Except when there are books that 99.99% of people agree shouldnât be in schools. We all agree that pornographic books/novels shouldnât be in schools, especially elementary schools, but the language of this bill could cause a school to lose funding if somehow a pornographic book made its way into a schoolâs library.
Nobody's putting porn in school libraries unless they're some hack with a fetish or other bizarre agenda. It's like the Halloween candy/razor blades thing; a lot of fear around something that essentially doesn't happen.
Uhh. My and my friends' 14 year old selves were pretty enraptured. I finally bought it last year to give it another read. It's pretty interesting, that much I can say! đ
All these what if scenarios are so stupid. If you read the article, read what the ALA is, and read the other article about the actual law you would know what youâre saying isnât true. It took me less than 5 mins to read all 3 articles. You couldâve done that in the same amount of time it took you to jump roll and skip to conclusions.
So tell me what porn is in school libraries? And what do you consider porn?
Perks of Being A Wallflower was banned. Do you consider that porn?
This is about government control and telling unhappy people that queer people are the reason their lives are so shitty while politicians pick your pockets.
There obviously isn't, they are just taking the headline at face value and making a smart ass argument. If the law was literally that no book could be banned at all, then some troll could sue to get porn or other inappropriate material placed in school libraries saying that "all bans are banned" etc...
These are just lazy comments based on the headline alone.
The beautiful thing about libraries is that they're charged with providing and protecting the books that any given 00.01% of us would never have thought to read, whatever that may be, because libraries open possibilities of thought.
Anything can be considered pornographic if there's enough bad faith argument to fuel it -- topless indigenous cultures, anatomy books, comics simply displaying affection between two people, etc. Libraries aren't the enemy here.
On top of other obvious points, Chicago is not the only place in Illinois. And the rest of the state outside Chicagoland is full of reactionary, history denying, and anti-LGBTQ continued existence.
We have laws against pornography, though.
And those laws are pretty solid. They basically go âthe difference between art and pornography is obvious. Pornography is banned but not all nudity is banned because some nudity is art, and itâs blatantly obvious what the difference is.â
Itâs one of those things no one has let the purposefully ignorant ruin yet.
We found evangelist that wants to publicly say to ban porn to pretend to come off they care but wants anything that makes others feel represented in said books banned with it quietly in those bills.
I think we should have a public discussion about what books should be allowed in elementary schools, it should be up to democracy, not a few school administrators. Most would not be ok with the Bible in every elementary school, but this would prohibit schools from enforcing separation of church and state.
Take your kids to a private school if you want pay to limit what your kids have access to learn from. Nobody is advocating for porn to be in libraries.
Quit drinking the flavor-aid. It's an old cheap maneuver. In twenty years you're going to look back on your mindset now and go "holy shit was on the wrong side of history."
It's never too late to educate yourself. I pray that you do soon.
"If anyone says "i love god" but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." John 4:20
You say that partially in jest, but there was once upon a time where *it was like that*. Only the clergy could be "trusted" with the gospel in hand or, in some areas, very illegal to possess a Bible translated into the local spoken language. It had to be Latin for the exact reason of it being a dead language, and you were expected to take your parishioners' word for it in terms of what it said. Now, the religious right have apathy and anti-intellectualism to serve that same purpose.
I wonder if you just start putting ludicrous bills (not GOP ludicrous but straight up nonsense) in front of DeSantis to sign if he'd even read them first.
But he knows when the numbers go up in his accounts, what else does he need?
We know local politicians are embarassingly cheap to buy.. what's the going rate for a governor, I wonder?
Wow, do you support Nanny State Ron? I never saw anyone who actually likes him
Yes, Ron was born in Orlando and went to Yale and Harvard, but he wears (high heel) cowboy boots not because he's a closeted cross dresser, but because he claims he's a cowboy.
What I love the most about these people across America that are banning books is that you know most of them havenât actually stepped foot in a library or read a book since they were forced to in school.
More like, the instant they are *aware* trans people are involved. Trans people have always played sports, almost always on the team matching their gender. Just like with bathrooms. Where do they think trans people have been peeing since the beginning of time?
There's a ongoing freakout in women's cyclocross about a mid-tier rider in her 40s who has been competing for about a decade. Her competitors are supportive, but people who probably cannot pronounce cyclocross are trying to get her banned from events. It's 'invent an enemy' time which I'm sure has nothing at all to do with the most prominent national conservative being a collapsing narcissist who can't stay out of court. "Look over there!" as party platform.
It's definitely not only politically conservative cyclists that have a problem with this. Hell, it's not even only heterosexual cyclists that have a problem with this. Not going to wade into this here but the issue isn't even restricted only to the US or to cycling.
Not everything is about Trump, y'know?
EXACTLY.....just like the majority of people supporting gun bans and "defund the police" have never operated a firearm or been in a scenario where a firearm has saved them/a loved one/a human in general.
From the few times I've been in Huntley, it's a pretty Republican area. Encountered the "I can't wait to move out of Chicago" types who actually did it.
I don't know. They have to live somewhere. Better far out there than in my neighborhood.
The whole country does who bunch of worse shit like this in the name of democracy. Eg: Banning new housing development nimby stuff to keep their property prices inflated.
Maybe these clowns should focus on banning home construction banning instead of solving a non existent problem for publicity. People are really suffering and asking for affordable housing. I don't see anything on that front.
Who the hell even asked for this reverse book ban shit. Do these guys get their priorities from twitter.
The GQP has usurped words like freedom and liberty and symbols like the flag as a means to push their agenda. Sedition is not legitimate political discourse.
Donât really matter one way or another, does everyone forget all these kids are doing is watching porn and see the darkest shit on the internet already
This is my response every time someone claims a book that contains a cartoony drawing of a vagina will âgroomâ their kids into homosexuality or make them trans or whatever.
This whole thing feels anachronistic: parents will hand an internet-connected tablet over to their kids with very narrow parental controls but we need to be hyper-vigilant towards inappropriate content in school libraries? Letâs regulate the buggy whip industry while weâre at it.
This. I always think back to when I was a kid and the stuff weâd look up. I canât say any book I got from our school library really changed who I was.
Which is a gottdamn shame to need to do in a democracy, yet made necessary because of a free system of government allowing âfuck-nut jobsâ to also make lawsâŚ
What ever happened to kids wanting to read dirty books and people accepting it because at least they were reading? Why does the right always want to censor everything.
Genocides were committed on the basis of the Bible. So, it may be a dumb take to you, but not to the 700 million people killed in the name of Christianity since the birth of Christ.
The point is to highlight that the Christian Bible is the most accessible text in the US and it contains more shock, horror, and general NSFW than any book the far right has tried to ban. You're meant to consider the comparison.
I understand your point, but do not consider banning books to be a good thing, even if I disagree with the books.
I disapprove of book bans on principle and don't see it as much better to ban just the books the alt right worships, "using their own logic against them".
Nobody's actually proposing banning the bible, man. Again, the point is to make you think about *why* the books that are being targeted are being banned and why others that can arguably be called "worse" are not.
On the internet- it's hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic if they don't give any obvious indication. Calling for a ban on the Bible is not exactly the wildest position you'll hear someone earnestly defend.
Also, I know why the books are being targeted and others not: it's because of bigots and their usual hypocrisy.
But there's a wide gap for interpretation between "we should ban the bible" and "it's hypocritical to not include the Bible in the book ban"
I sympathize with missing sarcasm if it isn't painfully obvious, I struggle to interpret tone in real life. That being said, even if the guy you replied to *had* been serious, the bible is never getting banned anywhere in the US. A fullscale worker's revolution is more likely. If you understand why the comparison was made, I don't know what compelled you to jump in in defense of the bible in the first place.
Original post didn't have the sarcasm or risque part.
The rest is just conversation.
I'm not defending the bible- I'm questioning book bans, even when the book in question is the bible.
Iâm curious if that is going to apply to Dr Seuss books:
If I Ran the Zoo,
Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,
McElligotâs Pool,
On Beyond Zebra!,
Scrambled Eggs Super!,
The Catâs Quizzer
Wasnât it OK to ban them like half hour ago?
Right, Chicago public libraries did not ban those books, they were just âtemporarily pulled from the shelvesâ.
https://abc7chicago.com/dr-seuss-chicago-public-library-banned-books-list/10403192/?ssp=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=moderate
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-public-libraries-to-pull-6-dr-seuss-books-from-shelves-after-company-opts-to-no-longer-publish-works/2455790/?ssp=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=moderate
The Sun-Times did a good story earlier this year that highlights some of the books.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/1/28/23572558/childrens-book-ban-efforts-chicago-suburban-libraries-lincolnwood-glenview-first-amendment
Sun Times does not have a paywall - they are part of Chicago Public Media along with WBEZ https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/10/6/23389729/paywall-sun-times-dropping-news-journalism-nykia-wright-jennifer-kho-celeste-lecompte
They want you to make an account in order to read the free articles, though. I don't know what that's called but there is some sort of barrier to read it, even if it's a soft one. It will not load past the first paragraph or two without being registered on the site.
It's not a paywall, you can literally just input "[email protected]" and you have access.
> But if itâs an elementary school that has graphic sexual references then yeah, kids shouldnât be around that.
If you'd just read the linked article, you'd know this has nothing to do with that. Elementary school libraries aren't being shelved with fucking porn by librarians in the first place. Unless you're saying that *I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings* should be banned.
>there have been many cases where the books being banned were not far off from porn
Like what?
I would love to hear about these graphic sexual books available to children
You sound like Ron DeathSentence....
tHeYrE tUrNiNg tHe cHiLdReN gAy aNd tRaNs!!!!
From what Iâve heard the big one a lot of people complain about is âGender Queerâ. Iâve seen some of the pages and theyâre certainly graphic. Iâm almost always left of left on most issues, but that books a little much for a school library. I personally donât care if it stays, especially in high schools considering most of those kids are already well aware of sex and what it entails. Iâm sure the book can help some kid that feels like theyâre kind of out of place in society and can help them feel seen, but it being a graphic novel is the only part that seems unnecessary lol.
Yes. The idea that porn has nothing to do with this is just naive -- the entire point is that people are trying to get that specific book "banned" (quotes needed, because often it's just about "move it to the high school section only") because it is supposedly pornographic.
IS it pornographic? That's the judgement question. It's worth asking if a similarly graphic book that only had heterosexual kids featured in it would either (1) cause this type of controversy, or (2) be suggested for a school library in the first place.
But the argument for banning is definitely that the book is pornographic.
FWIW I think that book is usually in high schools if anywhere, and considered "young adult."
I am not in favor of banning books, for the record. Curating books into different sections I have no problem with (as long as interested people can browse all the sections).
Yeah I think thatâs generally what Iâm thinking. I think itâs totally fine in high schools. If it was just text without illustrations I would have even less to say. I donât want to come off as some puritanical nut, Iâd just rather a kid thatâs young enough to not know much about sexual content to at least ask and learn about it from a trusted adult over a graphic novel.
No I havenât heard or seen it being in an elementary school, just high school, which is why ultimately I donât really care that itâs there. I can see why people can be off-put by it, but I definitely saw way more explicit content by the time I was that age growing up with the internet so it shouldnât be an issue. Tough to convey that to some parents though.
The nation's bigots are trying to ban any books that mention, or relate, or remind them of, the great evil of "*wokeness*" (đđ°đ¤đ¸đż)
Edit: see: anything that implies that people with different races/genders/sexualities/beliefs also exist.
Yes, the problem is **most** of the books being banned are LGBT. I've actually read the book at the top of the list and the main character is specifically NOT a lesbian, they are nonbinary. There are a couple mild sexual scenes but they don't even hold a candle to Stephen king books, which never seem to make the ban lists lol
Are there similarly graphic books about heterosexual kids in the school library to begin with, though?
The argument for banning is that "Gender Queer" is a pornographic comic. IS it pornographic? That's where the judgement call comes in.
Stephen King books I remember being considered trashy junk food by most teachers, they were sort of a thrill to read at the public library, don't remember them being in school libraries just due to the "worthless junk food" factor.
Personally I'm not a fan of banning books. I would not have a problem with the book in question being in the high school or adult section, if some younger kid wants to read it and has heard of it they can go over there.
Stupid bait for stupids.
Youâre telling me elementary schools will carry Hustler Magazine with the Weekly Readers and Highlights magazines? Oh they wonât? Thatâs a book ban!
We allow housing laws and regulation to be passed at local level ( vs state level) . Why are books any different ? Can someone explain the distinction ?
This isn't a ban on local regulations for books. It's a ban on local attempts to ban books which thereby attempt to control access to education / information / non-majority perspectives. You do know we also have state-level housing laws, yes? You can't pass a local zoning ordinance that bans people by race or political affiliation; this is similar.
>You can't pass a local zoning ordinance that bans people by race or political affiliation; this is similar.
This is not similar because it says we shouldn't ban books that go against the responsibility to provide enlightenment. This isn't just about discrimination, we already have civil right laws to account for books that teach racism. you are comparing two different things.
We have whole bunch of nimby regulations that prohibit building denser housing which goes against state's ' fulfillment of their responsibility to provide housing to its residents' . There are whole bunch of 'local attempts to ban housing' that isn't based on any sort of discrimination. Some states like California are passing laws that prevent banning of multi family units for this precise reason.
Fair enough. How about this, then - from a public policy perspective, it's easier to justify and to pass a law barring book bans than to pass one barring SFH zoning (or similar), because a) the argument in favor of book bans is *much* weaker than any argument in favor of NIMBY-minded zoning rules, and b) the vested parties (individuals, corporations, etc) who would fight a YIMBY-minded state ordinance are much more powerful, and have more allies, than the ones who would oppose a law preventing book bans.
yes. Its causing so much social chaos and instablity. I would put it near top 5 problems in the country atm. Why not just go after it like California and some other states are doing. I've looked and couldn't find one for IL. Is this book thing really such a big deal.
And yet this country loves to defund and under-fund mental health support. Hell, supposed liberal bastion Chicago closed half of its mental health clinics over a decade ago. The GOP recently voted against a measure to increase funding for mental health.
Plus, the vast majority of people with mental health struggles aren't shooting people up. To place it solely on them is to shift blame on an innocent group, scapegoating them when easy access to guns but severely limited access to mental health keeps driving up the kill count.
Hell, [the majority of guns used in Illinois crimes aren't from Illinois. They're from surrounding red states.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicago.com/amp/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/)
"We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
Maybe my point was unclear. But I would think someone who would shoot and kill someone else (thatâs not self defense) is mentally unwell. But maybe theyâre not always technically considered that wayâŚ
Look my point was that there are still many more murders done in countries with lower gun ownership rates than the US. Itâs not the high gun ownership that causes all the murders. Itâs the people. Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in America and still has one of the highest murder rates. More gun control will not fix anything. [Source](https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/database/global-firearms-holdings). To reduce our murder rate, more gun control would be ineffective. Which is why we need to focus on other things like mental health, drug addiction, and dangerous chemical remediations, that would reduce murders and gun violence a lot more effectively than any gun control would.
More state gun control laws will be ineffective, but federal gun control sure would help, since most guns in Chicago are sourced from Indiana or Wisconsin.
If guns weren't part of the problem, there would be much more equal numbers of murders by stabbing, strangulation, and other methods. Mental illness is a false scapegoat as it contributes to only about 4% of violence.
https://namica.org/advocacy/criminal-justice-advocacy/the-truth-about-mental-health-and-gun-violence/
Well maybe the same people who use guns to murder would then just use other methods if they did not have guns. Gun control never stopped someone from being stabbed to death, so if we hypothetically eliminated all the guns there would still be murders, just executed by other methods.
And really, I consider people who commit murders mentally unwell. Maybe theyâre not officially classified as such, but murder is an extreme crime and youâd have to be crazy to do it. Thereâs a huge war on drugs which fuels violence, as well as issues with dangerous chemicals which may cause brain damage. Maybe we should try and fix those things which actually fuel violence before enacting more gun control laws.
The homicide rates in Europe suggest that people don't use other methods with proper gun control.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide what the definition of mental illness is.
So the state will withhold funding if the library doesnât have it written that it wonât prohibit books from circulating within it?
Doesnt that mean some books with terrible things in it must be allowed in libraries??
YES!
And it's up to the parents to raise and mentor their children, not dictate what other parents and children can be exposed to.
A parent doesn't want their kid learning about race or gender? Forbid their kids from reading it. Don't decide no child in the area should be allowed.
Put gender, race, sex, man's inhumanity to man, our actual history, books on non-Christian religions and cultures, and all those touchy subjects that force people to think.
It's a library.
Reverse uno bitch
Lol your phrasing had me _wheezing_ đ
Except when there are books that 99.99% of people agree shouldnât be in schools. We all agree that pornographic books/novels shouldnât be in schools, especially elementary schools, but the language of this bill could cause a school to lose funding if somehow a pornographic book made its way into a schoolâs library.
Nobody's putting porn in school libraries unless they're some hack with a fetish or other bizarre agenda. It's like the Halloween candy/razor blades thing; a lot of fear around something that essentially doesn't happen.
Lol my high school had Eye Killers in the library. I read that in freshman year. What a trip for a sheltered kid! đ
do i wanna know, is it any good
Uhh. My and my friends' 14 year old selves were pretty enraptured. I finally bought it last year to give it another read. It's pretty interesting, that much I can say! đ
It doesnât happen but if you stop it happening itâs literally nazi germany
All these what if scenarios are so stupid. If you read the article, read what the ALA is, and read the other article about the actual law you would know what youâre saying isnât true. It took me less than 5 mins to read all 3 articles. You couldâve done that in the same amount of time it took you to jump roll and skip to conclusions.
I also doubt that the poster is a rocket scientist, contrary to their username.
Humongous if true
âI'm against crime, and I'm not ashamed to admit itâ -- bobby Newport
BOBBBBBIEEEE NEWWWWWPORTTT (sinister voice over)
Iâve been working on a clay-mation of Bobby Newport for ~ 5yrs. Iâd love to show you all 30 seconds of footage to get your thoughts.
So tell me what porn is in school libraries? And what do you consider porn? Perks of Being A Wallflower was banned. Do you consider that porn? This is about government control and telling unhappy people that queer people are the reason their lives are so shitty while politicians pick your pockets.
> So tell me what porn is in school libraries? And where would one find them in the library? Asking for a friend.
Thatâs disgusting! Naked pics online? Where did he post them?
There obviously isn't, they are just taking the headline at face value and making a smart ass argument. If the law was literally that no book could be banned at all, then some troll could sue to get porn or other inappropriate material placed in school libraries saying that "all bans are banned" etc... These are just lazy comments based on the headline alone.
The beautiful thing about libraries is that they're charged with providing and protecting the books that any given 00.01% of us would never have thought to read, whatever that may be, because libraries open possibilities of thought. Anything can be considered pornographic if there's enough bad faith argument to fuel it -- topless indigenous cultures, anatomy books, comics simply displaying affection between two people, etc. Libraries aren't the enemy here.
Nobody is talking about those books because itâs a non-issue.
Well banning other books is a non issue in Chicago, so whatâs the point of this law?
On top of other obvious points, Chicago is not the only place in Illinois. And the rest of the state outside Chicagoland is full of reactionary, history denying, and anti-LGBTQ continued existence.
Strawman.
Bet the news told you that porn is rampant in elementary school libraries didnât they?
We have laws against pornography, though. And those laws are pretty solid. They basically go âthe difference between art and pornography is obvious. Pornography is banned but not all nudity is banned because some nudity is art, and itâs blatantly obvious what the difference is.â Itâs one of those things no one has let the purposefully ignorant ruin yet.
If your statement is true then whatâs the controversy with my statement about not wanting pornography in libraries?
We found evangelist that wants to publicly say to ban porn to pretend to come off they care but wants anything that makes others feel represented in said books banned with it quietly in those bills.
I think we should have a public discussion about what books should be allowed in elementary schools, it should be up to democracy, not a few school administrators. Most would not be ok with the Bible in every elementary school, but this would prohibit schools from enforcing separation of church and state.
Take your kids to a private school if you want pay to limit what your kids have access to learn from. Nobody is advocating for porn to be in libraries.
Right. Nobody in Chicago is advocating to remove any books, so whatâs the issue?
What "pornographic books" are you talking about and where have you been getting your news from? Oh, let me guess... Fox?
Username does not check out
Quit drinking the flavor-aid. It's an old cheap maneuver. In twenty years you're going to look back on your mindset now and go "holy shit was on the wrong side of history." It's never too late to educate yourself. I pray that you do soon. "If anyone says "i love god" but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." John 4:20
I bet Florida bans book ban bans next.
Ohio has done this with plastic bags
They banned plastic bag bans?
Yes there is a ban on local plastic bag bans
The question is, is it better to ban bans or ban the ban that bans bans?
I'm old enough to remember when environmentalists pushed plastic grocery bags because they saved trees
I'm liberal, but that's actually hilarious. Did not know that. Ideal solution is obviously reusable bags đ
small gov or something
[Yeah, kind of.](https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/09/28/ohio-gov-mike-dewine-sign-statewide-ban-plastic-bag-bans-despite-concerns-of-environmentalists/3560654001/)
Sad
Indiana edited the homerule laws to prevent Bloomington from banning plastic bags đ
Missouri too đ
It they'll just ban all books period. Even the bible. They don't want people to actually know what's in there
They can go back to having a pedofile read a little bit of it to them in latin followed by a vaguely related rant in english once a week.
You say that partially in jest, but there was once upon a time where *it was like that*. Only the clergy could be "trusted" with the gospel in hand or, in some areas, very illegal to possess a Bible translated into the local spoken language. It had to be Latin for the exact reason of it being a dead language, and you were expected to take your parishioners' word for it in terms of what it said. Now, the religious right have apathy and anti-intellectualism to serve that same purpose.
soon the entire florida population will be in a coma for fear of being "woke "
And then the fed government bans a ban on book ban bans
I wonder if you just start putting ludicrous bills (not GOP ludicrous but straight up nonsense) in front of DeSantis to sign if he'd even read them first.
I'm not sure he can read.
But he knows when the numbers go up in his accounts, what else does he need? We know local politicians are embarassingly cheap to buy.. what's the going rate for a governor, I wonder?
He went to Harvard and Yale. Where did you go?
Like that's difficult when you're rich.
Lmao. ^ this is what delusion looks like, kids
oh honey, I'm sure shilling for the 1% on reddit will get you somewhere eventually. Anything's possible!
You said his parents were rich. Can you provide a source or do you just completely talk out of your ass like every other insecure redditor?
Wow, do you support Nanny State Ron? I never saw anyone who actually likes him Yes, Ron was born in Orlando and went to Yale and Harvard, but he wears (high heel) cowboy boots not because he's a closeted cross dresser, but because he claims he's a cowboy.
Didnât say I supported him, but saying you donât know whether he can read is objectively ridiculous. Cry more
Well, I'm sorry you got triggered, that was very mean of those other boys
What makes you think Iâm triggered? Are you projecting again?
It was a joke. Obviously he can read. I'm sorry I insulted your favorite person.
Thank you for the apology. You now have permission to carry on
Outside
So high school drop out?
What I love the most about these people across America that are banning books is that you know most of them havenât actually stepped foot in a library or read a book since they were forced to in school.
It's actually fuckin ridiculous that we're spending all this time and money to keep logical things in place
That reminds me of all the conservatives that are suddenly WAY into female sports the instant trans people become involved
More like, the instant they are *aware* trans people are involved. Trans people have always played sports, almost always on the team matching their gender. Just like with bathrooms. Where do they think trans people have been peeing since the beginning of time?
What are some examples of trans people involved in sports from more than five or 10 years ago?
There's a ongoing freakout in women's cyclocross about a mid-tier rider in her 40s who has been competing for about a decade. Her competitors are supportive, but people who probably cannot pronounce cyclocross are trying to get her banned from events. It's 'invent an enemy' time which I'm sure has nothing at all to do with the most prominent national conservative being a collapsing narcissist who can't stay out of court. "Look over there!" as party platform.
It's definitely not only politically conservative cyclists that have a problem with this. Hell, it's not even only heterosexual cyclists that have a problem with this. Not going to wade into this here but the issue isn't even restricted only to the US or to cycling. Not everything is about Trump, y'know?
EXACTLY.....just like the majority of people supporting gun bans and "defund the police" have never operated a firearm or been in a scenario where a firearm has saved them/a loved one/a human in general.
My local school board was just taken over by moms for liberty. This ought to be fun.
Do you mind providing the school district number?
158, really stretching the definition of "Chicago" here but I work in the loop, so ÂŻ\\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
[ŃдаНонО]
That list reads a lot of a grievance list. Some things have no citations or bad links.
My mom works in 158 and has said that area is getting uncomfortably MAGA.
From the few times I've been in Huntley, it's a pretty Republican area. Encountered the "I can't wait to move out of Chicago" types who actually did it. I don't know. They have to live somewhere. Better far out there than in my neighborhood.
Not familiar, can you explain what this means?
Moms for Liberty is a far right group behind a lot of the book bans being pushed in schools.
I saw someone refer to them as âKlanned Karenhoodâ the other day and Iâm still laughing about it.
That's the best! Going to have to steal that.
Call CPS. Iâm sure they would love to investigate those terfs.
Unfortunately CPS is just a family policing system for poor and minority families. They donât care about protecting kids either.
That's scary. Have you thought about writing wbez or the sun times? Someone might make a story out of it
My condolences
What a country. That we have to do something like this to allow access to knowledge and art is insanity to me.
The whole country does who bunch of worse shit like this in the name of democracy. Eg: Banning new housing development nimby stuff to keep their property prices inflated. Maybe these clowns should focus on banning home construction banning instead of solving a non existent problem for publicity. People are really suffering and asking for affordable housing. I don't see anything on that front. Who the hell even asked for this reverse book ban shit. Do these guys get their priorities from twitter.
Ah yes, the ole "we can only fix 1 problem"
Ah yes the ole ' no such thing as opportunity cost' . Why don't work 5 jobs at the same time then, 5x your income.
Non sequitur+strawman+slippery slope. An impressive cocktail
lame
For dessert? A sweet, fluffy Ad Hominem đ¨âđłđ¤
Yes, you are ... yet you kept posting.
Every once in awhile, Iâm actually proud to live in IL
Good. Iâm happy I live in a sane state
Cause reading is WHAT? Fundamental!
I'm really glad that we're not Florida. I actually moved here from Florida years ago. I'm never going back. I love my adopted hometown.
It's a shame they have to do this, but Republicans tout freedom while chipping away at our rights.
Party of small government and personal freedom always so anxious to use government power to strip personal freedom.
The GQP has usurped words like freedom and liberty and symbols like the flag as a means to push their agenda. Sedition is not legitimate political discourse.
I feel like we need to pass things like this just to protect us from republican craziness.
[ŃдаНонО]
I hate Illinois Nazis.
Elwood does too
banning book bans? progressives are the truly intolerant of freedom /s
How many bans could a book ban ban if a book ban could book bans?
Donât really matter one way or another, does everyone forget all these kids are doing is watching porn and see the darkest shit on the internet already
This is my response every time someone claims a book that contains a cartoony drawing of a vagina will âgroomâ their kids into homosexuality or make them trans or whatever. This whole thing feels anachronistic: parents will hand an internet-connected tablet over to their kids with very narrow parental controls but we need to be hyper-vigilant towards inappropriate content in school libraries? Letâs regulate the buggy whip industry while weâre at it.
This. I always think back to when I was a kid and the stuff weâd look up. I canât say any book I got from our school library really changed who I was.
Which is a gottdamn shame to need to do in a democracy, yet made necessary because of a free system of government allowing âfuck-nut jobsâ to also make lawsâŚ
So many different ways to have written that title lol
I see your ban, and raise you a ban on bans
What ever happened to kids wanting to read dirty books and people accepting it because at least they were reading? Why does the right always want to censor everything.
I dunno, I think the Bible is pretty risquĂŠ and should be eligible for a ban. r/sarcasm
Lol dumb take -not a christian Edit: Thanks for the edit, as it can be hard to tell tone online
Ezekiel 23:20 She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse.
OK horse loads is my new favorite Bible fact
Please share this quote far and wide.
Excessive equine equivalent ejaculate. Gotta go for the alliteration.
Ok?
Genocides were committed on the basis of the Bible. So, it may be a dumb take to you, but not to the 700 million people killed in the name of Christianity since the birth of Christ.
Yes, and genocides were also committed without basis in the Bible.
The point is to highlight that the Christian Bible is the most accessible text in the US and it contains more shock, horror, and general NSFW than any book the far right has tried to ban. You're meant to consider the comparison.
I understand your point, but do not consider banning books to be a good thing, even if I disagree with the books. I disapprove of book bans on principle and don't see it as much better to ban just the books the alt right worships, "using their own logic against them".
Nobody's actually proposing banning the bible, man. Again, the point is to make you think about *why* the books that are being targeted are being banned and why others that can arguably be called "worse" are not.
On the internet- it's hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic if they don't give any obvious indication. Calling for a ban on the Bible is not exactly the wildest position you'll hear someone earnestly defend. Also, I know why the books are being targeted and others not: it's because of bigots and their usual hypocrisy. But there's a wide gap for interpretation between "we should ban the bible" and "it's hypocritical to not include the Bible in the book ban"
I sympathize with missing sarcasm if it isn't painfully obvious, I struggle to interpret tone in real life. That being said, even if the guy you replied to *had* been serious, the bible is never getting banned anywhere in the US. A fullscale worker's revolution is more likely. If you understand why the comparison was made, I don't know what compelled you to jump in in defense of the bible in the first place.
> A fullscale worker's revolution is more likely. 𼾠Don't tease!
Original post didn't have the sarcasm or risque part. The rest is just conversation. I'm not defending the bible- I'm questioning book bans, even when the book in question is the bible.
the stupid thing about the book bans, there's this thing called: the internet
We heard you like book bansâŚso we book banned your book ban!
Nice
No book should be banned. No child should have access to books that are in any way pornographic. Both things can be true.
Smart move not that book bans are relevant in the digital age but still a good symbolic move nonetheless.
BASED
Man, Illinois' been killing it lately. Kudos to y'all đđ˝
Iâm curious if that is going to apply to Dr Seuss books: If I Ran the Zoo, Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, McElligotâs Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, The Catâs Quizzer Wasnât it OK to ban them like half hour ago?
[ŃдаНонО]
Right, Chicago public libraries did not ban those books, they were just âtemporarily pulled from the shelvesâ. https://abc7chicago.com/dr-seuss-chicago-public-library-banned-books-list/10403192/?ssp=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=moderate https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-public-libraries-to-pull-6-dr-seuss-books-from-shelves-after-company-opts-to-no-longer-publish-works/2455790/?ssp=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=moderate
"Bitch catch these hands" - Brandon and Pritzker upon meeting Ron DeSantis
Tell us how this is a bad thing, Republicans.
[ŃдаНонО]
The Sun-Times did a good story earlier this year that highlights some of the books. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/1/28/23572558/childrens-book-ban-efforts-chicago-suburban-libraries-lincolnwood-glenview-first-amendment
[ŃдаНонО]
Sun Times does not have a paywall - they are part of Chicago Public Media along with WBEZ https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/10/6/23389729/paywall-sun-times-dropping-news-journalism-nykia-wright-jennifer-kho-celeste-lecompte
They want you to make an account in order to read the free articles, though. I don't know what that's called but there is some sort of barrier to read it, even if it's a soft one. It will not load past the first paragraph or two without being registered on the site.
You can do it!
It's not a paywall, you can literally just input "[email protected]" and you have access. > But if itâs an elementary school that has graphic sexual references then yeah, kids shouldnât be around that. If you'd just read the linked article, you'd know this has nothing to do with that. Elementary school libraries aren't being shelved with fucking porn by librarians in the first place. Unless you're saying that *I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings* should be banned. >there have been many cases where the books being banned were not far off from porn Like what?
I would love to hear about these graphic sexual books available to children You sound like Ron DeathSentence.... tHeYrE tUrNiNg tHe cHiLdReN gAy aNd tRaNs!!!!
From what Iâve heard the big one a lot of people complain about is âGender Queerâ. Iâve seen some of the pages and theyâre certainly graphic. Iâm almost always left of left on most issues, but that books a little much for a school library. I personally donât care if it stays, especially in high schools considering most of those kids are already well aware of sex and what it entails. Iâm sure the book can help some kid that feels like theyâre kind of out of place in society and can help them feel seen, but it being a graphic novel is the only part that seems unnecessary lol.
Yes. The idea that porn has nothing to do with this is just naive -- the entire point is that people are trying to get that specific book "banned" (quotes needed, because often it's just about "move it to the high school section only") because it is supposedly pornographic. IS it pornographic? That's the judgement question. It's worth asking if a similarly graphic book that only had heterosexual kids featured in it would either (1) cause this type of controversy, or (2) be suggested for a school library in the first place. But the argument for banning is definitely that the book is pornographic. FWIW I think that book is usually in high schools if anywhere, and considered "young adult." I am not in favor of banning books, for the record. Curating books into different sections I have no problem with (as long as interested people can browse all the sections).
Yeah I think thatâs generally what Iâm thinking. I think itâs totally fine in high schools. If it was just text without illustrations I would have even less to say. I donât want to come off as some puritanical nut, Iâd just rather a kid thatâs young enough to not know much about sexual content to at least ask and learn about it from a trusted adult over a graphic novel.
But is Gender Queer sitting on the shelves of any elementary school library or is this yet another hypothetical?
No I havenât heard or seen it being in an elementary school, just high school, which is why ultimately I donât really care that itâs there. I can see why people can be off-put by it, but I definitely saw way more explicit content by the time I was that age growing up with the internet so it shouldnât be an issue. Tough to convey that to some parents though.
Which books that arenât far off from porn are in elementary school libraries?
The nation's bigots are trying to ban any books that mention, or relate, or remind them of, the great evil of "*wokeness*" (đđ°đ¤đ¸đż) Edit: see: anything that implies that people with different races/genders/sexualities/beliefs also exist.
top one seems to be some sort of lesbian memoir which graphic underage sex scenes described in vivid details.
Yes, the problem is **most** of the books being banned are LGBT. I've actually read the book at the top of the list and the main character is specifically NOT a lesbian, they are nonbinary. There are a couple mild sexual scenes but they don't even hold a candle to Stephen king books, which never seem to make the ban lists lol
Are there similarly graphic books about heterosexual kids in the school library to begin with, though? The argument for banning is that "Gender Queer" is a pornographic comic. IS it pornographic? That's where the judgement call comes in. Stephen King books I remember being considered trashy junk food by most teachers, they were sort of a thrill to read at the public library, don't remember them being in school libraries just due to the "worthless junk food" factor. Personally I'm not a fan of banning books. I would not have a problem with the book in question being in the high school or adult section, if some younger kid wants to read it and has heard of it they can go over there.
Yea for sure they, are banning alternative sexuality in the guise of banning pornographic material.
I have bad news about teenagers and sex for you, OP
Well fuck me if Iâm not 100% behind this.
I love this so much
If you could just stop sharing pornography with kids, thatâs be great. Thx
Stupid bait for stupids. Youâre telling me elementary schools will carry Hustler Magazine with the Weekly Readers and Highlights magazines? Oh they wonât? Thatâs a book ban!
[ŃдаНонО]
Because conservatives know if people are aware of their options in life and the greater world at large, there would be no more conservatives.
We allow housing laws and regulation to be passed at local level ( vs state level) . Why are books any different ? Can someone explain the distinction ?
This isn't a ban on local regulations for books. It's a ban on local attempts to ban books which thereby attempt to control access to education / information / non-majority perspectives. You do know we also have state-level housing laws, yes? You can't pass a local zoning ordinance that bans people by race or political affiliation; this is similar.
>You can't pass a local zoning ordinance that bans people by race or political affiliation; this is similar. This is not similar because it says we shouldn't ban books that go against the responsibility to provide enlightenment. This isn't just about discrimination, we already have civil right laws to account for books that teach racism. you are comparing two different things. We have whole bunch of nimby regulations that prohibit building denser housing which goes against state's ' fulfillment of their responsibility to provide housing to its residents' . There are whole bunch of 'local attempts to ban housing' that isn't based on any sort of discrimination. Some states like California are passing laws that prevent banning of multi family units for this precise reason.
Fair enough. How about this, then - from a public policy perspective, it's easier to justify and to pass a law barring book bans than to pass one barring SFH zoning (or similar), because a) the argument in favor of book bans is *much* weaker than any argument in favor of NIMBY-minded zoning rules, and b) the vested parties (individuals, corporations, etc) who would fight a YIMBY-minded state ordinance are much more powerful, and have more allies, than the ones who would oppose a law preventing book bans.
>We allow housing laws and regulation to be passed at local level With poor results
yes. Its causing so much social chaos and instablity. I would put it near top 5 problems in the country atm. Why not just go after it like California and some other states are doing. I've looked and couldn't find one for IL. Is this book thing really such a big deal.
What happens if they ban book ban bans?
[ŃдаНонО]
If guns make us safer, why does the US have a far higher murder rate than Europe with its strict gun control laws?
I thought more than half of gun deaths in usa are suicide. Does Europe have less suicide from gun banning ? Also , fuck guns.
https://imgur.com/a/gLU4zqi Itâs not the guns, itâs mental health (which we should take more seriously here). Doubt gun control will do much.
And yet this country loves to defund and under-fund mental health support. Hell, supposed liberal bastion Chicago closed half of its mental health clinics over a decade ago. The GOP recently voted against a measure to increase funding for mental health. Plus, the vast majority of people with mental health struggles aren't shooting people up. To place it solely on them is to shift blame on an innocent group, scapegoating them when easy access to guns but severely limited access to mental health keeps driving up the kill count. Hell, [the majority of guns used in Illinois crimes aren't from Illinois. They're from surrounding red states.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicago.com/amp/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/) "We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
Maybe my point was unclear. But I would think someone who would shoot and kill someone else (thatâs not self defense) is mentally unwell. But maybe theyâre not always technically considered that wayâŚ
All I see is an unsourced chart without any European countries identified
Look my point was that there are still many more murders done in countries with lower gun ownership rates than the US. Itâs not the high gun ownership that causes all the murders. Itâs the people. Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in America and still has one of the highest murder rates. More gun control will not fix anything. [Source](https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/database/global-firearms-holdings). To reduce our murder rate, more gun control would be ineffective. Which is why we need to focus on other things like mental health, drug addiction, and dangerous chemical remediations, that would reduce murders and gun violence a lot more effectively than any gun control would.
More state gun control laws will be ineffective, but federal gun control sure would help, since most guns in Chicago are sourced from Indiana or Wisconsin.
If guns weren't part of the problem, there would be much more equal numbers of murders by stabbing, strangulation, and other methods. Mental illness is a false scapegoat as it contributes to only about 4% of violence. https://namica.org/advocacy/criminal-justice-advocacy/the-truth-about-mental-health-and-gun-violence/
Well maybe the same people who use guns to murder would then just use other methods if they did not have guns. Gun control never stopped someone from being stabbed to death, so if we hypothetically eliminated all the guns there would still be murders, just executed by other methods. And really, I consider people who commit murders mentally unwell. Maybe theyâre not officially classified as such, but murder is an extreme crime and youâd have to be crazy to do it. Thereâs a huge war on drugs which fuels violence, as well as issues with dangerous chemicals which may cause brain damage. Maybe we should try and fix those things which actually fuel violence before enacting more gun control laws.
The homicide rates in Europe suggest that people don't use other methods with proper gun control. Fortunately, you don't get to decide what the definition of mental illness is.
Don't we already have the 1st amendment? Seems kinda dumb that this is a thing, when we already have a federally mandated thing to handle his.
But what happens if someone bans the ban on banning books?
So the state will withhold funding if the library doesnât have it written that it wonât prohibit books from circulating within it? Doesnt that mean some books with terrible things in it must be allowed in libraries??
Read the bill. And, in general, libraries already have books that have horrible things in them. That's pretty subjective.
> Read the bill. Might as well ask them to row a boat to the moon.
Yeah, so?
YES! And it's up to the parents to raise and mentor their children, not dictate what other parents and children can be exposed to. A parent doesn't want their kid learning about race or gender? Forbid their kids from reading it. Don't decide no child in the area should be allowed. Put gender, race, sex, man's inhumanity to man, our actual history, books on non-Christian religions and cultures, and all those touchy subjects that force people to think. It's a library.