15 ms·

So this controversy started with people protesting pro-trans books. Did the library carry any anti-trans books, like Irreversible Damage? (As a nice big radioac

So this controversy started with people protesting pro-trans books. Did the library carry any anti-trans books, like Irreversible Damage? (As a nice big radioactive example) If so, being able to point to things like that would (IMO) be a good political tool in situations like this. "We're neutral and carry both sides" goes over better than "we carry books with the correct opinions, how dare you ask us to remove them" - and the best response to bad speech is more speech anyways.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> We're neutral and carry both sides Very often, they are not neutral. Go to your local library's website, and check out the new arrivals section. Most likely, the political bias will be very evident. Then go to the page where the list the board members, and Google their political affiliation. Finally, if you are still not convinced, send them an FOIA request to see what books they are discarding from the catalogue.
- carrotcarrot 4y ago
  Then request the books. Or open a discussion about neutrality. Of course, the political hysteria around this topic doesn't allow for something constructive like that.
- foepys 4y ago
  Can you support your allegations with evidence like a few FOIA requests and answers?
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    Unfortunately, I can't do that here due to privacy reasons, and I only have done that once. But here's NYPL's new arrivals page: https://www.nypl.org/books-music-movies/new-arrivals https://www.nypl.org/books-music-movies/new-arrivals One quick check you can do is to look at the gender of the authors. Here's the list of the board members: https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/leadership/board-trustees https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/leadership/board-truste... If I can, I will do a rough headcount of their political affiliation and then update this comment with it.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        Books like that comprise a fair fraction of new books being published. Books like that should appear on any fair new arrivals list.
- mrtesthah 4y ago
  How about the boards of gun rights organizations? Militia members? Southern evangelical church leaders? Where’s political bipartisanship here? Could it be that different political affiliations are based on different value systems, where one side happens to value education and knowledge more than the other?
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    None of the organizations you listed are funded by my tax dollars.
    - nindalf 4y ago
      Sort of. Those evangelical churches are getting an implicit subsidy by not having to pay taxes. Why do they deserve such special treatment?
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        Not having to pay a tax is not an "implicit subsidy". This is a completely absurd way of thinking. Taxes is not some sort of fundamental law of nature, and tax exemption are not government being helpful by using its own resources to help the entity out. It's more like a bully who tells you he won't steal your lunch today (but will tomorrow). It's a nice bully, though, who'll protect you from other school bullies, and he needs to eat too. Doesn't he deserve your lunch? Imagine a scenario where everyone is taxed, say, 10%. Then, the government introduces an extra tax of 10%, for a total of 20%, and then gives everyone a tax exemption, so that everyone pays 10% after all, just like before. Is the new tax exemption an "implicit subsidy"? Do people feel subsidized by not having to pay extra 10% on top of 10% they already pay? No, at best they are grateful that they are losing less money to a bully. Now, imagine we start from 0%, and again introduce a new tax of 10%, and a new exemption, so that nobody actually pays any tax after all. Again, in this no tax world, is the government "subsidizing" everyone? No, that's not what the word "subsidize" mean.
        imustbeevil 4y ago
- joshka 4y ago
  [flagged]
deanCommie 4y ago
Hypothetically, what would you say if the subject was The Holocaust, and would you say that a library that was under pressure for having books about it should carry books that deny it ever happened to show that they’re neutral and carry both sides?
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  Yes, this is US, not Europe. There are no laws against denying historical events. If people really want to read things like that, then the publicly funded local liberal should carry them. In fact, many US public libraries already do carry such books. Here's a search for books by David Irving in the catalogue of Brooklyn Public Library. [1] He is often accused of being a Holocaust denier. [2] [1]: https://www.bklynlibrary.org/search?search=david+irving https://www.bklynlibrary.org/search?search=david+irving [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
  - mrtesthah 4y ago
    .
    - DuskStar 4y ago
      > books on how to commit murder, torture, arson, or mass shootings in a school? The Anarchists Cookbook used to be found in libraries. I'd hope it still is, along with books on energetic backyard chemistry. Not a 100% match, but in the ballpark. > photo books portraying motorcycle crash victims or war casualties? Not sure about motorcycles, but I'm sure you can find war casualties. Napalm girl https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc at the very least. > Hard core rape pornography? Libraries do not typically carry porn. In fact, that's part of what the detractors would say this is about - that the pro-trans books sometimes contain pornographic images. (Of course, no one cares about 50 Shades or bodice rippers...)
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      First of all, those are erroneous and egregious comparisons. Secondly, it's quite possible that your local public library might have a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook [1]. For example, NYPL does carry it. [2] [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook [2]: https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb21741991 https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb21741991
jmfayard 4y ago
> Objectivity means 5 minutes for the Jews and 5 minutes for Hitler Jean Luc Godard thought he was making fun of idiots when he wrote that in an unrelated context, but he was actually describing a mainstream US dogma. There is no reason why every topics must have "both sides". The number of valid sides can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 7 or 42.
- DuskStar 4y ago
  5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else. And just about everyone thinks they're the oppressed ones, and includes it in their messaging. Including literally Hitler. (His being thrown in jail is arguably the best thing that could have happened to the Nazis in the mid 20s IIRC)
  - Defletter 4y ago
    > 5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else. But therein lies the assumption.
    - jmfayard 4y ago
      Yep, assuming there are two equally valid positions for everything, because they have a two-party system, so there must be for every topic a GOP side and a Democrat side. Never mind that both parties have often similar bad policies on any topic, in which case you fool yourself believing to be objective while you are only repeating bipartisan dogma. "Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism. And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever. The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.
      - Defletter 4y ago
        I hold the opinion that slavery is bad. I think books that advocate for slavery are abhorrent. I guess the next step really is Soviet Russia. Well done you for pointing that out.
vkou 4y ago
The library in question had plenty of Christian-life material, it's just that the people voting against it didn't care about having both sides. What they wanted was to not have the other side.
- slt2021 4y ago
  if they are paying for it from their taxes, I guess it is consumers choice then. would you complain that Fox News/Breitbart viewers refuse to read some ultra radical left wing news? (for purposes other than making fun of other side)
  - tjohns 4y ago
    You can't compare a for-profit corporation with a public library. You also can't compare a TV station (which offers fixed programming) with a library (which allows users to browse titles on request). Libraries are not supposed to editorialize their collection. Consider the library as a physical version of the internet. Nobody is forcing users to read a specific page online, but we generally agree that ISPs shouldn't censor content that the user has requested.
    - slt2021 4y ago
      I'd like to pushback against your argument. Librarians absolutely do curate content, it is their main responsibility. The main principle in curating library content is adding value. If content does not add value to readers, it is useless. "Give the people what they want" is another principle (https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2014/01/17/the-process-of-curating-for-curators-who-do-librarians-consult/?sh=409b1df26696 https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2014/01/17/the-process...)
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        One one hand, it seems impossible to run a library without curation. If nothing else, space is limited. On the other hand, the American Librarian Association's Library Bill of Rights says that libraries should have books presenting all points of view on current and historical issues, neither proscribed nor removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill List of document interpreting those rights: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre... Some choice quotes from https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/politics https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre... : > Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place. > A balanced collection need not and cannot contain an equal number of resources representing every possible viewpoint on every issue. A balanced collection should include the variety of views that surround any given issue. It all seems broadly reasonable; a library need not and cannot give equal shelf space to both sides of every issue. Nevertheless, a library should not categorically exclude one side of an issue, no matter how offensive.
QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
No need to be hypothetical, this is an easy empirical question to answer. If you search the Patmos library’s public catalog for “Irreversible Damage,” it shows that this branch doesn’t have any copies but links to five copies in other area libraries (all of which are currently checked out). My local library , in an intensely liberal area, also has multiple copies.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > all of which are currently checked out Which kinda means that they should probably carry more copies, given that it's a 2020 book and still that popular. > My local library , in an intensely liberal area, also has multiple copies. Good for them, but sometimes censorship and political manipulation can be more subtle.
  - Balgair 4y ago
    > ... they should probably carry more copies, ... I have no idea how libraries decide on how many copies of a book to carry. I assume they have some sort of metrics or formula they learn in school though. If there are an librarians on HN, can you share what, if any, calculation in done for this?
sofixa 4y ago
> Did the library carry any anti-trans books I disagree with the notion that both sides are equal, deserve equal treatment and a compromise needs to be found. That's almost never the case with social questions. Take the trans and anti-trans, jews and anti-semites, blacks and KKK-style racists, suffragettes and anti-woman rights people. Both positions are not equal - one desires equal rights and protection, the other goes between harassment and denying the right of existence of a group of people due to their characteristics. Anyone being "neutral" and "both siding" is usually only reinforcing the status quo. And what would a compromise look like here? Kill only some jews/trans people? Just because the American political system is broken and it has only two sides doesn't mean everything has two equal sides. A flat earther is not a valid side worth listening to, and neither are anti-vaxxers, anti-trans etc activists.
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  While I partly agree, the trans issue is somewhat more nuanced. More specifically, there is an ongoing controversy over transwomen using safe spaces reserved for women and participating in sports with women. Many see it as unfair to women, simply put. You can't just brush it off as conservative. And even though some are truing hard to find a good compromise (unisex safe spaces), some activists won't budge and insist on completely ignoring the difference.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> We're neutral and carry both sides Very often, they are not neutral. Go to your local library's website, and check out the new arrivals section. Most likely, the political bias will be very evident. Then go to the page where the list the board members, and Google their political affiliation. Finally, if you are still not convinced, send them an FOIA request to see what books they are discarding from the catalogue.

carrotcarrot 4y ago
Then request the books. Or open a discussion about neutrality. Of course, the political hysteria around this topic doesn't allow for something constructive like that.
foepys 4y ago
Can you support your allegations with evidence like a few FOIA requests and answers?
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  Unfortunately, I can't do that here due to privacy reasons, and I only have done that once. But here's NYPL's new arrivals page: https://www.nypl.org/books-music-movies/new-arrivals https://www.nypl.org/books-music-movies/new-arrivals One quick check you can do is to look at the gender of the authors. Here's the list of the board members: https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/leadership/board-trustees https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/leadership/board-truste... If I can, I will do a rough headcount of their political affiliation and then update this comment with it.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      Books like that comprise a fair fraction of new books being published. Books like that should appear on any fair new arrivals list.
mrtesthah 4y ago
How about the boards of gun rights organizations? Militia members? Southern evangelical church leaders? Where’s political bipartisanship here? Could it be that different political affiliations are based on different value systems, where one side happens to value education and knowledge more than the other?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  None of the organizations you listed are funded by my tax dollars.
  - nindalf 4y ago
    Sort of. Those evangelical churches are getting an implicit subsidy by not having to pay taxes. Why do they deserve such special treatment?
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      Not having to pay a tax is not an "implicit subsidy". This is a completely absurd way of thinking. Taxes is not some sort of fundamental law of nature, and tax exemption are not government being helpful by using its own resources to help the entity out. It's more like a bully who tells you he won't steal your lunch today (but will tomorrow). It's a nice bully, though, who'll protect you from other school bullies, and he needs to eat too. Doesn't he deserve your lunch? Imagine a scenario where everyone is taxed, say, 10%. Then, the government introduces an extra tax of 10%, for a total of 20%, and then gives everyone a tax exemption, so that everyone pays 10% after all, just like before. Is the new tax exemption an "implicit subsidy"? Do people feel subsidized by not having to pay extra 10% on top of 10% they already pay? No, at best they are grateful that they are losing less money to a bully. Now, imagine we start from 0%, and again introduce a new tax of 10%, and a new exemption, so that nobody actually pays any tax after all. Again, in this no tax world, is the government "subsidizing" everyone? No, that's not what the word "subsidize" mean.
      - imustbeevil 4y ago
joshka 4y ago
[flagged]

deanCommie 4y ago

Hypothetically, what would you say if the subject was The Holocaust, and would you say that a library that was under pressure for having books about it should carry books that deny it ever happened to show that they’re neutral and carry both sides?

cato_the_elder 4y ago
Yes, this is US, not Europe. There are no laws against denying historical events. If people really want to read things like that, then the publicly funded local liberal should carry them. In fact, many US public libraries already do carry such books. Here's a search for books by David Irving in the catalogue of Brooklyn Public Library. [1] He is often accused of being a Holocaust denier. [2] [1]: https://www.bklynlibrary.org/search?search=david+irving https://www.bklynlibrary.org/search?search=david+irving [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
- mrtesthah 4y ago
  .
  - DuskStar 4y ago
    > books on how to commit murder, torture, arson, or mass shootings in a school? The Anarchists Cookbook used to be found in libraries. I'd hope it still is, along with books on energetic backyard chemistry. Not a 100% match, but in the ballpark. > photo books portraying motorcycle crash victims or war casualties? Not sure about motorcycles, but I'm sure you can find war casualties. Napalm girl https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc at the very least. > Hard core rape pornography? Libraries do not typically carry porn. In fact, that's part of what the detractors would say this is about - that the pro-trans books sometimes contain pornographic images. (Of course, no one cares about 50 Shades or bodice rippers...)
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    First of all, those are erroneous and egregious comparisons. Secondly, it's quite possible that your local public library might have a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook [1]. For example, NYPL does carry it. [2] [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook [2]: https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb21741991 https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb21741991

jmfayard 4y ago

> Objectivity means 5 minutes for the Jews and 5 minutes for Hitler Jean Luc Godard thought he was making fun of idiots when he wrote that in an unrelated context, but he was actually describing a mainstream US dogma. There is no reason why every topics must have "both sides". The number of valid sides can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 7 or 42.

DuskStar 4y ago
5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else. And just about everyone thinks they're the oppressed ones, and includes it in their messaging. Including literally Hitler. (His being thrown in jail is arguably the best thing that could have happened to the Nazis in the mid 20s IIRC)
- Defletter 4y ago
  > 5 minutes for each is better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else. But therein lies the assumption.
  - jmfayard 4y ago
    Yep, assuming there are two equally valid positions for everything, because they have a two-party system, so there must be for every topic a GOP side and a Democrat side. Never mind that both parties have often similar bad policies on any topic, in which case you fool yourself believing to be objective while you are only repeating bipartisan dogma. "Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism. And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever. The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.
    - Defletter 4y ago
      I hold the opinion that slavery is bad. I think books that advocate for slavery are abhorrent. I guess the next step really is Soviet Russia. Well done you for pointing that out.

vkou 4y ago

The library in question had plenty of Christian-life material, it's just that the people voting against it didn't care about having both sides. What they wanted was to not have the other side.

slt2021 4y ago
if they are paying for it from their taxes, I guess it is consumers choice then. would you complain that Fox News/Breitbart viewers refuse to read some ultra radical left wing news? (for purposes other than making fun of other side)
- tjohns 4y ago
  You can't compare a for-profit corporation with a public library. You also can't compare a TV station (which offers fixed programming) with a library (which allows users to browse titles on request). Libraries are not supposed to editorialize their collection. Consider the library as a physical version of the internet. Nobody is forcing users to read a specific page online, but we generally agree that ISPs shouldn't censor content that the user has requested.
  - slt2021 4y ago
    I'd like to pushback against your argument. Librarians absolutely do curate content, it is their main responsibility. The main principle in curating library content is adding value. If content does not add value to readers, it is useless. "Give the people what they want" is another principle (https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2014/01/17/the-process-of-curating-for-curators-who-do-librarians-consult/?sh=409b1df26696 https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2014/01/17/the-process...)
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      One one hand, it seems impossible to run a library without curation. If nothing else, space is limited. On the other hand, the American Librarian Association's Library Bill of Rights says that libraries should have books presenting all points of view on current and historical issues, neither proscribed nor removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill List of document interpreting those rights: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre... Some choice quotes from https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/politics https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre... : > Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place. > A balanced collection need not and cannot contain an equal number of resources representing every possible viewpoint on every issue. A balanced collection should include the variety of views that surround any given issue. It all seems broadly reasonable; a library need not and cannot give equal shelf space to both sides of every issue. Nevertheless, a library should not categorically exclude one side of an issue, no matter how offensive.

QuadmasterXLII 4y ago

No need to be hypothetical, this is an easy empirical question to answer. If you search the Patmos library’s public catalog for “Irreversible Damage,” it shows that this branch doesn’t have any copies but links to five copies in other area libraries (all of which are currently checked out). My local library , in an intensely liberal area, also has multiple copies.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> all of which are currently checked out Which kinda means that they should probably carry more copies, given that it's a 2020 book and still that popular. > My local library , in an intensely liberal area, also has multiple copies. Good for them, but sometimes censorship and political manipulation can be more subtle.
- Balgair 4y ago
  > ... they should probably carry more copies, ... I have no idea how libraries decide on how many copies of a book to carry. I assume they have some sort of metrics or formula they learn in school though. If there are an librarians on HN, can you share what, if any, calculation in done for this?

sofixa 4y ago

> Did the library carry any anti-trans books I disagree with the notion that both sides are equal, deserve equal treatment and a compromise needs to be found. That's almost never the case with social questions. Take the trans and anti-trans, jews and anti-semites, blacks and KKK-style racists, suffragettes and anti-woman rights people. Both positions are not equal - one desires equal rights and protection, the other goes between harassment and denying the right of existence of a group of people due to their characteristics. Anyone being "neutral" and "both siding" is usually only reinforcing the status quo. And what would a compromise look like here? Kill only some jews/trans people? Just because the American political system is broken and it has only two sides doesn't mean everything has two equal sides. A flat earther is not a valid side worth listening to, and neither are anti-vaxxers, anti-trans etc activists.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
While I partly agree, the trans issue is somewhat more nuanced. More specifically, there is an ongoing controversy over transwomen using safe spaces reserved for women and participating in sports with women. Many see it as unfair to women, simply put. You can't just brush it off as conservative. And even though some are truing hard to find a good compromise (unisex safe spaces), some activists won't budge and insist on completely ignoring the difference.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]