5 ms·

In this case it is right wing censors like you who wish to decide "what books kids should read."

by clipsy 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago
It’s not censorship for the voting public to decide what books will be purchased with taxpayer dollars. That’s a complete inversion of the reality.
- watchface 3y ago
  [flagged]
- krapp 3y ago
  Remember when banning books was something only Nazis and fascists did? It's crazy how transactional some fundamental American values have become lately.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    [flagged]
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  I'm not strictly opposed to the voting public being able to decide what books will be purchased with taxpayer dollars. But, if you actually want to go that route, then you need to be comfortable with the voting public deciding that they can purchase books that you personally dislike, as is the case in Illinois! Otherwise you're not arguing in favor of democracy, you're arguing in favor of your own personal moralizing.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Except realistically you've never going to accurately gauge exactly which books taxpayers do and don't agree should be purchased with 'their' dollars, nor are individual vote counts going to determine the choice of books that public libraries choose to stock. If the public happen to vote for a party that once in government then decides particular books should be restricted in public availability, it's still censorship. I'd like to think there were basic constitutional principles in place that determined on what grounds such censorship is and isn't genuinely in the interest of sustaining a healthy liberal democracy.
- theRealMe 3y ago
  I mean, yeah that IS a form of censorship. A majority saying “we allow free access to any knowledge except X domain or Y specific book”. But just think this through. Imagine how terribly ideological available book selections would become if we had to have “the voting public” decide which books were available. I have a feeling that you would not be happy with the books that the voting majority decides are “acceptable”.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    It’s not “censorship” for the voting public to decide what books will be provided in a public library any more than it’s a “restriction on freedom of movement” for the voting public to decide what routes will be provided in public bus service.
    - theRealMe 3y ago
      Censorship is the act of suppressing content that is viewed as objectionable. There is nothing in the word that indicates the method of censorship. Allowing a subset of people to dictate what is freely available based on that group’s moral beliefs is censorship. Cut and dry. And you act like it’s just the money of the people that don’t want the books that is being used. What about the money of the people that want the books available? Should it be up to you to say the library can’t use those people’s money to buy those books? Quit acting like this is about the money spent when it is purely about you wanting to foist your morals onto others and using the cost as a scapegoat. And lastly, it is not, and should not ever be the case that everyone has to agree on every dollar that the government spends. Money is spent on good programs that you as an individual will never directly benefit from. Does that mean that we should allow voters to decide how every dollar is spent? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. So long social security and Medicare and the majority don’t currently use them.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        [flagged]
- gameman144 3y ago
  I can understand the principle here. Just to confirm, though, you'd then have no problems with controversial books being donated by private groups to public libraries, is that right? Or are there other considerations in your calculus.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    No, because taxpayers are still paying for the shelf space. It’s their building and they get to decide what’s in it. Now, if private groups want to rent space and make certain books available there, they’re welcome to do that.
    - theRealMe 3y ago
      Lmao you’re literally arguing about the cost of the shelf space for a book in a library now? What if the people that donated the books also donated money for shelf space? It’s literally free to tax payers then. You must realize at this point that you don’t actually care about the cost, you care about having your majority opinion be the only available opinion.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        The cost itself is obviously incidental--the point is that public ownership of the shelves means public control of what's on the shelves. It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores.
        gameman144 3y ago
        > It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores. Wait, but both of those are censorship of a form; Apple is just allowed to censor whatever it wants. Taken to the extreme, should a library be allowed to stock only books that promote the political party of whoever won the latest election? Obviously decisions for shelf space have to be made. If those decisions for shelf space are made solely by the government's dislike of the material, though, that feels pretty obviously like government censorship to me.
alphanullmeric 3y ago
[flagged]
- watchface 3y ago
  [flagged]

In this case it is right wing censors like you who wish to decide "what books kids should read."

by clipsy 3y ago

In this case it is right wing censors like you who wish to decide "what books kids should read."

It’s not censorship for the voting public to decide what books will be purchased with taxpayer dollars. That’s a complete inversion of the reality.

watchface 3y ago
[flagged]
krapp 3y ago
Remember when banning books was something only Nazis and fascists did? It's crazy how transactional some fundamental American values have become lately.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  [flagged]
joshuamorton 3y ago
I'm not strictly opposed to the voting public being able to decide what books will be purchased with taxpayer dollars. But, if you actually want to go that route, then you need to be comfortable with the voting public deciding that they can purchase books that you personally dislike, as is the case in Illinois! Otherwise you're not arguing in favor of democracy, you're arguing in favor of your own personal moralizing.
wizofaus 3y ago
Except realistically you've never going to accurately gauge exactly which books taxpayers do and don't agree should be purchased with 'their' dollars, nor are individual vote counts going to determine the choice of books that public libraries choose to stock. If the public happen to vote for a party that once in government then decides particular books should be restricted in public availability, it's still censorship. I'd like to think there were basic constitutional principles in place that determined on what grounds such censorship is and isn't genuinely in the interest of sustaining a healthy liberal democracy.
theRealMe 3y ago
I mean, yeah that IS a form of censorship. A majority saying “we allow free access to any knowledge except X domain or Y specific book”. But just think this through. Imagine how terribly ideological available book selections would become if we had to have “the voting public” decide which books were available. I have a feeling that you would not be happy with the books that the voting majority decides are “acceptable”.
- rayiner 3y ago
  It’s not “censorship” for the voting public to decide what books will be provided in a public library any more than it’s a “restriction on freedom of movement” for the voting public to decide what routes will be provided in public bus service.
  - theRealMe 3y ago
    Censorship is the act of suppressing content that is viewed as objectionable. There is nothing in the word that indicates the method of censorship. Allowing a subset of people to dictate what is freely available based on that group’s moral beliefs is censorship. Cut and dry. And you act like it’s just the money of the people that don’t want the books that is being used. What about the money of the people that want the books available? Should it be up to you to say the library can’t use those people’s money to buy those books? Quit acting like this is about the money spent when it is purely about you wanting to foist your morals onto others and using the cost as a scapegoat. And lastly, it is not, and should not ever be the case that everyone has to agree on every dollar that the government spends. Money is spent on good programs that you as an individual will never directly benefit from. Does that mean that we should allow voters to decide how every dollar is spent? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. So long social security and Medicare and the majority don’t currently use them.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      [flagged]
gameman144 3y ago
I can understand the principle here. Just to confirm, though, you'd then have no problems with controversial books being donated by private groups to public libraries, is that right? Or are there other considerations in your calculus.
- rayiner 3y ago
  No, because taxpayers are still paying for the shelf space. It’s their building and they get to decide what’s in it. Now, if private groups want to rent space and make certain books available there, they’re welcome to do that.
  - theRealMe 3y ago
    Lmao you’re literally arguing about the cost of the shelf space for a book in a library now? What if the people that donated the books also donated money for shelf space? It’s literally free to tax payers then. You must realize at this point that you don’t actually care about the cost, you care about having your majority opinion be the only available opinion.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      The cost itself is obviously incidental--the point is that public ownership of the shelves means public control of what's on the shelves. It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores.
      - gameman144 3y ago
        > It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores. Wait, but both of those are censorship of a form; Apple is just allowed to censor whatever it wants. Taken to the extreme, should a library be allowed to stock only books that promote the political party of whoever won the latest election? Obviously decisions for shelf space have to be made. If those decisions for shelf space are made solely by the government's dislike of the material, though, that feels pretty obviously like government censorship to me.

alphanullmeric 3y ago

[flagged]

watchface 3y ago
[flagged]