3 ms·

No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have. But because, for some reason, anything th

No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have. But because, for some reason, anything that is in text on paper form appears to be more "intellectual" and culturally valuable, it's viewed as a form of oppression. I am not saying I support it, I just don't understand why books are put on a pedestal compared to all other forms of media.

chmod775 2y ago
> No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have. Only some of these books? It's already hard to defend censorship with saying "it deserved to be censored", but it's even harder if you walk it back to "well, at least some of it deserved to be censored".
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "no really, that's inappropriate for children". Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "what reactionary weirdo wanted that banned?" Not everything is appropriate for children. That's just the reality of what children are. Not everything that someone protests (or even a bunch of people protest) is inappropriate. That's just the reality of what grownups are. So, yes, it's really easy to defend (some) censorship for children. It's hard to defend all censorship that claims to be "for children".
autoexec 2y ago
I think there's a pretty big difference between seeing something recorded or reproduced on screen in HD with audio and having that same thing be described in text. You can explore this yourself by reading something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire and then seeking out video of the event, seeing the bodies and hearing the screams.
bloak 2y ago
Another example of the same phenomenon, perhaps, is the respect given to people who have written a novel compared to the respect given to people who have done journalism. Since I like novels I am not particularly annoyed by this phenomenon, but it does seem strange.

chmod775 2y ago

> No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have. Only some of these books? It's already hard to defend censorship with saying "it deserved to be censored", but it's even harder if you walk it back to "well, at least some of it deserved to be censored".

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "no really, that's inappropriate for children". Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "what reactionary weirdo wanted that banned?" Not everything is appropriate for children. That's just the reality of what children are. Not everything that someone protests (or even a bunch of people protest) is inappropriate. That's just the reality of what grownups are. So, yes, it's really easy to defend (some) censorship for children. It's hard to defend all censorship that claims to be "for children".

autoexec 2y ago

I think there's a pretty big difference between seeing something recorded or reproduced on screen in HD with audio and having that same thing be described in text. You can explore this yourself by reading something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire and then seeking out video of the event, seeing the bodies and hearing the screams.

bloak 2y ago

Another example of the same phenomenon, perhaps, is the respect given to people who have written a novel compared to the respect given to people who have done journalism. Since I like novels I am not particularly annoyed by this phenomenon, but it does seem strange.