4 ms·

We've decided collectively as a society that some ideas are "good" and others are "bad". For example, racism and white supremacy have been decided to be "bad".

We've decided collectively as a society that some ideas are "good" and others are "bad". For example, racism and white supremacy have been decided to be "bad". There's an alternate reality where white supremacy is mainstream, where queer fiction is impossible to find, and that would be a different world. Instead, what's being preserved are the books written that celebrate the values that match our broad cultural values, despite a handful of cultural deviants attempting to suppress the parts of the rest of humanity they dislike.

BigTTYGothGF 4mo ago
> that would be a different world Yes, it's called "the past".
like_any_other 4mo ago
[flagged]
- margalabargala 4mo ago
  "For once"? That's a significant impugnment of the honesty of a person you know nothing about. "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books, even if it's not as accurate as you'd personally prefer. Next thing you'll be complaining you bit into an Apple and got computer instead of fruit.
  - like_any_other 4mo ago
    > "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books Yes, many people are either unaware of, or willing participants in, this lie. That doesn't make it any less of a lie.
    - margalabargala 4mo ago
      It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate. You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.
      - like_any_other 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        margalabargala 4mo ago
        > deliberately conveys Just because you decided to interpret something one way, doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice by the other party, nor does it mean your interpretation is common. > technically you're not actually lying. What did I say that you consider a lie? Could you quote me?
      - somenameforme 4mo ago
        I'm curious of your take on one thing. Many of the sexuality oriented books (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of) tend to, unsurprisingly, have sexual content which is often rather explicit. Some of these books even have explicit artwork within them. I'm sure you'd agree that if books had ratings then many/all of these books would R, if not NC17, rated. And even in high schools screening R-rated movies is generally heavily restricted. Where it is allowed, it generally requires a permission slip from the parents. And that's not like showing gratuitous films, but ones with historically relevant and educational context like e.g. Schindler's List. So why is it unreasonable for parents (or other interested parties) to be against having such material in a children's library? In many ways its quite odd that a rating system was never adopted for books. And for one other question, do you even see a difference between these sort of books being restricted from schools, and other books whose content would be generally be rated appropriate for children, being banned on political/ideological basis? Because to me the difference is not only tremendous but the defining issue here.
        margalabargala 4mo ago
        > (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of "My" list? I don't have a list. If you're talking about OP's list, I disagree with that. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are not sexual books. From what I know of many of the other more recent books people have tried to ban, I absolutely would not agree the ratings would be R/NC17 for those either. Here's a list of PG13 (And PG!) movies with nudity. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls548607223/ https://www.imdb.com/list/ls548607223/ I agree that 7 year olds should not be shown sexual content. There exists content with sexual themes which are appropriate for teenagers. Also, the comment you replied to is downthread in an argument over whether it's a "lie" to call books that someone banned, a banned book.
- subscribed 4mo ago
  By God's, these are examples, artifacts for the repository you can use yourself. What's so triggering in using, as examples, books that were once banned? It's getting weird seeing how you're going on and on and on about that aftee the author has explained why these books.

BigTTYGothGF 4mo ago

> that would be a different world Yes, it's called "the past".

like_any_other 4mo ago

[flagged]

margalabargala 4mo ago
"For once"? That's a significant impugnment of the honesty of a person you know nothing about. "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books, even if it's not as accurate as you'd personally prefer. Next thing you'll be complaining you bit into an Apple and got computer instead of fruit.
- like_any_other 4mo ago
  > "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books Yes, many people are either unaware of, or willing participants in, this lie. That doesn't make it any less of a lie.
  - margalabargala 4mo ago
    It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate. You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.
    - like_any_other 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - margalabargala 4mo ago
        > deliberately conveys Just because you decided to interpret something one way, doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice by the other party, nor does it mean your interpretation is common. > technically you're not actually lying. What did I say that you consider a lie? Could you quote me?
    - somenameforme 4mo ago
      I'm curious of your take on one thing. Many of the sexuality oriented books (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of) tend to, unsurprisingly, have sexual content which is often rather explicit. Some of these books even have explicit artwork within them. I'm sure you'd agree that if books had ratings then many/all of these books would R, if not NC17, rated. And even in high schools screening R-rated movies is generally heavily restricted. Where it is allowed, it generally requires a permission slip from the parents. And that's not like showing gratuitous films, but ones with historically relevant and educational context like e.g. Schindler's List. So why is it unreasonable for parents (or other interested parties) to be against having such material in a children's library? In many ways its quite odd that a rating system was never adopted for books. And for one other question, do you even see a difference between these sort of books being restricted from schools, and other books whose content would be generally be rated appropriate for children, being banned on political/ideological basis? Because to me the difference is not only tremendous but the defining issue here.
      - margalabargala 4mo ago
        > (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of "My" list? I don't have a list. If you're talking about OP's list, I disagree with that. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are not sexual books. From what I know of many of the other more recent books people have tried to ban, I absolutely would not agree the ratings would be R/NC17 for those either. Here's a list of PG13 (And PG!) movies with nudity. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls548607223/ https://www.imdb.com/list/ls548607223/ I agree that 7 year olds should not be shown sexual content. There exists content with sexual themes which are appropriate for teenagers. Also, the comment you replied to is downthread in an argument over whether it's a "lie" to call books that someone banned, a banned book.
subscribed 4mo ago
By God's, these are examples, artifacts for the repository you can use yourself. What's so triggering in using, as examples, books that were once banned? It's getting weird seeing how you're going on and on and on about that aftee the author has explained why these books.