Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8114770" data-attributes="member: 59082">That's exactly the kind of censoring approach I'm talking about. Not only does it want to replace everything with new, &quot;correct&quot; ideas and therefore erase history (you said so above...&quot;clear out crap&quot; and &quot;replace&quot;), but it is hostile to anything that doesn't fit within its formula. George Orwell wrote a great book about an extreme version of this.What is so wrong with leaving the historical record intact--including works of art that you find distasteful--and creating new works that tread the type of ground you want to see covered? Why &quot;Jane Bond&quot; rather than a new character, even one that is deliberately subversive of Bond's womanizing? Why not create a new &quot;Asian Adventures&quot; book rather than cancel the old? And perhaps more to the point, in terms of the underlying goals of learning from the past, why not keep the record intact so that we can see where we've come from and forge a better future? Isn't re-writing the past antithetical to learning from it?As for the bit I may be missing, I don't think that is a valid argument because it focuses on one aspect of a work and invalidates the whole for the part. Let's say an author writes a book that has some questionable bits that some people are offended by, but within the context of an overall good story, that may even have meaningful truths or advocating for other progressive elements. Should we judge it only by the questionable parts, focusing only on what it got &quot;wrong&quot; (according to our particular worldview) and write it off with any number of pejorative labels like racist or sexist, and thus ignoring the forest for the trees?Again, I'd like to hear you address the Zhao situation and tell me why its ok. It is a clear, concrete example of twitter/blog backlash and harm done to an author, for very dubious reasons, and from a very small number of people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8114770, member: 59082"] That's exactly the kind of censoring approach I'm talking about. Not only does it want to replace everything with new, "correct" ideas and therefore erase history (you said so above..."clear out crap" and "replace"), but it is hostile to anything that doesn't fit within its formula. George Orwell wrote a great book about an extreme version of this. What is so wrong with leaving the historical record intact--including works of art that you find distasteful--and creating new works that tread the type of ground you want to see covered? Why "Jane Bond" rather than a new character, even one that is deliberately subversive of Bond's womanizing? Why not create a new "Asian Adventures" book rather than cancel the old? And perhaps more to the point, in terms of the underlying goals of learning from the past, why not keep the record intact so that we can see where we've come from and forge a better future? Isn't re-writing the past antithetical to learning from it? As for the bit I may be missing, I don't think that is a valid argument because it focuses on one aspect of a work and invalidates the whole for the part. Let's say an author writes a book that has some questionable bits that some people are offended by, but within the context of an overall good story, that may even have meaningful truths or advocating for other progressive elements. Should we judge it only by the questionable parts, focusing only on what it got "wrong" (according to our particular worldview) and write it off with any number of pejorative labels like racist or sexist, and thus ignoring the forest for the trees? Again, I'd like to hear you address the Zhao situation and tell me why its ok. It is a clear, concrete example of twitter/blog backlash and harm done to an author, for very dubious reasons, and from a very small number of people. [/QUOTE]

Verification