Oft times PC bullshit goes too far

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

selena, my darling, although I do understand your gut reaction to historical revisionism, which I despise, I'm with PD on this one. This wasn't a "PC" decision, it was a "health decision" based on information that has been available for some time. It wasn't 60 years ago. This is a *children's* book, and obviously a good one, or the anniversary wouldn't be celebrated. Children are powerfully affected by books, as they should be. Seeing a cigarette in the hand of an author of a beloved book gives them the subliminal message that smoking is approved by this author, recommended by this author, and will carry more weight than the people saying "smoking is bad for you."

There is, in fact, "harm" in publishing the photograph today as it was. The removal of the cigarette does not alter the image of the author. It just removes any potential harm to children. I support that.

Bullshit.

It is revisionist.

If it was my child and the picture had the guy with the cigarette, it gives me the perfect opportunity to point out to my child that at one time in our history smoking was very popular but nowadays we mostly know better.

Framing it as "removing potential harm" from the children is no different then the shit Congress and the Moral minority put out there in the name of "it's to protect the children".

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Bullshit.

It is revisionist.

If it was my child and the picture had the guy with the cigarette, it gives me the perfect opportunity to point out to my child that at one time in our history smoking was very popular but nowadays we mostly know better.

Framing it as "removing potential harm" from the children is no different then the shit Congress and the Moral minority put out there in the name of "it's to protect the children".

I *know* it's revisionist...that's why I called it that.

And sure, *you'd* have a nice talk with your child. Some would. Some...would not.

Severe knee-jerk reaction on being put in the same class as the "Moral Majority," et al...so I'll have to ponder and get back to you when the smoke clears. I sure as hell hope we haven't gotten to the point where every time somebody says "we're doing this to protect kids" they have to defend themselves against being in league with the demon-fuckers in the Moral Majority.

I had to fight to get some "protect yourself against sexual abuse" programs through the schools. A teacher took me aside and told me why. The "religious right" didn't want their kids empowered to speak up for themselves and make their own decisions. I think it took three days to get my dropped jaw up off the floor.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Bullshit.

It is revisionist.

If it was my child and the picture had the guy with the cigarette, it gives me the perfect opportunity to point out to my child that at one time in our history smoking was very popular but nowadays we mostly know better.

Framing it as "removing potential harm" from the children is no different then the shit Congress and the Moral minority put out there in the name of "it's to protect the children".

Oh, that's a lovely word - revisionist.

Right wing bobbleheads and their fellow travellers love it dearly - so dearly that they keep using it over and over and over again until people quit hearing it and it loses all meaning.

The photograph in question depicts the illustrator of a children's book. Since the only thing removed from the photo was a cigarette, absolutely nothing of any significance was changed except the fact that the illustrator was a smoker.

Where's the foul?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Oh, that's a lovely word - revisionist.

Right wing bobbleheads and their fellow travellers love it dearly - so dearly that they keep using it over and over and over again until people quit hearing it and it loses all meaning.

The photograph in question depicts the illustrator of a children's book. Since the only thing removed from the photo was a cigarette, absolutely nothing of any significance was changed except the fact that the illustrator was a smoker.

Where's the foul?

the foul is changing history to match present day realizations.

What really is the difference between that and removing the word "nigger" from Huckleberry Fin? I mean Huckleberry Finn is pretty much a book read by kids, not as young as the book in question, but still, it is a kid's book.

Why don't we just remove reference to all things that happened in our country that we didn't like because our kids might be harmed by the idea of it.

No matter what age you start doing it, it is revising history to match what we would like it to have been instead of what it was.