Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It's Banned Books Week. Go Read One To Spite Sarah.

245678

Posts

  • PolloDiabloPolloDiablo Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I absolutely agree. And I'll even go beyond that. Even without articles, Playboy remains a historically significant document. I know a number of major libraries maintain a pornography collection. The kinds of pornography available are a great way to investigate the culture of the time, and it would be stupid to remove historical records because some people found them objectionable.

    edit: Damn, that teaches me to refresh before posting. I was referring to Feral's post about Playboy.

    Be excellent to each other you stupid cunts.
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Look not banning books doesn't equal putting hardcore pornography in the lesson plan of kindergartners Yar...just don't try that slippery slope please.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Look not banning books doesn't equal putting hardcore pornography in the lesson plan of kindergartners Yar...just don't try that slippery slope please.

    That's the kind of thinking that led to the outbreak of public dog fucking in aught nine - future old cout

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    werehippy wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Look not banning books doesn't equal putting hardcore pornography in the lesson plan of kindergartners Yar...just don't try that slippery slope please.

    That's the kind of thinking that led to the outbreak of public dog fucking in aught nine - future old cout

    '09?

    Hell, you should have been on Folsom St. in San Francisco yesterday.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    An interesting read about book banning. Really now - context is everything, and most books that are banned...if not all, really don't fall under what I would consider "pornography."
    My novel Slaughterhouse-Five was actually burned in a furnace by a school janitor in Drake, North Dakota, on instructions form the school committee there, and the school board made public statements about the unwholesomness of the book. Even by the standards of Queen Victoria, the only offensive line in the entire novel is this: "Get out of the road, you dumb motherfucker." This is spoken by an American antitank gunner to an unarmed American Chaplain's assistant during the Battle of the Bulge in Europe in December 1944, the largest single defeat of American arms (the confederacy excluded) in history. The chaplain's assistant had attracted enemy fire.

    So on november 16, 1973, I wrote as follows to Charles McCarthy of Drake, North Dakota:

    Dear Mr. McCarthy:
    I am writing to you in your capacity as chairman of the Drake School Board. I am among those American writters whose books have been destroyed in the now famous furnace of your school.
    Certain members of your community have suggested that my work is evil. This is extroadinarly insulting to me. The news from Drake indicates to me that books and writers are very unreal to you people. I am writingthis letter to let you know how real I am.

    I want you to know, too, that my publisher and I have done absolutely nothing to exploit the disgusting news from Drake. We are not clapping each other on the back, crowing about all the books we will sell because of the news. We have declined to go on television, have written no fiery letters to editorial pages, have granted no lengthy interviews. We are angered and sickened and saddened. And no copies of this letter have been sent to anybody else. You now hold the only copy in your hands. It is a strictly private letter from me to the people of Drake, who have done so much to damage my reputation in the eyes of their children and then in the eyes of the world. Do you have the courage and ordinary decency to show this letter to the people, or will it, too, be consigned to the fires of your furnace?

    I gather from what I read in the papers and hear on television that you imagine me, and some other writters, too, as being sort of ratlike people who enjoy making money from poisoning the minds of young people. I am in fact a large, strong person, fifty-one years old, who did a lot of farm work as a boy, who is good with tools. I have raised six children, three my own and three adopted. They have all turned out well. Two of them are farmers. I am a combat infantry veteran from World War II, and hold a purple heart. I have earned whatever I own by hard work. I have never been arrested or sued for anything. I am so much trusted with young people and by young people that I have served on the faculties of the University of Iowa, Harvard, and the City College of New York. Every year I receive at least a dozen invitations to be commencement speaker at colleges and high schools. My books are probably more widely used in schools than those of any other living American fiction writer.

    If you were to bother to read my books,, to behave as educated persons would, you would learn that they are not sexy, and do not argue in favor of wildness of any kind. They beg that people be kinder and more responsible than they often are. It is true that some of the characters speak coarsely. that is because people speak coarsely in real life. Especially soldiers and hardworking men speak coarsely, and even our most sheltered children know that. And we all know, too, that those words really don't damage children much. They didn't damage us when we were young. It was evil deeds and lying that hurt us.

    After I have said all this, I am sure you are still ready to respond, in effect, "Yes, yes- but it still remains our right and responsibility to decide what books our children are going to be made to read in our community." This is surely so. But it is also true that if you excercise that right and fulfill that responsibility in an ignorant, harsh, un-American manner, then people are entitled to call you bad citizens and fools. Even your own children are entitled to call you that.

    I read in the newspaper that your community is mystified by the outcry from all over the country about what you have done. Well, you have discovered that Drake is a part of American civilization, and your fellow Americans can't stand it that you have behaved in such an uncivilized way. Perhaps you will learn from this that books are sacred to freemen for very good reasons, and that wars have been fought against nations which hate books and burn them. If you are an American, you must allow all ideas ti curculate freely in your community, not merely your own.

    If you and your board are now determined to show that you in fact have wisdom and maturitywhen you exercise your powers over the education of your young, then you should acknowledge that it was a rotten lesson you taught these young poeple in a free society when you denounced and then burned books - books you hadn't even read. You should also resolve to expose your children to all sorts of opinions and information, in order that they will be better equipped to make decisions and to survive
    Again: you have insulted me, and I am a good citizen, and I am very real.

    If you guys want - he talks about how book banning is essentially against the first amendment and how the freedom of information should be available to anyone so that we may appropriately process and learn how to debate against or for points that authors make. http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/1st_ammendment.html

    sig.jpg
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Nartwak wrote: »
    People have wanted to ban Huck Finn since it was written. It's hilarious.

    It's precisely this reason award shows have life time achievement awards.

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    werehippy wrote: »
    The one book on perennially on this list that confuses me is Huck Finn. The kind of people that get their panties in a bunch about banning books doesn't seem like it would overlap much with the group of people that are bothered by racism.

    Truth.
    Good thing we're not on a series of forums that does something like that...[/humblegrumblegrumble] (Yes I know we're not supposed to talk about this but it's a good point to raise in a banned books thread, imo)

    Also, Tim, obviously you have never met a crazy hardcore California liberal.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    The one book on perennially on this list that confuses me is Huck Finn. The kind of people that get their panties in a bunch about banning books doesn't seem like it would overlap much with the group of people that are bothered by racism.

    Truth.
    Good thing we're not on a series of forums that does something like that...[/humblegrumblegrumble] (Yes I know we're not supposed to talk about this but it's a good point to raise in a banned books thread, imo)

    Man.
    What.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    The one book on perennially on this list that confuses me is Huck Finn. The kind of people that get their panties in a bunch about banning books doesn't seem like it would overlap much with the group of people that are bothered by racism.

    Truth.
    Good thing we're not on a series of forums that does something like that...[/humblegrumblegrumble] (Yes I know we're not supposed to talk about this but it's a good point to raise in a banned books thread, imo)

    Also, Tim, obviously you have never met a crazy hardcore California liberal.

    Are you referring to the censorship of the n word? Because if you can't see the difference between how it is used in Huck Finn vs. how it would be used on these forums, well...You need to think a little bit harder.

    sig.jpg
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    The one book on perennially on this list that confuses me is Huck Finn. The kind of people that get their panties in a bunch about banning books doesn't seem like it would overlap much with the group of people that are bothered by racism.

    Truth.
    Good thing we're not on a series of forums that does something like that...[/humblegrumblegrumble] (Yes I know we're not supposed to talk about this but it's a good point to raise in a banned books thread, imo)

    Also, Tim, obviously you have never met a crazy hardcore California liberal.

    Are you referring to the censorship of the n word? Because if you can't see the difference between how it is used in Huck Finn vs. how it would be used on these forums, well...You need to think a little bit harder.
    I don't think it is, really. Yes, people are obviously going to abuse it, but in other places (like, say, this subforum) we could have a reasonable debate about the word, usage, origin, ironies, prevalence in hip-hop etc.
    And before you say "well we could replace the letters with asterisks/write "the n-word" instead, I'd like to point out how much the effect of Huck Finn would be lost if that very advice had been taken.
    In any case I'm more for censorship that isn't set-in-stone and more based on retardation. If someone published a book intentionally to anger a specific race and not to advance the collective literary consciousness or to make any reasonable arguments, I'd have no problem supporting a ban on that book. That being said, I don't think a book should be banned just for having "that word", and neither should, necessarily, a forum post.
    But whatever. Gabe and Tycho's forum, Gabe and Tycho's rules.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Ah, I see.

    Yeah, it basically comes down to G&T's forum, G&T's rules. It's stupid, but it is a private venue after all.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • manaleak34manaleak34 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Just out of curiosity, has there ever been an successful challenge and banning through the ALA?

    XBL/Steam:ManaCrevice
  • MrIamMeMrIamMe Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Is this another one of the times I as an aussie can shake my head and say "crazy americans"?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MrIamMe wrote: »
    Is this another one of the times I as an aussie can shake my head and say "crazy americans"?

    No.

    Australia isn't exactly a bastion of free speech, either.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    The one book on perennially on this list that confuses me is Huck Finn. The kind of people that get their panties in a bunch about banning books doesn't seem like it would overlap much with the group of people that are bothered by racism.

    Truth.
    Good thing we're not on a series of forums that does something like that...[/humblegrumblegrumble] (Yes I know we're not supposed to talk about this but it's a good point to raise in a banned books thread, imo)

    Also, Tim, obviously you have never met a crazy hardcore California liberal.

    Are you referring to the censorship of the n word? Because if you can't see the difference between how it is used in Huck Finn vs. how it would be used on these forums, well...You need to think a little bit harder.
    I don't think it is, really. Yes, people are obviously going to abuse it, but in other places (like, say, this subforum) we could have a reasonable debate about the word, usage, origin, ironies, prevalence in hip-hop etc.
    And before you say "well we could replace the letters with asterisks/write "the n-word" instead, I'd like to point out how much the effect of Huck Finn would be lost if that very advice had been taken.
    In any case I'm more for censorship that isn't set-in-stone and more based on retardation. If someone published a book intentionally to anger a specific race and not to advance the collective literary consciousness or to make any reasonable arguments, I'd have no problem supporting a ban on that book. That being said, I don't think a book should be banned just for having "that word", and neither should, necessarily, a forum post.
    But whatever. Gabe and Tycho's forum, Gabe and Tycho's rules.

    Oh, yes, if there was a way of intellectually addressing its origins I think it would be a fairly fascinating look at how language functions and how in many ways cultures have taken negative words and adopted them to take ownership over their influence.

    I just think it would have to be restricted to that only. I just don't trust something like an internet forum to have that sort of intellectual discussion. The only area I might let that fly in is in debate and discourse, but even there I wonder how it would be used outside of that particular context.

    sig.jpg
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MrIamMe wrote: »
    Is this another one of the times I as an aussie can shake my head and say "crazy americans"?

    I'm pretty sure every country is mad, it's just a little harder to spot your insanity when you are veiled in it.

    sig.jpg
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Rent wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    The one book on perennially on this list that confuses me is Huck Finn. The kind of people that get their panties in a bunch about banning books doesn't seem like it would overlap much with the group of people that are bothered by racism.

    Truth.
    Good thing we're not on a series of forums that does something like that...[/humblegrumblegrumble] (Yes I know we're not supposed to talk about this but it's a good point to raise in a banned books thread, imo)

    Also, Tim, obviously you have never met a crazy hardcore California liberal.

    Are you referring to the censorship of the n word? Because if you can't see the difference between how it is used in Huck Finn vs. how it would be used on these forums, well...You need to think a little bit harder.
    I don't think it is, really. Yes, people are obviously going to abuse it, but in other places (like, say, this subforum) we could have a reasonable debate about the word, usage, origin, ironies, prevalence in hip-hop etc.
    And before you say "well we could replace the letters with asterisks/write "the n-word" instead, I'd like to point out how much the effect of Huck Finn would be lost if that very advice had been taken.
    In any case I'm more for censorship that isn't set-in-stone and more based on retardation. If someone published a book intentionally to anger a specific race and not to advance the collective literary consciousness or to make any reasonable arguments, I'd have no problem supporting a ban on that book. That being said, I don't think a book should be banned just for having "that word", and neither should, necessarily, a forum post.
    But whatever. Gabe and Tycho's forum, Gabe and Tycho's rules.

    I don't see how the effect of any forum posts about the n-word would be lessened by asterisks (unlike say Huck Finn). You can have an academic discussion about the n-word without saying the whole word. It's not as if we're forbidden from talking about it. Casual use of the n-word, on the other hand, is completely neutered by not being able to say it. Self-censoring when rapping, for instance, or just casual whats up my nizzle type stuff doesn't work when you have to self-censor. I don't know I like G&T's policy. :^: You could argue that then we should ban all slurs and all offensive words; but I would argue that the n-word has a special place in American history (for an analogue see modern German attitudes towards anti-semitism).

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Censoring the word with asterisks is pointless, because everyone knows what the words is anyway.

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Censoring the word with asterisks is pointless, because everyone knows what the words is anyway.

    Except search engines.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Found a page on the ALA here which actually gives reasons for various books getting banned. It's almost depressing that it looks like OMAM gets banned more often for vulgar language than anything else.

    Most of my favorite books are on that list! :x

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Ah, I see.

    Yeah, it basically comes down to G&T's forum, G&T's rules. It's stupid, but it is a private venue after all.

    This means a lot more then you might think it means if you read it incorrectly at first.


    Think about the sorts of this forum's users who would use that word in an improper context or without proper clarification of context.

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    I think I must have missed something when reading Of Mice and Men. Why does it get challenged so often?

    "Bible" is listed in the 10th spot for 1993 in that pdf.

    How in the hell does that happen?

    (Also LOL for this link, just a bit earlier in the thread -- someone read 1984 and thought it was pro communist?)

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    I think I must have missed something when reading Of Mice and Men. Why does it get challenged so often?

    "Bible" is listed in the 10th spot for 1993 in that pdf.

    How in the hell does that happen?

    (Also LOL for this link, just a bit earlier in the thread -- someone read 1984 and thought it was pro communist?)

    Have you read the bible?

    Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group, Sexually Explicit, Violence, Racism

    If it wasn't for the fact that those who seek to ban books tend to claim they follow the teachings in the bible, you'd see it on the list more often.

  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    I think I must have missed something when reading Of Mice and Men. Why does it get challenged so often?

    "Bible" is listed in the 10th spot for 1993 in that pdf.

    How in the hell does that happen?

    (Also LOL for this link, just a bit earlier in the thread -- someone read 1984 and thought it was pro communist?)

    Have you read the bible?

    Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group, Sexually Explicit, Violence, Racism

    If it wasn't for the fact that those who seek to ban books tend to claim they follow the teachings in the bible, you'd see it on the list more often.

    It just seems to me that the kind of people who don't like the Bible are also the kind of people who wouldn't like the idea of banning books.

    Also,
    Rent wrote: »
    And before you say "well we could replace the letters with asterisks/write "the n-word" instead, I'd like to point out how much the effect of Huck Finn would be lost if that very advice had been taken.

    Huck Finn is a work of art. Debates on Debate and Discourse are not works of art.

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    I think I must have missed something when reading Of Mice and Men. Why does it get challenged so often?

    "Bible" is listed in the 10th spot for 1993 in that pdf.

    How in the hell does that happen?

    (Also LOL for this link, just a bit earlier in the thread -- someone read 1984 and thought it was pro communist?)

    Have you read the bible?

    Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group, Sexually Explicit, Violence, Racism

    If it wasn't for the fact that those who seek to ban books tend to claim they follow the teachings in the bible, you'd see it on the list more often.

    Perhaps very, very strident athiests would seek to ban it from public libraries due to "separation of church and state" or some other such logic.

    I seem to recall that some countries had outright banned the Bible in their country, which probably explains its' placement on the list.

    steam_sig.png
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Saudi Arabia bans anyone from owning or importing a Bible, as I recall.

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Perhaps very, very strident athiests would seek to ban it from public libraries due to "separation of church and state" or some other such logic.

    The argument doesn't make any more sense than arguing that a library with Mein Kampf available for checkout means they support Hitler and anti-Semitisim.

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • MazzyxMazzyx A Restoration through Revolution. Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I have never fully understood the push to ban Huck Finn for racism. It is true the n-word is used. It is true that their are racist in the book but that is not the point of the book. The book is Twain's way of attacking the culture of racism during his time. I had to read the book on three seperate occasions during my public schooling. I never liked the book but I never saw it as racist, promoting racism or promoting anything else bad. I see it more as a satarical fight against racism and the prevailing views of Twain's time. It is an important part of the American literary history, as important as Walden or maybe as Uncle Tom's Cabin.

    I see people attacking more because it is their and easy to attack. Most people who try to ban books are not really trying to prove anything but instead are just trying to control other people and their ability to form their own opinions.


    Edit: Lived in Japan for too long, English fails me.

    meijisig.png
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It's not so much that Huck Finn promotes racism, but that it contains offensive language. It would probably get a pass if it was used sparingly and each time somehow made a point. But it's the sheer casualness that it's used.

    I imagine Twain would be absolutely tickled that his book gets the attention it does. Then he'd probably write an essay that a hundred years could pass and still nobody 'gets it'.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    I refuse any list that suggests you actually read The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Perhaps very, very strident athiests would seek to ban it from public libraries due to "separation of church and state" or some other such logic.

    The argument doesn't make any more sense than arguing that a library with Mein Kampf available for checkout means they support Hitler and anti-Semitisim.

    If I remember hearing correctly, Mein Kampf is a oft-stolen book due to the fact that some people would want to have it but not have it on their card, and other people steal as a way of taking it off the shelves in order to "protect" people.

    My mom often told me (she's a librarian) that it was rare that people would say anything to her about censoring or removing books, but books of a controversial nature---such as books on Satanism and the occult, Neo-Nazi's, etc. were hard to keep in the collection because they kept on turning up missing--likely due to desire to own what might be considered illicit to some, or because people are taking censorship into their own hands.

    steam_sig.png
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Perhaps very, very strident athiests would seek to ban it from public libraries due to "separation of church and state" or some other such logic.

    The argument doesn't make any more sense than arguing that a library with Mein Kampf available for checkout means they support Hitler and anti-Semitisim.

    If I remember hearing correctly, Mein Kampf is a oft-stolen book due to the fact that some people would want to have it but not have it on their card, and other people steal as a way of taking it off the shelves in order to "protect" people.

    My mom often told me (she's a librarian) that it was rare that people would say anything to her about censoring or removing books, but books of a controversial nature---such as books on Satanism and the occult, Neo-Nazi's, etc. were hard to keep in the collection because they kept on turning up missing--likely due to desire to own what might be considered illicit to some, or because people are taking censorship into their own hands.

    Video stores used to have problems keeping copies of The Last Temptation of Christ in stock. I guess that's supposed to be a case where stealing is okay...

  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Since it's related...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUq2d2OFRkk

    Odd that it didn't fall on the lists.

    Pokemon Black FC: 0518-7386-3511
    Pokemon Black 2: 0519-5108-3139
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    'Talking about our firemen'.

    Oh noes! Won't someone think of the firemen?

  • mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    People have definitely tried to ban the book on occasion, but just not as often as some of the other books on the list.

    The irony of censoring a book about the burning of books and the censorship of information is huge, however.

    Edit: Oh hell I didn't watch the whole thing before making the comment. That he would say the book is all about disrespecting Christians just shows how little he understood the book.

    steam_sig.png
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Since it's related...

    absurdity ascendant

    Odd that it didn't fall on the lists.

    I think even the kind of people who normally like to ban books are smart enough to know the irony backlash will KILL THEM TO DEATH.

  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    I think I must have missed something when reading Of Mice and Men. Why does it get challenged so often?

    "Bible" is listed in the 10th spot for 1993 in that pdf.

    How in the hell does that happen?

    (Also LOL for this link, just a bit earlier in the thread -- someone read 1984 and thought it was pro communist?)

    It may mean that it was challenged as part of a school curriculum. We had to read most of the Bible as part of my AP English class in 12th grade in a public school. It was supposed to be a study of the Bible as literature, but there were some grumblings that since it was a public school they shouldn't be using a religious text as a teaching tool. This was back in 1995.

    Ironically, when I worked in a bookstore, the books that were most often stolen were Bibles. Admittedly, those things were fucking expensive, but still...

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Dalboz wrote: »
    Ironically, when I worked in bookstore, the books that were most often stolen were Bibles. Admittedly, those things were fucking expensive, but still...

    Well they hadn't gotten to that part yet!

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Interesting line from that Palin article...
    The Frontiersman, the local newspaper that ran a column by Bess for seven years, fired him and ran a vicious cartoon that suggested even drooling child molesters would be welcomed by Bess' church.

    Well yeah, that's kind of the point. The church is just as much for killers, rapists and thieves as it is for the 'Fine, upstanding Christian citizen.' As soon as you filter who comes through those doors...you've completely lost sight of what Christianity is about.

    JKKaAGp.png
  • NerdgasmicNerdgasmic __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    'Talking about our firemen'.

    Oh noes! Won't someone think of the firemen?

    I think it's worse that they thought the book was somehow about their firemen.

    @nealcm @faynor
    nerdgasmic.gif1420 6068 6113 - XBL Atomoclassic
Sign In or Register to comment.