[abernard1]

> 100 years later we're still fighting over what gets to be published or broadcast.

But notably, the sides have switched.

Censorship used to be associated with "blue hairs," a pejorative term basically meaning old church ladies. Now, the primary advocates of censorship and social condemnation are a new breed of "blue hairs": the young woke pronoun-enforcing variety.

This roughly mirrors the fact that large corporations, technology (looks around), entertainment, journalists, academics, educators, and the managerial class in general hail from the cultural roots that made Ulysses subversive. They now are the establishment. What were mainstream views as of a decade ago are considered subversive and must be banished from the public square.

[zozbot234]

> in general hail from the cultural roots that made Ulysses subversive.

I don't buy this. I think you're really underestimating what it means for something to be genuinely subversive. It does not mean following fads, it means making an effort to make you aware of something worth knowing about the world, the human condition etc., even at the cost of making you feel deeply uncomfortable about it. For all the controversy about it, one can at least make a colorable argument that the "filth and obscenity" in that one section of Ulysses managed to do that. But pronouns? They're just the silly creed of a new woke religion. They tell you nothing except how self-centered young folks can be these days, and it's not like we weren't aware of that already. The best thing about pronouns is that everyone gets to pick their favorite.

[maroonblazer]

I don't think people like those in Tennessee who just banned Maus from their school libraries 'hail from cultural roots that made Ulysses subversive'.

I do agree that the social justice movement has taken the wrong side in the 'what gets to be published/broadcast debate'. I just don't know if they're the primary advocates, in terms of raw numbers.

[abernard1]

> I don't think people like those in Tennessee who just banned Maus from their school libraries 'hail from cultural roots that made Ulysses subversive'.

This is great because it shows how sad this conversation has gotten. Let's put this in perspective:

Side One: "Our world is ending because we have the entire power apparatus of the U.S. State, social and business institutions weighing down on our speech, freedom to associate, freedom to send money, or communicate our thoughts openly without censorship."

Side Two: "Our world is ending because checks notes a school district in McMinn County Tennesse (pop 54K) decided to use a different book for a topic in its elementary school curriculum."

That such a mountain can be made out of this molehill, and broadcast uniformly across the whole country is proof of the cultural hegemony of Side Two. Side Two undoubtedly would not be making an issue out of not using Noah's Ark books in 5th grade biology, and this whole line of argumentation is disingenuous.