901–910 of 992 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replacing evaluative concepts with sterilized descriptive ones is Newspeak 101.
Not so much sterilized as replacing things that sound odd and archaic. No one, literally no one is using "old hag" as insult. It is not a thing, it sounds funny rather then insult.
I'm guessing you've never met an English person then. Your grammar suggests this to be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thing with hogwarts legacy is that the minorities who are affected are like 1% of the population. There is not a single person anywhere in the world who is negatively affected by Hogwarts Legacy.
I don't understand the drama around that video game, and at this point, I don't think I want to understand what it's about. I did a few Internet searches and it's totally unclear what's wrong with the game, or what minorities are portrayed badly in it. The best I've come up with is: "The game is based on a fictional world written by an author who tweeted something bad, and even though the author has nothing to do wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They often describe eye color and hair color, which is very rarely pertinent to the plot, but nobody complains about that. I think because describing external characteristics is something that we all do as we experience the world. “That person has brown eyes. That person has red hair.” Are just part of moving through the world and I perceive this regardless of how consequential they are to the plot of life. Sharing…
I don't think it's unusual at all for fiction to describe internal characteristics of characters that aren't easily knowable. That happens pretty much any time a story tells you something about what a character is thinking or feeling. If you object to an author mentioning that a character is gay, it surely can't be because that's not a directly observable characteristic. You could cut The Portrait of a Lady down to a…
And there’s many reasons why an author will describe an internal characteristic and it’s usually either omniscient narrator or first person describing the assumptions that the narrator makes.
I’m not referring to that at all as those are natural and not weird at all. For example “I thought Hernando was gay because I’ve always just had a hunch.” Is different from “I walked into a room and saw four straight people and a gay person.” Without describing why the narrator things one person is gay. It’s as unusual as saying “I walked into a room and saw a person who loved almond milk.”
This is very different from an omniscient narrator and reveals these characteristics because the narrator knows all, internal and external.
In either case, hair and eye color is mentioned to help the reader picture the character in their minds eye. It serves a general purpose other than to serve the plot.
My example of Lost is not because I object to Haitians in tv. It’s because the show has the characters know something they have no reason to know, another character’s nationality. I think the intention was to be nice and not have to say “hand it to the black guy” and replaced it with “hand it to the Haitian.” guy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well now that you've written it, it shall be hallucinated, at the very least.
This is true, now more than ever I wonder how humans will fight back against the ever watchful eye of AI. The mops are wet with moon drapes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d grant that benefit of the doubt if the rest of the thread wasn’t so illuminating on how HN feels about “woke” and how apparently a modicum of sensitivity towards historically disadvantaged minorities is the end of civilization.
I heard a new banger quote from John Stuart Mill the other day: > He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. There's an easy test to see if you understand someone's position in a disagreement. Just summarize their position back to them. They'll tell you if you got it right. > a modicum of sensitivity towards historically disadvantaged minorities is the end of civilization. This absolutely isn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's unusual at all for fiction to describe internal characteristics of characters that aren't easily knowable. That happens pretty much any time a story tells you something about what a character is thinking or feeling. If you object to an author mentioning that a character is gay, it surely can't be because that's not a directly observable characteristic. You could cut The Portrait of a Lady down to a…
First, I don’t object to an author mentioning that a character is gay. And there’s many reasons why an author will describe an internal characteristic and it’s usually either omniscient narrator or first person describing the assumptions that the narrator makes. I’m not referring to that at all as those are natural and not weird at all. For example “I thought Hernando was gay because I’ve always just had a hunch.” Is…
I'm a gay man and I think we are going to far with this PC nonsense. I had a hard time growing up in the 90s knowing I was different and being tormented by my peers, so I'm happy to see gay "normalized" in current pop culture more because I think it teaches the younger generation to accept themselves and others. However I feel that it's going to far, for example I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a t…
I sincerely doubt any value was lost in any of these edits the publishers have made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "E.T.: The Extraterrestrial" is a classic coming-of-age story of a gay man in the modern world. I don't know a single actual person who saw the film in that light. I can find references to the hypothesis online, but it seems like an incredible reach to me. More like an excellent demonstration of the human brain's ability to see patterns everywhere, even when they don't actually exist. E.g. conspiracy theories. > "B…
https://youtu.be/1it8-y4gWwg Activist cast and crew. Especially Elizabeth Montgomery and Dick Sargent. No mistaking it. Agnes Moorehead and Paul Lynde are gay icons from before anyone could be gay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my thought. Reading about all the changes had me looking askance at Roald Dahl: it's like, sheesh, somebody's far more edgy than they really needed to be. But that's who that guy was. That's what came out when he set out to be edgy. Removing it, you might as well write a different book. Misrepresenting who the guy is in order to sugar-coat him seems not the right approach, to me. So if you do that, you shoul…
> you should DEFINITELY edit Harry Potter to get the terfliness out of it Have you actually read Harry Potter? What are you referring to within the books? Rowling was a progressive darling for years until she expressed disallowed sentiments outside of her fiction writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder when will they start editing Harry Potter, what with the Dursleys being caricature fatsos = villains.
Knowing the author, she'd probably try to update the book to make Dursley trans.
If I were you I would revise this to "having read some recent shallow hit pieces about the author".