4 ms·

They are not "banned" if I can have Amazon deliver them to my door step.

by starik36 3y ago

micromacrofoot 3y ago
don’t be obtuse, are you also going to order them for every kid in public school?
- gweinberg 3y ago
  It's grossly misleading for the authors to talk about "banned books" without saying what they mean by "banned". In common parlance, "banned" would mean something like "forbidden to be sold". I think in most discussions of "banned" books, they mean something like "books which have faced objections from parents when teachers assigned them to children."
  - GloomyBoots 3y ago
    Exactly. Amazon’s internal list of banned books gives a much more accurate impression of what ideas are suppressed in America than what gets taken off a school library shelf. A recent well-known example being When Harry Became Sally.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    these are schools, which are state institutions, banning books from curriculum — if that's not censorship I don't know what is... what's the point of this pedantry?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  The only obtuse one is you. Just because, say, “50 Shades of Grey” is not in an elementary school’s library does not make it a banned book, and no sensible person would advocate for that to be there in the first place. A “banned book” connotes censorship, and it is not censorship that a child’s library does not stock every book imaginable. If the government bans it in some way, then that would be a banned book. However, if it is available through retailers, how can you call it a “banned book”?
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > If the government bans it in some way, then that would be a banned book. Public schools are operated by the government.
    - rhapsodic 3y ago
      [dead]
    - colinsane 3y ago
      to say "X is banned" with no additional context is to say that "X is banned under all contexts". if you want to say "X is banned" within a specific context, then do so, e.g. "1626 books are banned from various public libraries". understand that even this is an exceptional use of the word. one wouldn't say that Medicare's decision to not cover prescription glasses amounts to Medicare banning prescription glasses. that shows that a "ban" can't be as simple as "government entity chooses not to provide thing that's within its purview". it's a pretty complicated word and using it outside of or even at the edges of its colloquial understanding is a guaranteed way to cause your audience to view you as dishonest.
      - danShumway 3y ago
        > to say "X is banned" with no additional context is to say that "X is banned under all contexts". Not really? I don't know, maybe I'm in a minority here but I don't think I am -- I'm not against providing additional context, additional context is often helpful. But I don't think this is an exceptional use of the word, and I think these are pretty clearly bans. I do not agree with that characterization of common usage, I suspect most people understand that bans can apply to specific scopes/situations. I do think people are a little too cavalier sometimes about saying "it's not censorship if I agree with it or it's legal." We censor things sometimes. When we ban porn from a children's section in a library, that's censorship -- it's good censorship that we should be doing. People attach a lot of emotion to these words that maybe isn't appropriate or helpful to attach. > government entity chooses not to provide thing that's within its purview A government entity mandating that public schools may not provide a resource in their libraries is not "deciding not to cover" something, it is a restriction -- it's a ban. I sort of understand where you're coming from semantically, and if the only thing happening here was that librarians were choosing not to stock the books, I might agree with that semantic distinction. I don't think it would necessarily be a ban for a naturally limited space to not happen to have every single piece of content. But that's not what's happening: schools, local governments, and state governments are barring their inclusion. The books are being specifically excluded from those spaces, regardless of whether or not the people tasked with maintaining those spaces want to include them. That's a ban.

They are not "banned" if I can have Amazon deliver them to my door step.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

don’t be obtuse, are you also going to order them for every kid in public school?

gweinberg 3y ago
It's grossly misleading for the authors to talk about "banned books" without saying what they mean by "banned". In common parlance, "banned" would mean something like "forbidden to be sold". I think in most discussions of "banned" books, they mean something like "books which have faced objections from parents when teachers assigned them to children."
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  Exactly. Amazon’s internal list of banned books gives a much more accurate impression of what ideas are suppressed in America than what gets taken off a school library shelf. A recent well-known example being When Harry Became Sally.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  these are schools, which are state institutions, banning books from curriculum — if that's not censorship I don't know what is... what's the point of this pedantry?
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
The only obtuse one is you. Just because, say, “50 Shades of Grey” is not in an elementary school’s library does not make it a banned book, and no sensible person would advocate for that to be there in the first place. A “banned book” connotes censorship, and it is not censorship that a child’s library does not stock every book imaginable. If the government bans it in some way, then that would be a banned book. However, if it is available through retailers, how can you call it a “banned book”?
- danShumway 3y ago
  > If the government bans it in some way, then that would be a banned book. Public schools are operated by the government.
  - rhapsodic 3y ago
    [dead]
  - colinsane 3y ago
    to say "X is banned" with no additional context is to say that "X is banned under all contexts". if you want to say "X is banned" within a specific context, then do so, e.g. "1626 books are banned from various public libraries". understand that even this is an exceptional use of the word. one wouldn't say that Medicare's decision to not cover prescription glasses amounts to Medicare banning prescription glasses. that shows that a "ban" can't be as simple as "government entity chooses not to provide thing that's within its purview". it's a pretty complicated word and using it outside of or even at the edges of its colloquial understanding is a guaranteed way to cause your audience to view you as dishonest.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > to say "X is banned" with no additional context is to say that "X is banned under all contexts". Not really? I don't know, maybe I'm in a minority here but I don't think I am -- I'm not against providing additional context, additional context is often helpful. But I don't think this is an exceptional use of the word, and I think these are pretty clearly bans. I do not agree with that characterization of common usage, I suspect most people understand that bans can apply to specific scopes/situations. I do think people are a little too cavalier sometimes about saying "it's not censorship if I agree with it or it's legal." We censor things sometimes. When we ban porn from a children's section in a library, that's censorship -- it's good censorship that we should be doing. People attach a lot of emotion to these words that maybe isn't appropriate or helpful to attach. > government entity chooses not to provide thing that's within its purview A government entity mandating that public schools may not provide a resource in their libraries is not "deciding not to cover" something, it is a restriction -- it's a ban. I sort of understand where you're coming from semantically, and if the only thing happening here was that librarians were choosing not to stock the books, I might agree with that semantic distinction. I don't think it would necessarily be a ban for a naturally limited space to not happen to have every single piece of content. But that's not what's happening: schools, local governments, and state governments are barring their inclusion. The books are being specifically excluded from those spaces, regardless of whether or not the people tasked with maintaining those spaces want to include them. That's a ban.