5 ms·

(comment)

by scifibestfi 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nickthegreek 4y ago
Books didnt prompt this, people did.
CydeWeys 4y ago
Please tell me exactly which books are so heinous that having them present in schools merits felony charges?
- notch656c 4y ago
  I am very much against this law but I think "present in school" is much different than "curated." I couldn't give a shit if kids were bringing Anarchist Cookbook and images of the tortures at Abu Dhabi prison to school. What the kid and his family obtain on their own through private means and choose to read in a public venue like a school IMO is none of my business. If the teachers are curating books that disproportionately pushes certain non-academic agendas, though, then maybe the parents ought to have the right to guide the employment of that teacher to make sure it follows the desires of the voters. Criminal charges are insane though.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    What you're describing very much isn't happening, though. These books indeed were merely "present in school" on a book shelf. Nobody's being indoctrinated into practical terrorism in Florida schools by being forced to read the Anarchist's Cookbook or anything like that.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      If the books in the school library just appear there with no influence by the school staff in charge of the libraries then I guess we can just fire the library staff. Then there's no one there to risk a felony. I didn't realize it was completely non-curated and unmanaged in Florida.
      - crooked-v 4y ago
        Teachers regularly have their own collections of books in classrooms, separate from those held by the school library.
        notch656c 4y ago
        Are they completely non-curated? Kids just put whatever book they want there? If so I'd say the teacher isn't liable for what happens. If the teachers put the books or manages which books are there they are curated and that activity can be managed by the people paying the teacher, ie the taxpayers/representatives.
        crooked-v 4y ago
        > and that activity can be managed by the people paying the teacher, ie the taxpayers/representatives In this case, Florida has decided to manage that activity by making it a felony to merely happen to have a book on the shelf that's not on the pre-approved list.
        hooverd 4y ago
        Eh, I disagree. Teachers should be given some leeway in their pedagogy as long as they meet expectations.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        There's also the fact that you're selecting for some of the worst teachers by confining them to curriculum and harshly punishing deviation or expansion. The best teachers are good precisely because they do those things, and if you take that away it's not the same job anymore—they're just reading a script and serving as a mouthpiece for the state rather than serving the students the best they can. That's not what they signed up for. They'll leave. Check teacher forums, this kind of over-management and micro-management are major reasons for discontent in the job, and one of several factors pushing good teachers out of teaching.
    - unnouinceput 4y ago
      He said: "...pushes certain non-academic agendas..". Translation: Teachers are woke and shoving down the kids throat their political agenda.
  - hooverd 4y ago
    No one has yet to name any books.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      They know that the second they name any specific books that were actually present in classrooms, we'll all realize how ridiculous the outrage over such innocuous books actually is.
InitialLastName 4y ago
This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy [0], using the (easy to defend) argument "we shouldn't give obscene material to 8-year-olds" to justify the (indefensible) argument that "no material that any parents find ideologically reprehensible should be made available to any children through the school system". Note that nobody in this thread defending the policy has been able to name any of these porn books that have been given to children, and that none of them attempt to defend the ramifications of the policy as implemented. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
- danaris 4y ago
  (Posted elsewhere in the discussion, but that ended up being on a dead thread) There is a strong movement afoot to define any material teaching about 1) consent (whether it mentions sex or not) 2) the child's own body (in ways designed to help them recognize and avoid things like sexual abuse) 3) queer issues of any kind, but especially trans issues as pornographic, regardless of the actual content, so that they can ban it and claim they're saving the poor children from horrible, horrible sexual material. This is not a new movement; conservatives have been trying to ban queer people from any kind of public visibility for decades by claiming that their very existence is sexual, ignoring the fact that heterosexual romance and sex is being shoved into our faces constantly, often in far more blatant ways, and often in media explicitly aimed at children. They're merely redoubling their efforts now that it's becoming clear that society at large is starting to genuinely accept trans people, which they cannot abide.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Remember that the conservative take for decades was "if we allow gays to marry, what's next, allowing dogs to get married? Or people to marry kids?" Conservatives have been pushing to make being gay or trans or queer in any way to be morally equivalent or at least directly leading to pedophilia forever.
    - danaris 4y ago
      ...And while I honestly never would have believed it a decade ago, it's becoming increasingly and horrifyingly clear just how much of that is naked projection. So much has come out recently about their complicity in both committing and covering up child sexual abuse, and yet due to the prevalence of Fox News and the advent of the "post-truth era", their base—who supposedly cares very deeply about that sort of thing—simply waves it off as at best a left-wing smear campaign, and at worst, well, one or two of them may have done some stuff, but that's nothing compared to Pizzagate, right??!
sowbug 4y ago
Most cases defending basic freedoms involve reprehensible facts. In the US, Miranda was a burglar. Clarence Brandenburg was a KKK leader. Paul Cohen wore a t-shirt reading "FUCK THE DRAFT" at a time when such words weren't part of polite public discourse. The only thing worse than a law against your definition of "bad" content is a law against your definition of "good" content. But that's what will be next if this law moves the Overton window. Which is why it's dangerous to focus on the actual content being regulated. Be upset that content -- any content -- is being regulated, because the US Bill of Rights is supposed to prohibit such laws. In a free country, there shouldn't be laws controlling what people say to each other.

(comment)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nickthegreek 4y ago

Books didnt prompt this, people did.

CydeWeys 4y ago

Please tell me exactly which books are so heinous that having them present in schools merits felony charges?

notch656c 4y ago
I am very much against this law but I think "present in school" is much different than "curated." I couldn't give a shit if kids were bringing Anarchist Cookbook and images of the tortures at Abu Dhabi prison to school. What the kid and his family obtain on their own through private means and choose to read in a public venue like a school IMO is none of my business. If the teachers are curating books that disproportionately pushes certain non-academic agendas, though, then maybe the parents ought to have the right to guide the employment of that teacher to make sure it follows the desires of the voters. Criminal charges are insane though.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  What you're describing very much isn't happening, though. These books indeed were merely "present in school" on a book shelf. Nobody's being indoctrinated into practical terrorism in Florida schools by being forced to read the Anarchist's Cookbook or anything like that.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    If the books in the school library just appear there with no influence by the school staff in charge of the libraries then I guess we can just fire the library staff. Then there's no one there to risk a felony. I didn't realize it was completely non-curated and unmanaged in Florida.
    - crooked-v 4y ago
      Teachers regularly have their own collections of books in classrooms, separate from those held by the school library.
      - notch656c 4y ago
        Are they completely non-curated? Kids just put whatever book they want there? If so I'd say the teacher isn't liable for what happens. If the teachers put the books or manages which books are there they are curated and that activity can be managed by the people paying the teacher, ie the taxpayers/representatives.
        crooked-v 4y ago
        > and that activity can be managed by the people paying the teacher, ie the taxpayers/representatives In this case, Florida has decided to manage that activity by making it a felony to merely happen to have a book on the shelf that's not on the pre-approved list.
        hooverd 4y ago
        Eh, I disagree. Teachers should be given some leeway in their pedagogy as long as they meet expectations.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        There's also the fact that you're selecting for some of the worst teachers by confining them to curriculum and harshly punishing deviation or expansion. The best teachers are good precisely because they do those things, and if you take that away it's not the same job anymore—they're just reading a script and serving as a mouthpiece for the state rather than serving the students the best they can. That's not what they signed up for. They'll leave. Check teacher forums, this kind of over-management and micro-management are major reasons for discontent in the job, and one of several factors pushing good teachers out of teaching.
  - unnouinceput 4y ago
    He said: "...pushes certain non-academic agendas..". Translation: Teachers are woke and shoving down the kids throat their political agenda.
- hooverd 4y ago
  No one has yet to name any books.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    They know that the second they name any specific books that were actually present in classrooms, we'll all realize how ridiculous the outrage over such innocuous books actually is.

InitialLastName 4y ago

This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy [0], using the (easy to defend) argument "we shouldn't give obscene material to 8-year-olds" to justify the (indefensible) argument that "no material that any parents find ideologically reprehensible should be made available to any children through the school system". Note that nobody in this thread defending the policy has been able to name any of these porn books that have been given to children, and that none of them attempt to defend the ramifications of the policy as implemented. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

danaris 4y ago
(Posted elsewhere in the discussion, but that ended up being on a dead thread) There is a strong movement afoot to define any material teaching about 1) consent (whether it mentions sex or not) 2) the child's own body (in ways designed to help them recognize and avoid things like sexual abuse) 3) queer issues of any kind, but especially trans issues as pornographic, regardless of the actual content, so that they can ban it and claim they're saving the poor children from horrible, horrible sexual material. This is not a new movement; conservatives have been trying to ban queer people from any kind of public visibility for decades by claiming that their very existence is sexual, ignoring the fact that heterosexual romance and sex is being shoved into our faces constantly, often in far more blatant ways, and often in media explicitly aimed at children. They're merely redoubling their efforts now that it's becoming clear that society at large is starting to genuinely accept trans people, which they cannot abide.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Remember that the conservative take for decades was "if we allow gays to marry, what's next, allowing dogs to get married? Or people to marry kids?" Conservatives have been pushing to make being gay or trans or queer in any way to be morally equivalent or at least directly leading to pedophilia forever.
  - danaris 4y ago
    ...And while I honestly never would have believed it a decade ago, it's becoming increasingly and horrifyingly clear just how much of that is naked projection. So much has come out recently about their complicity in both committing and covering up child sexual abuse, and yet due to the prevalence of Fox News and the advent of the "post-truth era", their base—who supposedly cares very deeply about that sort of thing—simply waves it off as at best a left-wing smear campaign, and at worst, well, one or two of them may have done some stuff, but that's nothing compared to Pizzagate, right??!

sowbug 4y ago

Most cases defending basic freedoms involve reprehensible facts. In the US, Miranda was a burglar. Clarence Brandenburg was a KKK leader. Paul Cohen wore a t-shirt reading "FUCK THE DRAFT" at a time when such words weren't part of polite public discourse. The only thing worse than a law against your definition of "bad" content is a law against your definition of "good" content. But that's what will be next if this law moves the Overton window. Which is why it's dangerous to focus on the actual content being regulated. Be upset that content -- any content -- is being regulated, because the US Bill of Rights is supposed to prohibit such laws. In a free country, there shouldn't be laws controlling what people say to each other.