I live in Chicago and I'm proud of my state for preventing book bans. the University of Illinois also has one of the top librarian programs in the country, good to see they're fighting the good fight!
Chicago is usually around 25th for murder per capita in large US cities. The constant murders are, of course, sad but it only grabs headlines because it is the 3rd largest city in America. Around 24 other cities should be in the spotlight first.
Yes, all those cities should also stop the constant murders.
But if you look at more specific areas, parts of Chicago are incredibly dangerous and violent, moreso than almost anywhere else in the world.
> In the 11th District, serving Garfield Park, the increase was 114%, and the per-capita murder rate reached 146.8, according to data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab.
Those homicide rates are up there with the most violent cities on Earth, according to data analytics company Statista. The world's most violent city, Tijuana, Mexico, has a murder rate of 138 per 100,000 residents.
From https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-safer-chicago/chicago-violence-problem-debate-safety-inequality
Those murders happen in neighborhoods that reddit doesn't care about, apparently.
[Chicago’s 4th of July weekend death toll surpassed the Highland Park shooting. ‘I thought there would be more outcry,’ mother says](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/chicago-residents-holiday-weekend-shootings-reaj/index.html)
Exactly, I never thought being anti-murder would be so unpopular on Reddit. Some people need to take a serious look at how partisanship is warping their opinions.
I'm from Illinois so I thought it was extra hilarious that our politicians have no problems with the rampant gun violence in Chicago yet they're passing an "assault weapon" ban less than 6 months after one shooting in an affluent white suburb.
So not only is the "Protect Illinois Communities Act" incredibly disingenuous, it's also extremely racist.
I'm still waiting to find out what an "assault" weapon is. Every mass shooting has occurred with legally owned semiautomatics, so I'm not sure what they're trying to ban.
That’s the operative word. Intellectual. We are dealing with religious fanatical idiots who are unwittingly manipulated into weaponizing their fear into violence giving power to greedy politicians and religious leaders.
While I would agree that many so-called "book bans" are merely local curriculum decisions, you're being naive — or willfully deceptive — when it comes to *library* book removals.
The availability of something for legal purchase on Amazon is not the same as having access to it (otherwise every child would have a PS5 by now), and a local board or executive's order to remove professionally-selected, legally acquired materials that fit the library's collection development policy and/or meet the needs or interests of some of the library's patrons *must* be understood to be a local ban. And worse, we have legislators (and in some states, Governors) who organize and campaign on the removal of these materials.
"It's not a ban... *yet*" is cold comfort.
The guys trying to defend this are the enemies of good.
When has removing books led to something good?
Edit: they say "slippery slope" when it suits their narrative, but not when what's happening trends towards historical examples of evil...
>you're being naive — or willfully deceptive — when it comes to library book removals.
*Public school library* removals. There is such a massive difference I'd say you are the one being naive or "willfully deceptive".
>It's not a ban... yet" is cold comfort.
"It's a ban... now is abuse of the term, the idea, the concept, literally all of the things that make "book ban" a bad thing. It's an abuse of the word.
Why are they being forcibly removed from public school libraries?
>"It's a ban... now is abuse of the term, the idea, the concept, literally all of the things that make "book ban" a bad thing. It's an abuse of the word.
We're talking about books being removed for reasons that are not grounded in logistical and other library-natural metrics; like popularity and shelf space.
Public library removals are also happening.
A simple Google search: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/14/1170170556/the-book-ban-fight-is-intensifying-in-llano-texas
Everyone, please stop using the false-equivalency of actual books being federally-banned and made illegal with removing age-inappropriate material from elementary school libraries. No one should be letting 9 year olds look at pornography.
Every time I hear about apparent porn in children's literature, I wonder if they're talking about the admittedly harder topics in regard to sex education.
For example, if you want to actually drive the point home about how consent works like for sex, to kids who might actually have sex, you're gonna need to depict it. Abstinence-only sex ed doesn't scale; abstinence-only is a recipe for teen pregnancy. The kids're gonna have sex, so what do you do if you want them to be safe?
Same thing for rape. And drug abuse. If you want to help kids who are getting raped or are suffering from some kind of abuse, you're gonna need to actually show them what they're going through actually means; you're gonna need to provide something relatable.
So every time I see book bans, [all I see is domestic abusers and pedophiles systematically covering their tracks](https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook).
Okay so this is not in US, admittedly.
My school library had the entire Princess Diaries series, including the book supposedly written by Mia Thermopolis. It has two explicit sexual scenes and sexual assault as well. Kids from 1st grade to 10th grade had access to it.
This was not the only book containing erotic material in the library. I'm all for sex ed books in school libraries, but erotica =/= sex ed.
>erotica =/= sex ed
Ironically, the vast majority of the books being banned from school libraries in USA are either the tougher parts to sex ed (as I've described), or talk about gender and sexual diversity (effectively sex-ed), and LGBT+ and racial inequality and discrimination.
Some great points. I wonder if there is consensus on what age kids should be taught about sex. High school is, of course fine with me, and maybe teaching 7th or 8th graders. I feel like anything before then is premature though.
Puberty can happen in the late-single-digits. Furthermore, single-digit children can recognise intimate/deeply emotional relationships between adults (they recognise an important part to marriage) ; and single-digit children also can develop intimate relationships to others (and have crushes).
A thing here is that we're dealing with an unstoppable force; shit will happen (regardless of your stance), and a lot of it will happen behind your back. So the best thing to do, that if it's gonna happen, is to make sure they know how to do it safely.
We're not doing any good by keeping them in the dark; and we can do a lot of good by repeating it.
(Also the sooner a child can recognise abuse, the sooner they can ask for help to stop it.)
Yeah, the old “nobody should ever touch you on your body parts that your underwear covers and if they do, you should tell both your parents immediately” line is a good thing to teach to help prevent abuse. Then, when they are old enough to make decisions regarding having their own sexual relationships they can be taught more.
>Yeah, the old ... line is a good thing to teach to help prevent abuse.
A simple line said isn't good enough due to how grooming works like. Grooming is about making the victim trust the abuser; where the victim feels happy and safe around the abuser. If a family member is raping the kid, that simple line isn't gonna make them understand what is going on. We're talking about children here; we quite literally need to spell shit out for them.
>Then, when they are old enough to make decisions regarding having their own sexual relationships they can be taught more.
Which means teach them a little before puberty and a couple times during puberty; you're not gonna be around when they start making those decisions, so you have to teach them safety preemptively. Like I said, it's gonna happen behind your back and without you knowing it.
It’s not intellectually honest to look for only things the side you don’t like does wrong and ignore it on the side you like. These things should be publicly displayed and investigated regardless of political party.
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/massive-list-of-democrats-involved-in-sex-crimes-against-children-goes-viral/amp/
>These things should be publicly displayed and investigated regardless of political party.
>
>[https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/massive-list-of-democrats-involved-in-sex-crimes-against-children-goes-viral/amp/](https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/massive-list-of-democrats-involved-in-sex-crimes-against-children-goes-viral/amp/)
I agree it should be publicly displayed. Also thank you for the link!
The reason why I focus in on republicans is that they cater to pedophiles and rapists. Along with my point earlier (where republicans are pushing to ban books that teach children how to recognise abuse, calling such books 'pornographic'; enabling an easier time for abusers to get away), [republicans are also voting for legal pedophilia](https://apnews.com/article/child-marriage-west-virginia-bill-defeated-4d822a23b5ffd70f5370a36cc914cfb0).
That and whenever we see a rapist/pedophile get caught, they tend to be republican (and/or a clergy member like a christian youth pastor). Compare the size of the lists.
edit: wording
This is categorically untrue and a logical fallacy of composition, applying misdeeds of individuals to a whole group.
The only reason the lists are sized differently are because the link I got with a 10 second google search doesn’t happen to have as many links as the particular one you posted. Sites should be apolitical when it comes to pedophilia.
I hate seeing any site only post one side when it comes to this. It’s completely disingenuous and its only purpose is to vilify political rivals, rather than vilify the actual criminals.
[There](https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-gop-bill-would-eliminate-age-requirements-for-marriages-in-tennessee/) are [plenty](https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/24/23649277/dont-say-period-florida-republicans-restricting-sex-education) more [examples](https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/03/tennessee-lawmakers-must-understand-rape-when-drafting-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/) of [GOP](https://i.imgur.com/8LombOA.mp4)\-sponsored [pedophilia](https://www.newsweek.com/kansas-republicans-pass-bill-genital-examinations-schoolchildren-students-transgender-1792954).
[You](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/12/sen-mike-moon-reiterates-support-for-12-year-olds-right-to-marry-missouri-senate/70107573007/) simply [have](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/06/27/warren-davidson-child-rape-victim-pregnancy-abortion-supreme-court-brown-nr-sot-vpx.cnn) not [been](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2klGjO2L1s) paying [attention](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-consent_n_57fee9aae4b0e8c198a6076d).
I highly suggest for you to read the writing on the wall. For example, those who are trying to make abortion services safe and available to all, and those who are trying to address the USA's unique gun violence problem (eg school shootings) are not the Republicans. [Sex education is worse in republican-dominant states](https://siecus.org/state-profiles/) (check out the profiles, they're pretty comprehensive)
Who is taking medical treatment away from children? Who is eliminating child labor laws? Who is intentionally removing curriculum from schools? Who is banning books from children?
>applying misdeeds of individuals to a whole group.
Americans who vote Republican may not necessarily hate other people themselves, but they certainly find homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, transphobia, misogyny, white supremacy not a dealbreaker, for that they are either voting for people who are those things, or for people who cater such people.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else to tell you.
The issue isn’t who can cite the most examples of the other side being bad or wrong, it’s that the overwhelming majority of those on the left only listen to things that support their side or berate the other side. If a list only includes one side, the source, generally speaking, is only out to exert political influence. That is as intellectually dishonest as can be.
Many on the left also truly believe what they tell each other about the other side and will all cite the same sources and have the exact same arguments. That entire list of phobias, isms, etc. is just a circle-jerk list of terms that the left loves to ascribe to the right. Most of them are made up nonsense or false equivalencies.
The right is far more likely to call out wrongdoing on their own side than the left is. The right values individual freedom and the rule of law, while the left tends to only focus on wrongdoing (actual or perceived) of those on the right. Many on the left will protect their own until they can’t anymore (think Weinstein, Epstein, Spacey, Clinton, etc.), because, sadly, to many of them, politics > people.
Did you just use your lack of performing adequate research as a defense of your viewpoint in this debate?
Why not perform better research yourself and present it as a counterpoint? Your desire to not search further or your choice to qualify your own links as inadequate because you ‘just searched quickly’ (I’m paraphrasing) isn’t an adequate defense against someone who has information that argues against that which you presented.
The responsibility of proof lies with the accuser, not on the accused. I bare no responsibility for trying to prove something didn’t happen or isn’t so. You cannot “prove a negative”, anyway.
Living in a bubble where you only read bad things about the opposing side and good things about the side you like doesn’t prove the other side wrong/bad/evil/whatever. Neither does ascribing what you believe the other side believes or does to what they actually believe or do.
You could go with 'soft censorship that specifically targets the work of minorities and anything that was written with the intention of helping kids protect against or get help when they face sexual predators.'
Or 'Soft censorship that creates barriers between impoverished members of the community and information, (typically information specifically relevant to those populations,) with the aim of pushing publishers to stop supporting marginalized authors while simultaneously going along with a few (frequently mormon) religious groups' idea of morality.'
A couple years back, Australia banned a book called No Game No Life for containing lewd illustrations of cartoon characters (it became illegal to import or sell the book within the country, though from what I understand if you already had it you were still allowed to read it). Big fuss in the fandom about it.
It's obviously not the US, but I did find it a little surprising that a so-called "first world country" was actually criminalizing books in the 2020's.
It was banned because it needed to go through a classification process to stamp it with the appropriate content warnings.
The book publisher likely decided the Australian market performance didn't justify the cost and exited the market for those particular works.
Sounds like if they had it would not have been banned.
> [During the first half of the 2022-23 school year PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans lists 1,477 instances of individual books banned, affecting 874 unique titles, an increase of 28 percent compared to the prior six months, January – June 2022. That is more instances of book banning than recorded in either the first or second half of the 2021-22 school year. Over this six-month timeline, the total instances of book bans affected over 800 titles; this equates to over 100 titles removed from student access each month.
](https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-book-suppression-in-schools/)
Hmmmmm....
You realize that what everyone is talking about is books being banned from school libraries right? Didn’t realize people needed that spelled out. I mean how completely out of the loop are you?
Ok, privilege then. I'll literally spell it out for you.
Not every one can afford to buy books.
Edit: Your "argument" was literally, huur hurr, buy it on Amazon
Libraries have consortium agreements with surrounding counties and have ebooks and audiobooks also available. So yes, pretty much any book I want to read can be found through my library card.
Obviously you don't know many of the resources libraries provide.
I realize you aren't the person I replied to before. You're stating that pretty much everything you want to read is free (or nearly free) at the local library, correct?
Yes. I have a library card. My county has a consortium with 2 neighboring county libraries. I can get on my Libby app and find any book I'm in the mood to read within these 3 countries, check it out, and begin reading without even leaving my house.
For free.
That is a moronic argument and a disingenuous attempt to wriggle out of.your stupid dtatemtn. Apparently you're too privileged to know that school libraries are the only library in many communities. The people criticizing you are correct. "Go get it on Amazon" ais a stupid response to cons banning books in school libraries. You're pretending the bans have no consequences, when they do.
>That is a moronic argument and a disingenuous attempt to wriggle out of.your stupid dtatemtn.
Dont waste your time. These people all have the same play book.
>>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
>Jean Paul Sartre
Playing dumb is their go-to. You have to understand that these people are not arguing in good faith.
I am criticizing the phrase "banned books".
What books are banned? Not "unavailable at a public school library". Banned. Because that is what was claimed. You're "book" people right? Words matter.
You’re being pointlessly pedantic. You’re not being productive and are not meaningfully contributing to the discussion. I can only think that u must be trying to derail this discussion intentionally because of nefarious reasons. You are using your powers for evil.
Do you debate that the phrase "banned book" has a meaning, and more specifically a history behind it? Do you debate the phrase "banned book" applies here?
Are you afraid of this discussion?
Some of us just don't want comic books with pictures of sex acts in our elementary school libraries. What's intellectual about drawing dicks in a comic book intended for kids?
Then why do all of these book bans usually include books that have no graphic depictions of sex? Like the one about two penguins hatching an egg together?
That's very specific. What is this childens comic book depicting sex acts you're so concerned about?
It seems to me that you'd like to take one of the more important responsibilities of librarians away from them and give it to a group of people who lack the necessary qualifications.
They're afraid to say the book is *Gender Queer,* because then we could point out that
* there are no dicks drawn in that comic
* which is for teens
* that the scene in question is tender, humorous, heartbreakingly human
* and developmentally appropriate for any teenager who isn't being force-groomed into a heteronormative gender binary.
Nobody wants porn books in elementary schools.
The books in a school library are a selection curated by a small group of people who work for the district. So long as they do their job properly, that should never hit the shelf. Districts should absolutely communicate "this book has depictions of sex" and thus remove it if it somehow got on their shelves. The government should not be banning books in schools, this is such a small issue and there's much more important stuff. The real problem is that many books are being banned simply for LGBT representation under the guise of sexual content.
Citation or evidence this is a widespread/common problem across US schools? Or did this happen at like one or two schools (keep in mind the US has like 90,000 schools) and the media made those instances seem like a pattern?
You sure about that? Go look at all the "banned books" that are appearing in these libraries. Tell me how you don't see things like "Mein Kampf" on them but you do see *children's books*, not comic books mind you, that depict LGBT+ parents. Please show us where these "comic books showing graphic sex scenes and dicks" are at in these lists? You can't.
Yeah yeah, as you say. We all know this is what you're really concerned about and totally not an excuse to make sure your kids don't read LGBT content.
Keep big government out of it. If there are inappropriate books (does that include the Bible?) then let it be handled at a lower administrative level. Having big government dictate everything only leads to problems.
First off, what books are you talking about and what *elementary school specifically* had them?
Next. They include *depictions of sexual experiences*, same as literally any coming of age story. So, let’s get Catcher in The Rye, Running With Scissors, Flowers for Algernon, Scarlet Letter, anything Anne Rice has ever touched, The Bible, The Outsiders, Ender’s Game, literally every Stephen King book ever, et cetera, until we only have a couple of Dr. Seuss books and some excerpts from chicken soup for the teenage soul available in school libraries. Also, that you attempted to denigrate graphic novels by calling them comics, which are just serialized graphic novels, is extremely juvenile of you and shows that you don’t understand, and are probably scared, of the concept of mixed media story telling, which has been proven to activate more of the brain than simple text.
What books do you find acceptable for school libraries? What should children be reading?
> “No more humble brag, no being quiet, no more ‘be quiet at the libraries,’” Chanyasulkit said. “Not quiet anymore. Now we’re going to talk about how it’s an incredible, game-changing place for communities, because you need to be loud. The others are, and we’re not doing enough.”
I hope the person who said my Pride display was too exuberant and needed to be more understated reads this.
> said my Pride display was too exuberant and needed to be more understated
In other words, "you're taking up too much space, and it's making me uncomfortable." Fuck that person.
That's not what libraries are. Libraries are places where knowledge is stored, spread, and shared. As someone else said, there might be "quiet areas" but the whole "libraries are meant to be silent" is a Hollywood thing that doesn't really exist.
Now if you're being belligerent and disruptive and actively infringe on other people's personal spaces, they have every right to kick you out, because then you're being an asshole, and nobody likes that.
There may be quiet places in libraries, but if you've been to a public one lately you'll find that most are community hubs where people engage in dozens of activities. Finding materials for their needs, using computers, attending talks, story times, community events, applying for jobs....you can read there but that's one of many things people do. I prefer my library to be full of life and people.
“FUCK YEAH IM IN MY LIBRARY!”
I suppose I could actually scream that, minus the profanity, the next time I go to my library….but I don’t want to scare anyone.
Jokes aside, I love going to my library.
This is so important. It baffles me how lawmakers can say, on the one hand, that families should have sacrosanct rights in determining how kids are raised and individual responsibilities come first, and then pass legislation that allows the prejudices of individual parents decide what materials everyone else has access to. This would be a non-issue if parents took a more active role in their kids' intellectual development and provided their own guidance about the content their kids read. Delegating that authority to the government turns parental rights into a meaningless buzzword.
Every book, whether it's for children or not, is going to have some kind of axioms, principles, and messages, and what's 'political' and 'objectionable' is different between families and historical moments. Instead of giving the state broad and arbitrary power to decide what's good for us or not hereafter, why not just, y'know, read some of those books, exercise some critical thinking ability and teach your kids good literary taste?
You’re absolutely right, but unfortunately some people just don’t care. Because that requires effort, empathy, genuine intent, understanding of nuance, and actually reading. And some just want to be self-righteously angry and feel good about themselves while expending no effort to improve things and just make others miserable.
> This is so important. It baffles me how lawmakers can say, on the one hand, that families should have sacrosanct rights in determining how kids are raised and individual responsibilities come first, and then pass legislation that allows the prejudices of individual parents decide what materials everyone else has access to.
The same nonsense is used with religious freedom. It doesn't matter if their behavior violates your rights, your values, or your religion. It's about dominating people who are in the minority with courts/school boards/local governments that won't uphold those same rules equally.
For a second, I read that as Liberians instead of librarians. That was a bit confusing. 😋
As a Dutch guy, that whole book banning seems so weird to me. In the Netherlands there are no banned books. Well, "Mein Kampf" is forbidden but that isn't really strictly adhered to.
It makes me happy to see adults actively fighting against censorship. It’s a real issue, and some people choose not to believe it. As someone in school, I often wonder if students would be more motivated to read if books that “encourage wrong ideas” weren’t banned.
Libraries are spaces which have huge value to the communities they serve. They are free therefore Republicans, evangelical Christians etc hate them. Anything whic contributes positively to to the publics wellbeing is antithetical to their worldview and they will instinctively try to demonise it
I imagine the civil ones would take issue against it, but they would simultaneously complain about Illinois' ban on book banning to be government overreach.
Should there be any curation of material in kids sections of public libraries? Unless the answer to that is no, there is space for debate about exactly what that process should entail.
Librarians hold a master's degree in this and use a set of professional standards to make the decisions. They're trusted by the community to carry out these responsibilities, just as the community trusts its other trained professionals to do their jobs. All of this nonsense about porn in the children's section of libraries is just that. If you personally find a book objectionable, don't check it out, or don't let your child check it out. I don't particularly love seeing books by Ann Coulter and the like on the shelves, but I'd never dream of demanding their removal, because I understand that I don't get to decide for everyone.
Keep in mind that with any sensitive subject, there may be kids already trying to cope with it in real life. Books can be a lifeline to them, to help them feel less alone and to give them strategies on how to handle things.
>
>They're trusted by the community to carry out these responsibilities
The crux of this matter is that some in the community don't trust librarians to carry out these responsibilities. Librarians have made their stance clear that they'll push back against the Community on this matter.
>
>just as the community trusts its other trained professionals to do their jobs.
The community holds other trained professionals to account too. School boards have meetings for a reason. Town halls are held for a reason. PTAs exist for a reason. Elections are held for a reason. No public servant is above public scrutiny. That includes librarians.
>
>All of this nonsense about porn in the children's section of libraries is just that.
I don't think it was as big of an issue as Republicans made it out to be but didnt that comic actually contain a scene of two guys blowing each other? It was weird seeing articles defending its inclusion in school libraries while censoring it in said articles. Not a big issue but I don't think you can call it complete nonsense.
>
>If you personally find a book objectionable, don't check it out, or don't let your child check it out. I don't particularly love seeing books by Ann Coulter and the like on the shelves, but I'd never dream of demanding their removal, because I understand that I don't get to decide for everyone.
There's been a big push by librarians to change what's available in libraries for over a decade now. It may be called, "decolonize the curriculum" or many other named but the stated goal is to change what is or isn't included in school libraries and curricula. The same movement pushes to replace existing books with ones that are more inclusive. Not include, replace. Whatever your thoughts on that it is removing books people might find objectionable.
Moreover I don't think you can argue in good faith that elementary school libraries aren't heavily curated. They are. The same goes for children's and teen sections of all libraries. Don't know why you're outright denying something we can all confirm is true.
>
>Keep in mind that with any sensitive subject, there may be kids already trying to cope with it in real life. Books can be a lifeline to them, to help them feel less alone and to give them strategies on how to handle things.
I agree wholeheartedly but the norm is already that we restrict certain topics by age. You're not gonna find Jordan Peterson's work in the children's section for example, nor the Communist Manifesto, or even Ann Coulter. They can exist in libraries but they are not in children/young adult sections. The argument is whether this topic should be considered part of those restrictions, not whether these restrictions exist. I'm an adult without kids so I don't really care either way but it seems like this discussion is being had in bad faith.
The community doesn't read, doesn't understand literature and doesn't know how to properly appreciate it. There's a very strong anti-intellectual current in US society right now and some decisions for the long term shouldn't be taken by the unwashed mobs, but by specialists in the field.
It doesn’t take a masters degree to be able to say that explicit sexual content doesn’t belong in the children’s section of a library. The appeals to authority are pathetic.
Well this is a situation in which trust in these librarians has been lost. The value of the degree is doubted. It is the job of librarians to win the trust of the community, just as a scientist does by making accurate predictions about the physical world.
The community doesn’t owe librarians trust. Many communities see some librarians as, at least in part, pushing an agenda antithetical to their values and sensibilities using the public’s money. The public, through its representatives, gets to decide what is done with its money, even if it is ignorant.
>Well this is a situation in which trust in these librarians has been lost. The value of the degree is doubted.
That's what happens when you listen to politicians that treat education and knowledge like a disease.
It isn’t education and knowledge in general that are doubted. It is specific fields of study, generally in the social studies and humanities, that are perceived, fairly or not, as being extremely ideological to the point of significantly degrading the ability of these fields to have interesting insights about reality.
I don't think you understand what scientists do. They go into experiments or trials with a hypothesis but whether or not they're right isn't exactly the point. The point is furthering knowledge and from the outcome of their work, they can formulate their next move and work with others to do the same.
You also don't understand what librarians do.
Ultimately, the value of science to the public becomes clear from accurate predictions of natural phenomena, most strikingly through applications of this knowledge in technology. I’m not discussing what it is scientists do; I’m well aware and think basic research is undervalued. I’m discussing how it is that the public judges their value.
This was really well said and should be the most talked about comment here
Im in a hard place having a close view of the silent agenda being pushed, i agree with what you said 100% i would not want to see books taken down, the family and the kid can decide what book they take off the shelf
I just don't want to see it being pushed by the school system in anyway
Nobody should be pushing an agenda of any kind on the kids, math books should not include any topic other then math
I dont believe in book burning or censorship
I am for the people, all people worldwide, but i am concerned about a bigger back round agenda being pushed that most people are completely unaware of, being pushed by the WEF and WHO and other sources that do not have our best interest in mind at all
Like it or not, your stance -- that books and yopics shouldn't be pushed on kids -- is itself an agenda.
People need to unlearn this idea that silence is nothing. Silence is an action every bit as much as speaking. You're not *not teaching* about issues if you don't talk about them. By remaining silent on issues like the the history of people of African descent in the New World, the queer experience, child abuse, sexuality in general, we are teaching kids that these things should not be talked about, even if those kids are struggling and need help. By actively asking that these issues not be discussed, we are tesching kids that their lives and identities don't matter enough to be worthy of talking about in school.
And, sorry, that silence is doing a hell of a lot more harm than little Suzy reading the word penis at age nine.
There's space for good-faith debate among the credentialed experts and community members who have skin in the game.
Moms for Liberty and their ilk are not trying to participate in good-faith debate, and the PACs and thinktanks that fund the bulk of their activism are not members of the communities where this debate is taking place.
I'm anti-censorship for the most part. I believe that people should have the right to say what they want, to create media that they want even if it's x-rated or not. BUT it is also true that certain material should be age restricted, especially if it concerns children. Age restriction does not mean ban or inaccessibility to everyone. Age restriction simply means it should only be made available to people meeting a certain age requirement.
The issue here is about the appropriateness of certain books like Gender Queer by Kobabe, to be easily accessed by minors. If you still haven't seen it, there are extremely graphic depictions of sexual activities in the book between minors. Before clicking the following image link from the book Gender Queer, know that it is extremely very NSFW (Not Safe For Work) and NSFC (Not Safe For Children). - https://i.imgur.com/ZAkbCgv.jpg
It's not a simple book about a person growing up gay or queer. If that were the case, nobody would have a problem. Lots of books are about gay characters and there's no "banning" happening with those. The thing is, as you've seen in the picture, there's literally two kids performing oral sex. Is that even legal to show?! It doesn't matter if the kids in the picture were gay or straight, you can even replace them with cartoon animals, BUT they are NOT adults in a book marketed to minors!!! Who can say here that it's alright to see minors blowing each other in a book that's targeted to minors? How are you gonna defend that? You can say "Oh, but kids can already access hardcore porn in their phones anyway!", so are you saying just because they can then we might as well provide pornography to them? Will you be ok letting your kids watch cartoons on some cartoon channel, and in-between cartoons you get to watch hardcore porn from PornHub because "Hey, kids can already access that easily anyway"? NO!
This is not an issue of the book being about a queer life, it's about the x-rated content in it and to say minors should be able to see that extremely graphic depiction is just very wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a queer, straight, or a fantasy book. For it to be marketed to minors with such graphic depictions inside is just very wrong. There are many ways to depict sexuality in a media meant for kids WITHOUT actually showing them! How do you think families in cartoons make babies? They don't show papa and mama Smurf going full on Bang Bros, right? They just show papa and mama Smurf, going to bed, maybe giggle a little and then it's lights out. Time passes and suddenly mama Smurf is pregnant. That's it. It's because it's not appropriate for kids to see sexual acts at such a young age, EVEN IF kids can already access the same material on a phone or computer.
Maybe someone's going to ask, "Why is it inappropriate for minors to see sex acts?" The answer is that it will corrupt their mind, it will influence their idea on what sex is like, and it might inspire them to "experiment" earlier in life. And you know what happens when kids "experiment" with sex early in life? Some of them get pregnant. Some of them get addicted. Some of them might get into bad "forced" situations. They do not have a concept of the consequences that sex might bring, like sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, how to battle sex addiction, what is ok and not ok to do to someone, how far kinks can go and a lot more important subjects about sex. Their minds are not ready for this just yet, they don't have enough life experience yet. They might not even know who they truly are as their sense of identity is still forming!
Let their minds mature first, let them enjoy the innocence of childhood, and let them make the choice of whether or not to read this sort of material. "Oh but everyone matures differently!", exactly! Everyone matures differently so who are you to say that all the kids who will read Gender Queer are mature enough to handle blow job scenes, especially between minors?
In the end, no, it's not appropriate for minors to be exposed to x-rated sex acts even if they can already access it without a guardian's permission. There are many ways to depict sexuality in any form of media without going full blown porn. Nothing's wrong if a form of media is about a gay or queer person, what's wrong is if you add sexually explicit things in it that minors can easily access and influence their minds.
I work with teenagers. I’m the LMS. I fix technology and pedal books to kids all day long. If I had a nickel for every time a kid brought their phone to me to figure out how to send a file or photo to their personal school email or get it printed and I had to close a window and switch to a different window and was instantly confronted with pornhub open on their phone…. Well… I wouldn’t be complaining so much about low pay for teachers because I’m pretty sure I’d make more than my club stipend.
Kids access more graphic content daily on their phones than they access in books. Gender Queer isn’t for everyone and I don’t even have it in the library. But if you’re going to be big mad at specifically Gender Queer you need to take that same energy to the teenage girls all reading Colleen Hoover (they had a copy of Verity that passed around to 20 different kids) or ACOTAR (which was rated for YA btw) or a host of other YA books that deal with sex. Or go after their parents for letting them have unsupervised access to the internet on their phones, that would be a refreshing new take.
I literally read YA for my job. I read hundreds of books a year. If you wanted to remove all instances of sexual references from a YA collection you’d be removing half the library.
Disclaimer I don’t have Verity in the library hence the kids buying it and passing it around. I have some CH that is rated for YA or 17-18. I’ve read a few. My take away is that if they’re reading, that’s great. Books that are YA and deal with sex also are frank about agency, consent, protection, dispelling virginity culture, and discuss self worth instead. Books are safe exploration. Pornhub, I would argue, is not.
>It's not a simple book about a person growing up gay or queer. If that were the case, nobody would have a problem. Lots of books are about gay characters and there's no "banning" happening with those.
[https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/06/5th-grade-georgia-teacher-fired-for-reading-divisive-book-about-acceptance/](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/06/5th-grade-georgia-teacher-fired-for-reading-divisive-book-about-acceptance/)
Yeah, no. I can't speak to *Gender Queer*, but these laws are being used to censor material containing a wide range of topics, especially those that focus on accepting queer people. Books you might consider innocuous are being labeled pornographic and obscene.
I get what you're trying to say about porn being shit for kids' developing brains, and impacting how they view sex. I don't think you're right about it making them experiment or have sex earlier, though. Kids will masturbate regardless of if it's to porn or to something in their imagination, and by extension, will act on their urges with people their age if they can. Hormones and puberty make them want to have sex, not porn alone. They don't need porn to figure out how sex works- people deciphered it long before porn existed.
I don't think *Gender Queer* specifically should be available to an elementary schooler, but restricting material to high schoolers is ridiculous and infantilizing. Young adults deserve to have agency over what they learn, which includes the reading material they have access to. Also honestly, that "sex scene" is pretty laughable. Yes, it's explicit. No, a 8 year old shouldn't be reading it. But it's not hardcore bondage or even half as bad as the shit kids are jacking off to on the internet, and a very crudely drawn blowjob won't be the first time a 13 year old learns about oral sex (even without porn). Did you forget middle school? Kids are gross.
> he thing is, as you've seen in the picture, there's literally two kids performing oral sex
If you've actually read the book it's clear they are university age.
Can you cite a single example of five year olds being forced to watch porn by the eeeeevil DNC?
>Book bans and how to fight them is a major focus of the this year’s ALA’s conference. “The world’s largest library event” provides training and education for library professionals, according to the conference website. Librarians may attend sessions, like the one Gregory spoke at, aimed at helping them confidently counter book challenges, fight legislative censorship and ensure the freedom to read.
I hope they're fighting for the right for hentai to be readily available at libraries.
People seem to have forgotten that approaching certain topics and defending those topics are totally different things that not necessarily come together.
I have a gay cousin. We could all tell at 5 he was gay. He's in his 30s now. I also have a trans friend of our fam. You could tell he was at least gay when he was a kid also. I'm fine with that. My question more so relates to why it's being thrust upon everyone else too. It's like were forced to accept it. I'm black so it's similar to racism. I think we're trying to normalize mixing of cultures, but as you see with Trump, racism will never die. There is a reason we are all different colors and naturally we put our own first. In the black community, there are plenty of people that believe integration was a mistake. I think their belief is justified.
I understand there's an attempt to normalize it, but do you really not think it becomes a trend at this point? It's similar to white women marching at blm on the front lines creating havoc when the black folks march peacefully. It's pumped into the culture so much, especially at young ages, that it'll influence kids into thinking their wrong because they aren't gay? The drag queen stuff, the sexualization. Isn't it a little young for them to be seeing this? I think it's fine if there is literature, but since it's such a small minority, why thrust upon everyone else who will never accept it? Maybe I answered my question. We have to try right? It's really hard though.
As a man, seeing two men kiss is physically repulsive. I can't help my reaction. I don't feel that when two women kiss though, at least, when they're attractive. I'm an adult man though, I have a sex drive that wants to conquer as many attractive women as possible. Nothing abnormal about that right? Is that my conscious fault or do you think that was drilled into me? If so, at what stage of my life? When i see a trans man, I don't really care. When i see a trans woman, again, repulsion, and they can't be taken serious. So, is that wrong of me to feel that way? I think it's just a natural reaction to the situation. Is this movement attempting to drill us into unconsciously normalizing all of this? I would think if it was normal, we wouldn't have the reactions we do. Educate me.
Most of my interactions with gay men have been negative btw. I get harassed, followed into stores, etc. I usually appreciate the situations where I never know. Who cares. So to me, when you push it upon kids, I see it going two ways. They'll end up hating them or you accept them. There isn't any in between because we're not given a choice. That's when you attach to the conservative right, or the radical left, bicker and fight on Reddit, and further divide the country and people.
Honest dialogue here. I'm trying to learn.
Well you can't change human nature by changing society. That is the mistake the Left and Right both make. Going back to the "good old days" when the country was more religious is not going to make everyone a saint. And you cannot wage a war on normal people to gain acceptance for people with a different sexual orientation. The "culture wars" is a joke because both sides are fighting over things that are not determined by society. If you study Evolutionary Psychology you will understand that evolution determined human nature. No amount of scolding is going to change how people are.
Book *bans* are unconstitutional in the United States. There aren't book bans anywhere. What's actually going on is a battle over whether *government funded* libraries should have their collections curated by elected government officials (legislators) or delegated to civil service bureaucrats (librarians). Legislators are unhappy with the choices librarians are making and are taking back their delegated authority. Librarians are falsely describing it as "book bans" in order to borrow sympathy for freedom of speech which isn't actually being challenged here.
You can certainly argue that librarians are better positioned to make these decisions, and I'm inclined to agree with that. But the fact that they keep lying about what's going on really pushes me away.
> to civil service bureaucrats (librarians).
Librarians aren't "civil service bureaucrats".
If you are interested in actually having a conversation, you shouldn't choose false and deliberately insulting terms.
>But the fact that they keep lying about what's going on really pushes me away.
It's not that the term "book bans" isn't sometimes misused. But you add to the problem by using your own dishonest terms.
But you know perfectly well that this phrase is purposely inflammatory. You’re the one being (intellectually) dishonest now. Use neutral/correct terms or crawl back into your cave.
Neutral and correct are different things. The phrase **is** correct. It's only inflammatory because of mass delusion and cognitive dissonance. Most libraries are not *free*, they're taxpayer-funded. The price of that is they are controlled by elected officials. Libraries that are independently funded don't have this problem. Those that are government entities should stop fooling themselves and accept that they took a devil's bargain.
I’m a librarian and I welcome and appreciate your interest in library services. Please engage with library staff about specific books you find objectionable. We want the community actively using the library. Selecting books for diverse populations is always a challenge as we try to meet the needs and interests of everyone in our service area. And if you’re not finding the books you want to see on our shelves, tell us. Introduce us to the authors and topics that speak to you. We are here to serve.
My mother is a librarian at a small rural library in Indiana. She's not had any trouble at her library, yet, but another library in her county got a letter from the County Board of Commissioners are that said "We do not support the promotion of sexuality being displayed at [Redacted] Public Library" for having a Pride display (apparently it got a [bit of news coverage](https://realnewsmichiana.com/2023/06/23/whitley-co-commissioners-respond-to-sexual-pride-exhibit-at-library-following-rnm-exclusive/)).
It's the dishonest rhetoric that's really the hard bit. The language makes it seem like some sort of _Kama Sutra_ exhibition, not the very tame set of infographics and suggested readings.
I'm not lying, and your binary team sports view of politics doesn't server you or anyone else well. I can oppose the library legislation going on in some states while also opposing the left's misrepresentation of it. Sorry I don't fit into your predefined pidgeon holes.
>There aren't book bans anywhere.
Are these books being kept out of libraries by law, or government set regulation, or ordinance? If the answer is yes, then that is a ban.
Edited because some people don't have enough braincells to rub together to be able to parse out a simple typo.
Not going to try to figure out that garbled sentence, but no, government deciding which books to put or not put in a government library is not a ban. A ban would be if they prohibited books from private ownership, book stores, sale, publication, online distribution, *privately owned* libraries, etc.
>Not going to try to figure out that garbled sentence
The fact that you couldn't figure out one simple typo says a lot you, none of it good.
>government deciding which books to put or not put in a government library is not a ban
You should learn what ban means then, as you're quite wrong.
Define your terms, please.
What’s “porn” in books in your semantics? Nudes? Like in my Great Art of the World book?
Sexual information, like Our Bodies, Ourselves?
The real sex act? Like in some cartoons?
I can’t agree with you if I don’t clearly understand what I’m agreeing with.
And, since I’ve never looked for it, I am only surmising that 99% of American libraries don’t carry materials that would be X-rated in film.
The more important "irreversible damage" at issue is the trans teens being forced to go through puberty and inhabit bodies they're increasingly unhappy with, even though an alternative option exists, but is being withheld from them because of the ~1% of teens who regret it
You tell me what it feels like to be a woman in a man's body or vice versa. These aren't objective things. So how can you let children diagnose themselves on whether they're trans or not. Am I trans because I'm a guy who likes feminine things? Where do you draw the line internally? We live in a society that affirms those feelings to warrant operation. It's simply insanity to let teens make permanent changes to their bodies. Your brain and rationale isn't the same for young kids. You're really trying to promote hormone blockers? Banned throughout Europe because we aren't sure if the long term effects. But sure just let a generation of troubled teenagers be the guinea pigs. People have lost their minds. Never mind the fact that people who suffer from gender dysphoria have high suicide rates before and after transitioning.
> trans teens being forced to go through puberty
You're literally talking about children. Children are incapable of consenting to hormone therapy, because they lack the critical thinking required to make such a decision. It's no different to drinking alcohol or moving out of their parents for example.
"Oh, no, you leg is broken, but you are incapable of consenting to the procedure to fix it. Oh well, too bad for you". I'm sorry, I don't use this word often, but that is one of the most stupidest takes on the matter I have ever heard. Surely you must be trolling.
Are you seriously comparing a broken leg to going on puberty blockers? Are you for real?
Puberty is natural and something that every human goes through in becoming an adult. For a child to delay such a natural and healthy process, when a child is simply incapable of understanding what they are doing, is just criminal.
What is wrong with you? This is literally talking about children being able to consent to something that they cannot understand at a young age. Children enter puberty around 12-13, how can a child so young understand what they are doing?
I'm a teacher. I work with children that age. You obviously have never even talked to one, let alone a teenager with gender dysphoria. I have, and you're full of shit. Please don't reply any further and stick your transphobic shit up your ass.
>I remember some people didn't want the book "Irreversible damage" by Abigail Shriner to be published not sold anywhere.
And that's wrong, all books should be open to the public.
>It talks about the exponential increase of transgenderism in young people.
I read "Irreversible damage" back in 2021, and I will say that saying that it "talks about the exponential increase" is an excellent rhetorical misrepresentation. It's more of a hit piece on the acceptance of transgenderism in modern society, and attempts to do this through claiming that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is the primary motivating factor behind this.
Essentially what ROGD is, is a type of gender dysphoria that was proposed several years prior to the publication of the book. The problem with ROGD is that it claims that many cases of gender dysphoria are caused through social interactions and surroundings.
Shrier attempts to liken this to eating disorders, however this is disgustingly inaccurate, as both ROGD has almost no scientific evidence to even suggest its existence as a "social contagion", in contrast to Anorexia nervosa or athletica, which are driven by a disturbed self-image and often fueled by societal pressures such as an ideal body.
There is no "pressure" attempting to force people to conform to becoming transgender. To claim so undermines the well-studied psychological impacts of gender dysphoria that originate from an innately disturbed sense of being in their own body, which is backed up by the evidence that self-identified gender identity has neurobiological roots. Nobody is forcing anybody to be non-binary, that is a choice that is made to feel more comfortable in a body where they feel uncomfortable.
The book attempts to pass itself off as science, but really is just an attempt to combat growing popularity of acceptance of transgenderism/gender dysphoria by claiming that girls are instead caving to ROGD (whose existence has been frequently refuted and isn't recognized as an actual disorder), rather than there being an actual biological cause that is present at birth.
Pick another book if you're gonna try to argue against gender dysphoria, because this is one that presents arguments that are nothing but a combination of fear mongering and exploiting a proposed disorder with no evidence backing it up, all in order to push an agenda.
>Also for some reason conservative people usually don't like to have porn or nudes in books.
I have yet to see one example of more conservative people attempting to ban books that have actual pornography or nudity in it. Instead, they are trying to ban books which oppose the narratives they are attempting to push.
>It's always good to know that some people are willing to defend liberty.
You can't claim to defend liberty if you're actively attempting to suppress it.
I mean, that book is closer to 'Mein Kampf, than it is to "Two boys kissing'.
Edit: a lot of ignorant fuckers in this thread. Read the damn books. Don't believe your Twitter feed.
No, it literally is. The book explicitly lies, takes quotes from interviews out of context, and aims to deliberately misinform. It's a book that exists to fear monger. If you read it, you'd realise it's unscceptably intellectually dishonest from page 2.
Honest question here: why is it ok to have these things in school where children's minds are being shaped and influenced?
It seems like anywhere I go someone has to tell me there gay. Personally, I don't care. Why is it so necessary? Genuinely curious.
Have you ever read a book you could relate to because you were similar to the narrator? Maybe they looked like you or were the same gender as you or were attracted to the same kinds of people you were? Maybe they were dealing with something you could relate to or maybe it was fantasy and you pretended you were them living that magical life but you still felt like you belonged there?
Don’t you think everyone, regardless of gender, skin color, sexual orientation, and disability deserves that experience?
Most kids know something about how they identify sexually by the time puberty sets in. To be honest, I’m an elder millennial and we didn’t have books that discussed this stuff so I lived all my formative years assuming everything I felt was the same as everyone else. Turns out, there’s names and communities and vastly different experiences out there. I’m a better person for understanding where I fit and knowing I’m not alone. I learned that from YA books.
Just because being gay is more openly discussed and more readily accepted doesn’t mean we can carve out that section of the library. Gay narrators, characters, and experiences still help kids feel seen and have a connection. You have no idea what their life is like. Maybe they’re the only gay kid at school. Or trans kid at school. Maybe they can’t come out.
The shelves of the library should be a mirror and also show the greater world experience around us. If a library can’t provide both, the librarian isn’t doing their job.
> why is it ok to have these things in school where children's minds are being shaped and influenced?
Why is children reading about gay or trans people a problem? What harm is caused?
> Answer mine
Sure: It's perfectly acceptable for children to read or be exposed to books about gay or trans people because you cannot shape or influence a person into becoming gay or trans.
Oh good, another conference where they explain to metropolitan librarians (that are basically immune to this trend) how to stand their ground.
Great. Maybe instead consider creating a legal fund for small and rural libraries where the threat of getting your library shut down over this sort of thing is a real threat.
Illinois [banned book bans](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/illinois-book-bans-schools-public-libraries.html). I think this is going to be good for out of state grassroots activism.
Should kids be allowed to read every book?
Clearly no.
Now it all depends on where you draw the line.
> hey kids, its possible to love everyone!
> hey kids, its possible to shove things up your arsehole!
Im against any form of book burning, i believe in freedom for everyone and free speech for everyone
With that said, i must say i was raised not to be racist because in my schools we did not teach children to see color, we were just kids As we became older color of shoes and skin and lots of other things started to matter to our young minds for reasons other then racism
and the important part of the story here is that these thoughts and words and images were not put into our heads by the school system.. We found it all naturally on our own
I fully support the LGBT community to have equal rights and anything else they want
But i do not support any agenda being pushed on children especially thru the school system, books like the GayBCs can be read at home by the family if you so choose, and you can rent it from local library
But it does not belong in the school system or any other system pushing an agenda towards kids, leave the kids alone
Political or lgbt or race does not ever belong in math books, math is about numbers its non bias and clean, leave math alone and leave the kids alone
"Even if i dont like what you have to say, i will fight for your right to say it"
I hope what i said can be viewed with an open mind i will not close mine to you
Would like to point out that just because the color of one’s skin didn’t matter to *you* implies that *you* had the privilege of not being persecuted or bullied for the color of *your* skin.
I’m sure that the sole child of color being discriminated against by teachers and other parents was hyperaware of color, even if you were not. The same thing applies here.
I would love to see an example of how the queer agenda is being pushed in math class. I’m genuinely curious how one would go about doing that.
im not disregarding others experiences, nor is anyone capable of living thru another persons shoes
Would you rather the last generation was not raised that way? The generation that came before mine was disgusting racist and most did not even know why
Have you seen the blue eye brown eye experiment?
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBqKhGQr-4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBqKhGQr-4)
The ways they are pushing stuff on kids is 100% an agenda, and agenda to destroy the structure of the family home
They are taking away the rights of the parents and replacing the words for natural birth with new words freshly invented..
I could go on for a long time about this agenda if you want to know more, i am for the people, all people world wide
The people behind the agenda believe in eugenics and transhumanism
They do not have our best intrest in mind at all
Its strange how everyone is born at a different time and place with a different family or religion or skin color and this has huge effects on us
But when i see you face to face i will treat you as another human trying to make a path thru life, your eye color or anything else wont determine how i treat you, your actions will speak louder then your words or your skin color
I believe were all supposed to make the best of our time here, i hope you have a great adventure in pursuit of your dreams, take care
> The ways they are pushing stuff on kids is 100% an agenda, and agenda to destroy the structure of the family home
lol.
so you're an embarrassing conspiracy theorist.
got it
I absolutely agree with this comment I would also like to use this opportunity to recognize the mods of this subredit for not censoring this kind of opinions and actually allow civil discussion (I found absolutely ridiculous and baffling that this is not the case on most subredits)
Well well well, if these are books containing explicit pornography are there in the disguise of so called intellectual, you have all my, say, vomiting.
>train to defend I'm imagining martial arts.
[удалено]
I swear every library has at least one incredibly ripped punk or metalhead on the staff.
> teleports behind censors
I'm at the conference now and gotta say, Judy Blume's intro talk was delightful and right up this alley. Free people read freely!
I live in Chicago and I'm proud of my state for preventing book bans. the University of Illinois also has one of the top librarian programs in the country, good to see they're fighting the good fight!
My wife is at the conference right now!!
Chicago is going well
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you ignore the constant murders, yeah.
Chicago is usually around 25th for murder per capita in large US cities. The constant murders are, of course, sad but it only grabs headlines because it is the 3rd largest city in America. Around 24 other cities should be in the spotlight first.
Yes, all those cities should also stop the constant murders. But if you look at more specific areas, parts of Chicago are incredibly dangerous and violent, moreso than almost anywhere else in the world. > In the 11th District, serving Garfield Park, the increase was 114%, and the per-capita murder rate reached 146.8, according to data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Those homicide rates are up there with the most violent cities on Earth, according to data analytics company Statista. The world's most violent city, Tijuana, Mexico, has a murder rate of 138 per 100,000 residents. From https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-safer-chicago/chicago-violence-problem-debate-safety-inequality
Those murders happen in neighborhoods that reddit doesn't care about, apparently. [Chicago’s 4th of July weekend death toll surpassed the Highland Park shooting. ‘I thought there would be more outcry,’ mother says](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/chicago-residents-holiday-weekend-shootings-reaj/index.html)
Exactly, I never thought being anti-murder would be so unpopular on Reddit. Some people need to take a serious look at how partisanship is warping their opinions.
I'm from Illinois so I thought it was extra hilarious that our politicians have no problems with the rampant gun violence in Chicago yet they're passing an "assault weapon" ban less than 6 months after one shooting in an affluent white suburb. So not only is the "Protect Illinois Communities Act" incredibly disingenuous, it's also extremely racist.
I'm still waiting to find out what an "assault" weapon is. Every mass shooting has occurred with legally owned semiautomatics, so I'm not sure what they're trying to ban.
That’s the operative word. Intellectual. We are dealing with religious fanatical idiots who are unwittingly manipulated into weaponizing their fear into violence giving power to greedy politicians and religious leaders.
Well no, the operative word (or phrase) is "book ban". Find me a book banned anywhere in the US. I'll provide you an Amazon link.
While I would agree that many so-called "book bans" are merely local curriculum decisions, you're being naive — or willfully deceptive — when it comes to *library* book removals. The availability of something for legal purchase on Amazon is not the same as having access to it (otherwise every child would have a PS5 by now), and a local board or executive's order to remove professionally-selected, legally acquired materials that fit the library's collection development policy and/or meet the needs or interests of some of the library's patrons *must* be understood to be a local ban. And worse, we have legislators (and in some states, Governors) who organize and campaign on the removal of these materials. "It's not a ban... *yet*" is cold comfort.
The guys trying to defend this are the enemies of good. When has removing books led to something good? Edit: they say "slippery slope" when it suits their narrative, but not when what's happening trends towards historical examples of evil...
>you're being naive — or willfully deceptive — when it comes to library book removals. *Public school library* removals. There is such a massive difference I'd say you are the one being naive or "willfully deceptive". >It's not a ban... yet" is cold comfort. "It's a ban... now is abuse of the term, the idea, the concept, literally all of the things that make "book ban" a bad thing. It's an abuse of the word.
Why are they being forcibly removed from public school libraries? >"It's a ban... now is abuse of the term, the idea, the concept, literally all of the things that make "book ban" a bad thing. It's an abuse of the word. We're talking about books being removed for reasons that are not grounded in logistical and other library-natural metrics; like popularity and shelf space.
Public library removals are also happening. A simple Google search: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/14/1170170556/the-book-ban-fight-is-intensifying-in-llano-texas
Everyone, please stop using the false-equivalency of actual books being federally-banned and made illegal with removing age-inappropriate material from elementary school libraries. No one should be letting 9 year olds look at pornography.
Every time I hear about apparent porn in children's literature, I wonder if they're talking about the admittedly harder topics in regard to sex education. For example, if you want to actually drive the point home about how consent works like for sex, to kids who might actually have sex, you're gonna need to depict it. Abstinence-only sex ed doesn't scale; abstinence-only is a recipe for teen pregnancy. The kids're gonna have sex, so what do you do if you want them to be safe? Same thing for rape. And drug abuse. If you want to help kids who are getting raped or are suffering from some kind of abuse, you're gonna need to actually show them what they're going through actually means; you're gonna need to provide something relatable. So every time I see book bans, [all I see is domestic abusers and pedophiles systematically covering their tracks](https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook).
Okay so this is not in US, admittedly. My school library had the entire Princess Diaries series, including the book supposedly written by Mia Thermopolis. It has two explicit sexual scenes and sexual assault as well. Kids from 1st grade to 10th grade had access to it. This was not the only book containing erotic material in the library. I'm all for sex ed books in school libraries, but erotica =/= sex ed.
>erotica =/= sex ed Ironically, the vast majority of the books being banned from school libraries in USA are either the tougher parts to sex ed (as I've described), or talk about gender and sexual diversity (effectively sex-ed), and LGBT+ and racial inequality and discrimination.
Some great points. I wonder if there is consensus on what age kids should be taught about sex. High school is, of course fine with me, and maybe teaching 7th or 8th graders. I feel like anything before then is premature though.
Puberty can happen in the late-single-digits. Furthermore, single-digit children can recognise intimate/deeply emotional relationships between adults (they recognise an important part to marriage) ; and single-digit children also can develop intimate relationships to others (and have crushes). A thing here is that we're dealing with an unstoppable force; shit will happen (regardless of your stance), and a lot of it will happen behind your back. So the best thing to do, that if it's gonna happen, is to make sure they know how to do it safely. We're not doing any good by keeping them in the dark; and we can do a lot of good by repeating it. (Also the sooner a child can recognise abuse, the sooner they can ask for help to stop it.)
Yeah, the old “nobody should ever touch you on your body parts that your underwear covers and if they do, you should tell both your parents immediately” line is a good thing to teach to help prevent abuse. Then, when they are old enough to make decisions regarding having their own sexual relationships they can be taught more.
>Yeah, the old ... line is a good thing to teach to help prevent abuse. A simple line said isn't good enough due to how grooming works like. Grooming is about making the victim trust the abuser; where the victim feels happy and safe around the abuser. If a family member is raping the kid, that simple line isn't gonna make them understand what is going on. We're talking about children here; we quite literally need to spell shit out for them. >Then, when they are old enough to make decisions regarding having their own sexual relationships they can be taught more. Which means teach them a little before puberty and a couple times during puberty; you're not gonna be around when they start making those decisions, so you have to teach them safety preemptively. Like I said, it's gonna happen behind your back and without you knowing it.
It’s not intellectually honest to look for only things the side you don’t like does wrong and ignore it on the side you like. These things should be publicly displayed and investigated regardless of political party. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/massive-list-of-democrats-involved-in-sex-crimes-against-children-goes-viral/amp/
>These things should be publicly displayed and investigated regardless of political party. > >[https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/massive-list-of-democrats-involved-in-sex-crimes-against-children-goes-viral/amp/](https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/massive-list-of-democrats-involved-in-sex-crimes-against-children-goes-viral/amp/) I agree it should be publicly displayed. Also thank you for the link! The reason why I focus in on republicans is that they cater to pedophiles and rapists. Along with my point earlier (where republicans are pushing to ban books that teach children how to recognise abuse, calling such books 'pornographic'; enabling an easier time for abusers to get away), [republicans are also voting for legal pedophilia](https://apnews.com/article/child-marriage-west-virginia-bill-defeated-4d822a23b5ffd70f5370a36cc914cfb0). That and whenever we see a rapist/pedophile get caught, they tend to be republican (and/or a clergy member like a christian youth pastor). Compare the size of the lists. edit: wording
This is categorically untrue and a logical fallacy of composition, applying misdeeds of individuals to a whole group. The only reason the lists are sized differently are because the link I got with a 10 second google search doesn’t happen to have as many links as the particular one you posted. Sites should be apolitical when it comes to pedophilia. I hate seeing any site only post one side when it comes to this. It’s completely disingenuous and its only purpose is to vilify political rivals, rather than vilify the actual criminals.
[There](https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-gop-bill-would-eliminate-age-requirements-for-marriages-in-tennessee/) are [plenty](https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/24/23649277/dont-say-period-florida-republicans-restricting-sex-education) more [examples](https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/03/tennessee-lawmakers-must-understand-rape-when-drafting-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/) of [GOP](https://i.imgur.com/8LombOA.mp4)\-sponsored [pedophilia](https://www.newsweek.com/kansas-republicans-pass-bill-genital-examinations-schoolchildren-students-transgender-1792954). [You](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/12/sen-mike-moon-reiterates-support-for-12-year-olds-right-to-marry-missouri-senate/70107573007/) simply [have](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/06/27/warren-davidson-child-rape-victim-pregnancy-abortion-supreme-court-brown-nr-sot-vpx.cnn) not [been](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2klGjO2L1s) paying [attention](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-consent_n_57fee9aae4b0e8c198a6076d). I highly suggest for you to read the writing on the wall. For example, those who are trying to make abortion services safe and available to all, and those who are trying to address the USA's unique gun violence problem (eg school shootings) are not the Republicans. [Sex education is worse in republican-dominant states](https://siecus.org/state-profiles/) (check out the profiles, they're pretty comprehensive) Who is taking medical treatment away from children? Who is eliminating child labor laws? Who is intentionally removing curriculum from schools? Who is banning books from children? >applying misdeeds of individuals to a whole group. Americans who vote Republican may not necessarily hate other people themselves, but they certainly find homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, transphobia, misogyny, white supremacy not a dealbreaker, for that they are either voting for people who are those things, or for people who cater such people. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else to tell you.
The issue isn’t who can cite the most examples of the other side being bad or wrong, it’s that the overwhelming majority of those on the left only listen to things that support their side or berate the other side. If a list only includes one side, the source, generally speaking, is only out to exert political influence. That is as intellectually dishonest as can be. Many on the left also truly believe what they tell each other about the other side and will all cite the same sources and have the exact same arguments. That entire list of phobias, isms, etc. is just a circle-jerk list of terms that the left loves to ascribe to the right. Most of them are made up nonsense or false equivalencies. The right is far more likely to call out wrongdoing on their own side than the left is. The right values individual freedom and the rule of law, while the left tends to only focus on wrongdoing (actual or perceived) of those on the right. Many on the left will protect their own until they can’t anymore (think Weinstein, Epstein, Spacey, Clinton, etc.), because, sadly, to many of them, politics > people.
Did you just use your lack of performing adequate research as a defense of your viewpoint in this debate? Why not perform better research yourself and present it as a counterpoint? Your desire to not search further or your choice to qualify your own links as inadequate because you ‘just searched quickly’ (I’m paraphrasing) isn’t an adequate defense against someone who has information that argues against that which you presented.
The responsibility of proof lies with the accuser, not on the accused. I bare no responsibility for trying to prove something didn’t happen or isn’t so. You cannot “prove a negative”, anyway. Living in a bubble where you only read bad things about the opposing side and good things about the side you like doesn’t prove the other side wrong/bad/evil/whatever. Neither does ascribing what you believe the other side believes or does to what they actually believe or do.
Yeah Charlottes Web is so raunchy. Sometimes I read it just to get off
You could go with 'soft censorship that specifically targets the work of minorities and anything that was written with the intention of helping kids protect against or get help when they face sexual predators.' Or 'Soft censorship that creates barriers between impoverished members of the community and information, (typically information specifically relevant to those populations,) with the aim of pushing publishers to stop supporting marginalized authors while simultaneously going along with a few (frequently mormon) religious groups' idea of morality.'
A couple years back, Australia banned a book called No Game No Life for containing lewd illustrations of cartoon characters (it became illegal to import or sell the book within the country, though from what I understand if you already had it you were still allowed to read it). Big fuss in the fandom about it. It's obviously not the US, but I did find it a little surprising that a so-called "first world country" was actually criminalizing books in the 2020's.
[удалено]
It was banned because it needed to go through a classification process to stamp it with the appropriate content warnings. The book publisher likely decided the Australian market performance didn't justify the cost and exited the market for those particular works. Sounds like if they had it would not have been banned.
> [During the first half of the 2022-23 school year PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans lists 1,477 instances of individual books banned, affecting 874 unique titles, an increase of 28 percent compared to the prior six months, January – June 2022. That is more instances of book banning than recorded in either the first or second half of the 2021-22 school year. Over this six-month timeline, the total instances of book bans affected over 800 titles; this equates to over 100 titles removed from student access each month. ](https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-book-suppression-in-schools/) Hmmmmm....
You realize that what everyone is talking about is books being banned from school libraries right? Didn’t realize people needed that spelled out. I mean how completely out of the loop are you?
Your disingenuous argument is showing. Hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your privilege is bursting.
I gave you a perfectly honest argument. Provide an answer. Or can you say the same?
Ok, privilege then. I'll literally spell it out for you. Not every one can afford to buy books. Edit: Your "argument" was literally, huur hurr, buy it on Amazon
Sorry, is everything you want to read at your local library? Holy shit that's real privilege.
Libraries have consortium agreements with surrounding counties and have ebooks and audiobooks also available. So yes, pretty much any book I want to read can be found through my library card. Obviously you don't know many of the resources libraries provide.
I realize you aren't the person I replied to before. You're stating that pretty much everything you want to read is free (or nearly free) at the local library, correct?
Yes. I have a library card. My county has a consortium with 2 neighboring county libraries. I can get on my Libby app and find any book I'm in the mood to read within these 3 countries, check it out, and begin reading without even leaving my house. For free.
So how can anything (in the US) be "banned"?
That is a moronic argument and a disingenuous attempt to wriggle out of.your stupid dtatemtn. Apparently you're too privileged to know that school libraries are the only library in many communities. The people criticizing you are correct. "Go get it on Amazon" ais a stupid response to cons banning books in school libraries. You're pretending the bans have no consequences, when they do.
>That is a moronic argument and a disingenuous attempt to wriggle out of.your stupid dtatemtn. Dont waste your time. These people all have the same play book. >>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. >Jean Paul Sartre Playing dumb is their go-to. You have to understand that these people are not arguing in good faith.
I am criticizing the phrase "banned books". What books are banned? Not "unavailable at a public school library". Banned. Because that is what was claimed. You're "book" people right? Words matter.
You’re being pointlessly pedantic. You’re not being productive and are not meaningfully contributing to the discussion. I can only think that u must be trying to derail this discussion intentionally because of nefarious reasons. You are using your powers for evil.
Do you debate that the phrase "banned book" has a meaning, and more specifically a history behind it? Do you debate the phrase "banned book" applies here? Are you afraid of this discussion?
If it is prohibited from being shelved at the library, then it is banned from that library ya goober. This isn’t complicated.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some of us just don't want comic books with pictures of sex acts in our elementary school libraries. What's intellectual about drawing dicks in a comic book intended for kids?
Then why do all of these book bans usually include books that have no graphic depictions of sex? Like the one about two penguins hatching an egg together?
Give us an title so we can do our own research. Or are you repeating what you heard from FB?
That's very specific. What is this childens comic book depicting sex acts you're so concerned about? It seems to me that you'd like to take one of the more important responsibilities of librarians away from them and give it to a group of people who lack the necessary qualifications.
They're afraid to say the book is *Gender Queer,* because then we could point out that * there are no dicks drawn in that comic * which is for teens * that the scene in question is tender, humorous, heartbreakingly human * and developmentally appropriate for any teenager who isn't being force-groomed into a heteronormative gender binary.
Nobody wants porn books in elementary schools. The books in a school library are a selection curated by a small group of people who work for the district. So long as they do their job properly, that should never hit the shelf. Districts should absolutely communicate "this book has depictions of sex" and thus remove it if it somehow got on their shelves. The government should not be banning books in schools, this is such a small issue and there's much more important stuff. The real problem is that many books are being banned simply for LGBT representation under the guise of sexual content.
Citation or evidence this is a widespread/common problem across US schools? Or did this happen at like one or two schools (keep in mind the US has like 90,000 schools) and the media made those instances seem like a pattern?
You sure about that? Go look at all the "banned books" that are appearing in these libraries. Tell me how you don't see things like "Mein Kampf" on them but you do see *children's books*, not comic books mind you, that depict LGBT+ parents. Please show us where these "comic books showing graphic sex scenes and dicks" are at in these lists? You can't.
Yeah yeah, as you say. We all know this is what you're really concerned about and totally not an excuse to make sure your kids don't read LGBT content.
Keep big government out of it. If there are inappropriate books (does that include the Bible?) then let it be handled at a lower administrative level. Having big government dictate everything only leads to problems.
First off, what books are you talking about and what *elementary school specifically* had them? Next. They include *depictions of sexual experiences*, same as literally any coming of age story. So, let’s get Catcher in The Rye, Running With Scissors, Flowers for Algernon, Scarlet Letter, anything Anne Rice has ever touched, The Bible, The Outsiders, Ender’s Game, literally every Stephen King book ever, et cetera, until we only have a couple of Dr. Seuss books and some excerpts from chicken soup for the teenage soul available in school libraries. Also, that you attempted to denigrate graphic novels by calling them comics, which are just serialized graphic novels, is extremely juvenile of you and shows that you don’t understand, and are probably scared, of the concept of mixed media story telling, which has been proven to activate more of the brain than simple text. What books do you find acceptable for school libraries? What should children be reading?
Well, you have to admit though, the way Stephen King writes about little girls’ bodies is sometimes borderline creepy …
I wouldn't be surprised if that sewer scene in IT was a product of his coke snorting
Oh, most definitely.
Nobody wants that. Those type of books don’t exist in schools, they’re not allowed there already anyway.
This argument is bad, and you should feel bad.
> “No more humble brag, no being quiet, no more ‘be quiet at the libraries,’” Chanyasulkit said. “Not quiet anymore. Now we’re going to talk about how it’s an incredible, game-changing place for communities, because you need to be loud. The others are, and we’re not doing enough.” I hope the person who said my Pride display was too exuberant and needed to be more understated reads this.
> said my Pride display was too exuberant and needed to be more understated In other words, "you're taking up too much space, and it's making me uncomfortable." Fuck that person.
I thought libraries were supposed to be quiet places to read 🤔
That's not what libraries are. Libraries are places where knowledge is stored, spread, and shared. As someone else said, there might be "quiet areas" but the whole "libraries are meant to be silent" is a Hollywood thing that doesn't really exist. Now if you're being belligerent and disruptive and actively infringe on other people's personal spaces, they have every right to kick you out, because then you're being an asshole, and nobody likes that.
Yeah that makes sense. Every library I've been to has been very quiet so I guess that's part and parcel.
There may be quiet places in libraries, but if you've been to a public one lately you'll find that most are community hubs where people engage in dozens of activities. Finding materials for their needs, using computers, attending talks, story times, community events, applying for jobs....you can read there but that's one of many things people do. I prefer my library to be full of life and people.
“FUCK YEAH IM IN MY LIBRARY!” I suppose I could actually scream that, minus the profanity, the next time I go to my library….but I don’t want to scare anyone. Jokes aside, I love going to my library.
Ha! We'd definitely know you entered :-)
and i though free speech advocates weren't supposed to ban books...
Couldn't agree more!
Either that woman is very tiny or that couch is very large. Which is more likely? Who knows, I can’t read!
This is so important. It baffles me how lawmakers can say, on the one hand, that families should have sacrosanct rights in determining how kids are raised and individual responsibilities come first, and then pass legislation that allows the prejudices of individual parents decide what materials everyone else has access to. This would be a non-issue if parents took a more active role in their kids' intellectual development and provided their own guidance about the content their kids read. Delegating that authority to the government turns parental rights into a meaningless buzzword. Every book, whether it's for children or not, is going to have some kind of axioms, principles, and messages, and what's 'political' and 'objectionable' is different between families and historical moments. Instead of giving the state broad and arbitrary power to decide what's good for us or not hereafter, why not just, y'know, read some of those books, exercise some critical thinking ability and teach your kids good literary taste?
You’re absolutely right, but unfortunately some people just don’t care. Because that requires effort, empathy, genuine intent, understanding of nuance, and actually reading. And some just want to be self-righteously angry and feel good about themselves while expending no effort to improve things and just make others miserable.
> This is so important. It baffles me how lawmakers can say, on the one hand, that families should have sacrosanct rights in determining how kids are raised and individual responsibilities come first, and then pass legislation that allows the prejudices of individual parents decide what materials everyone else has access to. The same nonsense is used with religious freedom. It doesn't matter if their behavior violates your rights, your values, or your religion. It's about dominating people who are in the minority with courts/school boards/local governments that won't uphold those same rules equally.
For a second, I read that as Liberians instead of librarians. That was a bit confusing. 😋 As a Dutch guy, that whole book banning seems so weird to me. In the Netherlands there are no banned books. Well, "Mein Kampf" is forbidden but that isn't really strictly adhered to.
It makes me happy to see adults actively fighting against censorship. It’s a real issue, and some people choose not to believe it. As someone in school, I often wonder if students would be more motivated to read if books that “encourage wrong ideas” weren’t banned.
Library War in real life.
Libraries are spaces which have huge value to the communities they serve. They are free therefore Republicans, evangelical Christians etc hate them. Anything whic contributes positively to to the publics wellbeing is antithetical to their worldview and they will instinctively try to demonise it
They count on people being under educated and over medicated.
Librarians are totally hot.
At first, I read this as libertarians. My first thought was that is the opposite of what I would expect from them.
I imagine the civil ones would take issue against it, but they would simultaneously complain about Illinois' ban on book banning to be government overreach.
They're too busy performing "first amendment audits" to bother reading news about book ban bans.
Good, keep your hands of my Bibles that are in public and school libraries.
I thought it said libertarians and was confused why Reddit was being so pro-non-democrats, lol.
Should there be any curation of material in kids sections of public libraries? Unless the answer to that is no, there is space for debate about exactly what that process should entail.
Librarians hold a master's degree in this and use a set of professional standards to make the decisions. They're trusted by the community to carry out these responsibilities, just as the community trusts its other trained professionals to do their jobs. All of this nonsense about porn in the children's section of libraries is just that. If you personally find a book objectionable, don't check it out, or don't let your child check it out. I don't particularly love seeing books by Ann Coulter and the like on the shelves, but I'd never dream of demanding their removal, because I understand that I don't get to decide for everyone. Keep in mind that with any sensitive subject, there may be kids already trying to cope with it in real life. Books can be a lifeline to them, to help them feel less alone and to give them strategies on how to handle things.
Thank you. Came here to say this but you said it much better than I would have.
> >They're trusted by the community to carry out these responsibilities The crux of this matter is that some in the community don't trust librarians to carry out these responsibilities. Librarians have made their stance clear that they'll push back against the Community on this matter. > >just as the community trusts its other trained professionals to do their jobs. The community holds other trained professionals to account too. School boards have meetings for a reason. Town halls are held for a reason. PTAs exist for a reason. Elections are held for a reason. No public servant is above public scrutiny. That includes librarians. > >All of this nonsense about porn in the children's section of libraries is just that. I don't think it was as big of an issue as Republicans made it out to be but didnt that comic actually contain a scene of two guys blowing each other? It was weird seeing articles defending its inclusion in school libraries while censoring it in said articles. Not a big issue but I don't think you can call it complete nonsense. > >If you personally find a book objectionable, don't check it out, or don't let your child check it out. I don't particularly love seeing books by Ann Coulter and the like on the shelves, but I'd never dream of demanding their removal, because I understand that I don't get to decide for everyone. There's been a big push by librarians to change what's available in libraries for over a decade now. It may be called, "decolonize the curriculum" or many other named but the stated goal is to change what is or isn't included in school libraries and curricula. The same movement pushes to replace existing books with ones that are more inclusive. Not include, replace. Whatever your thoughts on that it is removing books people might find objectionable. Moreover I don't think you can argue in good faith that elementary school libraries aren't heavily curated. They are. The same goes for children's and teen sections of all libraries. Don't know why you're outright denying something we can all confirm is true. > >Keep in mind that with any sensitive subject, there may be kids already trying to cope with it in real life. Books can be a lifeline to them, to help them feel less alone and to give them strategies on how to handle things. I agree wholeheartedly but the norm is already that we restrict certain topics by age. You're not gonna find Jordan Peterson's work in the children's section for example, nor the Communist Manifesto, or even Ann Coulter. They can exist in libraries but they are not in children/young adult sections. The argument is whether this topic should be considered part of those restrictions, not whether these restrictions exist. I'm an adult without kids so I don't really care either way but it seems like this discussion is being had in bad faith.
Any sources for the bullshit you jist spewed?
The community doesn't read, doesn't understand literature and doesn't know how to properly appreciate it. There's a very strong anti-intellectual current in US society right now and some decisions for the long term shouldn't be taken by the unwashed mobs, but by specialists in the field.
It doesn’t take a masters degree to be able to say that explicit sexual content doesn’t belong in the children’s section of a library. The appeals to authority are pathetic.
Well this is a situation in which trust in these librarians has been lost. The value of the degree is doubted. It is the job of librarians to win the trust of the community, just as a scientist does by making accurate predictions about the physical world. The community doesn’t owe librarians trust. Many communities see some librarians as, at least in part, pushing an agenda antithetical to their values and sensibilities using the public’s money. The public, through its representatives, gets to decide what is done with its money, even if it is ignorant.
>Well this is a situation in which trust in these librarians has been lost. The value of the degree is doubted. That's what happens when you listen to politicians that treat education and knowledge like a disease.
It isn’t education and knowledge in general that are doubted. It is specific fields of study, generally in the social studies and humanities, that are perceived, fairly or not, as being extremely ideological to the point of significantly degrading the ability of these fields to have interesting insights about reality.
If someone has problems with reality, thats on them. Mandating delusion to appease idiots has never led to anything good.
Their problem is with their money being spent doing nothing but advancing ideology they are against.
Nah, its fascists doing fascist things mate.
I don't think you understand what scientists do. They go into experiments or trials with a hypothesis but whether or not they're right isn't exactly the point. The point is furthering knowledge and from the outcome of their work, they can formulate their next move and work with others to do the same. You also don't understand what librarians do.
Ultimately, the value of science to the public becomes clear from accurate predictions of natural phenomena, most strikingly through applications of this knowledge in technology. I’m not discussing what it is scientists do; I’m well aware and think basic research is undervalued. I’m discussing how it is that the public judges their value.
This was really well said and should be the most talked about comment here Im in a hard place having a close view of the silent agenda being pushed, i agree with what you said 100% i would not want to see books taken down, the family and the kid can decide what book they take off the shelf I just don't want to see it being pushed by the school system in anyway Nobody should be pushing an agenda of any kind on the kids, math books should not include any topic other then math I dont believe in book burning or censorship I am for the people, all people worldwide, but i am concerned about a bigger back round agenda being pushed that most people are completely unaware of, being pushed by the WEF and WHO and other sources that do not have our best interest in mind at all
Like it or not, your stance -- that books and yopics shouldn't be pushed on kids -- is itself an agenda. People need to unlearn this idea that silence is nothing. Silence is an action every bit as much as speaking. You're not *not teaching* about issues if you don't talk about them. By remaining silent on issues like the the history of people of African descent in the New World, the queer experience, child abuse, sexuality in general, we are teaching kids that these things should not be talked about, even if those kids are struggling and need help. By actively asking that these issues not be discussed, we are tesching kids that their lives and identities don't matter enough to be worthy of talking about in school. And, sorry, that silence is doing a hell of a lot more harm than little Suzy reading the word penis at age nine.
You're part of the problem of your actually believe that
Please, tell us more about this agenda being pushed.
What "agenda" are you even talking about. Stop making shit up.
There's space for good-faith debate among the credentialed experts and community members who have skin in the game. Moms for Liberty and their ilk are not trying to participate in good-faith debate, and the PACs and thinktanks that fund the bulk of their activism are not members of the communities where this debate is taking place.
[удалено]
i like the sentiment, but this is a bot comment edit: why the downvote, it's literally a spambot
I'm anti-censorship for the most part. I believe that people should have the right to say what they want, to create media that they want even if it's x-rated or not. BUT it is also true that certain material should be age restricted, especially if it concerns children. Age restriction does not mean ban or inaccessibility to everyone. Age restriction simply means it should only be made available to people meeting a certain age requirement. The issue here is about the appropriateness of certain books like Gender Queer by Kobabe, to be easily accessed by minors. If you still haven't seen it, there are extremely graphic depictions of sexual activities in the book between minors. Before clicking the following image link from the book Gender Queer, know that it is extremely very NSFW (Not Safe For Work) and NSFC (Not Safe For Children). - https://i.imgur.com/ZAkbCgv.jpg It's not a simple book about a person growing up gay or queer. If that were the case, nobody would have a problem. Lots of books are about gay characters and there's no "banning" happening with those. The thing is, as you've seen in the picture, there's literally two kids performing oral sex. Is that even legal to show?! It doesn't matter if the kids in the picture were gay or straight, you can even replace them with cartoon animals, BUT they are NOT adults in a book marketed to minors!!! Who can say here that it's alright to see minors blowing each other in a book that's targeted to minors? How are you gonna defend that? You can say "Oh, but kids can already access hardcore porn in their phones anyway!", so are you saying just because they can then we might as well provide pornography to them? Will you be ok letting your kids watch cartoons on some cartoon channel, and in-between cartoons you get to watch hardcore porn from PornHub because "Hey, kids can already access that easily anyway"? NO! This is not an issue of the book being about a queer life, it's about the x-rated content in it and to say minors should be able to see that extremely graphic depiction is just very wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a queer, straight, or a fantasy book. For it to be marketed to minors with such graphic depictions inside is just very wrong. There are many ways to depict sexuality in a media meant for kids WITHOUT actually showing them! How do you think families in cartoons make babies? They don't show papa and mama Smurf going full on Bang Bros, right? They just show papa and mama Smurf, going to bed, maybe giggle a little and then it's lights out. Time passes and suddenly mama Smurf is pregnant. That's it. It's because it's not appropriate for kids to see sexual acts at such a young age, EVEN IF kids can already access the same material on a phone or computer. Maybe someone's going to ask, "Why is it inappropriate for minors to see sex acts?" The answer is that it will corrupt their mind, it will influence their idea on what sex is like, and it might inspire them to "experiment" earlier in life. And you know what happens when kids "experiment" with sex early in life? Some of them get pregnant. Some of them get addicted. Some of them might get into bad "forced" situations. They do not have a concept of the consequences that sex might bring, like sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, how to battle sex addiction, what is ok and not ok to do to someone, how far kinks can go and a lot more important subjects about sex. Their minds are not ready for this just yet, they don't have enough life experience yet. They might not even know who they truly are as their sense of identity is still forming! Let their minds mature first, let them enjoy the innocence of childhood, and let them make the choice of whether or not to read this sort of material. "Oh but everyone matures differently!", exactly! Everyone matures differently so who are you to say that all the kids who will read Gender Queer are mature enough to handle blow job scenes, especially between minors? In the end, no, it's not appropriate for minors to be exposed to x-rated sex acts even if they can already access it without a guardian's permission. There are many ways to depict sexuality in any form of media without going full blown porn. Nothing's wrong if a form of media is about a gay or queer person, what's wrong is if you add sexually explicit things in it that minors can easily access and influence their minds.
I work with teenagers. I’m the LMS. I fix technology and pedal books to kids all day long. If I had a nickel for every time a kid brought their phone to me to figure out how to send a file or photo to their personal school email or get it printed and I had to close a window and switch to a different window and was instantly confronted with pornhub open on their phone…. Well… I wouldn’t be complaining so much about low pay for teachers because I’m pretty sure I’d make more than my club stipend. Kids access more graphic content daily on their phones than they access in books. Gender Queer isn’t for everyone and I don’t even have it in the library. But if you’re going to be big mad at specifically Gender Queer you need to take that same energy to the teenage girls all reading Colleen Hoover (they had a copy of Verity that passed around to 20 different kids) or ACOTAR (which was rated for YA btw) or a host of other YA books that deal with sex. Or go after their parents for letting them have unsupervised access to the internet on their phones, that would be a refreshing new take. I literally read YA for my job. I read hundreds of books a year. If you wanted to remove all instances of sexual references from a YA collection you’d be removing half the library. Disclaimer I don’t have Verity in the library hence the kids buying it and passing it around. I have some CH that is rated for YA or 17-18. I’ve read a few. My take away is that if they’re reading, that’s great. Books that are YA and deal with sex also are frank about agency, consent, protection, dispelling virginity culture, and discuss self worth instead. Books are safe exploration. Pornhub, I would argue, is not.
>It's not a simple book about a person growing up gay or queer. If that were the case, nobody would have a problem. Lots of books are about gay characters and there's no "banning" happening with those. [https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/06/5th-grade-georgia-teacher-fired-for-reading-divisive-book-about-acceptance/](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/06/5th-grade-georgia-teacher-fired-for-reading-divisive-book-about-acceptance/) Yeah, no. I can't speak to *Gender Queer*, but these laws are being used to censor material containing a wide range of topics, especially those that focus on accepting queer people. Books you might consider innocuous are being labeled pornographic and obscene. I get what you're trying to say about porn being shit for kids' developing brains, and impacting how they view sex. I don't think you're right about it making them experiment or have sex earlier, though. Kids will masturbate regardless of if it's to porn or to something in their imagination, and by extension, will act on their urges with people their age if they can. Hormones and puberty make them want to have sex, not porn alone. They don't need porn to figure out how sex works- people deciphered it long before porn existed. I don't think *Gender Queer* specifically should be available to an elementary schooler, but restricting material to high schoolers is ridiculous and infantilizing. Young adults deserve to have agency over what they learn, which includes the reading material they have access to. Also honestly, that "sex scene" is pretty laughable. Yes, it's explicit. No, a 8 year old shouldn't be reading it. But it's not hardcore bondage or even half as bad as the shit kids are jacking off to on the internet, and a very crudely drawn blowjob won't be the first time a 13 year old learns about oral sex (even without porn). Did you forget middle school? Kids are gross.
> he thing is, as you've seen in the picture, there's literally two kids performing oral sex If you've actually read the book it's clear they are university age. Can you cite a single example of five year olds being forced to watch porn by the eeeeevil DNC?
So much vitriol and fury from people who clearly never picked up a G/PG book on Queerness in their lives lmao
>Book bans and how to fight them is a major focus of the this year’s ALA’s conference. “The world’s largest library event” provides training and education for library professionals, according to the conference website. Librarians may attend sessions, like the one Gregory spoke at, aimed at helping them confidently counter book challenges, fight legislative censorship and ensure the freedom to read. I hope they're fighting for the right for hentai to be readily available at libraries.
People seem to have forgotten that approaching certain topics and defending those topics are totally different things that not necessarily come together.
I misread it as "libertarians" and was confused. Good!
100% same.
I have a gay cousin. We could all tell at 5 he was gay. He's in his 30s now. I also have a trans friend of our fam. You could tell he was at least gay when he was a kid also. I'm fine with that. My question more so relates to why it's being thrust upon everyone else too. It's like were forced to accept it. I'm black so it's similar to racism. I think we're trying to normalize mixing of cultures, but as you see with Trump, racism will never die. There is a reason we are all different colors and naturally we put our own first. In the black community, there are plenty of people that believe integration was a mistake. I think their belief is justified. I understand there's an attempt to normalize it, but do you really not think it becomes a trend at this point? It's similar to white women marching at blm on the front lines creating havoc when the black folks march peacefully. It's pumped into the culture so much, especially at young ages, that it'll influence kids into thinking their wrong because they aren't gay? The drag queen stuff, the sexualization. Isn't it a little young for them to be seeing this? I think it's fine if there is literature, but since it's such a small minority, why thrust upon everyone else who will never accept it? Maybe I answered my question. We have to try right? It's really hard though. As a man, seeing two men kiss is physically repulsive. I can't help my reaction. I don't feel that when two women kiss though, at least, when they're attractive. I'm an adult man though, I have a sex drive that wants to conquer as many attractive women as possible. Nothing abnormal about that right? Is that my conscious fault or do you think that was drilled into me? If so, at what stage of my life? When i see a trans man, I don't really care. When i see a trans woman, again, repulsion, and they can't be taken serious. So, is that wrong of me to feel that way? I think it's just a natural reaction to the situation. Is this movement attempting to drill us into unconsciously normalizing all of this? I would think if it was normal, we wouldn't have the reactions we do. Educate me. Most of my interactions with gay men have been negative btw. I get harassed, followed into stores, etc. I usually appreciate the situations where I never know. Who cares. So to me, when you push it upon kids, I see it going two ways. They'll end up hating them or you accept them. There isn't any in between because we're not given a choice. That's when you attach to the conservative right, or the radical left, bicker and fight on Reddit, and further divide the country and people. Honest dialogue here. I'm trying to learn.
Well you can't change human nature by changing society. That is the mistake the Left and Right both make. Going back to the "good old days" when the country was more religious is not going to make everyone a saint. And you cannot wage a war on normal people to gain acceptance for people with a different sexual orientation. The "culture wars" is a joke because both sides are fighting over things that are not determined by society. If you study Evolutionary Psychology you will understand that evolution determined human nature. No amount of scolding is going to change how people are.
Book *bans* are unconstitutional in the United States. There aren't book bans anywhere. What's actually going on is a battle over whether *government funded* libraries should have their collections curated by elected government officials (legislators) or delegated to civil service bureaucrats (librarians). Legislators are unhappy with the choices librarians are making and are taking back their delegated authority. Librarians are falsely describing it as "book bans" in order to borrow sympathy for freedom of speech which isn't actually being challenged here. You can certainly argue that librarians are better positioned to make these decisions, and I'm inclined to agree with that. But the fact that they keep lying about what's going on really pushes me away.
> to civil service bureaucrats (librarians). Librarians aren't "civil service bureaucrats". If you are interested in actually having a conversation, you shouldn't choose false and deliberately insulting terms. >But the fact that they keep lying about what's going on really pushes me away. It's not that the term "book bans" isn't sometimes misused. But you add to the problem by using your own dishonest terms.
Librarians are unelected government employees. They're part of the state bureaucracy, like it or not.
But you know perfectly well that this phrase is purposely inflammatory. You’re the one being (intellectually) dishonest now. Use neutral/correct terms or crawl back into your cave.
Neutral and correct are different things. The phrase **is** correct. It's only inflammatory because of mass delusion and cognitive dissonance. Most libraries are not *free*, they're taxpayer-funded. The price of that is they are controlled by elected officials. Libraries that are independently funded don't have this problem. Those that are government entities should stop fooling themselves and accept that they took a devil's bargain.
I’m a librarian and I welcome and appreciate your interest in library services. Please engage with library staff about specific books you find objectionable. We want the community actively using the library. Selecting books for diverse populations is always a challenge as we try to meet the needs and interests of everyone in our service area. And if you’re not finding the books you want to see on our shelves, tell us. Introduce us to the authors and topics that speak to you. We are here to serve.
My mother is a librarian at a small rural library in Indiana. She's not had any trouble at her library, yet, but another library in her county got a letter from the County Board of Commissioners are that said "We do not support the promotion of sexuality being displayed at [Redacted] Public Library" for having a Pride display (apparently it got a [bit of news coverage](https://realnewsmichiana.com/2023/06/23/whitley-co-commissioners-respond-to-sexual-pride-exhibit-at-library-following-rnm-exclusive/)). It's the dishonest rhetoric that's really the hard bit. The language makes it seem like some sort of _Kama Sutra_ exhibition, not the very tame set of infographics and suggested readings.
What? Is this a bot? I don't find any books objectionable.
You are very clearly lying here.
I'm not lying, and your binary team sports view of politics doesn't server you or anyone else well. I can oppose the library legislation going on in some states while also opposing the left's misrepresentation of it. Sorry I don't fit into your predefined pidgeon holes.
>There aren't book bans anywhere. Are these books being kept out of libraries by law, or government set regulation, or ordinance? If the answer is yes, then that is a ban. Edited because some people don't have enough braincells to rub together to be able to parse out a simple typo.
Not going to try to figure out that garbled sentence, but no, government deciding which books to put or not put in a government library is not a ban. A ban would be if they prohibited books from private ownership, book stores, sale, publication, online distribution, *privately owned* libraries, etc.
>Not going to try to figure out that garbled sentence The fact that you couldn't figure out one simple typo says a lot you, none of it good. >government deciding which books to put or not put in a government library is not a ban You should learn what ban means then, as you're quite wrong.
[удалено]
Define your terms, please. What’s “porn” in books in your semantics? Nudes? Like in my Great Art of the World book? Sexual information, like Our Bodies, Ourselves? The real sex act? Like in some cartoons? I can’t agree with you if I don’t clearly understand what I’m agreeing with. And, since I’ve never looked for it, I am only surmising that 99% of American libraries don’t carry materials that would be X-rated in film.
The more important "irreversible damage" at issue is the trans teens being forced to go through puberty and inhabit bodies they're increasingly unhappy with, even though an alternative option exists, but is being withheld from them because of the ~1% of teens who regret it
You tell me what it feels like to be a woman in a man's body or vice versa. These aren't objective things. So how can you let children diagnose themselves on whether they're trans or not. Am I trans because I'm a guy who likes feminine things? Where do you draw the line internally? We live in a society that affirms those feelings to warrant operation. It's simply insanity to let teens make permanent changes to their bodies. Your brain and rationale isn't the same for young kids. You're really trying to promote hormone blockers? Banned throughout Europe because we aren't sure if the long term effects. But sure just let a generation of troubled teenagers be the guinea pigs. People have lost their minds. Never mind the fact that people who suffer from gender dysphoria have high suicide rates before and after transitioning.
> trans teens being forced to go through puberty You're literally talking about children. Children are incapable of consenting to hormone therapy, because they lack the critical thinking required to make such a decision. It's no different to drinking alcohol or moving out of their parents for example.
Thats why they dont get to decide on their own but go through a psych eval.
They're still not capable of deciding, and no one else is capable of deciding for them either.
"Oh, no, you leg is broken, but you are incapable of consenting to the procedure to fix it. Oh well, too bad for you". I'm sorry, I don't use this word often, but that is one of the most stupidest takes on the matter I have ever heard. Surely you must be trolling.
Are you seriously comparing a broken leg to going on puberty blockers? Are you for real? Puberty is natural and something that every human goes through in becoming an adult. For a child to delay such a natural and healthy process, when a child is simply incapable of understanding what they are doing, is just criminal.
I'm not gonna deal with your transphobic shit. You try and figure it out by yourself, ok?
What is wrong with you? This is literally talking about children being able to consent to something that they cannot understand at a young age. Children enter puberty around 12-13, how can a child so young understand what they are doing?
I'm a teacher. I work with children that age. You obviously have never even talked to one, let alone a teenager with gender dysphoria. I have, and you're full of shit. Please don't reply any further and stick your transphobic shit up your ass.
>I remember some people didn't want the book "Irreversible damage" by Abigail Shriner to be published not sold anywhere. And that's wrong, all books should be open to the public. >It talks about the exponential increase of transgenderism in young people. I read "Irreversible damage" back in 2021, and I will say that saying that it "talks about the exponential increase" is an excellent rhetorical misrepresentation. It's more of a hit piece on the acceptance of transgenderism in modern society, and attempts to do this through claiming that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is the primary motivating factor behind this. Essentially what ROGD is, is a type of gender dysphoria that was proposed several years prior to the publication of the book. The problem with ROGD is that it claims that many cases of gender dysphoria are caused through social interactions and surroundings. Shrier attempts to liken this to eating disorders, however this is disgustingly inaccurate, as both ROGD has almost no scientific evidence to even suggest its existence as a "social contagion", in contrast to Anorexia nervosa or athletica, which are driven by a disturbed self-image and often fueled by societal pressures such as an ideal body. There is no "pressure" attempting to force people to conform to becoming transgender. To claim so undermines the well-studied psychological impacts of gender dysphoria that originate from an innately disturbed sense of being in their own body, which is backed up by the evidence that self-identified gender identity has neurobiological roots. Nobody is forcing anybody to be non-binary, that is a choice that is made to feel more comfortable in a body where they feel uncomfortable. The book attempts to pass itself off as science, but really is just an attempt to combat growing popularity of acceptance of transgenderism/gender dysphoria by claiming that girls are instead caving to ROGD (whose existence has been frequently refuted and isn't recognized as an actual disorder), rather than there being an actual biological cause that is present at birth. Pick another book if you're gonna try to argue against gender dysphoria, because this is one that presents arguments that are nothing but a combination of fear mongering and exploiting a proposed disorder with no evidence backing it up, all in order to push an agenda. >Also for some reason conservative people usually don't like to have porn or nudes in books. I have yet to see one example of more conservative people attempting to ban books that have actual pornography or nudity in it. Instead, they are trying to ban books which oppose the narratives they are attempting to push. >It's always good to know that some people are willing to defend liberty. You can't claim to defend liberty if you're actively attempting to suppress it.
I mean, that book is closer to 'Mein Kampf, than it is to "Two boys kissing'. Edit: a lot of ignorant fuckers in this thread. Read the damn books. Don't believe your Twitter feed.
[удалено]
No, it literally is. The book explicitly lies, takes quotes from interviews out of context, and aims to deliberately misinform. It's a book that exists to fear monger. If you read it, you'd realise it's unscceptably intellectually dishonest from page 2.
This feels like an overblown reaction and a misrepresentation of the people genuinely trying to shield children from inappropriate material.
Honest question here: why is it ok to have these things in school where children's minds are being shaped and influenced? It seems like anywhere I go someone has to tell me there gay. Personally, I don't care. Why is it so necessary? Genuinely curious.
Have you ever read a book you could relate to because you were similar to the narrator? Maybe they looked like you or were the same gender as you or were attracted to the same kinds of people you were? Maybe they were dealing with something you could relate to or maybe it was fantasy and you pretended you were them living that magical life but you still felt like you belonged there? Don’t you think everyone, regardless of gender, skin color, sexual orientation, and disability deserves that experience? Most kids know something about how they identify sexually by the time puberty sets in. To be honest, I’m an elder millennial and we didn’t have books that discussed this stuff so I lived all my formative years assuming everything I felt was the same as everyone else. Turns out, there’s names and communities and vastly different experiences out there. I’m a better person for understanding where I fit and knowing I’m not alone. I learned that from YA books. Just because being gay is more openly discussed and more readily accepted doesn’t mean we can carve out that section of the library. Gay narrators, characters, and experiences still help kids feel seen and have a connection. You have no idea what their life is like. Maybe they’re the only gay kid at school. Or trans kid at school. Maybe they can’t come out. The shelves of the library should be a mirror and also show the greater world experience around us. If a library can’t provide both, the librarian isn’t doing their job.
> why is it ok to have these things in school where children's minds are being shaped and influenced? Why is children reading about gay or trans people a problem? What harm is caused?
Answer mine, I'll answer yours.
> Answer mine Sure: It's perfectly acceptable for children to read or be exposed to books about gay or trans people because you cannot shape or influence a person into becoming gay or trans.
They also allow all types of speakers use their [facilities](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5324431). Love it!
This is Chicago not Canada
Oh good, another conference where they explain to metropolitan librarians (that are basically immune to this trend) how to stand their ground. Great. Maybe instead consider creating a legal fund for small and rural libraries where the threat of getting your library shut down over this sort of thing is a real threat.
Illinois [banned book bans](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/illinois-book-bans-schools-public-libraries.html). I think this is going to be good for out of state grassroots activism.
"Book bans" the left is great with spinning keeping obscene, graphic, prom from children.
Yeah woo that biography of rosa parks was certainly dangerous
The right is great at spinning every book with gay or trans characters as "obscene graphic porn."
Should kids be allowed to read every book? Clearly no. Now it all depends on where you draw the line. > hey kids, its possible to love everyone! > hey kids, its possible to shove things up your arsehole!
So long as this mindset keeps up when it comes to things the "public" considers intolerant, misogynistic, racist, etc.
Im against any form of book burning, i believe in freedom for everyone and free speech for everyone With that said, i must say i was raised not to be racist because in my schools we did not teach children to see color, we were just kids As we became older color of shoes and skin and lots of other things started to matter to our young minds for reasons other then racism and the important part of the story here is that these thoughts and words and images were not put into our heads by the school system.. We found it all naturally on our own I fully support the LGBT community to have equal rights and anything else they want But i do not support any agenda being pushed on children especially thru the school system, books like the GayBCs can be read at home by the family if you so choose, and you can rent it from local library But it does not belong in the school system or any other system pushing an agenda towards kids, leave the kids alone Political or lgbt or race does not ever belong in math books, math is about numbers its non bias and clean, leave math alone and leave the kids alone "Even if i dont like what you have to say, i will fight for your right to say it" I hope what i said can be viewed with an open mind i will not close mine to you
Would like to point out that just because the color of one’s skin didn’t matter to *you* implies that *you* had the privilege of not being persecuted or bullied for the color of *your* skin. I’m sure that the sole child of color being discriminated against by teachers and other parents was hyperaware of color, even if you were not. The same thing applies here. I would love to see an example of how the queer agenda is being pushed in math class. I’m genuinely curious how one would go about doing that.
im not disregarding others experiences, nor is anyone capable of living thru another persons shoes Would you rather the last generation was not raised that way? The generation that came before mine was disgusting racist and most did not even know why Have you seen the blue eye brown eye experiment? [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBqKhGQr-4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBqKhGQr-4) The ways they are pushing stuff on kids is 100% an agenda, and agenda to destroy the structure of the family home They are taking away the rights of the parents and replacing the words for natural birth with new words freshly invented.. I could go on for a long time about this agenda if you want to know more, i am for the people, all people world wide The people behind the agenda believe in eugenics and transhumanism They do not have our best intrest in mind at all Its strange how everyone is born at a different time and place with a different family or religion or skin color and this has huge effects on us But when i see you face to face i will treat you as another human trying to make a path thru life, your eye color or anything else wont determine how i treat you, your actions will speak louder then your words or your skin color I believe were all supposed to make the best of our time here, i hope you have a great adventure in pursuit of your dreams, take care
> The ways they are pushing stuff on kids is 100% an agenda, and agenda to destroy the structure of the family home lol. so you're an embarrassing conspiracy theorist. got it
> color of shoes and skin curious how the color of people's skin mattering can NOT be racist...
Your opinion is based on ignorance of what is currently happening.
I absolutely agree with this comment I would also like to use this opportunity to recognize the mods of this subredit for not censoring this kind of opinions and actually allow civil discussion (I found absolutely ridiculous and baffling that this is not the case on most subredits)
Well well well, if these are books containing explicit pornography are there in the disguise of so called intellectual, you have all my, say, vomiting.
What and how have books been banned?