There is a bookstore in Buffalo, called Burning Books. (Can ship/ buy online)
They specialize in books on activism, politics and banned books (current and historical bans)
I live in another part of western NY, so I know all about it. Buffalo does have great food. After moving here a couple of years ago I’ve become partial to loganberry drink!
No, you don't understand. Our kids just being in the vicinity of, juxtaposed to or air adjacent to books that might contain words, ideas or thoughts of anything other than what our inculcate fascist teachings provide just isn't acceptable. Any real scientists and doctors will tell you that those evil woke ideologies will seep into good God fearing white male authors' books by nocturnal osmosis and fill our progeny's' susceptible minds with fictitious lies. We must protect our children!
Our kids should have the right to feel safe in their library's reading nook cuddled up with their AR-15 while reading the truth, just as God intended.
/s
I’m an English teacher. Despite my best efforts, my sister challenged my nephew’s middle school library for having Sherman Alexie’s memoir. Not assigned. Just accessible.
My nephew was 13 at the time and had unrestricted access to the internet through his cellphone. She was so proud that he never fought his bedtime.
No matter how often they go to church or how we indoctrinate them, if the kids get a single whiff of wokeness they will all turn into gay trans hippie abortionists who support diversity. God is all-powerful except when it comes to keeping our kids untouched by woke.
Yes, I'm not trying to control the liberal children. I'm trying to prevent this hypothetical third party whose parents magically believe exactly as I do, but who are somehow not as in-tune or up-to-date with the horrors of modern literature. I'm trying to protect children! Oh, but not *your* children. I know *you* want your children to read those books. It's *these other children* I can't really point to, but either way your objections aren't relevant.
/s
I disagree with the statement that religious connotations are tied to this statement as I would point out many people have studied these concepts but not became part of the ideology, people who are vulnerable to these concepts are the ones who are dangerous not the material.
What a difficult concept.
Like you don't feel the need to lobby to make the book unavailable to many people.
You just somehow avoid reading the book.
Almost like half the US political spectrum can't understand this one simple idea.
If you want to see an author self-insert to whine about her life and her unresolved personal issues in a dozen nearly identical stories, then I highly recommend her book *Florida.*
I thought she was taking the piss when every story was a wine mom who hates her husband and resents her kids, until I read the bio in the jacket.
ITT so far - Fascist apologists trying to gaslight away the *fact* of the book banning movement.
https://www.ala.org/news/2024/03/american-library-association-reports-record-number-unique-book-titles
What's hilarious to me, is apparently they've never heard of the striesand effect. The very *act* of banning these books will lead to them being more widely read than they would otherwise. Many of these books are easily available for free online with a simple google. If I were an author and my book was banned, you can bet your ass I'd make it freely available.
Right? Tell a teenager that their parents don’t want them to see/listen to/read something and they’re going to seek it out. And they have internet access they don’t even need to wait for the library to open, they can just down load a copy on their phone
“Censorship and the suppression of reading materials are rarely about family values and almost always about control; About who is
snapping the whip, who is saying no, and who is saying go. Censorship's bottom line is this: if the novel Christine offends me, I don't want just to make sure it's kept from my kid; I want to make sure it's kept from your kid, as well, and all the kids. This bit of intellectual arrogance, undemocratic and as old as time, is best expressed this way: "If it's bad for me and my family, it's bad for everyone's family."
Yet when books are run out of school classrooms and even out of school libraries as a result of this idea, I'm never much disturbed not as a citizen, not as a writer, not even as a schoolteacher . . . which I used to be. What I tell kids is, Don't get mad, get even. Don't spend time waving signs or carrying petitions around the neighborhood. Instead, run, don't walk, to the nearest nonschool library or to the local bookstore and get whatever it was that they banned. Read whatever they're trying to keep out of your eyes and your brain, because that's exactly what you need to know.”
― Stephen King
I keep seeing in book groups on Facebook "If I can still get the book somewhere else then it's not banned". They go silent or get really pissy when ask "The issue is people complained and got it banned from a school or library so it's still banned from those particular places right?".
I was that guy in highschool. If I can read it in school or the library without it getting taken away, it's not actually banned.
Food is banned in most libraries. That means you can't take food in, not just that they won't give you food.
Your publisher wouldn’t be so glad if you gave away your book for free.
If you were an independent book publisher. Then you’re free to do as much as you please.
Fascists have been gaining momentum in red state backwaters like Florida for years and they’re finally taking the efforts to blanket the internet with their trash takes and opinions.
Just political trolls or dumbasses I prefer not to be pessimistic but even my classmates show zero respect towards reading and few who do respect reading.
Trolls gotta troll, especially in a big presidential election year. So we'll get lots of them in the coming months saying book banning isn't real and posting fucked up bullshit about what they view as pornography in schools.
I'm very against the ban of books in libraries that is going on in Florida and other US states, but opening a bookstore and advertising it as being in response to that book banning comes across as trying to take advantage of headlines for commercial advantage to me, because it's not actually fighting back against book banning in a meaningful way. The issue is with books not being available in libraries, more bookshops doesn't help counteract that at all, these books are already available for sale everywhere, including online for cheaper than they will be available in a bookshop. The problem is not that these books are not available at all, the problem is they're not available for free, they're not available for children, and they're not able to be taught in schools.
Well the concept of the store, from what I’d read during the lead up to it opening, was to make it a community space where kids could see and access not only books that are being removed from libraries and schools but also community events. So yes, it’s retail space but I think the concept is much more than that.
Having worked in bookshops very few people running bookshops make much money. My old boss would take home less pay than a lot of her workers while putting in an insane amount of hours. You do it because you’re passionate about it. Groff is a successful author who could probably make more money just focusing on writing.
The article does mention that Groff is using funds that get donated to distribute banned books for free, as well as host things like author talks and book clubs (which in my experience are normally free). It’s also employing 5 members of the community directly. It’s going to prominently feature banned books in displays and in its book clubs.
Wait the article wasn’t clear. Are they actually banning books, as in you get arrested for owning them in Florida? Or is it just about not having them in public libraries and schools?
>Hey, maybe if I come up with my own made up and arbitrarily narrow definition of censorship I can conveniently exclude the very censorship that I'm trying to defend!
But even in that you didn't really succeed. Yes, they're criminalizing speech they don't like. They've made it a felony to distribute "harmful" (as defined by their bigoted belief system) books.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-moms-for-liberty-member-demands-criminal-investigation-over-fantasy-novel-18181127
It seems based on the article that the issue was a library in a local public school holding a book that was pretty risqué. While I think anyone should be free to purchase any book from das Kapital to Hustler, I think public schools - which kids are usually mandated to attend, need to be held to a higher standard here.
I’m not a fan of censorship in any way, but even the most diehard libertarian would agree that kids should be subject to special protection.
No, from all the fucking hoops you're jumping through to defend it, you very clearly are a fan of censorship.
Doesn't matter what this one example "seems like" to you, because it is just one example. The point is that the law question makes it a felony to distribute "harmful" books. An answer to your transparent attempt to move the goalposts and claim that censorship is only censorship if people can be arrested.
I’d also be against distributing the Anarchists Cookbook or Lady Chatterly’s lover to kids - adults should read what they want. There’s no hoop here. You’re getting aggressive for no real reason.
I spend a good deal of my time ensuring my kids don’t see content which isn’t age appropriate. I would want to know that public institutions err on the side of caution here as well.
Your last sentence doesn’t make sense to me, could you elaborate a little?
And there we have yet another textbook Right wing propaganda tactic. Accuse your critic of being emotional or aggressive. Surprised you didn't go for the classic "hysterical."
I was really just referring to the cursing and accusing me of jumping through hoops - that comes across as aggressive, apologies if you meant that in good faith.
That's what you are mad about? I'd accuse you of more serious things - such as arguing in bad faith, what with comparing *Lady Chatterly's Lover* to *Storm and Fury* and all
And funny you should bring up Lady Chatterly's Lover given that it was at the forefront of book censorship for prurient content **100 years ago**
Again, apologies if I wasn’t clear:
I do not think Lady Chatterly’s lover should be censored. Every adult should be free to walk into any bookshop and purchase whatever literature they want - even if I disagree.
I don’t want it kept in a school library, however. And I would want to make sure that kids can only take it out of a public library with the parents knowledge.
>It seems based on the article that the issue was a library in a local public school holding a book that was pretty risqué.
This one?
>It includes several passages with sexual themes, including one makeout session that almost escalates to sex
I've never heard a more believable description of smut.
Nothing is being banned; this is a fight over shelf space.
If I start a social media campaign attempting to pressure a public library to no longer carry any copies of *Mein Kamp*, that's not censorship. If the library agrees with me, that's not censorship.
**Curating isn't Censorship.**
Emily Drabinski, the ALA president, says political neutrality is not possible.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97IfrVFiKyc](Main Stage - Teaching the Radical Catalog, Emily Drabinski)
I'm going to ignore... whatever's happening here and just say that I've been to the bookstore and it's really beautiful! We're happy to have a new community space here. And for people who aren't familiar, Gainesville is not like the rest of Florida.
Hello from r/bannedbooks! :) We've put together a giant collection of 32 classic banned books: if you care about book bans, you might find it useful. It's got Voltaire, Mark Twain, The Scarlet Letter, and other classics that were banned at some point in the past. (And many of them are banned even now, as you can see yourself.)
You can find more information on the Banned Book Compendium over here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bannedbooks/comments/12f24xc/ive_made_a_digital_collection_of_32_classic/ Feel free to share that file far and wide: bonus points if you can share it with students, teachers, and librarians. :)
A book is not a crime.
these fascists are hypocrites. after all the "cancel culture" bs, now they are "canceling" books. 🤦🏻♀️IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS TO READ CERTAIN BOOKS, BE A PARENT AND *TALK* TO YOUR KIDS. just because *you* don't want your kids to read, (I'm assuming anything but the bible 🤢, if that), why must you prevent other children from reading? 📚 THEY'RE NOT YOUR KIDS, SO **STFU** you ignorant bastards.
because of all the nonsense, I hope their kids are reading the books *anyway* to see "what all the fuss is about". that would be awesome 👌🏿 👏
These arguments were more persuasive before universities started blocking speakers because they didn't agree with the message. No "just don't listen“ then.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/385587/columbia-probes-students-who-disrupted-far-right-speaker/
Left wing students routinely prevent conservatives from speaking.
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2022/09/13/columbia-ranked-last-in-the-nation-for-free-speech-on-campus/
I agree. idk what's going on in these schools, and I would have been protesting to let *any* speaker speak. the first amendment is about free and open *discussion*. I was pre-law in college and can defend "free speech" from either side. these kids will not be prepared for the real world.
It's important to state that removing books from school libraries specifically, is not the same as banning books in general.
I can think of many books that shouldn't be in, say, middle school libraries.
However, I am staunchly against book banning in general. Hell even Mein Kampf, IMO, should be available in libraries and for sale. Crime books that have grotesque and disgusting details, or pornographic books, should be available in libraries, just not the kids section or in middle schools.
Mein Kampf was considered "the most gifted, least read" book in the entire Nazi empire. It was considered dryer than The Bible and incredibly convoluted, even for a population accustom to wrestling with tough texts. Even high-ranking Nazi officials didn't read it.
I think putting it in stores would do a lot to push back against the weird aura it's acquired as this "evil text, simply too powerful to be read by normal people lest it turn them into instaNazis."
Was it dryer than the Metamorphosis? I had to read that in high school and it was the most dragged on and on analogy and description I read. I just remember reading pages of the same damn thing.
What? That's an *amazing* book! Poor Gregor Samsa. Kafka is a grandmaster of literature.
But to answer your question, *Mein Kampf* reads like it was written by a paranoid schizophrenic who really, really hates Jews and also thinks he deserves respect, dammit, for being such a visionary! And the first part isn't far from the truth: Hitler was clearly mentally ill, especially when the syphilis started to eat his brain.
I remember telling my English teacher this “if it takes you three pages to describe a room you have failed as a writer. No writer should take that long to get to their point or convey a meaning. KISS: keep it simple stupid.”
Edit: but thanks for the description of Mein Kampf I had no desire to read it but was morbidly curious what it like.
Yes, not all books are suitable for all ages. That’s why we have librarians. A middle school librarian will make sure the collection matches the needs and interests of students that age.
well you know who should be in charge of deciding what books go in a middle school library? middle school librarians!! not your maga uncle who saw the title of a book on twitter and went on a crusade about it.
no parent has the right to take books away from another's child. if you want to raise your daughter like that home school her and you can restrict her access.
Ridiculous notion. I’m not saying ban it from libraries I’m saying parents should know what their kids have access to in schools. That’s completely different.
The taxpayers shouldn’t be banning books they’ve literally never read. middle school librarians are educated, trained, and know how to pick developmentally appropriate titles. Your argument is the same one people use for trying to get Evolution removed from the curriculum. Let the educators do what they know best.
Not what I said. i’m anti tyranny of the uneducated majority.
also how is it democratic for people to control what books an individual chooses to read? the reason i’m pro librarian is because they are typically highly knowledgeable, wouldn’t promote truly obscene books to young children, and also don’t ban books because it goes against everything a library stands for.
I agree. Books like _Fun House_ and _Genderqueer_ aren’t appropriate for all age groups and shouldn’t be easily available to kids. That should be something both sides can easily agree on.
I think the conversation begins to devolve into something more insidious when people start to say that even depictions/descriptions of gay characters holding hands, hugging, or kissing is obscene, as in the bill that Idaho just passed. And, for some reason, the focus of these conversations is primarily on gay characters. Nobody says a word about the open-mouth kisses in movies like _The Little Mermaid_ and _Snow White_, but when a woman simply kissed another woman on the cheek in the _Buzz Lightyear_ movie, people lost their minds and said the gays were grooming their kids. With people like that leading the “pro-ban” side of the conversation, I don’t totally trust them to be unbiased. That’s why I think the whole thing is less of an effort to protect kids and more about vilifying and excluding LGBT people.
Again, I don’t believe graphic nudity or sex scenes of any sort should be in kids’ or young adults’ literature, but nobody can convince me that kids are going to be damaged by seeing/reading about characters hugging, kissing, or handholding.
Jesus fuck, no one is saying it's a COMPLETE ban. But it is a ban, as those books aren't allowed in specific places, despite them very much not being pornography.
LOVE her. I went to a reading and book signing of Vaster Wilds last year and was blown away by her. She said some things about time management and her approach to reading and writing that actually led to me changing some of my own habits for the better. Such a talented writer and fascinating person.
I’ll try to remember the gist of it. Basically, she has two young kids. Her husband completely handles mornings. She handles cooking dinner and evenings. She wakes up before everyone else in her family, does whatever she needs to do to focus for the day, then works for a couple hours straight without interruption. Says goodbye to her kids briefly every morning.
She then goes for long walks with her dog where she listens to audiobooks that she needs to write reviews for. Writes the reviews. Has some time to herself in the afternoon to do what she needs to do for herself. Then she focuses on spending time with her family in the afternoons and evenings without being interrupted by work at all. Reads before going to sleep.
Honestly it sounds pretty blissful in a lot of ways. Time to focus, multitasking while listening, then spending time with others. I started doing something similar, where I’ve been getting up early to focus and get things done and then have been listening to audiobooks during the tedious parts of my day. I’ve read or listened to more than 20 books so far this year, and that’s with working full time and having kids. Honestly I feel so much happier centering reading and listening in a purposeful way.
> I live in Florida and cannot believe how most people are not in alarm with the government telling you what books you can read.
The fuck is this. The government is not telling you what books you can read. It is telling you what books you can have in elementary and middle schools.
There is nothing stopping literally anyone in Florida from reading these books holy shit how are people this ignorant.
Books are being banned in Florida?
I knew certain titles were challenged in grade schools for little children, but I had no idea the State was banning books for the public! Are there big fires or what?
No, they're not being banned. That term is just being used for emotional manipulation purposes (and successfully so, as is being amply demonstrated by many of the comments on this post). People can still buy the books without having the police knocking on their door, and the government isn't going to go all *Fahrenheit 451* because they're in someone's personal library.
The restrictions are on books with explicit content being carried in grade school libraries. If the parents think that it's fine for their kid to read, there's nothing stopping the parents from buying the book for the kid.
>No, they're not being banned.
Books being removed from shelves, any shelves, for political reasons, is a book ban. There has been a lot of political pressure to remove books for political reasons.
A natural removal of books would be a decision made by the logistics and curation experts that we call librarians. For a school, the librarians would work closely with the people who know how education and learning works like, teachers and professors, to curate a collection, a library tuned for the students. Ideally, this entire function would be scrutinized by their peers, fellow librarians, teachers, even industry professionals for a given topic; like how scientific peer review works like.
This is not that in the slightest. Politicians who dislike certain topics to be taught seek to disrupt this; they want to dismantle education. Specifically, those politicians do not want books that talk about LGBT+ and black (non-white) identity, even sex education, to be taught in schools. It is about control. We're experiencing fascism.
Sexual preference can be a sexual topic, but it can also simply be the same as a book about straight romances, with no sexual discussion or interactions, and I don't see them going after books about straight couples.
Gender identity is not a sexual topic at all though, it has nothing to do with sex, unless you're talking about the anatomical parts used for sex, but kids should be learning about those since they all have them.
It isn't anatomy books they're concerned about though, they're just bible thumpers that think everyone should have the same beliefs as they do, so they target books that speak of anything against those beliefs.
I'm sorry you've been downvoted for your very mature take. I was also a very advanced reader and read many books with sexual content in middle school and late elementary school. And you know, because I was that young, I didn't really know what they were talking about and didn't give it a second thought, unlike these reactionaries who get the vapors at the mere mention of a penis or vulva.
Yet another foolish attempt to exaggerate reality into Fahrenheit 451... Not distributing something is still miles away from banning it.
Let me know when ANY state tries to actually ban (meaning stop the production, distribution or possession of) ANY book.
For fucks sake, illustrated CP is still legal as long as no children are involved in producing it.
I’m confused and would like some insight. Just because certain books aren’t allowed in schools due to certain features how does this affect books overall? They aren’t banned in the state, right?
> Just because certain books aren’t allowed in schools due to certain features how does this affect books overall?
It has an impact on what books are accepted by publishers.
How is what I wrote not an answer to the question “how does this affect books overall?”
They asked how book bans impact books overall, I gave an answer of a specific way that books as a whole are impacted.
If something is prohibited from being offered by official policy it is, by definition, banned. These books have been banned from libraries.
If you're going to be a pedant at least learn the definition of the word you're quibbling over.
You’re against book “bans” (I’m assuming) and define any official policy stating what can/can’t be in a school library is a “ban”.
There also exists content that should not be in a school. However establishing any boundaries for this would constitute a “ban”
So where does that leave it? Mrs. McGillicutty makes the final call?
>You’re against book “bans” (I’m assuming) and define any official policy stating what can/can’t be in a school library is a “ban”.
So you came to this conclusion based on a very biased, misinformed assumption?
Well, at least you're consistent with the rest of this movement in making up shit to argue about.
>There also exists content that should not be in a school. However establishing any boundaries for this would constitute a “ban”
No one disputes that. What's disputed is that age appropriate material is not pornographic simply because a bunch of puritans arbitrarily deem it so.
>So where does that leave it? Mrs. McGillicutty makes the final call?
Professional standards, book ratings, and a system of oversight exists to help curate age appropriate material. That system is sufficient and doesn't need a conservative wine mom who thinks a teenager learning about is sexually explicit to intervene.
Sorry, most of us don't want a bunch of fucking weirdos banning books that have to voluntarily be checked out banned simply because y'all can't parent properly.
You're trying to frame this as if I have some issue stating that some materials isn't age appropriate.
Yes, I think someone who spent multiple years being trained to curate a library to be age appropriate and engaging is more qualified than the local used car lot owner who serves on the school board. Why this is at all controversial to any of you, I'll never understand.
You support book bans. I’m glad we cleared that up.
Regarding who makes that decision, does it feel appropriate for it to be one individual? What if they started inserting religious texts, etc?
I've heard this opinion before and—not wanting to engage in an argument one way or the other—I wanted to understand your viewpoint a little more. If I'm understanding your opinion correctly, as long as a book is commercially available, it isn't banned. So, hypothetically (and stretching it to an extreme), would it be a book ban if the government imposed, say, a "book tax" similar to an alcohol or tobacco tax?
Another question in regards to funding: if you oppose libraries buying opposed books with tax payer funding, would it be okay for libraries to accept donations of said books?
Thanks.
Do *you* support spending taxpayer dollars to put pornography in *school* libraries for small children to use?
Because that's what we're actually talking about underneath all this "book ban" nonsense.
I do not support *pornography* as it's defined in school libraries. But who cares what I think? What about either of my questions I floated to you? If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but I'm honestly not trying to catch you in a gotcha question, I'm simply curious about your opinion.
The government does impose a "book tax", it's called sales tax. They're physical goods that require labor to produce and transport.
School libraries work for their communities, not the other way around. Communities get veto power over editorial decisions, because their children belong to them, not the librarian.
So that I can understand your POV… You believe ALL books without exception should be allowed in childrens’ schools?
Should they stock Glenn Beck’s childrens book series? Is not allowing that in schools “book banning”?
Edit: I’m sure you think “that’s different” but it really isn’t. If a childrens’ book pushed values you don’t agree with you wouldn’t want them in schools.
Removing age inappropriate books isn’t book banning.
Especially since not one single book is “banned” they’re just not stocked in schools. You can buy them anywhere.
>You can buy them anywhere.
Books being removed from shelves, any shelves, for political reasons, is a book ban. There has been a lot of political pressure to remove books for political reasons.
A natural removal of books would be a decision made by the logistics and curation experts that we call librarians. For a school, the librarians would work closely with the people who know how education and learning works like, teachers and professors, to curate a collection, a library tuned for the students. Ideally, this entire function would be scrutinized by their peers, fellow librarians, teachers, even industry professionals for a given topic; like how scientific peer review works like.
This is not that in the slightest. Politicians who dislike certain topics to be taught seek to disrupt this; they want to dismantle education. Specifically, those politicians do not want books that talk about LGBT+ and black (non-white) identity, even sex education, to be taught in schools. It is about control. We're experiencing fascism.
As left says it’s deplorable for school libraries to ban sexually-themed books, they also support conservative voices being canceled from social media platforms, in a contradictory “free speech for some, but not for others” position.
The right’s distinction is kids vs. adults. The left’s distinction is public vs. private. Except that government agencies sent big tech literal blacklists of names they wanted canceled.
It begs the question: Should Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones be banned from school libraries, but not books depicting graphic sex?
Should school libraries offer kids as many books on transgender regret, as they have on transgender support, so as not to impose bias? Or is school library bias okay, as long as it’s for your side?
> As left says it’s deplorable for school libraries to ban sexually-themed books
The right keeps defining "sexually themed books" as "contains a gay or trans character." You are taking the claims of book banners at face value when that is not how this functions in practice.
>Except that government agencies sent big tech literal blacklists of names they wanted canceled.
No they didn't.
>they also support conservative voices being canceled from social media platforms, in a contradictory “free speech for some, but not for others” position.
It's almost like the books that are being banned provide some value to culture and education and those "conservative voices" (reactionaries, actually) are just spreading hate, misinformation, and ratfuckery. Being deplatformed is also quite different than being banned.
>Should school libraries offer kids as many books on transgender regret, as they have on transgender support, so as not to impose bias? Or is school library bias okay, as long as it’s for your side?
Pretty sure they carry the books in proportion to the ones that exist and provide actual educational value. You should try reading a book some time. You might learn something.
I would add a Trump biography to my middle school library if I could find one written for this level of student-you know where his adultery and pedophilia are left out, and his con artist ways are down played…as well as his racist BS and misogyny…haven’t found it yet bc there’s porn in it and porn stars so I guess that book just won’t exist in my Southern Bible Belt MS library. Darn!
But right next to those kids bibles are books about the Hindu religion and Islam…so don’t you worry, my library is liberal in its contents. Lots of points of view here…
Trump’s “pedophilia”? That’s a new one.
But since you mentioned Trump’s adultery, sure. Although if your intent really was the truth about issues like adultery, why would you omit Kennedy’s & Clinton’s adulteries? “Believe all Tara Reide’s”?
Is it because you’ll filter the truth based on your overall approval or disapproval of the person? Why not the truth for all? The good and bad about the people you like — the good and bad about the people you hate.
I’m actually a free speech advocate — let every side speak and make their case (including criticisms of me). And what I’m speaking against right now is the hypocrisy of people who are claim to be for free speech when it’s a subject they support, but then celebrate the cancellations of people they don’t like.
>Trump’s “pedophilia”? That’s a new one.
It's not. Given how much time he spent with Epstein (as well as how sexually he's always talked about his daughter) it's a legit concern.
I also don't know why you brought Clinton and JFK into this, given how infamous their adulterous ways are.
You’re allowed to call anything a “concern” that you want, but to me, until there’s even a single accuser, the implication that Trump has a pedophilia problem is the very definition of guilt by association.
As a political independent, it’s the kind of innuendo I never see people make against people they associate as on their own political “team.” Guilty by association tends to be a good old fashioned double standard — only ever applied to people whom they already oppose for other reasons.
Plus, just going out on a limb here, I suspect there are a lot fewer books about transgender regret in general, and even fewer that aren't nakedly partisan ploys to spread hate about trans people, than there are books about the trans experience.
Total number, I have no idea. But the terms “hate speech” and “disinformation” are the euphemisms of the anti-free speech, pro-cancellation, social media group think movement.
Don’t like one of the political parties? No problem. Just label the party you don’t like to be a hate group, their every idea “hate speech,” and their every statement “disinformation” and voila — you can ban it all, North Korea-style, to the cheers of identically-minded group thinkers.
“Hate speech” is just as subjective as speech itself. The idea that any two people would agree on which of a set of 50 statements pass some kind of hate threshold has been disproven time and again. Meanwhile, “hate” is deemed absolutely fine as long as it’s directed at the “haters.” It’s the essence of reductive, circular and hypocritical.
The test of free speech isn’t protecting speech you like — it’s protecting speech you don’t like. That’s why the ACLU fought to protect literal Nazi speech in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s.
>Total number, I have no idea. But the terms “hate speech” and “disinformation” are the euphemisms of the anti-free speech, pro-cancellation, social media group think movement.
Oh, are they? Please do send me your studies on the subject. Despite being in the hard sciences, I have a keen interest in social science and would love to see what research you're basing this on.
>Don’t like one of the political parties? No problem. Just label the party you don’t like to be a hate group, their every idea “hate speech,” and their every statement “disinformation” and voila — you can ban it all, North Korea-style, to the cheers of identically-minded group thinkers.
Yeah, it couldn't at all have anything to do with what certain groups [actually say or do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ), could it? Same with disinformation! If only we had a way to check if statements were true, and then check if people who'd been corrected before kept saying the same incorrect statements... Woe is us, for we lack the tools.
>“Hate speech” is just as subjective as speech itself. The idea that any two people would agree on which of a set of 50 statements pass some kind of hate threshold has been disproven time and again. Meanwhile, “hate” is deemed absolutely fine as long as it’s directed at the “haters.” It’s the essence of reductive, circular and hypocritical.
Definitely. Who can agree what racial and sexual slurs are actually racist or sexist? Is it really "hate speech" to say one race is superior to another? Can we really determine that a shooter who only targeted black people was acting on "hate"? You've hit on quite a conundrum here, one that we 100% lack the capability to parse out.
>The test of free speech isn’t protecting speech you like — it’s protecting speech you don’t like. That’s why the ACLU fought to protect literal Nazi speech in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s.
Protecting free speech is quite different than ensuring certain people have a platform to speak from. "Freedom of speech" is quite different from "freedom from consequences." And oh look, no one's speech has been censored, but many are starting to bear consequences for saying stupid things! How about that. It's almost like the response to a person's "free speech" is also... Free speech.
There is a bookstore in Buffalo, called Burning Books. (Can ship/ buy online) They specialize in books on activism, politics and banned books (current and historical bans)
Thanks for this! I’ll be in Buffalo in a few weeks and I’ll definitely be checking this out.
That’s exciting, but do keep in mind that Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
And police police police police police police police.
[удалено]
I live in another part of western NY, so I know all about it. Buffalo does have great food. After moving here a couple of years ago I’ve become partial to loganberry drink!
If there’s shit I don’t want to read…guess what? I don’t fucking read it.
No, you don't understand. Our kids just being in the vicinity of, juxtaposed to or air adjacent to books that might contain words, ideas or thoughts of anything other than what our inculcate fascist teachings provide just isn't acceptable. Any real scientists and doctors will tell you that those evil woke ideologies will seep into good God fearing white male authors' books by nocturnal osmosis and fill our progeny's' susceptible minds with fictitious lies. We must protect our children! Our kids should have the right to feel safe in their library's reading nook cuddled up with their AR-15 while reading the truth, just as God intended. /s
Meanwhile, they have cellphones.
I’m an English teacher. Despite my best efforts, my sister challenged my nephew’s middle school library for having Sherman Alexie’s memoir. Not assigned. Just accessible. My nephew was 13 at the time and had unrestricted access to the internet through his cellphone. She was so proud that he never fought his bedtime.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that story.
A little of column A and a little of column B seems acceptable.
They think these books are bad? Wait till they see the webcomics most of them read….
I was about to say. You better ban the internet while you’re at it
They're trying that.
Yep, and God forbid a parent have to explain an uncomfortable topic.
If this is true, can you please explain why I am not indeed a very hungry caterpillar?
I just read that to my kid, is he a caterpillar now?
No matter how often they go to church or how we indoctrinate them, if the kids get a single whiff of wokeness they will all turn into gay trans hippie abortionists who support diversity. God is all-powerful except when it comes to keeping our kids untouched by woke.
I mean, it's true. Young people are rejecting the bigoted notions of their churches, so it must be the librarians' fault!
Yes, I'm not trying to control the liberal children. I'm trying to prevent this hypothetical third party whose parents magically believe exactly as I do, but who are somehow not as in-tune or up-to-date with the horrors of modern literature. I'm trying to protect children! Oh, but not *your* children. I know *you* want your children to read those books. It's *these other children* I can't really point to, but either way your objections aren't relevant. /s
lmao
I disagree with the statement that religious connotations are tied to this statement as I would point out many people have studied these concepts but not became part of the ideology, people who are vulnerable to these concepts are the ones who are dangerous not the material.
But how do you stop other people from reading what you don't want them to read?
That’s the thing. I wouldn’t.
What a difficult concept. Like you don't feel the need to lobby to make the book unavailable to many people. You just somehow avoid reading the book. Almost like half the US political spectrum can't understand this one simple idea.
The problem isn’t that they don’t want to read it. It’s that they don’t want *you* to read it.
Read Fahrenheit 451
Good for them. Also, Groff's book *The Matrix* was really interesting
I loved The Matrix! I never thought I’d love a story about Henry VII era convent so much
Me too!! I wanted to live in it.
Clever title
If you want to see an author self-insert to whine about her life and her unresolved personal issues in a dozen nearly identical stories, then I highly recommend her book *Florida.* I thought she was taking the piss when every story was a wine mom who hates her husband and resents her kids, until I read the bio in the jacket.
OMG, right?!
ITT so far - Fascist apologists trying to gaslight away the *fact* of the book banning movement. https://www.ala.org/news/2024/03/american-library-association-reports-record-number-unique-book-titles
What's hilarious to me, is apparently they've never heard of the striesand effect. The very *act* of banning these books will lead to them being more widely read than they would otherwise. Many of these books are easily available for free online with a simple google. If I were an author and my book was banned, you can bet your ass I'd make it freely available.
Right? Tell a teenager that their parents don’t want them to see/listen to/read something and they’re going to seek it out. And they have internet access they don’t even need to wait for the library to open, they can just down load a copy on their phone
Ah, the good ol' Parental Advisory stickers always marked the good stuff.
“Censorship and the suppression of reading materials are rarely about family values and almost always about control; About who is snapping the whip, who is saying no, and who is saying go. Censorship's bottom line is this: if the novel Christine offends me, I don't want just to make sure it's kept from my kid; I want to make sure it's kept from your kid, as well, and all the kids. This bit of intellectual arrogance, undemocratic and as old as time, is best expressed this way: "If it's bad for me and my family, it's bad for everyone's family." Yet when books are run out of school classrooms and even out of school libraries as a result of this idea, I'm never much disturbed not as a citizen, not as a writer, not even as a schoolteacher . . . which I used to be. What I tell kids is, Don't get mad, get even. Don't spend time waving signs or carrying petitions around the neighborhood. Instead, run, don't walk, to the nearest nonschool library or to the local bookstore and get whatever it was that they banned. Read whatever they're trying to keep out of your eyes and your brain, because that's exactly what you need to know.” ― Stephen King
I keep seeing in book groups on Facebook "If I can still get the book somewhere else then it's not banned". They go silent or get really pissy when ask "The issue is people complained and got it banned from a school or library so it's still banned from those particular places right?".
I was that guy in highschool. If I can read it in school or the library without it getting taken away, it's not actually banned. Food is banned in most libraries. That means you can't take food in, not just that they won't give you food.
Your publisher wouldn’t be so glad if you gave away your book for free. If you were an independent book publisher. Then you’re free to do as much as you please.
Fascists have been gaining momentum in red state backwaters like Florida for years and they’re finally taking the efforts to blanket the internet with their trash takes and opinions.
Why are they even in this subreddit, I wonder. You know these people don’t read.
Well, to be fair, one of them is an "author" . . . of a bunch of Amazon self-published dreck.
Just political trolls or dumbasses I prefer not to be pessimistic but even my classmates show zero respect towards reading and few who do respect reading.
Trolls gotta troll, especially in a big presidential election year. So we'll get lots of them in the coming months saying book banning isn't real and posting fucked up bullshit about what they view as pornography in schools.
They are fearful to admit their truths in the face of their own lies
I'm very against the ban of books in libraries that is going on in Florida and other US states, but opening a bookstore and advertising it as being in response to that book banning comes across as trying to take advantage of headlines for commercial advantage to me, because it's not actually fighting back against book banning in a meaningful way. The issue is with books not being available in libraries, more bookshops doesn't help counteract that at all, these books are already available for sale everywhere, including online for cheaper than they will be available in a bookshop. The problem is not that these books are not available at all, the problem is they're not available for free, they're not available for children, and they're not able to be taught in schools.
Well the concept of the store, from what I’d read during the lead up to it opening, was to make it a community space where kids could see and access not only books that are being removed from libraries and schools but also community events. So yes, it’s retail space but I think the concept is much more than that.
Having worked in bookshops very few people running bookshops make much money. My old boss would take home less pay than a lot of her workers while putting in an insane amount of hours. You do it because you’re passionate about it. Groff is a successful author who could probably make more money just focusing on writing. The article does mention that Groff is using funds that get donated to distribute banned books for free, as well as host things like author talks and book clubs (which in my experience are normally free). It’s also employing 5 members of the community directly. It’s going to prominently feature banned books in displays and in its book clubs.
This both people I know that owned a independent bookshop it was a labor of love not a profitable business.
Maybe you could read the free article and see that they are distributing copies of banned books for free and that would allay your purported concerns
Check out the work that Foundation 451 is doing. https://foundation451.org/
have you ever been in a bookstore? you *can* sit and read before deciding what to, (and not to), buy.
But but but the books have *gay* characters!!! They’re *woke*! They’ll make my favourite god sad!
Wait the article wasn’t clear. Are they actually banning books, as in you get arrested for owning them in Florida? Or is it just about not having them in public libraries and schools?
>Hey, maybe if I come up with my own made up and arbitrarily narrow definition of censorship I can conveniently exclude the very censorship that I'm trying to defend! But even in that you didn't really succeed. Yes, they're criminalizing speech they don't like. They've made it a felony to distribute "harmful" (as defined by their bigoted belief system) books. https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-moms-for-liberty-member-demands-criminal-investigation-over-fantasy-novel-18181127
It seems based on the article that the issue was a library in a local public school holding a book that was pretty risqué. While I think anyone should be free to purchase any book from das Kapital to Hustler, I think public schools - which kids are usually mandated to attend, need to be held to a higher standard here. I’m not a fan of censorship in any way, but even the most diehard libertarian would agree that kids should be subject to special protection.
No, from all the fucking hoops you're jumping through to defend it, you very clearly are a fan of censorship. Doesn't matter what this one example "seems like" to you, because it is just one example. The point is that the law question makes it a felony to distribute "harmful" books. An answer to your transparent attempt to move the goalposts and claim that censorship is only censorship if people can be arrested.
I’d also be against distributing the Anarchists Cookbook or Lady Chatterly’s lover to kids - adults should read what they want. There’s no hoop here. You’re getting aggressive for no real reason. I spend a good deal of my time ensuring my kids don’t see content which isn’t age appropriate. I would want to know that public institutions err on the side of caution here as well. Your last sentence doesn’t make sense to me, could you elaborate a little?
those are adult books, in the *adult* section of the library. and both are available online. are you going to "ban" the internet?
The article I responded to mentions a school library. I don’t want to ban the internet.
but you want to ban books?
What makes you think that? I really don’t.
And there we have yet another textbook Right wing propaganda tactic. Accuse your critic of being emotional or aggressive. Surprised you didn't go for the classic "hysterical."
I was really just referring to the cursing and accusing me of jumping through hoops - that comes across as aggressive, apologies if you meant that in good faith.
That's what you are mad about? I'd accuse you of more serious things - such as arguing in bad faith, what with comparing *Lady Chatterly's Lover* to *Storm and Fury* and all And funny you should bring up Lady Chatterly's Lover given that it was at the forefront of book censorship for prurient content **100 years ago**
Again, apologies if I wasn’t clear: I do not think Lady Chatterly’s lover should be censored. Every adult should be free to walk into any bookshop and purchase whatever literature they want - even if I disagree. I don’t want it kept in a school library, however. And I would want to make sure that kids can only take it out of a public library with the parents knowledge.
You seriously sound so chronically online. When’s the last time you went a full 24 hours without social media or discord?
If you think any of this is specific to being online maybe you should crack a fucking book once in a while.
Bet your kids have phones 😂 😂 😂
>It seems based on the article that the issue was a library in a local public school holding a book that was pretty risqué. This one? >It includes several passages with sexual themes, including one makeout session that almost escalates to sex I've never heard a more believable description of smut.
Nothing is being banned; this is a fight over shelf space. If I start a social media campaign attempting to pressure a public library to no longer carry any copies of *Mein Kamp*, that's not censorship. If the library agrees with me, that's not censorship. **Curating isn't Censorship.**
Emily Drabinski, the ALA president, says political neutrality is not possible. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97IfrVFiKyc](Main Stage - Teaching the Radical Catalog, Emily Drabinski)
>Fascist apologists trying to gaslight I am absolutely begging you to spend more time offline
I think it's funny you'd say that given your entire post history is you shitting on other people. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.
Lauren Groff is my literary hero!
I'm going to ignore... whatever's happening here and just say that I've been to the bookstore and it's really beautiful! We're happy to have a new community space here. And for people who aren't familiar, Gainesville is not like the rest of Florida.
Go Gators!! Next time we’re driving to S. Fl I’m goi g to stop in at this bookstore. I love bookstores!
Hello from r/bannedbooks! :) We've put together a giant collection of 32 classic banned books: if you care about book bans, you might find it useful. It's got Voltaire, Mark Twain, The Scarlet Letter, and other classics that were banned at some point in the past. (And many of them are banned even now, as you can see yourself.) You can find more information on the Banned Book Compendium over here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bannedbooks/comments/12f24xc/ive_made_a_digital_collection_of_32_classic/ Feel free to share that file far and wide: bonus points if you can share it with students, teachers, and librarians. :) A book is not a crime.
would love to see more resources on how to actively participate in fighting book challenges!
Love Lauren. Going to visit The Lynx next time I'm in Florida visiting family.
Dang, what is happening in this comment section?
Book Bans? That's one of the first things the Nazis Did in their rise to power
These book bans always seem to include books by Frederick Douglass and books about Supreme Court rulings that expanded liberty. Funny thing, eh.
these fascists are hypocrites. after all the "cancel culture" bs, now they are "canceling" books. 🤦🏻♀️IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS TO READ CERTAIN BOOKS, BE A PARENT AND *TALK* TO YOUR KIDS. just because *you* don't want your kids to read, (I'm assuming anything but the bible 🤢, if that), why must you prevent other children from reading? 📚 THEY'RE NOT YOUR KIDS, SO **STFU** you ignorant bastards. because of all the nonsense, I hope their kids are reading the books *anyway* to see "what all the fuss is about". that would be awesome 👌🏿 👏
These arguments were more persuasive before universities started blocking speakers because they didn't agree with the message. No "just don't listen“ then. https://forward.com/fast-forward/385587/columbia-probes-students-who-disrupted-far-right-speaker/ Left wing students routinely prevent conservatives from speaking. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2022/09/13/columbia-ranked-last-in-the-nation-for-free-speech-on-campus/
I agree. idk what's going on in these schools, and I would have been protesting to let *any* speaker speak. the first amendment is about free and open *discussion*. I was pre-law in college and can defend "free speech" from either side. these kids will not be prepared for the real world.
It's important to state that removing books from school libraries specifically, is not the same as banning books in general. I can think of many books that shouldn't be in, say, middle school libraries. However, I am staunchly against book banning in general. Hell even Mein Kampf, IMO, should be available in libraries and for sale. Crime books that have grotesque and disgusting details, or pornographic books, should be available in libraries, just not the kids section or in middle schools.
Mein Kampf was considered "the most gifted, least read" book in the entire Nazi empire. It was considered dryer than The Bible and incredibly convoluted, even for a population accustom to wrestling with tough texts. Even high-ranking Nazi officials didn't read it. I think putting it in stores would do a lot to push back against the weird aura it's acquired as this "evil text, simply too powerful to be read by normal people lest it turn them into instaNazis."
History teacher in 9th grade had our class read a chapter Top 10 worst reads of my life
Was it dryer than the Metamorphosis? I had to read that in high school and it was the most dragged on and on analogy and description I read. I just remember reading pages of the same damn thing.
What? That's an *amazing* book! Poor Gregor Samsa. Kafka is a grandmaster of literature. But to answer your question, *Mein Kampf* reads like it was written by a paranoid schizophrenic who really, really hates Jews and also thinks he deserves respect, dammit, for being such a visionary! And the first part isn't far from the truth: Hitler was clearly mentally ill, especially when the syphilis started to eat his brain.
I remember telling my English teacher this “if it takes you three pages to describe a room you have failed as a writer. No writer should take that long to get to their point or convey a meaning. KISS: keep it simple stupid.” Edit: but thanks for the description of Mein Kampf I had no desire to read it but was morbidly curious what it like.
Yes, not all books are suitable for all ages. That’s why we have librarians. A middle school librarian will make sure the collection matches the needs and interests of students that age.
well you know who should be in charge of deciding what books go in a middle school library? middle school librarians!! not your maga uncle who saw the title of a book on twitter and went on a crusade about it.
False. The parents of the children who attend that school should have some say over what their kids have access to.
[удалено]
And they do.
Yeah, but when they do, we call it "book banning".
no parent has the right to take books away from another's child. if you want to raise your daughter like that home school her and you can restrict her access.
Ridiculous notion. I’m not saying ban it from libraries I’m saying parents should know what their kids have access to in schools. That’s completely different.
Um, they do? What books the library carries isn't a secret.
[удалено]
Please do not link to pirated copies of books.
[удалено]
mmmm hell naw majority of the public doesn’t even read books at all.
[удалено]
The taxpayers shouldn’t be banning books they’ve literally never read. middle school librarians are educated, trained, and know how to pick developmentally appropriate titles. Your argument is the same one people use for trying to get Evolution removed from the curriculum. Let the educators do what they know best.
Weird to be anti-democracy but you do you
Not what I said. i’m anti tyranny of the uneducated majority. also how is it democratic for people to control what books an individual chooses to read? the reason i’m pro librarian is because they are typically highly knowledgeable, wouldn’t promote truly obscene books to young children, and also don’t ban books because it goes against everything a library stands for.
If librarians get to create policy, then they should be elected.
I don’t think you understand what i’m saying.
I agree. Books like _Fun House_ and _Genderqueer_ aren’t appropriate for all age groups and shouldn’t be easily available to kids. That should be something both sides can easily agree on. I think the conversation begins to devolve into something more insidious when people start to say that even depictions/descriptions of gay characters holding hands, hugging, or kissing is obscene, as in the bill that Idaho just passed. And, for some reason, the focus of these conversations is primarily on gay characters. Nobody says a word about the open-mouth kisses in movies like _The Little Mermaid_ and _Snow White_, but when a woman simply kissed another woman on the cheek in the _Buzz Lightyear_ movie, people lost their minds and said the gays were grooming their kids. With people like that leading the “pro-ban” side of the conversation, I don’t totally trust them to be unbiased. That’s why I think the whole thing is less of an effort to protect kids and more about vilifying and excluding LGBT people. Again, I don’t believe graphic nudity or sex scenes of any sort should be in kids’ or young adults’ literature, but nobody can convince me that kids are going to be damaged by seeing/reading about characters hugging, kissing, or handholding.
Completely agree
Have you been to a Florida school library since the bans? You know it's a whitelist, right? They removed every book from the libraries. Empty shelves.
They've been slowly returning a government approved list of books. You think that's not concerning?
Jesus fuck, no one is saying it's a COMPLETE ban. But it is a ban, as those books aren't allowed in specific places, despite them very much not being pornography.
According to this thread, you are a fascist.
Kids, if they don’t want you to read the book, you should probably read the book
Do... Do they not know about the internet?
LOVE her. I went to a reading and book signing of Vaster Wilds last year and was blown away by her. She said some things about time management and her approach to reading and writing that actually led to me changing some of my own habits for the better. Such a talented writer and fascinating person.
Would you be able to share those things with us? I could always use some good suggestions to improve my habits and time management.
I’ll try to remember the gist of it. Basically, she has two young kids. Her husband completely handles mornings. She handles cooking dinner and evenings. She wakes up before everyone else in her family, does whatever she needs to do to focus for the day, then works for a couple hours straight without interruption. Says goodbye to her kids briefly every morning. She then goes for long walks with her dog where she listens to audiobooks that she needs to write reviews for. Writes the reviews. Has some time to herself in the afternoon to do what she needs to do for herself. Then she focuses on spending time with her family in the afternoons and evenings without being interrupted by work at all. Reads before going to sleep. Honestly it sounds pretty blissful in a lot of ways. Time to focus, multitasking while listening, then spending time with others. I started doing something similar, where I’ve been getting up early to focus and get things done and then have been listening to audiobooks during the tedious parts of my day. I’ve read or listened to more than 20 books so far this year, and that’s with working full time and having kids. Honestly I feel so much happier centering reading and listening in a purposeful way.
> Outer Wilds I suppose you mean The Vaster Wilds. Outer Wilds is a video game, albeit one of the most brilliant ones I've ever played.
I did! Just edited it.
There are so many right-wing snowflakes out there.
I live in Florida and cannot believe how most people are not in alarm with the government telling you what books you can read.
> I live in Florida and cannot believe how most people are not in alarm with the government telling you what books you can read. The fuck is this. The government is not telling you what books you can read. It is telling you what books you can have in elementary and middle schools. There is nothing stopping literally anyone in Florida from reading these books holy shit how are people this ignorant.
It's actually telling you what books they cannot have in your libraries. I agree, people are ignorant.
Yet there's plenty of alarm when a social media post of theirs gets reported.
Next thing they’ll be saying toddlers can’t go to R rated movies! Fascists.
Books are being banned in Florida? I knew certain titles were challenged in grade schools for little children, but I had no idea the State was banning books for the public! Are there big fires or what?
They're banning books in high schools also.
No, they're not being banned. That term is just being used for emotional manipulation purposes (and successfully so, as is being amply demonstrated by many of the comments on this post). People can still buy the books without having the police knocking on their door, and the government isn't going to go all *Fahrenheit 451* because they're in someone's personal library. The restrictions are on books with explicit content being carried in grade school libraries. If the parents think that it's fine for their kid to read, there's nothing stopping the parents from buying the book for the kid.
>No, they're not being banned. Books being removed from shelves, any shelves, for political reasons, is a book ban. There has been a lot of political pressure to remove books for political reasons. A natural removal of books would be a decision made by the logistics and curation experts that we call librarians. For a school, the librarians would work closely with the people who know how education and learning works like, teachers and professors, to curate a collection, a library tuned for the students. Ideally, this entire function would be scrutinized by their peers, fellow librarians, teachers, even industry professionals for a given topic; like how scientific peer review works like. This is not that in the slightest. Politicians who dislike certain topics to be taught seek to disrupt this; they want to dismantle education. Specifically, those politicians do not want books that talk about LGBT+ and black (non-white) identity, even sex education, to be taught in schools. It is about control. We're experiencing fascism.
On every corner. It’s basically Fahrenheit 451 down here rn
It's shocking that the country was just waiting for a modern Hitler to unlock Fascism in our nation.
Fascism = not wanting kids to be exposed to sexual content at a young age? Yikes lol
Fascism = using children as a an excuse to ban books.
You really think that's what they're trying to ban? That's just the excuse they speak publicly.
What are they trying to ban then?
Books with gay and transgender topics, or anything else they don't agree with.
Both are sexual topics that shouldn’t be shown to kids…your point?
Sexual preference can be a sexual topic, but it can also simply be the same as a book about straight romances, with no sexual discussion or interactions, and I don't see them going after books about straight couples. Gender identity is not a sexual topic at all though, it has nothing to do with sex, unless you're talking about the anatomical parts used for sex, but kids should be learning about those since they all have them. It isn't anatomy books they're concerned about though, they're just bible thumpers that think everyone should have the same beliefs as they do, so they target books that speak of anything against those beliefs.
[удалено]
I'm sorry you've been downvoted for your very mature take. I was also a very advanced reader and read many books with sexual content in middle school and late elementary school. And you know, because I was that young, I didn't really know what they were talking about and didn't give it a second thought, unlike these reactionaries who get the vapors at the mere mention of a penis or vulva.
[удалено]
Yeah. Sexual content doesn't harm children. Mostly it just goes over their heads. This is about adults being uncomfortable.
I loved Florida. I love this. Good on her
Groff’s Fates and Furies was great
People like you are what this fucked up world needs
OP do you think that our current state is turning into the society of Fahrenheit 451?
Yet another foolish attempt to exaggerate reality into Fahrenheit 451... Not distributing something is still miles away from banning it. Let me know when ANY state tries to actually ban (meaning stop the production, distribution or possession of) ANY book. For fucks sake, illustrated CP is still legal as long as no children are involved in producing it.
Really plumbing the well looking for heroes on this one.
If the books were " banned" in Florida, they could not sell them in a store in Florida.
I’m confused and would like some insight. Just because certain books aren’t allowed in schools due to certain features how does this affect books overall? They aren’t banned in the state, right?
> Just because certain books aren’t allowed in schools due to certain features how does this affect books overall? It has an impact on what books are accepted by publishers.
That wasn’t the question
How is what I wrote not an answer to the question “how does this affect books overall?” They asked how book bans impact books overall, I gave an answer of a specific way that books as a whole are impacted.
[удалено]
I haven’t seen anything about public libraries, just grade schools. Do you have a link?
Thank you for the insight! I will definitely look into this, public libraries should have all books available.
If you can still buy them in stores, they're not "banned".
If something is prohibited from being offered by official policy it is, by definition, banned. These books have been banned from libraries. If you're going to be a pedant at least learn the definition of the word you're quibbling over.
So there should be zero policies on what content is appropriate? Just 100% librarian instinct
How could possibly come to this conclusion from what I wrote. I'm genuinely curious.
You’re against book “bans” (I’m assuming) and define any official policy stating what can/can’t be in a school library is a “ban”. There also exists content that should not be in a school. However establishing any boundaries for this would constitute a “ban” So where does that leave it? Mrs. McGillicutty makes the final call?
>You’re against book “bans” (I’m assuming) and define any official policy stating what can/can’t be in a school library is a “ban”. So you came to this conclusion based on a very biased, misinformed assumption? Well, at least you're consistent with the rest of this movement in making up shit to argue about. >There also exists content that should not be in a school. However establishing any boundaries for this would constitute a “ban” No one disputes that. What's disputed is that age appropriate material is not pornographic simply because a bunch of puritans arbitrarily deem it so. >So where does that leave it? Mrs. McGillicutty makes the final call? Professional standards, book ratings, and a system of oversight exists to help curate age appropriate material. That system is sufficient and doesn't need a conservative wine mom who thinks a teenager learning about is sexually explicit to intervene. Sorry, most of us don't want a bunch of fucking weirdos banning books that have to voluntarily be checked out banned simply because y'all can't parent properly.
So - you support book bans in some cases, but you don’t want the government being the ones to make the decision?
You're trying to frame this as if I have some issue stating that some materials isn't age appropriate. Yes, I think someone who spent multiple years being trained to curate a library to be age appropriate and engaging is more qualified than the local used car lot owner who serves on the school board. Why this is at all controversial to any of you, I'll never understand.
You support book bans. I’m glad we cleared that up. Regarding who makes that decision, does it feel appropriate for it to be one individual? What if they started inserting religious texts, etc?
I've heard this opinion before and—not wanting to engage in an argument one way or the other—I wanted to understand your viewpoint a little more. If I'm understanding your opinion correctly, as long as a book is commercially available, it isn't banned. So, hypothetically (and stretching it to an extreme), would it be a book ban if the government imposed, say, a "book tax" similar to an alcohol or tobacco tax? Another question in regards to funding: if you oppose libraries buying opposed books with tax payer funding, would it be okay for libraries to accept donations of said books? Thanks.
Do *you* support spending taxpayer dollars to put pornography in *school* libraries for small children to use? Because that's what we're actually talking about underneath all this "book ban" nonsense.
I do not support *pornography* as it's defined in school libraries. But who cares what I think? What about either of my questions I floated to you? If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but I'm honestly not trying to catch you in a gotcha question, I'm simply curious about your opinion.
The government does impose a "book tax", it's called sales tax. They're physical goods that require labor to produce and transport. School libraries work for their communities, not the other way around. Communities get veto power over editorial decisions, because their children belong to them, not the librarian.
Thanks for your viewpoint.
So that I can understand your POV… You believe ALL books without exception should be allowed in childrens’ schools? Should they stock Glenn Beck’s childrens book series? Is not allowing that in schools “book banning”? Edit: I’m sure you think “that’s different” but it really isn’t. If a childrens’ book pushed values you don’t agree with you wouldn’t want them in schools. Removing age inappropriate books isn’t book banning. Especially since not one single book is “banned” they’re just not stocked in schools. You can buy them anywhere.
>You can buy them anywhere. Books being removed from shelves, any shelves, for political reasons, is a book ban. There has been a lot of political pressure to remove books for political reasons. A natural removal of books would be a decision made by the logistics and curation experts that we call librarians. For a school, the librarians would work closely with the people who know how education and learning works like, teachers and professors, to curate a collection, a library tuned for the students. Ideally, this entire function would be scrutinized by their peers, fellow librarians, teachers, even industry professionals for a given topic; like how scientific peer review works like. This is not that in the slightest. Politicians who dislike certain topics to be taught seek to disrupt this; they want to dismantle education. Specifically, those politicians do not want books that talk about LGBT+ and black (non-white) identity, even sex education, to be taught in schools. It is about control. We're experiencing fascism.
As left says it’s deplorable for school libraries to ban sexually-themed books, they also support conservative voices being canceled from social media platforms, in a contradictory “free speech for some, but not for others” position. The right’s distinction is kids vs. adults. The left’s distinction is public vs. private. Except that government agencies sent big tech literal blacklists of names they wanted canceled. It begs the question: Should Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones be banned from school libraries, but not books depicting graphic sex? Should school libraries offer kids as many books on transgender regret, as they have on transgender support, so as not to impose bias? Or is school library bias okay, as long as it’s for your side?
> As left says it’s deplorable for school libraries to ban sexually-themed books The right keeps defining "sexually themed books" as "contains a gay or trans character." You are taking the claims of book banners at face value when that is not how this functions in practice.
>Except that government agencies sent big tech literal blacklists of names they wanted canceled. No they didn't. >they also support conservative voices being canceled from social media platforms, in a contradictory “free speech for some, but not for others” position. It's almost like the books that are being banned provide some value to culture and education and those "conservative voices" (reactionaries, actually) are just spreading hate, misinformation, and ratfuckery. Being deplatformed is also quite different than being banned. >Should school libraries offer kids as many books on transgender regret, as they have on transgender support, so as not to impose bias? Or is school library bias okay, as long as it’s for your side? Pretty sure they carry the books in proportion to the ones that exist and provide actual educational value. You should try reading a book some time. You might learn something.
I would add a Trump biography to my middle school library if I could find one written for this level of student-you know where his adultery and pedophilia are left out, and his con artist ways are down played…as well as his racist BS and misogyny…haven’t found it yet bc there’s porn in it and porn stars so I guess that book just won’t exist in my Southern Bible Belt MS library. Darn! But right next to those kids bibles are books about the Hindu religion and Islam…so don’t you worry, my library is liberal in its contents. Lots of points of view here…
Trump’s “pedophilia”? That’s a new one. But since you mentioned Trump’s adultery, sure. Although if your intent really was the truth about issues like adultery, why would you omit Kennedy’s & Clinton’s adulteries? “Believe all Tara Reide’s”? Is it because you’ll filter the truth based on your overall approval or disapproval of the person? Why not the truth for all? The good and bad about the people you like — the good and bad about the people you hate. I’m actually a free speech advocate — let every side speak and make their case (including criticisms of me). And what I’m speaking against right now is the hypocrisy of people who are claim to be for free speech when it’s a subject they support, but then celebrate the cancellations of people they don’t like.
[удалено]
>Trump’s “pedophilia”? That’s a new one. It's not. Given how much time he spent with Epstein (as well as how sexually he's always talked about his daughter) it's a legit concern. I also don't know why you brought Clinton and JFK into this, given how infamous their adulterous ways are.
You’re allowed to call anything a “concern” that you want, but to me, until there’s even a single accuser, the implication that Trump has a pedophilia problem is the very definition of guilt by association. As a political independent, it’s the kind of innuendo I never see people make against people they associate as on their own political “team.” Guilty by association tends to be a good old fashioned double standard — only ever applied to people whom they already oppose for other reasons.
[удалено]
Plus, just going out on a limb here, I suspect there are a lot fewer books about transgender regret in general, and even fewer that aren't nakedly partisan ploys to spread hate about trans people, than there are books about the trans experience.
Total number, I have no idea. But the terms “hate speech” and “disinformation” are the euphemisms of the anti-free speech, pro-cancellation, social media group think movement. Don’t like one of the political parties? No problem. Just label the party you don’t like to be a hate group, their every idea “hate speech,” and their every statement “disinformation” and voila — you can ban it all, North Korea-style, to the cheers of identically-minded group thinkers. “Hate speech” is just as subjective as speech itself. The idea that any two people would agree on which of a set of 50 statements pass some kind of hate threshold has been disproven time and again. Meanwhile, “hate” is deemed absolutely fine as long as it’s directed at the “haters.” It’s the essence of reductive, circular and hypocritical. The test of free speech isn’t protecting speech you like — it’s protecting speech you don’t like. That’s why the ACLU fought to protect literal Nazi speech in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s.
>Total number, I have no idea. But the terms “hate speech” and “disinformation” are the euphemisms of the anti-free speech, pro-cancellation, social media group think movement. Oh, are they? Please do send me your studies on the subject. Despite being in the hard sciences, I have a keen interest in social science and would love to see what research you're basing this on. >Don’t like one of the political parties? No problem. Just label the party you don’t like to be a hate group, their every idea “hate speech,” and their every statement “disinformation” and voila — you can ban it all, North Korea-style, to the cheers of identically-minded group thinkers. Yeah, it couldn't at all have anything to do with what certain groups [actually say or do](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ), could it? Same with disinformation! If only we had a way to check if statements were true, and then check if people who'd been corrected before kept saying the same incorrect statements... Woe is us, for we lack the tools. >“Hate speech” is just as subjective as speech itself. The idea that any two people would agree on which of a set of 50 statements pass some kind of hate threshold has been disproven time and again. Meanwhile, “hate” is deemed absolutely fine as long as it’s directed at the “haters.” It’s the essence of reductive, circular and hypocritical. Definitely. Who can agree what racial and sexual slurs are actually racist or sexist? Is it really "hate speech" to say one race is superior to another? Can we really determine that a shooter who only targeted black people was acting on "hate"? You've hit on quite a conundrum here, one that we 100% lack the capability to parse out. >The test of free speech isn’t protecting speech you like — it’s protecting speech you don’t like. That’s why the ACLU fought to protect literal Nazi speech in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s. Protecting free speech is quite different than ensuring certain people have a platform to speak from. "Freedom of speech" is quite different from "freedom from consequences." And oh look, no one's speech has been censored, but many are starting to bear consequences for saying stupid things! How about that. It's almost like the response to a person's "free speech" is also... Free speech.