According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL!

Police shoot black man in back during Grammy performance.

BearForce2 said:

---

According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL!

---

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Hi. There's already a thread for this topic. ------> https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/100808

These are yall worries and concerns....

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Rules for thee, but not for me

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

I agree. The question I have is why does the FCC allow certain things but not others? Why can we watch someone bleeding on the ground from a gunshot wound but we can't hear Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper say "aw ****!"? It's puzzling how we decide what's acceptable and unacceptable.

LMK5 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

I agree. The question I have is why does the FCC allow certain things but not others? Why can we watch someone bleeding on the ground from a gunshot wound but we can't hear Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper say "aw ****!"? It's puzzling how we decide what's acceptable and unacceptable.

---

If Lawrence Welk was still on I wonder if his singers would do a cover of WAP because they didn't understand the lyrics?*



* Like when they covered One Toke Over the Line

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

Indeed. I have concerns about some of the censorious instincts on the left right now, but if anyone wants to tell me the Republican Party is some great bastion of free-speech advocacy they can try selling that nonsense somewhere else. I lived through their attempts to censor heavy metal, rap music, references to gay sex, and violent video games. Any "free speech" positions they take now are merely a matter of convenience.

LMK5 said:

---

"According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL! "

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

---

Yeah, these are sincerely held and logical positions.


The "left" neither advocated or endorsed WAP or cancelled Dr. Seuss. So its a BS position right from the start.

The Seuss estate pulled 6 books because they didn't want his legacy destroyed by what are obviously troubling artwork. They were protecting his other books. Can you say capitalism and free enterprise?

Likewise, WAP is a popular song (I think it sucks), but it is no more popular or unpopular amongst the left or right and it is anthem for neither.

Quit trying to throw junk at the wall: oooooh, here is something baaaaad. Let's call it the Left!

And meanwhile let's ignore actual real problems if they are created by the right. You see, the attempts of censorship and thought police has been historically and is still mostly the enterprise of the right. Here are the values you must subscribe to. Censor those things that do not support the values we demand you subscribe too. Go ahead and pretend there is a cancel crisis, but on the heels of issue after issue where the right wants to own the conversation and silence debate, it's laughable. Especially when what the Left mostly wants is to simply not have people be jerks to one another.

I'll go further it's hard not to read this complaint as entirely racist. On the one hand we have wholesome children's book I grew up with in white suburban America, that's good. And on the other we have black rappers cavorting around on stage talking about their private parts. But have you seen the images from the Dr. Suess books that the estate is pulling back on? Do those not offend you? And is the raunchy song really worse than any number of performance or lyrics by metal or rock bands through the last few decades? Does it just offend because it is urban and you don't relate to it?

Let's make you censorship- czar for a day. Do you actually rule that yes these Dr. Suess images (I mean the specific ones in question) should be promoted and shared with children AND you as government or cultural judge should ban music on the basis of it's edgy sexuality? I hazard to guess you would actually favor neither so shut up and quit complaining and pretending that these are your positions.

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

"According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL! "

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

---

Yeah, these are sincerely held and logical positions.


The "left" neither advocated or endorsed WAP or cancelled Dr. Seuss. So its a BS position right from the start.

The Seuss estate pulled 6 books because they didn't want his legacy destroyed by what are obviously troubling artwork. They were protecting his other books. Can you say capitalism and free enterprise?

Likewise, WAP is a popular song (I think it sucks), but it is no more popular or unpopular amongst the left or right and it is anthem for neither.

Quit trying to throw junk at the wall: oooooh, here is something baaaaad. Let's call it the Left!

And meanwhile let's ignore actual real problems if they are created by the right. You see, the attempts of censorship and thought police has been historically and is still mostly the enterprise of the right. Here are the values you must subscribe to. Censor those things that do not support the values we demand you subscribe too. Go ahead and pretend there is a cancel crisis, but on the heels of issue after issue where the right wants to own the conversation and silence debate, it's laughable. Especially when what the Left mostly wants is to simply not have people be jerks to one another.

---

Good post.

I am "left" and I think that song is horrible. While the video posted isn't offensive to me, it is a pretty poor performance lacking in talent.

I also like Dr. Seuss' books including "To Think I Saw It On Mulberry Street" (the only one that was pulled that I have read).

Can the right like Sesame Street or is that a no-no because Elmo thinks BLM?

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

"According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL! "

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

---

The Seuss estate pulled 6 books because they didn't want his legacy destroyed by what are obviously troubling artwork. They were protecting his other books. Can you say capitalism and free enterprise?

---

Not really. They pulled 6 books because they knew that once the criticism hit the media there would be no way to stop that freight train whether they were right or wrong, so they took preventive measures. They knew they were defenseless against the mob because they've seen plenty of examples of what happens when you resist. Yes, they were protecting their brand and income stream.

Why not remove all books that have troubling artwork? Why stop at Dr. Seuss? And while we're at it, why not remove the old movies that depicted people in a light far worse than a friggin' kids book. I recently watched The Letter with Betty Davis. Asians are clearly depicted in a way that wouldn't pass muster today. Why is it still on the air? Under the new order, can you justify your kid watching The Little Rascals?

I'm sure you're familiar with propaganda film The Eternal Jew. Despite its clear objective, would you, under any circumstances, want that film hidden from view? That's where we're headed.

Trying to claim that cancel culture is not a left-based movement is just absurd. What exactly does Jimmy Kimmel mean then when he says "Canceling Dr. Seuss is how Trump gets reelected"? Is it a warning to conservatives LOL?

blungld said:

---

And is the raunchy song really worse than any number of performance or lyrics by metal or rock bands through the last few decades?

---

It's not, though it's worth noting that at other times we've seen social conservatives also trying to censor heavy metal and rock music in general (especially when it started out as Black music), so it always just moves to the scary new thing.

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

And is the raunchy song really worse than any number of performance or lyrics by metal or rock bands through the last few decades?

---

It's not, though it's worth noting that at other times we've seen social conservatives also trying to censor heavy metal and rock music in general (especially when it started out as Black music), so it always just moves to the scary new thing.

---

Most notably Tipper Gore.

Parents Music Resource Center

Is she right wing or left wing? It is all so confusing!

The Seuss estate does not control any of those other things - so I am not sure what your point is. They made a decision about the things they control, everything else is just RWNJ crybaby nonsense.

Considering the source, not terribly surprising. LMK gonna LMK.

LMK5 said:

---

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

"According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL! "

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

---

The Seuss estate pulled 6 books because they didn't want his legacy destroyed by what are obviously troubling artwork. They were protecting his other books. Can you say capitalism and free enterprise?

---

Not really. They pulled 6 books because they knew that once the criticism hit the media there would be no way to stop that freight train whether they were right or wrong, so they took preventive measures. They knew they were defenseless against the mob because they've seen plenty of examples of what happens when you resist. Yes, they were protecting their brand and income stream.

Why not remove all books that have troubling artwork? Why stop at Dr. Seuss? And while we're at it, why not remove the old movies that depicted people in a light far worse than a friggin' kids book. I recently watched The Letter with Betty Davis. Asians are clearly depicted in a way that wouldn't pass muster today. Why is it still on the air? Under the new order, can you justify your kid watching The Little Rascals?

I'm sure you're familiar with propaganda film The Eternal Jew. Despite its clear objective, would you, under any circumstances, want that film hidden from view? That's where we're headed.

Trying to claim that cancel culture is not a left-based movement is just absurd. What exactly does Jimmy Kimmel mean then when he says "Canceling Dr. Seuss is how Trump gets reelected"? Is it a warning to conservatives LOL?

---

I don't think the government should take any steps to censor any Dr. Seuss books nor pull them out of the Library of Congress. They are cultural artifacts and part of the public record.

I also don't think any steps the Seuss estate takes to render some of their own books out-of-print are any business of the government. Also by the way, Seuss himself edited some of his own work while he was alive. To take one of the examples noted here, And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, the page in question originally had the narrator saying he saw "a Chinaman who eats with sticks," which was later changed to "a Chinese man" to remove the potentially offensive slur. He also changed the coloring of the man's skin.

https://www.distractify.com/p/why-is-mulberry-street-offensive

Quote:

---

It also captions an illustration of a man as "a Chinese man who eats with sticks." The book, in particular this section, was actually altered in 1978 by Dr. Seuss himself.

"I had a gentleman with a pigtail. I colored him yellow and called him a 'Chinaman.' That's the way things were 50 years ago," he once explained. "In later editions, I refer to him as a 'Chinese man.' I have taken the color out of the gentleman and removed the pigtail and now he looks like an Irishman."

---

I have some mixed feelings about the decision. Some of the images are pretty damn close to offensive old-school blackface imagery. This instance from Mulberry Street is a racial caricature, though in context I wouldn't really say it's a particularly negative portrayal. In one of the other books the offending page seems to be a reference to "Eskimo fish," without any obvious caricatured drawings of Inuit people (just fish with fur hoodies). It's still a matter of disagreement within Inuit tribes whether or not "Eskimo" is actually an offensive word. I feel like these two could have remained in circulation without much issue.

But again, it's a private organization and I can't control their decisions.

LMK5 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

I agree. The question I have is why does the FCC allow certain things but not others? Why can we watch someone bleeding on the ground from a gunshot wound but we can't hear Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper say "aw ****!"? It's puzzling how we decide what's acceptable and unacceptable.

---

Why are you inventing a middle name for Anderson Cooper? His middle name is Hays.

sycasey said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

Indeed. I have concerns about some of the censorious instincts on the left right now

---

Do tell

sycasey said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

Indeed. I have concerns about some of the censorious instincts on the left right now, but if anyone wants to tell me the Republican Party is some great bastion of free-speech advocacy they can try selling that nonsense somewhere else. I lived through their attempts to censor heavy metal, rap music, references to gay sex, and violent video games. Any "free speech" positions they take now are merely a matter of convenience.

---

I lived through their attempt to censor students learning about Islam in schools, the Dixie Chicks and French Fries.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

I agree. The question I have is why does the FCC allow certain things but not others? Why can we watch someone bleeding on the ground from a gunshot wound but we can't hear Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper say "aw ****!"? It's puzzling how we decide what's acceptable and unacceptable.

---

Why are you inventing a middle name for Anderson Cooper? His middle name is Hays.

---

His mother was Gloria Vanderbilt. Yes, those robber baron folks from the gilded age. It's just a friendly jab at his unbelievably privileged lineage and how it contrasts with the viewpoints of his present employer.

Quote:

---

I lived through their attempt to censor students learning about Islam in schools, the Dixie Chicks and French Fries.

---

You're living through attempts to censor students learning about Islam right now.

Regarding the Dixie Chicks, they were not censored. Their audience didn't like what Natalie Maines said at a concert in England and radio stations stopped playing their songs as a result. But they could still sell their albums.

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I lived through their attempt to censor students learning about Islam in schools, the Dixie Chicks and French Fries.

---

You're living through attempts to censor students learning about Islam right now.

Regarding the Dixie Chicks, they were not censored. Their audience didn't like what Natalie Maines said at a concert in England and radio stations stopped playing their songs as a result. But they could still sell their albums.

---

Sounds like cancel culture (as defined by Righteous Righties and Faux Nuez) to me.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

"According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL! "

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

---

The Seuss estate pulled 6 books because they didn't want his legacy destroyed by what are obviously troubling artwork. They were protecting his other books. Can you say capitalism and free enterprise?

---

Not really. They pulled 6 books because they knew that once the criticism hit the media there would be no way to stop that freight train whether they were right or wrong, so they took preventive measures. They knew they were defenseless against the mob because they've seen plenty of examples of what happens when you resist. Yes, they were protecting their brand and income stream.

Why not remove all books that have troubling artwork? Why stop at Dr. Seuss? And while we're at it, why not remove the old movies that depicted people in a light far worse than a friggin' kids book. I recently watched The Letter with Betty Davis. Asians are clearly depicted in a way that wouldn't pass muster today. Why is it still on the air? Under the new order, can you justify your kid watching The Little Rascals?

I'm sure you're familiar with propaganda film The Eternal Jew. Despite its clear objective, would you, under any circumstances, want that film hidden from view? That's where we're headed.

Trying to claim that cancel culture is not a left-based movement is just absurd. What exactly does Jimmy Kimmel mean then when he says "Canceling Dr. Seuss is how Trump gets reelected"? Is it a warning to conservatives LOL?

---

I don't think the government should take any steps to censor any Dr. Seuss books nor pull them out of the Library of Congress. They are cultural artifacts and part of the public record.

I also don't think any steps the Seuss estate takes to render some of their own books out-of-print are any business of the government. Also by the way, Seuss himself edited some of his own work while he was alive. To take one of the examples noted here, And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, the page in question originally had the narrator saying he saw "a Chinaman who eats with sticks," which was later changed to "a Chinese man" to remove the potentially offensive slur. He also changed the coloring of the man's skin.

https://www.distractify.com/p/why-is-mulberry-street-offensive

Quote:

---

It also captions an illustration of a man as "a Chinese man who eats with sticks." The book, in particular this section, was actually altered in 1978 by Dr. Seuss himself.

"I had a gentleman with a pigtail. I colored him yellow and called him a 'Chinaman.' That's the way things were 50 years ago," he once explained. "In later editions, I refer to him as a 'Chinese man.' I have taken the color out of the gentleman and removed the pigtail and now he looks like an Irishman."

---

I have some mixed feelings about the decision. Some of the images are pretty damn close to offensive old-school blackface imagery. This instance from Mulberry Street is a racial caricature, though in context I wouldn't really say it's a particularly negative portrayal. In one of the other books the offending page seems to be a reference to "Eskimo fish," without any obvious caricatured drawings of Inuit people (just fish with fur hoodies). It's still a matter of disagreement within Inuit tribes whether or not "Eskimo" is actually an offensive word. I feel like these two could have remained in circulation without much issue.

But again, it's a private organization and I can't control their decisions.

---

sy, I think you're missing the point. No one's talking about the government. At least if the government was trying to censor you, you'd have recourse through the courts. What we have presently is censorship through shaming and bullying using the modern weapons of social warfare. There's no recourse for the targets. The sheer force and speed of the onslaught, by design, is to force the target to act or face ruination. It's nothing less than a shakedown.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

And is the raunchy song really worse than any number of performance or lyrics by metal or rock bands through the last few decades?

---

It's not, though it's worth noting that at other times we've seen social conservatives also trying to censor heavy metal and rock music in general (especially when it started out as Black music), so it always just moves to the scary new thing.

---

Most notably Tipper Gore.

Parents Music Resource Center

Is she right wing or left wing? It is all so confusing!

---

Tipper was WAP ( covertly)

1988
Stick it in
(Pull it out)
Stick it in
(Pull it out)
Stick it in
(Pull it out)
Stick it in
Twist it!

Spread your information,
Tipper Gore

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I lived through their attempt to censor students learning about Islam in schools, the Dixie Chicks and French Fries.

---

You're living through attempts to censor students learning about Islam right now.

Regarding the Dixie Chicks, they were not censored. Their audience didn't like what Natalie Maines said at a concert in England and radio stations stopped playing their songs as a result. But they could still sell their albums.

---

Yup, what happened to the Dixie Chick is cancel culture as the right-wing media currently defines it.

If liberals burned albums by a band because of its unpopular conservative beliefs, would Fox News go apesh*t? You bet they would!!!! It would provide round-the-clock coverage.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

"According to the left, Dr. Suess books bad, Wet Ass P8ssy, goooood. LOL! "

The FCC allows soft porn in prime time, but if you use a four-letter word on air they'll pull your license.

---

The Seuss estate pulled 6 books because they didn't want his legacy destroyed by what are obviously troubling artwork. They were protecting his other books. Can you say capitalism and free enterprise?

---

Not really. They pulled 6 books because they knew that once the criticism hit the media there would be no way to stop that freight train whether they were right or wrong, so they took preventive measures. They knew they were defenseless against the mob because they've seen plenty of examples of what happens when you resist. Yes, they were protecting their brand and income stream.

Why not remove all books that have troubling artwork? Why stop at Dr. Seuss? And while we're at it, why not remove the old movies that depicted people in a light far worse than a friggin' kids book. I recently watched The Letter with Betty Davis. Asians are clearly depicted in a way that wouldn't pass muster today. Why is it still on the air? Under the new order, can you justify your kid watching The Little Rascals?

I'm sure you're familiar with propaganda film The Eternal Jew. Despite its clear objective, would you, under any circumstances, want that film hidden from view? That's where we're headed.

Trying to claim that cancel culture is not a left-based movement is just absurd. What exactly does Jimmy Kimmel mean then when he says "Canceling Dr. Seuss is how Trump gets reelected"? Is it a warning to conservatives LOL?

---

I don't think the government should take any steps to censor any Dr. Seuss books nor pull them out of the Library of Congress. They are cultural artifacts and part of the public record.

I also don't think any steps the Seuss estate takes to render some of their own books out-of-print are any business of the government. Also by the way, Seuss himself edited some of his own work while he was alive. To take one of the examples noted here, And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, the page in question originally had the narrator saying he saw "a Chinaman who eats with sticks," which was later changed to "a Chinese man" to remove the potentially offensive slur. He also changed the coloring of the man's skin.

https://www.distractify.com/p/why-is-mulberry-street-offensive

Quote:

---

It also captions an illustration of a man as "a Chinese man who eats with sticks." The book, in particular this section, was actually altered in 1978 by Dr. Seuss himself.

"I had a gentleman with a pigtail. I colored him yellow and called him a 'Chinaman.' That's the way things were 50 years ago," he once explained. "In later editions, I refer to him as a 'Chinese man.' I have taken the color out of the gentleman and removed the pigtail and now he looks like an Irishman."

---

I have some mixed feelings about the decision. Some of the images are pretty damn close to offensive old-school blackface imagery. This instance from Mulberry Street is a racial caricature, though in context I wouldn't really say it's a particularly negative portrayal. In one of the other books the offending page seems to be a reference to "Eskimo fish," without any obvious caricatured drawings of Inuit people (just fish with fur hoodies). It's still a matter of disagreement within Inuit tribes whether or not "Eskimo" is actually an offensive word. I feel like these two could have remained in circulation without much issue.

But again, it's a private organization and I can't control their decisions.

---

sy, I think you're missing the point. No one's talking about the government. At least if the government was trying to censor you, you'd have recourse through the courts. What we have presently is censorship through shaming and bullying using the modern weapons of social warfare. There's no recourse for the targets. The sheer force and speed of the onslaught, by design, is to force the target to act or face ruination. It's nothing less than a shakedown.

---

If that's the definition of "censorship," then in my lifetime conservatives have gotten up to a lot more of it than liberals. See the other examples cited above. From before my lifetime we've got a whole lot more. Look up HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist.

When it comes to Seuss it seems to me there wasn't a whole lot of bullying. There were some academic articles critical of Seuss' work over the course of several years and then the company made a preemptive decision to take some books out of print. I don't fully agree with the decision, but a charge of "censorship" (government or otherwise) seems like a stretch.

Conservatives have been celebrating a president of the United States who's most famous quote contains the slang word for women's vaginas, who cheated on his wife with a porn star and who used a pandemic press conference to boast that he's banged lots of models.

Get the F out of here with this fake Grammy outrage!

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

One thing that interests me about the economic libertarians that comprise the Republican Party is how their concerns about censorship stop when it's something that offends their sensibilities.

I think WAP is a bad song on multiple levels and that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. But I have a simple solution for that. I don't listen to the song and I don't watch it be performed.

The free market has decided, for better or worse, that this is art. Why do we insist that free markets are the solution for everything else, but not art?

---

Indeed. I have concerns about some of the censorious instincts on the left right now, but if anyone wants to tell me the Republican Party is some great bastion of free-speech advocacy they can try selling that nonsense somewhere else. I lived through their attempts to censor heavy metal, rap music, references to gay sex, and violent video games. Any "free speech" positions they take now are merely a matter of convenience.

---

I lived through their attempt to censor students learning about Islam in schools, the Dixie Chicks and French Fries.

---

Congrats on surviving that horror! I'm surprised you came out alive. At least now you have war stories.

Add "sarcasm" to the growing list of things that confuse you.

Did I say anywhere that I support banning Dr Suess or pulling the books? No, I didn't. I refuted your (and the right's framing) that it is the work of the Left to ban Suess or promote WAP. Neither is true. The Suess estate pulled the books for whatever reason they wanted to. That is not the work of the left, and neither is what you find objectionable material. You invented a boogeyman as an excuse to either rag on the Left or uphold your anxiety or projection on the left. Your position is false and irrational. Period.

Hilarious thread