• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 days ago

    And she is not allowed to carry wine unsupervised to her grandmother.

    Apart from the abominable fact that she left the home without being driven in a car.

  • ptolemai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 days ago

    Other way: little red riding hood wasn’t a minor, only “little” relative to the size of the wolf’s belly. About the same size as grandma.

  • s@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 days ago

    This post that opposes censorship of emotionally challenging concepts selectively censored words which pertain to emotionally challenging concepts

    • alk@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s part of the bit. They are talking from the perspective of people who do want to censor it.

      • s@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 days ago

        I don’t see the subject of their satire (someone who is seeking to or is able to alter the content of well-known literature, generally on store shelves or in schools) to be the same as the people who self-censor for online algorithms and advertisements. There is some similarity between the parties but I don’t think that was the author’s intent. People who want to censor others tend to draw attention to the emotionally challenging concepts with direct and emphatic diction since they want to convince people that the content is too extreme or wrong; in contrast, the online self-censorers tend to do so begrudgingly and wish that they were not in a situation in which they have to dance around words or concepts.

        The Tumblr profile is restricted so an account on that website is required to see if the self-censorship is a common pattern in their writing or if it was just for this case.

  • lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    considering the amount of fairy tales that have been watered down just like this over the past hundred-and-change years i don’t know if this is making the point it thinks it’s making.

    as in, i genuinuly don’t know if it has accounted for the fact that the original intent of little red riding hood is specifically about sexual predators

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 days ago

    That’s one take…and I swear a lot of kids that had this as their bed time story didnt see everything as pedo tho. It was about disguising true intentions for most of us. At least that was it on the face of it but mostly it was about a thrill of a scary story.

    Other stories such as the news is what scared our parents who repeated these literal stories of pedophilia to us. That’s where fact was way more messed up than any fiction taught us to not talk to strangers but even then kids were kidnapped off the street regardless so helicopter parents were born from that.

  • ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I definitely like a good written villain. But what’s the point the author is trying to make here? We need a villain in our stories otherwise we can’t scare our kids into submission?

    And even IF you believe that you can only teach kids stuff like this by scaring them, there are several other ways to achieve this without a villain. She could get lost, fall down a cliff, get hit by a boulder, whatever gory stuff you can come up with.

    We need them to make it easier and more interesting to tell our story but not because they are the only option to tell it…

    • GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Unfortunately, you missed the point.

      The objective of Grimm fables is not to make kids feel good, nor to scare them, really. It’s to prepare them for the real world.

      Red Riding Hood is not a story about kids being eaten by wolves. It’s a story about teaching kids that there are adults in the world who want to harm them. Adults who will make themselves appear non-threatening in order to lure those kids into harm.

      What OOP implies here is that by removing elements of children’s stories that make us uncomfortable is exactly working against the morals and purpose of those stories.

      • mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        As an autistic child I never understood those dimensions of the story anyway. I am literally realizing them right now in my 40s upon reading your comment. Instead, I learned those life lessons because my parents told them to me directly.

        • GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          Ah, same. My parents were neurodivergent and very blunt with life lessons, too. Neurotypicals have that kind of “beat around the bush” “don’t say the quiet part out loud” “guide them to water” type of attitude I think.

        • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Good thing you weren’t born in that era, too. You would’ve been discarded/drowned/sold/cloistered/etc. as a witch like the rest of us NDs. 😅😶