UK X: Who Wants To Live Forever

[teddymeow]

May I suggest "Sturge-off" as a thread title when she finally leaves and is officially replaced?

[Neon Ignition]

‘Bond villain’ DNA could transform cancer treatment, scientists say | Cancer research | The Guardian
Potential breakthrough in Cancer prevention found

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive | Roald Dahl | The Guardian
Dahl's books are being rewritten to avoid causing offense. Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to identify words deemed problematic and the new versions will cut out words such as fat and ugly

[Soundwave]

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive | Roald Dahl | The Guardian
Dahl's books are being rewritten to avoid causing offense. Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to identify words deemed problematic and the new versions will cut out words such as fat and ugly

What a load of ****ing bull****

Who the **** asked for or needs that

This is going too far now

Neil

[fishbowlhead]

Can we just ban humans? I feel this is the only logical step so no one gets offended by something.

[charlesr]

It would also solve global warming etc

[Cassius_Smoke]

What a load of ****ing bull****

Who the **** asked for or needs that

This is going too far now

Neil

Everything must be erased in the end for fear of causing a sense offence.

[huxley]

Why does it matter they are fictional characters. History books next.

[nonny]

‘Bond villain’ DNA could transform cancer treatment, scientists say | Cancer research | The Guardian
Potential breakthrough in Cancer prevention found

Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive | Roald Dahl | The Guardian
Dahl's books are being rewritten to avoid causing offense. Puffin has hired sensitivity readers to identify words deemed problematic and the new versions will cut out words such as fat and ugly

Oh good my original box set copies just got more valuable... Seriously though what a dumb exercise is protecting our children from words commonly used in the world. These books are purposely just dark enough to teach kids the hardest lesson that the world isn't all sweetness and rainbows.

They use this language for a reason...

[Cassius_Smoke]

I hope we are all aware that this is literary censorship. In the same way China doesn't allow the publication of certain books, we won't allow the use of certain words in books.
We'll let it slide because 'It's just a kids book, what does it matter?'
Then we let it slide because 'It's just Bram Stoker's and Sense and Sensibility, they are old books anyway'
Soon enough publishers will have to check books for the use of a set list of words and the authors will be ostracised.

[Protocol Penguin]

I hope we are all aware that this is literary censorship. In the same way China doesn't allow the publication of certain books, we won't allow the use of certain words in books.
We'll let it slide because 'It's just a kids book, what does it matter?'
Then we let it slide because 'It's just Bram Stoker's and Sense and Sensibility, they are old books anyway'
Soon enough publishers will have to check books for the use of a set list of words and the authors will be ostracised.

This is not government censorship like in communist China; that’s a GG-style exaggeration / fallacious argument. It’s a publisher, a private business, deciding to alter the content of old content which still has enough commercial demand for it to deem worthy of still publishing. I’m not going to argue whether the changes to the books are justified or not, as honestly, the original Telegraph article is behind a paywall and I’d rather not give them any cash for their clickbait, but can we not claim that a publishing business changing its children’s books is a cultural harbinger of a dystopian totalitarian state? That’s exactly how conspiracy theories start.

[huxley]

Newspeak - Double plus good.

[Cassius_Smoke]

This is not government censorship like in communist China; that’s a GG-style exaggeration / fallacious argument. It’s a publisher, a private business, deciding to alter the content of old content which still has enough commercial demand for it to deem worthy of still publishing. I’m not going to argue whether the changes to the books are justified or not, as honestly, the original Telegraph article is behind a paywall and I’d rather not give them any cash for their clickbait, but can we not claim that a publishing business changing its children’s books is a cultural harbinger of a dystopian totalitarian state? That’s exactly how conspiracy theories start.

Doesn't have to be the government, its done by a 'collective group think' by corporations and people all believing what they are doing is for the best.
We have the little warnings before Disney films now giving us a hint at the direction things are going. Now words are being removed from books. Old UK sitcoms will be next I guarantee it, they are too offensive.
History is gradually being erased or pushed to one side, rather than giving us an opportunity to look at it and learn from it.

[Golgo]

Part of the charm and indeed power of Dahl's books, and other classic children's literature like Robert Westall and Diana Wynne Jones and Shel Silverstein, is the way they are not afraid to reveal the casual cruelty, spitefulness and moral ambiguity of childhood. Censoring the language to take that away will rob them of some of their bite and purpose. This is a terrible idea from the publisher.

[Hirst]

Nothing new to do this kind of thing. They’ve been knocking out revised editions of childrens books for decades. Richard Scarry made the amendments himself in his books when he was still alive, going back to 1980. Whether it’s helpful or irksome is up for debate but I don’t think it’s a Littlejohn-style “stop the world I want to get off” moment. I would bet any one of us here had some favourite book as a child that was a revised edition of some sort. Storm in a teacup.

[CMcK]

Comics in the UK have been censored for years too. Even to the extent of giving characters less skimpy outfits.