4 ms·

Read the article, man. Felony means it's a crime.

by mcv 4y ago

slowmovintarget 4y ago
Encouraging children to read is not covered by the law. You read the article. Having a library of books is an easy way to encourage literacy, probably even the best way. It is not the only way. Far more important to the development of literacy in children is the presence of books in the home. There are decades of statistics on the impact of just having a stack of books in the same home as the child. All of this is also failing to touch on the problem that drew this overreaction. To be sure it is a huge over-extension of what the government ought to do. But the thing it was a reaction to... That never had anything to do with literacy, and everything to do with ideology. When one uses literacy as the shield, and depends on the perpetual good graces of people one has spent years demonizing on ideological grounds, one should expect damage to the very thing everyone thought was sacrosanct.
- mcv 4y ago
  > Far more important to the development of literacy in children is the presence of books in the home. Of course, but that's not something schools have control over. Unless they can give a child a book on loan to take home. And that requires books in the school. And because different children have different interests and different reading issues, a wide selection of books is better than a narrow one. > That never had anything to do with literacy, and everything to do with ideology. Do you mean that the ban is about ideology, sacrificing children's access to reading in order to indoctrinate them into a state-approved ideology? > When one uses literacy as the shield, and depends on the perpetual good graces of people one has spent years demonizing on ideological grounds, one should expect damage to the very thing everyone thought was sacrosanct. They clearly don't think it's sacrosanct if they're sacrificing it this eagerly to hurt the people they want to demonize. I guess we're talking about gay people here? They want to demonize gay people, and want to restrict the book supply in order to indoctrinate children with that?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - SauciestGNU 4y ago
      I think the disconnect is that some parents see children as property to be managed and controlled, and many other adults see children as individuals with agency and autonomy (to the extent that is developmentally appropriate). I also believe that most of this backlash is about children being able to freely access information that contradicts their parents' worldview. I have also seen strict parents punish their children for expressing differing beliefs and values. Queer kids get physically abused by their religious parents. I absolutely believe schools should be a safe place for students to learn and experiment with ideas and values. Not to mention, strict informational control has long been a mechanism for abuse. I think there's probably a nexus between parents who object to their kids reading what they want and parents who utilize various physical and psychological abuses as "discipline".
      - mcv 4y ago
        Exactly. Conservatives try to paint this as protecting their kids from left-wing ideology, but it's really about being able to force right-wing ideology on them. I'd strongly prefer exposing kids, in an age-appropriate manner, of course, to the whole breadth of human ideology and life experiences, with different views on it, and teaching them to think for themselves. But mostly, I've got a kid that's struggling to read, but has a couple of very strong interests (trains!) that I leverage to get him to read more. Restricting the diversity of books available because they need to go through some slow approval process first, will make it harder for him to access books that he's eager to read. Because the whitelisting process means that even books that aren't even the slightest bit objectionable, won't necessarily be available, and may have to wait until more mainstream books have been approved.
    - ldh0011 4y ago

Read the article, man. Felony means it's a crime.

by mcv 4y ago

Read the article, man. Felony means it's a crime.

Encouraging children to read is not covered by the law. You read the article. Having a library of books is an easy way to encourage literacy, probably even the best way. It is not the only way. Far more important to the development of literacy in children is the presence of books in the home. There are decades of statistics on the impact of just having a stack of books in the same home as the child. All of this is also failing to touch on the problem that drew this overreaction. To be sure it is a huge over-extension of what the government ought to do. But the thing it was a reaction to... That never had anything to do with literacy, and everything to do with ideology. When one uses literacy as the shield, and depends on the perpetual good graces of people one has spent years demonizing on ideological grounds, one should expect damage to the very thing everyone thought was sacrosanct.

mcv 4y ago
> Far more important to the development of literacy in children is the presence of books in the home. Of course, but that's not something schools have control over. Unless they can give a child a book on loan to take home. And that requires books in the school. And because different children have different interests and different reading issues, a wide selection of books is better than a narrow one. > That never had anything to do with literacy, and everything to do with ideology. Do you mean that the ban is about ideology, sacrificing children's access to reading in order to indoctrinate them into a state-approved ideology? > When one uses literacy as the shield, and depends on the perpetual good graces of people one has spent years demonizing on ideological grounds, one should expect damage to the very thing everyone thought was sacrosanct. They clearly don't think it's sacrosanct if they're sacrificing it this eagerly to hurt the people they want to demonize. I guess we're talking about gay people here? They want to demonize gay people, and want to restrict the book supply in order to indoctrinate children with that?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - SauciestGNU 4y ago
    I think the disconnect is that some parents see children as property to be managed and controlled, and many other adults see children as individuals with agency and autonomy (to the extent that is developmentally appropriate). I also believe that most of this backlash is about children being able to freely access information that contradicts their parents' worldview. I have also seen strict parents punish their children for expressing differing beliefs and values. Queer kids get physically abused by their religious parents. I absolutely believe schools should be a safe place for students to learn and experiment with ideas and values. Not to mention, strict informational control has long been a mechanism for abuse. I think there's probably a nexus between parents who object to their kids reading what they want and parents who utilize various physical and psychological abuses as "discipline".
    - mcv 4y ago
      Exactly. Conservatives try to paint this as protecting their kids from left-wing ideology, but it's really about being able to force right-wing ideology on them. I'd strongly prefer exposing kids, in an age-appropriate manner, of course, to the whole breadth of human ideology and life experiences, with different views on it, and teaching them to think for themselves. But mostly, I've got a kid that's struggling to read, but has a couple of very strong interests (trains!) that I leverage to get him to read more. Restricting the diversity of books available because they need to go through some slow approval process first, will make it harder for him to access books that he's eager to read. Because the whitelisting process means that even books that aren't even the slightest bit objectionable, won't necessarily be available, and may have to wait until more mainstream books have been approved.
  - ldh0011 4y ago