|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 0:47:33 GMT
What does that mean in this context? You think that the publishers should have held a national referendum before changing a few words in their books? It was you that that claimed 'society deemed unacceptable' Dahl's literature, nobody else. And it appears that the publisher's have U-turned on this as 'society deemed it unacceptable' to edit Dahl's work and sell this Orwellian piece of work solely to the public. The publishers will now also sell Dahl's original classic work to the public after society deemed their initial Orwellian move as unacceptable. No, some high profile people spoke out and the publishers responded. It's not likely to change things generally, though. I remember controversy a long time ago about characters being changed in popular comics. This happens. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to do. I don't think they changed those characters for any reason other than they thought they no longer reflected modern thinking. And there was never anything Orwellian about what the publishers proposed to do with Dahl's work. You're just another semi-literate who doesn't understand Orwell's writings. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 28, 2023 0:55:05 GMT
It was you that that claimed 'society deemed unacceptable' Dahl's literature, nobody else. And it appears that the publisher's have U-turned on this as 'society deemed it unacceptable' to edit Dahl's work and sell this Orwellian piece of work solely to the public. The publishers will now also sell Dahl's original classic work to the public after society deemed their initial Orwellian move as unacceptable. No, some high profile people spoke out and the publishers responded. It's not likely to change things generally, though. I remember controversy a long time ago about characters being changed in popular comics. This happens. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to do. I don't think they changed those characters for any reason other than they thought they no longer reflected modern thinking. And there was never anything Orwellian about what the publishers proposed to do with Dahl's work. You're just another semi-literate who doesn't understand Orwell's work. The publishers rightly faced a public backlash for editing Dahl's work to Orwellian levels, after taking advice from some weird group about what words were deemed offensive to people. Their position has changed as they will not only sell Dahl's edited work, but his original classics too. The consumers will decide what is best reflected for them when they purchase the books. Not people like you. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 0:56:57 GMT
No, some high profile people spoke out and the publishers responded. It's not likely to change things generally, though. I remember controversy a long time ago about characters being changed in popular comics. This happens. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to do. I don't think they changed those characters for any reason other than they thought they no longer reflected modern thinking. And there was never anything Orwellian about what the publishers proposed to do with Dahl's work. You're just another semi-literate who doesn't understand Orwell's work. The publishers rightly faced a public backlash for editing Dahl's work to Orwellian levels, after taking advice from some weird group about what words that were deemed offensive to people. Their position has changed as they will not only sell Dahl's edited work, but his original classics too. The consumers will decide what is best reflected for them when they purchase the books. Not people like you. I've no interest. I don't even care whether they make the changes, Johnny. I was simply pointing out the very obvious fact that there was nothing sinister about what they proposed to do. Stick to the Daily Mail in future. Orwell is way above your abilities. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 28, 2023 1:14:25 GMT
The publishers rightly faced a public backlash for editing Dahl's work to Orwellian levels, after taking advice from some weird group about what words that were deemed offensive to people. Their position has changed as they will not only sell Dahl's edited work, but his original classics too. The consumers will decide what is best reflected for them when they purchase the books. Not people like you. I've no interest. I don't even care whether they make the changes, Johnny. I was simply pointing out the very obvious fact that there was nothing sinister about what they proposed to do. Stick to the Daily Mail in future. Orwell is way above your abilities. Given your desire to debate your fringe points in this thread over five pages, it seems you did actually care. Until, 'society deemed it unacceptable' to stop publishing Dahl's original work. Now, you'll just have to find another contrarian fringe point view to demonstrate sense is lost on you again. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 28, 2023 9:08:41 GMT
“ After a complaint in the U.S. from the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People, he changed the colour of the Oompa Loompas from black to white and cut the passage about them emerging ‘from the very deepest and darkest part of the jungle where no white man had ever been before’”
Oh for fucks sake 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 28, 2023 10:11:33 GMT
It was you that that claimed 'society deemed unacceptable' Dahl's literature, nobody else. And it appears that the publisher's have U-turned on this as 'society deemed it unacceptable' to edit Dahl's work and sell this Orwellian piece of work solely to the public. The publishers will now also sell Dahl's original classic work to the public after society deemed their initial Orwellian move as unacceptable. No, some high profile people spoke out and the publishers responded. It's not likely to change things generally, though. I remember controversy a long time ago about characters being changed in popular comics. This happens. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to do. I don't think they changed those characters for any reason other than they thought they no longer reflected modern thinking. And there was never anything Orwellian about what the publishers proposed to do with Dahl's work. You're just another semi-literate who doesn't understand Orwell's writings. I have not mentioned Orwell. It seems what is 'deemed' in Society is now down to high profile people. You are still confusing what a Publisher can do, which is entirely up to them, and what Society 'deems unacceptable'. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 10:28:36 GMT
No, some high profile people spoke out and the publishers responded. It's not likely to change things generally, though. I remember controversy a long time ago about characters being changed in popular comics. This happens. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to do. I don't think they changed those characters for any reason other than they thought they no longer reflected modern thinking. And there was never anything Orwellian about what the publishers proposed to do with Dahl's work. You're just another semi-literate who doesn't understand Orwell's writings. I have not mentioned Orwell. It seems what is 'deemed' in Society is now down to high profile people. You are still confusing what a Publisher can do, which is entirely up to them, and what Society 'deems unacceptable'. I don't imagine it's an exact science. At some point, the publishers of those comics thought this isn't in line with the times and changed things. Funnily enough, we're all still here. Society didn't fall apart. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 10:35:00 GMT
No, some high profile people spoke out and the publishers responded. It's not likely to change things generally, though. I remember controversy a long time ago about characters being changed in popular comics. This happens. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to do. I don't think they changed those characters for any reason other than they thought they no longer reflected modern thinking. And there was never anything Orwellian about what the publishers proposed to do with Dahl's work. You're just another semi-literate who doesn't understand Orwell's work. The publishers rightly faced a public backlash for editing Dahl's work to Orwellian levels, after taking advice from some weird group about what words were deemed offensive to people. Their position has changed as they will not only sell Dahl's edited work, but his original classics too. The consumers will decide what is best reflected for them when they purchase the books. Not people like you. They didn't edit to Orwellian levels. That's already been explained to you. In Orwell's 1984, those in charge retold history. They said that they had been at war with X, when in fact they had fought a war against a completely different country. Anyone who contradicted this lie was subject to the death penalty. Your fevered little imagination has made changing a few words in a book to improve the well-being of some children comparable. It doesn't even come close. Try reading a book occasionally, Johnny. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 28, 2023 11:28:25 GMT
Bullshit My Noddy and big ears battled golliwogs The Little Match girl died The Little Mermaid didn’t have a happy ending My mid sixties copies of bond novels which i read in my very early teens referred to black men in ways Channel Four refuse to allow a war hero’s dog to be referred to YOU may have been brought up in a safe space. My parents alliwed me to see reality And i repeat what i said earlier. Disney happily disneyfied various stories to get a U rating for their films. I dont mind that because there is a bloody great disclaimer ‘BASED ON’ in tbe small print. Walt never intended his versions of the story to have the original ending and we all know that YOU said because he did that, it is ok to censor the original and present it AS the original, erasing the original from history. No it is not And as the publishers have found out, i am far from alone in wanting literature available as the author intended it to be not as some woke shithead thinks they should be allowed to pretend it was. Here here, well said. Sadly, fragile snowflake types cant cope with nursery rhymes and wonderful fairy stories that generations before them grew up with. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 11:33:10 GMT
Bullshit My Noddy and big ears battled golliwogs The Little Match girl died The Little Mermaid didn’t have a happy ending My mid sixties copies of bond novels which i read in my very early teens referred to black men in ways Channel Four refuse to allow a war hero’s dog to be referred to YOU may have been brought up in a safe space. My parents alliwed me to see reality And i repeat what i said earlier. Disney happily disneyfied various stories to get a U rating for their films. I dont mind that because there is a bloody great disclaimer ‘BASED ON’ in tbe small print. Walt never intended his versions of the story to have the original ending and we all know that YOU said because he did that, it is ok to censor the original and present it AS the original, erasing the original from history. No it is not And as the publishers have found out, i am far from alone in wanting literature available as the author intended it to be not as some woke shithead thinks they should be allowed to pretend it was. Here here, well said. Sadly, fragile snowflake types cant cope with nursery rhymes and wonderful fairy stories that generations before them grew up with. I don't mean to edit, Red, but it's hear, hear. I'm very sensitive to this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 28, 2023 11:51:31 GMT
The publishers rightly faced a public backlash for editing Dahl's work to Orwellian levels, after taking advice from some weird group about what words were deemed offensive to people. Their position has changed as they will not only sell Dahl's edited work, but his original classics too. The consumers will decide what is best reflected for them when they purchase the books. Not people like you. They didn't edit to Orwellian levels. That's already been explained to you. In Orwell's 1984, those in charge retold history. They said that they had been at war with X, when in fact they had fought a war against a completely different country. Anyone who contradicted this lie was subject to the death penalty. Your fevered little imagination has made changing a few words in a book to improve the well-being of some children comparable. It doesn't even come close. Try reading a book occasionally, Johnny. Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia Is that really the best you can do Your argument was comprehensively nuked six or more posts ago. Because no matter how you try to spin it, you are trying to say a censored book is the same as the original. And that is simply a lie I think you should quit while the sides of the hole you are digging are not so steep you cannot climb out. And by the way, you should read Lady Chatterley’s Lover. It took me less than the first chapter to realise it was a tale of tax evasion. But then i’ve been trained to read, comprehend and critically analyse. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 11:56:38 GMT
They didn't edit to Orwellian levels. That's already been explained to you. In Orwell's 1984, those in charge retold history. They said that they had been at war with X, when in fact they had fought a war against a completely different country. Anyone who contradicted this lie was subject to the death penalty. Your fevered little imagination has made changing a few words in a book to improve the well-being of some children comparable. It doesn't even come close. Try reading a book occasionally, Johnny. Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia Is that really the best you can do Your argument was comprehensively nuked six or more posts ago I think you should quit while the sides of the hole you are digging are not so steep you cannot climb out. That's all I need to do, Johnny. It's a false comparison, that's all there is to it. And I repeat: you have a ghoulish obsession with executing people and you campaigned on behalf of an overtly racist political party. You are no advertisement for the benefits of 'traditional' children's stories. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 28, 2023 12:43:30 GMT
Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia Is that really the best you can do Your argument was comprehensively nuked six or more posts ago I think you should quit while the sides of the hole you are digging are not so steep you cannot climb out. That's all I need to do, Johnny. It's a false comparison, that's all there is to it. And I repeat: you have a ghoulish obsession with executing people and you campaigned on behalf of an overtly racist political party. You are no advertisement for the benefits of 'traditional' children's stories. Ah, splendid. You can’t win the argument so you resort to ad hom attacks hoping an attack against me will reduce or neutralise tge impact of my analysis in the minds if others Classic. I take my point in an earlier thread back. Please keep digging because this is fucking hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Feb 28, 2023 14:16:49 GMT
That's all I need to do, Johnny. It's a false comparison, that's all there is to it. And I repeat: you have a ghoulish obsession with executing people and you campaigned on behalf of an overtly racist political party. You are no advertisement for the benefits of 'traditional' children's stories. Ah, splendid. You can’t win the argument so you resort to ad hom attacks hoping an attack against me will reduce or neutralise tge impact of my analysis in the minds if others Classic. I take my point in an earlier thread back. Please keep digging because this is fucking hilarious. The BNP are racists and bullies. It stands to reason that you would be opposed to measures that curb racism or bullying. That's called logic, Johnny. And logic is not only a valid tool when presenting an argument, it is considered the optimal tool. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 28, 2023 16:14:19 GMT
Again, more ad hom attacks because you cannot deal with the fact your stance that a censored book is the same as an uncensored one is twaddle.
Like i said, stop fucking digging
Or get tinculin to no-platform me.
Isn’t that your logical next step since you can’t face being shown the error in your logic !
|
|
