What is the harm?
How do you think Fuddruckerâs eventually became Buttfuckerâs?
2 Likes
Wait, who is fainting on whose couch in this analogy?
Ditto except grievances and brains this time.
You two are the ones saying I canât call Augustus Gloop a âfat fuckâ, right?
Huck Finnâs a pretty good book imo
Pure madness. Look, Gloop was, like all children, a product of his parental environment. He didnât pay for nor purchase the sweety sweets he put in his mouth and it wasnât by his own volition that he learned this was behavior that wouldnât ruin his body and mind. He should be a sympathetic and empathetic character yet Dahl paints him as a gluttonous monster who deserves to be murdered by a deranged slavemaster and candy manufacturer named William Wonka. Itâs the child murder thatâs the problematic part.
1 Like
Grandmother was clearly talking to Joe Biden in the 2001 edition
the answer to your question is in the very post youâre replying to
Having no benefit doesnât mean causing harm.
itâs amazing that this has to be explained. even dullards should be able to understand this. itâs almost like theyâre arguing in bad faith (unpossible, of course).
my point is that if society at large finds a word offensive in a beloved book for an audience who probably shouldnât be exposed to it, it is NOT a bad idea to edit the word, and in other instances provide annotations, footnotes, and classic editions and wikipedia articles for the sake of preserving the factual history. itâs maybe not the greatest idea thatâs going to save humans from fascism, but it is not worthy of fainting at the mere suggestion that changing a word of twain, or even whole chapters, thereâd be nothing left. twain has already been edited. probably hundreds of times.
thought of another example, we all collectively decided to move past racist cartoons from ww2 timeframe, and focus on books and comics from the same authors that still carry value for someone. now do the same with racial slurs, because most people already started self censoring themselves on that.
Iâll donate to the charity of your choice if you can tell me who âtheyâ are, what the argument is, and what âin bad faithâ means.
1 Like
I know. Try reading the whole post.
No I got your point, I was just asking if I am/we are fainting on our fainting couches why would you be getting your fainting couch?
Why are you people in love with books choc full of these words and why do you insist your children read them?
Iâm serious, what I want to understand is how you could love an artist and their work so much that you want everybody to see it but at the same are so offended by a small part of it that youâre compelled to disrespect the artist and deface their work. And what kind of lesson that teaches the children.
2 Likes
âI really want my kids to see this horse porn so um can we blur out that throbbing horse cock or something replace it with a walk talkie I donât knowâ like, you people have got to suspect at least a little how deeply weird we find all this.
2 Likes
To spell it out for NBZ (who is feigning not understanding my very simple post so he can argue that the destruction of art is Good, Actually or something equally edgelordy), the purpose of copyright law is to encourage the production of art. This benefits society, because people like and value art. Defacing that art, it should not have to be stated but I guess here we are, is bad. Because itâs the opposite of producing art. Producing art good, destroying or diminishing art, bad.
1 Like
is it disrespecting the artist to do anything to their work except reproduce it as it was wrong? lol no. you can quote, paraphrase, improvise, rerecord, make movies and also spoof on tiktok with and without disrespect. completely orthogonal dimension.
yes you can love the art and also hate some part. are you not human?
1 Like