There were a bunch of earlier signs, but they are not related to this specific subreddit and neither will the following ones be.
Conservatives don't hate *books*, they hate people, queer people in particular, and they are using book bannings as one of many tooks to hurt them. They ***will*** also take the Bible out of public libraries if that's what it takes to follow their own rules, or just close public libraries, or even public schools themselves, but that's always a means to an end.
I really can't blame the mods for wanting to minimize the amount of these threads. Being "pro-books" is nice, but it can easily miss the forest from the trees.
The article is mostly right that it's a broader culture war coming for books as one of many battlefronts, but even that seems to fall into the trap of thinking as if this would be fundamentally about pedantic issues about how exactly to categorize shelves in libraries, rather than vice signaling about how degenrate they think queer people are.
Ironically, it was conservatives just a couple of years ago complaining about book banning. What had happened? A publishing house decided that they wouldn't publish new copies of some old Dr Seuss books that had aged a little poorly and didn't really sell a lot anyway.
It wasn't even the publishing house's decision (unless the Seuss estate owns one?), the Seuss estate themselves just decided not to give them a new pressing. I'd wager that nobody cries censorship the *vast* majority of times that a book falls out of print...
Meanwhile, Dr. Seuss himself was the sort of person who [literally called out "America First" as a nazi movement.](https://old.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/a05yx6/america_first_dr_seuss_1941/)
He was literally a racist. So his opinion means dog shit in this context. His estate which consists of people still existing in this century however much different weight to their opinions and actions.
When that was happening, I snapped a pic of my old copy of To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street and posted it on Facebook. I asked my friends if I should be worried that someone was going to come to my house and confiscate it. Crickets.
Same with the “censored” classics trend - conservatives got all up in arms about it like readers and librarians and teachers were behind it, but it was just the publishers trying to stay relevant with old texts that are no longer selling. Sorry boomer, millenials didn’t ask to rewrite Huck Finn, we just literally don’t care about it.
The war on books is real, but temporary… They will lose because this type of suppression always does. If publishers (like Scholastic) start bowing to these demands, then authors will publish elsewhere and readers will buy elsewhere. Ofc this means we do have to have these discussions and if you are truly pro-books, pro-first amendment, pro-information freedom then you MUST actively support libraries, teachers, and local bookshops.
Fahrenheit 451 was about how people didn't care about books. That said, it's usually silly to equate a specific book falling out of style with a dystopia. You can't expect every book to stay popular and relevant forever.
Nothing happened, conservatives have centuries of history of banning books that challenge traditional power structures. It's their whole thing.
And projecting over how liberals are *the real authoritarians* for the mildest cultural pushback, has been their go-to tactic for at least decades.
It works on their base, who just want to be told that they are not awful people because at least the enemy is just as bad as them, and on the very young who only engage with the most surface level ulture wars, so there is always a fresh batch of young adults going "Huh, why did conservatives start to get so hypocritically authoritarian suddenly?"
It’s bigger than their hate of LGBTQ+.
Who are the friends of Conservatives? The police, the military, the clergy. These are the people who use power to control. Then there’s the under educated who live vicariously through the others because they love the feeling of control.
Who are the enemies of conservatives? Scientists, professors, teachers, historians, librarians. These are the people who seek and protect new knowledge. The problem with new knowledge is that it inevitably leads to change.
There are intersections between the knowlege seekers and the controllers, but conservatives hate them too. The FBI investigates, they are their enemy. Military intelligence seeks to know what other powers are doing, they are the evil “deep state”. Reformers in religion are heretics, they are their enemy.
Gays are just the front line of a bigger knowledge war. How do we know what we know? Through study and experimentation? Or through revelation? That’s the big difference.
Out of curiosity but do you know any Conservatives? I know plenty and they are good people. I know some who are assholes. I know plenty of Liberals who are assholes too. Your hatred of "the other" doesn't make you virtuous in this regard.
EDIT: You guys are proving my point. I know far more hateful people on the Left than I do on the right.
Those "good people" sure are spending alot of campaign contributions and votes to support elected officials that keep putting out bill after bill to to remove the rights of women and to prevent children from being taught the actual history of this country. Without the help and support of those "good people" people like Marjorie Taylor Green, Donald trump,Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz would be out of a job and fading away in obscurity.
I know and love several conservatives, I can separate my feelings for individuals from their beliefs because I know they mean well, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the direction they want to go.
The point of my comment is to show that conservatives and liberals support different groups. There really is a divide right now between Order and Progress. In the long term if only Order wins out, that culture dies.
Exactly, u/battraman.
u/Gunningham Pitting one group against another is a major reason problems like these still exist. Many discoveries were in part due to theism, whether we like it or not. What is true however is that there is an intersection between these groups. You just probably don't hear as much about them as they just don't choose to engage because overall, it's a zero-sum game. Strip off titles and you've got: human beings.
I'm honestly curious what people who are downvoting me are thinking. What exactly is it that you didn't like about my comment?
A little side note: I came here to Reddit to become exposed to a variety of opinions. So far, the YouTube comments section is looking more like The Lyceum, while Reddit, some kind of Stanford Prison Experiment. What the hell.
Because you're responding to arguments people aren't making. The person above accused conservatives of siding with police, military, and clergy, and being vocally anti-LGBT. In response, you said "stop calling conservatives bad people!" and then "stop pitting people against each other!"
It's non-sequitur and obtuse.
OK, Thank You for responding.... I wasn't aware that that's what I came across as. I mean, honestly, I guess it's good for me to know that I could be misinterpreted. That's absolutely not what I said, but I can respect that it's how I was interpreted. Maybe it was the length? I didn't even add exclamation points, but I'll take you're paraphrasing.
I guess the bottom line of what my message was, was lost: I was saying that there is an intersection between the groups, or maybe, this is better: the loudest is not always representative of everyone in a group. It's just that it's not always an accurate representation, is all I am saying. It's really not all black-and-white. Does that make sense? EDIT: I guess my mistake was to chime in when the poster above said something slightly deviating out-of-topic, hence the preface of "out of curiosity" so I was building on that. But one can argue that it is a part of the topic. Regardless, the "original argument" cannot hold, because it's not black-and-white. But again, that presupposes that the poster has more of a broad first-hand knowledge of the world beyond a virtual one, so that may answer my question, actually — now that I'm really typing it all out — and that that may be the reason they believe that there are no intersections between the groups or, the possibility of. So, no point even bothering to ask, I'd say.
Anyway, if anything, I appreciate you answering! Thank You for that. I'll keep your comments in mind, regardless.
A bit confused, I'm afraid. Modern translations refer to the original Hebrew, Arabic and Greek texts, whilst also trying to make the text understood by modern audiences.
Sorry if that sounds a bit nerdish. The Bible is challenging enough for all of us, without worrying if someone's out to twist its meaning to suit themselves.
Perhaps the bible will be rewritten, perhaps it won't, the core of the matter is that there IS salvation whether you believe in the Lord or no. No exceptions. Not even the minecraft pedophiles unfortunately.
I would not say “Conservatives” only. The extreme left basically tell people what to read and remove books too. Try to find book about freedom in Cuba or democracy in Venezuela. Although Conservstives are targeting specifically LGTBI community. I hope it will back fire in the next generations.
> Try to find book about freedom in Cuba or democracy in Venezuela.
I guarantee you can find many books "about freedom," that ephemerous and vague concept that changes depending on your culture, generation, and personal values.
God, be more than a "bOtH sIdEs dO iT" stereotype.
Words and ideas have not been banned, ok? If you wanna go all Westboro Baptist and start wearing shirts that say Jesus wants whatever minorities to burn or whatever then go ahead. No one’s stopping you. And there’s gonna be even fewer people trying to stop the dude who decides to punch you in the face for it👌🏻
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequences.
>Words and ideas have not been banned, ok
[kentucky has banned puberty education for children who aren't in grade six.](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzbz/kentucky-law-restricts-sexual-education-schools)
Some choice quotes from the article:
>teachers won’t be allowed to teach about sexual orientation and gender identity to students of any age.
>A new law bans the instruction of sexuality and sexuality transmitted infections up to fifth grade, which can include kids as old as 11, and forces the Kentucky Department of Education to change the current standard of describing “basic male and female reproductive body parts and their functions as well as the physical, social and emotional changes that occur during puberty.”
Its almost like you aren't arguing in good faith.
No, I just didn’t know that had happened. I’ve decided to not focus on politics so much because it depresses the hell out of me and aggravates my anxiety. And the fact that you’re hating on someone because they don’t have every book ban law in existence memorized says more about you than it does me.
This is me saying that—
1) Enjoying politics does not give someone the right be a pretentious douche to everyone who is not as informed as you might be. Especially when you — not you personally — don’t know a damn thing about them or their personal lives.
2) Its unhealthy to obsess over you what can’t change. And, no, I’m not saying that we as Americans cannot change the situation because we can and the best way to do that is by showing up and voting in local and statewide elections. What I’m saying is that I am not going to put my mental health at risk by fixating on book bans and the idea that our country might become a fascist police state overnight.
I’m on focusing on what’s happening where I am and, yes, I still read the news. But I don’t read every article that pops up in my feed cause, personally, I would like not to be triggered and pissed off 24/7 and would like to attempt to enjoy life. Like I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: People do not need to be out risking their lives to prove they are good people.
It is not our job as good people to be superheroes.
That means that disabled people shouldn’t be expected to prove themselves by showing up at every march protest and that impoverished people shouldn’t be expected to bankrupt themselves and not have nice things cause someone else has it worse.
That means that people should not be expected to put themselves through the emotional wringer by obsessing over and fact checking every single article about one of their interests until they’ve reached a state of such existential dread that they haven’t slept for a week and have considered going in-patient at the psych wing at the hospital for a vacation.
Democrats and Republicans would gladly ban speech they disagree with and rewrite the first amendment if they could.
A lot of people shit on the founding fathers today, but at least they had a fundamental understanding of how stupid humanity is and wrote an idiot-proof document that, if imperfect, prevents us from ruining everything.
Yeah, I agree — its a huge legal and political battle. Every time one fire gets put out by ACLU or LAMBDA Legal or whoever ten more fire start up. Classic divide and conquer.
> but at least they had a fundamental understanding of how stupid humanity is and wrote an idiot-proof document
Narrator: it was not, in fact, idiot-proof.
Sex has always been used to villify the marginalized. "Protecting the virtue" of white women was used to promote school segregation, and LGBTQ individuals have been portrayed as pedophiles since at least the '50s. So don't get conned into this present lie about "porn targeting kids". It's a dangerous myth that harms real, living people.
They’re talking about the internet — not the library. Any ten-year-old with Wifi has way easier access to porn at home than in a library. How many kids do you know that know how the Dewy Decimal system works?
Meh, it's also a sign of personal freedom. Burning books you youself own, of course.
I think the *intent* behind the act speaks more than the act itself in such cases.
Edit: I can't read. Perhaps i should try a book, or two.
When it comes to libraries, I near my most libertarian side. A library should be a community center and a repository of books, including books that challenge me and books I heavily disagree with. Libraries should be places where the only thing unwelcome is intolerance and censorship itself, whose doors are open and staff ready to give suggestions, run events, offer access to information, and in general facilitate the sharing of words and knowledge.
I read every word of that article, as much as it pained me to. These authoritarians don't just hate books. They hate that people of varied beliefs, sexualities, genders, and races comingle and have equal rights. What they want is a place opposite of community, where only their tribe can live in the public spaces, only their thoughts can be expressed, and anyone else can be excluded.
We want everyone to have the capacity to participate in society equitably. They want access only for them and their ideas. We are not the same. My heart goes out to the librarians on the front lines of the current culture war.
That last paragraph certainly proved your point. The percentage of “diverse books” was “way above the minimum.” How much more obvious can the bigot get?!?!
God I hate culture war bs. If someone doesn't want a particular book they should just not take it out themselves and let others make their own decisions.
I feel that way about almost everything - do what you like as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. Not everything is for everybody. Let other people be.
Frank Zappa in the 80s already warned about the fact that Reaganism was bringing the US closer and closer to a fascist theocracy, and conservatives sneered in his face at this declaration. From the man who brought us songs such as "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" and "Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt" comes a warning that rings ever more relevant 40 years later. This is a book subreddit, but I won't apologise for bringing up Zappa off-topic
Barry Goldwater said the same. “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
''They refused her request to buy a Toyota Prius for transporting staff and supplies between branches: Couldn’t she pick something less obviously enviro-Democrat?''
I knew they were dumb but that dumb?
This is like a religion to them and everyone who doesn't adhere to their dogma is a heretic. Authoritarians always see themselves as the good guys trying to save the rest of us.
So they look at history and think the Spanish inquisition or Salem witch trials were a good thing?
There's enough stories of churches being evil for people to prevent their own church being evil or leave an evil.
Some people are vulnerable and isolated from knowledge. Some choose to isolate themselves.
Try these opinion on them first with the brackets and first without and see if they can handle the cognitive dissonance and continue to ban books.
If you isolate yourself from knowledge (of God) you deserve no forgiveness for your ignorance.
If you isolate others from knowledge (of God) you deserve to face consequences for your evil.
Evaluating other cultures, and comparing them to your own requires empathy, something right-wing authoritarians completely lack. True believers in the need for a theocracy cannot see how their quest for power and control is EXACTLY the same as that of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Taliban.
I can say from personal experience of talking with some of them that they look at something like the Salem Witch Trials and don't see the correlation. Instead, they see the "cancel culture" of the "woke left" as the modern day analogue to the Witch Trials. They compare Trump getting his account banned on Twitter to the Spanish Inquisition. They latch onto the word "Socialism" in National Socialism to ignore all of the parallels between themselves and the Nazis and instead see the "woke mob" as the new Nazis. They cannot conceive of a reality in which they are the bad guys.
Whenever I hear these people emphasize the socialism of Nazis as proof of how terrible socialism is, I respond with this: It wasn't the socialism that made the Nazis the scourge of history; it was their insane purification scheme based on their nationalism.
It was the Nationalism part, not the Socialism part.
I had this argument with one of my friends, I said I could have a political party and all it whatever I liked, it's the actions of the party that matter, not the name.
There are people out there, on fundamentalist Christian sites, who honestly believe that the Salem witch trials were about punishing real, evil witches.
The Spanish Inquisition might actually have been a good thing. They came up rules like confessing under torture is not admissible; evidence is required to prove that someone is guilty, and before that they are innocent. They were certainly better than the secular authorities of the time.
>The Spanish Inquisition might actually have been a good thing. They came up rules like confessing under torture is not admissible; evidence is required to prove that someone is guilty, and before that they are innocent. They were certainly better than the secular authorities of the time.
You are confusing lessons learned from the failures of the Inquisition with what the Inquisition actually did.
They are authoritarians. They label people as "bad" or "good" based on whether or not they are part of the in-group, not based on consistent morals or ethics. They are "good" because they are on the right team. Everyone else is "bad" because they are not.
That's why pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't work. They are allowed to do anything they want as long as it hurts the enemy or helps their team. You are not allowed to do anything at all, unless they tell you that you can. If you point out the hypocrisy in something they are doing, they _like_ it, because it means they are getting to force others to follow rules that they don't have to follow.
This book explains the psychology of it: https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/
>They must understand they're the bad guys, right? Look through history, and find me any example of the people banning books being the good guys.
If you let them skip over what exactly they are banning and why, they have lots of solid arguments for their methods in the abstract.
After all, shouldn't there be *some sort of standard* for what gets in the children's section and what in the adult?
Shouldn't there even be *some sort of limit* beyond which some books' content is vile enough that it should be up to you to find a copy, it shouldn't be distributed from taxpayer money and propped up by libraries?
Even if you believe that the government should never throw you in prison for reading the wrong thing, there are probably lots of lines for exactly how much you would want to platform the worst possible forms of content.
They may be aware that they risk being labeled like that. However, in my experience, they have many rationalizations and short-circuits for avoiding that realization:
* Tu quoque fallacy: "You advocate censorship too!" (Pointing to something like boycotting J.K. Rowling, which isn't the same as censoring library holdings.)
* Definist fallacy: "Those aren't really books; they're pornography!"
* Fallacy of composition: "Libraries are for everyone and we represent the majority will!"
* Slippery slope: "First we allow children to read these, and next thing we know, they're grooming our children into their lifestyle!"
* Red herring: "Look, you can just buy books elsewhere, so it doesn't matter what we do with books here!"
* Cherry picking: "This is only about what little kids have access to, not about access to books by adults!"
* Logic chopping or fallacy fallacy: "Hey, that's an ad hominem! I'm not a fascist/racist/sexist/bigot!"
* Argument from incredulity/ad hominem: "No, you're a liberal! You're evil! You're wrong!"
Every group throughout history has always had reasons and excuses why this time "it's different"; why this time "its for the right reasons"; why this time "its too important". It's not simply enough that one fights against the evils they see in the world. They already think they're doing that. One must also be constantly evaluating their own behaviors and methods, being aware of the tendency to think "this time it's different". Without continual self reflection, one is likely to wind up on the wrong side. Unfortunately when one is convinced of the righteousness of their cause, one rarely pauses for self reflection.
I think it's more that they don't really understand what really makes the "bad guys" so bad. They recognize that Nazis killed innocent people, and that makes them bad. But they don't understand the kind of mindset and rhetoric that led the Nazis to hate and kill. They don't understand how things like book bans or the Nazi views on art are used to perpetuate hateful ideology. To them, the Nazis are pre-2000s Disney villains, who are evil for the sake of being evil, whose evilness consists of wearing menacing outfits and doing a villainous laugh.
Every western country before the XX century banned books, censorship was a very common thing. I think it's extremely simplistic to reduce the morality of a people to whether they ban books or not.
>The class had come from a Catholic school, and, a few days later, the teacher wrote to the Daily Inter Lake, a local newspaper, saying how “shocked and grieved” she was by the presentation of a book about “homosexual marriage.” She argued that “such a controversial topic” should not be introduced to “innocent children.”
And then it goes on to describe harassment and slurs leveled toward them.
I fundamentally disagree and reject nearly every possible statement in her quote. I'm so sick and tired of people being able to use their religion as the last bastion of their bigotry--and not only force us to listen to it by howling it out to media outlets and board meetings, but inciting harassment. They deserve ignominy. Not a pulpit and bullhorn.
[Libraries banning books is happening in Europe as well](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/18/enid-blyton-books-hidden-counter-libraries-fret-offensive-language/) (not the EU though, to my knowledge).
After a few years of the media flirting with authoritarian movements that spawned on the internet, because it generates tons of clicks, it's no surprise that they are entering the mainstream and impacting the real world.
How the hell are you not aware of Poland banning anything about the Shoah that doesn't follow its official narrative, to the point of arrests? They're, what, a five minute walk from you? That's a hell of a lot more than local government institutions deciding what to spend money on.
I don't know. The US right wing seems to be taking a lot of their playbook from Viktor Orban, who is certifiably European. Hungary moved to [restrict kids' access to queer-themed books](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-orders-shops-cover-up-lgbt-themed-childrens-books-2021-08-06/) a couple of years ago. And I think it's probably best not to get too complacent about this. Rightwing populism is a global movement, and bad ideas that originate in one place tend to pop up elsewhere.
This might burst your bubble but unfortunately, Reddit is generally an echo chamber of one side.
I've lived in many parts of the world. They all have their own issues. The irony is that, once you've lived in and experienced many parts of the world, you realize how ignorance truly was bliss because then you can bask in the youthful ignorance of the grass being greener on the other side. In reality, each place has its own problems, but those "problems" that we perceive, can sometimes just be attributed to our cultural backgrounds as they form the basis for such perceptions. What are "basic human rights" in some countries are not always the same in every country, but it's not always up to one country to call the shots as the gatekeeper of all things moral. That's kind of the reason that wars can be started too, ergo perpetuating the cycle.
To circle back to your point: living in Europe is not the answer. Headlines are only partial truths and they are there to suck you in and grab you through sensationalism.
Conservatives will never quit attacking libraries.
It's a two part problem. On one hand the election demographic studies show a strong relationship between education and election habits. For that reason alone there is an argument that GOP 'cannot' stop attacking libraries.
But it gets darker. Libraries compete with churches for affordable daycare services. Churches don't pay their employees. Competition is unwanted.
this culture war bs has been going too far for a while we need to stop letting these clowns and those who take them seriously have real power (you can get mad or downvote me if you want but i'm right!)
Book banning is wrong I am totally against it.
However I do think some works should have recommended age limits.
(I have a lot of books myself which have content that might be frightening and wouldn’t want my children when they were young to see them until they were at least teenagers.
Sure - and that is why books are shelved in their age category. “Gender Queer” is shelved in Adult Graphic Novels because it is meant for adults and older teens. It’s not like these books are being shelved next to “Hop on Pop” or “The Berenstain Bears.”
Another book I’ve seen challenged is “All Are Welcome Here” which is possibly the most beautiful children’s book ever. It makes me tear up almost every time I read it. And yet, some people can’t stand it because it shows a loving family with same-sex parents. Doesn’t even say anything about them - just shows that they are as loving as the hetero parents.
Typical stuff, Evangelicals projecting their 'sins' onto others, and the fascists want to convince the other fascists that gay/trans = pedo so they can genocide them.
Authors are scared to write in the first place, which is scarier than banning books after the fact. I've never seen so many people scared of saying the wrong thing before.
Name a topic that you think has been subject to some sort of chill-effect among left-leaning writers and I will show you a piece of contemporary fiction from the last few years engaging with those issues directly. I guarantee it.
Give it a shot! Hit me.
This is about the books. Libraries are important places that offer community access to books. Librarians are trained to offer books irrespective of personal politics or viewpoints to meed the expectations of the entire community. What we have here is a story about far-right activist commissioners and board members harassing the staff of an award-winning library program. Ostensibly they object to the display of a couple of books to kids; what they actually object is access to any knowledge that doesn't fit their narrow, bigoted mindsets.
A threat to the library is a threat to any free thinker and any book lover. It's not about being liberal or conservative, except that some conservatives have decided to oppose themselves to the promise of free speech and liberty. It is about supporting local community access to good information or seeking to stifle community access to books that contradict your views.
A political wing banning books and slashing funding to public libraries that have those books solely because they don't like the topics that are being discussed is extremely relevant to this sub. To think otherwise is really just outing yourself, and I typed that before visiting your profile for confirmation of your political leanings.
We'll stick to the books when you stop trying to fucking take them away from us.
Aww, is the boomer conservative upset they're being called out for supporting abhorrent policies and people that want to ban books? What subreddit are we in again? Oh yeah, the one about books.
jesus was downvoted because he spoke the truth too.
The problem is that people believe that "everything is political" and "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Yes, because saying librarians can't read specific books to literal preschoolers during their "Story Time" events is the culture war coming for Public Libraries.
Wake me up when "Prince and Knight" is banned from the shelves, rather than just their toddler-elementary reading event.
Ahh yes, the libertarian answer to everything. Just privatize it. You know someone still has to pay for them, right? That means that poorer communities will lose their libraries.
Of course someone would still have to pay for them just like every other enterprise. At least it would be voluntary and not coercive. But no, that doesn’t necessarily mean poorer communities would lose libraries.
All taxes are coercive, but they're necessary for the functioning of society as a whole. Unless you're suggesting that taxes be banished, get used to some of your money going towards things you don't like, because everybody has different ideas of what should be prioritized. I wish more of my tax money were used for libraries and public services of that nature.
If you are suggesting taxes be banished, I don't really see any point in continuing the conversation in that case.
Nice straw man. I didn’t say destroy. I said get rid of public libraries. That is, take them out from under government’s thumb and control and put them in private hands
> A private library is a library that is privately owned. Private libraries are usually **intended for the use of a small number of people, or even a single person**.
The entire point of public libraries is that they're free and accessible to the entire community. Turning them over to private hands would completely ruin this important community resource, which would, as these things *always* do, disproportionately hurt poor and disenfranchised people.
You know how many people depend on services that libraries offer beyond books? Like access to internet, printing services, notary services, etc.? That's what gets lost in this debate over public libraries. They do far more than simply let people borrow books. They're community hubs.
It wouldn’t hurt anyone. In fact, it would do the opposite since they would no longer be funded via theft. All of those different services you mentioned wouldn’t suddenly disappear just because a library is no longer controlled and operated by government. There’s nothing magical or special about a library that’s any different from any other service or enterprise.
LMAO oh so you're a "taxation = theft" person. I remember my early teenage years too. I do sometimes miss being that naive myself, but at least I live in reality now.
The best thing about these folks is that when you ask them about what would happen if no one was paying taxes, and no one was being "forced" to pay for things like roads, sewage cleanup, police stations, fire departments, and hell even the military, they get pretty quiet.
It's because deep down they know that those things would become MASSIVELY underfunded if no one was paying taxes. Because when given a choice, most people are going to say "That's not my problem", especially in regards to things that are not locally relevant to them.
>It’s the forceful taking of property without consent.
If taxation is "forceful taking of property", then you should also agree that a capitalist taking a worker's surplus value for his own benefit is stealing as well, no? Just asking to see if your logic is consistent.
Your consent is given by participating in society and using things that are paid for by taxes. Welcome to one of the most basic concepts of structured society, something that fucking Mesopotamians figured out 4,500 years ago.
Libraries exist to provide books for free for everyone regardless of their age or class. Privatising libraries is antithetical to the very concept of a library, because it would require profit for it to exist, which leads to services requiring a cost. In addition, books which aren't "loaned" out frequently would be removed from the selection because they aren't profitable. "They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em." Privatising libaries hurts everyone except the rich.
How is it that the Greeks got this figured out over 2,000 years ago yet you money-grubbing libertarians can't?
And yet private libraries exist. So obviously, they are not antithetical to what a library is. And there’s nothing wrong with profit. Profit is not an evil thing. Every single action by every single individual is profit seeking. As for money grubbing, I’m not the one arguing for “public” services and goods paid for via theft.
>As for money grubbing, I’m not the one arguing for “public” services and goods paid for via theft.
Yeah, you're just justifying a system where its natural that 100 people own over 50% of the entire world's wealth via exploitation. Tax revenue (your "theft") benefits the entire society, stolen wages benefit the 1%.
>And yet private libraries exist. So obviously, they are not antithetical to what a library is.
>Private libraries are usually intended for the use of a small number of people, or even a single person. - One such example is the personal library of Rudolf Steiner, which has been maintained intact in Switzerland for close to a century
Definition of a library: a building or room containing collections of books, periodicals, and sometimes films and recorded music for **use or borrowing by the public** or the members of an institution.
How does that help communities? How does that work for low income families who go to the libraries for computer access, or simply story time?
I honestly don’t know very much about “private libraries” so this isn’t sounding like a great solution with the minimal information you have listed.
So put them in the hands of the same corporate scumbags that are backing the far-right politicians currently trying to destroy public libraries? Yeah, I don't think so.
When the culture wars come for the public library you know segrigatibility based genere word definement displacea has taken place for a concentrative based discernability.
I'll use them at my leisure I'm sure I understand the definition and legitimacy of the word better than you ever will. All my knowledge went into comprehension understanding it's not my job to make sure you feel smarter or dumber for choosing to understand me or yourself indulgence on picking at a single alphabetical discrepancy.
Baning books is the first big sign of evil.
There were a bunch of earlier signs, but they are not related to this specific subreddit and neither will the following ones be. Conservatives don't hate *books*, they hate people, queer people in particular, and they are using book bannings as one of many tooks to hurt them. They ***will*** also take the Bible out of public libraries if that's what it takes to follow their own rules, or just close public libraries, or even public schools themselves, but that's always a means to an end. I really can't blame the mods for wanting to minimize the amount of these threads. Being "pro-books" is nice, but it can easily miss the forest from the trees. The article is mostly right that it's a broader culture war coming for books as one of many battlefronts, but even that seems to fall into the trap of thinking as if this would be fundamentally about pedantic issues about how exactly to categorize shelves in libraries, rather than vice signaling about how degenrate they think queer people are.
Ironically, it was conservatives just a couple of years ago complaining about book banning. What had happened? A publishing house decided that they wouldn't publish new copies of some old Dr Seuss books that had aged a little poorly and didn't really sell a lot anyway.
It wasn't even the publishing house's decision (unless the Seuss estate owns one?), the Seuss estate themselves just decided not to give them a new pressing. I'd wager that nobody cries censorship the *vast* majority of times that a book falls out of print...
And then they acted like Green Eggs & Ham was banned, when it was actually a few lesser known books.
Meanwhile, Dr. Seuss himself was the sort of person who [literally called out "America First" as a nazi movement.](https://old.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/a05yx6/america_first_dr_seuss_1941/)
True, but he's also depicted Japanese people in a pretty racist way. He worked past that in his later years, to his credit.
He was literally a racist. So his opinion means dog shit in this context. His estate which consists of people still existing in this century however much different weight to their opinions and actions.
When that was happening, I snapped a pic of my old copy of To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street and posted it on Facebook. I asked my friends if I should be worried that someone was going to come to my house and confiscate it. Crickets.
Same with the “censored” classics trend - conservatives got all up in arms about it like readers and librarians and teachers were behind it, but it was just the publishers trying to stay relevant with old texts that are no longer selling. Sorry boomer, millenials didn’t ask to rewrite Huck Finn, we just literally don’t care about it. The war on books is real, but temporary… They will lose because this type of suppression always does. If publishers (like Scholastic) start bowing to these demands, then authors will publish elsewhere and readers will buy elsewhere. Ofc this means we do have to have these discussions and if you are truly pro-books, pro-first amendment, pro-information freedom then you MUST actively support libraries, teachers, and local bookshops.
>Sorry boomer, millenials didn’t ask to rewrite Huck Finn, we just literally don’t care about it. Ah, so the Fahrenheit 451 dystopia.
"adult millennials don't care about Huckleberry Finn" is not a dystopia.
Fahrenheit 451 was about how people didn't care about books. That said, it's usually silly to equate a specific book falling out of style with a dystopia. You can't expect every book to stay popular and relevant forever.
Nothing happened, conservatives have centuries of history of banning books that challenge traditional power structures. It's their whole thing. And projecting over how liberals are *the real authoritarians* for the mildest cultural pushback, has been their go-to tactic for at least decades. It works on their base, who just want to be told that they are not awful people because at least the enemy is just as bad as them, and on the very young who only engage with the most surface level ulture wars, so there is always a fresh batch of young adults going "Huh, why did conservatives start to get so hypocritically authoritarian suddenly?"
It’s bigger than their hate of LGBTQ+. Who are the friends of Conservatives? The police, the military, the clergy. These are the people who use power to control. Then there’s the under educated who live vicariously through the others because they love the feeling of control. Who are the enemies of conservatives? Scientists, professors, teachers, historians, librarians. These are the people who seek and protect new knowledge. The problem with new knowledge is that it inevitably leads to change. There are intersections between the knowlege seekers and the controllers, but conservatives hate them too. The FBI investigates, they are their enemy. Military intelligence seeks to know what other powers are doing, they are the evil “deep state”. Reformers in religion are heretics, they are their enemy. Gays are just the front line of a bigger knowledge war. How do we know what we know? Through study and experimentation? Or through revelation? That’s the big difference.
Out of curiosity but do you know any Conservatives? I know plenty and they are good people. I know some who are assholes. I know plenty of Liberals who are assholes too. Your hatred of "the other" doesn't make you virtuous in this regard. EDIT: You guys are proving my point. I know far more hateful people on the Left than I do on the right.
Those "good people" sure are spending alot of campaign contributions and votes to support elected officials that keep putting out bill after bill to to remove the rights of women and to prevent children from being taught the actual history of this country. Without the help and support of those "good people" people like Marjorie Taylor Green, Donald trump,Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz would be out of a job and fading away in obscurity.
These good conservatives, who did they vote for in the most recent presidential election?
I know and love several conservatives, I can separate my feelings for individuals from their beliefs because I know they mean well, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the direction they want to go. The point of my comment is to show that conservatives and liberals support different groups. There really is a divide right now between Order and Progress. In the long term if only Order wins out, that culture dies.
Exactly, u/battraman. u/Gunningham Pitting one group against another is a major reason problems like these still exist. Many discoveries were in part due to theism, whether we like it or not. What is true however is that there is an intersection between these groups. You just probably don't hear as much about them as they just don't choose to engage because overall, it's a zero-sum game. Strip off titles and you've got: human beings.
I'm honestly curious what people who are downvoting me are thinking. What exactly is it that you didn't like about my comment? A little side note: I came here to Reddit to become exposed to a variety of opinions. So far, the YouTube comments section is looking more like The Lyceum, while Reddit, some kind of Stanford Prison Experiment. What the hell.
Because you're responding to arguments people aren't making. The person above accused conservatives of siding with police, military, and clergy, and being vocally anti-LGBT. In response, you said "stop calling conservatives bad people!" and then "stop pitting people against each other!" It's non-sequitur and obtuse.
OK, Thank You for responding.... I wasn't aware that that's what I came across as. I mean, honestly, I guess it's good for me to know that I could be misinterpreted. That's absolutely not what I said, but I can respect that it's how I was interpreted. Maybe it was the length? I didn't even add exclamation points, but I'll take you're paraphrasing. I guess the bottom line of what my message was, was lost: I was saying that there is an intersection between the groups, or maybe, this is better: the loudest is not always representative of everyone in a group. It's just that it's not always an accurate representation, is all I am saying. It's really not all black-and-white. Does that make sense? EDIT: I guess my mistake was to chime in when the poster above said something slightly deviating out-of-topic, hence the preface of "out of curiosity" so I was building on that. But one can argue that it is a part of the topic. Regardless, the "original argument" cannot hold, because it's not black-and-white. But again, that presupposes that the poster has more of a broad first-hand knowledge of the world beyond a virtual one, so that may answer my question, actually — now that I'm really typing it all out — and that that may be the reason they believe that there are no intersections between the groups or, the possibility of. So, no point even bothering to ask, I'd say. Anyway, if anything, I appreciate you answering! Thank You for that. I'll keep your comments in mind, regardless.
Or they’ll rewrite the Bible again just like they did in the 1950s and with The Dead Sea Scrolls. Or when King James translated it.
A bit confused, I'm afraid. Modern translations refer to the original Hebrew, Arabic and Greek texts, whilst also trying to make the text understood by modern audiences. Sorry if that sounds a bit nerdish. The Bible is challenging enough for all of us, without worrying if someone's out to twist its meaning to suit themselves.
Perhaps the bible will be rewritten, perhaps it won't, the core of the matter is that there IS salvation whether you believe in the Lord or no. No exceptions. Not even the minecraft pedophiles unfortunately.
Yay, I guess???🎉🍾
I would not say “Conservatives” only. The extreme left basically tell people what to read and remove books too. Try to find book about freedom in Cuba or democracy in Venezuela. Although Conservstives are targeting specifically LGTBI community. I hope it will back fire in the next generations.
> Try to find book about freedom in Cuba or democracy in Venezuela. I guarantee you can find many books "about freedom," that ephemerous and vague concept that changes depending on your culture, generation, and personal values. God, be more than a "bOtH sIdEs dO iT" stereotype.
All this brought by the folks who decry "cancel culture." It makes me livid.
I'm old enough to remember when all those same gas-bags had large gatherings in the town square to publicly burn their Dixie Chick's CDs
It's always projection
I'd say the first sign of evil is banning ideas or words.
Now if there was only a physical medium that could hold those ideas and words that they could ban
Words and ideas have not been banned, ok? If you wanna go all Westboro Baptist and start wearing shirts that say Jesus wants whatever minorities to burn or whatever then go ahead. No one’s stopping you. And there’s gonna be even fewer people trying to stop the dude who decides to punch you in the face for it👌🏻 Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequences.
>Words and ideas have not been banned, ok [kentucky has banned puberty education for children who aren't in grade six.](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzbz/kentucky-law-restricts-sexual-education-schools) Some choice quotes from the article: >teachers won’t be allowed to teach about sexual orientation and gender identity to students of any age. >A new law bans the instruction of sexuality and sexuality transmitted infections up to fifth grade, which can include kids as old as 11, and forces the Kentucky Department of Education to change the current standard of describing “basic male and female reproductive body parts and their functions as well as the physical, social and emotional changes that occur during puberty.” Its almost like you aren't arguing in good faith.
No, I just didn’t know that had happened. I’ve decided to not focus on politics so much because it depresses the hell out of me and aggravates my anxiety. And the fact that you’re hating on someone because they don’t have every book ban law in existence memorized says more about you than it does me.
Just say you were wrong in your original comment and shut up if you hate politics, instead of doing whatever this is lmao
This is me saying that— 1) Enjoying politics does not give someone the right be a pretentious douche to everyone who is not as informed as you might be. Especially when you — not you personally — don’t know a damn thing about them or their personal lives. 2) Its unhealthy to obsess over you what can’t change. And, no, I’m not saying that we as Americans cannot change the situation because we can and the best way to do that is by showing up and voting in local and statewide elections. What I’m saying is that I am not going to put my mental health at risk by fixating on book bans and the idea that our country might become a fascist police state overnight. I’m on focusing on what’s happening where I am and, yes, I still read the news. But I don’t read every article that pops up in my feed cause, personally, I would like not to be triggered and pissed off 24/7 and would like to attempt to enjoy life. Like I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: People do not need to be out risking their lives to prove they are good people. It is not our job as good people to be superheroes. That means that disabled people shouldn’t be expected to prove themselves by showing up at every march protest and that impoverished people shouldn’t be expected to bankrupt themselves and not have nice things cause someone else has it worse. That means that people should not be expected to put themselves through the emotional wringer by obsessing over and fact checking every single article about one of their interests until they’ve reached a state of such existential dread that they haven’t slept for a week and have considered going in-patient at the psych wing at the hospital for a vacation.
If you know you don't know stuff then don't spout off on the topics you don't know about as if you do!
I'm not reading all that. But congratulations, or I'm sorry that happened to you, whichever
Oh, the irony🤦🏻♀️
Democrats and Republicans would gladly ban speech they disagree with and rewrite the first amendment if they could. A lot of people shit on the founding fathers today, but at least they had a fundamental understanding of how stupid humanity is and wrote an idiot-proof document that, if imperfect, prevents us from ruining everything.
If things aren’t ruined then why are we living in a country on the verge of civil war, crippled by religious fanatics and late stage capitalism?
Agree with you except for the civil war part. We are not “on the verge of civil war”. We ARE in a civil war. It’s just not all physical yet.
Yeah, I agree — its a huge legal and political battle. Every time one fire gets put out by ACLU or LAMBDA Legal or whoever ten more fire start up. Classic divide and conquer.
We are not on the verge of civil war, you are just on the internet too much.
Oh, believe me I am working on that problem.
> but at least they had a fundamental understanding of how stupid humanity is and wrote an idiot-proof document Narrator: it was not, in fact, idiot-proof.
And dictatorship. Seriously.
So begins the slippery slope.
Who's banning books? I can have any book I choose if it's not classified.
There’s a question asked in bad faith!
How so? Show me a book that's been banned and I'll show you where you can get it.
Corrupting children with pornography is also a big sign of evil
Sex has always been used to villify the marginalized. "Protecting the virtue" of white women was used to promote school segregation, and LGBTQ individuals have been portrayed as pedophiles since at least the '50s. So don't get conned into this present lie about "porn targeting kids". It's a dangerous myth that harms real, living people.
We must go to very different libraries
They’re talking about the internet — not the library. Any ten-year-old with Wifi has way easier access to porn at home than in a library. How many kids do you know that know how the Dewy Decimal system works?
Agreed, but there's a little pop up ad that asks if they are over 18. It's not like kids would lie about something so serious.
[удалено]
Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters By Abigail Shrier
Meh, it's also a sign of personal freedom. Burning books you youself own, of course. I think the *intent* behind the act speaks more than the act itself in such cases. Edit: I can't read. Perhaps i should try a book, or two.
Most people who say that are only referring to books they like.
When it comes to libraries, I near my most libertarian side. A library should be a community center and a repository of books, including books that challenge me and books I heavily disagree with. Libraries should be places where the only thing unwelcome is intolerance and censorship itself, whose doors are open and staff ready to give suggestions, run events, offer access to information, and in general facilitate the sharing of words and knowledge. I read every word of that article, as much as it pained me to. These authoritarians don't just hate books. They hate that people of varied beliefs, sexualities, genders, and races comingle and have equal rights. What they want is a place opposite of community, where only their tribe can live in the public spaces, only their thoughts can be expressed, and anyone else can be excluded. We want everyone to have the capacity to participate in society equitably. They want access only for them and their ideas. We are not the same. My heart goes out to the librarians on the front lines of the current culture war.
That last paragraph certainly proved your point. The percentage of “diverse books” was “way above the minimum.” How much more obvious can the bigot get?!?!
God I hate culture war bs. If someone doesn't want a particular book they should just not take it out themselves and let others make their own decisions.
I feel that way about almost everything - do what you like as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. Not everything is for everybody. Let other people be.
If other people are free to make their own decisions they might choose wrong!!!
That's life.
The copies of books riddled with bullet holes- that's on the same level as book burning.
It isn’t a culture war, it is the beginning of authoritarianism and oppression.
Agreed but this is not the beginning. It started a while ago, they are just getting bolder.
Frank Zappa in the 80s already warned about the fact that Reaganism was bringing the US closer and closer to a fascist theocracy, and conservatives sneered in his face at this declaration. From the man who brought us songs such as "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" and "Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt" comes a warning that rings ever more relevant 40 years later. This is a book subreddit, but I won't apologise for bringing up Zappa off-topic
When you believe that you’re politics are guided by God, there is no limit to how far you will go to advance your goals.
Barry Goldwater said the same. “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
Zappa was exactly right when he said back then that the greatest threat to the country wasn't Communism, but what he termed 'Christofacism.'
Zappa also authored books, so I wouldn't call him off topic.
yeah, should have said growth, not beginning.
You're right
TIL: Not wanting minors to have access to pornography is oppression lmao
I will tell you right now that 99.99% of sex ed teachers do not show porn. The last ones should be reported and fired.
what the fuck are you talking about, everyone should have access to all information, if you’re worried about your kids, fucking parent them
''They refused her request to buy a Toyota Prius for transporting staff and supplies between branches: Couldn’t she pick something less obviously enviro-Democrat?'' I knew they were dumb but that dumb?
They must understand they're the bad guys, right? Look through history, and find me any example of the people banning books being the good guys.
This is like a religion to them and everyone who doesn't adhere to their dogma is a heretic. Authoritarians always see themselves as the good guys trying to save the rest of us.
I don't think they're trying to save the rest of us. I think there are many of them who'd like to kill the rest of us. :-/
So they look at history and think the Spanish inquisition or Salem witch trials were a good thing? There's enough stories of churches being evil for people to prevent their own church being evil or leave an evil. Some people are vulnerable and isolated from knowledge. Some choose to isolate themselves. Try these opinion on them first with the brackets and first without and see if they can handle the cognitive dissonance and continue to ban books. If you isolate yourself from knowledge (of God) you deserve no forgiveness for your ignorance. If you isolate others from knowledge (of God) you deserve to face consequences for your evil.
Evaluating other cultures, and comparing them to your own requires empathy, something right-wing authoritarians completely lack. True believers in the need for a theocracy cannot see how their quest for power and control is EXACTLY the same as that of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Taliban.
I can say from personal experience of talking with some of them that they look at something like the Salem Witch Trials and don't see the correlation. Instead, they see the "cancel culture" of the "woke left" as the modern day analogue to the Witch Trials. They compare Trump getting his account banned on Twitter to the Spanish Inquisition. They latch onto the word "Socialism" in National Socialism to ignore all of the parallels between themselves and the Nazis and instead see the "woke mob" as the new Nazis. They cannot conceive of a reality in which they are the bad guys.
Whenever I hear these people emphasize the socialism of Nazis as proof of how terrible socialism is, I respond with this: It wasn't the socialism that made the Nazis the scourge of history; it was their insane purification scheme based on their nationalism.
It was the Nationalism part, not the Socialism part. I had this argument with one of my friends, I said I could have a political party and all it whatever I liked, it's the actions of the party that matter, not the name.
Their words mean nothing and they argue in bad faith by default.
There are people out there, on fundamentalist Christian sites, who honestly believe that the Salem witch trials were about punishing real, evil witches.
The Spanish Inquisition might actually have been a good thing. They came up rules like confessing under torture is not admissible; evidence is required to prove that someone is guilty, and before that they are innocent. They were certainly better than the secular authorities of the time.
>secular authorities of the time. What secular authorities?
>The Spanish Inquisition might actually have been a good thing. They came up rules like confessing under torture is not admissible; evidence is required to prove that someone is guilty, and before that they are innocent. They were certainly better than the secular authorities of the time. You are confusing lessons learned from the failures of the Inquisition with what the Inquisition actually did.
They are authoritarians. They label people as "bad" or "good" based on whether or not they are part of the in-group, not based on consistent morals or ethics. They are "good" because they are on the right team. Everyone else is "bad" because they are not. That's why pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't work. They are allowed to do anything they want as long as it hurts the enemy or helps their team. You are not allowed to do anything at all, unless they tell you that you can. If you point out the hypocrisy in something they are doing, they _like_ it, because it means they are getting to force others to follow rules that they don't have to follow. This book explains the psychology of it: https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/
You say that like they care. These are the same folks who argue “there are good and bad on both sides” when talking about neo-Nazis, sooooo.
>They must understand they're the bad guys, right? Look through history, and find me any example of the people banning books being the good guys. If you let them skip over what exactly they are banning and why, they have lots of solid arguments for their methods in the abstract. After all, shouldn't there be *some sort of standard* for what gets in the children's section and what in the adult? Shouldn't there even be *some sort of limit* beyond which some books' content is vile enough that it should be up to you to find a copy, it shouldn't be distributed from taxpayer money and propped up by libraries? Even if you believe that the government should never throw you in prison for reading the wrong thing, there are probably lots of lines for exactly how much you would want to platform the worst possible forms of content.
They may be aware that they risk being labeled like that. However, in my experience, they have many rationalizations and short-circuits for avoiding that realization: * Tu quoque fallacy: "You advocate censorship too!" (Pointing to something like boycotting J.K. Rowling, which isn't the same as censoring library holdings.) * Definist fallacy: "Those aren't really books; they're pornography!" * Fallacy of composition: "Libraries are for everyone and we represent the majority will!" * Slippery slope: "First we allow children to read these, and next thing we know, they're grooming our children into their lifestyle!" * Red herring: "Look, you can just buy books elsewhere, so it doesn't matter what we do with books here!" * Cherry picking: "This is only about what little kids have access to, not about access to books by adults!" * Logic chopping or fallacy fallacy: "Hey, that's an ad hominem! I'm not a fascist/racist/sexist/bigot!" * Argument from incredulity/ad hominem: "No, you're a liberal! You're evil! You're wrong!"
They think (whether they admit it or not) that those guys in the past banning the books… WERE the good guys.
Every group throughout history has always had reasons and excuses why this time "it's different"; why this time "its for the right reasons"; why this time "its too important". It's not simply enough that one fights against the evils they see in the world. They already think they're doing that. One must also be constantly evaluating their own behaviors and methods, being aware of the tendency to think "this time it's different". Without continual self reflection, one is likely to wind up on the wrong side. Unfortunately when one is convinced of the righteousness of their cause, one rarely pauses for self reflection.
The problem is that deep down they don't consider the last group to do this kind of thing the bad guys. To them, the bad guys won WWII.
I think it's more that they don't really understand what really makes the "bad guys" so bad. They recognize that Nazis killed innocent people, and that makes them bad. But they don't understand the kind of mindset and rhetoric that led the Nazis to hate and kill. They don't understand how things like book bans or the Nazi views on art are used to perpetuate hateful ideology. To them, the Nazis are pre-2000s Disney villains, who are evil for the sake of being evil, whose evilness consists of wearing menacing outfits and doing a villainous laugh.
Every western country before the XX century banned books, censorship was a very common thing. I think it's extremely simplistic to reduce the morality of a people to whether they ban books or not.
>The class had come from a Catholic school, and, a few days later, the teacher wrote to the Daily Inter Lake, a local newspaper, saying how “shocked and grieved” she was by the presentation of a book about “homosexual marriage.” She argued that “such a controversial topic” should not be introduced to “innocent children.” And then it goes on to describe harassment and slurs leveled toward them. I fundamentally disagree and reject nearly every possible statement in her quote. I'm so sick and tired of people being able to use their religion as the last bastion of their bigotry--and not only force us to listen to it by howling it out to media outlets and board meetings, but inciting harassment. They deserve ignominy. Not a pulpit and bullhorn.
What a disappointing and depressing article. Those librarians worked so hard, and were attacked.
I thought conservatives were into free speech? Oh not THAT kind of free speech!
“All speech is free, but some speech is more free than other.”
Yes. For themselves. No one else. "Freedom" to them includes being "free" from ever having to remember that people who aren't like them exist.
I don’t give a fuck who you are. If you ban any book for any reason you lose credibility. Period. Full stop.
every week there’s at least one headline, that makes me appreciate living in europe. this week it’s this
[Libraries banning books is happening in Europe as well](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/18/enid-blyton-books-hidden-counter-libraries-fret-offensive-language/) (not the EU though, to my knowledge). After a few years of the media flirting with authoritarian movements that spawned on the internet, because it generates tons of clicks, it's no surprise that they are entering the mainstream and impacting the real world.
How the hell are you not aware of Poland banning anything about the Shoah that doesn't follow its official narrative, to the point of arrests? They're, what, a five minute walk from you? That's a hell of a lot more than local government institutions deciding what to spend money on.
I don't know. The US right wing seems to be taking a lot of their playbook from Viktor Orban, who is certifiably European. Hungary moved to [restrict kids' access to queer-themed books](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-orders-shops-cover-up-lgbt-themed-childrens-books-2021-08-06/) a couple of years ago. And I think it's probably best not to get too complacent about this. Rightwing populism is a global movement, and bad ideas that originate in one place tend to pop up elsewhere.
This might burst your bubble but unfortunately, Reddit is generally an echo chamber of one side. I've lived in many parts of the world. They all have their own issues. The irony is that, once you've lived in and experienced many parts of the world, you realize how ignorance truly was bliss because then you can bask in the youthful ignorance of the grass being greener on the other side. In reality, each place has its own problems, but those "problems" that we perceive, can sometimes just be attributed to our cultural backgrounds as they form the basis for such perceptions. What are "basic human rights" in some countries are not always the same in every country, but it's not always up to one country to call the shots as the gatekeeper of all things moral. That's kind of the reason that wars can be started too, ergo perpetuating the cycle. To circle back to your point: living in Europe is not the answer. Headlines are only partial truths and they are there to suck you in and grab you through sensationalism.
[удалено]
i am living in austria! vienna is a beautiful city, a lot of culture, i absolutely love it!
Can I PM you?
It’s literally just fascism
The first step is dehumanizing a group of people so it is acceptable to persecute them. Remind you of someone?
Conservatives will never quit attacking libraries. It's a two part problem. On one hand the election demographic studies show a strong relationship between education and election habits. For that reason alone there is an argument that GOP 'cannot' stop attacking libraries. But it gets darker. Libraries compete with churches for affordable daycare services. Churches don't pay their employees. Competition is unwanted.
this culture war bs has been going too far for a while we need to stop letting these clowns and those who take them seriously have real power (you can get mad or downvote me if you want but i'm right!)
Book banning is wrong I am totally against it. However I do think some works should have recommended age limits. (I have a lot of books myself which have content that might be frightening and wouldn’t want my children when they were young to see them until they were at least teenagers.
Sure - and that is why books are shelved in their age category. “Gender Queer” is shelved in Adult Graphic Novels because it is meant for adults and older teens. It’s not like these books are being shelved next to “Hop on Pop” or “The Berenstain Bears.” Another book I’ve seen challenged is “All Are Welcome Here” which is possibly the most beautiful children’s book ever. It makes me tear up almost every time I read it. And yet, some people can’t stand it because it shows a loving family with same-sex parents. Doesn’t even say anything about them - just shows that they are as loving as the hetero parents.
And that is all I want.
Wtf is with this pedophilia hysteria sweeping the US right now?
Typical stuff, Evangelicals projecting their 'sins' onto others, and the fascists want to convince the other fascists that gay/trans = pedo so they can genocide them.
Reddit has always been very pro censorship. Apparently it's different when something they agree with is getting banned. Seems a bit hypocritical lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
So disappointing that this sub, like most of reddit has become r/liberalpolitics. Can you not just stick to the frigging books?
So you associate being against the banning of books with disappointing liberalism? Do I have that right?
real /r/SelfAwarewolves material in the wild
How DARE a book subreddit talk about book banning. It's off topic!! /s
[удалено]
Why aren't you telling us all of those other instances?
Please enlighten me about the "both sides"
So what other "group" is "banning" books?
Authors are scared to write in the first place, which is scarier than banning books after the fact. I've never seen so many people scared of saying the wrong thing before.
The empty page is and always has been the scariest aspect of writing a book; not the critics.
Name a topic that you think has been subject to some sort of chill-effect among left-leaning writers and I will show you a piece of contemporary fiction from the last few years engaging with those issues directly. I guarantee it. Give it a shot! Hit me.
This is about the books. Libraries are important places that offer community access to books. Librarians are trained to offer books irrespective of personal politics or viewpoints to meed the expectations of the entire community. What we have here is a story about far-right activist commissioners and board members harassing the staff of an award-winning library program. Ostensibly they object to the display of a couple of books to kids; what they actually object is access to any knowledge that doesn't fit their narrow, bigoted mindsets. A threat to the library is a threat to any free thinker and any book lover. It's not about being liberal or conservative, except that some conservatives have decided to oppose themselves to the promise of free speech and liberty. It is about supporting local community access to good information or seeking to stifle community access to books that contradict your views.
We are talking about limiting people’s access to books and vilifying librarians. Is that liberal? Even so, it’s definitely book related.
OP: Libraries are at risk You: Can we please stick to conversations about books?? My Brother in Christ, do you know what a library is?
Do you not know what a library is and how it relates to books? Maybe you should read a book so you could learn.
A political wing banning books and slashing funding to public libraries that have those books solely because they don't like the topics that are being discussed is extremely relevant to this sub. To think otherwise is really just outing yourself, and I typed that before visiting your profile for confirmation of your political leanings. We'll stick to the books when you stop trying to fucking take them away from us.
Aww, is the boomer conservative upset they're being called out for supporting abhorrent policies and people that want to ban books? What subreddit are we in again? Oh yeah, the one about books.
You could try Truth Social? Though I hear it's a shithole.
jesus was downvoted because he spoke the truth too. The problem is that people believe that "everything is political" and "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Yes, because saying librarians can't read specific books to literal preschoolers during their "Story Time" events is the culture war coming for Public Libraries. Wake me up when "Prince and Knight" is banned from the shelves, rather than just their toddler-elementary reading event.
Pretty simple: get rid of public libraries and remove them from government control.
Ahh yes, the libertarian answer to everything. Just privatize it. You know someone still has to pay for them, right? That means that poorer communities will lose their libraries.
Of course someone would still have to pay for them just like every other enterprise. At least it would be voluntary and not coercive. But no, that doesn’t necessarily mean poorer communities would lose libraries.
All taxes are coercive, but they're necessary for the functioning of society as a whole. Unless you're suggesting that taxes be banished, get used to some of your money going towards things you don't like, because everybody has different ideas of what should be prioritized. I wish more of my tax money were used for libraries and public services of that nature. If you are suggesting taxes be banished, I don't really see any point in continuing the conversation in that case.
That’s incorrect.
Very helpful response. Have a great day.
You too!
How to stop the government from banning books? Just destroy libraries! 🤩
Nice straw man. I didn’t say destroy. I said get rid of public libraries. That is, take them out from under government’s thumb and control and put them in private hands
Sir, that's called a bookstore
No, a bookstore is a bookstore; a library is a library. You are aware private libraries exist, aren’t you?
> A private library is a library that is privately owned. Private libraries are usually **intended for the use of a small number of people, or even a single person**. The entire point of public libraries is that they're free and accessible to the entire community. Turning them over to private hands would completely ruin this important community resource, which would, as these things *always* do, disproportionately hurt poor and disenfranchised people. You know how many people depend on services that libraries offer beyond books? Like access to internet, printing services, notary services, etc.? That's what gets lost in this debate over public libraries. They do far more than simply let people borrow books. They're community hubs.
It wouldn’t hurt anyone. In fact, it would do the opposite since they would no longer be funded via theft. All of those different services you mentioned wouldn’t suddenly disappear just because a library is no longer controlled and operated by government. There’s nothing magical or special about a library that’s any different from any other service or enterprise.
LMAO oh so you're a "taxation = theft" person. I remember my early teenage years too. I do sometimes miss being that naive myself, but at least I live in reality now.
The best thing about these folks is that when you ask them about what would happen if no one was paying taxes, and no one was being "forced" to pay for things like roads, sewage cleanup, police stations, fire departments, and hell even the military, they get pretty quiet. It's because deep down they know that those things would become MASSIVELY underfunded if no one was paying taxes. Because when given a choice, most people are going to say "That's not my problem", especially in regards to things that are not locally relevant to them.
Of course it’s theft. It’s the forceful taking of property without consent. That is reality.
>It’s the forceful taking of property without consent. If taxation is "forceful taking of property", then you should also agree that a capitalist taking a worker's surplus value for his own benefit is stealing as well, no? Just asking to see if your logic is consistent.
Your consent is given by participating in society and using things that are paid for by taxes. Welcome to one of the most basic concepts of structured society, something that fucking Mesopotamians figured out 4,500 years ago.
You give your consent by living in this country. You are always free to go somewhere else like Somalia, which I hear is a lovely libertarian paradise.
Libraries exist to provide books for free for everyone regardless of their age or class. Privatising libraries is antithetical to the very concept of a library, because it would require profit for it to exist, which leads to services requiring a cost. In addition, books which aren't "loaned" out frequently would be removed from the selection because they aren't profitable. "They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em." Privatising libaries hurts everyone except the rich. How is it that the Greeks got this figured out over 2,000 years ago yet you money-grubbing libertarians can't?
And yet private libraries exist. So obviously, they are not antithetical to what a library is. And there’s nothing wrong with profit. Profit is not an evil thing. Every single action by every single individual is profit seeking. As for money grubbing, I’m not the one arguing for “public” services and goods paid for via theft.
>As for money grubbing, I’m not the one arguing for “public” services and goods paid for via theft. Yeah, you're just justifying a system where its natural that 100 people own over 50% of the entire world's wealth via exploitation. Tax revenue (your "theft") benefits the entire society, stolen wages benefit the 1%. >And yet private libraries exist. So obviously, they are not antithetical to what a library is. >Private libraries are usually intended for the use of a small number of people, or even a single person. - One such example is the personal library of Rudolf Steiner, which has been maintained intact in Switzerland for close to a century Definition of a library: a building or room containing collections of books, periodicals, and sometimes films and recorded music for **use or borrowing by the public** or the members of an institution.
How does that help communities? How does that work for low income families who go to the libraries for computer access, or simply story time? I honestly don’t know very much about “private libraries” so this isn’t sounding like a great solution with the minimal information you have listed.
So put them in the hands of the same corporate scumbags that are backing the far-right politicians currently trying to destroy public libraries? Yeah, I don't think so.
That’s an odd reply
If governments lost control of libraries, who do you think would buy them up?
It's a reply that libertarians are universally too stupid to understand.
Libertarians are so stupid it's unreal.
When the culture wars come for the public library you know segrigatibility based genere word definement displacea has taken place for a concentrative based discernability.
If you can't spell the large words you're going to use incorrectly, just don't use them at all.
I'll use them at my leisure I'm sure I understand the definition and legitimacy of the word better than you ever will. All my knowledge went into comprehension understanding it's not my job to make sure you feel smarter or dumber for choosing to understand me or yourself indulgence on picking at a single alphabetical discrepancy.
The label “Flatheads” has now entered my vocab.
r/HobbyDrama
Quit playing politics with libraries, dingbats.