• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

No More Green Eggs And Ham For YOU

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dank69 said:
I know you didn't say they banned it, your sources just heavily imply it with their biased articles. Your problem is that you hand-wave away statements that directly refute your arguments.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using the articles for anything more than a timeline of when various statements were made. I didn't at all try to use the contents of the articles for backing up the rest of my statements. I didn't hand wave anything. You are the one making strawman arguments against what I said instead.
 
VashHT said:
How is removing books from a recommended list stopping you from reading them? Should all books be published forever so that you can read them to your kids if you decide?
Click to expand...

Did I claim they were stopping me from reading them? Nope. Removing them from recommendation lists would be one thing. The publisher not making them would be another. The issue is both came at the same time which smacks of coordinated censorship. It's not a hard line to draw here.
 
HumblePie said:
I wasn't using the articles for anything more than a timeline of when various statements were made. I didn't at all try to use the contents of the articles for backing up the rest of my statements. I didn't hand wave anything. You are the one making strawman arguments against what I said instead.
Click to expand...
Post 106 is hand-waving.
 
HumblePie said:
My point is that the timing makes it seem that the statements by Biden, Louden School District, and various media outlets prior to the March 2nd announcement by the publisher makes it feel like indirect censorship to many people. People here being the average person's take on the situation. Again, I have no problem with the publisher removing those books from publication if those books just aren't worth it financially. They probably aren't worth it. If it is indirect censorship though I have a little problem with that. Let me as a parent decide what my kids can or can't read. I don't want any org deciding that for my family.
Click to expand...

Ah so you mistake capitalism for censorship.
 
HumblePie said:
Did I claim they were stopping me from reading them? Nope. Removing them from recommendation lists would be one thing. The publisher not making them would be another. The issue is both came at the same time which smacks of coordinated censorship. It's not a hard line to draw here.
Click to expand...
You did say you don't want an org telling you what to read your kids, which implies you think it's happening.
 
VashHT said:
How is removing books from a recommended list stopping you from reading them? Should all books be published forever so that you can read them to your kids if you decide?
Click to expand...

Is the issue that "certain" people do not understand that books going out of print is a common occurrence and they are simply upset that the copyright holders made an announcement explaining why?

“Books go out of print all the time, even some of our favorites,” said Summer Dawn Laurie, a children’s book specialist at Books Inc. in San Francisco. Laurie notes that only one of the discontinued titles, “And to Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street,” had sold at their stores in the past year, and half of them not since 2017.
“The good news is that there are literally dozens of other Seuss books to share with young readers,” Laurie says.
datebook.sfchronicle.com

Bay Area bookstores, parents grapple with racist images in Dr. Seuss books

Some applauded the move as a thoughtful step, while others saw it as an alarming effort to cancel a beloved American figure.
datebook.sfchronicle.com datebook.sfchronicle.com
Click to expand...
 
VashHT said:
You did say you don't want an org telling you what to read your kids, which implies you think it's happening.
Click to expand...

Nope. The statement that I don't like an org dictating what I choose for my family is a statement devoid of anything else in this thread. It applies to anything. Again, I find the whole thing to not be a big deal at all, as I originally stated in my first post. I was pointing out that the coincidences are what makes people think there is an indirect amount of censorship going on here.
 
HumblePie said:
I didn't make that claim. I was pointing out where people were getting that opinion from. Nice try in using another logic fallacy to assert something I didn't state.
Click to expand...

Yes we know you didn’t make the claim, you simply agree with it which is why you said you have a problem with indirect censorship even though you have no evidence of such an act occurring in this instance.

So again, who are these people you are referring to that are making these claims?
 
HumblePie said:
Nope. The statement that I don't like an org dictating what I choose for my family is a statement devoid of anything else in this thread. It applies to anything. Again, I find the whole thing to not be a big deal at all, as I originally stated in my first post. I was pointing out that the coincidences are what makes people think there is an indirect amount of censorship going on here.
Click to expand...
No it was not made in a void, you made that statement after saying that there's evidence supporting coordinated censorship. I mean you're going out of your way to not outright support anything but you're heavily implying that there was coordinated censorship (you brought up the possibility and "evidence" you think supports it) and then go on to say you don't want and org to dictate what you read to your kids.
 
VashHT said:
No it was not made in a void, you made that statement after saying that there's evidence supporting coordinated censorship. I mean you're going out of your way to not outright support anything but you're heavily implying that there was coordinated censorship (you brought up the possibility and "evidence" you think supports it) and then go on to say you don't want and org to dictate what you read to your kids.
Click to expand...

He appears to be channeling his inner trump with the “some people are saying” routine.
 
VashHT said:
No it was not made in a void, you made that statement after saying that there's evidence supporting coordinated censorship. I mean you're going out of your way to outright support anything but you're heavily implying that there was coordinated censorship (you brought up the possibility and "evidence" you think supports it) and then go on to say you don't want and org to dictate what you read to your kids.
Click to expand...

Your opinion that I was heavily implying a coordinate censorship is your incorrect reading of my posts. I said if it was censorship, I would have a problem with that as I have a problem with any form of censorship really. You are the one making assignments of what I am talking about here and not me.
 
dank69 said:
Claiming that a company may be lying without evidence is hand-waving.
Click to expand...

I never made such a claim. Again with the bad reading comprehension. I said that it was their CLAIM they were thinking about it a year prior. I never said such a claim was a lie and in fact went out of my way to say I have no way to prove nor disprove that statement. I said the claim can be considered a bit suspect because of the timing of everything in general here along with actions they did not take, aka they hadn't removed publication of the books until their official statement on March 2nd. As I said, the statements by the publisher could all be legit. That is not hand waving.
 
HumblePie said:
I never made such a claim. Again with the bad reading comprehension. I said that it was their CLAIM they were thinking about it a year prior. I never said such a claim was a lie and in fact went out of my way to say I have no way to prove nor disprove that statement. I said the claim can be considered a bit suspect because of the timing of everything in general here along with actions they did not take, aka they hadn't removed publication of the books until their official statement on March 2nd. As I said, the statements by the publisher could all be legit. That is not hand waving.
Click to expand...
The bolded is literally another way to say "they might be lying." Don't believe me? Try to explain what else it could mean.
 
HumblePie said:
Your opinion that I was heavily implying a coordinate censorship is your incorrect reading of my posts. I said if it was censorship, I would have a problem with that as I have a problem with any form of censorship really. You are the one making assignments of what I am talking about here and not me.
Click to expand...
So what's your point in this thread? Just stopping by to tell us your concerns?
 
HumblePie said:
Your opinion that I was heavily implying a coordinate censorship is your incorrect reading of my posts. I said if it was censorship, I would have a problem with that as I have a problem with any form of censorship really. You are the one making assignments of what I am talking about here and not me.
Click to expand...
As usual, everyone else is misreading your posts. You seem to have that problem a lot.
 
dank69 said:
As usual, everyone else is misreading your posts. You seem to have that problem a lot.
Click to expand...
Yeah if so many people are having problems figuring out what he really means then maybe he should work on his writing skills. As far as I can tell, he's against censorship, but he doesn't think censorship happened here, but decided to stop by and say it MIGHT have happened and he'd have a problem with it if it did, but he isn't saying it did.
 
VashHT said:
So what's your point in this thread? Just stopping by to tell us your concerns?
Click to expand...

Not even my concerns. I was literally pointing out that too many assumptions are being made by a multitude of people. As well as to correct certain assumptions about why people may be crying that this is censorship. It is to bring perspective that is all. That is really all I ever post about in P&N when I am not making a specific factual post on a law related subject or the 2nd Amendment. The fact is, after I make such a milk toast post a good majority of other posters here would rather attribute more than what I post to my posts as well as resort to bullying and name calling first. As evidenced again by this thread.

A better discussion to my original post, had you a different perspective, would be "Hey humblepie, I see based on your post why others could be suspect of the timing of the events. Still, I disagree with those opinions and here is why..." and then list out such points. No one does that around here from either side. I have done this style of posting in P&N since I started posting. Whether I was making such comments to Doc Savage Fan and his political postings, or Spidey, or whomever on the right side of the political spectrum that used to post here.
 
HumblePie said:
Because I can see where the average person can make a correlation based upon events doesn't mean I draw the same correlation. Again with your logic fallacies.
Click to expand...
Thank you for letting us know the average person is a Neanderthal. This is new and interesting to me.
 
dank69 said:
The bolded is literally another way to say "they might be lying." Don't believe me? Try to explain what else it could mean.
Click to expand...

They "MIGHT BE" is the opportune qualifier there. It does not state one way or another. Those that think they are lying are going to use the correlations I've already talked about so far to justify their opinion that the publisher is lying with their statement about wanting to stop publications of those books a year prior. Hence why there is a cry calling it censorship. It is the doubt to the statement given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top