4 ms·

Do you have a problem with a religious parent deciding the definition of “appropriate” in the context of their religion, and foisting that belief on kids of oth

by paulgb 4y ago

Do you have a problem with a religious parent deciding the definition of “appropriate” in the context of their religion, and foisting that belief on kids of other religions or no religion?

Dalewyn 4y ago
Haven't really read TFA because I can't be arsed to deal with NYT and ther asinine style of writing, so I'm assuming we're talking about a public school district and its associated public libraries. Being public libraries, I assume there are official channels with which to convey opinions to the powers that be, and proper procedures that must be followed to permit or not permit books from being included in a library's collection. What's more, being public, it's reasonable to assume the libraries are funded in majority from taxpayer money. So personally: If the taxpayers who provide the money for the library are unsatisfied with the library's book selection, file formal complaints, and the books are subsequently removed as applicable, I see no problem. And ultimately: Taxpayers (aka voters) have the ultimate and absolute authority to just rescind funding for public libraries and/or school districts with objectional collections if they refuse to comply with complaints and other such requests and demands.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Careful these taxpayers don’t decide there’s undesirable people present like they’re deciding there’s undesirable thoughts present. That never turns out too well: https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/1933-book-burnings https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/1933-book-bur.... Protect freedom so as to avoid being one left standing when the music pauses. Cue Pink Floyd.
- orwin 4y ago
  And what if the other taxpayers want those books? Because that's what TFA is about. Like i said in another comment, while i haven't read most of the books discussed, I've read 'a modern romance' (Streisand effect mostly tbh), and 'a handmaid's tale'. Those are infinitely less stressful to read than 1984 (especially the last part which still traumatize me 17 years after) or even worse: Howard Buten books, which were so fundamental in my development, but the most stressful read. Of you think those should be banned from school libraries, why not, but please, do we agree this is still banning books. Also the "we put the 'lit' in literature" exposition which shows old, now unbanned classics, Fahrenheit 451 and books burned in public by the local pastor: pure genius.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >And what if the other taxpayers want those books? Because that's what TFA is about. Then they should try convincing more fellow taxpayers, aka voters, to get the things they want passed. In a democracy, majority consensus rules. If you're in a minority and failed to be accomodated by the majority consensus, sucks to be you. >but please, do we agree this is still banning books. Nope, because the books are freely available using your own money. Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
    - paulgb 4y ago
      > In a democracy, majority consensus rules. I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed. > Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning. They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed. You aren't a "fan of democracy" if you immediately toss it out because you don't like its results. Also, there has been at least one prior example of a public library losing its public funding[1] after angering voters with their defiant behaviour. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32364615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32364615 >They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement. And? You can still buy those books from your favorite bookstore or other retailer if you really want them that badly.
        paulgb 4y ago
        > And? And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds. > Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
makomk 4y ago
Any definition of "approprite" is going to be in the context of some set of moral beliefs. Why should we treat religious ones differently than secular ones? For example, there's a secular set of beliefs held by all the righteous Twitter users that have had massive effects on what books are in school libraries or that we're even allowed to buy, why should that be any more acceptable because they're secular in nature? I know that the people pushing those beliefs consider them the one true, correct set of moral beliefs that every right-thinking person should hold - so much so thatt they reject the idea of naming them, because that would suggest there could be other correct beliefs. That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already share their beliefs though (especially given how often and quickly they shift).
- paulgb 4y ago
  > Why should we treat religious ones differently than secular ones? We shouldn’t, that’s my point. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but if there were secular groups trying to ban books I’d feel the same way.

by paulgb 4y ago

Do you have a problem with a religious parent deciding the definition of “appropriate” in the context of their religion, and foisting that belief on kids of other religions or no religion?

Dalewyn 4y ago

Haven't really read TFA because I can't be arsed to deal with NYT and ther asinine style of writing, so I'm assuming we're talking about a public school district and its associated public libraries. Being public libraries, I assume there are official channels with which to convey opinions to the powers that be, and proper procedures that must be followed to permit or not permit books from being included in a library's collection. What's more, being public, it's reasonable to assume the libraries are funded in majority from taxpayer money. So personally: If the taxpayers who provide the money for the library are unsatisfied with the library's book selection, file formal complaints, and the books are subsequently removed as applicable, I see no problem. And ultimately: Taxpayers (aka voters) have the ultimate and absolute authority to just rescind funding for public libraries and/or school districts with objectional collections if they refuse to comply with complaints and other such requests and demands.

jleyank 4y ago
Careful these taxpayers don’t decide there’s undesirable people present like they’re deciding there’s undesirable thoughts present. That never turns out too well: https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/1933-book-burnings https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/1933-book-bur.... Protect freedom so as to avoid being one left standing when the music pauses. Cue Pink Floyd.
orwin 4y ago
And what if the other taxpayers want those books? Because that's what TFA is about. Like i said in another comment, while i haven't read most of the books discussed, I've read 'a modern romance' (Streisand effect mostly tbh), and 'a handmaid's tale'. Those are infinitely less stressful to read than 1984 (especially the last part which still traumatize me 17 years after) or even worse: Howard Buten books, which were so fundamental in my development, but the most stressful read. Of you think those should be banned from school libraries, why not, but please, do we agree this is still banning books. Also the "we put the 'lit' in literature" exposition which shows old, now unbanned classics, Fahrenheit 451 and books burned in public by the local pastor: pure genius.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >And what if the other taxpayers want those books? Because that's what TFA is about. Then they should try convincing more fellow taxpayers, aka voters, to get the things they want passed. In a democracy, majority consensus rules. If you're in a minority and failed to be accomodated by the majority consensus, sucks to be you. >but please, do we agree this is still banning books. Nope, because the books are freely available using your own money. Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
  - paulgb 4y ago
    > In a democracy, majority consensus rules. I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed. > Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning. They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed. You aren't a "fan of democracy" if you immediately toss it out because you don't like its results. Also, there has been at least one prior example of a public library losing its public funding[1] after angering voters with their defiant behaviour. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32364615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32364615 >They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement. And? You can still buy those books from your favorite bookstore or other retailer if you really want them that badly.
      - paulgb 4y ago
        > And? And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds. > Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.

makomk 4y ago

Any definition of "approprite" is going to be in the context of some set of moral beliefs. Why should we treat religious ones differently than secular ones? For example, there's a secular set of beliefs held by all the righteous Twitter users that have had massive effects on what books are in school libraries or that we're even allowed to buy, why should that be any more acceptable because they're secular in nature? I know that the people pushing those beliefs consider them the one true, correct set of moral beliefs that every right-thinking person should hold - so much so thatt they reject the idea of naming them, because that would suggest there could be other correct beliefs. That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already share their beliefs though (especially given how often and quickly they shift).

paulgb 4y ago
> Why should we treat religious ones differently than secular ones? We shouldn’t, that’s my point. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but if there were secular groups trying to ban books I’d feel the same way.