3 ms·

>It is NOT curation, it is literally banning them from the library Then 99.999% of books are banned as well. Cry about those too.

brazzledazzle 3y ago
These sorts of discussions are not really ideal on HN and this is exactly why. You can at least pretend to be respectful.
toss1 3y ago
The difference, which you are falsely attempting to obscure (or are failing to understand), is the REASON and PROCESS behind the banning. Yes, of course 99.9%+ of all books ever written in history are not included in any given libraries due to space and budget lconstraints. The librarians included the few based on professional criteria and data. After <0.01% of the books are included on professional librarians' criteria, you now try to claim that efforts to DELIBERATELY REMOVE some books BASED ON NARROW DEMANDS of a few religious bigots is the same. Bullshirt. Of course the numerical result is superficially similar. The results of choosing books based on the criteria of professional librarians or schoolteachers vs religious bigots is obviously different. If it were not different in important ways, the religious bigots would not bother putting so much effort into replacing professional librarians. Any claim that these are the same thing is either box-of-rocks-level ignorant, or intentionally disingenuous. There is no third choice.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Do you think libraries should include more books which help children to grow up more progressive and educated adults?
  - toss1 3y ago
    My opinion on that question is not relevant, just as the opinion of religious bigots who want to overrule the professional judgement of teachers and librarians is also not relevant. Those decisions are not to be made within constitutional frameworks, not by committees of religious bigots who promote ignorance. Stop carrying the water of religious bigots — you'll give the impression that you are one; you already give a strong impression of willful ignorance, repeatedly making the arguments of a simpleton.

brazzledazzle 3y ago

These sorts of discussions are not really ideal on HN and this is exactly why. You can at least pretend to be respectful.

toss1 3y ago

The difference, which you are falsely attempting to obscure (or are failing to understand), is the REASON and PROCESS behind the banning. Yes, of course 99.9%+ of all books ever written in history are not included in any given libraries due to space and budget lconstraints. The librarians included the few based on professional criteria and data. After <0.01% of the books are included on professional librarians' criteria, you now try to claim that efforts to DELIBERATELY REMOVE some books BASED ON NARROW DEMANDS of a few religious bigots is the same. Bullshirt. Of course the numerical result is superficially similar. The results of choosing books based on the criteria of professional librarians or schoolteachers vs religious bigots is obviously different. If it were not different in important ways, the religious bigots would not bother putting so much effort into replacing professional librarians. Any claim that these are the same thing is either box-of-rocks-level ignorant, or intentionally disingenuous. There is no third choice.

constantcrying 3y ago
Do you think libraries should include more books which help children to grow up more progressive and educated adults?
- toss1 3y ago
  My opinion on that question is not relevant, just as the opinion of religious bigots who want to overrule the professional judgement of teachers and librarians is also not relevant. Those decisions are not to be made within constitutional frameworks, not by committees of religious bigots who promote ignorance. Stop carrying the water of religious bigots — you'll give the impression that you are one; you already give a strong impression of willful ignorance, repeatedly making the arguments of a simpleton.