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
There are tons of books that actually are a product of the current time. Why not read those, and support living writers, instead of changing the meaning of older works?

Seems like your problem here is easier to solve without messing with the other writers and potentially confusing your child about what, say, a Ronald Dahl book is actually like.

>>biztos+5h1
Because they might not know the modern books or because they might like the older books, except for 0.001% of their content.

>>oblio+jy1
At least in the Dahl case, they're explicitly trying to change the tone of the works, and not just the "content" -- whatever that word is supposed to mean in the context of literature.

Everybody's family is different, but my childhood self would have been pretty disillusioned to discover my parents censoring books on my behalf. I really can't see how that's a good lesson for the kids, especially when you can just buy contemporary works that are as PC/woke (or not) as you want them to be.