Posts: 19644
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:08 am
I thought this was a joke, at first...
![[Image: oxford-university_PORK_main.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle4977527.ece%2Falternates%2Fs615%2Foxford-university_PORK_main.jpg)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...slims.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entert...76620.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oxf...ig-4977300
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/ja...guidelines
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments...f_pork_or/
Quote:Stringent guidelines from educational publishers, that warn textbook authors off touching on topics from pork to horoscopes to avoid offending students in other countries, have come to light amid widespread criticism.
Their emergence follows the news earlier this month that publisher HarperCollins had pulped an atlas designed for use in Middle Eastern schools after outrage over its omission of Israel from the map. HarperCollins said at the time that the decision reflected “local preferences”, with the inclusion of Israel “unacceptable” to its Gulf customers.
[...]
But according to authors, the guidelines are well-known and widely used by educational publishers, encompassing a range of “taboo” subjects in addition to pork, with publishers keen to avoid offending potential markets for their books abroad. There is even an acronym, PARSNIP, to remind authors of topics to be avoided: politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, isms (communism for example) and pork.
[...]
“We’re constantly complaining about this. There are lists, and they are long, of things we can’t mention,” said award-winning English language teaching (ELT) author Nicola Prentis. “Things like gay relationships are an absolute no-no – a lot of writers feel why can’t we sometimes have a photo of a couple who happen to be men, without making an issue of it? Other topics we can’t mention are dogs – for a couple of reasons, because it might offend Koreans, or Muslims; cats are OK – horoscopes and gambling.
“Same sex cohabitation is OK but we couldn’t suggest that university students were living in mixed accommodation, or mention sex, religion, drugs and alcohol. ELT is renowned for being bland, because we have to take out so much. All we’re left with is the environment as a topic, or eating in a restaurant – but then you could never have a wine bottle on the table.”
[...]
OUP said in a statement: “Our materials are sold in nearly 200 countries, and as such, and without compromising our commitment in any way, we encourage some authors of educational materials respectfully to consider cultural differences and sensitivities. Guidelines for our educational materials differ between geographies and do not cover our academic publishing.”
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:10 am
I don't think this will last too long, English journalism is second to none when it comes to utterly skewering and publicly shaming figures and organizations, and they're going to have a field day with this.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 11:17 am by Alex K.)
![[Image: NOVA_Porco_t700.jpg?f40c0e74b997dbb01ce5...a31382c8af]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com%2Fimg%2Fphotos%2F2011%2F10%2F17%2FNOVA_Porco_t700.jpg%3Ff40c0e74b997dbb01ce524758e0d04a31382c8af)
Sorry Carolyn, you're out... no more purdy saturn pics in Oxford.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 11:14 am by robvalue.)
They seem to forget anyone can come up with any religion and decide to be offended by absolutely anything. Therefor, you shouldn't include anything in any publication. But then maybe I'll make a religion about being offended by blank pages...
Enough with this bullshit.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:21 am
But... if you're just going to commit to pretending that pork doesn't exist, then.... ugh... 
People know that pork exists. The whole reason certain people are religiously opposed to pork is that they know it exists. Their religious opposition would vanish completely if they didn't think pork existed, the whole basis of the claim is the continued verification that pork was not, in fact, a fever dream cooked up by a madman. So, in order to avoid offending these people, one needs to accept the premise that they already know and understand that pork exists, meaning that hearing that pork exists would not be a surprise to them. If they already know, what's there to offend? Unless the specific portions of the book was literally just "pork is rad, fuck those who don't like it," then the mere intimation that it exists, offensive or not, is merely a factual statement, and it's one that those who you're trying not to offend already accept as true.
This whole thing is pointless.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 11:25 am by Alex K.)
(January 15, 2015 at 11:13 am)robvalue Wrote: They seem to forget anyone can come up with any religion and decide to be offended by absolutely anything. Therefor, you shouldn't include anything in any publication. But then maybe I'll make a religion about being offended by blank pages...
Enough with this bullshit.
A nepalese acquaintance related the story that a muslim couple they know would glue pages in a children's picture book about the farm together whenever there are pigs on it. I simply don't understand how any functioning, educated person can have such a dysfunctional relationship with reality.
(January 15, 2015 at 11:21 am)Esquilax Wrote: But... if you're just going to commit to pretending that pork doesn't exist, then.... ugh...
People know that pork exists.
Just wait for it, at some point ISIS will decide to go Krikkit on the world's pig population.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 6002
Threads: 252
Joined: January 2, 2013
Reputation:
30
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 11:57 am
I don't really understand what these guidelines are aimed at, if it's how to sell books in the middle east then yeh it's probably better to not include a character named Pauly the pig and his necklace of sausages who drinks whiskey with his gay friends in a casino in Israel.
But that's only if they're trying to promote books specifically to Muslims for whatever reason, the rest of the world shouldn't have to change the books they want to write, that would be basically like saying you're going to exclude the mention of homosexuals from the books altogether, because they aren't very likely to get into organized groups and commit murders if they're offended so it's ok, but Muslims are, and are quite often homophobic so give them what they want.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Zionist plot !!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 12:47 pm
Quote:Oxford University Press bans use of pig, sausage or pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
Bacon is worth more than all the fucking muslims in the world.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Oxford U. Press bans use of pork-related words to avoid offending Muslims
January 15, 2015 at 12:50 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2015 at 12:51 pm by Mudhammam.)
Sounds a little Orwellian.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
|
