Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Future of online fora
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:13:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <vsmfiu$1690q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsm50r$qq1s$1@dont-email.me>
 <7j7tujt1qqsjncjl13c5saoujqjk5d6sra@4ax.com> <vsm7vl$qq1s$2@dont-email.me>
 <vsm9g2$vpcs$2@dont-email.me> <vsma8i$vpcs$3@dont-email.me>
 <vsmf7k$15kf6$4@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 19:13:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0a73662055b566625e77e19228f6fad";
	logging-data="1254426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uSgXoqCPQ0043ygYCxE23cRTxSZzshHA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:egrkXrkpigecQV8EO23oees2niA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vsmf7k$15kf6$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4717

On 4/3/2025 1:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/3/2025 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/3/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2025 11:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2025 9:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:12:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The forum LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed) is
>>>>>> among the early casualties of The Planners in the UK nanny
>>>>>> state.  Under the well invoked principle, "Everyone ought
>>>>>> to, because I say so", newly enacted internet regulation
>>>>>> makes online providers fully responsible for online content
>>>>>> including purported crimes of "revenge [whether personal or
>>>>>> by class], extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment,
>>>>>> coercive or controlling behavior and stalking."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since interpretation of those can be highly subjective* and
>>>>>> in light of the huge volume of content, every word of which
>>>>>> is a possible offense, providers such as Microcosm, who
>>>>>> wrote the popular group forum software, have deleted all
>>>>>> activity and more have followed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *c.f. plentiful examples of the last three right here on
>>>>>> RBT. Or not. That's the nature of subjective evaluation.
>>>>>
>>>>> A week or so ago I read a notice that both Tom Sawyer and Alice in
>>>>> Wonderland had been blacklisted by some group or another.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alice for the term "evil witch" or something similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Tom I can only assume that any reference of the Civil war will
>>>>> soon be unmentionable in polite society.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there's that.  And a greater loss, which is the nearly complete 
>>>> obliteration of Huckleberry Finn, a far superior volume to the 
>>>> forced and anemic Tom Sawyer. It's among the most powerful anti 
>>>> racism works ever published, but it's been banned in schools for 
>>>> decades.
>>>
>>> Hmm. I just reread it a month or so ago. I thought the portrayal of 
>>> Jim was too cartoonish. I also thought the ending was weak.
>>>
>>> Yes, just a subjective evaluation.
>>
>> Further consideration (and apologies for responding to my own post):
>>
>> Maybe I just engaged in a bit of "presentism" - that is, judging past 
>> actions by standards of the present, which is often unjust.
>>
>> I don't doubt that Mark Twain's writing and his portrayal of Jim was 
>> groundbreaking in his day. The fact that a black slave (Jim) was shown 
>> as emotional, industrious, courageous and reasonably intelligent was 
>> probably shocking and eye opening to Twain's audience at the time. 
>> That's true even if the portrayal had a long way to go by present 
>> standards.
>>
>> I reread _Huckleberry Finn_ as sort of prep work for the current novel 
>> _James_ which is, reportedly, the same story told from the slave's 
>> perspective. It's coming up soon on my list of books to read.
>>
> 
> Back to the issue, would you consider it appropriate for grammar school 
> age children or not?

Me? Yes, definitely, at least for the upper grades. With discussion, of 
course.

I don't know how kids' books are chosen, what the criteria and the 
priorities are. If teachers want to delve into social issues, it seems 
like there are infinite choices; and of course, there are certainly 
non-social issues kids should be exposed to. But I'd have no trouble 
with this book being one of the candidates.

-- 
- Frank Krygowski