The Left Cancels Dr. Seuss Topic

dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
What Tang said. What exactly do you want to do about a private corporation that decides - if we're being a bit cynical, but realistic - that it's in their best long-term interest to not print new copies of books that it thinks might draw negative publicity? Because let's be honest - there are a bunch of culture warriors who would make a lot of noise about boycotting all Dr. Seuss books if they decide to take up that cause. These books are not best sellers. At most they might make up a few percent of total sales. And if the books are lower-volume, they're also lower margin, so the percentage of profits is smaller yet. There's a strong argument that it's objectively the right call for Dr. Seuss Enterprises. Why risk a dip in sales of The Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, and One Fish Two Fish?

Do you want the government to FORCE DSE to publish those books?

Do you want the government to FORCE parents to buy any DSE books?
3/3/2021 4:56 PM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
For me, it's the double-standard tang seemingly embraces (amongst many other things) that causes issue.
He wants the Government involved when it suits his views (like whether or not a private company will serve a minority, or bake a cake for them), but doesn't want the Government involved when that side suits his views (like who can and can't post to a social media site, or what books are published and which aren't). To me, you either want big Government or you don't. You don't get to pick or choose where you want it. For me, the less Government involvement, the better - now probably more so than any other time in American History.
3/3/2021 5:51 PM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
I think I've been consistent.

I want the government to intervene when a business is discriminating against someone for an intrinsic reason (their race, sex, gender, etc.). In every other case, I think the government should stay out.

I also don't think that more government involvement or less government involvement is inherently a good thing. I'm all about outcomes.
3/3/2021 6:08 PM
wylie715
Posts: 11480 (0)
Hall of Famer
273 22 3 4 17 1 429
Rookie
private companies do not guarantee anyone freedom of speech. They can publish what they want and not publish what they don't want to publish. Honestly while I don't like private companies that might decide not to bake a wedding company for a gay couple, or serve a black person in their restaurants and it is against the law to discriminate like that, I can also understand that they will lose business due to their stance. I personally would not frequent a bakery that would not sell to a gay couple or eat at a restaurant that discriminated against anyone based on race, religion, gender or sexual preferences. Of course there would be people who would go to those kind of places mire due to their stance as well.
Regardless, it is against the law and until and if the law is changed, if a place discriminates they should suffer the consequences.
3/3/2021 6:48 PM
bagchucker
Posts: 18640 (0)
Hall of Famer
415 1 1 2 12
Prospect
Posted by rsp777 on 3/3/2021 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bagchucker on 3/3/2021 10:13:00 AM (view original):
what the capitalist enterprise should do is commission some black and asian caricaturists to revise the racist illustrations
Oooooooo.......Burn.
3/3/2021 6:59 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
170 11
All Star
Mr. Guitar Guy. Now come now. Come now. You don't have to be so dumb now.
3/3/2021 7:10 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
Posted by all3 on 3/3/2021 5:51:00 PM (view original):
For me, it's the double-standard tang seemingly embraces (amongst many other things) that causes issue.
He wants the Government involved when it suits his views (like whether or not a private company will serve a minority, or bake a cake for them), but doesn't want the Government involved when that side suits his views (like who can and can't post to a social media site, or what books are published and which aren't). To me, you either want big Government or you don't. You don't get to pick or choose where you want it. For me, the less Government involvement, the better - now probably more so than any other time in American History.
If you think those things are equivalent then I just don't think we're likely to find any common ground here.

From a pure political philosophy standpoint, I can sympathize with the 'government should stay out of private enterprise' perspective. But in the real world, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of going back to a set of rules where it's totally cool, legally speaking, to hang a sign on your restaurant door that says "no Jews allowed."
3/4/2021 12:08 PM
rsp777
Posts: 13243 (1)
Hall of Famer
337 3
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/4/2021 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 3/3/2021 5:51:00 PM (view original):
For me, it's the double-standard tang seemingly embraces (amongst many other things) that causes issue.
He wants the Government involved when it suits his views (like whether or not a private company will serve a minority, or bake a cake for them), but doesn't want the Government involved when that side suits his views (like who can and can't post to a social media site, or what books are published and which aren't). To me, you either want big Government or you don't. You don't get to pick or choose where you want it. For me, the less Government involvement, the better - now probably more so than any other time in American History.
If you think those things are equivalent then I just don't think we're likely to find any common ground here.

From a pure political philosophy standpoint, I can sympathize with the 'government should stay out of private enterprise' perspective. But in the real world, I'm just not comfortable with the idea of going back to a set of rules where it's totally cool, legally speaking, to hang a sign on your restaurant door that says "no Jews allowed."
It also has NOTHING to do with "government" being involved with "what books are published and which aren't." The "government" didn't have ANYTHING to do with the decision to not print these anymore. It's also CLEARLY completely different than outright racism, sexism and discrimination in business practices. "Who can and can't post to a social media site" is RIDICULOUS to even equate to the subject. Anyone pitched off of any social media site had it done because they violated the terms of service that have nothing to do with outright racism, sexism and discrimination. NOBODY has ever been booted from social media for anything other than their own actions.

Again, allMOUTH is the KING of the FALSE NARRATIVE, a HYPOCRITE and a LIAR.
3/4/2021 12:26 PM
Guitarguy567
Posts: 1327 (0)
Rookie
7
Prospect
How's that much different from companies deciding upon hiring quotas based on gender/race? Like for instance, lets say the white male quota has already been met and a white male applies for an open position at the company and automatically gets rejected due to the hiring quote...in that instance isn't the company saying no white males allowed?

3/4/2021 12:27 PM
rsp777
Posts: 13243 (1)
Hall of Famer
337 3
Prospect
No, jackwagon. They're saying that they practice EQUAL OPPORTUNITY as an employer. You're HILARIOUS when you argue that white males are being discriminated against. It's literally one of the DUMBEST stances ever.
3/4/2021 12:30 PM
Guitarguy567
Posts: 1327 (0)
Rookie
7
Prospect
You are too dumb to argue with.
3/4/2021 12:32 PM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
Since this is a sports site, let's use a sports situation.
Roughly 60% of Americans are white. Minorities feel that % should be reflected in Coaching, Management and Front Office positions. There are rules in place to help make that happen. Why aren't there rules in place to help ensure 60% of the players are white?
Don't get me wrong, more minorities should have a chance in the "upper" positions, but should their be mandates on the hiring process? Only if they apply to ALL positions, including players, within the organization.
3/4/2021 1:11 PM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
dahs, I do not see those things as being equally important, but the point is, if you want Government involvement in some such things and not others, who gets to draw the line as to where Government involvement is "needed"? You, me, God forbid rsp or tang?
3/4/2021 1:14 PM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
Posted by Guitarguy567 on 3/4/2021 12:27:00 PM (view original):
How's that much different from companies deciding upon hiring quotas based on gender/race? Like for instance, lets say the white male quota has already been met and a white male applies for an open position at the company and automatically gets rejected due to the hiring quote...in that instance isn't the company saying no white males allowed?

I'm anti affirmative action, but no... that's not equivalent
3/4/2021 1:49 PM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
Dahs is on point today!
3/4/2021 1:51 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
The Left Cancels Dr. Seuss Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.