201–210 of 992 posts
> A most formidable female -> A most formidable woman What is the reasoning for this? Not following what is "wrong" in the original.
What kind of a dystopian nightmare society thinks it’s a good idea to alter works after the fact :(
It turns out that Dahl was a real antisemite, to me that is more of an issue: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/dec/06/roald-dahl-fam...
It seems like fretting over the occasional artist that’s been “outed” is a convenient way to pretend that rest of them are somehow saints, when in reality nearly all of them have likely said awful things and treated people quite terribly sometimes. While exceptions might be made for egregious offenders, often the only real difference between the two groups is a lack of visibility into their personal lives. So why get so invested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. References to brothers or sisters, or mothers or fathers, is offensive to nonbinary people? In all seriousness, not trying to start a flame war, why is that? Is a reference to hair offensive to a bald person?
[flagged]
I think the reason here is pretty simple: Turning someone into patient for life is profitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree; the issue here is more than there's a Monkey Christ level of literary competence that went into these changes (and also what seems like much, much too much ambition about what to change).
I agree to a certain degree, the scope and fairly transparent agenda of the changes definitely make it more of a problem. I'm still put off by the project. I guess there's probably a small set of edits you could make that would be beneficial and not lose the original tone. I'm not convinced of the value of that project but maybe I could get behind it.
I'd be interested in hearing the most credible/reputable sources speaking out in favor of these changes. I've exclusively seen commentators dunking on this (rightfully so), across the political spectrum. To be clear: I'm wondering if we can find specific people speaking up for this, not an analysis of whose side of the culture war is most culpable for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? I think you have to kind of want it to be gendered.
Screeching is usually associated with high pitched sounds and that is associated with women, to the point men making loud high pitched noises usually gets called "screamed like little girl". I guess babies also count for screeching.
To determine the meaning of every word as they've ever been and attempt to remove any that have ever been used in a way that could've upset anyone ever, just makes sure those words will continue to upset people and be painful. There are words with stronger denotations that would take generations to heal but these are words and concepts that the children of today might not even recognize. Should we attempt to solidify pain by hiding truth? Or would it be better to let the youngins change things the way they always do.
If you take their words, they'll just make more. And those new words will not have the ambiguity of our current language.