Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 992 posts

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#811

Post by fogmourn »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #721
ominous wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There is an important piece missing from your analysis that has led you astray. There is this concept of the oppressor and the oppressed. In a patriarchy men as a whole oppress women. Individual men should not be judged by this but women will tend to stick together to avoid the high probability that men will mistreat them. In a white supremacist society white people as a whole oppress people of color. Again people of…

> Because of this you cannot simply reverse the roles and say “see replace cis people with women/blacks and it sounds terrible”. Because what you have done is replace the dominant class with the oppressed class. You’ve changed the whole meaning of the thing.

I think the point they are making is that cis and trans don't work in this sort of class analysis, as the two groups are in themselves too diverse. They have to be further divided into subgroups for this to make any sense.

For example, take the most controversial subset of the transgendered: transwomen, i.e. males who identify as women. Then compare to actual female women ("cis women") - it is obvious that this maps onto the existing feminist analysis of sex class, with males being the dominant class and females the oppressed class.

Which is what makes it so problematic when these males try to impose themselves upon the spaces of actual female women, as they're engaging in male dominance behaviour that wouldn't be considered acceptable by any other man. But because we have this false cis-trans oppression hierarchy being presented to defend this, it pulls the wool over many people's eyes to what is really happening.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#812

Post by alexvoda »

DonHopkins wrote: post #779
ominous wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their thread started with: > Sounds like a great book. A great book because "every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something". If you think it was a conversation to start with, you are simply wrong. It's closer to the delusions of someone who hypnotized themselves into their current worldview. It amuses me to engage in this way. I am very calm.

[flagged]

I believe there are far greater examples of sociopaths than those who have lost faith in humanity and desire to not prolong the agony of our own self destruction.

Hoping an AI destroys humanity and replaces it is a cynical and optimistic view because it encapsulates the hope that one of our creations will be able to do better than us when we prove each day that other than technological progress we have not made any other kind of progress.

Such a person would be described as a misanthrope, not a sociopath. I would even argue that due to the underlying hyperawareness of humanities selfinflicted suffering, a misanthrope is unlikely to be a sociopath.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#813

Post by bazoom42 »

pg_1234 wrote: post #804
chaostheory wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the world of Fahrenheit 451, Captain Beatty explains to Montag why books were banned. He says that before books were banned, they caused many societal problems. Beatty claimed that because there were so many different types of people in society, almost any book could be seen as offensive to any particular group of people. For this reason, authors began to water down their content so it was innocuous, and offended…

It really ought to be illegal to rewrite a book and portray it as the original authors work. If you want to make your version ... assuming copyright allows ... sure ... just don't pretend it is the work of the original author. Imagine if people did this to laws: "we re-wrote it to suit our prejudices, but since we published it as if it was the original work ... thats all ok ... right?"

Agree, although it gets tricky with translations.

For childrens litterature there is a tradition of re-tellings of classics. But this seem to present as the original, which is problematic.

Some jurisdictions have the concept of moral rigts, which mean you cannot alter an original work even if you own the copyright or it is public domain.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#814

Post by ominous »

williamvds wrote: post #728
ominous wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In case you don't realize it, your behavior in this thread is patronizing (telling people how they should behave), degrading (not directly talking to the commenter), and from a clear place of closed-mindedness (writing as if teaching truths to an AI, not discussing). Your lack of empathy makes me assume you haven't been through similar experiences as the commenter you're "replying", either because you're not visibly…

> Any case, the earlier commenter is not assuming cis people are terrible and transphobic and whatever.

It's worse than that. It assumes x people, by virtue of belonging to x group, actively perpetuate x-group-favouring-biases.

Otherwise, your comment is reasonable.

> degrading

I disagree with the degrading, as I am talking directly to the commenter by showing them how I react to what they commented. Did you miss a "hello dear x, (...), best, ominous"?

> patronizing (telling people how they should behave), (...), and from a clear place of closed-mindedness

I see what you mean, but I have no problems with that. I am not advocating that one is patronizing nor close-minded, nor do I consider myself as such. But if the reaction to "whites together are oppressors excluding the oppressed and perpetuating a status quo that favours whites" cannot be patronizing, what reaction do you allow?

It won't surprise you that from the countless impressions this "signal" for progressivism made on my screens, I reply to very little. This Sunday morning I took some time to do it. You read it, and start to focus on the form of it, the timing, what it may mean, etc, as if you saw me engaging this all the time. The poster I replied to, on the other hand, is like that full time. Read this bit [0]. The user is educated in these matters, backed by scholarship. It's a whole worldview. It's not the intuitively "You'll be making constant calculations on whether it's safe to show public displays of affection with your partner, or simply appear an act like you want to. The fears are exaggerated of course (we are all creatures of caution), but not unfounded, depending on where you live." that creatures of caution have, but rather a whole domain of knowledge that accumulates justifications for behaviours.

It isn't a scared person hiding in the comfort of a safe space. It is a culture learning to hate.

> So yes, short-term, it's nice to escape to a place where you don't have to do that. Long-term, it's healthier to not autosegregate, both for the queer and non-queer person. It helps normalise things.

I agree.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34856039

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#815

Post by ominous »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #737
williamvds wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you don't realize it, your behavior in this thread is patronizing (telling people how they should behave), degrading (not directly talking to the commenter), and from a clear place of closed-mindedness (writing as if teaching truths to an AI, not discussing). Your lack of empathy makes me assume you haven't been through similar experiences as the commenter you're "replying", either because you're not visibly…

Thank you. The way they are talking as if to someone else about me while pretending to reply is really patronizing, and I appreciate you pointing that out. Also this person has assumed I’m trying to fully isolate and that’s not even true. I’m out on social media and I have many cis followers. Everyone needs to have a refuge and I share who I am when I want to. But I also want people who see me without needing an expl…

> Everyone needs to have a refuge and I share who I am when I want to. But I also want people who see me without needing an explanation.

That's reasonable and I agree. And I am happy that you find it.

I do not assume you want to fully isolate. But you stated that when white people gather in a white supremacist culture, that is not ok. Neither is the culture homogeneus enough to be called "white supremacist", nor are white people to be prevented from gathering just by the fact that they are white.

Note: replace white with whatever other category du jour. Cis, non-vegan, right-handed, etc.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#816

Post by rayiner »

double2helix wrote: post #606

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…

> However I feel that it's going to far, for example I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a third of the way through because every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something. It made the story seem fake and unrealistic.

This is me with TV show and movie diversity. People in real life don’t sit down to dinner with an even proportion of Asians, Hispanics, white people and black people. I’m in an interracial marriage and day to day live involves less diversity than that.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#817

Post by throwaway1851 »

> You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth >You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and stick-out teeth

I’m somewhat amused that wonky noses, crooked mouths, and stick-out teeth are fair game — but double chins? No, that’s fat shaming.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#818

Post by sander27home »

This is essentially discriminating non-LGBTQ+. This will just trigger retaliation further down the road. We need proper education for tolerance of all sometime around age 14+ onwards. Not going full berserk redictionary everything on the planet.

Re: Hundreds of changes made to latest editions of Roald Dahl's books

#819

Post by Nevermark »

mdp2021 wrote: post #770
Nevermark wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the books, the very distasteful view of Russians is aimed at particular people and organizations within Russia. Not the general repressed public. That is worth remembering in the heat of war. Also, the books recognize that the motives of those powerful government (and government sponsored) organizations are implacable. They continuously worked in every way possible to undermine the power of other countries, vassal…

Yes in general, but it is more complex than that. There exists a "tzarism" component, there exist others. And an umbrella is theoretically possible where those components are solved - but I have not seen such umbrella developed.

I am not sure what you mean by “umbrella”.
Post reply on HN