11–20 of 201 posts
This is the moral and intellectual equal of the 14 year old girl who won’t sit with Suzy in the cafeteria because some of the other 14 year old girls think that Suzy is weird.
[0] https://arcdigital.media/self-censorship-in-the-academy-5241...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's even a movement to replace the term "Blacklist" with a less problematic words such as denylist or blocklist. Of course, "Whitelist" is just as problematic - if not moreso! - and should be replaced with allowlist or safelist. Edit: The etymology of these words have nothing to do with skincolor, Blackness or Whiteness.
People talking about this want both terms to be replaced at the same time. To believe otherwise is a willful victimhood fantasy.
It's interesting that some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas, which is a step in the right direction.
People like Kunin are the conscience of our generation, daring to stand up to the mobs and tell the truth - a political act that conflicts with the Chicago Review's agenda. But it is the truth tellers, not the political enforcers, who will be acknowledged as heroes, as the future belongs to the truth, not to the political lie.
Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…
There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Review staff understand. The author understands. I would bet that you understand. Empty appeals to principle won't oblige society to give anyone a platform.
There's also an ongoing 'cultural revolution' in which older artistic creations are being reassesed by modern political correctness. (see the recent ebay and Dr. Seuss news for a most recent example) I find this "revisionism" frightening. I fear it'll continue to get worse. I hope it does not.
The Dr. Seuss estate decided not to publish some of his works anymore because they believed they were no longer appropriate. I stand by the right of a work's owner to say, "you know, I wish this hadn't been released and I've decided not to sell it."
According to wsj:
> Online marketplace eBay Inc. said it is working to prevent the resale of six Dr. Seuss books that were pulled earlier this week by the company in charge of the late author’s works because they contain offensive imagery.
"“we believe the essay does not align with Chicago Review’s editorial and political agenda.”" It's interesting that some academic literary magazines are now being forced to admit they have political agendas, which is a step in the right direction. People like Kunin are the conscience of our generation, daring to stand up to the mobs and tell the truth - a political act that conflicts with the Chicago Review's agenda.…
Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…
Yes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Rev…
Is there anyone that wants to defend this blacklisting of the author by the Chicago Review for writing this article [0]? That is, not to reconfirm that they do indeed have the right to do so, but to argue that they are right to do so? Maybe some of us can avoid this fate if we understand the grounds for it, since they decline to make it explicit. What did he say that was not just wrong, but so wrong that he should no…
Yes? I've just read the article. It's a collection of crypto-fascist dog whistles about race; it barely merits being called an opinion. (It is an example of why the academic personnel pool needs the thorough cleaning it's currently getting.) Anyone who declined to associate with the author would be right to do so. There aren't many people who don't understand what this kind of article is really about. The Chicago Rev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Dr. Seuss estate decided not to publish some of his works anymore because they believed they were no longer appropriate. I stand by the right of a work's owner to say, "you know, I wish this hadn't been released and I've decided not to sell it."
It's closer to "you know, I wish this hadn't been released and I've decided that no one should be able to sell their copies of it ." According to wsj: > Online marketplace eBay Inc. said it is working to prevent the resale of six Dr. Seuss books that were pulled earlier this week by the company in charge of the late author’s works because they contain offensive imagery.