7 ms·

“Rather than focus on what their kids are actually reading, these parents often take their lead from social media pages and conservative organizations that list

“Rather than focus on what their kids are actually reading, these parents often take their lead from social media pages and conservative organizations that list which books to target and provide talking points, as well as screenshots of school library catalogs. Parents’ outrage may be genuine, but their actions create an even more hostile environment for already marginalized kids.” Crowdsourcing our outrage like this is a hugely destructive behavior, and yet it’s one that both “teams” engage in regularly. News sources on both sides are in the business of telling you what will make you engage the most, and usually that’s whatever makes you the angriest. You really do need to look into things for yourself. When you do you’ll often find that there’s way more nuance there than you thought, no matter how straightforward the original reporting seemed to be. If you can’t spare the time to do that, you have no business engaging in activism pertaining to that topic.

WoahNoun 5y ago
Both sides is a reductionist argument that ignores the extremes one side is taking versus the other.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  - jlongr 5y ago
    >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. >Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
- freedomben 5y ago
  suggesting that anything that mentions "both sides" as having a problem is a reductionist argument, is itself a reductionist argument, and a major logical fallacy. It is perfectly possible for there to be issues that affect "both sides" to either different or equal extent, and an extreme position that one of those sides has on some other issue is irrelevant. Just think about which "side" is worse on the drug war and the incredible damage it has caused? If you come up with an answer of "which side" is worse, does that mean that everything the other side did is totally cool, totally non-destructive, etc? Of course not. sorry for the lecture, but this argument is one of the few that triggers the hell out of me. the other one is, "I don't care about privacy violations because I'm not doing anything wrong"
  - WoahNoun 5y ago
    I didn't say extreme positions since that is subjective. One side is using tactics like creating laws that let a state legislature overturn the Presidential vote; the other side is not doing that.
    - dudul 5y ago
      Just to clarify: creating laws is an extrem tactic? Laws that are created by representants?
    - freedomben 5y ago
      What do voting laws have to do with the problem of outrage circulating on social media, or the harm caused by the drug war, etc? If you want to argue that "both sides" are not equally bad on voting rights, I would agree (with the caveat that I've not researched that issue so could certainly encounter information that changed my mind), but that seems entirely irrelevant to the question of whether both sides are equally bad when it comes to circulating outrage on social media
- rhino369 5y ago
  Both sides can be a fallacy--but it isn't always. But I think its very reasonable to conclude "both sides" are engaging in social media mobs, censorship, and cancel culture. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird are on the list of most "challenged" books for 2020 because they upset liberal sensibilities. It's not just a right wing problem.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    “Both sides” just provides cover for the really heinous side. Anything that categorizes evil and really-really-evil into the same bucket, benefits really-really-evil the most.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      It *can* be used to do that. But there is nothing inherent in that. And hardcore partisans always think the other sides is the really-really-really-evil side and they are on the side of angels. So your line of thinking can be used to justify bad behavior because the other side is worse.
  - WoahNoun 5y ago
    What is your definition of "challenged"? I believe the liberal position is not to ban those books from libraries, but that there are newer books that can replace those books in the classroom.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbook...
- ljm 5y ago
  The issue is that you see one side versus the other, like the US is a football and two rival teams are fighting for possession of it. I mean, that might seem to be the case but it shouldn't be competitive, it needs to be co-operative. Authoritarian people are going to find ways to be authoritarian no matter their political persuasion.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  You mean extremes like literally burning books [1], or banning a broad category of books from the largest bookstore in the world for ideological reasons [2], or using copyright to censor the most popular American children's author [3]? I'm against censorship, and I think banning books from school libraries is ridiculous [4]. But a single school district in Texas banning a book is not really comparable with the scale and significance of the corporate/woke censorship. [1]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario-francophone-schools-as-gesture-of-reconciliation-denounced https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario... [2]: WSJ: "Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses" https://archive.fo/v5rWn https://archive.fo/v5rWn [3]: Guardian: "It's a moral decision': Dr Seuss books are being 'recalled' not cancelled, expert says" https://archive.fo/SPBMh https://archive.fo/SPBMh [4]: A school library has limited space, and obviously can't hold all the books in the world, so the librarian have to make a choice. But selection should be based on things like what the students would like to read, exposure to a broad diversity of views, etc. instead of ideology.
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    Two things worth bringing up. I’m unconvinced book banning is as big a deal on the left. The one example you bring up was apparently attacked across the board in Canada and the other two are non government institutions, the last one literally being the family of the author. Maybe more importantly though I’m unconvinced that book restrictions are actually universally illegitimate, but certainly some motivations are. If as the article claims it is mostly multicultural books being attacked despite similar books in terms of sex being left alone, then that is worse than books being restricted because people feel they’re racist because racism is bad. I would for example completely support restricting middle schoolers access to books supporting “race science” at least without the proper context being provided
    - finite_jest 5y ago
      I think you are correct in implying that the current wave of censorship is mostly non-governmental, but that doesn't make it look any better in my eyes. This is a discussion about culture, not who has the legal right to do what. Banning "inappropriate" books from school is most likely legal in the US [1], but that doesn't automatically make puritanism and prudishness good. I disagree, I think book restrictions are Orwellian, but that's another discussion. [1]: https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-boo...
- 762236 5y ago
  Liberals banning the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn due to race issues is extreme.
ethbr0 5y ago
This was the entire point of talk radio: mobilize the historically politically-inactive by inciting them with a summarized issue of the day. Or basically TED, except for anger instead of hope. Crowdsourced rage on platforms other than radio (e.g. social media) is the same theory, different medium. What's disgusting is that Meta/Facebook et al. avoid doing anything about it, while profiting directly. And by "it" I mean "engagement algorithms that reward outrage," not "content." Attempts to moderate content (or not) are a red herring, and useless, as addressing content doesn't change the underlying engagement systems that incentivized that outrage in the first place.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  I don't think Tom Snyder or Larry King were intended to "mobilize the historically politically-inactive." The revocation of the fairness doctrine[1] is what made talk radio what it became. It had been weaponized by Democrats against Republican-leaning media, so it was no surprise that Reagan stopped it. The perhaps unexpected result of that is that the fourth estate was divided by the two major parties and we have our choice of political propaganda or political propaganda with no objectivity or government oversight. One possible solution is to consider another fairness doctrine. One with standards set so as to not be controlled by the two party political system. If we don't moderate content creation, we'd have to moderate content consumption or deeper incentives (ad money). Solutions to those seem more abusive of freedoms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I can only speak back to the early-90s, which would have been post-repeal, so defer to your earlier memories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Corollary_rules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Coroll... Both of the post-fairness rules above that survived for a while seem reasonable to reimplement. Roughly, if either a person is attacked or a political candidate endorsed, the person or the unendorsed candidate must be afforded airtime to respond. Those 2 rules alone would drastically alter the business of the major 24/7 news channels. And I think realistically what we're talking about are "major media outlets." Which I'd define either by total viewer/listener count or local market share. If you want to go off on your blog about someone, free speech seems to hold. But if the main radio station in your area decides to relentlessly beat the drum for a candidate / issue... well, that's probably a problem for democracy.
pstuart 5y ago
Chiming in on the "both sides" argument as not being productive, and worse, not being accurate. There's a concerted effort of using school boards as a political tool to rally the base -- and the OP is the result of that.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Are you insinuating that liberal issues before school boards aren't used as a political tool to rally the base? Because I have several fundraising emails in a junk inbox that would indicate otherwise.
  - j_walter 5y ago
    You can certainly point toward Newberg school district in Oregon. They banned all flags except the US and state flag to get politics out of the classroom. All media coverage specifically says they banned rainbow flags and BLM flags...but thats not what the rule says. Trump and NRA flags are just as banned...but that doesn't make a good liberal outrage story quite as much as saying BLM and LGBTQ flags are being banned...
    - jandrese 5y ago
      Is it the case that the schools were also flying NRA flags or did this "fair" rule just happen to only affect rainbow flags? "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
      - j_walter 5y ago
        I think the initial cause was a BLM flag that a parent took issue with being in the classroom. Initially they were going to just ban BLM flags due to the highly contentious nature, but extended the ban to all flags except the US and state flag. Similar to this book "ban"...is it unreasonable that teachers not bring their own personal political view points into the classroom and push them on to children? Is a political and judgment free classroom an unreasonable expectation? How about if a teacher is a Trump supporter and wears a Trump hat to school...do we expect them to be fired because of it? This happened to someone I know...and I don't see any huge outrage in the media because of it. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/long-time-teacher-files-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-evergreen-school-district/ https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/long-time-teacher-file...
Zigurd 5y ago
This is why "both sides" is bunk: On one side you get abstract arguments about "freedom" but no specifics. You get no specifics because the specifics are mostly bad, like taking bodily autonomy away from women. In this case, white parents took offense at a book about a romance between two minority children at a relatively recent time in history that makes readers think about society not being done with the work of dismantling racism. There is not a way to defend that. It is about racists being made uncomfortable. There are not two sides to that, except to engage in whataboutism.

WoahNoun 5y ago

Both sides is a reductionist argument that ignores the extremes one side is taking versus the other.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
- jlongr 5y ago
  >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. >Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
freedomben 5y ago
suggesting that anything that mentions "both sides" as having a problem is a reductionist argument, is itself a reductionist argument, and a major logical fallacy. It is perfectly possible for there to be issues that affect "both sides" to either different or equal extent, and an extreme position that one of those sides has on some other issue is irrelevant. Just think about which "side" is worse on the drug war and the incredible damage it has caused? If you come up with an answer of "which side" is worse, does that mean that everything the other side did is totally cool, totally non-destructive, etc? Of course not. sorry for the lecture, but this argument is one of the few that triggers the hell out of me. the other one is, "I don't care about privacy violations because I'm not doing anything wrong"
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  I didn't say extreme positions since that is subjective. One side is using tactics like creating laws that let a state legislature overturn the Presidential vote; the other side is not doing that.
  - dudul 5y ago
    Just to clarify: creating laws is an extrem tactic? Laws that are created by representants?
  - freedomben 5y ago
    What do voting laws have to do with the problem of outrage circulating on social media, or the harm caused by the drug war, etc? If you want to argue that "both sides" are not equally bad on voting rights, I would agree (with the caveat that I've not researched that issue so could certainly encounter information that changed my mind), but that seems entirely irrelevant to the question of whether both sides are equally bad when it comes to circulating outrage on social media
rhino369 5y ago
Both sides can be a fallacy--but it isn't always. But I think its very reasonable to conclude "both sides" are engaging in social media mobs, censorship, and cancel culture. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird are on the list of most "challenged" books for 2020 because they upset liberal sensibilities. It's not just a right wing problem.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  “Both sides” just provides cover for the really heinous side. Anything that categorizes evil and really-really-evil into the same bucket, benefits really-really-evil the most.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    It *can* be used to do that. But there is nothing inherent in that. And hardcore partisans always think the other sides is the really-really-really-evil side and they are on the side of angels. So your line of thinking can be used to justify bad behavior because the other side is worse.
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  What is your definition of "challenged"? I believe the liberal position is not to ban those books from libraries, but that there are newer books that can replace those books in the classroom.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbook...
ljm 5y ago
The issue is that you see one side versus the other, like the US is a football and two rival teams are fighting for possession of it. I mean, that might seem to be the case but it shouldn't be competitive, it needs to be co-operative. Authoritarian people are going to find ways to be authoritarian no matter their political persuasion.
finite_jest 5y ago
You mean extremes like literally burning books [1], or banning a broad category of books from the largest bookstore in the world for ideological reasons [2], or using copyright to censor the most popular American children's author [3]? I'm against censorship, and I think banning books from school libraries is ridiculous [4]. But a single school district in Texas banning a book is not really comparable with the scale and significance of the corporate/woke censorship. [1]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario-francophone-schools-as-gesture-of-reconciliation-denounced https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario... [2]: WSJ: "Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses" https://archive.fo/v5rWn https://archive.fo/v5rWn [3]: Guardian: "It's a moral decision': Dr Seuss books are being 'recalled' not cancelled, expert says" https://archive.fo/SPBMh https://archive.fo/SPBMh [4]: A school library has limited space, and obviously can't hold all the books in the world, so the librarian have to make a choice. But selection should be based on things like what the students would like to read, exposure to a broad diversity of views, etc. instead of ideology.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  Two things worth bringing up. I’m unconvinced book banning is as big a deal on the left. The one example you bring up was apparently attacked across the board in Canada and the other two are non government institutions, the last one literally being the family of the author. Maybe more importantly though I’m unconvinced that book restrictions are actually universally illegitimate, but certainly some motivations are. If as the article claims it is mostly multicultural books being attacked despite similar books in terms of sex being left alone, then that is worse than books being restricted because people feel they’re racist because racism is bad. I would for example completely support restricting middle schoolers access to books supporting “race science” at least without the proper context being provided
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    I think you are correct in implying that the current wave of censorship is mostly non-governmental, but that doesn't make it look any better in my eyes. This is a discussion about culture, not who has the legal right to do what. Banning "inappropriate" books from school is most likely legal in the US [1], but that doesn't automatically make puritanism and prudishness good. I disagree, I think book restrictions are Orwellian, but that's another discussion. [1]: https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-boo...
762236 5y ago
Liberals banning the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn due to race issues is extreme.

ethbr0 5y ago

This was the entire point of talk radio: mobilize the historically politically-inactive by inciting them with a summarized issue of the day. Or basically TED, except for anger instead of hope. Crowdsourced rage on platforms other than radio (e.g. social media) is the same theory, different medium. What's disgusting is that Meta/Facebook et al. avoid doing anything about it, while profiting directly. And by "it" I mean "engagement algorithms that reward outrage," not "content." Attempts to moderate content (or not) are a red herring, and useless, as addressing content doesn't change the underlying engagement systems that incentivized that outrage in the first place.

drewcoo 5y ago
I don't think Tom Snyder or Larry King were intended to "mobilize the historically politically-inactive." The revocation of the fairness doctrine[1] is what made talk radio what it became. It had been weaponized by Democrats against Republican-leaning media, so it was no surprise that Reagan stopped it. The perhaps unexpected result of that is that the fourth estate was divided by the two major parties and we have our choice of political propaganda or political propaganda with no objectivity or government oversight. One possible solution is to consider another fairness doctrine. One with standards set so as to not be controlled by the two party political system. If we don't moderate content creation, we'd have to moderate content consumption or deeper incentives (ad money). Solutions to those seem more abusive of freedoms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I can only speak back to the early-90s, which would have been post-repeal, so defer to your earlier memories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Corollary_rules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Coroll... Both of the post-fairness rules above that survived for a while seem reasonable to reimplement. Roughly, if either a person is attacked or a political candidate endorsed, the person or the unendorsed candidate must be afforded airtime to respond. Those 2 rules alone would drastically alter the business of the major 24/7 news channels. And I think realistically what we're talking about are "major media outlets." Which I'd define either by total viewer/listener count or local market share. If you want to go off on your blog about someone, free speech seems to hold. But if the main radio station in your area decides to relentlessly beat the drum for a candidate / issue... well, that's probably a problem for democracy.

pstuart 5y ago

Chiming in on the "both sides" argument as not being productive, and worse, not being accurate. There's a concerted effort of using school boards as a political tool to rally the base -- and the OP is the result of that.

ethbr0 5y ago
Are you insinuating that liberal issues before school boards aren't used as a political tool to rally the base? Because I have several fundraising emails in a junk inbox that would indicate otherwise.
- j_walter 5y ago
  You can certainly point toward Newberg school district in Oregon. They banned all flags except the US and state flag to get politics out of the classroom. All media coverage specifically says they banned rainbow flags and BLM flags...but thats not what the rule says. Trump and NRA flags are just as banned...but that doesn't make a good liberal outrage story quite as much as saying BLM and LGBTQ flags are being banned...
  - jandrese 5y ago
    Is it the case that the schools were also flying NRA flags or did this "fair" rule just happen to only affect rainbow flags? "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
    - j_walter 5y ago
      I think the initial cause was a BLM flag that a parent took issue with being in the classroom. Initially they were going to just ban BLM flags due to the highly contentious nature, but extended the ban to all flags except the US and state flag. Similar to this book "ban"...is it unreasonable that teachers not bring their own personal political view points into the classroom and push them on to children? Is a political and judgment free classroom an unreasonable expectation? How about if a teacher is a Trump supporter and wears a Trump hat to school...do we expect them to be fired because of it? This happened to someone I know...and I don't see any huge outrage in the media because of it. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/long-time-teacher-files-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-evergreen-school-district/ https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/long-time-teacher-file...

Zigurd 5y ago

This is why "both sides" is bunk: On one side you get abstract arguments about "freedom" but no specifics. You get no specifics because the specifics are mostly bad, like taking bodily autonomy away from women. In this case, white parents took offense at a book about a romance between two minority children at a relatively recent time in history that makes readers think about society not being done with the work of dismantling racism. There is not a way to defend that. It is about racists being made uncomfortable. There are not two sides to that, except to engage in whataboutism.