zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
I'd be interested in hearing the most credible/reputable sources speaking out in favor of these changes. I've exclusively seen commentators dunking on this (rightfully so), across the political spectrum. To be clear: I'm wondering if we can find specific people speaking up for this, not an analysis of whose side of the culture war is most culpable for it.

>>tptace+aH
I'm neither credible nor reputable, but I'm in favor of a weak version of this. When reading older books to my young child, I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work. One day soon he'll be able to read, and at that point I'll wish that books that were a product of their time would have been updated for the current time, so that he could just read the book, without us having to have a conversation about how things were different then.

>>bla3+Hb1
> I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work

I totally agree - my kids had Berenstain Bear's books (as random gifts and such) and I would avoid reading them because in particular the way they portrayed Papa Bear as a bumbling fool grated on my nerves. He's like a Homer Simpson without the heart. I'm certain mothers also don't appreciate the way Mama Bear is portrayed as always in the kitchen and the ultimate authority figure.

If these books were updated to modern sensibilities I wouldn't have a problem reading them to my kids. As it stands, I skipped them and they weren't a part of my children's upbringing. I don't mind.

>>bentco+ff1
Why not explain the historical context of these books instead? (That’s I what do with my children.) My children appreciate the transparency and extra discussion. That leads to a better longer term outcome for society than with the ease and convenience that censorship provides. History’s mistakes tend to repeat when society forgets them. We can’t rely on educational institutions doing our job for us since the same trend of censorship is happening in their realm.

>>chaost+9Q1
Because there are enough (a veritable deluge of) alternatives that do not require extra work on my part.

Which is probably why the Dahl copyright holders are doing this(1). Not to appease some sort of modern sensibilities, but to make money. Apparently they think the investment will pay off.

(1) a less money-focused reason could be because they truly believe these stories deserve to be shared in the future, and see the things they changed as barriers to that goal while of little import to the message. But again, they think this step will "pay off" - in continued popularity / enduring part of culture then.