4 ms·

> And? And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds. > Refusing to have books procured and presented using public fu

by 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.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds. I admit that I have an incomplete understanding of the situation, because as I mentioned earlier the NYT article is obnoxious to read. But what I presume is: A public library removed books from its collection after complaints from the public. That isn't book banning, not the least because the people demanding this are the people themselves. Anyone who really still wants those books can procure them with their own money. Nobody's stopping that. The only thing the public is stopping is using public funds to procure and present those books.
- kthejoker2 4y ago
  Thanks for admitting you have an incomplete understanding. This is not "the people", this is a very small handful of people. In fact, it is a group of people attempting to use policies designed to stop actual pornography from getting into the library to ban LGBTQ and race-centric memoirs, well regarded critical works like Beloved, Lolita, and Maus, and completely age-appropriate books. This is an decidely undemocratic action, and as stated above, it's disproportionately voiced by "people with free time" (including free time to send death threats and show up at school board meetings carrying assault rifles) Deciding whether Anne Frank's diary belongs in a school library should not be a function of who can yell the loudest. Thay is what small children do. If there was an actual vote by "the people" on these works, they would be allowed in a heartbeat. But the reason we don't have votes on books is because minority views have rights, too, and what's in the library is not a popularity contest.

by 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.

Dalewyn 4y ago

>And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds. I admit that I have an incomplete understanding of the situation, because as I mentioned earlier the NYT article is obnoxious to read. But what I presume is: A public library removed books from its collection after complaints from the public. That isn't book banning, not the least because the people demanding this are the people themselves. Anyone who really still wants those books can procure them with their own money. Nobody's stopping that. The only thing the public is stopping is using public funds to procure and present those books.

kthejoker2 4y ago
Thanks for admitting you have an incomplete understanding. This is not "the people", this is a very small handful of people. In fact, it is a group of people attempting to use policies designed to stop actual pornography from getting into the library to ban LGBTQ and race-centric memoirs, well regarded critical works like Beloved, Lolita, and Maus, and completely age-appropriate books. This is an decidely undemocratic action, and as stated above, it's disproportionately voiced by "people with free time" (including free time to send death threats and show up at school board meetings carrying assault rifles) Deciding whether Anne Frank's diary belongs in a school library should not be a function of who can yell the loudest. Thay is what small children do. If there was an actual vote by "the people" on these works, they would be allowed in a heartbeat. But the reason we don't have votes on books is because minority views have rights, too, and what's in the library is not a popularity contest.