318

A snippet " The Topic Concentration chart above lends the clearest picture into the implied rationale behind the bans. Namely, the bans are not and have not been about the physical removal of a book from a shelf. The bans instead are meant to:

Virtue signal by people in positions of institutional power to voting-age parents interested in school choice, parental rights, and wedge social issues to the detriment of non-voting age students

Reject and exclude topics that challenge a perceived status quo from the public discourse (e.g. non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted) "
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] user91@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago

Imagine being a twat parent petitioning for books being banned. Fucking pathetic.

[-] teft@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Fascists are what they are. Calling them twats is too nice.

[-] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Lmao quit the bullshit dramatics.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] teft@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Cockroaches always scurry about when you shine light on them.

[-] Obsolete_Person@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

As a retired librarian, I know that this is nothing new. What is new is the organized and vicious manner people use these days.

Before a crank might complain and we would bring out our intellectual freedom statements and policies. Let the rant go on a bit, then let the complainant know that as a public library we pride ourselves on the fact:

We have something to offend everyone and that is a mandate that we defend.

With people becoming more violent and unhinged, it is scary to be the holder of the knowledge and the force that protects intellectual freedom.

The battle continues.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your service.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Since you're retired, you may not have been aware, but do you know about Montana pulling out of the ALA because of bullshit right-wing politics?

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/montana-state-library-withdraws-national-library-group-presidents-marx-rcna94130

[-] jamiero29@lemmynsfw.com 20 points 1 year ago

I grew up in the 80s and remember all the panic and censoring of music that was being paraded in front of us in America that led to parental warnings being put on albums. I had never heard of "2 Live Crew" until I was told not to listen to it. So of course me and all my friends bought it to listen to it.

It's awful to see that people on my generation grew up to be idiots trying to do the same shitty thing that we grew up with to our own kids.

[-] barrio_libre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I remember rather enjoying hating Tipper Gore and all that ludicrous PMRC bullshit. I don’t think we ever took it that seriously… it’s not like they actually managed to ban anything; they just slapped some really effective “buy me!” labels on a few records.

Today’s version feels more insidious. I never felt like Tipper Gore was one step from decompensating and starting a race war. These folks, though—there’s violence just under the surface.

[-] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Whats awful about restricting what the government can use taxpayer money to provide?

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

When the restrictions come at the expense of marginalized or minority members of society who are every bit as deserving of representation in government services as normative groups.

[-] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Nobody is deserving of representation.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Waive yours, then.

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

It any book would be banned, all religious texts (bible, quran) should be first

[-] Totendax@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago
[-] Walop@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

Well, the Puritans didn't escape persecution to Americas, but felt they didn't have enough freedom to persecute others according to their views and went to find that.

[-] LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not true at all, the Catholics killed many Protestants and absolutely did persecute them unfairly, the catholic church was, and still is, a profit making organization, nothing more.

Don't be a history revisionist

[-] Shialac@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The Church of England wasn't catholic

[-] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

That depends on the year you're referring too, and the Church of England was never fully protestant anyways, they're "Anglican" which is a weird mix of the two

"Henry's religious beliefs remained aligned to traditional Catholicism throughout his reign. In order to secure royal supremacy over the Church, however, Henry allied himself with Protestants, who until that time had been treated as heretics. The main doctrine of the Protestant Reformation was justification by faith alone rather than by good works."

[-] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

You're free to read whatever the fuck you want. You aren't entitled to have the government provide it for you

[-] halferect@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Are you actually arguing for getting rid of public libraries?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Conservatives are scared of ideas.

[-] LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And Democrats are afraid of individual liberty

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

That's a funny thing to say in a thread about conservatives banning books.

[-] LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Banning books doesn't mean anything these days with everything being digitized, it's just political grandstanding.

It's just making mountains out of molehills, but fear-mongering seems to work so well for both parties it seems

Everyone loves them some outrage p0rn

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Banning books doesn’t mean anything these days with everything being digitized,

Why ban books, then?

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

My younger son has been seeking out banned books to read. In one of them, Looking For Alaska, he reported that the section which caused the ban was a few lines on one page. And even that was tame.

I'm going to have to show him this list to help him choose what to read next.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
318 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3273 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS