The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
It's Banned Books Week. Go Read One To Spite Sarah.
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Yes, folks, it's that time of year that we remember that there are people out there who think to tell us what we can and can't read.
It's especially important this year because one of those people just happens to be running for the Vice Presidency. And it seems that the book she was opposed to was one with a message of tolerance.
This is one of the most important freedoms that we have. The freedom of speech isn't just about the creator being able to speak freely, but also about his audience being able to partake. Those who advocate censorship are those who fear a free marketplace of ideas, because they know their ideas cannot gain traction, and thus must attack the competition to have any hope of succeeding. Those people must be shown that to do so is unacceptable and un-American.
So go read a banned book, and give Sarah the finger.
Edit: For those interested, here are the ten most challenged books (thankfully, thanks to the resolve of librarians, few challenges succeed.)
- “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group - The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence - “Olive’s Ocean,” by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language - “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint - “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: Racism - “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, - “TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group - “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit - “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit - “The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
Unsuited to Age Group tickles me for some reason.
EDIT: Anyway, to the larger issue at hand, it seems that sexually explicit material available to children is the issue here. Should Playboy be in public schools too?
I mean, I'm not implying I'm gonna make a pipe bomb or that I want to kill the President.
I just...wanna know how.
Didn't she try to can her but the town backlashed against Palin or something?
I remember that rumor flying around.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So, you interested in a bridge? I can sell it to you cheap.
Seriously, when you look at the shit she pulled, just saying "no" when asked about censorship isn't enough.
That's...not better.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Support for killing mentally handicapped people?
There isn't really a lack of evidence. Just look for it.
Along with the related nugget of euthanasia (of any kind) I believe.
It's hardly support (er... if I remember correctly, it's been a while since I read it), but point taken.
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.
I agree, but certain groups could be more sensitive to the ending than others, and find it offensive from their prospective.
There's a wee bit of a difference between public schools and public libraries.
There's also the issue of who, exactly, gets to define what's "sexually explicit", especially when dealing with YA books.
And finally, if you're so worked up about "sexually explicit" books being available to children, why not set up an effective way to restrict access to that material based on age, rather than removing it from the shelves entirely?
You don't just ask "How do I ban a book" because you're curious. Then there's her background, most notably that she belongs to a church known for actually having book burnings. And there's the fact that she dismissed said librarian that stood up to her (though to be fair, that may just be part of her not liking anyone who opposes her.)
Seriously, if you're not seeing the evidence that she would have banned books if she thought she would get away with it, you've got the blinders on tight.
The list in the OP is most challenged. The ALA is pretty resolute on opposing bannings, so it takes a LOT to get one through. Most advocates of bannings don't have the hard support needed to make it stick.
Truth.
Also, she asked a ton of officials to resign. The article makes a dubious link between a phone call and a letter months later.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I want to say that's just stupid, but that's my reaction to pretty much all attempts to ban books.
Well, I don't like the conflation of four different acts under the single umbrella of "banning." There's the government banning a book from private citizens, then there's the forced removal of a book from public libraries, then there's the forced removal of a book from public school libraries, and then there's the removal of a book from school curricula. The first two are clearly censorship, the third might be censorship, but the fourth really isn't. Not all books are equally appropriate for kids; I think that statement is uncontroversial (although I think Huck Finn is perfectly fine for middle school and above). The NAACP made the argument that kids don't have the maturity to deal with the way racism is portrayed in Huck Finn and became afraid that if kids were exposed to the n-word in school, by a teacher, they may feel that it's okay to use that word in casual parlance.
I don't agree with the argument, as I don't see Huck Finn as being particularly complex, but I don't think the argument is beyond the pale, and I don't think it's fair to refer to an attempt to remove a book from school curricula as "banning."
Now, if my memory is off and the NAACP tried to get it removed from a public library, well fuck them right in the ass. I just think that the criteria for having a book in a library is and should be different from the criteria for teaching a book at any given grade level of school.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Schools? No. Libraries? It should be considered on its merits, ignoring the supposedly objectionable content. So if other periodicals with similar readership are in, then yes.
I don't see why this would even be that big of a deal. Playboy is sold out of sidewalk newspaper stands and in airport terminals across the United States.
I am so tired of Sarah Palin. Now the main reason why I don't want the (R)s elected is because I don't want all this stupid shit in the media for 4 years. Also the whole entire world laughing at us.
Playboy is actually a good example.
Playboy in particular is a major journalistic publication in addition to the soft-core nakedness. I know it's a cliche to say "I read it for the articles," but Playboy does have substantial articles. Their interviews with celebrities and politicians can be an important source for all kinds of research. I occasionally cited Playboy in college when I'd write a paper tracking one social trend or another.
Losing that historical record because a child might see a woman's bare pelvis is the height of insanity. It might not belong in schools, but it definitely belongs in libraries.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hence my use of the waffle "pretty much." I think baring pretty gross mismatches in age/material attempts to somehow shield children are on the face of it idiotic, though I'll allow there's certainly more room for debate there than with other types of book banning.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Are you comparing the likes of Kurt Vonnegut to playboy?
Yeah. The other thing is that books taught in schools were picked by people who, well, have degrees in education. They generally have a pretty good idea of what's appropriate for what age group. So when concerned parents or clergy or pundits throw a fit, they usually clearly have no clue what the hell they're talking about.
The Color Purple may have been a bad idea for my sophomore/junior summer reading list, though. A number of students in my class demonstrated that they weren't mature enough to handle it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.