the pussification of the west rolls on....

[Mike70]

this time it is "huck finn." editing it to remove "offensive words", how many ways can you spell bullshit??

i could go on and on about this crap but won't.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700

[bassman]

Although I don't necessarily agree with it....I can't say I'm surprised. Times change, for better or for worse. It's like that whole Twin Towers fiasco years back or the anti-smoking thing. You want to go back and change things from LONG before because it's different now? Ugh. :rolleyes:

I had a co-worker telling me the other day that it's now offensive to use the word "deaf"? When the fuck did this happen?!?

[darth los]

i still use the word midget, which I'm told offends people as well. Oh well. :rolleyes:

But yeah. Censorship is never a good thing. There's plenty of white supremacist prpaganda out there that I find disgusting and you know what? I don't read it.

I find the N word and any racial epithet to be beyond reprehensible. With that said, I don't think we should even start a trend of censoring words that people find offensive. In the end they are just word. However, if it offends you that much, then don't read it.

I consider literature to be an art as well. If you alter the work it is no longer illustrating the vision as the author intended. So, imo, without the N word as bad as that is. It is no longer Huckleberry Finn.

So let's get this straight. You can show children pictures of a penis and vagina but the N word is just too much?

Ni**ga pleeze.

:cool:

[Danny]

i still use the word midget, which I'm told offends people as well. Oh well. :rolleyes:

My cousin shane is a midget and he loses his shit when people call him a dwarf, his usual response is "do i look like some fantasy fucking creature that mines for mithril in the deep places of the earth?" and he says calling him a dwarf feels like calling a gay person a fairy and he finds it pretty insulting, like its in the same grouping as elf, gnome and munchkin.

[AcesandEights]

Can't stand this shit! Normally I'm not such a grumpy old man about such things, but it's defacing art in my book. It's not even historical revisionism in the sense that it's looking at something using new evidence or a different perspective, it's just fat old revisionism; mind control by media etc.

[Legion2213]

This is classic literature of historical value, I question the rights of anybody to fuck around with this kind of thing...and I find their interfearence and revisionism FAR more offensive than ANY unpleasant words. :mad:

They'll be gunning for Dawn of the Dead next, after all "chocolate man" is surely a racist comment...

[AcesandEights]

This is classic literature of historical value, I question the rights of anybody to fuck around with this kind of thing...and I find their interfearence and revisionism FAR more offensive than ANY unpleasant words. :mad:

I completely agree. This whole thing reminds me of that dim-minded hullabaloo over the word niggardly.


They'll be gunning for Dawn of the Dead next, after all "chocolate man" is surely a racist comment...

Not if Ray Nagin were to have said it.

Did I get in under the wire of topicality on that, or is it too last-presidential-administration?

[Mike70]

I completely agree. This whole thing reminds me of that dim-minded hullabaloo over the word niggardly.

that was one of the most truly ignorant things i've have witnessed in my 40 years. words...fail...

[Legion2213]

I completely agree. This whole thing reminds me of that dim-minded hullabaloo over the word niggardly.



Not if Ray Nagin were to have said it.

Did I get in under the wire of topicality on that, or is it too last-presidential-administration?

Niggardly. We had the same crap in the UK over "Nitty Gritty"...Jesus H frigging Christ, don't these pointless fucktards have anything better to do than to try and erase history and language?

God how I hate these kind of busy-bodies.

[Trin]

When the fruit did this happen?!?
I fixed it for ya.

[darth los]

Not if Ray Nagin were to have said it.

Did I get in under the wire of topicality on that, or is it too last-presidential-administration?

Nope. Mayor of New orleans/ katrina. Some of us actually watch the news. :D


This is classic literature of historical value, I question the rights of anybody to fuck around with this kind of thing...and I find their interfearence and revisionism FAR more offensive than ANY unpleasant words. :mad:

They'll be gunning for Dawn of the Dead next, after all "chocolate man" is surely a racist comment...

This is not new buddy. It seems that even bad ass texas is not exempt from this pussification either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/education/21textbooks.html

:cool:

[Trin]

They'll be gunning for Dawn of the Dead next, after all "chocolate man" is surely a racist comment...
I maintain that if "chocolate man" is really meant to be a racial slur then its the wussiest racial slur ever and is likely called names by the other racial slurs.

[Mike70]

I maintain that if "chocolate man" is really meant to be a racial slur then its the wussiest racial slur ever and is likely called names by the other racial slurs.

:lol:

totally agree. as insults/slurs go, calling someone "chocolate man" ranks right up there with "four-eyes." in short, it sounds like something a kid would come up with.

[darth los]

I submit that something can't be a racial slur if the group it;s directed at use it to refer to themselves.

:cool:

[MikePizzoff]

I had a co-worker telling me the other day that it's now offensive to use the word "deaf"? When the fuck did this happen?!?

That never happened, acutally; your co-worker is an idiot.

[Trin]

I think there is a very interesting and relevant question to be asked here. Is the book having the same impact and response today that it had when it was originally published, or have the changes in how our words are perceived so substantively changed as to have changed the meaning of the book?

Taking an example from a slightly (only slightly) less volatile topic, if someone wrote a book about "zombies" in the forties and we read it today the impact would be different because we think of zombies very differently today. Would it be right or wrong to issue a revised version of the book to reflect modern uses of words?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Sorry but fucking with American literature just because it uses the word "Nigger" is beyond ludicrous. This was the language of the time, derogatory or not.... I mean the books are set in the south, the south wasn't exactly black friendly back in the day, not that the south is totally black friendly today either....The jackasses who are raping the literature can suck a MIDGETS cock and I don't care to hear anymore of this because it is now falling on DEAF ears

[AcesandEights]

The jackasses who are raping the literature can suck a MIDGETS cock and I don't care to hear anymore of this because it is now falling on DEAF ears

Extra points for tying in elements from earlier posts :lol:

I'm just glad other people see this as being completely absurd, as well.

[shootemindehead]

Ah, I fuckin laugh.

Seriously though, this stuff has been around for longer than you'd think. Agatha Christie's book 'Ten Little Niggers' had to be changed to 'Ten Little Indians' years ago because of old maids hairpulling and pissing and moaning about a whole host of racist accusations. Of course 'Ten Little Niggers' had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race. In fact the only...ahem "niggers" in the story where the figures at the centre of U.N. Owen's table.

The situation has plagued Mark Twain's classic for years too. It isn't the first time this has been talked about. But he'll always be Nigger Jim to me. What people seem to miss, is that that name is EXTREMELY important in the book as it highlights the boys nature toward Jim. However, whereas changing the tile of Christie's excellent little thriller did nothing to harm the story, changing Jim would weaken Twain's story considerably. To me the impact of the word nigger is a good one.

I personally think it's a sin (if I can use such a word) to change the content of these great classics.

[blind2d]

I'm mentally comparing 'Slave Jim' to 'N*gger Jim' here... doesn't have nearly the same ring, if nothing else. I think Twain chose that name for a reason... People get so uptight about language, it's kind of funny to me... While at the same time being a little sad... but I'm tired...

[Legion2213]

To replace the word nigger with slave is pure stupidity.

Slaves can be of any race, I believe Twain's book deals with black slaves and the treatment of black folks in general.

It's a bit like people who try to label muslims as semites so they can claim anti-semitism...a distortion of the true meaning of the term.

As an aside, I'd bet my left bollock that the guy who released this sanitized version is as white as I am...just another do-gooder who knows whats best for other people.

[shootemindehead]

"It's a bit like people who try to label muslims as semites so they can claim anti-semitism...a distortion of the true meaning of the term."

Emmm, that's not exactly true. Muslims whose racial background is Semetic are Semites. But that doesn't mean that ALL Muslims are. People who convert to the Muslim religion, or Muslims from some African or Indonisian regions wouldn't be classed as Semites. But Muslims with a Middle Eastern and North African background certainly would.

Just because Jews are the most vocal group who claim to be discriminated against on the basis of "anti-semitism", doesn't mean they are the only Semetic people. Hebrews are only one of many Semitic peoples.

[blind2d]

Yeah... how about we don't even bring up religion or non-American culture for this one, yeah? Sound good to everyone? Right, moving on...
Changing words in a book that's been around for longer than anyone doing the changing has been alive is kind of... I have a problem with that... as long as this doesn't turn into a 1984 situation...

[BillyRay]

http://www.boingboing.net/ttdb/ttdb20110112/comic.png