4 ms·

All I can think of is that a lot of people enjoy outrage so when someone points out "No, the facts are different, so there is nothing to be outraged about", ins

by rsj_hn 5y ago

All I can think of is that a lot of people enjoy outrage so when someone points out "No, the facts are different, so there is nothing to be outraged about", instead of viewing that as good news - that hey, schools are not actually censoring the holocaust and Maus was not banned anywhere - they get really angry as the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened. It's really strange because if you tell someone who was convinced that say, a man was killed a robbery, that actually no, there was no robbery and no one was hurt, most would breathe a sigh of relief and view that as good news. But when it comes to these culture war issues, the reaction of hearing the facts is often people taking offense that their previous offense was not justified. IMO that's a good way of determining whether something is a real issue or a culture war issue -- if it was a real issue, people would be glad to hear that a bad thing didn't happen.

NoraCodes 5y ago
I would argue that people are primarily reacting to the reasoning given by the parents; they're not upset that the book will not be used, but that the people making the decision feel that the inclusion of (censored) profanity and nudity are objectionable enough to call for a change in curriculum. Certainly this is perhaps somewhat overblown, but I don't think it's fair to say that people are "angry that the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened" - I think your downvoters feel that you're missing the point. (I did not flag your comment, to be clear.) There's also the matter of disagreement about the word "banned"; personally I think it's not the right word to use here, but there is an argument to be made that the object of the verb is not students - that is, not making the book totally unavailable - but teachers. They have "banned" teachers from using it in the curriculum. Again, I don't agree with this use of the term, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as "the media is lying about what happened to support their narrative."

by rsj_hn 5y ago

NoraCodes 5y ago

I would argue that people are primarily reacting to the reasoning given by the parents; they're not upset that the book will not be used, but that the people making the decision feel that the inclusion of (censored) profanity and nudity are objectionable enough to call for a change in curriculum. Certainly this is perhaps somewhat overblown, but I don't think it's fair to say that people are "angry that the legitimacy of their outrage is threatened" - I think your downvoters feel that you're missing the point. (I did not flag your comment, to be clear.) There's also the matter of disagreement about the word "banned"; personally I think it's not the right word to use here, but there is an argument to be made that the object of the verb is not students - that is, not making the book totally unavailable - but teachers. They have "banned" teachers from using it in the curriculum. Again, I don't agree with this use of the term, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as "the media is lying about what happened to support their narrative."