zlacker

> Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work.

The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners.

>>heavys+(OP)
Sure, disclose it is the edited version for "sensitive readers offended by writing of the time" of minority group on the cover and I'm all fine with it.

But it won't happen because that would be honesty and we can't have that from people that push for the changes

>>heavys+(OP)
> The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners.

Nobody would be upset if they were just making a new version of the book. The issue is they're trying to sweep the original under the rug and eventually memoryhole it.

>>heavys+(OP)
"You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners"

The "owners" (who likely don't have a imaginative bone in their entire skeleton), if you'll pardon my vernacular, should stay the fuck out of the authors original work instead of mucking around with it, particularly inane changes like the removal of the word fat.

And by pushing a new addition of the book while discontinuing the originals they seek to erase the authors original work. If anything this particular addition should have a large CliffsNotes banner on the cover.

>>heavys+(OP)
At this point, I am tempted for once to think favorably of John Randolph of Roanoke, who once proposed a law to ban the publication of bowdlerized editions of Shakespeare in the United States.

>>heavys+(OP)
They are very different responses. After you live life a few more decades, the differences become quite obvious.