zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
I'm a gay man and I think we are going to far with this PC nonsense. I had a hard time growing up in the 90s knowing I was different and being tormented by my peers, so I'm happy to see gay "normalized" in current pop culture more because I think it teaches the younger generation to accept themselves and others. However I feel that it's going to far, for example I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a third of the way through because every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something. It made the story seem fake and unrealistic. I think editing classic books is wrong even if it is covering up something like hate or bigotry. History forgotten is history bound to repeat itself.

>>double+ls1
I've been to a lot of art museums when travelling. If you judged the world by the thousands of paintings in those museums, you could assume that people of color simply didn't exist back then, and that poor people showed up at some point during the 17th century.

I could understand why people might want art to portray a broader world that includes them in it, especially when introducing their children to that world.

It must be wild to see the world portrayed as if you didn't exist, and I think it's cool to adapt beloved classics with that in mind. Comic books have tried every thinkable variation of a character, from a Soviet Superman to a black Spiderman. It did not diminish the originals, but offered new versions with new perspectives.

This is something I'm okay with, so long as the originals don't get labeled as problematic or something.

>>nicbou+gB1
> It did not diminish the originals, but offered new versions with new perspectives.

> This is something I'm okay with, so long as the originals don't get labeled as problematic or something.

In the case of Roald Dahl's books, aren't sales of the originals going to be permanently ended?