Evaluating Seuss Land?

[OG Runner]

I could just as easily make the argument that they did it because it was the right thing to do. Neither stance can be proven, it just depends on how cynical you want to be about it.

You are right about that there is not only one way to look at the situation. Honestly, I was more concerned about the
reasons you were attaching to my comments. They were just giving another view, from probably and older individual,
and not politically motivated.

 

[JT3000]

Where did I bring up her name? A company putting the burden of a blame on a handful of books that didn’t sell well to begin with is “scapegoating”. A person getting fired for saying or acting inappropriately is a “consequence”. Things aren’t always the same.

Regardless, I don’t think “cancelling people” works to help people learn and improve. Marking people off is only going to make them hateful (or more hateful in her case I guess).

This argument makes no sense. They stopped publishing the books that were considered to have offensive content, they didn't sacrifice those books for the sake of the more popular ones that do not contain offensive content. They placed blame on the only books that deserved blame. There was no scapegoating. And if they were concerned with the continued popularity of the other books, they wouldn't have created a hullaballoo over the Seuss brand by publicly announcing this change. It's not like many people were demanding they do this.

And as for "cancelled" people becoming more hateful instead of learning their lesson, that just shows you the type of person they are. If they learn nothing from the consequences of their actions, they can't be helped and deserve no help. No sense in wasting time on a hopeless case.

 

[Brer Oswald]

This argument makes no sense. They stopped publishing the books that were considered to have offensive content, they didn't sacrifice those books for the sake of the more popular ones that do not contain offensive content. They placed blame on the only books that deserved blame. There was no scapegoating. And if they were concerned with the continued popularity of the other books, they wouldn't have created a hullaballoo over the Seuss brand by publicly announcing this change. It's not like many people were demanding they do this.

And as for "cancelled" people becoming more hateful instead of learning their lesson, that just shows you the type of person they are. If they learn nothing from the consequences of their actions, they can't be helped and deserve no help. No sense in wasting time on a hopeless case.

Not sure what to say about the first part, we are firmly on the opposite side of the coin with that and it’s pointless to argue.

As for the second part, there’s an unsurprisingly low amount of people that will respond positively to mass amounts of hate. It’s the classic case. When a kid does something wrong, do you yell at them or do you try to approach them in a calmer way? If you yell at them, they may stop causing problems out of fear. Or they may grow to resent you and continue to cause problems out of spite.

If you approach them more reasonably, their morals may kick in, and they will feel compelled not to continue whatever it was that made you upset. Or they may continue to take advantage of your kindness, and as you said, won’t learn their lesson.

Adults are like kids, except for the fact that it’s unlikely they’ll stop what they’re doing if you “yell” at them over the internet. They’ll tend to the resentment and hatred. If there was a chance they could be redeemed into an ideal citizen, that will go out the window as soon as they are “cancelled”. And chances are, the people doing the cancelling are just as hateful, displaying the same characteristics but simply “playing for another team”. We will never learn to live with each other as long as we continue to behave like this.

 

[JT3000]

Not sure what to say about the first part, we are firmly on the opposite side of the coin with that and it’s pointless to argue.

As for the second part, there’s an unsurprisingly low amount of people that will respond positively to mass amounts of hate. It’s the classic case. When a kid does something wrong, do you yell at them or do you try to approach them in a calmer way? If you yell at them, they may stop causing problems out of fear. Or they may grow to resent you and continue to cause problems out of spite.

If you approach them more reasonably, their morals may kick in, and they will feel compelled not to continue whatever it was that made you upset. Or they may continue to take advantage of your kindness, and as you said, won’t learn their lesson.

Adults are like kids, except for the fact that it’s unlikely they’ll stop what they’re doing if you “yell” at them over the internet. They’ll tend to the resentment and hatred. If there was a chance they could be redeemed into an ideal citizen, that will go out the window as soon as they are “cancelled”. And chances are, the people doing the cancelling are just as hateful, displaying the same characteristics but simply “playing for another team”. We will never learn to live with each other as long as we continue to behave like this.

I don't know about you, but I expect adults to act like adults and accept the consequences of their actions, not like children who react on raw emotion. They shouldn't require coddling to learn from their mistakes and better themselves. As I stated previously, no one is perfect, but making broad assumptions about those casting aspersions on them won't solve anything either. Ultimately it isn't even the random belligerent person "yelling" at them on the Internet that causes them to face consequences, it is widespread public opinion, or in many cases, such as Carano's, their employer. If a celebrity screws up majorly, there will be many more people silently refusing to buy whatever they're selling than those relative few "yelling" at them. Likewise, your employer reserves the right to terminate you if they feel you've crossed a line, and if an employer is nice enough to give you prior warning and you continue on your current path, you have no one to blame but yourself.

It's sort of ironic that the conversation has gone down this path seeing as how Dr. Seuss is dead and doesn't exactly care whether or not he's "cancelled." In fact, as Tom Morrow mentioned, he later regretted his penchant for creating racist drawings and made books about inclusivity later in life. Who's to say he wouldn't agree with this decision of his own estate that so many people are needlessly up-in-arms over (essentially trying to "cancel" his estate?)

 

[Brer Oswald]

I don't know about you, but I expect adults to act like adults and accept the consequences of their actions, not like children who react on raw emotion. They shouldn't require coddling to learn from their mistakes and better themselves. As I stated previously, no one is perfect, but making broad assumptions about those casting aspersions on them won't solve anything either. Ultimately it isn't even the random belligerent person "yelling" at them on the Internet that causes them to face consequences, it is widespread public opinion, or in many cases, such as Carano's, their employer. If a celebrity screws up majorly, there will be many more people silently refusing to buy whatever they're selling than those relative few "yelling" at them. Likewise, your employer reserves the right to terminate you if they feel you've crossed a line, and if an employer is nice enough to give you prior warning and you continue on your current path, you have no one to blame but yourself.

It's sort of ironic that the conversation has gone down this path seeing as how Dr. Seuss is dead and doesn't exactly care whether or not he's "cancelled." In fact, as Tom Morrow mentioned, he later regretted his penchant for creating racist drawings and made books about inclusivity later in life. Who's to say he wouldn't agree with this decision of his own estate that so many people are needlessly up-in-arms over (essentially trying to "cancel" his estate?)

K

 

[champdisney]

Who's to say he wouldn't agree with this decision of his own estate that so many people are needlessly up-in-arms over (essentially trying to "cancel" his estate?)

If that were the case, his estate would have stopped selling these books long ago. Money talks and these books weren’t doing much talking.

 

[Tom Morrow]

So why is there an issue again? You either agree that they did the right thing (for money reasons or otherwise), or you believe that children's books with racist depictions should still be sold.

 

[Brer Oswald]

So why is there an issue again? You either agree that they did the right thing (for money reasons or otherwise), or you believe that children's books with racist depictions should still be sold.

It really isn’t that simple. Not sure why every single issue on the internet has become black and white.

 

[Tom Morrow]

It really isn’t that simple. Not sure why every single issue on the internet has become black and white.

I do think that this situation is that simple.

This is different from, say, Splash Mountain, where the ride itself doesn't actually contain anything offensive.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I do think that this situation is that simple.

This is different from, say, Splash Mountain, where the ride itself doesn't actually contain anything offensive.

Except for the fact that, maybe, there’s alternatives to banning the books? Like maybe just simply taking the inappropriate illustrations out in republications? It isn’t like image editing software is too primitive to do that. Or if that’s too hard, just quietly removing the books? Why do we have to praise “not being racist”?

Now people are discussing taking out an attraction, let alone the entire land, simply for connecting to a book with stereotypical pictures that aren’t even present in the land? How is that reasonable? How does that help fight against injustices? This is just another “gotcha” moment.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Except for the fact that, maybe, there’s alternatives to banning the books? Like maybe just simply taking the inappropriate illustrations out in republications? It isn’t like image editing software is too primitive to do that. Or if that’s too hard, just quietly removing the books? Why do we have to praise “not being racist”?

Now people are discussing taking out an attraction, let alone the entire land, simply for connecting to a book with stereotypical pictures that aren’t even present in the land? How is that reasonable? How does that help fight against injustices? This is just another “gotcha” moment.

My assumption is that it's easier to just stop selling them than deal with the legal issues of modifying the works of a dead author and continuing to profit from it. Had these been more famous books, then they'd probably bother, but they weren't, and they didn't sell well anyway.

 

[Brer Oswald]

My assumption is that it's easier to just stop selling them than deal with the legal issues of modifying the works of a dead author and continuing to profit from it. Had these been more famous books, then they'd probably bother, but they weren't, and they didn't sell well anyway.

I take issue with the praise of this laziness. It’s more scapegoating and abuse of audience naivety. Like you’ve said, these books likely didn’t sell that well to begin with. They cancelled the books because they knew they’d be rewarded for less than the bare minimum.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I take issue with the praise of this laziness. It’s more scapegoating and abuse of audience naivety. Like you’ve said, these books likely didn’t sell that well to begin with. They cancelled the books because they knew they’d be rewarded for less than the bare minimum.

Everyone who complains about this type of thing would have also complained if they edited the books too, so why even bother?

 

[Brer Oswald]

Everyone who complains about this type of thing would have also complained if they edited the books too, so why even bother?

Because it’s the right thing to do?

 

[Tom Morrow]

Because it’s the right thing to do?

Why is that the right thing to do but discontinuing them isn't? Reminder that these were books that nobody cares about.

If they had gone this route, the argument you are making doesn't change - "they did this because of peer pressure from cancel culture, not because they wanted to do the right thing."

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Why is that the right thing to do but discontinuing them isn't? Reminder that these were books that nobody cares about.

If they had gone this route, the argument you are making doesn't change - "they did this because of peer pressure from cancel culture, not because they wanted to do the right thing."

One of the books sold 4 copies last year. One of the other books sold 10.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Why is that the right thing to do but discontinuing them isn't? Reminder that these were books that nobody cares about.

If they had gone this route, the argument you are making doesn't change - "they did this because of peer pressure from cancel culture, not because they wanted to do the right thing."

The right thing to do would’ve been to make a decision (whatever that was) and not announce it. What they did abuses the naivety of the people (some of which do actually care about the injustices they claim to care about), and causes unnecessary division amongst people over something so foolish. The right thing for us to do is to not praise these “moves” and pay no mind to them. Corporations have no right to profit off of basic decency.

 

[Tom Morrow]

The right thing to do would’ve been to make a decision (whatever that was) and not announce it. What they did abuses the naivety of the people (some of which do actually care about the injustices they claim to care about), and causes unnecessary division amongst people over something so foolish. The right thing for us to do is to not praise these “moves” and pay no mind to them. Corporations have no right to profit off of basic decency.

Announcing it frees them of criticism later on if the books were still found on store shelves, or later scrutinized by groups not knowing they were discontinued.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The right thing to do would’ve been to make a decision (whatever that was) and not announce it. What they did abuses the naivety of the people (some of which do actually care about the injustices they claim to care about), and causes unnecessary division amongst people over something so foolish. The right thing for us to do is to not praise these “moves” and pay no mind to them. Corporations have no right to profit off of basic decency.

They asked retailers to also remove the books from their shelves. At a minimum they would have had to ask Universal which means the decision would have gotten out. Hiding the announcement also makes it look like something for which they should be ashamed.

 

[Brer Oswald]

They asked retailers to also remove the books from their shelves. At a minimum they would have had to ask Universal which means the decision would have gotten out. Hiding the announcement also makes it look like something for which they should be ashamed.

Why should they be ashamed? Did they put those illustrations in there? Profiting (in this case with respect to good PR) off of others’ past mistakes is widely rewarded today, but it isn’t in any way morally correct.

There is no progression in society by dealing with past issues like this. I just hope more people realize that.

Yes, the illustrations were offensive. Yes, the books probably weren’t that great to begin with. But how we deal with it, how we respond to it, is just as important for our growth. That is the point I’m attempting to illustrate.