10 ms·

"Banned in the United States" does not mean the same thing as "Removed from Middle School Libraries"

arcticbull 3y ago
Hm, seems pretty similar to me. Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating. [edit] Anyone who believes in freedom of expression and the first amendment should recognize this as a negative step, and a clear thin-edge issue. These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. "Will someone think of the children" is a well worn path. There's plenty of books about this kind of thing, like The Giver, but you know, it's probably on the list.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- didgetmaster 3y ago
  Hmmm...so it only counted 1.6% of the books as explicit because they had "publisher-provided" maturity ratings of 17+. I wonder how many books that had explicit material within them were not properly labeled as such by their publishers? This seems like a very subjective standard that would be very easy to manipulate.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I wonder what the people who want books removed from school libraries consider "explicit".
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. You support neo-nazi propaganda not being in school libraries, so certainly you too believe that it is the duty of school libraries to curate the content. It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence. That's not possible, as, and this is true, I didn't go through the list. I suggest that you may be assuming a lot about me.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      You do not support the removal of these books. My claim is that: - Everybody supports the removal of certain books - Demanding the exclusion or demanding the inclusion are both partisan issues. Neither is a politically neutral stance. This suggests that this is not a free speech issue at all, but a political issue with two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        > two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books. No. One group of people don’t want any children reading certain books. The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents). An important distinction.
        constantcrying 3y ago
        >The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents). Complete nonsense. Libraries are not staffed by children nor their parents. What goes into a school library is not some ideologically neutral ground where books just happen to appear, because of the inner desires of children. These books are bought because the people in charge off filling a library want children to read them. This is true for all books in a library, but it automatically guarantees that school libraries are curated. And curation is not ideologically neutral. It is totally disingenious to pretend that this is not about you wanting children to read those particular books.
  - deleted 3y ago
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating. You presume those ratings mean something. "Getting It: A Guide to Hot, Healthy Hookups and Shame-Free Sex. An empowering guide to casual sex and hooking up from sex educator and Girl Sex 101 author Allison Moon." I'm sure that's entirely age appropriate for my 13-year-old daughter to be reading from the high-school library.
  - teachrdan 3y ago
    There's a good chance your 13-year-old is hooking up and about 100% chance she's hearing about friends hooking up. A guide like that is useful for identifying healthy and unhealthy behaviors around consent, health, and emotions. Have you actually read this book? Or are you making assumptions based on the title?
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      I included the title and its own summary. And FWIW, the age of consent in the U.S. is 16+. 13...my goodness man...
      - teachrdan 3y ago
        "Hookups" encompasses activity other than sexual intercourse. This book would likely help its readers negotiate how to engage in that activity safely and with consent. And 13-year-olds hook up with each other, as do kids 14 and older, which your daughter will in all likelihood become. Again, if you had bothered to actually read the book, rather than make a snap judgment based on a one-sentence summary on the internet, you'd probably be better informed.
        paulddraper 3y ago
        > "Hookups" encompasses activity other than sexual intercourse. Getting It: A Guide to Hot, Healthy Hookups and Shame-Free Sex. An empowering guide to casual sex and hooking up Dude, stop trying to teach 13-year-olds how to have casual sex.
systemtest 3y ago
Removed from one percent of middle school libraries (138 out of ~13000 school districts).
epgui 3y ago
Perhaps not, but for people in most other countries, the idea that some public schools will just ban whatever they want in an ad hoc fashion amounts to the same thing as saying that it’s the government doing it. From an international-vs-US perspective, education being state-run or locally-governed is really more of a technicality than anything, because education policy is largely a national concern. In many (or most?) other developed countries, there is a public-private divide where there is a pretty well established expectation that the government doesn’t ban things it deems “merely immoral”, an expectation exemplified by the separation of church and state. Private institutions on the other hand are given more leeway on that front, because their services are opt-in.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > public schools will just ban whatever they want in an ad hoc fashion amounts to the same thing as saying that it’s the government doing it. There's a huge difference between "we're not going to stock this in the school library" and people not being allowed to read it. > education policy is largely a national concern Education is entirely controlled by the states, except that federal funding comes with some strings attached.
doingmaths 3y ago
"Books banned in the US" has two correct readings (regarding banned books by governments): 1) "Books that were banned, somewhere within the US" 2) "Books that were banned, across the US" In this case, at the behest of state and municipal governments, there are books that fit into reading one.
- xyzzyz 3y ago
  Every single book is “banned” from “somewhere” in the US, so your 1) is true, but vacuously so.
  - doingmaths 3y ago
    I don't think that's the case. Where is "Where the Sidewalk Ends" by Shel Silverstein banned in the US by a state, local, or federal government?
    - xyzzyz 3y ago
      You cannot bring it to a final calculus exam in many public universities, for example. If you want to complain that this is not what you meant by “banning” books, I fully agree with you, but that’s the whole issue here: activists decided to name some normal stuff like removing some books from some public libraries to be “banning”, despite the fact that this is not anywhere close to what normal people think of when they hear “book banning”.
      - mcphage 3y ago
        > You cannot bring it to a final calculus exam in many public universities, for example. That is not what is happening here
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  This is an impractical delineation. If any unit of government is treating any book as contraband, everyone be worried. The actual levels are books being: 1) removed from classroom curriculum; 2) removed from a school library; 3) confiscated from students at school; 4) removed from a public library; and 5) confiscated from adults anywhere. One seems unproblematic in general. Five is universally alarming. Two is largely what is being discussed, though it has a habit of sliding into Four. Three is a strange one; I haven't thought about it.
maxerickson 3y ago
What are you quoting?
smrtinsert 3y ago
Do you mean, "banned across America"?

Hm, seems pretty similar to me. Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating. [edit] Anyone who believes in freedom of expression and the first amendment should recognize this as a negative step, and a clear thin-edge issue. These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. "Will someone think of the children" is a well worn path. There's plenty of books about this kind of thing, like The Giver, but you know, it's probably on the list.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
didgetmaster 3y ago
Hmmm...so it only counted 1.6% of the books as explicit because they had "publisher-provided" maturity ratings of 17+. I wonder how many books that had explicit material within them were not properly labeled as such by their publishers? This seems like a very subjective standard that would be very easy to manipulate.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I wonder what the people who want books removed from school libraries consider "explicit".
constantcrying 3y ago
>These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. You support neo-nazi propaganda not being in school libraries, so certainly you too believe that it is the duty of school libraries to curate the content. It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence. That's not possible, as, and this is true, I didn't go through the list. I suggest that you may be assuming a lot about me.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    You do not support the removal of these books. My claim is that: - Everybody supports the removal of certain books - Demanding the exclusion or demanding the inclusion are both partisan issues. Neither is a politically neutral stance. This suggests that this is not a free speech issue at all, but a political issue with two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      > two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books. No. One group of people don’t want any children reading certain books. The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents). An important distinction.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        >The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents). Complete nonsense. Libraries are not staffed by children nor their parents. What goes into a school library is not some ideologically neutral ground where books just happen to appear, because of the inner desires of children. These books are bought because the people in charge off filling a library want children to read them. This is true for all books in a library, but it automatically guarantees that school libraries are curated. And curation is not ideologically neutral. It is totally disingenious to pretend that this is not about you wanting children to read those particular books.
- deleted 3y ago
paulddraper 3y ago
> Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating. You presume those ratings mean something. "Getting It: A Guide to Hot, Healthy Hookups and Shame-Free Sex. An empowering guide to casual sex and hooking up from sex educator and Girl Sex 101 author Allison Moon." I'm sure that's entirely age appropriate for my 13-year-old daughter to be reading from the high-school library.
- teachrdan 3y ago
  There's a good chance your 13-year-old is hooking up and about 100% chance she's hearing about friends hooking up. A guide like that is useful for identifying healthy and unhealthy behaviors around consent, health, and emotions. Have you actually read this book? Or are you making assumptions based on the title?
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    I included the title and its own summary. And FWIW, the age of consent in the U.S. is 16+. 13...my goodness man...
    - teachrdan 3y ago
      "Hookups" encompasses activity other than sexual intercourse. This book would likely help its readers negotiate how to engage in that activity safely and with consent. And 13-year-olds hook up with each other, as do kids 14 and older, which your daughter will in all likelihood become. Again, if you had bothered to actually read the book, rather than make a snap judgment based on a one-sentence summary on the internet, you'd probably be better informed.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        > "Hookups" encompasses activity other than sexual intercourse. Getting It: A Guide to Hot, Healthy Hookups and Shame-Free Sex. An empowering guide to casual sex and hooking up Dude, stop trying to teach 13-year-olds how to have casual sex.

systemtest 3y ago

Removed from one percent of middle school libraries (138 out of ~13000 school districts).

epgui 3y ago

Perhaps not, but for people in most other countries, the idea that some public schools will just ban whatever they want in an ad hoc fashion amounts to the same thing as saying that it’s the government doing it. From an international-vs-US perspective, education being state-run or locally-governed is really more of a technicality than anything, because education policy is largely a national concern. In many (or most?) other developed countries, there is a public-private divide where there is a pretty well established expectation that the government doesn’t ban things it deems “merely immoral”, an expectation exemplified by the separation of church and state. Private institutions on the other hand are given more leeway on that front, because their services are opt-in.

paulddraper 3y ago
> public schools will just ban whatever they want in an ad hoc fashion amounts to the same thing as saying that it’s the government doing it. There's a huge difference between "we're not going to stock this in the school library" and people not being allowed to read it. > education policy is largely a national concern Education is entirely controlled by the states, except that federal funding comes with some strings attached.

doingmaths 3y ago

"Books banned in the US" has two correct readings (regarding banned books by governments): 1) "Books that were banned, somewhere within the US" 2) "Books that were banned, across the US" In this case, at the behest of state and municipal governments, there are books that fit into reading one.

xyzzyz 3y ago
Every single book is “banned” from “somewhere” in the US, so your 1) is true, but vacuously so.
- doingmaths 3y ago
  I don't think that's the case. Where is "Where the Sidewalk Ends" by Shel Silverstein banned in the US by a state, local, or federal government?
  - xyzzyz 3y ago
    You cannot bring it to a final calculus exam in many public universities, for example. If you want to complain that this is not what you meant by “banning” books, I fully agree with you, but that’s the whole issue here: activists decided to name some normal stuff like removing some books from some public libraries to be “banning”, despite the fact that this is not anywhere close to what normal people think of when they hear “book banning”.
    - mcphage 3y ago
      > You cannot bring it to a final calculus exam in many public universities, for example. That is not what is happening here
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
This is an impractical delineation. If any unit of government is treating any book as contraband, everyone be worried. The actual levels are books being: 1) removed from classroom curriculum; 2) removed from a school library; 3) confiscated from students at school; 4) removed from a public library; and 5) confiscated from adults anywhere. One seems unproblematic in general. Five is universally alarming. Two is largely what is being discussed, though it has a habit of sliding into Four. Three is a strange one; I haven't thought about it.

maxerickson 3y ago

What are you quoting?

smrtinsert 3y ago

Do you mean, "banned across America"?