination are bad” – and if you want reasons, look what happens when it’s implemented. Maybe we can go all libertarian with private racial discrimination, but government discrimination should be illegal.

          Now, I can imagine situations where race can be taken into account (description of a fugitive from justice, certain public-health research) but it should in literally exceptional situations, that is, not because of feelz, grievances, or cooked statistics.

          1. Is it bad for Japan to discriminate in favor of Japanese companies and the Japanese race when they consider trade and immigration policies? Up to this point, Japan has remained Japan but we’re seeing rapid changes throughout America and Europe that suggest many cities and regions with dramatic racial/demographic shifts to the point that they may soon be entirely unrecognizable. Who does that benefit? Certainly not the native population.

            1. I didn’t get into the whole morass of citizenship discrimination and national-origin discrimination (against would-be immigrants). I don’t think such things are automatically racist, and indeed should be considered on their own merits.

            2. Some economists have called Japan demographically doomed.

      2. “If collective guilt can be imposed on whites for white crimes, why not on blacks for black crimes, etc?”

        Two things:

        – I impose no collective guilt on anyone. I am talking about a responsibility to correct for the discrimination of the past. That is not a punishment. I have never (to my knowledge) used a position of power to discriminate against anyone. I don’t feel “white guilt” nor should I. But I will not ignore the structural disadvantages that Blacks and other groups with a history of oppression have and then do nothing proactive about it.

        – Trying to turn it around and make some equivalence about “black crimes” is just not right. What “crimes” have Blacks, as a group, committed against other groups that would ever compare to what has been done to them? Have they ever had the power to deny others their voting rights, discriminate in housing, employment, business, or education?

        1. I impose no collective guilt on anyone. I am talking about a responsibility to correct for the discrimination of the past.

          This is a fork-tongued argument that white progressives like to indulge in whenever their self-loathing is called out. “We’re not blaming white people as a whole, just systemic racism!”

          But I will not ignore the structural disadvantages that Blacks and other groups with a history of oppression have and then do nothing proactive about it.

          Please. The entire human race is one of groups oppressing other groups. Black people are no more special in this regard than the Rus, the Gauls, or any other group that was conquered.

          Trying to turn it around and make some equivalence about “black crimes” is just not right. What “crimes” have Blacks, as a group, committed against other groups that would ever compare to what has been done to them?

          It’s not a question of degree. It’s a question of principle. If a random white person who never did anything wrong to my relatives has to apologize to them for their ancestors being beet-pickers for white farmers, or who was never never owned slaves has to apologize to a black person for being a racist, then a black person should apologize to white people for Jessica Doty-Whitaker, Cannon Hinnant, and Channon Christian/Christopher Newsom.

          Have they ever had the power to deny others their voting rights, discriminate in housing, employment, business, or education?

          Others have had the same restrictions imposed on them.

        2. Trying to turn it around and make some equivalence about “black crimes” is just not right.

          That’s not “trying to turn it around.” It’s pointing out that when you contemplate the notion of punishing blacks collectively for crimes committed by black individuals, you see the obvious injustice.

          The next step is to acknowledge that white people are also individuals.

          I understand your desire to be “proactive,” but you are being regressive. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

    2. “The effect of all of the past prejudice and discrimination remains with us ”

      Oh shit! History happened so you think being evil is ok.

      1. “Oh shit! History happened so you think being evil is ok.”

        What have I proposed do you consider evil?

        1. “There is no way around that. White people are going to have to accept that simply being race-neutral now is not going to be good enough to counter centuries of racism in the past.”

          This is evil. You are promoting the concept that White people have to be forced into accepting your point of view. That’s evil.

    3. White people are going to have to accept that simply being race-neutral now is not going to be good enough to counter centuries of racism in the past.

      Jesus fuck. Take this pathetic white self-loathing and shove it. Do you have any idea how much actual minorities laugh at you when you do this performative shit?

      By the way you talk, my guess is that you were raised in a typical bourgeoisie existence, and don’t know that many working-class or poverty-stricken minorities. I’m related to such people, and went to high school with actual Crip gangbangers and poor minorities. The only thing they find useful about “anti-racism” is how much it gets white simps like you to hate themselves, and argue that other white people need to hate themselves as much as you do.

    4. >>White people are going to have to accept that simply being race-neutral now is not going to be good enough to counter centuries of racism in the past.

      Or what?

    5. nothing is best captured by Chief Justice Roberts.

    6. The effect of all of the past prejudice and discrimination remains with us and will persist if we only try and be race-neutral now.

      And there is absolutely no way to quantify or prove any of that. Which is why this is such a vile, immoral and dangerous line of thinking.

      1. “And there is absolutely no way to quantify or prove any of that. Which is why this is such a vile, immoral and dangerous line of thinking.”

        What, there is no way to quantify the differences in wealth accumulation among different racial and ethnic groups? Differences in the quality of infrastructure between majority-white versus majority-Black or Latino neighborhoods? Do you know how many Black children grow up in areas where lead levels exceed safe limits regularly versus white children? People do research these things.

        There are more than enough ways to measure the inequality of opportunity that exists in this country that you can’t talk like it is impossible to know.

        1. Do you know how many Black children grow up in areas where lead levels exceed safe limits regularly versus white children?

          Why does it matter? Do you think nothing should be done for the white children? Why? If you have two children living in the same shitty conditions, why is the one with dark skin more important than the one with light skin?

    7. Ching! Collect your $.50.

    8. As one brilliant thinker said on this sordid subject, you want to play the global historical grievance game? Fine, let’s have a go.

      Where does Ankara send Kim Kardashian her reparations check?

      1. I would like to talk to Norway about their displacement of my people.

        I do believe we’re owed some of that oil wealth.

        1. And right there you get to the heart of why the progressive obsession with ” social justice” is so hypocritical and odious–how many of these white liberals whining about the treatment of Natives are voluntarily fucking off and going back to the land of their ancestors? How many of them are voluntarily avoiding well-paying jobs, nice homes, and decent colleges so the “pee-ohhh-sees” they supposedly worship can have a better shot at those things?

          Even in their obsequiousness, they demand a double standard–“oh, ‘we’ need to address the injustices of the past, but I still get to keep my upper middle class job, my nice car, my home in an upwardly mobile part of town, and all the benefits supposedly provided by the very system I criticize!” It’s funny how so many of these people are fedora-tipping Atheism+ types who like to mock rich white Christians for having money, yet Allah forbid that these fuckheads give up anything nice in the name of the supposed “justice” they’re promoting.

          1. Well, they’re certain that racism is a problem, but they know the correct views about race, so racial disparities must be the fault of poor, uneducated white people.

            What other explanation could there be?

            1. The real one.

              Progressives have a finely tuned victim-o-meter. Poor, uneducated white people are quite high, or low, on that list, you might be surprised to know.

              Universally among progressives, racism is discussed nowadays as a systemic phenomenon, the fault of ancient institutions. Individual morality doesn’t even come into the theory, except for conservatives, who feel personally affronted by the mere mention that racism could possibly exist.

              1. You are full of shit sir.

    9. Your premise, which I take to be based on critical race theory, is bad enough, but what is most disturbing:

      “Bringing about real equality IS GOING TO TAKE AN ACTIVE APPROACH.” “WHITE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT.” “NOT GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH”

      Begs the question; just how do you propose engineering this? As I [and apparently several others here] do not buy into your super anti racism, what do you propose to do about it?

    10. Bringing about real equality is going to take an active approach. There is no way around that. White people are going to have to accept that simply being race-neutral now is not going to be good enough to counter centuries of racism in the past.”

      There is a distinction to be made. To be race neutral should not imply indifference to racism in the present. To practice and advocate for racial equality remains an active rather than passive stance.

      The past cannot be undone. Some injuries do not heal but remain as a reminder to future generations. What persists is memory and we should teach it to our children and our children’s children.

      Never again.

      1. Normal people call pushing your phobias onto your children child abuse – you call it the only righteous/moral way forward.

        Fuck you.

    11. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

      1. A comment so utterly vapid it could only have come from the face of John Roberts. I even agree with the sentiment, in a sense, but the statement is saying what? “Be better people, guys, c’mon!”?

        At best it outright says we should stop discriminating on race the moment white people decide it’s time. After they gather up the loot they acquired from all the centuries of racism.

        Reparations is so politically ridiculous an idea, it can only exist as an opening offer from the radical blacks, meant to start the debate off with plenty of room to budge.

        By the time the debt is paid back, you won’t even notice it was taken from you.

        1. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

          1. Wit isn’t so much a dying art as it is a perpetually dying art.

          2. +1, excellent quote

    12. On your knees, bitch.

      I have nothing to atone for.

  27. “The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared.”

    Given that “the delivery of education” is a hurtful implication that I don’t already know all that I need to know, I’m assuming that schooling itself is being canceled here.

  28. “and so much of the pro-Seuss grousing in nonliberal circles can feel as performative as the anti-Seuss extremism”

    Is Robby fvckin with us, or is he seriously incapable of writing anything at all without bending over backwards to reach for any ridiculous BOTH SIDES whataboutism as a bone to his Leftist masters

    1. What would he say about the anti-Seuss Right? There is a third position here.

  29. Well fortunately we live in a digital age where nothing really dies, and the stalinist assholes on social media and government cannot truly remove anyone or anything permanently. My recommendation is for free thinking people to capture anything the left hates and store it such that it can be brought out at random and make the lefties heads explode. Their anger and tears are your sustenance.

    1. Seen any Trump tweets lately?

  30. The lonely, inconsequential whimper of the obsolete, disaffected clinger . . . or, the Robby Soave Story.

    1. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
      ― Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

      Flag/refresh

      1. But it’s evidence, if Robby wants to look, that his both-sides signaling in his article isn’t going to appease the nutty wokesters who are trying to ruin the culture.

        1. We’re not trying to ruin culture, we’re trying to make a better culture, silly.

          Naturally this upsets people who put a lot of stock in the culture they currently live in. They’re why we can’t have nice things, until we outvote them of course.

          1. You don’t make a better culture by stopping discrimination on one group only to apply it to another.

            1. I’m not sure that’s obvious.

  31. >>the story promotes a race-neutral approach

    MLK will always have the best dream.

  32. “The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared.”

    I’ve been harmed? Were’s my monies?!

  33. I’m old enough to remember when liberals fought to keep ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ in public libraries. That too wasn’t a First Amendment issue, but the ACLU and others thought it was important to have all viewpoints represented.
    What a change in 50 years.

    1. To Kill A Mockingbird was used to undermine faith in ourselves, to reduce our moral confidence, and to strike at the heart of what it means to be American and White. Of course the ACLU fought to keep it in schools. That’s their entire point.

    2. What’s the value of racist stereotypes in children’s books?

      There is still finite space and thus decisions to make. What are you canceling to make room for the racism? And… why?

      1. “What’s the value of racist stereotypes in children’s books?”

        The whole point of a free society with unfettered free speech is you don’t get to make that call and nobody has to defend their right to write or read what they want.

        1. I thought the point of a free society was that a private company could make its own marketing decisions. You don’t have to be a libertarian to think that they should not be forced to sell a product they think is toxic to their brand.

          1. They didn’t stop selling this product due to its toxicity among the public, that’s just ridiculous. The question now I think is can anyone else publish the book? Current law says no – maybe it’s time for an update.

  34. I think all of the Disney movies and shows that pander to princess fantasies are sexist and genderist and need to be canceled right away.

  35. Back to the Future is my s.o.’s fave movie she’s terrified it’ll be on the block one day

    1. Stop being terrified and fight back. These assholes are not going to cancel themselves.

      1. by terrified I mean she laughs at the prospect. don’t fret.

  36. Has reading not been completely deemed racist along with mathematics?

    1. Yes deemed so by the abysmally stupid who suck at both – and if it offends them, it’s verboten.

      Look around, you’re already on the slippery slope.

  37. Dr. Seuss sucks, and is a big reason why we have this “diversity is our strength” insanity dominating society now.

  38. Dems:
    Dr Seuss? Banned! Mein Kampf? Approved!

    1. The latter is actually an interesting book and worth reading. Dr Seuss is liberal hippy bullshit.

  39. I hate Greta Thunberg!

  40. This is a blow to race relations.
    These books now give me palpitations.
    I soon will be making preparations
    to claim my share of reparations.

  41. “…and anti-racism—the idea that skin color matters a great deal—is in vogue.”

    Or, to put away the euphemisms, racism is in vogue with the Progressives, as it always has been.

  42. Everyone setting their hair on fire with hysteria over a market-based decision by a private firm? Good, you’re nice and useless when you’re angry over nothing.

    1. Haha. You oughta know.

      1. I wonder if there’s a Democrat willing to call Mickey Mouse racist in public. They can pass filibuster reform and FOX News won’t even notice.

        1. Or, I forget, did Republicans already cancel Disney for being too gay?

  43. I only have to walk around downtown for a few minutes to see the damage that Seuss has done to the younger generation.

  44. “This message of “acceptance” does not acknowledge structural power imbalances. It doesn’t address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures. And instead of encouraging young readers to recognize and take action against injustice, the story promotes a race-neutral approach.”

    And we can’t keep getting funding for an approach that solves the problem.

  45. Isn’t it funny to see fanatics demand and enforce “inclusion” on aspects of life praise acts of exclusion if it serves their purpose?

    Oh, but we only want diversity and to exclusion of ALL bigotry is ok and feasible, they’ll say. Really? You don’t think there’s racial stereotypes in anime, manga, hip hop, and other works of pop culture by POCs? Go look at DeeJay from the street fighter series or Mr Popo or other ethnic characters from DBZ.

    These people are pathetic little philistines. Cancelling Dr. Seuss isn’t like a mod removing trolling /racist comments in a message board. When seminal piece of art is being erased from history, the culture should object. If a storybook of the 50’s has a slanty eyed Asian figure with a straw hat, most Asians will be able to judge the work as a product of the time and not stray from the essential message of the plot.

    I’m Asian and watched a decade of the Simpsons where slanty eyed Cookie Kwan and Akira were voiced by white people. Now I’m offended. Let’s have Disney vaporize Simpsons golden era on their platform. That’s ok, it’s just a company not showing its product. Consumers should have less access to a pioneering TV show because racism BAD! Close down all schools and hospitals unless racism goes away!! For the people of color!

    What a bunch of fucking loons these people are.

    1. You’re the ones who wanted capitalism.

      1. lol do people really not remember how this movie ends?
        ——-
        A key figure in bringing an end to blacklisting was John Henry Faulk. Host of an afternoon comedy radio show, Faulk was a leftist active in his union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. He was scrutinized by AWARE, Inc., one of the private firms that examined individuals for signs of Communist sympathies and “disloyalty”. Marked by the group as unfit, he was fired by CBS Radio. Almost alone among the many victims of blacklisting, Faulk decided to sue AWARE in 1957.[67] Though the case dragged through the courts for years, the suit itself was an important symbol of the building resistance to the blacklist.

        John Henry Faulk won his lawsuit in 1962. With this court decision, the private blacklisters and those who used them were put on notice that they were legally liable for the professional and financial damage they caused. This helped to bring an end to publications such as Counterattack.

        1. But it’s still a private company making a marketing decision. The slippery slope doesn’t start at the exact moment your particular delicate sensibilities are upset.

          1. Private companies don’t have to pay their workers 15 dollars an hour and pay for all their healthcare, but that doesn’t stop your friends, huh Tony?

            By saying “you’re the one who wanted capitalism” at least you’re admitting that socialist states can take over private companies and force them to its will. I guess you’ve seen the light? Who am I kidding.

            Skinheads have the right to hold hate rallies. I’m free to call them out or fear their detrimental effect on society. When private companies engages in cultural whitewashing, anyone who cares about culture should be alarmed. Ebay won’t apparently let users sell Dr. Seuss books they already own. If Amazon tried to delist hip hop tracks with homophobic or sexist lyrics, BLM would be rightfully outraged.

            You’re a philistine. Your friends will go after white people who make burritos but smile like retards and support private companies making decisions when they try to censor classic literature because it has some insensitive images. There are racial stereotypes all over animation and comics outside of America, most people don’t become the next joker after watching them.

            1. I think libertarians don’t get to bitch about private companies making self-interested marketing decisions.

              You only think this is a conspiracy of your bogeymen du jour because that’s what FOX News told you.

              It’s a private company deciding to retire a product that is toxic to their brand. No government officials have anything to do with this.

              It seems as if not only are you guys not built for libertarianism, your only complaint seems to be that culture is evolving beyond your tastes.

              So… sorry about all the freedom?

              1. I think libertarians don’t get to bitch about private companies making self-interested marketing decisions.

                The First Amendment disagrees.

  46. LOL, I like the very passive statement “… and some of his work can be read as a defense of Japanese internment.”

    I could give a shit less about those books, honestly. However, you cannot ignore the fact that he literally drew anti-asian propaganda cartoons for newspapers, especially directly in support of Japanese internment.” There is no “can be” interpretation. He did make those. He even went on record and apologized for those cartoons he drew for newspapers. This is undeniable. But I am going to expect some responses that will try and put words in my mouth or want to stick their heads in the sand.

  47. Robby reads his banned copy of “And to Think That It Happened on Mulberry Street” to his granddaughter:

    Robbie: “…and a Chinese man who eats with sticks…”

    Granddaughter: Is that what Chinese people look like?

    Robbie: No, they don’t look like that anymore. In fact they didn’t really look like that when Dr. Seuss wrote the book.

    Granddaughter: Then why did he draw them that way?

    Robbie: Well, it was supposed to be funny.

    Granddaughter: But it’s not funny?

    Robbie: No, but the rest of the book is funny!

    Granddaughter: But that picture isn’t?

    Robbie: No, it’s not, in fact it’s wrong to draw Chinese people like that. But let’s keep reading! Now, where were we…

    Granddaughter: I don’t want to read this book if it’s wrong.

    (Ten minutes later, Robbie rips out the page and continues to read.)

    1. A more accurate version of your story:

      Robby reads his legally obtained copy of “And to Think That It Happened on Mulberry Street” to his granddaughter:

      Robbie: “…and a Chinese man who eats with sticks…”

      Granddaughter: Is that what Chinese people look like, and why is he eating with tree twigs?

      Robbie: No, they don’t look like that. Asian people arent yellow.

      Granddaughter: Then why did he draw them that way and the Indian man with a turban is white?

      Robbie: Well, some people are just not that nice, and sometimes they let that stupid stuff get put on pages.

      Granddaughter: What about the tree twigs?

      Robbie: He meant to say chopsticks!

      Granddaughter: So why didn’t he say chopsticks?

      Robbie: Probably because he thought he was being sly in calling them sticks because he knew kids would think they were using tree twigs.

      Granddaughter: This book is stupid.

      Robbie picks up another Seuss book.

      Granddaughter: What are all these weird words? Do I have to learn these in school?

  48. the looking glass…WE’RE THROUGH IT

  49. This nonsense over “Cancel Culture” would be a lot less nonsense if so much of it wasn’t “businesses are making decisions I don’t like”.

    But as always, the actual solutions are ones that libertarians would abhor.

    Worried about people being fired for social media posts? Expand employee rights.
    Worried about being evicted by your landlord because you put the wrong sign in your yard? Expand tenant rights.
    Worried about publishers not publishing things you think they should publish? Shorten copyright protections.

    But as that quick little list shows, libertarians and conservatives are never going to do more then whine about this. Because all the actual solutions to the problem they perceive are about protecting people from corporations, something that libertarians/conservatives abhor.

  50. hey, remember in the 1950s when Hollywood exercised their free speech rights to remove Communists from the industry?

    nothing new under the sun

    ——-

    The Hollywood blacklist was the colloquial term for what was in actuality a broader entertainment industry blacklist put in effect in the mid-20th century in the United States during the early years of the Cold War. The blacklist involved the practice of denying employment to entertainment industry professionals believed to be or to have been Communists or sympathizers. Not just actors, but screenwriters, directors, musicians, and other American entertainment professionals were barred from work by the studios. This was usually done on the basis of their membership in, alleged membership in, or even just sympathy with the Communist Party USA, or on the basis of their refusal to assist Congressional investigations into the party’s activities. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, from the late 1940s through to the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit or easily verifiable, as it was the result of numerous individual decisions by the studios and was not the result of official legal action. Nevertheless, it quickly and directly damaged or ended the careers and income of scores of individuals working in the film industry.

    1. “well of course mainstream Republican views are worse than supporting Stalin and Mao” seems to be their argument here

    2. I remember when all the same right-wing assholes who were instrumental in the Red Scare still controlled the Republican party from the grave. Find anyone bitching about cancel culture. Ask them what their opinion of communists is. Is it that they want to live in noble, evolved disagreement? Is that it?

Comments are closed.