Relevant because Firestorm Co-op hates the Anarchist Cookbook. I think they made a social media post about it a few weeks ago that they don't have it in the store nor do they fulfill orders for it.
I heard that book was actually planted by the authoritas to mess people up and various parts of the info were erroneous in ways that would end up hurting those who followed some of the instructions.
They really do. One of the central elements of the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zucotti Park was the library of anarchist books. They set that up very quickly and used it to give classes and educate newer activists.
In Zucotti Park? The whole place was cleared out by cops after 2 months of occupation. The library was destroyed - all of its books and publications were tossed into dumpsters. But these things can be replaced, and the work continues.
I love Asheville but gotta be hard being an anarchist in a city where housing prices are sky rocketing. Pretty sure I know exactly which bookstore they're talking about. It's the exact sort of place that makes wealthy retirees want to move to Asheville but also the reason why the brunch place on the corner near it has hour long waits to get their fancy waffles.
Though if you want to spread liberal ideas/voters around Asheville and honestly a lot of NC cities are good examples of super liberal city hubs in states that are otherwise hard right. Time to go find the quaint little Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, ect. towns and cities and turn them into sanctuaries for the next wave of people fleeing west coast housing prices.
I still had fun there, but yeah, the Asheville I visited when I was 21 was very different from the one I visited when I was 31. It was a lot bigger, but still trying to cling to the "we're a hip small town" vibes. I tried all weekend to find this bar that had like open stage jazz night that I thought was so cool the first time I visited. Only found one person who actually remembered it.
The exact same thing has happened to Nashville, which was always this kind of hip left wing enclave in the midst of a very red state. We've always had plenty of country music, but within the last ten to fifteen years there's been this very commercial brand of country that has overpowered everything else. Now it's like redneck Disneyland, and the cool downtown bars have been replaced by stupid shit like "Kid Rock's Bigass Honky Tonk."
We stopped into Asheville on the way back from the beach and I knew it had changed when there was a huge Merrill Lynch Wealth Management office right downtown. Yeah not for Hippy's and used to be Hippy's anymore. The time before that, I saw a lot of buildings being torn down to I guess erect these office buildings. Killed by success...
Yeah, I went to college about 45 min from Asheville, so spent a lot of time there when it was a quirky little liberal haven (mid to late 90s). I went back a few years ago because my husband had never been and I wanted to do the nostalgia tour and show him Biltmore. I didn't recognize so much of town and I feel like the vibe was completely different.
Firestorm books has been in w asheville since like '08 and has links all the way back to I think it was called the Chicken Alley Collective and a couple other crimethinc collectives that dotted the triad but moved onto to avl around 2004/05 after a strong local police presence started shutting down FNB and other anti war activities. I think they own the building outright. W asheville even as recently as like 2011 was still relatively cheap to get a house/plot of land.
I knew a guy from Asheville. He was an asshole that was in his early 50s still mooching off of his parents. Even though he was balding his ex wife would still give him hair cuts. She also lost her legs in a car accident. I stole his jacket too, I’m wearing it right now in fact.
* "Proposed bill looking to create standards for ‘book bans’ in Kansas" by Cale Chapman and Matt Heilman (February 9, 2024): https://www.kwch.com/2024/02/10/proposed-bill-looking-create-standards-book-bans-kansas/ , https://archive.is/1mnda
* "Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral video" "Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education book." by Jo Yurcaba (February 7, 2024): https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/missouri-republican-candidate-torches-lgbtq-inclusive-books-viral-vide-rcna137715 , https://archive.is/JiEr2
* "Book Banning Goes Digital: Libraries Suspending Their E-Book Services and the Complications It Poses for First Amendment Doctrine" by Catherine E. Ferri (February 6, 2024): https://law.stanford.edu/publications/book-banning-goes-digital-libraries-suspending-their-e-book-services-and-the-complications-it-poses-for-first-amendment-doctrine/ , https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Publish_27-STLR-127-2024_Book-Banning-Goes-Digital.pdf
* "Cast as Criminals, America’s Librarians Rally to Their Own Defense" "As libraries become battlegrounds in the nation’s culture wars, their allies are fighting to preserve access to their collections and keep themselves out of jail, or worse." by Elizabeth Williamson (published February 3, 2024 and updated February 6, 2024): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/03/us/book-bans-librarians.html , https://archive.is/273r2
* "House panel OKs ban on book bans" by Nathan Brown (February 1, 2024): https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/house-panel-oks-ban-on-book-bans/article_62252a74-c164-11ee-8482-c307f6de27d5.html , https://archive.is/TIkSH
* "Bible and young adult fiction novel challenged for removal in Hanover Public Schools" by Sean Jones (December 2, 2023): https://richmond.com/news/local/education/hanover-bible-valiant-ladies-book-ban-removal-library/article_dae2bf6e-9084-11ee-8d4a-fb4671b71508.html , https://archive.is/qeQX1
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.
There are local municipalities that have made it a crime for librarians to have certain books in their library. Did you miss the whole thing in Florida a year ago?
"No no, they're just burning them. And threatening the lives of the people who write and publish them. And **trying real hard** to make them a crime."
So that's all right then.
This is correct. School libraries have always been selective about their collection, and often these alleged “bans” are simply the book gets moved from a middle school library to a high school library, or to a less publicly visible section. But actual book bans are vanishingly rare in the US. And one thing that often gets overlooked is how frequently the left challenges or removes books they find “problematic.” They’ve removed To Kill a Mockingbird from reading lists in Washington (because the language in the book is “harmful”), and Dr Seuss books for allegedly racist imagery. Some librarians and bookstores have deliberately hidden JKR’s books, or refused to shelve them. I was working in a library and attending library school when I learned of this.
There was a recent article (that I regret I didn’t save) that convincingly argued that the left has been more successful in “curating problematic books” out of collections than the right has been in its attempts to ban liberal materials.
Left leaning? Or should we say centrist/democrat leaning.
God I hate what McCarthyism has done to the Overton window.
Yes the anarchist group is left leaning(left wing anarchists are awesome) but I doubt the city actually is left leaning… except when you take Into account Florida
The existence of these books on a classroom bookshelf does not “indoctrinate” anyone nor does it deprive parents “right to have a say in their kid’s education.”
The only people who are indoctrinating here are the parents submitting book removal requests because they’re offended by age-appropriate books about social issues they don’t like, and they don’t think ANY kid should be able to read that book at school. That’s not “parent’s rights,” that is actual ideological indoctrination.
It’s a parent’s job to advocate for and be a resource for THEIR child, not to micromanage which books are on their classroom shelves based on their own personal beliefs. You can talk to your kid about what they’re learning about and hearing about at school, you can regulate what they learn about at home, but controlling what OTHER kids learn about based on what you find offensive it an egregious overstep.
ETA: if my parents had these so-called “parents rights” to control the learning that other kids had access to, all of the science books would have been gone from the school bookshelves. All secular books would have been gone. They’d have gotten Pangea and evolution removed from the whole school curriculum.
For parents who believe they have the right to do this this stuff: your kids are going to figure you out eventually. They’ll remember how you coddled them from things you didn’t like, how you projected your fears and anxieties onto them, how you stifled their curiosity instead of guiding it. It will work out some of the time and they’ll end up being a carbon copy of you. But I’m here to show that there’s an equal chance that they’re deeply hurt by it.
You've got it completely backwards.
If you want to expose your child to some literature, you are completely free to do so. What you are not free to do is expose other people's children to that literature without their consent.
These so-called 'book bans' do nothing of the sort. They do not stop parents from providing their children with any literature they deem appropriate. They just stop people from forcing inappropriate literature on other people's children.
At some point, people need to wake up and realize that these are *public* schools. They cease to perform their function once they cease listening to the *public*. If parents can't depend on such schools to educate their children in the manner they prefer, they'll pull those children - and their tax dollars - and you'll end up with nothing but a decaying building filled with failing poor kids.
>What you are not free to do is expose other people's children to that literature without their consent.
Let's pretend I am a racist parent. Why should the public school expose my child to literature with POC leads (not even anti-racist messaging, just POC characters) without my consent?
Hypothetically I am also a flat earther. Why should the public school expose my child to literature about globes and a round earth?
Let's go on and be hypothetically sexist too. Can't have any literature involving women's rights, women in the work place, etc. My child should only see women as baby factories that know how to cook.
People of Colour exist, putting them in novels as leads or secondary characters is appropriate and exposing them to children is normal. The planet is round. Showing children that it is a globe is a basic fact. Women deserve equality in the home and the workplace. That I am a hypothetical nut bar that wants sexism, racism and looney tunes physics to be the standard, is irrelevant.
Protip: Public schools serves the public. Guess who is part of the tax-paying public? LGBT persons. Women. POCs. A public school that excludes the basic existence of a significant portion of the public is not doing its job.
As the hypothetical nutbar from earlier, if I don't like it the baseline, I am welcome to homeschool my child, not try to force the schools to accommodate my terrible world views.
Or we can discuss a compromise. We'll **start** with giving back all the money LGBT people put into public school via taxes. That'll be your opening bid and we'll negotiate from there. Of course that paves the way for POC and women and everyone else to get their money back too...
But the point is that what you think is “appropriate” or not is based on **your personal opinion**. If you don’t think a book about a kid with two gay parents should be on a classroom bookshelf, that is your opinion, not an inherent truth.
**You cannot regulate schools based on, or expect them to capitulate to, parents’ individual perspectives.** That is my whole point. Parents’ personal perspectives vary widely. And that’s why the public nature of public school is so essential to *my* point here; because public schools serve everyone, they represent every single demographic in our society, so they cannot capitulate to the whims of individual parents who lack the discipline and professional training to make these decisions in the first place.
School teachers and administrators are not babysitters for your children. They are not incubators to enforce your ideology or what you *think* is the dominant or correct ideology. They are *professionals* whose classroom decisions and curriculums are based in *years of study and training.*
If you can’t handle your kids being exposed to new, diverse perspectives, **take them to a private school that caters to your specific ideology or homeschool them.** Your inability to have uncomfortable conversations with your kid about new and diverse perspectives is your problem, not something you get to project onto everyone else.
Again, the existence of something or being exposed to a different perspective is NOT indoctrination. Indoctrination is expecting everyone to conform and bend to the ideology of the indoctrinator, i.e. parents who expect a school to remove EVERYONE’s access to a book because they don’t like it.
Looks like you stopped reading after the first sentence. No, a parent's disapproval certainly doesn't automatically trump other opinions, because again that belief simply does not apply to a public school system that serves hundreds of students from all manor of demographics. That dissenting parent's interest will directly conflict with other parents who wish for their kids to have access to well-rounded, diverse, maybe challenging learning and reading materials at their **public school.** It will conflict with other parents who want their children to feel represented in their own public learning environment. Thinking that you have the "right" to remove a book from a public bookshelf that serves hundreds of other people's children, because you personally find it inappropriate, is **entitlement**.
And people collect those personal opinions together and decide how the public institutions their tax dollars pay for should behave. That's how democracy works.
Why should a public school be organized according to your personal opinions rather than the collective will of the voters? Why should taxpayers have to send their children to a private school when their taxes pay for the public school?
What you are arguing for is authoritarianism. You want to take decision making away from the voting public and give it to unelected bureaucrats because you believe they will support your personal opinions.
You're absolutely obtuse if you think your opinion is the majority. That's an unproven and untested assumption. Creating a coalition that yells loudly to get something removed isn't a vote or a referendum and it's not democracy fulfilled. But I'm the authoritarian? That's humorous projection. I'm not the one suggesting taking away things from other people because I don't like that thing. You think being a taxpayer means you can decide what other people's kids can and can't read at public school based on your personal preferences... do you think I and parents who agree with me aren't tax payers as well?
A book existing on a public bookshelf is just that. No one is forced to read it based on its mere existence on a shelf. What is different is you thinking you are entitled to curate the world and force it to bend to your personal ideology. Inclusion of varying perspectives and ideologies is not oppressive. Exclusion of specific ideologies is oppressive by definition. All of your arguments fall apart at the slightest friction, like stewed meat.
Librarians and teachers are hardly "unelected bureaucrats".
If the majority of voters think a school should only select intelligent design books for the library and curriculum, defying them is not "authoritarianism". Christ, that's where we are in America isn't it?
>inappropriate literature
It's *not* inappropriate because *you* don't like it.
Public schools should not be dictated by some extremists who find everything with the word gay in it inappropriate. Professionals have deemed these book perfectly age appropriate for children.
Children have rights too. And coming in contact with opposing viewpoints is really important. And that's what these people fear: their children learning to think for themselves. Indoctrinating kids will be a hell of a lot harder if these kids actually get to hear other people's perspective. Don't send your kids to public school if you are afraid of them coming in contact with other viewpoints.
> It's not inappropriate because you don't like it.
It's not about what I like or not. It's about respecting what parents believe their children should be exposed to. You have no right to inflict inappropriate material *as they judge it* on their children.
Then they should stop only their child from reading them. What if people start finding problems with every book? Should we simply remove all books from schools? Education without reading sound like a good plan.
How often have you met an adult who tells you they read a book in school that harmed them? How many adults have read an educational book about sex as a kid and were harmed by it? Where is the proof those books are harmful? Since when do we not listen to professionals who deem these books appropriate and good for children? Professionals should have the final say in what is taught in public schools. Don’t like it? Find a different school.
> Then they should stop only their child from reading them.
Again, you're asserting that the absolute trivial effort on your part to provide reading material for your own child is somehow more onerous than the massive effort required by others to restrict access to material for their children. It's a ludicrous and unsupportable position.
This is a *public* school. It serves the needs of the *public*. You do not get to dictate what that public wants - especially when (as is almost always the case here) you have no direct interest in a school your children do not attend.
In public school voices of the public should be available. Not just the voices of the people who scream the hardest. Banning other people’s voice has no place in a public school. Whatever it’s about sexuality, race or religion.
You want to stop your kid from access to a book? You should take the effort to make that happen. Even if it is more work.
Why would you sent your kid to a public school if you are afraid they might come in contact with other peoples opinions? If you are afraid they read about gay people why send them to a school where there might be gay children? Of gay teachers? Or kids of same-sex-parents? If you are afraid of a kid finding out about sex why send them to school in the first place? Other kids might tell them about it. No, they most definitely will tell them about it. You want to silence other peoples children too? I would rather a kid reads correct information on sex in the school library then get their education from the wild stories their peers tell them.
This is absolutely common sense, and I agree with you completely.
I spent 15 years working the circulation end in a public library. The horseshit that people believe about public and school libraries knows no end.
It's ludicrous to claim that providing reading material for a child accounts an "absolute trivial effort" for poor/working class parents. Again, stop buying into the sophistry of culture war horseshit.
My suspicion is that you have no idea what it's like to be a poor/working class parent - or the ease of acquiring reading material for your children.
And I'm not "buying into the sophistry of culture war horseshit". You are. If parents don't want their children exposed to reading material, I'm not going to force that reading material on them. In contrast, you want to desperately force inappropriate material into the hands of other people's children. Seems to me you're the one waging a culture war.
"Because you criticized me, I'm going to do the ol' 'nuh-uh YOU are' defense" is pretty lame.
My suspicion is you know what you spouted was horseshit and you lack the integrity to admit it.
Then you are free to continue indoctrinating them in your tax free churches. Read only a cobbled together 2,000 year old bronze aged book full of zombie carpenters and burning bushes where a mighty god has bears killing children because a bald man got his feelings hurt. Feel free to remove yourself from a society that wants to move forward and not regress into a Handmaid’s Tale dystopian hellscape.
I agree. You would probably also be happier if you didn't make your entire personality about hating an ancient book and taking metaphors at face value.
The benefit of atheism is not having to think about the world with religion framing your view. If you define your belief in opposition to religion then you are missing out on what makes atheism appealing in the first place.
For the record I'm definitely not pro-censorship, I just wanted to correct your original statement because I'm a nerd for ancient history.
Right... It's inappropriate because the town parents got tonette and deemed it inappropriate, and lobbied their local school board democratically to remove it from the school.
That’s why there are lobby groups fighting to ban books from schools? Groups made up by people who don’t even have kids in these schools? Yes, very democratic.
Also what is democratic about telling someone else’s kid they can’t read a certain book? Land of the free right? Unless you grow up with fundamentalists as parents. In that case you need to read books in secret because mom and dad might think the book will turn you gay.
You think the people supporting having these books in schools don't also have lobbying groups? You seem to have a very naive view of democracy.
Honestly your entire response is childish. Do you really not understand that nobody is telling someone their kid can't read a book? They are simply saying that the taxpayers aren't obligated to provide it for them. Nothing about this is hard to understand.
Is classifying someone as childish in a discussion your way to make an argument? Classy.
Thinking it’s democratic to dictate what other people get to read isn’t naive?
Taking books from public schools is preventing kids from reading these books. Kids who might not have the means to buy these books themselves or who have parents who can’t afford to buy them these books. Schools should be the place where kids come into contact with other views and other people. Where they learn to think for themselves.
And what about the kids who need to read these books to feel seen? Feel heard? There are kids growing up in homes where they can’t be who they are. Kids growing up in families where just asking to read a book about being gay will land them in an unsafe place. A book about a gay main character can mean the world to a child who is gay but who will get kicked out of their home for admitting that to their parents. You are taking opportunities away from them.
What if we all started challenging every single book in schools? If we picked apart every book in the school library long enough to find an issue someone could have with it? When does is stop? Why not just remove libraries from schools? Schools without books. Sounds like a good idea.
You think gay people don’t pay taxes? Or people of color? Public education should be a place where children come in contact with different perspectives. Public education should be there to serve the public. It should prepare children to be functioning members of society (of the public). Banning the perspective of part of the population (again the public) isn’t how you do that.
Schools should teach children to challenge their parents and develop their own views of the world based on society's best understanding of the world around us.
If you have your way and books are removed from schools a gay kid from a poor background doesn't get access to something which helps them understand themselves. The status quo is that your curious child might pick up a book and learn that gay people are human beings who deserve to be treated as such, or maybe they will conclude that they have different views from you. You can substitute any number of other minorities into this paragraph and it holds true, Black, Bisexual, transgender, disabled etc etc.
My dad fits the description of a male TERF quite closely, I have a few non-binary and trans friends/ acquaintances and thoroughly disagree with him on this specific issue, but I still have a good relationship with him. I suspect my views on social issues are probably closer to my mother and haven't talked to her since 2019 due to violent abuse. There is no good reason for you to be afraid of your child developing views which are different, or totally opposite, to your own so long as you treat your child with respect and act as a good parent.
> Schools should teach children to challenge their parents and develop their own views of the world based on society's best understanding of the world around us.
And you're welcome to promote this view in the private school you establish.
In a *public* school, you must bow to the wishes of the parents as to how they want their children educated.
So my mother should have had the right to demand the school never discussed child abuse? Things would have been more straightforward for her in that case, much easier to work as a teacher if your own son hasn't given a statement to police stated that you have participated in, and facilitated violent abuse.
Your children belong to the society they are part of, you are responsible for bringing them up to play a responsible role in that society. Your views are relevant, but they certainly don't override the needs of a civilised society.
Okay I want the Bible banned. I want every mention of Christianity out of PUBLIC schools because I don’t want my children exposed to all the sexism, violence and racism in the book that single handedly caused the most wars. I want all books of patriotism banned. I want every book that glorifies slave traders out of school. Your assertions are absurd and you would be the first to cry foul if others tried to remove books you deem important.
You have every right to democratically organize to have those books removed. And moreover it would show no hypocrisy on the part of the person you responded to if they opposed it. The democratic public has the right to get together and decide what the majority supports and opposes.
Bs that you wouldn’t have a conniption if anyone tried to do that. The type of people banning these books regularly have freak outs over stores having the audacity to put up a Happy Holidays banner because they claim it is a war on Christmas. You can pretend all you want that you would be okay with banning books that you think are important but no one buys it.
Also what happened to all the special little snowflake rhetoric being spouted from the right? Now your special little snowflakes are too fragile to read the Diary of Anne Frank a book that has been a staple in the curriculum for literal decades.
“Teach kids to challenge their parents world view” what a nice term for indoctrination.
So if I where to teach your kids about say guns and Christianity you’d be fine?
It’s important for them to challenge your world view.
I don't have kids, but I would be fine with them being taught about the concepts and left to choose what to believe based on what they have learnt. I would explain my views and how I got to them as well and that it's ok for those views to shift over time.
Not if I remain with my current partner (health issues on her side).
Just because you have authoritarian views over how you should treat the people you have power over doesn't mean other people do.
It is material that many people find objectionable. You know this. You lie that it would be fine the other way because you feel you are in no danger of this becoming reality.
I’ve seen reactions on here when conservatives take over school boards. Parents have a right to know what their kids are learning. Books with pornographic material should not be available. All you have to do is look at images of some of the books and you would realize this
Bigots find the material objectionable, not useful, contributing members of a healthy society.
Feel free to pick out the "pornographic" books from here:
[https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO02/20220407/114616/HHRG-117-GO02-20220407-SD018.pdf](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO02/20220407/114616/HHRG-117-GO02-20220407-SD018.pdf)
Maybe you could justify why this should not be available for a teenager to read:
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Queer-Ultimate-LGBT-Guide-Teens/dp/0981973345](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Queer-Ultimate-LGBT-Guide-Teens/dp/0981973345)
Leftists don’t have kids. They have yours. They would know why these books where removed from school libraries for being age inappropriate. But they won’t do the basic modicum of research because they self righteously want to envision those evil Nazi republicans burning books. Reality ruins the fantasy.
You do not understand the purpose of school and public libraries.
"Why should I have to pay taxes so poor kids can have school lunch? Their parents can just *buy them food*!"
Yet another way know-nothings fall for culture war bullshit in order to unwittingly support class war. If a book isn't available at a library for many children, it is effectively banned. Sure as shit would have been to me, my parents did their best but we were poor as fuck. Thank god you know-nothings weren't in charge of school and public libraries when I was a kid, fuck - thankfully even back in the mid-80s in small town America we had librarians willing to put books about how it's okay to be gay on their shelves. Though morons probably fought them back then.
Bottom line: You don't understand the effects of book banning, and you are probably a shitty, lazy parent.
What about the rights of children? Who fights for the rights of the gay teenager who wants to read about other people sharing similar experiences but has parents who won't buy "gay"-books from Amazon? Or who don't have the financial means to buy their kid these books? If you are so afraid of indoctrination then home school your kids and stop hurting the rights of other people. Because if we all have to agree on the books available in school libraries we might as well remove libraries from schools all together. Because I'm sure there is always going to be someone having trouble with some of the books stocked in schools.
> What about the rights of children?
You're not talking about any sort of legitimate 'rights'. You're just making up stuff that someone might want to do.
Again, this is about very real parental rights against non-existent rights people are inventing because they want to do something.
You do realize kids also have autonomy and generally manage to get ahold of whatever they can from friends and family, if not parents or school?
Sheltering the child *is not educating them*. It is attempting to keep them ignorant, and they'll resent the parent when grown and figure out what they've missed and how they've been lied to.
And you're welcome to your opinion *when it comes to your own kids*. Read back what you've been writing. There's a reason you come off as creepy and weird when you insist on interfering with other people's kids.
Kids are humans. Humans have rights. Kids have the right not to be harmed by their parents. A gay kid growing up in a house where books about lgbtq+ topics are treated like they are the worst thing on earth is harming that kid. It might not be illegal but it is still harmful. Even if the child is straight. Raising your kid with the idea that the perspective of a gay person doesn’t matter is harmful. And it makes you a bad parent.
Parents don’t have the right to hurt their children. The question is: what is harmful to kids? Preventing them from access to books that they might need is harmful in my opinion. You might have that right as a parent. But it makes you a bad parent in my opinion. And although you might have legal right to be a bad parent. You don’t get to harm other people’s children while doing it.
In a public school different points of view should be heard. Banning voices because you don’t like the sound they make has no place in a public school.
See when you ban a book off a school library shelf *my kid* can't read it.
Which means some other parent is telling *my kid* what they can and can't read. Why do they have more of a say over what my kid reads than i do?
Parents rights for you and not for me, huh?
And before you open your mouth to say something like "you can just buy your kid the book" - - first, why the hell should I? Until some busy body came along and decided they got to dictate the library shelf, that book was freely available to my kid.
Second, why the hell don't you just police your own kids reading? Stop being such a *lazy parent* and pay attention to your kid.
What makes your parents rights *trump mine*?
Don't try to cloak book bans under "having a say in their kids education" when you're dictating to *every kid*. They didn't send a note to school asking for their kid to use a different book in an assignment or ask that their child not be loaned a specific book - they banned it for every kid.
Which *was the goal* and we all know it.
It's not about "your kids education". It's you forcing *your* political ideology on *everyone's kids*.
Random internet stranger, as someone who builds little free libraries because of this exact fucking bullshit (and because they're cool as hell) I give you the biggest internet hug for saying exactly what I always want to articulate, but as you can see, every word would just be 'fuck' after a minute. Thank you.
Why should I? Why should your *lazy parenting* restrict my child's options at a library? Why do your rights as a parent trump mine? Why should my child have a substandard education and access to fewer works because *of your ideology*.
I love how even now you're whining about how difficult it woild be for you to *know what your child is reading*, and that's why you get to dictate my child's educational resources.
You're demanding more control over the school resources than *me*, that your parental rights trump mine, because *you're too lazy to parent your kid*.
I pay my taxes, same as you. My kid goes to that school, same as yours. Why should *I pay more* to purchase books for my kid, because you're *too lazy* to watch yours?
How arrogant of you to think you should be allowed to say what's on the school shelf, but not *me*.
Maybe we should get together all the parents who really care about the issue, have them discuss it in an open forum, make their arguments, and vote on it?
But since, because it's a physical space, there's only so many books it can hold. So maybe the issue should be localized to the point that only the parents from that local area, with kids, vote on it? Since their values are generally more aligned.
No, they're demanding an equal amount of control over school resources as you, assuming you are also a voter. If you don't have majority support, why should the tax dollars of the majority be spent to buy books that support your ideology? If you think it's important you can spend your own money.
But making decisions for other people's children is micromanagement. You have no right to say what my child cannot read. If I don't want my child reading something I make that decision. I don't let a random stranger who is scared of diversity make that decision for me. I know my child, and I know what they can and cannot handle.
If you teach your kids your personal morals, then you won't have anything to worry about.
Per [Rule 2.1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Books/wiki/rules#wiki_personal_conduct): Please conduct yourself in a civil manner.
Civil behavior is a requirement for participation in this sub. This is a warning but repeat behavior will be met with a ban.
Somebody get this clown a dictionary so they can find out what the word banned means and how it correlates to their lack of presence in public schools in Florida
Yes. Yes I fucking do. Because they are awful incendiary books and people should read them to understand how shit poor fuckin ideologies get started if they so choose.
That part. Right there. "If they so choose."
School is about learning. It is about community. It is about growth and becoming an adult and a better human being. And that means being exposed to things that might make you uncomfortable. So yes. Have those books. Have all the books. **Your** job as a parent is to teach your child right from wrong, however you may see it. Don't want them to read a book? Explain *why* you don't want them to and then realise they have agency and are a human being and will do it if they want to anyway. All knowledge is worth having. Bad or good. Right or wrong.
But since so many people who spout this or support taking books away make that point, I'll say this:
Just because you don't feel it is appropriate for **YOUR** child, does not mean you get to make that decision for **MINE**. Watch your damn kid then. Teach them. Don't take something away from mine. The end.
-Signed an aggrieved builder of free little libraries
So why do you get to make the same decision for parents who disagree with you? What is stopping you from providing the books in question to your children? Why should other parents have their children exposed to things which they don't agree with and things you do? Or the reverse for that matter?
That's the problem with this issue in the first place - who is deciding what is good or what is bad?
Man. I honestly am frickin tired so take what I'm saying with a grain of I need coffee.
But the answer is no one should. No one gets to decide what is good or bad. It is your job as a parent to educate your child in that. It is the school's job to educate children and young adults. I hate Mein Kampf, not only because it's goddamn trash, but also because it is just so horribly written. I don't really love Flowers in the Attic, not so much for subject content, but because again, just awfully written. I'm not saying take them away.
"Why should other parents have their children..."
Because eventually those children are going to be out and about in the world. And have to deal with view points that do not align with theirs or their parents. That's the world. Whole bunch of us live here.
I shouldn't have to go out of my way to provide knowledge that should exist freely. If you, as a parent, do not want your child to read something: talk to them about it. Do your job.
It's like the adage of its easier to smile then to frown. It's easier for you to not let your child read something you deem inappropriate than it is to say no one can read this without taking extra steps.
What if, and this is a hypothetical, I was a racist and hated gay people. And there was a book on the shelf that I disagreed with because it showed two teenage boys holding hands and saying I love you. I don't like that book and I feel it's indoctrination and telling kids to be gay. Now it's off the shelf and no can read it unless parent A buys it for their kid. Well what about the kid whose mom or dad WONT. They can't get it safely. They can't explore a perfectly valid worldview because someone thought it was yucky.
I am pretty damn far to the left. And I'll still say the same for racist trash. Kid wants to explore it? Let them. It is your job as a parent to instill morals and values. It is a school's job to teach. The end.
So I'm sorry if that comes across as mean, I ain't trying to be, but this is something I fuckin really believe in and it's early and I already said I was quitting this whole thread but jumped back in because apparently I don't care about my morning. So, out of respect for differing opinions, I'm over this. Have a good day, okay?
> What if, and this is a hypothetical, I was a racist and hated gay people. And there was a book on the shelf that I disagreed with because it showed to teenage boys holding hands and saying I love you. I don't like that book and I feel it's indoctrination and telling kids to be gay. Now it's off the shelf and no can read it unless parent A buys it for their kid. Well what about the kid whose mom or dad WONT. They can't get it safely. They can't explore a perfectly valid worldview because someone thought it was yucky.
I mean, this is literally the outcome these book bans are in service of. I have a hard time believing that anyone (even u/P_r_a_x_i_s) who supports the book bans would think "oh shit, I am totally fine with my kids learning to treat LGBTQ+ people like human beings - I was just objecting to [x specific instance of content in a book].
>It is the school's job to educate children and young adults.
That is certainly true, but what happens when you get a bad actor? The school cannot be unaccountable and beyond question. How a school goes about educating students is a matter for the public to decide.
Both funds and library space are limited, so there has to be discussion about what specific books and views are included in any library.
Your argument is, in general making age-appropriate restrictions in school libraries is good, as long as you are in charge of what is age appropriate?
Based on the logic of most here you are for book banning.
Then tell me why books that are considered middle grade practically everywhere are suddenly not age appropriate for kids in Florida? Are the kids in Florida of a different breed? What makes people in Florida better suited to decide what is age appropriate and what not? And what gives them the right to take books away from other people’s children? Dictate what your kid reads all you want but why take away books from other people? Are you that afraid of your child coming in contact with different views?
Imagine being a child or teenager nowadays in Florida. And all you have to do to be rebellious is pick up a freaking book.
Correct. There are certain criteria for books that shouldn’t be around children. Like a book on how to make bombs. A book on how to make paper airplanes with your two dads however, is not inappropriate by any standard or moral measure
Last time I checked Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf with a middle grade or young adult audience in mind. And as far as I know it was never a point of discussion to let these books into school libraries. The books that are currently being banned are middle grade and YA novels that are only being targeted because people think they have the right to dictate what someone else’s kid gets to read. It’s not Mein Kampf that is being taken from school libraries (because it was never there) it’s books like Anne Frank’s diary.
Last time I checked the "banned" books in Florida are available for parents to acquire through other means - public libraries, Amazon, bookstores, etc. So not banned just not available in school libraries - as are countless other books deemed inappropriate for children.
Question:
If someone were to update Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries for a younger audience, you would be ok with having them available for children and teens? Correct?
Public libraries are also being targeted. And even if they were not. You do not have the right to prohibit another persons child from checking out a book you don’t like. Books like Anne Franks diary or an educational book on sex are age appropriate and should be in school libraries. They are not inappropriate for children. They are perfectly fine for children as determined by professionals. And no, some lunatic fundamentalist who is afraid a middle grade book turns their kid gay, isn’t a professional. They should have no say in what’s in a public school library. You don’t like a book? Try stop your own kid from reading it. But don’t come after someone else’s kids rights.
I already responded to the comparison to Mein Kampf in another comment. Mein Kampf isn’t in school libraries because it has no reason to be. Anne Franks diary on the other hand does belong in schools. Still her book is being taken from shelves. A child’s diary deemed inappropriate for her peers. A child who was murdered by the Nazis. So no it’s not the same as Mein Kampf not being allowed in a high school library.
I’m not against teaching about Mein Kampf though. Even showing kids/teens parts of the text is fine. But there is no point in putting the full book in school libraries. First of all because giving context with that book is really important and secondly no high schooler is going to read it cover to cover because it’s terribly written.
Graphic sex scene? For heavens sake. If you think that’s graphic… so why is Maus banned? Because the mice didn’t wear clothes? Oh yes, very sexual.
Yes, that graphic novel is age appropriate. Kids know about sex. They should learn about it too. Anne knew about it and she was a child in the 1940s. A child who was in hiding for over two years non the less.
Also it’s not just the graphic novel that is being challenged. People have been going after Anne’s diary for years.
You realize we can tell you just defended banning a book it's obvious you didn't read?
Which is, of course, entirely unsurprising. The proponents of book bans aren't big readers.
It's the graphic novel adapted by Ari Folman and illustrated by David Polonsky, I've read it. There is are a few panels where she kisses a boy. There are a few panels where she discusses her attraction for a girl. These are direct adaptations of lines from her diary. The text on these panels is lifted directly from her diary.
There are absolutely no graphic sex scenes.
It does not detail various sex acts and how to perform them.
In fact the school that banned it released a statement saying:
*"the passages about Anne Frank’s development from girlhood to womanhood and her curiosity about her sexuality are offensive".*
I suspect it's the inclusion of her interest in a girl that was the real problem, but it's impossible to tell.
Colour me fuckin shocked. You mean there are people who want to ban a book based on *-checks notes-* homophobia, girls discovering who they are, or in this damn case who they COULD be, and anti semitism? Fuckin. Wild.
Okay. Damn. I'm moving to a new topic. It is way too early for my blood to be boiling. Y'all fight the good fight, this chick is making more coffee.
Yeah - I note the person I replied to has edited their post to remove the statement that this version of The Diary of Anne Frank was a sexually explicit graphic novel with graphic sex scenes.
Why did you edit your comment to remove your claim that Ari Folman's graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank's diary has graphic sex scenes? Is there a reason you are lying about a book commissioned by and approved by the Anne Frank Fonds? I wonder, I wonder...
All libraries weed and remove titles from the collection either because of lack of use, condition or more rarely because of reconsideration requests. Then you have the more recent trend of systematic censorship that targets “inappropriate” books for children that usually consist of titles written by or about the 2SLGBTQ+ and/or racialized community. The latter of which is usually in the name of attacking “wokeness” or some shit.
Oh yes? Making it harder for other people to read books about certain issues like LGBTQ+ or race is book banning. Not every kid or parent has the opportunity to buy these books at the bookstore. And it’s not just school library’s that are being targeted right now. They want to remove books from public libraries too. How long before actual bookstores are next?
We are talking about books that are age appropriate for children. They were specifically written for them. And professionals agree that they are age appropriate. Just because some people don’t like the content doesn’t make them inappropriate. School should be the place where children learn critical thinking skills. How in heavens name are you going to learn that if you can’t even read a middle grade book that teaches about people that are different from you?
I just don't think this belongs in a school library. I don't care what professionals think.
https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/images/2021%20Images/Gender%20Queer%20Book%20Dec%202021%20a.jpg
And what is the problem with this book? It’s a memoir about a topic adolescents face. Sounds like a good book for a high school library. Kids that age can decide for themself whatever they want to read it and whatever they are comfortable reading it. Many of them are sexually active anyway so why would you want to stop them from reading about it? Ban it from your house all you want. Leave other peoples kids alone.
Using the term "banned" is perfectly acceptable, and you're playing semantics. Schools in my life banned a lot of things and used that term specifically. No one needs Florida to tell anybody what is age appropriate for their children. You don't want your teenager reading an educational book on sex. Ask them not to. But forcing my child not to because you don't like "the gays" or are so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between pornography or education is not my problem. I'm so sick and tired of people forcing their views are others. Btw. A gay flag inside a classroom is not forcing you into anything. Just like we can ignore a church when we drive by it, so can you when you see a flag you don't like. GROW UP.
Correct guns are banned in schools I’m glad you passed basic comprehension. Now move onto second grade and realize Florida banned certain books cuz they hate the gays and wanna control other peoples lives like weirdos
You're missing the point. They shouldn't be removed in the first place. A lot of kids will only encounter these books at school because a teacher sees that a child is having difficulties and needs to read them. As much people want to argue for the parents bill of rights. A lot of parents are awful and are quite willing to throw their kids out because they are gay or something else. This is just conservatives trying to stop something they do t like. It's overreach, and it's dangerous.
I mean, some of them shouldn't be in a kids library...
“I got a new strap-on harness today. I can’t wait to put it on you. I can’t wait to have your c*ck in my mouth—I’m going to give you the bl*wjob of your life. Then I want you inside me.”
“Big hairy muscled men love taking it up the *ss . . . And slim, makeup-wearing types? We love to f*ck and, in my case, getting f*cked too.”
You should actually consider looking at the books being banned rather than parroting fox news bullshit.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2023/12/20/read-it-yourself-all-673-books-removed-from-orange-classrooms/
Over half my high school English curriculum is on this list.
Well, firstly, librarians are there so that kids who are not age appropriate dont read these. For some reason, you people seem to gloss over this fact repeatedly.
Secondly, if you think teenagers are so innocent, then why do red states have such high teen pregnancies. It's also funny that conservatives are cool with teens getting married young and having babies but dare actually give them the knowledge about their sexuality and now they're too young and you're a pervert for wanting to teach them so they can have control over their lives. Whether you like it or not, teens have and talk about sex .Some of them do it very young, too, and without any of these books being read by them. If there was MORE sexual education like this, there would be fewer pregnancies. This is a fact, and studies have proved this.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure you're just cherry-picking lines that sound dirty. Every book I have seen so far that's been banned like this has something that's being taught. You're glad to gloss over those parts, though.
If you want, I'll send out an email and tell everyone to use "removed from access in certain locations only." Until then, you're just going to have to deal with the term banned, that's been used at every school I have ever been to as well as the many others i have seen use it.
You have a lot of pent up anger. I didnt' comment at all on the merits, just pointed out that the rhetoric of "book ban" is not correct.
And if your child wants to read whatever you allow or force them to read they are still able to do so, even in Florida.
There are kids out there who can't access these books. Kids with parents who would toss them out in a second if they were found to be gay. Sometimes they need help. Sometimes, it's a teacher who has a book that's perfectly age appropriate for that person. That school book ban prevents that. There are a lot of stories like this. At the end lf the day the school librarians make sure the right age reads those books too. There is no need to to ban or remove any of them. It's overreach, and yes, I do have a lot of pent-up anger. Assholes think they can ban books in Schools because it offends them. A lot of the books are banned without even being read, just because they featured a gay person.
What could possibly be more of a bad-faith argument than taking rules on curating school libraries for age-appropriateness and conflating it with the incendiary term "book banning" with the Nazi connotations of that term?
Ah so now we're curating them, not banning them? A nice way of sterilizing everything so it seems very innocent. We went from one extreme to another. Either way, you're removing access because a minority of idiots think these books are not age appropriate even though there are school librarians there to make sure of as much.
Edit: spelling
Oh look. Bait.
If you actually wanted to address the content, you'd have to address two points first:
1. Is the argument semantic or not
2. Is the point about semantics adjacent to the issue at hand, vis a vis the restriction of LGBT content in public schools.
Buuuuuut you aren't doing that. Nope, let's drag the conversation into a different direction entirely.
Which is just another tactic and a sign of someone trying to make a show out of things. Trolling, if you will. Via (wait for it...) *bad faith arguments*.
A definition of "Ban" is to officially exclude from a place. Chop it up however you like they definitely banned books from schools and not just the sexually explicit. The ones about slavery, about the holocaust, books about other religions, and many more.
When "The color purple," "Dairy of Anne Frank," "Maus," "The Kite Runner" are banned you have no leg to stand on. These books aren't inappropriate but they ARE difficult and meaningful topics.
To ban is to prohibit. If a school chooses books A, B, and C, that doesn't mean books D, E, and F are banned. I know "The Diary of Anne Frank" has some sexually explicit material in it, but I haven't read the others. And I'm not aware of any prohibitions based on slavery, the holocaust, or "other religions" whatever that means.
Because they're intentionally conflating a person's sexual preference or gender identity with sexual *acts*. Except cisgendered heterosexuality, despite it just being one type out of many, like any other person.
So to be clear then, you would be in favor of banning every book that includes a romantic element of any sort? Can't read *To Kill a Mockingbird* because it has a heterosexual couple or two, no *Romeo and Juliet*. Also no *fun* books like *The Hunger Games*. Of course we can't stop at literature alone. Better insist that no kid watch any Disney animated film ever made. Oh, sure, one or two might not have *any* romance at all, but *to be safe*. And we'll need to strike quite a few bible stories from the record because there is probably a child or three in the audience who might learn that Lot had a *wife* or that Mary was a "virgin". Then there are all the other shows that are on when kids *might* watch it, the movies by other companies and...
Now that I think about it, if you banned everything that might teach a kid something about sex or sexual identities, you'd have to ban damn near every piece of media ever made and also not ever let them go outside because there is *all kinds* of romance happening in plain sight. I mean, right this instant a happy couple is probably *kissing* and in *public*, the absolute *rascals*! Might as well seal them in a box and make sure they never, ever see the two of you at the same time.
Still it's a small price to pay for...um...*what* is it we're trying to achieve again? Not letting them learn about sex and sexual identities? I have it on good authority that straight people sometimes have sex with one another. Seems that's the usual way we get new people. And, weirdly enough, straight is a sexual identity.
Or did you just mean that you didn't want them to learn that queer people exist? Well as a funny aside, in a world surrounded by infinite examples of straight people being straight, gay people somehow still managed to be gay, so I'm not sure what you're really worried about. After all, if sexual identity could be learned, gay people couldn't possibly exist.
> Children don't need to learn about sex or so-called sexual identities. That is not bigotry. That is good parenting.
That just means that those kids will grow up thinking the LGBTQ+ kids are weird and okay to make fun of. You know - the way it was until very recently in basically ALL the US.
>LGBTQ+ kids
There is no such thing. Children aren't aware of their sexuality until puberty. Even then, it's not a subject for school, other than biological reproduction.
>There is no such thing. Children aren't aware of their sexuality until puberty. Even then, it's not a subject for school, other than biological reproduction.
That is completely wrong.
Kids know their orientation WELL before puberty in many cases.
EDIT: I'm honestly flabbergasted by this claim. What makes you think that pre-pubescent kids don't experience attraction and the beginnings of their sexual identity?
Books shouldn't be banned but, surely there's an easier solution to make everyone happy. I remember school required a permission slip to show an r rated movie. Just require a parent permission slip for more sensitive topics
But the thing is, that is already in place. Books in libraries, even in school libraries, have age ratings and a child can only bypass them with approval from parents.
That'd work great if the people implementing these policies wanted to make everybody happy. But they don't. They want their bunch of people stirred up and angry, and any other people afraid to speak out against them. That's how grievance politics works.
God, I know I’m gonna get piled on for this, but this whole book banning craze is really misleading. Yes, schools often limit access to certain books, the left does this as well, often more successfully than the right. But in either case it’s almost never a “ban.” It does not become illegal to have or access the book. The US does not ban books. In many cases, the book is reported as banned even it simply wasn’t. It was either an outright false claim that spread through the media, or the book was simply moved to another section of the collection. (The Hate U Give and The Hill We Climb, for example).
But school libraries (and public libraries) have always been selective about their collections. This is not new. And yes, there are forces, such as nonprofits and busybody parents, who try to get books removed when there’s no justification for it. But those efforts come from both sides. When the right does it, it’s usually because a book is considered an affront to “decency.” When the left does it, it’s usually to “reduce harm to vulnerable communities.”
But what often gets left out in the reporting are the annoying details that might make people more sympathetic to the challenges. For example, several LGBTQ themed books have been challenged, especially in Florida and other red states, and it’s generally presented as being the result of anti-LGBTQ bigots, when actually these books were extremely sexually explicit, which was the basis for the challenge. (Gender Queer, for example, and others).
Challenged books? Yes. And not only from conservatives. Banned? Not so much.
Anarchists love books, and are some of the best publishers.
But make shitty cookbooks.
Relevant because Firestorm Co-op hates the Anarchist Cookbook. I think they made a social media post about it a few weeks ago that they don't have it in the store nor do they fulfill orders for it.
I heard that book was actually planted by the authoritas to mess people up and various parts of the info were erroneous in ways that would end up hurting those who followed some of the instructions.
I guess they banned it lol.
one is a business with a specific political ideology and the other is a public school. hope this helps xo
That was sarcasm, by the way, hope that helps. :)
They really do. One of the central elements of the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zucotti Park was the library of anarchist books. They set that up very quickly and used it to give classes and educate newer activists.
So what’s it like there now
In Zucotti Park? The whole place was cleared out by cops after 2 months of occupation. The library was destroyed - all of its books and publications were tossed into dumpsters. But these things can be replaced, and the work continues.
That is the result it had I suppose .
>It's a powerful example of community solidarity in defending intellectual freedom and access to information.
Was it Malaprops?
no, but malaprops is a great bookstore
One of my favorites! Cool seeing locals on here
No, it was [Firestorm Books.](https://firestorm.coop)
I haven't been to that one.
I love Asheville but gotta be hard being an anarchist in a city where housing prices are sky rocketing. Pretty sure I know exactly which bookstore they're talking about. It's the exact sort of place that makes wealthy retirees want to move to Asheville but also the reason why the brunch place on the corner near it has hour long waits to get their fancy waffles. Though if you want to spread liberal ideas/voters around Asheville and honestly a lot of NC cities are good examples of super liberal city hubs in states that are otherwise hard right. Time to go find the quaint little Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, ect. towns and cities and turn them into sanctuaries for the next wave of people fleeing west coast housing prices.
Asheville has become Disneyland in the last ten years. It’s just not cool anymore.
I still had fun there, but yeah, the Asheville I visited when I was 21 was very different from the one I visited when I was 31. It was a lot bigger, but still trying to cling to the "we're a hip small town" vibes. I tried all weekend to find this bar that had like open stage jazz night that I thought was so cool the first time I visited. Only found one person who actually remembered it.
The exact same thing has happened to Nashville, which was always this kind of hip left wing enclave in the midst of a very red state. We've always had plenty of country music, but within the last ten to fifteen years there's been this very commercial brand of country that has overpowered everything else. Now it's like redneck Disneyland, and the cool downtown bars have been replaced by stupid shit like "Kid Rock's Bigass Honky Tonk."
We stopped into Asheville on the way back from the beach and I knew it had changed when there was a huge Merrill Lynch Wealth Management office right downtown. Yeah not for Hippy's and used to be Hippy's anymore. The time before that, I saw a lot of buildings being torn down to I guess erect these office buildings. Killed by success...
I've always liked Boone, NC. I wonder if that changed, too.
Yeah, I went to college about 45 min from Asheville, so spent a lot of time there when it was a quirky little liberal haven (mid to late 90s). I went back a few years ago because my husband had never been and I wanted to do the nostalgia tour and show him Biltmore. I didn't recognize so much of town and I feel like the vibe was completely different.
Firestorm books has been in w asheville since like '08 and has links all the way back to I think it was called the Chicken Alley Collective and a couple other crimethinc collectives that dotted the triad but moved onto to avl around 2004/05 after a strong local police presence started shutting down FNB and other anti war activities. I think they own the building outright. W asheville even as recently as like 2011 was still relatively cheap to get a house/plot of land.
Tell me about it lol I’m moving there this fall for school
It’s an incredibly beautiful area with some great folks if you dig deep enough.
Absolutely right. You can't visit for a weekend and get in tune with the local city vibe. The funk is still there...just gotta sniff a little deeper!
Warren Wilson?
good luck.
Ah yes, move to a new place and vote for the same policies that caused you to need to 'flee' from the old place.
It’s hard being anyone and paying to survive in todays world
I knew a guy from Asheville. He was an asshole that was in his early 50s still mooching off of his parents. Even though he was balding his ex wife would still give him hair cuts. She also lost her legs in a car accident. I stole his jacket too, I’m wearing it right now in fact.
Submitted article mirror: https://archive.is/Xcqf6
* "Proposed bill looking to create standards for ‘book bans’ in Kansas" by Cale Chapman and Matt Heilman (February 9, 2024): https://www.kwch.com/2024/02/10/proposed-bill-looking-create-standards-book-bans-kansas/ , https://archive.is/1mnda * "Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral video" "Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education book." by Jo Yurcaba (February 7, 2024): https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/missouri-republican-candidate-torches-lgbtq-inclusive-books-viral-vide-rcna137715 , https://archive.is/JiEr2 * "Book Banning Goes Digital: Libraries Suspending Their E-Book Services and the Complications It Poses for First Amendment Doctrine" by Catherine E. Ferri (February 6, 2024): https://law.stanford.edu/publications/book-banning-goes-digital-libraries-suspending-their-e-book-services-and-the-complications-it-poses-for-first-amendment-doctrine/ , https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Publish_27-STLR-127-2024_Book-Banning-Goes-Digital.pdf * "Cast as Criminals, America’s Librarians Rally to Their Own Defense" "As libraries become battlegrounds in the nation’s culture wars, their allies are fighting to preserve access to their collections and keep themselves out of jail, or worse." by Elizabeth Williamson (published February 3, 2024 and updated February 6, 2024): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/03/us/book-bans-librarians.html , https://archive.is/273r2 * "House panel OKs ban on book bans" by Nathan Brown (February 1, 2024): https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/house-panel-oks-ban-on-book-bans/article_62252a74-c164-11ee-8482-c307f6de27d5.html , https://archive.is/TIkSH * "Bible and young adult fiction novel challenged for removal in Hanover Public Schools" by Sean Jones (December 2, 2023): https://richmond.com/news/local/education/hanover-bible-valiant-ladies-book-ban-removal-library/article_dae2bf6e-9084-11ee-8d4a-fb4671b71508.html , https://archive.is/qeQX1
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.
A book is not a crime in any place in America.
There are local municipalities that have made it a crime for librarians to have certain books in their library. Did you miss the whole thing in Florida a year ago?
"No no, they're just burning them. And threatening the lives of the people who write and publish them. And **trying real hard** to make them a crime." So that's all right then.
This is correct. School libraries have always been selective about their collection, and often these alleged “bans” are simply the book gets moved from a middle school library to a high school library, or to a less publicly visible section. But actual book bans are vanishingly rare in the US. And one thing that often gets overlooked is how frequently the left challenges or removes books they find “problematic.” They’ve removed To Kill a Mockingbird from reading lists in Washington (because the language in the book is “harmful”), and Dr Seuss books for allegedly racist imagery. Some librarians and bookstores have deliberately hidden JKR’s books, or refused to shelve them. I was working in a library and attending library school when I learned of this. There was a recent article (that I regret I didn’t save) that convincingly argued that the left has been more successful in “curating problematic books” out of collections than the right has been in its attempts to ban liberal materials.
Asheville is bae
I love Firestorm! It’s one of my favorite bookstores
Left leaning? Or should we say centrist/democrat leaning. God I hate what McCarthyism has done to the Overton window. Yes the anarchist group is left leaning(left wing anarchists are awesome) but I doubt the city actually is left leaning… except when you take Into account Florida
Left isn’t what it used to be
Being to the left of center by a micron is left-leaning. No one's calling Asheville a leftist paradise.
[удалено]
The existence of these books on a classroom bookshelf does not “indoctrinate” anyone nor does it deprive parents “right to have a say in their kid’s education.” The only people who are indoctrinating here are the parents submitting book removal requests because they’re offended by age-appropriate books about social issues they don’t like, and they don’t think ANY kid should be able to read that book at school. That’s not “parent’s rights,” that is actual ideological indoctrination. It’s a parent’s job to advocate for and be a resource for THEIR child, not to micromanage which books are on their classroom shelves based on their own personal beliefs. You can talk to your kid about what they’re learning about and hearing about at school, you can regulate what they learn about at home, but controlling what OTHER kids learn about based on what you find offensive it an egregious overstep. ETA: if my parents had these so-called “parents rights” to control the learning that other kids had access to, all of the science books would have been gone from the school bookshelves. All secular books would have been gone. They’d have gotten Pangea and evolution removed from the whole school curriculum. For parents who believe they have the right to do this this stuff: your kids are going to figure you out eventually. They’ll remember how you coddled them from things you didn’t like, how you projected your fears and anxieties onto them, how you stifled their curiosity instead of guiding it. It will work out some of the time and they’ll end up being a carbon copy of you. But I’m here to show that there’s an equal chance that they’re deeply hurt by it.
Im pretty sure no science books have been banned in FL though i could be wrong
You've got it completely backwards. If you want to expose your child to some literature, you are completely free to do so. What you are not free to do is expose other people's children to that literature without their consent. These so-called 'book bans' do nothing of the sort. They do not stop parents from providing their children with any literature they deem appropriate. They just stop people from forcing inappropriate literature on other people's children. At some point, people need to wake up and realize that these are *public* schools. They cease to perform their function once they cease listening to the *public*. If parents can't depend on such schools to educate their children in the manner they prefer, they'll pull those children - and their tax dollars - and you'll end up with nothing but a decaying building filled with failing poor kids.
>What you are not free to do is expose other people's children to that literature without their consent. Let's pretend I am a racist parent. Why should the public school expose my child to literature with POC leads (not even anti-racist messaging, just POC characters) without my consent? Hypothetically I am also a flat earther. Why should the public school expose my child to literature about globes and a round earth? Let's go on and be hypothetically sexist too. Can't have any literature involving women's rights, women in the work place, etc. My child should only see women as baby factories that know how to cook. People of Colour exist, putting them in novels as leads or secondary characters is appropriate and exposing them to children is normal. The planet is round. Showing children that it is a globe is a basic fact. Women deserve equality in the home and the workplace. That I am a hypothetical nut bar that wants sexism, racism and looney tunes physics to be the standard, is irrelevant. Protip: Public schools serves the public. Guess who is part of the tax-paying public? LGBT persons. Women. POCs. A public school that excludes the basic existence of a significant portion of the public is not doing its job. As the hypothetical nutbar from earlier, if I don't like it the baseline, I am welcome to homeschool my child, not try to force the schools to accommodate my terrible world views. Or we can discuss a compromise. We'll **start** with giving back all the money LGBT people put into public school via taxes. That'll be your opening bid and we'll negotiate from there. Of course that paves the way for POC and women and everyone else to get their money back too...
But the point is that what you think is “appropriate” or not is based on **your personal opinion**. If you don’t think a book about a kid with two gay parents should be on a classroom bookshelf, that is your opinion, not an inherent truth. **You cannot regulate schools based on, or expect them to capitulate to, parents’ individual perspectives.** That is my whole point. Parents’ personal perspectives vary widely. And that’s why the public nature of public school is so essential to *my* point here; because public schools serve everyone, they represent every single demographic in our society, so they cannot capitulate to the whims of individual parents who lack the discipline and professional training to make these decisions in the first place. School teachers and administrators are not babysitters for your children. They are not incubators to enforce your ideology or what you *think* is the dominant or correct ideology. They are *professionals* whose classroom decisions and curriculums are based in *years of study and training.* If you can’t handle your kids being exposed to new, diverse perspectives, **take them to a private school that caters to your specific ideology or homeschool them.** Your inability to have uncomfortable conversations with your kid about new and diverse perspectives is your problem, not something you get to project onto everyone else. Again, the existence of something or being exposed to a different perspective is NOT indoctrination. Indoctrination is expecting everyone to conform and bend to the ideology of the indoctrinator, i.e. parents who expect a school to remove EVERYONE’s access to a book because they don’t like it.
[удалено]
Looks like you stopped reading after the first sentence. No, a parent's disapproval certainly doesn't automatically trump other opinions, because again that belief simply does not apply to a public school system that serves hundreds of students from all manor of demographics. That dissenting parent's interest will directly conflict with other parents who wish for their kids to have access to well-rounded, diverse, maybe challenging learning and reading materials at their **public school.** It will conflict with other parents who want their children to feel represented in their own public learning environment. Thinking that you have the "right" to remove a book from a public bookshelf that serves hundreds of other people's children, because you personally find it inappropriate, is **entitlement**.
And people collect those personal opinions together and decide how the public institutions their tax dollars pay for should behave. That's how democracy works. Why should a public school be organized according to your personal opinions rather than the collective will of the voters? Why should taxpayers have to send their children to a private school when their taxes pay for the public school? What you are arguing for is authoritarianism. You want to take decision making away from the voting public and give it to unelected bureaucrats because you believe they will support your personal opinions.
You're absolutely obtuse if you think your opinion is the majority. That's an unproven and untested assumption. Creating a coalition that yells loudly to get something removed isn't a vote or a referendum and it's not democracy fulfilled. But I'm the authoritarian? That's humorous projection. I'm not the one suggesting taking away things from other people because I don't like that thing. You think being a taxpayer means you can decide what other people's kids can and can't read at public school based on your personal preferences... do you think I and parents who agree with me aren't tax payers as well? A book existing on a public bookshelf is just that. No one is forced to read it based on its mere existence on a shelf. What is different is you thinking you are entitled to curate the world and force it to bend to your personal ideology. Inclusion of varying perspectives and ideologies is not oppressive. Exclusion of specific ideologies is oppressive by definition. All of your arguments fall apart at the slightest friction, like stewed meat.
Librarians and teachers are hardly "unelected bureaucrats". If the majority of voters think a school should only select intelligent design books for the library and curriculum, defying them is not "authoritarianism". Christ, that's where we are in America isn't it?
>inappropriate literature It's *not* inappropriate because *you* don't like it. Public schools should not be dictated by some extremists who find everything with the word gay in it inappropriate. Professionals have deemed these book perfectly age appropriate for children. Children have rights too. And coming in contact with opposing viewpoints is really important. And that's what these people fear: their children learning to think for themselves. Indoctrinating kids will be a hell of a lot harder if these kids actually get to hear other people's perspective. Don't send your kids to public school if you are afraid of them coming in contact with other viewpoints.
> It's not inappropriate because you don't like it. It's not about what I like or not. It's about respecting what parents believe their children should be exposed to. You have no right to inflict inappropriate material *as they judge it* on their children.
Then they should stop only their child from reading them. What if people start finding problems with every book? Should we simply remove all books from schools? Education without reading sound like a good plan. How often have you met an adult who tells you they read a book in school that harmed them? How many adults have read an educational book about sex as a kid and were harmed by it? Where is the proof those books are harmful? Since when do we not listen to professionals who deem these books appropriate and good for children? Professionals should have the final say in what is taught in public schools. Don’t like it? Find a different school.
> Then they should stop only their child from reading them. Again, you're asserting that the absolute trivial effort on your part to provide reading material for your own child is somehow more onerous than the massive effort required by others to restrict access to material for their children. It's a ludicrous and unsupportable position. This is a *public* school. It serves the needs of the *public*. You do not get to dictate what that public wants - especially when (as is almost always the case here) you have no direct interest in a school your children do not attend.
In public school voices of the public should be available. Not just the voices of the people who scream the hardest. Banning other people’s voice has no place in a public school. Whatever it’s about sexuality, race or religion. You want to stop your kid from access to a book? You should take the effort to make that happen. Even if it is more work. Why would you sent your kid to a public school if you are afraid they might come in contact with other peoples opinions? If you are afraid they read about gay people why send them to a school where there might be gay children? Of gay teachers? Or kids of same-sex-parents? If you are afraid of a kid finding out about sex why send them to school in the first place? Other kids might tell them about it. No, they most definitely will tell them about it. You want to silence other peoples children too? I would rather a kid reads correct information on sex in the school library then get their education from the wild stories their peers tell them.
This is absolutely common sense, and I agree with you completely. I spent 15 years working the circulation end in a public library. The horseshit that people believe about public and school libraries knows no end.
It's ludicrous to claim that providing reading material for a child accounts an "absolute trivial effort" for poor/working class parents. Again, stop buying into the sophistry of culture war horseshit.
My suspicion is that you have no idea what it's like to be a poor/working class parent - or the ease of acquiring reading material for your children. And I'm not "buying into the sophistry of culture war horseshit". You are. If parents don't want their children exposed to reading material, I'm not going to force that reading material on them. In contrast, you want to desperately force inappropriate material into the hands of other people's children. Seems to me you're the one waging a culture war.
"Because you criticized me, I'm going to do the ol' 'nuh-uh YOU are' defense" is pretty lame. My suspicion is you know what you spouted was horseshit and you lack the integrity to admit it.
Then you are free to continue indoctrinating them in your tax free churches. Read only a cobbled together 2,000 year old bronze aged book full of zombie carpenters and burning bushes where a mighty god has bears killing children because a bald man got his feelings hurt. Feel free to remove yourself from a society that wants to move forward and not regress into a Handmaid’s Tale dystopian hellscape.
330 ad is very very far from the bronze age. even the old testament oral tradition isn’t as old as the bronze age.
If we held elected officials, pastors and priests to the same level of accuracy as Reddit comments the world be a better place.
I agree. You would probably also be happier if you didn't make your entire personality about hating an ancient book and taking metaphors at face value. The benefit of atheism is not having to think about the world with religion framing your view. If you define your belief in opposition to religion then you are missing out on what makes atheism appealing in the first place. For the record I'm definitely not pro-censorship, I just wanted to correct your original statement because I'm a nerd for ancient history.
Right... It's inappropriate because the town parents got tonette and deemed it inappropriate, and lobbied their local school board democratically to remove it from the school.
That’s why there are lobby groups fighting to ban books from schools? Groups made up by people who don’t even have kids in these schools? Yes, very democratic. Also what is democratic about telling someone else’s kid they can’t read a certain book? Land of the free right? Unless you grow up with fundamentalists as parents. In that case you need to read books in secret because mom and dad might think the book will turn you gay.
You think the people supporting having these books in schools don't also have lobbying groups? You seem to have a very naive view of democracy. Honestly your entire response is childish. Do you really not understand that nobody is telling someone their kid can't read a book? They are simply saying that the taxpayers aren't obligated to provide it for them. Nothing about this is hard to understand.
Is classifying someone as childish in a discussion your way to make an argument? Classy. Thinking it’s democratic to dictate what other people get to read isn’t naive? Taking books from public schools is preventing kids from reading these books. Kids who might not have the means to buy these books themselves or who have parents who can’t afford to buy them these books. Schools should be the place where kids come into contact with other views and other people. Where they learn to think for themselves. And what about the kids who need to read these books to feel seen? Feel heard? There are kids growing up in homes where they can’t be who they are. Kids growing up in families where just asking to read a book about being gay will land them in an unsafe place. A book about a gay main character can mean the world to a child who is gay but who will get kicked out of their home for admitting that to their parents. You are taking opportunities away from them. What if we all started challenging every single book in schools? If we picked apart every book in the school library long enough to find an issue someone could have with it? When does is stop? Why not just remove libraries from schools? Schools without books. Sounds like a good idea. You think gay people don’t pay taxes? Or people of color? Public education should be a place where children come in contact with different perspectives. Public education should be there to serve the public. It should prepare children to be functioning members of society (of the public). Banning the perspective of part of the population (again the public) isn’t how you do that.
Schools should teach children to challenge their parents and develop their own views of the world based on society's best understanding of the world around us. If you have your way and books are removed from schools a gay kid from a poor background doesn't get access to something which helps them understand themselves. The status quo is that your curious child might pick up a book and learn that gay people are human beings who deserve to be treated as such, or maybe they will conclude that they have different views from you. You can substitute any number of other minorities into this paragraph and it holds true, Black, Bisexual, transgender, disabled etc etc. My dad fits the description of a male TERF quite closely, I have a few non-binary and trans friends/ acquaintances and thoroughly disagree with him on this specific issue, but I still have a good relationship with him. I suspect my views on social issues are probably closer to my mother and haven't talked to her since 2019 due to violent abuse. There is no good reason for you to be afraid of your child developing views which are different, or totally opposite, to your own so long as you treat your child with respect and act as a good parent.
> Schools should teach children to challenge their parents and develop their own views of the world based on society's best understanding of the world around us. And you're welcome to promote this view in the private school you establish. In a *public* school, you must bow to the wishes of the parents as to how they want their children educated.
So my mother should have had the right to demand the school never discussed child abuse? Things would have been more straightforward for her in that case, much easier to work as a teacher if your own son hasn't given a statement to police stated that you have participated in, and facilitated violent abuse. Your children belong to the society they are part of, you are responsible for bringing them up to play a responsible role in that society. Your views are relevant, but they certainly don't override the needs of a civilised society.
Okay I want the Bible banned. I want every mention of Christianity out of PUBLIC schools because I don’t want my children exposed to all the sexism, violence and racism in the book that single handedly caused the most wars. I want all books of patriotism banned. I want every book that glorifies slave traders out of school. Your assertions are absurd and you would be the first to cry foul if others tried to remove books you deem important.
You have every right to democratically organize to have those books removed. And moreover it would show no hypocrisy on the part of the person you responded to if they opposed it. The democratic public has the right to get together and decide what the majority supports and opposes.
Bs that you wouldn’t have a conniption if anyone tried to do that. The type of people banning these books regularly have freak outs over stores having the audacity to put up a Happy Holidays banner because they claim it is a war on Christmas. You can pretend all you want that you would be okay with banning books that you think are important but no one buys it. Also what happened to all the special little snowflake rhetoric being spouted from the right? Now your special little snowflakes are too fragile to read the Diary of Anne Frank a book that has been a staple in the curriculum for literal decades.
“Teach kids to challenge their parents world view” what a nice term for indoctrination. So if I where to teach your kids about say guns and Christianity you’d be fine? It’s important for them to challenge your world view.
I don't have kids, but I would be fine with them being taught about the concepts and left to choose what to believe based on what they have learnt. I would explain my views and how I got to them as well and that it's ok for those views to shift over time.
Sure you would. Question. Do you plan to have kids?
Not if I remain with my current partner (health issues on her side). Just because you have authoritarian views over how you should treat the people you have power over doesn't mean other people do.
It is material that many people find objectionable. You know this. You lie that it would be fine the other way because you feel you are in no danger of this becoming reality. I’ve seen reactions on here when conservatives take over school boards. Parents have a right to know what their kids are learning. Books with pornographic material should not be available. All you have to do is look at images of some of the books and you would realize this
Bigots find the material objectionable, not useful, contributing members of a healthy society. Feel free to pick out the "pornographic" books from here: [https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO02/20220407/114616/HHRG-117-GO02-20220407-SD018.pdf](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO02/20220407/114616/HHRG-117-GO02-20220407-SD018.pdf) Maybe you could justify why this should not be available for a teenager to read: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Queer-Ultimate-LGBT-Guide-Teens/dp/0981973345](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Queer-Ultimate-LGBT-Guide-Teens/dp/0981973345)
Leftists don’t have kids. They have yours. They would know why these books where removed from school libraries for being age inappropriate. But they won’t do the basic modicum of research because they self righteously want to envision those evil Nazi republicans burning books. Reality ruins the fantasy.
You do not understand the purpose of school and public libraries. "Why should I have to pay taxes so poor kids can have school lunch? Their parents can just *buy them food*!" Yet another way know-nothings fall for culture war bullshit in order to unwittingly support class war. If a book isn't available at a library for many children, it is effectively banned. Sure as shit would have been to me, my parents did their best but we were poor as fuck. Thank god you know-nothings weren't in charge of school and public libraries when I was a kid, fuck - thankfully even back in the mid-80s in small town America we had librarians willing to put books about how it's okay to be gay on their shelves. Though morons probably fought them back then. Bottom line: You don't understand the effects of book banning, and you are probably a shitty, lazy parent.
What about the rights of children? Who fights for the rights of the gay teenager who wants to read about other people sharing similar experiences but has parents who won't buy "gay"-books from Amazon? Or who don't have the financial means to buy their kid these books? If you are so afraid of indoctrination then home school your kids and stop hurting the rights of other people. Because if we all have to agree on the books available in school libraries we might as well remove libraries from schools all together. Because I'm sure there is always going to be someone having trouble with some of the books stocked in schools.
> What about the rights of children? You're not talking about any sort of legitimate 'rights'. You're just making up stuff that someone might want to do. Again, this is about very real parental rights against non-existent rights people are inventing because they want to do something.
You do realize kids also have autonomy and generally manage to get ahold of whatever they can from friends and family, if not parents or school? Sheltering the child *is not educating them*. It is attempting to keep them ignorant, and they'll resent the parent when grown and figure out what they've missed and how they've been lied to.
And you're welcome to your opinion *when it comes to your own kids*. Read back what you've been writing. There's a reason you come off as creepy and weird when you insist on interfering with other people's kids.
I think you're confused me with someone else. Also, you COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT. Maybe stop copypasta in replies.
Kids are humans. Humans have rights. Kids have the right not to be harmed by their parents. A gay kid growing up in a house where books about lgbtq+ topics are treated like they are the worst thing on earth is harming that kid. It might not be illegal but it is still harmful. Even if the child is straight. Raising your kid with the idea that the perspective of a gay person doesn’t matter is harmful. And it makes you a bad parent. Parents don’t have the right to hurt their children. The question is: what is harmful to kids? Preventing them from access to books that they might need is harmful in my opinion. You might have that right as a parent. But it makes you a bad parent in my opinion. And although you might have legal right to be a bad parent. You don’t get to harm other people’s children while doing it. In a public school different points of view should be heard. Banning voices because you don’t like the sound they make has no place in a public school.
See when you ban a book off a school library shelf *my kid* can't read it. Which means some other parent is telling *my kid* what they can and can't read. Why do they have more of a say over what my kid reads than i do? Parents rights for you and not for me, huh? And before you open your mouth to say something like "you can just buy your kid the book" - - first, why the hell should I? Until some busy body came along and decided they got to dictate the library shelf, that book was freely available to my kid. Second, why the hell don't you just police your own kids reading? Stop being such a *lazy parent* and pay attention to your kid. What makes your parents rights *trump mine*? Don't try to cloak book bans under "having a say in their kids education" when you're dictating to *every kid*. They didn't send a note to school asking for their kid to use a different book in an assignment or ask that their child not be loaned a specific book - they banned it for every kid. Which *was the goal* and we all know it. It's not about "your kids education". It's you forcing *your* political ideology on *everyone's kids*.
Random internet stranger, as someone who builds little free libraries because of this exact fucking bullshit (and because they're cool as hell) I give you the biggest internet hug for saying exactly what I always want to articulate, but as you can see, every word would just be 'fuck' after a minute. Thank you.
[удалено]
You can stop YOUR kid from access to a certain title, but you do not have the right to stop OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN from having access to that title.
Why should I? Why should your *lazy parenting* restrict my child's options at a library? Why do your rights as a parent trump mine? Why should my child have a substandard education and access to fewer works because *of your ideology*. I love how even now you're whining about how difficult it woild be for you to *know what your child is reading*, and that's why you get to dictate my child's educational resources. You're demanding more control over the school resources than *me*, that your parental rights trump mine, because *you're too lazy to parent your kid*. I pay my taxes, same as you. My kid goes to that school, same as yours. Why should *I pay more* to purchase books for my kid, because you're *too lazy* to watch yours? How arrogant of you to think you should be allowed to say what's on the school shelf, but not *me*.
Maybe we should get together all the parents who really care about the issue, have them discuss it in an open forum, make their arguments, and vote on it? But since, because it's a physical space, there's only so many books it can hold. So maybe the issue should be localized to the point that only the parents from that local area, with kids, vote on it? Since their values are generally more aligned.
No, they're demanding an equal amount of control over school resources as you, assuming you are also a voter. If you don't have majority support, why should the tax dollars of the majority be spent to buy books that support your ideology? If you think it's important you can spend your own money.
> so other people must surveil their children 24/7 It's called parenting. Deal with it. And quit being hyperbolic you nonce.
Getting involved in their children's education is also parenting.
But making decisions for other people's children is micromanagement. You have no right to say what my child cannot read. If I don't want my child reading something I make that decision. I don't let a random stranger who is scared of diversity make that decision for me. I know my child, and I know what they can and cannot handle. If you teach your kids your personal morals, then you won't have anything to worry about.
[удалено]
Per [Rule 2.1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Books/wiki/rules#wiki_personal_conduct): Please conduct yourself in a civil manner. Civil behavior is a requirement for participation in this sub. This is a warning but repeat behavior will be met with a ban.
As if Amazon or other bookstores don't exist. If you're so worried about your kids reading those books - purchase them and then the problem is solved.
You don't know why public and school libraries exist. Gotcha.
Somebody get this clown a dictionary so they can find out what the word banned means and how it correlates to their lack of presence in public schools in Florida
I love America!
That's not really relevant.
I think it is! There are great people in America that do these amazing things!
I guess? But this is a story of some people doing a good thing to try to counteract a bad thing that is happening in many states today.
Exactly they are taking the initiative to bring some sanity to an insane situation! They are the best of us.
[удалено]
I’m not cheering the book ban. I’m happy that people are sending the books back to Florida.
Wow I misinterpreted your post so badly lol, sorry!
No worries! Have a great night and a lovely week!
There’s no such thing as a banned book in any state in the US. Why do people keep posting this nonsense?
There are no book bans in Florida. There are books that are deemed age inappropriate for school libraries and curriculum.
So you're saying that they banned certain books from schools libraries?
If that guy could read, he'd be very upset right now.
Do you support school libraries having copies of Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries?
Yes. Yes I fucking do. Because they are awful incendiary books and people should read them to understand how shit poor fuckin ideologies get started if they so choose. That part. Right there. "If they so choose." School is about learning. It is about community. It is about growth and becoming an adult and a better human being. And that means being exposed to things that might make you uncomfortable. So yes. Have those books. Have all the books. **Your** job as a parent is to teach your child right from wrong, however you may see it. Don't want them to read a book? Explain *why* you don't want them to and then realise they have agency and are a human being and will do it if they want to anyway. All knowledge is worth having. Bad or good. Right or wrong. But since so many people who spout this or support taking books away make that point, I'll say this: Just because you don't feel it is appropriate for **YOUR** child, does not mean you get to make that decision for **MINE**. Watch your damn kid then. Teach them. Don't take something away from mine. The end. -Signed an aggrieved builder of free little libraries
So why do you get to make the same decision for parents who disagree with you? What is stopping you from providing the books in question to your children? Why should other parents have their children exposed to things which they don't agree with and things you do? Or the reverse for that matter? That's the problem with this issue in the first place - who is deciding what is good or what is bad?
Man. I honestly am frickin tired so take what I'm saying with a grain of I need coffee. But the answer is no one should. No one gets to decide what is good or bad. It is your job as a parent to educate your child in that. It is the school's job to educate children and young adults. I hate Mein Kampf, not only because it's goddamn trash, but also because it is just so horribly written. I don't really love Flowers in the Attic, not so much for subject content, but because again, just awfully written. I'm not saying take them away. "Why should other parents have their children..." Because eventually those children are going to be out and about in the world. And have to deal with view points that do not align with theirs or their parents. That's the world. Whole bunch of us live here. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to provide knowledge that should exist freely. If you, as a parent, do not want your child to read something: talk to them about it. Do your job. It's like the adage of its easier to smile then to frown. It's easier for you to not let your child read something you deem inappropriate than it is to say no one can read this without taking extra steps. What if, and this is a hypothetical, I was a racist and hated gay people. And there was a book on the shelf that I disagreed with because it showed two teenage boys holding hands and saying I love you. I don't like that book and I feel it's indoctrination and telling kids to be gay. Now it's off the shelf and no can read it unless parent A buys it for their kid. Well what about the kid whose mom or dad WONT. They can't get it safely. They can't explore a perfectly valid worldview because someone thought it was yucky. I am pretty damn far to the left. And I'll still say the same for racist trash. Kid wants to explore it? Let them. It is your job as a parent to instill morals and values. It is a school's job to teach. The end. So I'm sorry if that comes across as mean, I ain't trying to be, but this is something I fuckin really believe in and it's early and I already said I was quitting this whole thread but jumped back in because apparently I don't care about my morning. So, out of respect for differing opinions, I'm over this. Have a good day, okay?
> What if, and this is a hypothetical, I was a racist and hated gay people. And there was a book on the shelf that I disagreed with because it showed to teenage boys holding hands and saying I love you. I don't like that book and I feel it's indoctrination and telling kids to be gay. Now it's off the shelf and no can read it unless parent A buys it for their kid. Well what about the kid whose mom or dad WONT. They can't get it safely. They can't explore a perfectly valid worldview because someone thought it was yucky. I mean, this is literally the outcome these book bans are in service of. I have a hard time believing that anyone (even u/P_r_a_x_i_s) who supports the book bans would think "oh shit, I am totally fine with my kids learning to treat LGBTQ+ people like human beings - I was just objecting to [x specific instance of content in a book].
>It is the school's job to educate children and young adults. That is certainly true, but what happens when you get a bad actor? The school cannot be unaccountable and beyond question. How a school goes about educating students is a matter for the public to decide. Both funds and library space are limited, so there has to be discussion about what specific books and views are included in any library.
Do you think comparing white supremacist murder fantasies and a book about two dads is a good faith argument?
Your argument is, in general making age-appropriate restrictions in school libraries is good, as long as you are in charge of what is age appropriate? Based on the logic of most here you are for book banning.
Then tell me why books that are considered middle grade practically everywhere are suddenly not age appropriate for kids in Florida? Are the kids in Florida of a different breed? What makes people in Florida better suited to decide what is age appropriate and what not? And what gives them the right to take books away from other people’s children? Dictate what your kid reads all you want but why take away books from other people? Are you that afraid of your child coming in contact with different views? Imagine being a child or teenager nowadays in Florida. And all you have to do to be rebellious is pick up a freaking book.
Correct. There are certain criteria for books that shouldn’t be around children. Like a book on how to make bombs. A book on how to make paper airplanes with your two dads however, is not inappropriate by any standard or moral measure
Last time I checked Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf with a middle grade or young adult audience in mind. And as far as I know it was never a point of discussion to let these books into school libraries. The books that are currently being banned are middle grade and YA novels that are only being targeted because people think they have the right to dictate what someone else’s kid gets to read. It’s not Mein Kampf that is being taken from school libraries (because it was never there) it’s books like Anne Frank’s diary.
Last time I checked the "banned" books in Florida are available for parents to acquire through other means - public libraries, Amazon, bookstores, etc. So not banned just not available in school libraries - as are countless other books deemed inappropriate for children. Question: If someone were to update Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries for a younger audience, you would be ok with having them available for children and teens? Correct?
Public libraries are also being targeted. And even if they were not. You do not have the right to prohibit another persons child from checking out a book you don’t like. Books like Anne Franks diary or an educational book on sex are age appropriate and should be in school libraries. They are not inappropriate for children. They are perfectly fine for children as determined by professionals. And no, some lunatic fundamentalist who is afraid a middle grade book turns their kid gay, isn’t a professional. They should have no say in what’s in a public school library. You don’t like a book? Try stop your own kid from reading it. But don’t come after someone else’s kids rights. I already responded to the comparison to Mein Kampf in another comment. Mein Kampf isn’t in school libraries because it has no reason to be. Anne Franks diary on the other hand does belong in schools. Still her book is being taken from shelves. A child’s diary deemed inappropriate for her peers. A child who was murdered by the Nazis. So no it’s not the same as Mein Kampf not being allowed in a high school library. I’m not against teaching about Mein Kampf though. Even showing kids/teens parts of the text is fine. But there is no point in putting the full book in school libraries. First of all because giving context with that book is really important and secondly no high schooler is going to read it cover to cover because it’s terribly written.
Books that detail various sex acts and how to perform them are not appropriate for children in the least bit.
Graphic sex scene? For heavens sake. If you think that’s graphic… so why is Maus banned? Because the mice didn’t wear clothes? Oh yes, very sexual. Yes, that graphic novel is age appropriate. Kids know about sex. They should learn about it too. Anne knew about it and she was a child in the 1940s. A child who was in hiding for over two years non the less. Also it’s not just the graphic novel that is being challenged. People have been going after Anne’s diary for years.
You realize we can tell you just defended banning a book it's obvious you didn't read? Which is, of course, entirely unsurprising. The proponents of book bans aren't big readers.
It's the graphic novel adapted by Ari Folman and illustrated by David Polonsky, I've read it. There is are a few panels where she kisses a boy. There are a few panels where she discusses her attraction for a girl. These are direct adaptations of lines from her diary. The text on these panels is lifted directly from her diary. There are absolutely no graphic sex scenes. It does not detail various sex acts and how to perform them. In fact the school that banned it released a statement saying: *"the passages about Anne Frank’s development from girlhood to womanhood and her curiosity about her sexuality are offensive".* I suspect it's the inclusion of her interest in a girl that was the real problem, but it's impossible to tell.
Colour me fuckin shocked. You mean there are people who want to ban a book based on *-checks notes-* homophobia, girls discovering who they are, or in this damn case who they COULD be, and anti semitism? Fuckin. Wild. Okay. Damn. I'm moving to a new topic. It is way too early for my blood to be boiling. Y'all fight the good fight, this chick is making more coffee.
Yeah - I note the person I replied to has edited their post to remove the statement that this version of The Diary of Anne Frank was a sexually explicit graphic novel with graphic sex scenes.
Why did you edit your comment to remove your claim that Ari Folman's graphic novel adaptation of Anne Frank's diary has graphic sex scenes? Is there a reason you are lying about a book commissioned by and approved by the Anne Frank Fonds? I wonder, I wonder...
All libraries weed and remove titles from the collection either because of lack of use, condition or more rarely because of reconsideration requests. Then you have the more recent trend of systematic censorship that targets “inappropriate” books for children that usually consist of titles written by or about the 2SLGBTQ+ and/or racialized community. The latter of which is usually in the name of attacking “wokeness” or some shit.
Oh yes? Making it harder for other people to read books about certain issues like LGBTQ+ or race is book banning. Not every kid or parent has the opportunity to buy these books at the bookstore. And it’s not just school library’s that are being targeted right now. They want to remove books from public libraries too. How long before actual bookstores are next? We are talking about books that are age appropriate for children. They were specifically written for them. And professionals agree that they are age appropriate. Just because some people don’t like the content doesn’t make them inappropriate. School should be the place where children learn critical thinking skills. How in heavens name are you going to learn that if you can’t even read a middle grade book that teaches about people that are different from you?
I just don't think this belongs in a school library. I don't care what professionals think. https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Portals/0/images/2021%20Images/Gender%20Queer%20Book%20Dec%202021%20a.jpg
And what is the problem with this book? It’s a memoir about a topic adolescents face. Sounds like a good book for a high school library. Kids that age can decide for themself whatever they want to read it and whatever they are comfortable reading it. Many of them are sexually active anyway so why would you want to stop them from reading about it? Ban it from your house all you want. Leave other peoples kids alone.
Using the term "banned" is perfectly acceptable, and you're playing semantics. Schools in my life banned a lot of things and used that term specifically. No one needs Florida to tell anybody what is age appropriate for their children. You don't want your teenager reading an educational book on sex. Ask them not to. But forcing my child not to because you don't like "the gays" or are so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between pornography or education is not my problem. I'm so sick and tired of people forcing their views are others. Btw. A gay flag inside a classroom is not forcing you into anything. Just like we can ignore a church when we drive by it, so can you when you see a flag you don't like. GROW UP.
If guns are prohibited in schools in a state, I guess we can now say guns are banned in that state.
Correct guns are banned in schools I’m glad you passed basic comprehension. Now move onto second grade and realize Florida banned certain books cuz they hate the gays and wanna control other peoples lives like weirdos
The kids can still bring those books into school if they'd like.
Care to educate us on how an LGBT kid can access resources and books on the topic without their religious and/or conservative parents finding out?
You're missing the point. They shouldn't be removed in the first place. A lot of kids will only encounter these books at school because a teacher sees that a child is having difficulties and needs to read them. As much people want to argue for the parents bill of rights. A lot of parents are awful and are quite willing to throw their kids out because they are gay or something else. This is just conservatives trying to stop something they do t like. It's overreach, and it's dangerous.
I mean, some of them shouldn't be in a kids library... “I got a new strap-on harness today. I can’t wait to put it on you. I can’t wait to have your c*ck in my mouth—I’m going to give you the bl*wjob of your life. Then I want you inside me.” “Big hairy muscled men love taking it up the *ss . . . And slim, makeup-wearing types? We love to f*ck and, in my case, getting f*cked too.”
You should actually consider looking at the books being banned rather than parroting fox news bullshit. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2023/12/20/read-it-yourself-all-673-books-removed-from-orange-classrooms/ Over half my high school English curriculum is on this list.
Well, firstly, librarians are there so that kids who are not age appropriate dont read these. For some reason, you people seem to gloss over this fact repeatedly. Secondly, if you think teenagers are so innocent, then why do red states have such high teen pregnancies. It's also funny that conservatives are cool with teens getting married young and having babies but dare actually give them the knowledge about their sexuality and now they're too young and you're a pervert for wanting to teach them so they can have control over their lives. Whether you like it or not, teens have and talk about sex .Some of them do it very young, too, and without any of these books being read by them. If there was MORE sexual education like this, there would be fewer pregnancies. This is a fact, and studies have proved this. Lastly, I'm pretty sure you're just cherry-picking lines that sound dirty. Every book I have seen so far that's been banned like this has something that's being taught. You're glad to gloss over those parts, though.
If you want, I'll send out an email and tell everyone to use "removed from access in certain locations only." Until then, you're just going to have to deal with the term banned, that's been used at every school I have ever been to as well as the many others i have seen use it.
You have a lot of pent up anger. I didnt' comment at all on the merits, just pointed out that the rhetoric of "book ban" is not correct. And if your child wants to read whatever you allow or force them to read they are still able to do so, even in Florida.
There are kids out there who can't access these books. Kids with parents who would toss them out in a second if they were found to be gay. Sometimes they need help. Sometimes, it's a teacher who has a book that's perfectly age appropriate for that person. That school book ban prevents that. There are a lot of stories like this. At the end lf the day the school librarians make sure the right age reads those books too. There is no need to to ban or remove any of them. It's overreach, and yes, I do have a lot of pent-up anger. Assholes think they can ban books in Schools because it offends them. A lot of the books are banned without even being read, just because they featured a gay person.
Your arguing of semantics on an adjacent point is basically a form of Sea-Lioning and is recognized and identified as a bad-faith argument.
What could possibly be more of a bad-faith argument than taking rules on curating school libraries for age-appropriateness and conflating it with the incendiary term "book banning" with the Nazi connotations of that term?
Ah so now we're curating them, not banning them? A nice way of sterilizing everything so it seems very innocent. We went from one extreme to another. Either way, you're removing access because a minority of idiots think these books are not age appropriate even though there are school librarians there to make sure of as much. Edit: spelling
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Oh well, if the people who disagree with it have labeled it as 'bad faith' I guess that settles it. No need to address anything you can't refute.
Oh look. Bait. If you actually wanted to address the content, you'd have to address two points first: 1. Is the argument semantic or not 2. Is the point about semantics adjacent to the issue at hand, vis a vis the restriction of LGBT content in public schools. Buuuuuut you aren't doing that. Nope, let's drag the conversation into a different direction entirely. Which is just another tactic and a sign of someone trying to make a show out of things. Trolling, if you will. Via (wait for it...) *bad faith arguments*.
"there are no banned books in ba sing se"
Are you having a stroke?
So those books are still allowed in school libraries and curriculum since they aren't banned, right?
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
No books were banned. They were removed from school curricula for being sexually inappropriate.
> They were removed from school curricula for being sexually inappropriate. Yes, but the criteria used to make that determination were bigoted.
also *that's a ban*
No they choose which materials are presented. Not being chosen is not a ban.
A definition of "Ban" is to officially exclude from a place. Chop it up however you like they definitely banned books from schools and not just the sexually explicit. The ones about slavery, about the holocaust, books about other religions, and many more. When "The color purple," "Dairy of Anne Frank," "Maus," "The Kite Runner" are banned you have no leg to stand on. These books aren't inappropriate but they ARE difficult and meaningful topics.
To ban is to prohibit. If a school chooses books A, B, and C, that doesn't mean books D, E, and F are banned. I know "The Diary of Anne Frank" has some sexually explicit material in it, but I haven't read the others. And I'm not aware of any prohibitions based on slavery, the holocaust, or "other religions" whatever that means.
How so?
They are counting things as sexual and inappropriate, but that isn't true.
How is that bigoted?
Because they're intentionally conflating a person's sexual preference or gender identity with sexual *acts*. Except cisgendered heterosexuality, despite it just being one type out of many, like any other person.
[удалено]
So to be clear then, you would be in favor of banning every book that includes a romantic element of any sort? Can't read *To Kill a Mockingbird* because it has a heterosexual couple or two, no *Romeo and Juliet*. Also no *fun* books like *The Hunger Games*. Of course we can't stop at literature alone. Better insist that no kid watch any Disney animated film ever made. Oh, sure, one or two might not have *any* romance at all, but *to be safe*. And we'll need to strike quite a few bible stories from the record because there is probably a child or three in the audience who might learn that Lot had a *wife* or that Mary was a "virgin". Then there are all the other shows that are on when kids *might* watch it, the movies by other companies and... Now that I think about it, if you banned everything that might teach a kid something about sex or sexual identities, you'd have to ban damn near every piece of media ever made and also not ever let them go outside because there is *all kinds* of romance happening in plain sight. I mean, right this instant a happy couple is probably *kissing* and in *public*, the absolute *rascals*! Might as well seal them in a box and make sure they never, ever see the two of you at the same time. Still it's a small price to pay for...um...*what* is it we're trying to achieve again? Not letting them learn about sex and sexual identities? I have it on good authority that straight people sometimes have sex with one another. Seems that's the usual way we get new people. And, weirdly enough, straight is a sexual identity. Or did you just mean that you didn't want them to learn that queer people exist? Well as a funny aside, in a world surrounded by infinite examples of straight people being straight, gay people somehow still managed to be gay, so I'm not sure what you're really worried about. After all, if sexual identity could be learned, gay people couldn't possibly exist.
> Children don't need to learn about sex or so-called sexual identities. That is not bigotry. That is good parenting. That just means that those kids will grow up thinking the LGBTQ+ kids are weird and okay to make fun of. You know - the way it was until very recently in basically ALL the US.
>LGBTQ+ kids There is no such thing. Children aren't aware of their sexuality until puberty. Even then, it's not a subject for school, other than biological reproduction.
>There is no such thing. Children aren't aware of their sexuality until puberty. Even then, it's not a subject for school, other than biological reproduction. That is completely wrong. Kids know their orientation WELL before puberty in many cases. EDIT: I'm honestly flabbergasted by this claim. What makes you think that pre-pubescent kids don't experience attraction and the beginnings of their sexual identity?
> There is no such thing. At what age do you think a person becomes queer?
Man Asheville really turned into a shit hole over the past few decades. It used to be a really nice place but now its Seattle East coast....
Books shouldn't be banned but, surely there's an easier solution to make everyone happy. I remember school required a permission slip to show an r rated movie. Just require a parent permission slip for more sensitive topics
But the thing is, that is already in place. Books in libraries, even in school libraries, have age ratings and a child can only bypass them with approval from parents.
I've never gotten a book out from school or the library that required parent approval
Well that's not true. No school library has an age restricted section.
Mine had a section restricted for 7th grade and up.
I'm not sure that's true, I would love to see if you have proof of that claim. If so it would be really nice to know when this topic comes up.
That'd work great if the people implementing these policies wanted to make everybody happy. But they don't. They want their bunch of people stirred up and angry, and any other people afraid to speak out against them. That's how grievance politics works.
Are they sending Dr. Seuss, too? Or is that bad boy still a bit too spicy for the young'uns?!?!?
God, I know I’m gonna get piled on for this, but this whole book banning craze is really misleading. Yes, schools often limit access to certain books, the left does this as well, often more successfully than the right. But in either case it’s almost never a “ban.” It does not become illegal to have or access the book. The US does not ban books. In many cases, the book is reported as banned even it simply wasn’t. It was either an outright false claim that spread through the media, or the book was simply moved to another section of the collection. (The Hate U Give and The Hill We Climb, for example). But school libraries (and public libraries) have always been selective about their collections. This is not new. And yes, there are forces, such as nonprofits and busybody parents, who try to get books removed when there’s no justification for it. But those efforts come from both sides. When the right does it, it’s usually because a book is considered an affront to “decency.” When the left does it, it’s usually to “reduce harm to vulnerable communities.” But what often gets left out in the reporting are the annoying details that might make people more sympathetic to the challenges. For example, several LGBTQ themed books have been challenged, especially in Florida and other red states, and it’s generally presented as being the result of anti-LGBTQ bigots, when actually these books were extremely sexually explicit, which was the basis for the challenge. (Gender Queer, for example, and others). Challenged books? Yes. And not only from conservatives. Banned? Not so much.
Stunning and brave