3 ms·
> Banning books and trying to erase people from society due to their sexual orientation is draconian. That framing is extremely misleading and tendentious. Fo
by tablespoon 4y ago
> Banning books and trying to erase people from society due to their sexual orientation is draconian.
That framing is extremely misleading and tendentious. For instance: school boards making decisions about what to stock in their libraries is not "banning books," it's democracy. However, misrepresenting that as "book bans" cranks up the outrage, which is beneficial in partisan an ideological conflict.
It's also frequently hypocritical. For instance: the ACLU has been paying for big banner ads in the New York Times saying the oppose "book bans," while simultaneously employing a director who publicity advocates stopping the circulation of certain books and certain ideas.
When someone complains about "book bans," frequently their real position is "I want this book/idea in the library but that book/idea that I hate needs to be thrown out and burned."
- taylodl 4y agoYou may not have heard the news, Florida took that power away from school boards. That may be why you're getting downvoted.
- tablespoon 4y ago> You may not have heard the news, Florida took that power away from school boards. That may be why you're getting downvoted. That doesn't affect my overall point, though. I'm not "banning a book" if I refuse to purchase it or dispose if it after I've purchased it, likewise it's not a ban if some level of government does the same thing. If someone wants to read that book, they can buy it or borrow it from someone who chooses to lend it out. The "book ban" language is just tendentious outrage framing. I mean, I would be surprised if literal pornography is available to be checked out from any school library in the US, even though it's frequently consumed by high-school aged kids, and no one can reasonable claim that's "banned."