Forum - View topicINTEREST: Hello Kitty Dictionary Gets Axed Over Murderous Description
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13550 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
|||
|
The "rape" definition used the meaning that it's a man having sex with a woman against her will? Sheesh, they could've updated to mean having sex with a person against their will.
|
||||
|
||||
EricJ2
 Posts: 4016 |
|
|||
They could have updated it to mean having sex with Hello Kitty, I'd buy a copy. 
(Seriously, are we that intent on discussing the Ramifications of Social Revolution and Repression, that we're that ready to throw the disgruntled-sabotage "Somebody was trying to be fired....  " theory so immediately out the window?
Sheesh, get a life, and buy an immature sense of humor!) |
||||
|
||||
KutovoiAnton
 Posts: 941 Location: Vladimir, Russia |
|
|||
|
New piece of merchendise, called "Hello Killer"?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ryu Shoji
Posts: 671 Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom |
|
|||
|
Personally, I'd object more to that utterly sexist definition of rape.
Women can be the perpetrators and men can be the victims as well. |
||||
|
||||
penguintruth
 Posts: 8459 Location: Penguinopolis |
|
|||
What? Why would s/he ask? The definition is right there in the dictionary! That's what a dictionary is for! That six year old is a big disappointment. |
||||
|
||||
DavetheUsher
 Posts: 505 |
|
|||
Nah, brah, I'd say it's more problematic we're drawing lines in the sand. You didn't say a word about the book being taken down for definitions of murder, violence, and (incorrectly defined) rape. But someone suggests some parents might think the word gay to also be a problem to pull the book, you register just to cry out intolerance and being close-minded. Either they're all okay or none are okay, man. You can't just pick and choose what gets censored selectively. That's even worse than sweeping censorship. |
||||
|
||||
|
Osaka2002
Posts: 34 |
|
|||
|
Just another example of hyper-concerned parents (and companies) freaking out about the possibility of children *gasp* learning about the real, non-shealtered world. If you prevent children from learning about anything that is even remotely somber, negative, and "real" (note: there is nothing negative about people being gay), how are they supposed to learn about society and humanity? All you're doing is setting them up for ignorance and a lack of understanding as an adult.
|
||||
|
||||
Ali07
 Posts: 3333 Location: Victoria, Australia |
|
|||
|
If the parents wanted the kids to learn everything, unfiltered, they could've just given them a Websters.
Personally, don't see this being about parents sheltering their children when complaining about what they have in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if parents just saw Hello Kitty and thought that it'd be a cute little dictionary for small children, not expecting things like rape and the different definitions of gas/necklace to be words/definitions within it's pages. And, I don't think that it'd be an unreasonable assumption to make. |
||||
|
||||
|
kenway
Posts: 2 |
|
|||
|
@Emma Iveli
Ah, I see. Sorry about that! @Ryu Shoji The definition is incorrect but it isn't sexist. To say it was sexist would imply that men and women are impacted equally by sexism. In other words, it doesn't go both ways. @DavetheUser Other people had commented on removing those words, and I don't have to comment on every issue in order to make a valid point. If you actually cared about either of those issues you could have made a new comment about them instead of responding to mine. And no, if you say that it's all or nothing you're implying those words are in the same category of appropriateness. |
||||
|
||||
bglassbrook
 Posts: 1243 Location: Gaithersburg, MD |
|
|||
I would have to disagree. The six-year-old read a word in the dictionary and didn't understand it (maybe "sex" was left out.) If the dictionary really was labeled as "for [those] aged 11+" then her mother clearly didn't. Looks like a generational improvement to me. |
||||
|
||||
|
eternalblue81
Posts: 32 |
|
|||
|
Where did they even get these definitions? I'm surprised that any current dictionary would gender rape as only being committed by men. Necklaces are only worn by women?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Emma Iveli
Posts: 679 Location: Hobo with internet |
|
|||
It's okay... I should have been much more clear to begin with... Also since then I showed it to my dad, he thinks that the guy who wrote it and/or edited it wanted to get fired. |
||||
|
||||
|
Ali07
Posts: 3333 Location: Victoria, Australia |
|
|||
Well, at least the 2nd definition given says "person". So, we know everyone can be killed with that method. 
|
||||
|
||||
|
EricJ2
Posts: 4016 |
|
|||
(Told ya.  )
|
||||
|
||||
yuna49
 Posts: 3804 |
|
|||
I guess the author of that item has never seen the pitching staffs in Major League Baseball! |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group