Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
It turns out that was always the case https://davidallengreen.com/2023/02/a-l ... e-censors/
I'm starting to think censorship wasn't the real motivation hereKAJ wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 4:34 pmIt turns out that was always the case https://davidallengreen.com/2023/02/a-l ... e-censors/
I thought I saw someone on this thread point out that it was all a big publicity stunt, but now I can’t find it.monkey wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 5:30 pmI'm starting to think censorship wasn't the real motivation hereKAJ wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 4:34 pmIt turns out that was always the case https://davidallengreen.com/2023/02/a-l ... e-censors/
Zounds, and gadzooks! You're right.bagpuss wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:01 amBy 9 or 10 years old, absolutely. At 6 or 7, for a fairly advanced reader? I can definitely see it happening. Kids that age, especially kids who know they're more advanced at reading than their peers, are quite likely to use the new words that they've read in books but not heard friends say, because they think they'll sound clever.Millennie Al wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:04 amHowever, in the real world, a young child will say that not because they have read it in a book - where they might think it could be an old-fashioned word which would make them look silly - but because they have heard other people say the same thing.bagpuss wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:08 pm But a young child calling a black kid in their class the n word because they read it in a book and had no idea that in the 21st century it's pretty universally accepted as an appalling word that no one should use - that I can absolutely imagine happening.
Well, I make have been overly specific in calling people old-fashioned as that relates to TV. But all these schemes are just as stupid as each other. They are in a long tradition going back to Socrates being accused of corrupting the minds of the youths of Athens.And Netflix and other streaming services have film-style ratings for the same purpose. For iplayer, the time of original showing is a useful proxy. Personally I'd prefer it if everything just shifted to film-style ratings, as the watershed is a very blunt tool, but it's better than nothing where there's no other indication. I mean, I literally bundled the watershed and film ratings into the same point, the point being to indicate that for viewing we're happy to accept that what's appropriate for adults isn't necessarily appropriate for kids. I could have included PEGI ratings too but I assumed 2 examples would be enough for people. But sure, feel free to pick out one bit to sneer at and ignore the actual point entirely.No. We have it because of people being stupid and old-fashioned. People who seem to think we are living in the 60's before the Internet, since the watershed only applies to live TV and the children can see what they want when they want online.We have a 9pm watershed on tv so that we know that kids can watch things before that time and not be exposed to adult content.
Censorship is removing content. If children experience bad things, the lack of bad things in their books will not compensate. After all, it is very obviousl that books do not contain a complete description of life - how many books (even for adults) mention characters using the toilet or menstruating? While it might be possible to compensate for a bad home environment by depicting alternatives, censorship does not do this.Wait, what? Censoring the books means that those children will see only what their parents show them? Are you suggesting that censoring the books will change what their parents will allow them to see? Because if not, then the only difference taking a few words out of a book will make is that the kids won't see those words. And if the words are things we don't want them to see then where's the problem with that? I'm not sure what point you're making here, at all.If you censor the books, then those children will see only what their parents show them, which does not help at all.And what about the kids whose parents are nasty bullies and are bringing their kids up that way too? Is it a good idea if the books they're reading are also teaching them that fat or ugly people are bad people, for example?
It is utterly futile to try as it is deeply embedded in human nature, leading to people thought of as good in one aspect to also being thought of as good in another aspect. It works just as well for bad as for good. The opinion of a hero is often given more weight. An author, musician, etc having done bad things is often seen as making their work unacceptable.Well, I'm fairly sure that I personally am not going to break the link between ugly and bad but do you really think that just because it's widespread we shouldn't try? I mean, sexism is pretty widespread too so tell you what, I'll just sit back and let the men get on with it because why bother, it's everywhere.And if you think that you can break the link between ugly and bad, you're far too late: From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ugly -
- very unattractive or unpleasant to look at; offensive to the sense of beauty; displeasing in appearance.
- disagreeable; unpleasant; objectionable: ugly tricks; ugly discords.
- morally revolting: ugly crime.
- threatening trouble or danger: ugly symptoms.
- mean; hostile; quarrelsome: an ugly mood; an ugly frame of mind.
- (especially of natural phenomena) unpleasant or dangerous: ugly weather; an ugly sea.
Woodchopper wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:15 am
At the time Dahl’s publisher also scoured the books and called for edits of anything that might be offensive, including to the use of the word ‘spade’ to refer to an implement used for digging.
https://books.google.no/books?id=ttviDw ... &q&f=false
I've always assumed (probably erroneously) that that phrase originally meant being unapologetic about using racist terms, even before I moved to the US.raven wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:48 pmWoodchopper wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:15 am
At the time Dahl’s publisher also scoured the books and called for edits of anything that might be offensive, including to the use of the word ‘spade’ to refer to an implement used for digging.
https://books.google.no/books?id=ttviDw ... &q&f=false
Ah. In case someone hasn't mentioned this yet - I'm only on page 1 of 4 - that could be a two countries separated by one language thing. In the UK, a spade means the garden implement. In the US, a spade was/is slang equivalent to the n-word.
That usage seems to have reached the UK, though. A friend got pulled up at work for saying 'call a spade a spade' last year. He had no idea that could be offensive, and was really apologetic.
In some of the more toxic parts of the internet you'll see men referring to women as 'females' as if we're some strange scientific phenomenon to be studied rather than a fully fledged integral part of humanity. It may be a response to that.
I don't think we should dignify that by removing the word from books as if it's some heinous slur.Fishnut wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 11:03 pmIn some of the more toxic parts of the internet you'll see men referring to women as 'females' as if we're some strange scientific phenomenon to be studied rather than a fully fledged integral part of humanity. It may be a response to that.
Yeah, it's not from that, but that meaning may still have contributed to its use and popularity more recently.raven wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:57 pm Ooh, if it originated in the US, and then we Brits just took it literally...
ETA: Ah. It appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade
Possibly in the US, though I doubt it's as likely in the UK. I have the sense of it's being 50 years out of date in hip ways to be racist. With any luck that will continue to fade into obscurity.dyqik wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 1:21 pmYeah, it's not from that, but that meaning may still have contributed to its use and popularity more recently.raven wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:57 pm Ooh, if it originated in the US, and then we Brits just took it literally...
ETA: Ah. It appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade
Actually, they're really quite useful when deciding what film to watch tonight with your offspring. In an ideal world, of course, I would have (recently) seen all the possible films myself and be able to decide what's appropriate for my specific offspring on that basis. Since that's clearly impossible, a broad classification is a very useful starting point. I wouldn't and don't apply the ratings strictly, although I'm not going to point and laugh at anyone who chooses to, but if your child is 5 and doesn't like scary things, it's pretty handy to be able to immediately rule out anything that's a 12 or whatever.Millennie Al wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 3:31 amWell, I make have been overly specific in calling people old-fashioned as that relates to TV. But all these schemes are just as stupid as each other. They are in a long tradition going back to Socrates being accused of corrupting the minds of the youths of Athens.bagpuss wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:01 amAnd Netflix and other streaming services have film-style ratings for the same purpose. For iplayer, the time of original showing is a useful proxy. Personally I'd prefer it if everything just shifted to film-style ratings, as the watershed is a very blunt tool, but it's better than nothing where there's no other indication. I mean, I literally bundled the watershed and film ratings into the same point, the point being to indicate that for viewing we're happy to accept that what's appropriate for adults isn't necessarily appropriate for kids. I could have included PEGI ratings too but I assumed 2 examples would be enough for people. But sure, feel free to pick out one bit to sneer at and ignore the actual point entirely.Millennie Al wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:04 am
No. We have it because of people being stupid and old-fashioned. People who seem to think we are living in the 60's before the Internet, since the watershed only applies to live TV and the children can see what they want when they want online.
You're not responding to what I'm saying, but just to what you seem to imagine I'm saying, so I'm not going to waste my time on this point any more.Censorship is removing content. If children experience bad things, the lack of bad things in their books will not compensate. After all, it is very obviousl that books do not contain a complete description of life - how many books (even for adults) mention characters using the toilet or menstruating? While it might be possible to compensate for a bad home environment by depicting alternatives, censorship does not do this.Wait, what? Censoring the books means that those children will see only what their parents show them? Are you suggesting that censoring the books will change what their parents will allow them to see? Because if not, then the only difference taking a few words out of a book will make is that the kids won't see those words. And if the words are things we don't want them to see then where's the problem with that? I'm not sure what point you're making here, at all.
If you censor the books, then those children will see only what their parents show them, which does not help at all.
Re your last para - well obviously, I'm not arguing otherwise. But leaving that language in a children's book, without comment or discussion, is not in any way facing up to it, it's just continuing it.It is utterly futile to try as it is deeply embedded in human nature, leading to people thought of as good in one aspect to also being thought of as good in another aspect. It works just as well for bad as for good. The opinion of a hero is often given more weight. An author, musician, etc having done bad things is often seen as making their work unacceptable.Well, I'm fairly sure that I personally am not going to break the link between ugly and bad but do you really think that just because it's widespread we shouldn't try? I mean, sexism is pretty widespread too so tell you what, I'll just sit back and let the men get on with it because why bother, it's everywhere.And if you think that you can break the link between ugly and bad, you're far too late: From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ugly -
What we can do is recognise the phenomenon and try to compensate. This requires facing up to it - not trying to hide it.
Exactly.bagpuss wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:22 amRe your last para - well obviously, I'm not arguing otherwise. But leaving that language in a children's book, without comment or discussion, is not in any way facing up to it, it's just continuing it.Millennie Al wrote:It is utterly futile to try as it is deeply embedded in human nature, leading to people thought of as good in one aspect to also being thought of as good in another aspect. It works just as well for bad as for good. The opinion of a hero is often given more weight. An author, musician, etc having done bad things is often seen as making their work unacceptable.bagpuss wrote:
Well, I'm fairly sure that I personally am not going to break the link between ugly and bad but do you really think that just because it's widespread we shouldn't try? I mean, sexism is pretty widespread too so tell you what, I'll just sit back and let the men get on with it because why bother, it's everywhere.
What we can do is recognise the phenomenon and try to compensate. This requires facing up to it - not trying to hide it.
Well this is obvious bollocks for adults, let alone children. Ever watched Schitt's Creek? It's a TV series set in a world where (spoilers) a man ends up marrying another man, and they deliberately designed it so that there is never any hint of homophobia. It just doesn't exist in the world. The absence of "grittiness" or "realism" in the series does nothing to deflect from the quality of the show, which is great, and the writers' refusal to include homophobia has, in fact, made life slightly happier for quite a few gay people who've watched it. It doesn't prevent homophobia from happening (well, actually, it does a little bit), it doesn't remove the awfulness of having to suffer it, but it does create a space where, for a while, people can enjoy something without having to think about it. It does compensate.Millennie Al wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 3:31 am If children experience bad things, the lack of bad things in their books will not compensate.
That series is not a result of censorship. It did not start by being written with homophobia and then have the homophobic bits cut out. It's far more than merely refusing to include homophobia, which can be done by simply not haveing any refernce to homosexuality at all in a work, which would greatly please the homophobes.El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:05 amWell this is obvious bollocks for adults, let alone children. Ever watched Schitt's Creek? It's a TV series set in a world where (spoilers) a man ends up marrying another man, and they deliberately designed it so that there is never any hint of homophobia. It just doesn't exist in the world. The absence of "grittiness" or "realism" in the series does nothing to deflect from the quality of the show, which is great, and the writers' refusal to include homophobia has, in fact, made life slightly happier for quite a few gay people who've watched it. It doesn't prevent homophobia from happening (well, actually, it does a little bit), it doesn't remove the awfulness of having to suffer it, but it does create a space where, for a while, people can enjoy something without having to think about it. It does compensate.Millennie Al wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 3:31 am If children experience bad things, the lack of bad things in their books will not compensate.
What about those "others" that are reading the books? The fat child, the Jewish child? Do you think they needed storytelling to expose them to the cruelty of humanity?lpm wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:52 amIt does matter.El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:37 am Meh. It's a battle between capitalism and public sentiment. If Philip Pullman is right that Dahl is best left to the past and new authors should be allowed the limelight, and if the public over time agree with him, then book sales will decline. Dahl's estate and the publishers don't want that, so here we are.
Can't really summon up much energy to give a sh.t about it to be honest. Most people won't notice or care. It doesn't matter.
It is Orwellian, in the 1984 sense of trying to change words to change reality. That anti-semitism ceases to exist if a sentence disappears from a page and that bullying jibes won't happen in schools if bullying words are erased. Imagine believing a fat boy won't be bullied in the playground if Augustus Gloop is now described as "enormous". That racist kids won't discover racist abuse if the BFG's cloak is no longer black.
It's storytelling that determines the world and young children need to be exposed, in tiny doses, to the cruelty of humanity. Move on from Sparkle the Unicorn having fun with her friends. Get an inoculation to tyranny and evil through seeing Trunchball abusing children and being defeated. It's not nice but it's totally necessary.
Thomas Bowdler wanted to obscure the sexuality and rudeness of Shakespeare from his family, concealing the existence of things like prostitution and female sexual desire. We mock the Victorians for it. So why would we want to repeat this in 2023, obscuring hatreds from our family and pretending nasty things don't happen? Children's books are all about good vs evil, getting more complex with age range with the goodies beginning to have flaws and the baddies beginning to have redeeming features, until teenagers get the full literary exploration of the nature of humanity. Not only is it pointless to interrupt this development, it's dangerous. Empathy with others comes with understanding others as they are, not seeing a sanitised version of others.
Sensitivity reading is fundamentally wrong as a concept.
Be realistic, how many children read or watch Shakespeare?lpm wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:10 pm What about them? A Jewish child will watch Merchant of Venice and learn more about anti-semitism from Shylock. A fat child will see Augustus Gloop going up the pipe and see the Oompa-Loompas singing a song mocking him. That's going to add to the context of how they themselves are bullied, or potentially could be bullied. It strengthens not weakens.
You see it with 4 year old children - they get cross and shout at the TV when someone is being mean to Rainbow Cat. As a species we are highly attuned to social cheating, social meanness and unfairness. This is what children's fiction is mostly about - bullies losing, people who are good society members winning.
OK then we are defining 'children' differently. The main Dahl demographic is considerably younger than teenagers studying for GCSE.lpm wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 1:29 pm All children watch Shakespeare? It's part of the syllabus, with it often being Merchant of Venice?
Children are far more perceptive than adults ever realise. They have extremely strong views on fairness aged 2, on society's rules aged 3 and meanness/bullying aged 4. They will absolutely react against prejudice from the good guys, perceiving it to be a character flaw.
There seems to be a view that a child's brain is empty, filled in by whatever comes there way. In fChildren's fiction is so important because it extends their social habitat from mere family/peers to the entire world.