3 ms·
My point is that "banned" requires some attempt to interfere with access. Taking something off a reading list isn't interfering with access. ("They won't read
by anamax 16y ago
My point is that "banned" requires some attempt to interfere with access.
Taking something off a reading list isn't interfering with access. ("They won't read it if it isn't on the list" doesn't change things as it applies to everything that's not on the list and you're arguing that the reason matters.)
There's nothing wrong with objecting to how a reading list is selected, but no matter what the reason, that process does not ban anything.
Yes labelling something as a "ban" has persuasive power, but that doesn't make the label accurate.
Such mis-labelling actually makes it harder to get people to react to actual wolves, so to speak.
- sukuriant 16y agoYou're right, it isn't banning. How would you describe it? If we are to raise a banner against this person's effect on their area, we need to have a precise word that not only describes what's going on, but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance.
- Jach 16y agoWhy do we need a banner? Is the cause so lost that we must resort to equivalent rhetoric to win the book back to the reading list? And would a banner even be useful? For something nearly equivalent to a banner, how about mailing a bunch of copies of the book to everyone responsible for getting it removed.
- anamax 16y ago> but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance. I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is it equivalent to "the person making the decision is a bad person and the person objecting is a good person"? If you're claiming that the reason for the decision is bad, shouldn't you argue that point with some specificity? (There are lots of reasons why a decision might be bad - surely you should mention which ones apply.)