Banning certain words, images...

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
I keep hearing certain pinhead groups are attempting to have this or that banned, because it is 'offensive' or 'insensitive' to others, usually some minority group. While it's okay that homosexuals hijacked the word "gay" and made it preferable that any number of other names we had commonly used, the rest of us are supposed to cleanse society of all the other words to describe a homosexual, because it is viewed as 'wrong' to use them. Who died and gave homosexuals the right to decide which words mean what? It's very queer indeed.

There is the movement to remove the N-word from Huck Finn. Replace it with "slave" and this is somehow supposed to be less offensive. And of course, there is my favorite one... the movement to get rid of the Confederate flag. Now, make no mistake about what I am posting this for... it's not to get into some meaningless debate of the Civil War or history, I can thoroughly pwn anyone here on that topic anyway, this is more than that. I don't have any problem with a state voting to remove the Confederate battle flag from their state flag, or a school's student body to vote and rename their mascot who carries a Confederate flag.. That's fine, it's democracy, and the way society should function, in my opinion.

My interest in discussion, is the reason people believe that erasing parts of our past, our legacy, our history, is a good thing for society, ultimately? I can grasp the whole 'offensive' thing, and I understand that.. but to remove something from sight, to erase it from books, is the antithesis of knowledge, isn't it? How can we advance culturally, if we deny our past, or the uncomfortable parts of it? We have to empower ourselves with knowledge and understanding of the past, and this requires these words and images to be used and known, not censored and banned.
 
Dixie said:
I keep hearing certain pinhead groups are attempting to have this or that banned, because it is 'offensive' or 'insensitive' to others, usually some minority group. While it's okay that homosexuals hijacked the word "gay" and made it preferable that any number of other names we had commonly used, the rest of us are supposed to cleanse society of all the other words to describe a homosexual, because it is viewed as 'wrong' to use them. Who died and gave homosexuals the right to decide which words mean what? It's very queer indeed.

There is the movement to remove the N-word from Huck Finn. Replace it with "slave" and this is somehow supposed to be less offensive. And of course, there is my favorite one... the movement to get rid of the Confederate flag. Now, make no mistake about what I am posting this for... it's not to get into some meaningless debate of the Civil War or history, I can thoroughly pwn anyone here on that topic anyway, this is more than that. I don't have any problem with a state voting to remove the Confederate battle flag from their state flag, or a school's student body to vote and rename their mascot who carries a Confederate flag.. That's fine, it's democracy, and the way society should function, in my opinion.

My interest in discussion, is the reason people believe that erasing parts of our past, our legacy, our history, is a good thing for society, ultimately? I can grasp the whole 'offensive' thing, and I understand that.. but to remove something from sight, to erase it from books, is the antithesis of knowledge, isn't it? How can we advance culturally, if we deny our past, or the uncomfortable parts of it? We have to empower ourselves with knowledge and understanding of the past, and this requires these words and images to be used and known, not censored and banned.
Click to expand...

Here's even a better one.
I heard a radio commentary that they're going to rewrite Spiderman and remake him as being Black.
 
Its not liberal groups its conservative groups trying to ban and rewrite books. If a private company wants to change Spiderman to black, let em, thats a business decision. I am against banning books or rewriting books due to words that are considered offensive and I am a LIBERAL>
 
It's not just libbies that do it, but it is stupid. Particularly w/ something like Huck Fin; that's just how people talked. To change that wording is like blasphemy to anyone who values art & literature.

It just gives power to the words & phrases in question, as well. It's a lose-lose.
 
Jarod said:
Its not liberal groups its conservative groups trying to ban and rewrite books. If a private company wants to change Spiderman to black, let em, thats a business decision. I am against banning books or rewriting books due to words that are considered offensive and I am a LIBERAL>
Click to expand...

That's rubbish, the groups that "cleansed" Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to remove mention of "Injun Joe" and removing the n-word and replacing it with "slave" was no "conservative" group. It's silly to suggest it was, and sillier to ignore our history and try to rewrite it to make it less offensive.
 
Onceler said:
It's not just libbies that do it, but it is stupid. Particularly w/ something like Huck Fin; that's just how people talked. To change that wording is like blasphemy to anyone who values art & literature.

It just gives power to the words & phrases in question, as well. It's a lose-lose.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely. It's almost as offensive to me as hearing about laws against burkhas and objecting to the free exercise of religion. I don't piecemeal my support of the constitution...
 
Words change over time. I'll give you an example; as a youngster growing up some people would refer to cigerettes as fags.

Well nobody today would say that someone went outside to suck or puff on a fag.
 
Dixie said:
I keep hearing certain pinhead groups are attempting to have this or that banned, because it is 'offensive' or 'insensitive' to others, usually some minority group. While it's okay that homosexuals hijacked the word "gay" and made it preferable that any number of other names we had commonly used, the rest of us are supposed to cleanse society of all the other words to describe a homosexual, because it is viewed as 'wrong' to use them. Who died and gave homosexuals the right to decide which words mean what? It's very queer indeed.

There is the movement to remove the N-word from Huck Finn. Replace it with "slave" and this is somehow supposed to be less offensive. And of course, there is my favorite one... the movement to get rid of the Confederate flag. Now, make no mistake about what I am posting this for... it's not to get into some meaningless debate of the Civil War or history, I can thoroughly pwn anyone here on that topic anyway, this is more than that. I don't have any problem with a state voting to remove the Confederate battle flag from their state flag, or a school's student body to vote and rename their mascot who carries a Confederate flag.. That's fine, it's democracy, and the way society should function, in my opinion.

My interest in discussion, is the reason people believe that erasing parts of our past, our legacy, our history, is a good thing for society, ultimately? I can grasp the whole 'offensive' thing, and I understand that.. but to remove something from sight, to erase it from books, is the antithesis of knowledge, isn't it? How can we advance culturally, if we deny our past, or the uncomfortable parts of it? We have to empower ourselves with knowledge and understanding of the past, and this requires these words and images to be used and known, not censored and banned.
Click to expand...


No one is attempting to have "this or that banned". One would hope that an appeal to one's sense of decency and civility would dictate that folks would edit themselves not to be offensive. That's the peculiar thing about insults and derogatory remarks. You don't get to dictate what another finds offensive or derogatory. It must be that it's your quest to insult or offend...and you suppose that places you in some kind of control. I'd say you were a candidate for some serious therapy.

Homosexuals hardly "hijacked" the word gay...it had been used for years in the 20's and 30's and became prevalent in the 50's as the kinder and gentler reference to homosexuals. Pardon me, but your rhetoric is that of a bigot, a homophobe and clearly, "a racist". No one died and gave gays the right to decide what we wanted to be called. We took it. And if you say the wrong thing, you might...just might find yourself with a speech impediment....a fist in your mouth. Personally, I don't play that. Be you man or woman, if you put yourself out there, then you accept the consequences for your mouth and your actions.

And apparently, you're stuck in the past. The Confederate flag is a symbol of shame for the United States of America, and the Stars and Stripes represent who and what we are. Get a grip.
But what could you expect from a redneck from Slapout, Alabama...y'all still lynching negroes down there? You better be doing in the cover of darkness and stealth, you pathetic, pathological , Un-American miscreants.
And you lie. There is no impetus to remove "certain words" from historical literature. That was a rumor, which you failed to research for truth.
And then you want to call yourselves "Christians", and completely lose sight of "The Golden Rule"....Do unto others, and you'd have them do unto you. I can gladly reciprocate, whatever.
 
Damocles said:
That's rubbish, the groups that "cleansed" Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to remove mention of "Injun Joe" and removing the n-word and replacing it with "slave" was no "conservative" group. It's silly to suggest it was, and sillier to ignore our history and try to rewrite it to make it less offensive.
Click to expand...

Just as silly as calling it a liberal group.
 
Damocles said:
That's rubbish, the groups that "cleansed" Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to remove mention of "Injun Joe" and removing the n-word and replacing it with "slave" was no "conservative" group. It's silly to suggest it was, and sillier to ignore our history and try to rewrite it to make it less offensive.
Click to expand...

Agree, this is the same school of thought that rewrites history textbooks and edits out the parts that they don't like, US occupation of the Phillipines, attacking popularly elected leaders around the world during the cold war because they didn't happen to be the right party, slicing out the inconvienient truth that the Lusitania actually was carrying weapons and Germany even said they were going to sink it the day before. Its the kind of history that ends with teachers telling kids that the government never has, does, or ever will do any wrong and when challlenged they go with the "NO NO NO NO NOT LISTENING" defense.

Keep the words, offensive or not, plus people who get offended by books probably need offending
 
Jarod said:
Its not liberal groups its conservative groups trying to ban and rewrite books. If a private company wants to change Spiderman to black, let em, thats a business decision. I am against banning books or rewriting books due to words that are considered offensive and I am a LIBERAL>
Click to expand...
LOL PeeCee language is now a conservative proposition?
 
poet said:
No one is attempting to have "this or that banned". One would hope that an appeal to one's sense of decency and civility would dictate that folks would edit themselves not to be offensive.
Click to expand...

What.jpg
 
Dixie said:
I keep hearing certain pinhead groups are attempting to have this or that banned, because it is 'offensive' or 'insensitive' to others, usually some minority group. While it's okay that homosexuals hijacked the word "gay" and made it preferable that any number of other names we had commonly used, the rest of us are supposed to cleanse society of all the other words to describe a homosexual, because it is viewed as 'wrong' to use them. Who died and gave homosexuals the right to decide which words mean what? It's very queer indeed.

There is the movement to remove the N-word from Huck Finn. Replace it with "slave" and this is somehow supposed to be less offensive. And of course, there is my favorite one... the movement to get rid of the Confederate flag. Now, make no mistake about what I am posting this for... it's not to get into some meaningless debate of the Civil War or history, I can thoroughly pwn anyone here on that topic anyway, this is more than that. I don't have any problem with a state voting to remove the Confederate battle flag from their state flag, or a school's student body to vote and rename their mascot who carries a Confederate flag.. That's fine, it's democracy, and the way society should function, in my opinion.

My interest in discussion, is the reason people believe that erasing parts of our past, our legacy, our history, is a good thing for society, ultimately? I can grasp the whole 'offensive' thing, and I understand that.. but to remove something from sight, to erase it from books, is the antithesis of knowledge, isn't it? How can we advance culturally, if we deny our past, or the uncomfortable parts of it? We have to empower ourselves with knowledge and understanding of the past, and this requires these words and images to be used and known, not censored and banned.
Click to expand...
I actually support you on your stance on removing the word "niger" from Huck Finn. Sure it's an offensive word. Hell it was an offensive word when Twain published it. It was meant to be offensive. Huck Finn is not a kiddy story. A sound educator can use this word as a teachable moment. They can use that as an example of how racism had a degenerative affect on southern culture of that time period and how that in a book that is populated almost entirely by characterrs that are villians, skallywags, theives and con artist there is only one noble and morally redeeming character in the whole damned book. Jim! To change the word "niger" to "slave" in Huck Finn is to entirely miss this point and to change the intent of the author and that borders on blaspheme in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Its always been the conservative churches that led movements to ban books, like Harry Potter and when I was in school... the Catcher in the Rye, Slaughter House 5, Forever...
 
Onceler said:
It's not just libbies that do it, but it is stupid. Particularly w/ something like Huck Fin; that's just how people talked. To change that wording is like blasphemy to anyone who values art & literature.

It just gives power to the words & phrases in question, as well. It's a lose-lose.
Click to expand...


I think it does more then just show how people talked- It shows how people felt and treated black American's- the "N" word was so common that it was a part of every day vernacular. Leaving works, like Huck Finn, in their original form secures the truth of our national shame. To remove words or change them, to be more PC, whitewashes history <excuse the pun>.
 
Jarod said:
Its always been the conservative churches that led movements to ban books, like Harry Potter and when I was in school... the Catcher in the Rye, Slaughter House 5, Forever...
Click to expand...

Both liberals and conservatives have attempted to control what we see or read.

Yes, the examples you listed were attempts by conservatives. But the attempt to make the language in Huck Finn politically correct is a liberal one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top