Mutantbear wrote:
Its not like anyone cares about anything anyway
censorship is absolute fail.
poor twain
luckily it's just a shit political gesture made by a small publishing house nobody gives a fuck about so a bunch of failed academics/activists can feel good about themselves in their small circle of 10 people
no biggie
poor twain
luckily it's just a shit political gesture made by a small publishing house nobody gives a fuck about so a bunch of failed academics/activists can feel good about themselves in their small circle of 10 people
no biggie
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
'Slave' is hardly any more flattering.
has an entirely different context, meaning and intention, though.
when you're translating/revising a book... you stay true to the original. you don't change words, terminologically or etymologically.
it's like the golden rule of translation/editing: stay true to the original
'slave' and 'nigger' are two entirely different words.
when you're translating/revising a book... you stay true to the original. you don't change words, terminologically or etymologically.
it's like the golden rule of translation/editing: stay true to the original
'slave' and 'nigger' are two entirely different words.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I wasn't defending the edit, I was saying that it's hardly an improvement for anyone who might have been offended in the first place. Everyone loses.
e: If it holds, I suppose we should look forward to tons of blurring of racially-offensive material in old movies. YAY, PC!
e: If it holds, I suppose we should look forward to tons of blurring of racially-offensive material in old movies. YAY, PC!
I pretty much use the terms interchangeably during my racist rants, but I never was a real good racist like Jesse Helms.Uzique wrote:
has an entirely different context, meaning and intention, though.
when you're translating/revising a book... you stay true to the original. you don't change words, terminologically or etymologically.
it's like the golden rule of translation/editing: stay true to the original
'slave' and 'nigger' are two entirely different words.
have a cookie.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
thisUzique wrote:
censorship is absolute fail.
poor twain
luckily it's just a shit political gesture made by a small publishing house nobody gives a fuck about so a bunch of failed academics/activists can feel good about themselves in their small circle of 10 people
no biggie
Maybe after we can edit the twin towers out of all the movies ...
sort of reminded me of this story
"A janitor whom a university official had accused of racial harassment for reading a historical book about the Ku Klux Klan on his break has gotten an apology"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25680655
"A janitor whom a university official had accused of racial harassment for reading a historical book about the Ku Klux Klan on his break has gotten an apology"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25680655
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-01-05 15:23:38)
i thought colleges would promote reading such books
He's a janitor not a student or professor.
so?Macbeth wrote:
He's a janitor not a student or professor.
So he does not need to read from a set curriculum.11 Bravo wrote:
so?Macbeth wrote:
He's a janitor not a student or professor.
huh? dude was reading a book about our history.....why would a college not let one of their employees do that?AussieReaper wrote:
So he does not need to read from a set curriculum.11 Bravo wrote:
so?Macbeth wrote:
He's a janitor not a student or professor.
They shouldn't have. Hence the appology. But that is beside the point, because you said11 Bravo wrote:
huh? dude was reading a book about our history.....why would a college not let one of their employees do that?AussieReaper wrote:
So he does not need to read from a set curriculum.11 Bravo wrote:
so?
Why would they tell a janitor what reading material is appropriate?11 bravo wrote:
I thought colleges would promote reading such books
they did....basically
stop trolling
stop trolling
It's apparently less of a hassle to deface a piece Literature than to actually teach kids and their dumbshit parents about historical context.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-01-05 23:14:41)
Reciprocity wrote:
It's apparently less of a hastle to deface a piece Literature than to actually teach kids and their dumbshit parents about historical context.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Have you ever seen a generation of Americans so in love with itself as this one? Get your grimey hands off Huckfinn. It takes a huge ego to literally change classic literature.
Well it's not a 21st century book professor. Books are valuable not only because of their content, but because of the times they were created in.“Race matters in these books, it's a matter of how you express it in the 21st century.”
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Whats the problem with what they did with our Shakespeare books? They have the original text with translations of the words/sayings/phrases into modern english on the sides.
That is not the same thing at all.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No I mean whats the problem with just doing that, why did they have to go all the way and change the actual text? That way you actually learn
Because they are idiots and are self absorbed.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This guy was on the radio yesterday. He's an idiot. Here's a link to the transcript and broadcast.