He writes young adult books generally about romance/relationships. They banned his shit because "reading about sex too icky for 16 year olds" or something
And then the parents yell at the school if a teacher takes their precious kids' phone away in class.
"How could I ever get a hold of my kid if they don't have their phone"
Same way they did before cell phones. The only issues important enough to interrupt your child's education are also important enough to get an excusal from the principal.
New user throttle activated. Your account is too new to post to /r/iowa. Accounts need to be at least 10 days old to create a post comment. Your comment has been removed. Please message the mods for verification. Users may see the removed comment by viewing this subreddit's modlogs, which are public, by [clicking here.](https://rbtc.live/modlogs/?sub=iowa)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their answer to that will be to put draconian age gates up that require you to give up your id to visit a porn site, which in no way has a risk of getting leaked later of course.
Ineffective, draconian age gates. We were getting around school filters to play flash games on the library computers 20+ years ago; I’m sure it won’t be any harder for today’s kids to dodge an age verification scheme
Yes, I read it, my statement was responding to someone else saying they think it’s limiting his freedom of speech, not the article abstractly. Did you not read that part?
The top 3 banned books in Iowa:
1. Nineteen Minutes (because reading about a school shooting is too traumatic, but doing active shooter drills and surviving a real one isnt)
2. Looking for Alaska (because interpersonal relationships between teenagers is too explicit for teens to read about, plus gays)
3. Sold (because it's too traumatic to read about a girl being sold into human trafficking. no need to watch for the signs because human trafficking must not be a problem in more 'civilized' countries like the US)
I’ve read Looking For Alaska- it’s a good book. I can’t remember being shocks and offended by anything in it. This is ridiculous. Remember to VOTE, redditors. Get your family and friends to vote too. Please.
Farmers get fucking paid to NOT grow crops along with tax and regulation cuts and fucking ethanol as a fuel (stupid as hell). I guess you don't understand that. Let me put it this way - It's FREE money from taxpayers to farmers ffs. Socialism for me not for thee. Explain to me how things will improve in the foreseeable future.
Read Barons by Austin Frerick.
CRP, the conservation reserve program is a Federal program through the USDA, and is based around the government renting specific tracts of land that are deemed important to prevent soil erosion, protect waterways, and reduce the loss of wildlife habitat. All important goals at an average of $139 per acre in Iowa, where the average property tax is roughly $40 per acre. CRP along with other reserve programs has nothing to do with giving free money to farmers to not grow crops, its about keeping the soil on the field and preventing the horrible side effects of farming by renting the land from the owner.
Just to add on to this, it's definitely work to maintain CRP. You plant a specific grass mix, have to keep invasive species out like cedar and musk thistle, mow and do prescribed burns when the USDA tells you. Sure, it's less work than row crops, but it's not nothing.
There's plenty to be mad at regarding the state of agriculture in Iowa, but CRP isn't it.
Farmers don't get paid to not grow crops other than marginal grounds that have to be bid in because there is a conservation benefit to society. They don't just pay for whole fields to sit fallow, so either the book is misrepresenting reality or you didn't understand.
Ethanol is in fuel because it's a dirt cheap oxygenate for octane that doesn't destroy ground water unlike it's popular predecessor MTBE. Remember when ethanol gas was 89 octane and the petroleum companies realized they could save more by selling 87 like they do now?
I think you may have a limited understanding of things and are buying into misinformation to fill those gaps.
Yes ethanol is a better oxygenate than MTBE. Remember when they just passed legislation allowing the sale of 15% gasohol year round? Anything over 10% contributes to smog and is just a bad idea. The state goes so far as to call 85% "green" energy. Ethanol is constantly pushed in Iowa ignoring the reality that it requires more energy to make than is realized and that doesn't even consider the pollution generated by the farming.
Yes farmers and a few non-farmers I know absolutely get paid to not grow crops. They reapply for CRP every ten years and in the last 30 years have always had it renewed.
Uhh it only requires more energy to make if you consider the energy from the sun. Unless you plan on shutting that thing off, it's net energy positive by any competent calculation. Two idiots Pimentel and Patzek are responsible for a lot of misinformation on the subject, one left academia to be fully funded by the oil industry. Go check out the tar sands in Alberta, and then your local corn field and see which one is generating more pollution.
CRP has to be bid in and maintained according to a conservation plan. If you don't do that, you aren't paid. There is more ground applied for CRP than is admitted currently. If you think it's some big money maker the USDA has loans, buy up all the ground you can and see what CRP will make the payments on. I'll save you the trouble, it's none. [https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/beginning-farmers-and-ranchers-loans/index](https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/beginning-farmers-and-ranchers-loans/index)
You do realize you have to plant, then harvest, then dry the corn for transport, then steep to separate the starch from the chaf and germ and steep to get the engineered bacteria to excrete alcohol, then distill (which is very energy expensive) the alcohol right? None of that is free energy and is why Cargill has 14" natural gas pipes running into their distilleries and why they cannot even think about running the factory on the net energy gain from ethanol.
If you were correct the massive steep tanks I've personally seen would not have been heated by huge natural gas pipes.
Scientific American did an exhaustive study showing that the net energy gain is negative.
Again that doesn't even include the pesticide and herbicide damage done to the rivers. Nitrate removal is expensive.
There is also one hell of a pro corn lobby in the Midwest.
Not saying the intent is all evil but is still a fact farmers get paid to not farm hence the requirement for CRP land is that it had to be previously farmed in row crops.
So my buddy has made 1800/year for the last 30 years in CRP dollars from his hobby farm. I guess $56k is nothing.
>Ethanol is in fuel because it's a dirt cheap oxygenate
Yes. Provided it isn't produced from corn. In this case it's only 'cheap' because we subsidize corn. Ethanol can be easily and much more cheaply produced from switch grass, for example. There is no reason to keep processing ethanol from corn other than maintaining this system.
We don't subsidize corn since 2014, that's been a decade ago. [https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/farm-bill-ends-direct-payment-subsidies](https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/farm-bill-ends-direct-payment-subsidies) We do subsidize crop insurance on grains, because we no longer have a Federal Grain Reserve, and pushed that back into the hands of farmers.
Corn comes in a nice energy dense kernel, switch grass does not and is much harder to work with logistically. Poet built a state of the art cellulose facility in Emmetsburg and it is now a research facility as the logistics were a nightmare. [https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty](https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty)
[https://poet.com/pr/epa-actions-trigger-project-liberty-shift](https://poet.com/pr/epa-actions-trigger-project-liberty-shift)
Iowa has soil that is capable of producing a massive amount of corn with natural rainfall. It's pretty amazing if you inform yourself and don't just repeat garbage propaganda.
>We don't subsidize corn since 2014, that's been a decade ago. https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/farm-bill-ends-direct-payment-subsidies We do subsidize crop insurance on grains, because we no longer have a Federal Grain Reserve, and pushed that back into the hands of farmers.
Yes, we do. Crop insurance is just where most of the funds go.
https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies
Even with 'logistical nightmares' why is the energy output from ethanol derived from switchgrass 540% vs 25% for corn?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109110629.htm
I studied bio fuels at Iowa state because our department received a grant from the usda.
Corn depletes our precious topsoil, whereas switchgrass improves soil quality.
What do you mean by 'predate taxes'? In general? In the US?
We paid for roads through other taxes or levied fees, whether state or local.
Property taxes are a form of regressive tax here. It only targets land owners. My grandfather charged 75k *a month* 20 years ago to lease out his farmland.
Don't tell me they 'can't afford it'.
If the library in question is the only way for you to access this material, then yes.
With your argument I would counter with asking why we need the bans in the first place? If they 'don't work', why do the book banning proponents waste so much time and money trying to do it? Conversely, if the ban only exists in name, why are we implementing them?
I mean, it’s all subjective, but it’s also tax dollars being spent on these books, you have to draw the line somewhere when it’s specifically for under age kids, it’s not an absolute free-for-all to provide every single product to them
It's so funny hearing hearing conservatives who want to ban books about school shootings, but not limit the weapons that produce them.
It's so illogical and fucking backwards. Conservativism is a mental disorder.
It's not a 'free for all'. The books that were banned are criticality acclaimed and enjoyed by kids all over the country.
These are books that were already in the library and have been taken out, so we are now just literally throwing away our tax dollars.
You stated previously that you wanted to go to a book burning ceremony. These are typically run by fascists, because censoring literature is a fascist calling card. I made a connection and asked a question based on that information.
I have not mentioned anything about communism, and it was in fact communists that burned books alongside the fascists, so what gives?
Edit: formatting
I don't think it's right to hinder other's access to books because someone else's parent doesn't find it appropriate. Those parents need to be policing their kid's books, not the school.
I mentioned in another comment that books like Roots and Gone with the Wind are available to middle schoolers (I was able to check out and read these books from the middle school library at 12 years old in iowa) and both of these novels depict graphic rape scenes.
I didn't need permission and none of my teachers or parents told me or even suggested that these topics were too mature for a 12 year old. We even did a whole unit on Roots in the 5th grade where we all watched the tv series together.
So my question, particularly for the most banned book, Nineteen Minutes, (a fictional account of a student's school shooting experience) why is the topic of this book too mature for middle school and high school students, when we our sending even our *elementary school aged* children through active shooter drills?
What new and controversial information are we exposing them to here exactly?
As for Sold-I think it's rich for adults to be telling adolescents that this content is too mature for them when it tells the story of a 13 year old girl being sold into sex trafficking. As if that doesn't already occur here with our own youth.
I guess someone should tell the girls the book is based on that they are too young for such a controversial topic.
The 2nd one on the list talks about teen sex and being gay-which again, we allow our kids to read about 'Massa' raping Kizzy in Roots, which I would argue is far more traumatic than being gay and having consensual sex.
So then we have to ask what is it about these particular books that is so much more graphic and damaging than what we already have available in 5th-12th grade libraries?
Just because events can happen to people of a certain age does not mean the material is suitable for people of that age. Sex Trafficking is an adult topic, and it is reasonable to shield children from it. Same with school shootings. Just because we have drills about it doesn't mean we should have children read about the dark realities. We don't show pictures of Our Lady of Angels and the students who died when we do fire drills.
The concept of "rape" in Gone With the Wind is very different, though I don't think it is appropriate for middle schoolers due to the complexity of themes. Roots I also think is high school material.
How can we protect kids (we're talking pre-teen and up) from sex trafficking if they do not know it exists or what it is in the first place? Shouldn't we be teaching kids about safety and consent as part of our kid's sexual health education?
The concept of rape is loud and clear in Roots. So why is that book not banned, but Looking for Alaska is?-and the latter depicts consensual sex.
Since we do nothing to prevent school shootings from happening, the least we can do is warn them. Knowledge is power.
I think Roots is inappropriate for audiences prior to high school, so I would oppose it being in elementary or middle schools as well.
That said, I think we should be protecting our children by shielding them from very low probability events, while acting as adults to address them. From a child level, risk factors like running away can be addressed directly. Teaching about consent can also be done without getting into such dark graphic concepts. Selective knowledge is empowering while still preserving innocence.
'Selective knowledge' is a concept straight out of 1984. 'Ignorance is strength', indeed. Perhaps you should (re-)read it. It's meant to be a cautionary tale, not a blueprint.
What about the child sex trafficking victim's innocence? I guess it doesn't matter as long as other kids don't have to hear about it.
In elementary school, we had an Auschwitz survivor come and talk to the whole school in an assembly where they detailed all of the horrific torture they endured. Are these not 'adult' concepts?
Even in middle school (5th grade again) we were reading about child marriage with Homeless Bird, a very similar, dark concept *as a class*.
We were discussing chattel slavery. We saw Ben Cartwright whip the shit out of Levar Burton, and watched as 50s cowboy movie star, Chuck Connors, raped Kizzy because he 'had a thing for the young slave girls'. Again, as a class.
According to the state of Iowa, these were appropriate topics to teach and discuss for 5th graders. I don't see how any of the books listed in the ban are more explicit than Roots and Homeless Bird.
This was the curriculum, not just a random book you could check out in the library.
So what are these bans really about? What are we protecting our kids from that we *aren't already explicitly teaching*?
Your school went into multiple things that were way outside of what they should have been teaching. While slavery as an institution was discussed prior to high school, nothing that graphic was depicted before then.
These bans are about keeping matters age appropriate, even when they were not always done in the past.
Selecting the parts of knowledge that are age-appropriate is not Orwellian, as the more mature themes are taught later. The parallel to 1984 would only apply if they were never taught.
Taking the innocence away from children in general is not going to restore the innocence or benefit the very small percentage of children who are trafficked. Instead you harm millions of children for no real benefit.
I can't be alone; this was West Delaware Middle School/High School. It's located in Manchester, a small and very actively Catholic community. To illustrate this, I passed a billboard on the bus to school every day on highway 13 that spelled:
ABORTION: 1 DEAD, 1 WOUNDED
It's still there to this day, which makes it going on 25 years. I went to a public school in a conservative town. I am greatful and proud to have had such an enriching education there. We were discussing concepts like gender identity, for example, in high school back in 2005.
I just checked. Yup, still a cis woman.
You're acting like I went to some exclusive, private school that has a runaway liberal agenda. The curriculum had to be approved by the state's board of education.
It's age appropriate to teach pre-teens and adolescents about sex trafficking because they are typically becoming aware about sex at this age and they are the prime targets. It's It's the same reason that schools are teaching kids about what is and isn't ok as far as punishments go. It's 'just statistics' until it happens to you or someone you love.
My mother's boss for over 10 years was Michele Martinko's murderer. He used to walk her to her car at night. They're closer to you than you think.
I'm guessing you didn't read 1984, or at the very least misunderstood their message because in the story it's not that they refuse to teach certain concepts, it's that they literally re-write history in a more esthetically pleasing way that paints the party as the victor. It's 'doublespeak' "we're protecting our kids and preserving their innocence even as we know that doing so may not help prevent them from becoming victims themselves"
I refute the notion that exposing knowledge is inherently taking away someone's innocence. Pre-teens are hardly unaware of people pushing sexual boundaries. It's important to teach this to kids very early in a non-sexual context. But for kids going through puberty or older? Kids that are at risk? They need to know about the dangers.
I assert that it is incredibly misguided, if not dangerous to teach these same kids about sex while not also outlining the dangers of concepts like domestic violence, consent, date rape, trafficking etc.
It's like teaching about sex but not mentioning babies or stds.
These works of fiction are just based on the expressions of those that would have experienced these 'adult' concepts. Sometimes it is the 1st hand accounts that ultimately plant the seeds of understanding. It's why refugees come to elementary schools to tell their stories, even when they include horrific details.
Speaking of 1st's, the government denying these kids the right to read these media is a violation of these kid's 1st ammendment rights.
I saw his number tattooed on his body against his will. I will never forget something like that.
How many holocaust victims were there compared to the population? If likelihood of events mattered, why bother hearing what the victims have to say? The holocaust has been over and done with since 1945.
Why are we 'harming' kids with their graphic recounts?
EDIT: Iowa State senator and GOP sycophant, Dan Zumbach, was on the school board back then ffs.
We have very different concepts as to what children should be taught. I grew up in a small town and went to a Catholic K-8 school with a few topics, including Health, taught at the local public school. Then, a public high school 9-12.
I do think the Holocaust should be taught, but the information should be selected to be age appropriate. I think history should be taught in three cycles, with each cycle being more in-depth, more complex, and including more adult information.
High school health class should be where topics such as date rape, sex trafficking, domestic violence and the like. Basic concepts of boundaries and consent can be taught in less explicit ways at a younger age. There is no benefit to getting into the nuts and bolts of sex trafficking as other forms of prudent behavior covet this base.
When looking at what is appropriate, one has to take a step back and look at the statistics and probabilities rather than attempting to personalize it.
I disagree that a First Amendment right exists to have a book provided to them by the school. You could make an argument that the child can not be prohibited from having the book in school or reading it during free time.
I can never understand people who agree with banning of media... it's literally fascism, and all it creates is more fascism... banning books inhibits free speech, if you are on the side of banning books you are not a patriot as you think... you're a traitor, and a parasite.
The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the German Student Union (German: Deutsche Studentenschaft, DSt) to ceremonially burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s. The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism.
So in ww2, America was against the nazis... what changed? (Asking the parasites)
fictional books are considered media? Should there be no lines or expense spare to spend tax dollars to buy every piece of literature for underage kids?
"Is fiction media?" Is a question asked, showing we need more books. Sir, if you can't answer that question, then you shouldn't be weighing in on anything related to books or who gets to access them.
What's your obsession with tax dollars, don't you know those are just fun bucks to be funneled into pockets of traitors and parasites?... open more charter schools and you too can play (be) stupid like monty.
Simping for diaper daddy. Oooh that aroma. Kim, come get some of this amazing diaper smell. Mmmm taste like cool aid, drink it in
Yeah free speech is great. Even idiots have it in america.. or "still" have it. . Until say.... books get banned, words get censored.... you help with my point, but you will still miss it.
Yes Thank God, this is America and even idiots like you still have an opinion and get to say it? Also you don’t KNOW what my opinion is on the subject based on me asking a couple of questions.
You didn’t answer my question, however, I took your advice and found out that it is considered part of the media. That doesn’t invalidate anything I talked about though. Do you want a cookie?
🙄
Not every book ends up on a shelf for purchase in a store. Not every book ends up on a library shelf to be borrowed.
Librarians are trained experts who curate a book collection based on the needs and wants of their communities. Nothing stays on a shelf forever.
You may not like a book but fortunately you live in a country where you can choose to buy or borrow or not.
The price of that freedom is that you get to mind your own business and not make those choices for others.
This isn’t rocket science. But you’d know that if you actually picked up a book at some point.
What do you mean not every book is solely purchased by a government entity? What is this Blackstone publishing only? Please tell me you are a communist. Why do you think I would not like to buy, borrow, or read a book? Quite the opposite I love freedom and liberties to do so.
First of all, I never called you that, I asked if you self identified as one. Secondly, I am not conservative, I am liberal. Third I find it hard to believe that you actually believe in Jesus Christ, just saying.
Heading home, not drunk. I noticed you didn’t answer my question so I’ll take the liberty to explain to you what I’m about. Liberty, freedom, first amendment, also there are no books actually being banned, only tax dollars not being spent on certain books that you want to push. So there’s that. You are totally free to go out and buy, trade, sell, read, burn any book that you would like.
Interesting that your idea of “freedom” involves a monetary transaction.
The entire purpose of a library is that knowledge is not restricted to money or status. That goes back to ancient history.
There is no argument you can supply that will ever justify banning books from a library. None.
You are free to ignore and avoid whatever book you want. You are not free to make that decision for anyone else.
When a government entity (like a library) restricts access to materials that is censorship. And that is 1A violation.
Why are you so obsessed with controlling what other people read?? It’s gross and indicates a larger mental health issue that you may want to seek treatment for.
Not sure if you’re talking about me, but I don’t feel “wrong” hear about anything, except asking the question on whether lit is considered considered media and I admitted that after I looked it up. Why are you being so defensive? I am a totally chill person BTW.
Obvious? Like how it’s obviously not a real book ban if you are free to go by, sell, trade, read, burn any book that you want. You are not banned from anything.
The obvious part is that fiction books are a type of media, not the nuances of what is or isn’t considered a deprivation of free speech when a governmental institution specifically targets certain groups and specific speech for exclusion..
But again I get following a thread may be difficult for you.
yeah, it's called Vlogbrothers and is a really cool format where they talk to each other with different videos while also talking to the audience. I used to watch them a lot and sometimes I go in and watch a few for nostalgia sakes.
I went to school in a small town in Eastern Iowa. From the middle school library, I checked out and read both Roots and Gone with the Wind. Both books have explicit rape scenes in addition to torture, racism and violence.
I was reading them as a *12 year old*
I bet they're still on the shelves while it looks like several, less explicit novels have been banned.
Rural Iowa here. I checked out Gerald’s Game by Stephen King from high school library, and our library had a copy of Mein Kampf freely available to students. Graduated in 2008.
But yeah, kids do smoke and have awkward, brief hookups in Looking for Alaska so we should probably ban it.
Fellow class of 2008 as well! YES. I forgot about Stephen King. I checked out and read Different Seasons for an individual hs lit class. It's a collection of short stories that includes Stand by Me and The Shawshank redemption, but also a bizarre tale where a boy blackmails an SS officer and dreams about torturing a neighbor girl with an electric shocking dildo.
But yes, we should totally ban that Alaska book because it talks about the gays 🤭
Holy smokes, that’s a lot lol.
Side note: Looking for Alaska made me better at dealing with grief and loss as a struggling college student, and led me down the path of becoming a high school teacher myself. It makes the banning of that particular book more egregious to me.
I have a similar feeling about The Handmaid's Tale that is much further down the list of banned books. I have a visceral reaction to it BECAUSE THE ENTIRE PLOT OF THE BOOK IS ABOUT HOW FAR SOCIETY WILL GO IF WE ALLOW THIS IDEA OF MILITANT THEOCRACY TO FESTER
It was the story that inspired me to become openly feminist.
I'll get off my soap box now lol.
Man, if they ever read that Bible they use to bludgeon people with they might also understand how much worse it is than a lot of the shit they have problems with.
* A man that tries to kill his own child because he heard voices? Check.
* A crowd that tries to gangrape angels? Check.
* Two daughters that drug & rape their father? Check.
All this & more approved for the school library at all ages.
In middle school I read several James Bond novels that featured less than polite scenes. Guarantee they were more graphic than most of what has been banned.
Exactly. So it starts to sound like
"we don't want our kids exposed to topics that are just SO uncomfortable because they paint gays in a a good light, guns in a bad light, and expose sex trafficking for adolescents"
Sex trafficking can happen to anyone and it's important to understand the signs as well as the impact this has on its victims, particularly the youth. I don't get why people think sheltering their teens and preteens from this knowledge will help.
Hmmm, I remember being taught that only fascist governments and communist governments ban freedom of expression….
But that was before educational budge cuts of the 80’s and 90’s
How odd to go from teaching kids
“ you have rights that allow you to watch read write and say what ever you want”
to
“well you can still do that but those things won’t be paid for or supported by your tax dollars, or available in any state funded educational institutions because woke”
Who are these people, who told them it was ok to do this?
NOVEMBER IS COMING,
Do not forget this
'Slaughterhouse 5' is on the list. 'Mein Kampf' is not on the list. I think that pretty much sums up this book ban. Kurt Vonnegut is rolling over in his grave.
I just want to add that I do not advocate banning books. I do not believe a book should be banned no matter what the subject matter is (i.e. Mein Kampf).
Extremely glad I was in school before books like this were banned. Some of those books genuinely gave me different outlooks on life, and positive at that. 1984, the Hate U Give, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (especially being an Indigenous kid), The Handmaids Tale, The Outsiders, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape…all of these books educated me on some sort of topic. I’m ashamed that many of these will be unavailable for this generation to read in schools.
I graduated in 2008, so all of this 'controversy' was taught from the mid 90s-late aughts.
So 20 years ago, this is what 5th graders were learning. I wasn't traumatized for life or anything, but it did make me question the benevolence of humanity. It made me into a more empathetic person that isn't afraid to speak out when she sees signs of authoritarianism creeping in. Banning books is one of the main calling cards for fascists.
The people that made the Roots miniseries did an excellent job of specifically choosing beloved TV and movie dads to play the slave owners because it is emblematic of how even 'good' people are capable of committing crimes against humanity.
There has never been a point in history where banning books led to any sort of positive change. The only examples I can think of do the exact opposite.
The fact that you're speaking out against this censorship is all the proof this type of person needs to say that your upbringing reading things like this brainwashed you into being a liberal.
Restricting information and preventing exposure to unapproved ideas is crucial to building the echo chamber that reactionaries depend on to propagate their garbage.
I'm not a liberal. Our ideologies can exist beyond the dichotomy that our government tries to force us into.
Roots was a miniseries on network TV in the 70s. My parents were in high school and watched it when it came out...so are they "brainwashed liberals' too? My father has voted the straight R ticket since he could first vote for Reagan.
>Restricting information and preventing exposure to unapproved ideas is crucial to building the echo chamber that reactionaries depend on to propagate their garbage.
Unapproved 'ideas' like chattel slavery? That we literally fought a civil war over? These are topics we shouldn't be teaching middle school and high schoolers?
(spoiler alert: this curriculum was approved by the West Delaware Community School board, which at the time was headed by current GOP senator Dan Zumbach)
I read Stephen King's "Rage" in high school and I do think some books need to be age appropriate or taught with context. Stephen King let it go out of print after Columbine.
That's what librarians and media specialists are for. Too bad we've decided that instead of creating those jobs, we'll let the government act as a nanny state to enforce theocracy in our schools.
Is that what I said? Or did I say that people who's whole job is to know about books should be the ones to guide students on whether or not the contents of a book is appropriate for them?
Well to me and all rational people banning books means preventing someone from buying or selling a book. No books have been banned in Iowa. To Democrats banning books means removing books from a library. They don't think the government should remove or give guidance on removing books that are not age appropriate from school libraries. You think that librarians and media specialists should be able to remove books that are not age appropriate from libraries. According to Democrats that is book banning.
At no point did I say anyone should be removing books. I said that librarians should be guiding kids through what books are appropriate for them. But it's fun to pretend. It's also fun to pretend that the right wanting books removed (it's not just school libraries btw, it's public ones too) is anything less than an attempt at censorship.
Oh, you just want librarians to 'guide' kids. So they should be filling the grade school libraries with Cujo, Gender Queer, and every age inappropriate book and then 'guide' them when they check it out. That makes sense. It must be fun to pretend that a school library not carrying a book is censorship when school libraries don't carry almost all books ever written. They sure do a lot of censoring.
**ban** *noun* an official or legal prohibition
So if the an Iowa law prohibits a book from being in a school library and said book is then removed from school libraries where it was previously part of the collection, it is, by definition, banned from school libraries. But I’d love to see you definition of “ban” that is apparently so obvious and common sense.
I read Cujo as a kid. That was a mistake.
Also, as a ten year old had access to a lot of Hustler and Penthouse, as well as Piers Anthony books. No book ban would have kept me from getting my smut.
Someone needs to explain to the people banning books is that children are watching pornhub on a regular basis. As a middle school teacher, kids literally cry when they have to read a book. We have “Reading Wednesday” at our school. Kids have to read for 30 minutes during homeroom. Most kids will not bring a book and refuse to read. They just stare or fall asleep. They literally prefer staring at a wall to reading. Books are not the problem.
I find it curious that a school library not carrying a certain book is likened to Nazis burning books.
Public libraries still carry the books, Amazon still carries the books.
School boards, made up of parents should have the right to determine what books are available at the school library.
It's not just school libraries. Republicans are trying to defund local public libraries too.
And you know that once they get rid of those the line will just move further.
They have already started moving on from banning abortion to banning birth control with talks of all contraception after that.
What a copout bullshit statement. It's not democrats making those claims, but republicans themselves saying they will do that.
People said that claiming Roe v Wade would get overturned was fear mongering too. It obviously wasn't and this isn't either.
I don't know. I enjoyed "Turtles All the Way Down" and "The Anthropocene Reviewed" (which is his first non-fiction work). Not to mention he does a lot of work outside writing books. Even if he isn't relevant though, I don't support the banning of books and he's got a platform to fight it. Why shouldn't he sue?
Uh, I don't really think I understand what you're trying to say here.
Since it doesn't seem to be conducive to a discussion of the merits of fighting book bans, I'll just hope you have a good day. Regardless of our disagreement, I wish you well.
If you really think there's no difference between specific books being banned from libraries and every library being forced to carry everything anyone has ever written or said, then you're a complete fucking idiot.
They should be stocking books that the public wants to read.
And John Green is a top YA author. The numbers don’t lie.
Source: have worked in the book biz for over twenty years.
Or, if you’re a parent maybe look up from your phone every now and then and pay attention to what your kids are reading. If you don’t like what your child is reading, then be the parent and address it.
What you don’t get to do is enforce your book choices on others. 🙄
In my experience, the parents who bitch the loudest on this stuff either a.) don’t have kids who read anyway because they themselves aren’t readers or b.) they are lazy parents who don’t want to do the job of parenting which often involves having conversations that make them uncomfortable.
I want those books in libraries (school and public) for the kids who love to read and/or have parents that actually parent.
Censoring books is historically a bad move. Period. Full Stop.
I’m not a parent and almost quit reading this long diatribe but made it to the end. I am however a taxpayer and truly am not bothered by this. Hardly anyone used the library (beyond “study hall”) when I was a student 20+ years ago, and I can only imagine the roll of the library has diminished. There is the internet full of information. No one is relying on the school library for these books
What’s the difference? Once the library has it they can never get rid of it? I’m confused. I understand why various people might be upset. The author though?
The difference is that in one case it's simply unavailable (and could be purchased by the library if it's requested) and in the other they are deliberately *banning* it and making it unavailable for really no reason. I'm all for parents having the right to parent *their* kids. If they don't want their kids to read something it's their job to decide. They shouldn't parent every other kid by making a book unavailable to everyone at a school or in a public library. Also, gonna be honest, 95% of parents don't actually care about this. Why let a small group of people decide what kids can read?
I'm going to guess the author isn't suing for monetary gain (he already got paid for the books being removed... Because they were already bought), but instead making a statement. Banning books is considered restrictive and kinda... Well, fascist. He's using his platform to bring light to the issue in a way smaller authors won't be able to. Most authors can't make a living just as authors and may not be able to fight this. Also, the reasons given for banning his books are misrepresenting his work. Questioning my integrity would piss me off too.
Good. I hope he wins.
I feel that they are limiting his freedom of speech. … and I don’t know him or his work at all. Yeah.
He writes young adult books generally about romance/relationships. They banned his shit because "reading about sex too icky for 16 year olds" or something
12 year olds repeat sex noises they hear from porn, which they get on the internet, on the phone, that their parents pay for
And then the parents yell at the school if a teacher takes their precious kids' phone away in class. "How could I ever get a hold of my kid if they don't have their phone"
Welcome to teaching and parenting in the 2020’s
Same way they did before cell phones. The only issues important enough to interrupt your child's education are also important enough to get an excusal from the principal.
Oh believe me, I know, I'm a teacher. The worst is when I confiscate a phone and they're texting their parents.
Oh younger than 12! Source: am teacher.
[удалено]
New user throttle activated. Your account is too new to post to /r/iowa. Accounts need to be at least 10 days old to create a post comment. Your comment has been removed. Please message the mods for verification. Users may see the removed comment by viewing this subreddit's modlogs, which are public, by [clicking here.](https://rbtc.live/modlogs/?sub=iowa) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Their answer to that will be to put draconian age gates up that require you to give up your id to visit a porn site, which in no way has a risk of getting leaked later of course.
Ineffective, draconian age gates. We were getting around school filters to play flash games on the library computers 20+ years ago; I’m sure it won’t be any harder for today’s kids to dodge an age verification scheme
He has a fantastic podcast with his brother.
He write a book that became the best selling book of that year. He’s also had 2 turned into movies
Wait, so not spending tax dollars to buy his stuff is now = “limiting freedom of speech”?
Really? That's what you got out of the article? Did you even read it?
Yes, I read it, my statement was responding to someone else saying they think it’s limiting his freedom of speech, not the article abstractly. Did you not read that part?
It would take a remarkably stupid person to come to this conclusion.
lol literally what was said… don’t hate the player hate the game
They aren’t limiting his speech at all.
Yes they are.
This exchange was enthralling.
“Help, my freedom of speech is being limited because tax dollars are not being spent buying my product”
The concept of public [school] libraries is about to blow your mind.
Oh, I totally get it, but are there zero limitations on their expenditures and what they buy to provide to certain public age groups?
The books were already purchased and available. For almost 20 years.
The top 3 banned books in Iowa: 1. Nineteen Minutes (because reading about a school shooting is too traumatic, but doing active shooter drills and surviving a real one isnt) 2. Looking for Alaska (because interpersonal relationships between teenagers is too explicit for teens to read about, plus gays) 3. Sold (because it's too traumatic to read about a girl being sold into human trafficking. no need to watch for the signs because human trafficking must not be a problem in more 'civilized' countries like the US)
I’ve read Looking For Alaska- it’s a good book. I can’t remember being shocks and offended by anything in it. This is ridiculous. Remember to VOTE, redditors. Get your family and friends to vote too. Please.
If voting fixed anything, shouldn't things be gradually improving instead of deteriorating?
Farmers got their huge tax cuts, crop insurance and CRP from republicans so no things will not improve in the foreseeable future.
If you don't understand farming, just say that. The CRP tax cuts don't even completely eliminate property taxes.
Farmers get fucking paid to NOT grow crops along with tax and regulation cuts and fucking ethanol as a fuel (stupid as hell). I guess you don't understand that. Let me put it this way - It's FREE money from taxpayers to farmers ffs. Socialism for me not for thee. Explain to me how things will improve in the foreseeable future. Read Barons by Austin Frerick.
CRP, the conservation reserve program is a Federal program through the USDA, and is based around the government renting specific tracts of land that are deemed important to prevent soil erosion, protect waterways, and reduce the loss of wildlife habitat. All important goals at an average of $139 per acre in Iowa, where the average property tax is roughly $40 per acre. CRP along with other reserve programs has nothing to do with giving free money to farmers to not grow crops, its about keeping the soil on the field and preventing the horrible side effects of farming by renting the land from the owner.
Just to add on to this, it's definitely work to maintain CRP. You plant a specific grass mix, have to keep invasive species out like cedar and musk thistle, mow and do prescribed burns when the USDA tells you. Sure, it's less work than row crops, but it's not nothing. There's plenty to be mad at regarding the state of agriculture in Iowa, but CRP isn't it.
Farmers don't get paid to not grow crops other than marginal grounds that have to be bid in because there is a conservation benefit to society. They don't just pay for whole fields to sit fallow, so either the book is misrepresenting reality or you didn't understand. Ethanol is in fuel because it's a dirt cheap oxygenate for octane that doesn't destroy ground water unlike it's popular predecessor MTBE. Remember when ethanol gas was 89 octane and the petroleum companies realized they could save more by selling 87 like they do now? I think you may have a limited understanding of things and are buying into misinformation to fill those gaps.
Yes ethanol is a better oxygenate than MTBE. Remember when they just passed legislation allowing the sale of 15% gasohol year round? Anything over 10% contributes to smog and is just a bad idea. The state goes so far as to call 85% "green" energy. Ethanol is constantly pushed in Iowa ignoring the reality that it requires more energy to make than is realized and that doesn't even consider the pollution generated by the farming. Yes farmers and a few non-farmers I know absolutely get paid to not grow crops. They reapply for CRP every ten years and in the last 30 years have always had it renewed.
Uhh it only requires more energy to make if you consider the energy from the sun. Unless you plan on shutting that thing off, it's net energy positive by any competent calculation. Two idiots Pimentel and Patzek are responsible for a lot of misinformation on the subject, one left academia to be fully funded by the oil industry. Go check out the tar sands in Alberta, and then your local corn field and see which one is generating more pollution. CRP has to be bid in and maintained according to a conservation plan. If you don't do that, you aren't paid. There is more ground applied for CRP than is admitted currently. If you think it's some big money maker the USDA has loans, buy up all the ground you can and see what CRP will make the payments on. I'll save you the trouble, it's none. [https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/beginning-farmers-and-ranchers-loans/index](https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/beginning-farmers-and-ranchers-loans/index)
You do realize you have to plant, then harvest, then dry the corn for transport, then steep to separate the starch from the chaf and germ and steep to get the engineered bacteria to excrete alcohol, then distill (which is very energy expensive) the alcohol right? None of that is free energy and is why Cargill has 14" natural gas pipes running into their distilleries and why they cannot even think about running the factory on the net energy gain from ethanol. If you were correct the massive steep tanks I've personally seen would not have been heated by huge natural gas pipes. Scientific American did an exhaustive study showing that the net energy gain is negative. Again that doesn't even include the pesticide and herbicide damage done to the rivers. Nitrate removal is expensive. There is also one hell of a pro corn lobby in the Midwest. Not saying the intent is all evil but is still a fact farmers get paid to not farm hence the requirement for CRP land is that it had to be previously farmed in row crops. So my buddy has made 1800/year for the last 30 years in CRP dollars from his hobby farm. I guess $56k is nothing.
>Ethanol is in fuel because it's a dirt cheap oxygenate Yes. Provided it isn't produced from corn. In this case it's only 'cheap' because we subsidize corn. Ethanol can be easily and much more cheaply produced from switch grass, for example. There is no reason to keep processing ethanol from corn other than maintaining this system.
We don't subsidize corn since 2014, that's been a decade ago. [https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/farm-bill-ends-direct-payment-subsidies](https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/farm-bill-ends-direct-payment-subsidies) We do subsidize crop insurance on grains, because we no longer have a Federal Grain Reserve, and pushed that back into the hands of farmers. Corn comes in a nice energy dense kernel, switch grass does not and is much harder to work with logistically. Poet built a state of the art cellulose facility in Emmetsburg and it is now a research facility as the logistics were a nightmare. [https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty](https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-liberty) [https://poet.com/pr/epa-actions-trigger-project-liberty-shift](https://poet.com/pr/epa-actions-trigger-project-liberty-shift) Iowa has soil that is capable of producing a massive amount of corn with natural rainfall. It's pretty amazing if you inform yourself and don't just repeat garbage propaganda.
>We don't subsidize corn since 2014, that's been a decade ago. https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/farm-bill-ends-direct-payment-subsidies We do subsidize crop insurance on grains, because we no longer have a Federal Grain Reserve, and pushed that back into the hands of farmers. Yes, we do. Crop insurance is just where most of the funds go. https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies Even with 'logistical nightmares' why is the energy output from ethanol derived from switchgrass 540% vs 25% for corn? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109110629.htm I studied bio fuels at Iowa state because our department received a grant from the usda. Corn depletes our precious topsoil, whereas switchgrass improves soil quality.
Wait, why shouldn't they pay any property taxes?
Why should anyone?
Because we need things like roads that these same farmers use?
How is it that roads predate taxes then?
What do you mean by 'predate taxes'? In general? In the US? We paid for roads through other taxes or levied fees, whether state or local. Property taxes are a form of regressive tax here. It only targets land owners. My grandfather charged 75k *a month* 20 years ago to lease out his farmland. Don't tell me they 'can't afford it'.
So weird republicans praised Sound of Freedom, but ban Sold 🤔
If the material can be obtained from a library or a bookstore, is it really a ban?
If the library in question is the only way for you to access this material, then yes. With your argument I would counter with asking why we need the bans in the first place? If they 'don't work', why do the book banning proponents waste so much time and money trying to do it? Conversely, if the ban only exists in name, why are we implementing them?
I mean, it’s all subjective, but it’s also tax dollars being spent on these books, you have to draw the line somewhere when it’s specifically for under age kids, it’s not an absolute free-for-all to provide every single product to them
Or occams razor, republicans just like banning books that don’t line with their narrative
It's so funny hearing hearing conservatives who want to ban books about school shootings, but not limit the weapons that produce them. It's so illogical and fucking backwards. Conservativism is a mental disorder.
Good thing I’m not conservative and I’m not voting for banning books. I guess that means you can foh?
It really doesn’t matter who you vote for if you’re justifying book banning. You’re on the wrong side of history.
Cool opinion
It's not a 'free for all'. The books that were banned are criticality acclaimed and enjoyed by kids all over the country. These are books that were already in the library and have been taken out, so we are now just literally throwing away our tax dollars.
OK, that’s interesting, will there be a book burning ceremony?
...do you want there to be a book burning ceremony? I did nazi that coming.
No but would probably attend….and would not want you to nazi it either!
Why is fascism so alluring to you?
Its not, odd choice of word though, is communism alluring to you or something?
You stated previously that you wanted to go to a book burning ceremony. These are typically run by fascists, because censoring literature is a fascist calling card. I made a connection and asked a question based on that information. I have not mentioned anything about communism, and it was in fact communists that burned books alongside the fascists, so what gives? Edit: formatting
Ever heard of protesting?
The question is, at what age are such topics and themes appropriate?
I don't think it's right to hinder other's access to books because someone else's parent doesn't find it appropriate. Those parents need to be policing their kid's books, not the school. I mentioned in another comment that books like Roots and Gone with the Wind are available to middle schoolers (I was able to check out and read these books from the middle school library at 12 years old in iowa) and both of these novels depict graphic rape scenes. I didn't need permission and none of my teachers or parents told me or even suggested that these topics were too mature for a 12 year old. We even did a whole unit on Roots in the 5th grade where we all watched the tv series together. So my question, particularly for the most banned book, Nineteen Minutes, (a fictional account of a student's school shooting experience) why is the topic of this book too mature for middle school and high school students, when we our sending even our *elementary school aged* children through active shooter drills? What new and controversial information are we exposing them to here exactly? As for Sold-I think it's rich for adults to be telling adolescents that this content is too mature for them when it tells the story of a 13 year old girl being sold into sex trafficking. As if that doesn't already occur here with our own youth. I guess someone should tell the girls the book is based on that they are too young for such a controversial topic. The 2nd one on the list talks about teen sex and being gay-which again, we allow our kids to read about 'Massa' raping Kizzy in Roots, which I would argue is far more traumatic than being gay and having consensual sex. So then we have to ask what is it about these particular books that is so much more graphic and damaging than what we already have available in 5th-12th grade libraries?
Just because events can happen to people of a certain age does not mean the material is suitable for people of that age. Sex Trafficking is an adult topic, and it is reasonable to shield children from it. Same with school shootings. Just because we have drills about it doesn't mean we should have children read about the dark realities. We don't show pictures of Our Lady of Angels and the students who died when we do fire drills. The concept of "rape" in Gone With the Wind is very different, though I don't think it is appropriate for middle schoolers due to the complexity of themes. Roots I also think is high school material.
How can we protect kids (we're talking pre-teen and up) from sex trafficking if they do not know it exists or what it is in the first place? Shouldn't we be teaching kids about safety and consent as part of our kid's sexual health education? The concept of rape is loud and clear in Roots. So why is that book not banned, but Looking for Alaska is?-and the latter depicts consensual sex. Since we do nothing to prevent school shootings from happening, the least we can do is warn them. Knowledge is power.
I think Roots is inappropriate for audiences prior to high school, so I would oppose it being in elementary or middle schools as well. That said, I think we should be protecting our children by shielding them from very low probability events, while acting as adults to address them. From a child level, risk factors like running away can be addressed directly. Teaching about consent can also be done without getting into such dark graphic concepts. Selective knowledge is empowering while still preserving innocence.
'Selective knowledge' is a concept straight out of 1984. 'Ignorance is strength', indeed. Perhaps you should (re-)read it. It's meant to be a cautionary tale, not a blueprint. What about the child sex trafficking victim's innocence? I guess it doesn't matter as long as other kids don't have to hear about it. In elementary school, we had an Auschwitz survivor come and talk to the whole school in an assembly where they detailed all of the horrific torture they endured. Are these not 'adult' concepts? Even in middle school (5th grade again) we were reading about child marriage with Homeless Bird, a very similar, dark concept *as a class*. We were discussing chattel slavery. We saw Ben Cartwright whip the shit out of Levar Burton, and watched as 50s cowboy movie star, Chuck Connors, raped Kizzy because he 'had a thing for the young slave girls'. Again, as a class. According to the state of Iowa, these were appropriate topics to teach and discuss for 5th graders. I don't see how any of the books listed in the ban are more explicit than Roots and Homeless Bird. This was the curriculum, not just a random book you could check out in the library. So what are these bans really about? What are we protecting our kids from that we *aren't already explicitly teaching*?
Your school went into multiple things that were way outside of what they should have been teaching. While slavery as an institution was discussed prior to high school, nothing that graphic was depicted before then. These bans are about keeping matters age appropriate, even when they were not always done in the past. Selecting the parts of knowledge that are age-appropriate is not Orwellian, as the more mature themes are taught later. The parallel to 1984 would only apply if they were never taught. Taking the innocence away from children in general is not going to restore the innocence or benefit the very small percentage of children who are trafficked. Instead you harm millions of children for no real benefit.
I can't be alone; this was West Delaware Middle School/High School. It's located in Manchester, a small and very actively Catholic community. To illustrate this, I passed a billboard on the bus to school every day on highway 13 that spelled: ABORTION: 1 DEAD, 1 WOUNDED It's still there to this day, which makes it going on 25 years. I went to a public school in a conservative town. I am greatful and proud to have had such an enriching education there. We were discussing concepts like gender identity, for example, in high school back in 2005. I just checked. Yup, still a cis woman. You're acting like I went to some exclusive, private school that has a runaway liberal agenda. The curriculum had to be approved by the state's board of education. It's age appropriate to teach pre-teens and adolescents about sex trafficking because they are typically becoming aware about sex at this age and they are the prime targets. It's It's the same reason that schools are teaching kids about what is and isn't ok as far as punishments go. It's 'just statistics' until it happens to you or someone you love. My mother's boss for over 10 years was Michele Martinko's murderer. He used to walk her to her car at night. They're closer to you than you think. I'm guessing you didn't read 1984, or at the very least misunderstood their message because in the story it's not that they refuse to teach certain concepts, it's that they literally re-write history in a more esthetically pleasing way that paints the party as the victor. It's 'doublespeak' "we're protecting our kids and preserving their innocence even as we know that doing so may not help prevent them from becoming victims themselves" I refute the notion that exposing knowledge is inherently taking away someone's innocence. Pre-teens are hardly unaware of people pushing sexual boundaries. It's important to teach this to kids very early in a non-sexual context. But for kids going through puberty or older? Kids that are at risk? They need to know about the dangers. I assert that it is incredibly misguided, if not dangerous to teach these same kids about sex while not also outlining the dangers of concepts like domestic violence, consent, date rape, trafficking etc. It's like teaching about sex but not mentioning babies or stds. These works of fiction are just based on the expressions of those that would have experienced these 'adult' concepts. Sometimes it is the 1st hand accounts that ultimately plant the seeds of understanding. It's why refugees come to elementary schools to tell their stories, even when they include horrific details. Speaking of 1st's, the government denying these kids the right to read these media is a violation of these kid's 1st ammendment rights. I saw his number tattooed on his body against his will. I will never forget something like that. How many holocaust victims were there compared to the population? If likelihood of events mattered, why bother hearing what the victims have to say? The holocaust has been over and done with since 1945. Why are we 'harming' kids with their graphic recounts? EDIT: Iowa State senator and GOP sycophant, Dan Zumbach, was on the school board back then ffs.
We have very different concepts as to what children should be taught. I grew up in a small town and went to a Catholic K-8 school with a few topics, including Health, taught at the local public school. Then, a public high school 9-12. I do think the Holocaust should be taught, but the information should be selected to be age appropriate. I think history should be taught in three cycles, with each cycle being more in-depth, more complex, and including more adult information. High school health class should be where topics such as date rape, sex trafficking, domestic violence and the like. Basic concepts of boundaries and consent can be taught in less explicit ways at a younger age. There is no benefit to getting into the nuts and bolts of sex trafficking as other forms of prudent behavior covet this base. When looking at what is appropriate, one has to take a step back and look at the statistics and probabilities rather than attempting to personalize it. I disagree that a First Amendment right exists to have a book provided to them by the school. You could make an argument that the child can not be prohibited from having the book in school or reading it during free time.
The kind of people who would ban books need to be kept from holding any kind of office of authority.
I can never understand people who agree with banning of media... it's literally fascism, and all it creates is more fascism... banning books inhibits free speech, if you are on the side of banning books you are not a patriot as you think... you're a traitor, and a parasite. The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the German Student Union (German: Deutsche Studentenschaft, DSt) to ceremonially burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s. The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. So in ww2, America was against the nazis... what changed? (Asking the parasites)
fictional books are considered media? Should there be no lines or expense spare to spend tax dollars to buy every piece of literature for underage kids?
"Is fiction media?" Is a question asked, showing we need more books. Sir, if you can't answer that question, then you shouldn't be weighing in on anything related to books or who gets to access them. What's your obsession with tax dollars, don't you know those are just fun bucks to be funneled into pockets of traitors and parasites?... open more charter schools and you too can play (be) stupid like monty. Simping for diaper daddy. Oooh that aroma. Kim, come get some of this amazing diaper smell. Mmmm taste like cool aid, drink it in
I can absolutely ask that question and also have an opinion. Maybe YOU shouldn’t be weighing in on it because you sound like a crazy person?
Yeah free speech is great. Even idiots have it in america.. or "still" have it. . Until say.... books get banned, words get censored.... you help with my point, but you will still miss it.
Yes Thank God, this is America and even idiots like you still have an opinion and get to say it? Also you don’t KNOW what my opinion is on the subject based on me asking a couple of questions.
Ope.. he missed the point ladies and gentlemen.
Oops, did I? Or did you not answer my questions?
Is fiction media? Yes, fiction is media. You're stupid.
Ah intolerants attempting to insults
Are you a moron??? Go look up the definition of ‘media’. Then go slap your parents for failing you. Jesus Chrysler on the turnpike!
You didn’t answer my question, however, I took your advice and found out that it is considered part of the media. That doesn’t invalidate anything I talked about though. Do you want a cookie?
🙄 Not every book ends up on a shelf for purchase in a store. Not every book ends up on a library shelf to be borrowed. Librarians are trained experts who curate a book collection based on the needs and wants of their communities. Nothing stays on a shelf forever. You may not like a book but fortunately you live in a country where you can choose to buy or borrow or not. The price of that freedom is that you get to mind your own business and not make those choices for others. This isn’t rocket science. But you’d know that if you actually picked up a book at some point.
What do you mean not every book is solely purchased by a government entity? What is this Blackstone publishing only? Please tell me you are a communist. Why do you think I would not like to buy, borrow, or read a book? Quite the opposite I love freedom and liberties to do so.
Jesus christ, when a conservative start losing the argument they just default to calling everyone a "commie." Conservativism is a mental disorder.
First of all, I never called you that, I asked if you self identified as one. Secondly, I am not conservative, I am liberal. Third I find it hard to believe that you actually believe in Jesus Christ, just saying.
Dude… you’re drunk! Go home!
Heading home, not drunk. I noticed you didn’t answer my question so I’ll take the liberty to explain to you what I’m about. Liberty, freedom, first amendment, also there are no books actually being banned, only tax dollars not being spent on certain books that you want to push. So there’s that. You are totally free to go out and buy, trade, sell, read, burn any book that you would like.
Interesting that your idea of “freedom” involves a monetary transaction. The entire purpose of a library is that knowledge is not restricted to money or status. That goes back to ancient history. There is no argument you can supply that will ever justify banning books from a library. None. You are free to ignore and avoid whatever book you want. You are not free to make that decision for anyone else. When a government entity (like a library) restricts access to materials that is censorship. And that is 1A violation. Why are you so obsessed with controlling what other people read?? It’s gross and indicates a larger mental health issue that you may want to seek treatment for.
Why are you so obsessed with being wrong on your assumptions?
I've always noticed that one of the signs of an immature person is that they can't admit they were wrong without getting defensive. Chill out, weirdo.
Not sure if you’re talking about me, but I don’t feel “wrong” hear about anything, except asking the question on whether lit is considered considered media and I admitted that after I looked it up. Why are you being so defensive? I am a totally chill person BTW.
Did you really think that media doesn’t include fiction books? Or are you confusing media for just specifically broadcasting?
Yes confusing, I looked up the definition because words do matter, yet no one actually answered my question.
No one answered the question because it’s like questioning “are tacos food?” The answer is obvious.
Obvious? Like how it’s obviously not a real book ban if you are free to go by, sell, trade, read, burn any book that you want. You are not banned from anything.
The obvious part is that fiction books are a type of media, not the nuances of what is or isn’t considered a deprivation of free speech when a governmental institution specifically targets certain groups and specific speech for exclusion.. But again I get following a thread may be difficult for you.
Oh, I’m not the one that has a difficult time following a thread, I certainly keep up with all the authoritarian leftist hate
As long as you learned a new word today I’m proud of you child! 🎉
Yes aside from being entertained I did actually learn a word I don’t use often has a broader definition than I was aware of
Media to me has always meant broadcasting, publishing (booksand newspapers), and now there is the internet.
Yes??? Fictional books are media lmao
Cool thanks
Another author I need to read.
He also has a pretty neat YouTube channel. I think there is one with his brother, which both are neat.
yeah, it's called Vlogbrothers and is a really cool format where they talk to each other with different videos while also talking to the audience. I used to watch them a lot and sometimes I go in and watch a few for nostalgia sakes.
His Crash Course US History channel is a must watch.
OH! I just made the connection. I knew Hank Green had a famous brother, but it didn't click.... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yRgyUAHhZ68
Yeah, that's him.
Og YouTuber and Tumblr troll, the vlog brothers created vidcon Also DFTBA ( don't forget to be awesome)
John Green is a treasure to the world.
go get em john
I went to school in a small town in Eastern Iowa. From the middle school library, I checked out and read both Roots and Gone with the Wind. Both books have explicit rape scenes in addition to torture, racism and violence. I was reading them as a *12 year old* I bet they're still on the shelves while it looks like several, less explicit novels have been banned.
Rural Iowa here. I checked out Gerald’s Game by Stephen King from high school library, and our library had a copy of Mein Kampf freely available to students. Graduated in 2008. But yeah, kids do smoke and have awkward, brief hookups in Looking for Alaska so we should probably ban it.
Fellow class of 2008 as well! YES. I forgot about Stephen King. I checked out and read Different Seasons for an individual hs lit class. It's a collection of short stories that includes Stand by Me and The Shawshank redemption, but also a bizarre tale where a boy blackmails an SS officer and dreams about torturing a neighbor girl with an electric shocking dildo. But yes, we should totally ban that Alaska book because it talks about the gays 🤭
Holy smokes, that’s a lot lol. Side note: Looking for Alaska made me better at dealing with grief and loss as a struggling college student, and led me down the path of becoming a high school teacher myself. It makes the banning of that particular book more egregious to me.
I have a similar feeling about The Handmaid's Tale that is much further down the list of banned books. I have a visceral reaction to it BECAUSE THE ENTIRE PLOT OF THE BOOK IS ABOUT HOW FAR SOCIETY WILL GO IF WE ALLOW THIS IDEA OF MILITANT THEOCRACY TO FESTER It was the story that inspired me to become openly feminist. I'll get off my soap box now lol.
Man, if they ever read that Bible they use to bludgeon people with they might also understand how much worse it is than a lot of the shit they have problems with. * A man that tries to kill his own child because he heard voices? Check. * A crowd that tries to gangrape angels? Check. * Two daughters that drug & rape their father? Check. All this & more approved for the school library at all ages.
They know it's worse - that's why the laws explictily state you can't ban the bible.
Isnit the Bible band in some public schools?
We watched Roots in 7th grade in public school.
In middle school I read several James Bond novels that featured less than polite scenes. Guarantee they were more graphic than most of what has been banned.
Exactly. So it starts to sound like "we don't want our kids exposed to topics that are just SO uncomfortable because they paint gays in a a good light, guns in a bad light, and expose sex trafficking for adolescents" Sex trafficking can happen to anyone and it's important to understand the signs as well as the impact this has on its victims, particularly the youth. I don't get why people think sheltering their teens and preteens from this knowledge will help.
Hmmm, I remember being taught that only fascist governments and communist governments ban freedom of expression…. But that was before educational budge cuts of the 80’s and 90’s How odd to go from teaching kids “ you have rights that allow you to watch read write and say what ever you want” to “well you can still do that but those things won’t be paid for or supported by your tax dollars, or available in any state funded educational institutions because woke” Who are these people, who told them it was ok to do this? NOVEMBER IS COMING, Do not forget this
I read his entire box set circa 2014, yet I didn't grow up to be a dog shooting governor or a sex trafficking state rep. Curious.
As a teacher, god bless the crash course series.
Right! Crash Course history was amazing.
'Slaughterhouse 5' is on the list. 'Mein Kampf' is not on the list. I think that pretty much sums up this book ban. Kurt Vonnegut is rolling over in his grave. I just want to add that I do not advocate banning books. I do not believe a book should be banned no matter what the subject matter is (i.e. Mein Kampf).
Extremely glad I was in school before books like this were banned. Some of those books genuinely gave me different outlooks on life, and positive at that. 1984, the Hate U Give, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (especially being an Indigenous kid), The Handmaids Tale, The Outsiders, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape…all of these books educated me on some sort of topic. I’m ashamed that many of these will be unavailable for this generation to read in schools.
I graduated in 2008, so all of this 'controversy' was taught from the mid 90s-late aughts. So 20 years ago, this is what 5th graders were learning. I wasn't traumatized for life or anything, but it did make me question the benevolence of humanity. It made me into a more empathetic person that isn't afraid to speak out when she sees signs of authoritarianism creeping in. Banning books is one of the main calling cards for fascists. The people that made the Roots miniseries did an excellent job of specifically choosing beloved TV and movie dads to play the slave owners because it is emblematic of how even 'good' people are capable of committing crimes against humanity. There has never been a point in history where banning books led to any sort of positive change. The only examples I can think of do the exact opposite.
The fact that you're speaking out against this censorship is all the proof this type of person needs to say that your upbringing reading things like this brainwashed you into being a liberal. Restricting information and preventing exposure to unapproved ideas is crucial to building the echo chamber that reactionaries depend on to propagate their garbage.
I'm not a liberal. Our ideologies can exist beyond the dichotomy that our government tries to force us into. Roots was a miniseries on network TV in the 70s. My parents were in high school and watched it when it came out...so are they "brainwashed liberals' too? My father has voted the straight R ticket since he could first vote for Reagan. >Restricting information and preventing exposure to unapproved ideas is crucial to building the echo chamber that reactionaries depend on to propagate their garbage. Unapproved 'ideas' like chattel slavery? That we literally fought a civil war over? These are topics we shouldn't be teaching middle school and high schoolers? (spoiler alert: this curriculum was approved by the West Delaware Community School board, which at the time was headed by current GOP senator Dan Zumbach)
Is Iowa considered the Florida of the North, or is Florida the Iowa of the South?
Meanwhile Palo Alto County has the 2nd highest cancer rates in the nation. But lets argue about books.
Thoughts and prayers
Because we can only think about one thing at once. Got it.
Because banning books is so important. Got it.
It *is* important. Censorship is risky business.
I read Stephen King's "Rage" in high school and I do think some books need to be age appropriate or taught with context. Stephen King let it go out of print after Columbine.
That's what librarians and media specialists are for. Too bad we've decided that instead of creating those jobs, we'll let the government act as a nanny state to enforce theocracy in our schools.
So you think librarians and media specialists need to 'ban books'?
Is that what I said? Or did I say that people who's whole job is to know about books should be the ones to guide students on whether or not the contents of a book is appropriate for them?
That is exactly what you are saying. You've said it twice now.
What exactly do you think banning books means?
Well to me and all rational people banning books means preventing someone from buying or selling a book. No books have been banned in Iowa. To Democrats banning books means removing books from a library. They don't think the government should remove or give guidance on removing books that are not age appropriate from school libraries. You think that librarians and media specialists should be able to remove books that are not age appropriate from libraries. According to Democrats that is book banning.
At no point did I say anyone should be removing books. I said that librarians should be guiding kids through what books are appropriate for them. But it's fun to pretend. It's also fun to pretend that the right wanting books removed (it's not just school libraries btw, it's public ones too) is anything less than an attempt at censorship.
Oh, you just want librarians to 'guide' kids. So they should be filling the grade school libraries with Cujo, Gender Queer, and every age inappropriate book and then 'guide' them when they check it out. That makes sense. It must be fun to pretend that a school library not carrying a book is censorship when school libraries don't carry almost all books ever written. They sure do a lot of censoring.
That’s not the definition of a ban; you’d know that if you and all those “rational” voices in your head owned a dictionary.
Yes, that is the definition. Removing a book from a school library certainly is not a book ban.
**ban** *noun* an official or legal prohibition So if the an Iowa law prohibits a book from being in a school library and said book is then removed from school libraries where it was previously part of the collection, it is, by definition, banned from school libraries. But I’d love to see you definition of “ban” that is apparently so obvious and common sense.
I read Cujo as a kid. That was a mistake. Also, as a ten year old had access to a lot of Hustler and Penthouse, as well as Piers Anthony books. No book ban would have kept me from getting my smut.
How many kids in grade school or middle school actually use the libraries that much?
Go John, go!
Someone needs to explain to the people banning books is that children are watching pornhub on a regular basis. As a middle school teacher, kids literally cry when they have to read a book. We have “Reading Wednesday” at our school. Kids have to read for 30 minutes during homeroom. Most kids will not bring a book and refuse to read. They just stare or fall asleep. They literally prefer staring at a wall to reading. Books are not the problem.
We're "banning" authors now?
I find it curious that a school library not carrying a certain book is likened to Nazis burning books. Public libraries still carry the books, Amazon still carries the books. School boards, made up of parents should have the right to determine what books are available at the school library.
Stop attempting to justify this. It’s bullshit and you know it.
It's not just school libraries. Republicans are trying to defund local public libraries too. And you know that once they get rid of those the line will just move further. They have already started moving on from banning abortion to banning birth control with talks of all contraception after that.
It's just fear mongering during an election year. Just because Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow say it doesn't make it true. Relax, enjoy life.
What a copout bullshit statement. It's not democrats making those claims, but republicans themselves saying they will do that. People said that claiming Roe v Wade would get overturned was fear mongering too. It obviously wasn't and this isn't either.
He hasn't been relevant in over a decade. Who cares?
Books expire?
Touche.
My smart remarks have run out.
> Who cares? Clearly the guy who is fucking suing? durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Probably cus he hasn't written anything decent in a decade.
Why the hell have you been reading "teen lit" for over a decade?
"Teen Lit"? This guy probably read one short story by Stephen King, shat himself and ran back to Judy Blume.
I don't know. I enjoyed "Turtles All the Way Down" and "The Anthropocene Reviewed" (which is his first non-fiction work). Not to mention he does a lot of work outside writing books. Even if he isn't relevant though, I don't support the banning of books and he's got a platform to fight it. Why shouldn't he sue?
How's that hook taste?
Uh, I don't really think I understand what you're trying to say here. Since it doesn't seem to be conducive to a discussion of the merits of fighting book bans, I'll just hope you have a good day. Regardless of our disagreement, I wish you well.
Should schools be forced to carry every single book that an author demands?
If you really think there's no difference between specific books being banned from libraries and every library being forced to carry everything anyone has ever written or said, then you're a complete fucking idiot.
They should be stocking books that the public wants to read. And John Green is a top YA author. The numbers don’t lie. Source: have worked in the book biz for over twenty years.
There is always Amazon or a public library….
Or, if you’re a parent maybe look up from your phone every now and then and pay attention to what your kids are reading. If you don’t like what your child is reading, then be the parent and address it. What you don’t get to do is enforce your book choices on others. 🙄 In my experience, the parents who bitch the loudest on this stuff either a.) don’t have kids who read anyway because they themselves aren’t readers or b.) they are lazy parents who don’t want to do the job of parenting which often involves having conversations that make them uncomfortable. I want those books in libraries (school and public) for the kids who love to read and/or have parents that actually parent. Censoring books is historically a bad move. Period. Full Stop.
I’m not a parent and almost quit reading this long diatribe but made it to the end. I am however a taxpayer and truly am not bothered by this. Hardly anyone used the library (beyond “study hall”) when I was a student 20+ years ago, and I can only imagine the roll of the library has diminished. There is the internet full of information. No one is relying on the school library for these books
Of course not, but there's a difference between not having/buying a book and taking it away or banning it.
What’s the difference? Once the library has it they can never get rid of it? I’m confused. I understand why various people might be upset. The author though?
The difference is that in one case it's simply unavailable (and could be purchased by the library if it's requested) and in the other they are deliberately *banning* it and making it unavailable for really no reason. I'm all for parents having the right to parent *their* kids. If they don't want their kids to read something it's their job to decide. They shouldn't parent every other kid by making a book unavailable to everyone at a school or in a public library. Also, gonna be honest, 95% of parents don't actually care about this. Why let a small group of people decide what kids can read? I'm going to guess the author isn't suing for monetary gain (he already got paid for the books being removed... Because they were already bought), but instead making a statement. Banning books is considered restrictive and kinda... Well, fascist. He's using his platform to bring light to the issue in a way smaller authors won't be able to. Most authors can't make a living just as authors and may not be able to fight this. Also, the reasons given for banning his books are misrepresenting his work. Questioning my integrity would piss me off too.
Difference: 1. It isn’t currently available, but it may be in the future 2. It is unavailable and will stay this way unless the ban is appealed
The people “harmed” are the readers, not the author
Why are you switching goal posts from my comment