|
PT6A posted:No, the books will not be in the library. Ok what about the second question I asked: could a librarian put the books into a library?
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
When books aren’t allowed someplace, it sure seems like that means they’re banned from that place.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
This sort of "PRECISION OF LANGUAGE" thing is why the ALA has changed the lists circulated during Banned Book Week to "Most Challenged" Books, because people bitch and moan about how they're not really banned from the state, they're simply banned from schools or libraries, it's not like they're going into bookstores and confiscating the books, at least not yet. It feels like a cargo-cult response to the whole "the first amendment does not protect your radio show from being canceled by a private station" argument, but no one ever talks about guns being "challenged" from school zones, or Dinesh D'Souza being "challenged" from voting because he's a felon, Alex Jones being "challenged" from YouTube, or Matt Gaetz being challenged from Chuck E Cheeses nationwide.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
It’s a bit like the pre-2022 argument that abortion wasn’t really banned in West Virginia or Wyoming because there was one clinic that hadn’t been run out of business yet, or because anyone was free to go another state if abortion was unavailable in their state.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
The books aren't banned from the libraries' collections, they're just not allowed to be in there
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
Listen, nobody's putting cops in peoples' bedrooms, you hysterical liberal. There needs to be at least two witnesses before sodomy can be persecuted, it's just a deterrent against public evil! Gosh, now you seem foolish
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
I mean the problem is that they're being pulled from schools and libraries, in other words banned from those locations. Pointing out that "ackshually a high school student could technically go buy on the road so it's not banned" is a fuckin loser strategy; it's pointless to get dragged into semantic arguments with freaks who knows exactly what they are doing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
What is the point of doing that here? They’re just enjoying wasting everyone’s time?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
It's like the end of Footloose where the new kid apologizes to the town for saying they have a dance ban, when you could dance all you want alone in your room.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
Listening to my dad listen to Gutfeld! talk about a story where some motorists ran through protestors, three years worth of gripes against protestors, and and then referred to them and the New York Subway Stangler as "doing the cops' job" and then asking if vigilantism is just a public service, while the audience can barely muster a chuckle 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
I don't know why I'm being accused of "rules-lawyer[ing] for fascists." I'm quite clear on the fact that what's going on is completely unacceptable and vile, I'm just saying that it's not actually a ban. Why it's important to make this distinction is because the right-wing is already using this talking point, and by insisting that it's a ban, you're implicitly not attacking their actual argument, which is that access to certain materials including but not limited to books discussing or providing information concerning LGBTQ+ and racial issues, ought to be less than fully and freely available. The opposition to these restrictions should not be fighting about what to call things; instead, they should be making the argument that it is the right of all people, including children (being that children are, strictly speaking, a subset of "people"), to access any and all works possible through a library, either in a school or a community library.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:30
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Alternatively, gently caress the fascists and gently caress their arguments. Call a spade a spade and don't engage with fascist lies and half truths. The books are banned. Speak the truth and gently caress their lies.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
Dude that is what you are doing
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
Amazing how fast the dogpile starts when someone merely suggests a slightly different rhetorical strategy. He must be a secret fascist or something. Gettim!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't know why I'm being accused of "rules-lawyer[ing] for fascists." I'm quite clear on the fact that what's going on is completely unacceptable and vile, I'm just saying that it's not actually a ban. Why it's important to make this distinction is because the right-wing is already using this talking point, and by insisting that it's a ban, you're implicitly not attacking their actual argument, which is that access to certain materials including but not limited to books discussing or providing information concerning LGBTQ+ and racial issues, ought to be less than fully and freely available. dude nobody cares about this poindexter rear end WELL ACKCHYUALLY clarification bullshit Normal people just find this annoying Just call it a loving ban and incite justified outrage and maybe there will be a better chance of getting enough people to oppose this poo poo and stop it
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't know why I'm being accused of "rules-lawyer[ing] for fascists." I'm quite clear on the fact that what's going on is completely unacceptable and vile, I'm just saying that it's not actually a ban. Why it's important to make this distinction is because the right-wing is already using this talking point, and by insisting that it's a ban, you're implicitly not attacking their actual argument, which is that access to certain materials including but not limited to books discussing or providing information concerning LGBTQ+ and racial issues, ought to be less than fully and freely available. In all seriousness, it's completely possible to fight for the right of all people to access any and all works possible through a library, and still recognize that it's functionally a ban and is fully intended to be a ban, even if the fascists' language doesn't name it as such. Like, yeah, the language used in a budget bill to authorize bulldozing a Black cultural center in order to build a police station probably doesn't involve any explicitly racist language. Doesn't mean that it isn't racist as gently caress, racists drafted it, and racists actively benefit from it. We shouldn't be paralyzed into thinking "Well, we can't say that it's racist, because they'll just turn around and say 'no it's not!' We just need to fight racism in general." That attitude actively helps their side. You can't accept their bullshit just-for-PR premises like this. That sort of attitude is exactly why they've been drafting bills like this. In effect, states like Florida are now places the most-bigoted citizens have the power; the state has set up an apparatus where one person can challenge a book, and there's enough red tape to guarantee that if even one person complains about the slightest amount of LGBT presence in a book, it's off the shelves indefinitely. Y'see, they're not banning books, they're bringing back parental rights! No, they're banning books with extra steps for plausible deniability. Not calling it out as such is accepting their narrative, which only gives them rhetorical power and justification. Which is bad.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
predicto posted:Amazing how fast the dogpile starts when someone merely suggests a slightly different rhetorical strategy. He must be a secret fascist or something. Gettim! Maybe he's getting dogpiled because he made a really illogical argument and refuses to address rebuttals
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
You bring this argument up on Twitter and you'll just get dozens of chuds showing the same two pages from Gender Queer.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:No, they're banning books with extra steps for plausible deniability. Not calling it out as such is accepting their narrative, which only gives them rhetorical power and justification. Which is bad. I view it in completely the opposite sense. Saying that it is, in fact, a ban implies that their stated goals are acceptable, which they absolutely aren't! You concede so much ground unnecessarily by the implication that their stupid bullshit would be in any way acceptable if it weren't a de facto ban.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I view it in completely the opposite sense. Saying that it is, in fact, a ban implies that their stated goals are acceptable. No it doesn't. Their stated goal is censorship, opposing book bans does not imply censorship is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Saying that it is, in fact, a ban implies that their stated goals are acceptable, which they absolutely aren't! Listen I'm legitimately not trying to be lovely or anything but my only response to reading this was to say "No...?" and tilt my head like a dog in a 00's-era movie trailer. How does calling legislation that is clearly intended on banning access to books "a book ban" imply that banning books is in any way acceptable?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Elon fails to launch Desantis. This Elon guy just can't get Spaces launches right
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Listen I'm legitimately not trying to be lovely or anything but my only response to reading this was to say "No...?" and tilt my head like a dog in a 00's-era movie trailer. How does calling legislation that is clearly intended on banning access to books "a book ban" imply that banning books is in any way acceptable? Well, they say their goal is not to ban books, but rather to limit the availability of books containing (depending on your ideological bent) either "controversial" or "harmful/pornographic" content so that parents can make the choice whether their kids can access such things. What I'm saying is that that goal is, itself, completely loving unacceptable regardless of whether it's a ban or not, because children are not property of parents, and have their own human rights.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, they say their goal is not to ban books, but rather to limit the availability of books containing (depending on your ideological bent) either "controversial" or "harmful/pornographic" content so that parents can make the choice whether their kids can access such things. What I'm saying is that that goal is, itself, completely loving unacceptable regardless of whether it's a ban or not, because children are not property of parents, and have their own human rights. Okay, sure, I get that. Like, I would still argue that "limiting the availability of books" is equivalent to "banning access to books", which would be accurately described as a "book ban", but the whole "Parents don't literally own their children as if they were property" argument is one that is extremely important into combatting the current anti-LGBT wave of legislation. I don't fault you for being frustrated, and I do agree that it's an angle that is woefully not talked about much in most mainstream media. But I think you're putting too much stock into what they say. Well, more-specifically, what politicians like Ron DeSantis say. DeSantis' rhetoric, and a ton of the legislation that was passed in the past two years, has been laundered, like, 4 times over from its point of origin. It's what politicians think will be acceptable to the masses. Their goal isn't just a generic "ban books!" Ron DeSantis saying that "We need to combat the Woke Mind-Virus and fight indoctrination" is a more-socially-acceptable way of saying "Our kids are turning gay because of the media they consume." And that's a more-socially-acceptable way of saying "Being gay is still bad and should be ostracized." And that's a more-acceptable-way of saying "We need to have societal standards that align with the Bible", and that's a more-acceptable way of saying "Being gay should be illegal on penalty of death." Like, dip into any mainstream conservative Evangelical podcast, and they'll start with the second-to-last step. Click a few links, and you're at the last step. When it's conservatives who think they're talking to conservatives, they don't hide their true motivations at all. The end goal of the movement is extremely clear. The politicians who are actively benefitting from it are at the most-shallow rhetorical step. Accepting things on their terms means that the people at the very bottom wrung of the movement still have an "in". By backing off when the other side says "Well, it's technically not a BAN," the Christofacist assholes rub their hands together with glee, because they're given more ground to push things even further in their direction.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe he's getting dogpiled because he made a really illogical argument and refuses to address rebuttals He politely engaged with people and tried to explain what he was thinking several times. Even if you disagree with him (I disagree with him), he clearly wasn't doing it to be a chud, or to defend the chuds. It was 100 percent clear that he was doing the exact opposite. But the thread instantly buried him in outright hostility. Accused him of "rules lawyering for the fascists," called him a "poindexter," suggested he was arguing in bad faith. We really can't help eating our own sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
predicto posted:He politely engaged with people and tried to explain what he was thinking several times. Even if you disagree with him (I disagree with him), he clearly wasn't doing it to be a chud, or to defend the chuds. It was 100 percent clear that he was doing the exact opposite. But the thread instantly buried him in outright hostility. Accused him of "rules lawyering for the fascists," called him a "poindexter," suggested he was arguing in bad faith. I agree he wasn't "rules lawyering for fascists", but calling him a "poindexter" is a pretty fair cop.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 07:44
|
|
|
predicto posted:He politely engaged with people and tried to explain what he was thinking several times. Even if you disagree with him (I disagree with him), he clearly wasn't doing it to be a chud, or to defend the chuds. It was 100 percent clear that he was doing the exact opposite. But the thread instantly buried him in outright hostility. Accused him of "rules lawyering for the fascists," called him a "poindexter," suggested he was arguing in bad faith. Nobody gives a gently caress what his intentions are. It literally doesn't matter what he believes in his heart of hearts. His argument is wrong and helps fash so he should stop making it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
predicto posted:He politely engaged with people and tried to explain what he was thinking several times. Even if you disagree with him (I disagree with him), he clearly wasn't doing it to be a chud, or to defend the chuds. It was 100 percent clear that he was doing the exact opposite. But the thread instantly buried him in outright hostility. Accused him of "rules lawyering for the fascists," called him a "poindexter," suggested he was arguing in bad faith. I asked what I thought were two very simple and pointed questions and he refused to answer the second. It's hard to accept a level of good faith when someone won't answer a question like "can you put the books in the library?"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
We could go back to laughing at Trump. Here is a Truth Social post where Donald Trump thanks Donald Trump for posting a video about Donald Trump.  https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110426364869694588
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 10:27
|
|
|
re: book "bans?" it's transparently straight back to 1946 Sartrequote:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. That is 100% what that poster is engaging with by arguing that these technically aren't book bans and should instead be engaged with on the fascists' stated terms. Call it what it is; don't labor under the mistaken belief that you'll convince the fascists that are pushing this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 10:47
|
|
cowboy
|
I feel confident openly stating that "certain books have been banned from the school library" and that constitutes book banning. Thing I've wondered is: who's enforcing it? Do they have a bunch of Seinfeld library cops in the budget to go aorund and audit the bookshelves?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 12:00
|
|
|
They have brown shirt parents crawling up every librarian's rear end looking for wrong think, ready to scream to the world about it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 12:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, they say their goal is not to ban books, but rather to limit the availability of books containing (depending on your ideological bent) either "controversial" or "harmful/pornographic" content so that parents can make the choice whether their kids can access such things. What I'm saying is that that goal is, itself, completely loving unacceptable regardless of whether it's a ban or not, because children are not property of parents, and have their own human rights. You are confusing what they are doing (banning books from the library) with their reason for doing it (to limit children's ability to choose reading material on their own, so parents can control their child's access to information) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:51 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 12:44
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I asked what I thought were two very simple and pointed questions and he refused to answer the second. It's hard to accept a level of good faith when someone won't answer a question like "can you put the books in the library?" It's because I figured it was not a question asked in good faith. No, you cannot put the book in the library. It is banned specifically from being in libraries or schools, and we agree, I believe, that this is a bad situation. I think where the disagreement comes is: does banning something from one place or one situation, constitute a ban of that thing? The rhetorical trick that DeSantis and others are using is saying that is not the case, and based on the meaning of "ban" I'm inclined to agree. If I can only buy beer at the liquor store instead of at the grocery store or corner store, that's not a beer ban, even though the grocery store would be banned from selling beer. We're all on the same page, I think, that what is being done is very bad. The question from my perspective is: how do you get other people who aren't already in agreement, to care about it and fight it? Some people are arguing that referring to this policy as a ban is more effective, but it's my personal opinion that simply describing what's going on precisely is better, because it allows these assholes to play fewer rhetorical games about what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Has anyone ever been banned on SA Forums. They can still post elsewhere on the internet so how can they be banned.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:because it allows these assholes to play fewer rhetorical games about what they're doing. You might want to take a look around at the last ten or twenty years of Republican actions. This is what fascists DO. You aren't going to stop them from doing exactly this. Ever. At all. Attempting to get fascists to stop toying with language is the absolute pinnacle of tilting at windmills. It. Will. Not. Work. Ever. There is nothing to be gained from getting in to the poo poo with a hog. Just call their lies what they are.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
Yes. You can have bans of a thing that aren't total bans of the thing. You have fallen for a rhetorical trick fascists are using to redefine the word so anything short of a total universal ban isn't a ban. PT6A posted:If I can only buy beer at the liquor store instead of at the grocery store or corner store, that's not a beer ban, even though the grocery store would be banned from selling beer. It might be and it might not be. If the liquor stores are open the same hours and have the same availability as grocery stores it would not be a beer ban. If, like many states, liquor stores are required to close at 9pm, on Sundays, etc that is a beer ban on Sundays because you can't get it. "It's not a Sunday ban because you could make your purchases ahead of time" would be a ridiculous defense because everybody knows what the intent of the law is: to stop people from doing something on Sundays that Bible thumpers don't like. As well if you made a law that only men could go into the liquor store, that would be a beer ban for women even if they could still be given beer by their husbands or fathers, which is a more exact analogy for what Florida is doing when they ban children from getting certain books from anyone but their parents since children do not have jobs and money to buy their own books. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:03 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Like, even they don't really believe their argument. They have no problem correctly identifying the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Protection Act as a type of gun ban even though you could still buy the banned weapons (if they were manufactured before the law), still possess them, it didn't ban all guns, it had exemptions, manufacturers could make cosmetic changes to their guns to get around the provisions, etc
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think where the disagreement comes is: does banning something from one place or one situation, constitute a ban of that thing? banning something is a ban of something, what are you even trying to do if you get banned from Safeway for making GBS threads on the floor you have been banned even if you can still go to the Walmart down the block
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
PT6A posted:It's because I figured it was not a question asked in good faith. No, you cannot put the book in the library. It is banned specifically from being in libraries or schools, and we agree, I believe, that this is a bad situation. All of those things were allow to exist, they just couldn't be in schools. All of them were considered 'bans' and I'm not sure what sliver of the population changed their opinion (pro or con) on the topic when they discovered that students could still wear/possess these things in the privacy of their own home. The portion of the population that would hypothetically go: "Ron DeSantis is rounding up undesirables and murdering them? That's bad!" "Actually we're having doctors assess their well-being and euthanizing them, it's not murder it's a medical procedure." "Oh, euthanizing them? Well that's different, I've got no beef with medicine." is hopefully vanishingly small, and however many of them exist probably are not going to come around if you use just the right words that the DeSantises of the world agree to use. I realize this sounds like (and in the last example is) hyperbole but "ban" is used in this way colloquially and understandably all of the time. Would "banning from schools and libraries" still be wrong? Is it the idea that possessing the book is not yet a criminal offense the reason why 'ban' is wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 15:28
|
|