Book Bans in USA

I watched a video that tried to debunk the current trend of "book banning" in the USA. I say book banning in quotes because the author of the video pointed out that these books aren't being derezzed, you can still go to your public library and check them out or order them on Amazon, they're merely being removed from elementary and sometimes middle school libraries. The video goes through each of the books on the American Library Associations list of "Most Challenged Books of 2022" and one-by-one shows how each of them have fairly extreme depictions of sex or violence. That brings up an interesting debate about to what degree children should be sheltered and what sorts of topics they're ready for at different ages. Personally I wouldn't want my eleven year old reading a graphic novel with depictions of the MC trying to kill himself, but that's not what I came here to discuss. I came here because I _agree_ with the author of this video essay, but I'm concerned it's biased. I'm curious if anyone can provide a counter argument. People in the anti-"book banning" crowd seem to think that: a) book banning is completely ridiculous and children of any age should be able to access books intended for mature audiences without their parents' consent (an unreasonable opinion in my view) or b) books about LGBT or race issues are disproportionately derezzed (a reasonable concern in my view) Although many of the books in the ALA's "Most Challenged Books of 2022" list did have LGBT or non-white characters, they also had serious sexual or violent themes that I think completely justify them being removed from elementary/middle schools. I'd be really curious if someone could show me an example of a book with LGBT or race themes which was derezzed under the pretext of sex/violence while another equally sex/violence heavy book was allowed to remain. Sorry for the long post. Here's the video if you care to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_aRzXXCv4s

I think some books are worth banning. For instance "wolf tales" which is a book about a woman falling in love with a werewolf and having sex with him in just about every chapter is probably not okay for children. Honestly even something like stephen king's "carrie" is too sexual for children in my opinion. That being said I heard something recently that kind of saddened me: there was a school that had derezzed "to kill a mocking bird" because it was "making the students uncomfortable". To me, a book about the issues of racism should make you uncomfortable and make you reflect on yourself through this discomfort. That being said a book like stephen king's "it" which uses racial slurs a lot is probably not appropriate to kids because the racial slurs aren't social commentary, and also the child orgy scene.

>>8916 >making the students uncomfortable That's also, at least in modernity, the point. To Kill A Mocking Bird wasn't actually written with this in mind, but it is used, in modernity, as an example of racial injustice. They pointed at the negro and said "IT WAS HIM!" and everyone agreed, it must be, for he is a nigger. I won't spoil the book, but let's just say that the perceived plot twist should be considered liberal and acceptable racially. The kids who claim to be "uncomfortable" are likely the same kids singing "nigga" and "nigger" along with the music that they listen to.

>>8915 The standard should ideally be a high level of permissiveness and book availability, but I think this is one of those manufactured controversies that mostly exists for people to waste a lot of energy bitching at each other about and be ultimately inconsequential.

>>8915 I don't think any book should be off limits even for children. I don't care how graphic or extreme it is. Hell, I think shocking and graphic content should be shown to kids to wake them up. I've never understood this first world, overprotective mindset when it comes to kids. All that does is dumb them down and turn them into passive cretins who follow the leader. I think all children should be forced to watch Come and See or Black Rain, just to ram home what war and violence actually looks like. The only reason I'd restrict a book is if it has some practical application they are too young to understand. I don't want 9 year olds accidentally cooking up nitro glycerin.

>>8915 >I came here because I _agree_ with the author of this video essay, but I'm concerned it's biased It definitely is biased, tries to make the ALA out like its some shadow organization obfuscating its language to hide its true intention (which isnt true, one look at their website shows theyre upfront about the things this guy tries to spin as secretive, also his obsession with "claimed to be" as if thats anything more than just typical language for a challenged book), and intentionally misrepresenting those who are against the book ban (see the edit with the Maus author). Having overt biases doesn't mean it's wrong, but I'd strongly suggest finding a different source, perhaps reading the proposed bans relevent to your community. You're not immune to propaganda, after all. >you can still go to your public library and check them out I don't want to dox myself but my public library has had some local political fuarrrkery that has lead to some books being pulled completely (some for "claimed sexually explicit" content, some for the "critical race theory" spook), and we've had some good old fashion book burnings, too. The video is correct that many challenges to books relate to school libraries and bills banning books from school, but public libraries are facing some of the same challenges and regulations, and it's disingenuous to pretend they're not. As for the specific content he mentions, most of it seems fine for teenagers. The guy acts like we need to shelter teens from any book that mentions suicide, drugs, or sex, but I disagree. Teens do all of that stuff, with or without books. Having access to books that contextualize those topics in honest ways helps them make better decisions and prepares them for adulthood. >how each of them have fairly extreme depictions of sex or violence Most of them didn't seem extreme to me. People joking about eating pussy, some suicide stuff, a woman getting fingered, a guy saying another dude took the girl position when they had sex, some apparently clinically written blowjob scene. Not extreme to me, and certainly much much more tame than the jokes and stories we'd tell at lunch when I was a teen. Should erotica be in public schools? No. Did any of those examples seem like erotica to me? Also no. However, removing the book with the URL of porn site seems fair to me. But mostly it seems like if the kid has developed the reading skills necessary to read most of those examples, but they're still unable to interprete and contextualize it healthily, the parents fuarrrked up big time already. >>8918 This

>>8916 I'm definitely biased because I've always loved carrie, but regarding elementary students you make a very good point. tkam is another one of my favorites and even with how revered the novel is, it's always been very notorious for such themes and has a prevalent history of being derezzed outright.

though my local library doesn't have a copy, even an ebook, of the turner diaries, it does appear to have a physical copy of Mein Kampf, currently checked out. I guess Ill have to wait and see if it ever shows up or if its been removed through that subtlety. >>8921 >removing the book with the URL of porn site seems fair to me. You should be careful when agreeing with generally reasonable rules like this, enforced by someone with your sensabilities they may come out right, but can also be turned into excuses to ban far more than you thought you signed up for. What exactly is a pornsite ? A site where you can find porn ? Fairly sure this makes every major website in the world a pornsite from time to time, lainchan too. Expect inconsistent enforcement. >>8919 >I don't think any book should be off limits even for children. I don't care how graphic or extreme it is. Hell, I think shocking and graphic content should be shown to kids to wake them up. Sure ok. But consider a public school library, or really any library. You've not got a limitless budget, you've not got a limitless amount of shelfspace or storage space. There's an insane number of books out there in the world, so some discernment will be needed in choosing which ones to have neccisarily. Obviously if parents want to show their kids the manga guide to gay sex or whatever even if its derezzed at the local school library thats their perogative I guess, as far as these so-called bannings are concerned.

>>9000 Nice number. >Expect inconsistent enforcement. Whether something is pornography already has no rigorous definition, so obviously this would have to be considered on a case by case basis. People can use their judgment. This is not a slippery slope situation.

And now they're banning even the bible in some of them.

>>9002 >obviously this would have to be considered on a case by case basis, people can use their judgement. current librarians/school officials using their judgement is what gets the manga guide to gay sex on the library shelves. The problem won't be solved by giving those proven unreliable judges some nebulous directive about pornography and asking them to 'use their judgement' on a case by case basis. You're right that sending directives like that isn't a slippery slope. The situation is already a slippery slope, and those directives are peices of meringue shaped vaugely to look like crampons. Totally useless.

>>9004 >The problem won't be solved by giving those proven unreliable judges some nebulous directive about pornography and asking them to 'use their judgement' on a case by case basis. No, but it also won't be solved by trying to nail down a precise definition of pornography. That just won't work, because it's a very fine and blurry line.

>>9005 >fine and blurry line. A fine line can't be blurry and a blurry line can't be fine, and in either case a rigorous definition doesn't leave ambiguity (even if it may somewhat disagree with popular conception of the term), so that's not the problem. The problem is that good directives are not trivial to construct, and that even good directives cannot turn a bad judge good. Problem at hand isn't even pornography, but something more along the lines of enemy indoctrination. Unfortunately naming that enemy is illegal.

>>8915 "Banning" is such an insidious way of framing it from the start. There are only so many things a school can teach. Is astrology "derezzed"? Or did we just decide it's dumb soykaf not worth teaching to children. >books about LGBT or race issues are disproportionately derezzed (a reasonable concern in my view) It is not unreasonable to remove books that encourage children to sterilize themselves or hate the people who built the country they are studying in. >>9004 >The problem won't be solved by giving those proven unreliable judges some nebulous directive about pornography and asking them to 'use their judgement' on a case by case basis. How about the parents who actually pay for the schools with their tax dollars can decide what the schools teach and everyone else who doesn't have a stake can stfu.

>>8915 Books were "derezzed" for being politically or socially disruptive... in these cases, there is a backlash by parents about 18+ gay smut or borderline gay pron in schools. For the luls someone should try getting straight porn entered into the libraries and when the answer is "no" then try to say why is gay porn ok, but not straight porn.

>>9016 >try to say why is gay porn ok, but not straight porn It's all eugenics. The people funding these social agendas think the world is overpopulated.

Nobody is seriously suggesting libraries make everything available. That's not even really possible - there is only so much space on the shelves. The debate is between whether a hivemind of beurocrats dictate to the kids what the right books are, or if a mob of karens get to veto anything that offends their delicate sensibilities. I'm not sure which is worse. >>8982 Maybe they'll bring back "fixed" versions of the derezzed books in a few years, and declare victory over censorship.

>>9017 thats not eugenics thats population control lol. >>9015 >How about the parents who actually pay for the schools with their tax dollars can decide what the schools teach how do they decide that ? how do they enforce that ? isnt it illegal to discriminate against gays ? like your claim is reasonable but the reason that schools try to teach kids to sterilize and that their parents are evil for having them and their ancestors evil for winning isn't just going away like that. The books arent the problem, its the librarians who put them there, the school admin which hired those librarians, etc etc.

>>9014 >Problem at hand isn't even pornography, but something more along the lines of enemy indoctrination. Nice. Does anyone even know what books are derezzed?

I remember when all the most challenged books were because they said the N word or had themes that were "too complicated" for kids (like To Kill a Mockingbird). When did this change?

>>9019 >thats not eugenics thats population control lol. Eugenics is controlling who can and can't reproduce in an attempt to engineer some kind of desired outcome. In this case the desired outcome is fewer humans. The more children they can sterilize with cross sex hormones or confuse their sexual orientation the more they will reduce the birthrate. >how do they decide that ? how do they enforce that ? Parents who actually have kids who actually go to the school can vote on what the school teaches? Better yet cut off all funding from the state and parents pay the school directly. Then schools that keep pushing globalist propaganda on children can get Bud Light'ed. >The books arent the problem, its the librarians who put them there, the school admin which hired those librarians, etc etc. Sure. The problem is the teachers don't work for the children or the parents they work for the state because that's where they get their funding. >isnt it illegal to discriminate against gays ? What's the discrimination? If gays want to put their adopted / test tube babies into schools that teach anal sex and gender studies to 4 year olds I'm sure somebody will open that school. My kids will go to a school that teaches math and engineering though.

>>9018 >>9018 In the eyes of both sides, not available = derezzed Its funny to see how they can't just say "borrow it from somewhere else if you want it so bad" I never thought my library was banning books when they didn't have 10 copies of the anarchist cookbook

>>9021 My mom used to encourage me to read derezzed books like that, heaven forbid the characters in a certain setting call the black guy a nigger. I always understood outright bans to be because the material encouraged radical thought like Mein Kampf (which i read anyway, lmao) or Marx, or Orwell. >>9020 Looks like a lot of them are gay memoirs and manifestos. >While All Boys Aren’t Blue covers topics like gender identity, sexual awakening and sexual abuse, they are seamlessly interwoven with discussions of family, unconditional love, how black history is taught in schools, and the unexpected acceptance Johnson ultimately found within a black fraternity. I don't even know what this is supposed to be teaching children to begin with. Its barely a social commentary. Parts of it are basically "i got bullied for being a user" A bunch of the other ones are about gay sexual awakenings of teenagers. Not sure why people need to write novels on how to have sex. Its about the same as saying you wrote an ERP on 4chan where you role play as a child.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/have-you-looked-inside-any-of-these-books This provides insight on some titles which are supposedly supposed to "educate teens" about how getting fuarrrked in the ass is fun and normal, and how looking at fetish porn is fun and exciting. The target age groups are 8-14 year olds in some cases. I remember readling "classics" which dealt with violence or abuse. I read a child called it in 5th grade and I got it from the school library. I read other titles about children surviving war and the atrocities. I thought those books were about overcoming and struggling to survive and the power of the human spirit, not guides on normalizing behavior.

>>9018 >victory over censorship The whole thing about a title's availability in a local library is a distraction. In the case of childrens' public school libraries it is inevitable that the collections will ultimately be more or less a reflection of the parents in the area. Meanwhile, publishers are right now actively censoring new editions of classics for modern audiences or modern sensibilities because corporations have deemed them too offensive for readers prior to any of this. Notable known censored authors: Agatha Christie, R.L. Stine, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl. In the near future libraries may not be able to purchase original texts of copies. As the concept purchased books pivots away from ownership of books we have the real problem. This is another branch of the erasure of collective human knowledge like the centralization of the internet. God bless the digital "pirates" and the data hoarders. They are the modern version of the medieval monks preserving ancient manuscripts.

>>9030 So everyone working in government funded institutions is a potential socialist, is that what you're saying?

>>9031 Anyone who depends on the government wants bigger government because that means more money for them. That's why these institutions like libraries and universities are so intellectually sterile, they are payed by the government to reinforce the government narratives. You also have to consider that these people don't have many marketable skills outside their institution. A librarian or a gender studies professor would be flipping burgers at mcdonalds if they got fired. So it's not just that they're getting paid it's that they can't get paid any other way.

>>9031 I posit that everyone working in a government funded institution is professionally amoral, thus either privately amoral or immoral. Prove me wrong without using doublethink.

>>9033 >I posit that everyone working in a government funded institution is professionally amoral, thus either privately amoral or immoral. Taxation is theft and their salary depends entirely on taxation so yes they are immoral in that sense.

>>8918 Like alot of media ends up being. A distraction away from something bigger.

>>8918 Pretty much, yeah. With very few exceptions everyone agrees on the same principles, it's just that everyone is spoonfed crap that confirms their biases and never actually does research.

>>8915 Is it the job of the government to educate your kids, to decide what is good or wrong for them to read? Is it the job of a faceless megacorporation? Of a mob of activist following whichever trend the algorithm of the social media platform made them think is the correct one? Or is it the job of the parents?

>>9032 >Anyone who depends on the government wants bigger government because that means more money for them. you mean... people who are participating in society are selfish for wanting better governance? As opposed to what other kind of person? If you exist in modern society, you depend on the government whether you know it or not. Sovereign citizens and the like are delusional and do not understand that they could not exist without the "big government" they want to see dismantled to make room for selfish, private interests.

>>9034 >Taxation is theft You drive on our roads, benefit from our laws, breathe our air, and drink our water. All of these things are maintained by funds collected through taxation. Refusal to pay taxes is itself a form of theft because you take and you do not give back when you share in the benefits of the taxes paid by others. Jail is too good for tax evaders, we still have to pay for their existence even when they are no longer allowed to participate in our society, better to just throw them into the ocean and let them prove how well they can fare without sharing in the wealth of their fellow man.

>>9197 >Is it the job of the government to educate your kids, to decide what is good or wrong for them to read? yeah, sounds good >Or is it the job of the parents? Parents do not have to enroll their child into a public school if they don't want to. There are other options if they don't trust the public school system for whatever reason or think they can somehow provide their child a better education. Good riddance, honestly. They keep showing up to school board meetings ranting and raving trying to ruin things for the rest of us.

>>9199 under inflating fiat currency there is no niche or cave in which the aspiring tax evasionist may make his den.

Didn't watch it, but I agree that no knowledge should be ever limited to anyone. Kids should be, and are allowed access to whatever information they desire through the internet which is great. In regards to what is and what isn't in school libraries... it should be decided based on what is most useful for the kids? That is obviously and will never be 'best'. Removing (a book) without a replacement seems bad but it's nothing absurd or awful. Imo it's just whatever. >>8915

>>9198 >for wanting better governance? Making ideas or culture you don't like illegal isn't making things better. Asking for policies that exist only because a lot of people like to follow trendy politic on social media, like wanting to close nuclear power plants and fighting climate change at the same time isn't a better governance. As a matter of fact, public spending became so important that far too many people now rely on it for their income. In a democracy, this can't end well. >Sovereign citizens and the like are delusional and do not understand that they could not exist without the "big government" they want to see dismantled to make room for selfish, private interests. We existed before our government became gargantuan. In France they used to have two revolutions per century and everyone who wasn't into politic lived his life. No, we don't need a cop to tell us which book should be burned on the public place to stay alive. >>9199 >Air is not free, it's paid for What if I told you... That making water clean and pumping it into a pipe isn't what the government do? Private companies do it. Sure, a level of statist intervention is better to organize the infrastructure. It's dishonest from you to try to justify the massive waste of resource made by administrators and by retarded policies by the argument that the only other option is Somalia. All the best countries in the world have a small government. Sweden in the XIXth century, Early America... >>9200 >It's not a problem if public schools have turned into brainwshing machines Yes it is. >Just have more money, fools. I don't care if the state take it from you, just have more of it.

>>8915 Of course some books should be derezzed in schools, you don't want children to read some ultra violent pornographic novel written by some freak. I think everybody agrees with this. However, no book should be derezzed for anyone above 18, and these "derezzed books" are not actually derezzed for adults so I don't see the controversy. The only problem I see is that some european countries legit ban some books, like they're actually derezzed from being published. I know they are mostly nazi books but still, they are banning books which is unacceptable imo.

>>9204 >What if I told you... That making water clean and pumping it into a pipe isn't what the government do? Private companies do it. Depends a lot on jurisdiction. Many water departments are directly owned and operated by the local government. Very different from the situation with electricity.

>>9209 and even when they're not 'directly' owned and operated, to some degree what is the difference? Is lockheed martin a company or a part of the US government? It might as well be part of the gov, just organized differently. Its not like they can decide to sell F35s to anyone they want to.

This seems to be one of these issues that got put through the real-fake blender. 1. There are claims of book banning that turned out to be bad faith. Unimportant decisions made by librarians cherry picked and exaggerated to allege an agenda where none existed. 2. There was some excessively "woke" crap being pushed in some places, and cases of blatant porn, and it was reasonable for people to complain. The ideologues then cried "book ban". 3. The "ban books" brain-worm was implanted, and some people can't help themselves. So we get the real (or closer to real) version of the thing people cried wolf about. And of course, conservative schools have censored stuff from libraries before, and sometimes its pretty blatant ideological idiocy. Nothing new. I think this is an example of why not to sensationalize things.

>>10773 >3 So we get the real (or closer to real) version where is this happening/what are you talking about Im only really aware of the things like demanding a school library not stock smut and porn

>>10774 I was trying to play devils advocate. I am having trouble finding a good example.

>>10775 I tried to ask on r/changemyview and it was automatically removed. Lol. Looks like the "Moms for Liberty" list is pretty silly. It has Assassination Classroom on it. But who is taking MFL seriously? (this doesn't feel new). There are things like removing The Bluest Eye, on the basis of sexual content. It's hardly a crisis but it is dumb. Some sexual content in literature has been considered appropriate for high school since forever. The Fountainhead used to be standard curriculum, and that has a rape scene in it. (Search shows that has been removed in some districts as well *shrug*).

OP no offense but the fact that you didn't list the specfic titles and instead posted the youtube video kind of makes me feel like you are baiting us to watch the video. i think the question to ask is whos putting what books in the school library in the first place. nobody is going to put wolf tales in a school library unless they're a sex predator or mistaken. except if a book is put in library by mistake, it probably wouldn't be on the list of commonly derezzed books unless it tries really hard to seem like a children's book and to my understanding this isn't the trend. instead, it seems like there's a number of books that were considered critical by school library curators, and others seem to have a problem with - typically this is the controlling parents of students, while students are capable of having preferences in some capacity its going to be highly influenced by what the parents consider appropriate. so, the question isn't about whether books with ultraviolent or sexual material should be derezzed from school libraries, but rather whether a certain set of books deemed essential by some have themes that children shouldn't be exposed to. I would argue that those books shouldn't be removed, while there may be some noteworthy outliers - which again, have not been addressed in OP. Anyways, I watched the video and the guy making it seems to be simping really hard for this "moms for liberty" organization. I decided to do a little more research into the organization and what I've learned is that Moms for Liberty doesn't seem to care about liberty at all: during covid, they campaigned for a mandate that kids return to school, and they notoriously targeted books that had LGBT themes in it. Additionally the relatively centrist extremist research group known as Southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as a far-right extremist organization. Watching more of the video, it doesn't get to what books are actually derezzed until 1/4 the way in after simping very hard for "Moms for Liberty", using the name as a supposed defense of the organization with no elaboration on what "for Liberty" is supposed to actually mean. Also, I find him annoying and ugly. The first book derezzed is "Maus" by Art Spiegelman, which I read on my own as a child. The title was surprising to me due to his framing - describing Spiegelman as a nobody who was upset by his book being derezzed, immediately after discussion of children's exposure to sexual themes. This doesn't make sense in any capacity as Maus isn't a sexual book at all, nor is Art Spiegelman a nobody. He's actually one of the most world-famous comics book authors and is generally considered to be part of the canon of graphic novelists who people use in arguments to claim that comics aren't just for children. Before I go on about how interesting all of these coincidences are, I'll just cut to the chase. Maus is about the holocaust. What's more, it presents a relatively sober perspective on it that at points even criticizes other jews for their complicity at some points in the genocide. I'm pretty sure it even makes a statement on the hypocrisy of Jews who support Israel's genocide in Palestine. I have a lot more thoughts on the subject of book censorship, but I really don't think more needs to be stated about the agendas present in this conversation.

>>10778 >SPLC the relatively centrist extremist research group I think you need to update your opinion on splc. IN any case SPLCs actual statement on MFL isnt how you present it, they just claim MFL is a, well lets just use the quote why not: >Moms for Liberty is a far-right organization that engages in anti-student inclusion activities and self-identifies as part of the modern parental rights movement. The group grew out of opposition to public health regulations for COVID-19, opposes LGBTQ+ and racially inclusive school curriculum, and has advocated books bans. >... >The national organization and individual chapters have ties with groups that SPLC has designated as hate or extremist. 'hate or extremist' haha nice ambiguity >One of the most notable connections is the association with several chapters with the Proud Boys, a White nationalist group. Pictures have circulated across social media of Moms for Liberty leaders and members posing with Proud Boys in their full regalia. pic related for the white nationalist proud boys and their commander henry--excuse me enrique tarrio (who works for the FBI btw), in what I understand to be their 'regalia' SPLC isnt a fair or centrist organization and if you try to look at criticisms of them I think you will soon be convinced of this fact.

>>10779 hi, I'm sorry but I'm not really certain what you're trying to say here, but I will defend my piece on the SPLC. I don't consider them fair either, though for probably different reasons from you. Notoriously I have an issue with them because ive heard they classified group that supports palestine as anti-semitic for truly curious reasons, I'm not sure why anyone would do something like that or what agendas might be at play. They also to my understanding financially gutted their hatewatch section, fired a large number of employees in their immigrant rights and education wings (firing 1/4 of their employees total) and are also being accused of union busting. For this reason i would place them as much more right wing in comparison to antifascist organizations like itsgoingdown.org, which i would consider to be very left leaning. Since they still allegedly report on right-wing extremism I wouldn't consider them very right wing, either, they're definitely a liberal, or moderate conservative organization that seems to find use for the nebulous "extremism" both-sidesism. You're right that I should be more careful about SPLC, though, as in finding the citation for my issues with the group I came across reports on fake news headlines claiming that SPLC considered fox news to be extremist in addition to claiming juggalos were a hate group.

I swear to God everytime authorities in my country refer to protection of children as the main reason of another censorship restriction I feel desire to become a matching danger to the all children they are talking about.

>>10784 >Not really certain what you're trying to say here No offense but your claim in >>10778 that >[SPLC] classifies [Moms for liberty] as a far-right extremist organization. appears from what I can see to be incorrect. SPLC actually regards them as a far right organization with ties to groups designated as 'hate or extremist'. I think the difference between being something and having ties to it or something else is a quite significant difference. >your right should be more careful about SPLC from your comments perhaps I should ammend my opinion to that they are simply a jewish group as opposed to a liberal one.

>>10774 My local public library has pulled a handful of titles completely (as in fully removed, not just made unavailable to minors) due to political pressure. It's a mess, but the short version is that our county council appoints the board of trustees over the library and the library director, and council members have openly expressed that they want to get rid of so-called woke books, and appointed trustees (who are not librarians) who are happy to oblige, and threatened everything in their power if library staff does not comply. Some of them are pretty open about the biases. One has publicly said he thinks gay people should be executed for treason. Some say they just don't want people under 18 reading anything about gay people or gender, others are more upfront and say they don't want it in the library at all. They also have a fit whenever a library in our county tries to have a black history month, juneteenth, or pride month displays. They actually derezzed displays over it. There is also a fair bit of backroom dealing (and relatedly, our library has gotten into some legal trouble relating to not fulfilling FOIA requests), so a lot of extra information has leaked from librarians and other library employees. Things like allegedly being pressured to falsely label books in their database to make searching for them more difficult, allegedly trashing books without following normal recordkeeping, and allegedly punitive responses to concerns about the (il)legality of some of the practices.

>>10791 What books are they removing? > Threaten everything in their power. Wouldn't they just fire them? They work for a county library right?

>>8915 this book causes infinite seething on the left >also the koran gets a free pass tho

>>8921 >Not extreme to me, and certainly much much more tame than the jokes and stories we'd tell at lunch when I was a teen. Remember that some of these books are directed towards the Kindergarden and grade 1-3 age group. Certainly not a bunch of 14 year olds. At the same time, 11 year olds in the UK frequently admit to online porn addiction. The problem with explaining something clinically where babies come from, and having childrens books written by sexologiests who want to specifically raise awareness on LGBT+ issues by telling first graders how blowjobs feel great and are acceptable social behavior, and in some cases causing exposure of sexuality to children who have not even fully developed a sense of gender awareness. Much of the social commentary regarding book banning has been emboldened by the far left and far right, with the inclusion of inflammatory campaigns by big pharma and the "solution" to children's confusion with gender and sexuality. Keep in mind, parent's seem to have no issues with their toddlers watching Naruto, and children playing fortnite and call of duty, which arguably trivialize violence in society when it becomes integral to the recreation of children during developmental stages. tl:dr it isn't the books, it's the uninvolved parents. Pharma companies that sell "gender affirming care" and porn companies/sex industry playing the long game profit from the fostering of books which raise "awareness" about sexual themes. Note how there are no objections to children reading game of thrones, Stephen king, or the books that parent's themselves read. Americans are traditionally conservative, but capitalist campaigns has shifted everything into an individualistic society focused on pleasure. Just because an adult like anal or oral does not mean they should start off with anal and oral being default modes of intercourse, because that isn't how the body is designed. This is very much a problem when authors try to teach "sex positivity" through books aimed at children. It is understandable that adults would be mad. On the other hand, banning every book that chatGPT says contains a racial slur or sex is also the opposite end of the spectrum. I had to read plenty of books in school that had heavy themes of sex and violence, but the books concerned themselves with the greater issues of societal conflict and the human condition, and you could still get a cohesive story without having to read about the all of the intimate activities of the characters. I would liken it to someone trying to use 50 shades of grey to teach 1st graders how to read. Sure, it will better their vocabulary, but it won't improve their critical thinking of the human condition like a middle or high schooler reading James Joyce might. On an unrelated note, because of the sexual freedom fostered in the USA, you can even buy sex toys at the supermarket in the personal care section by condoms, toothpaste, and bandages. People who are so concerned about their children turning into degenerates because of muh books need to stfu and take a good hard look at the society they want to live in.

There is a serious lack of parental accountability due almost solely to governments discouraging our outright banning parental roles/rights. There's no need to ban books. Just don't let your kids read them. Teach them yourself or send them to a school which shares your values. If this is impossible think about the "why" for a moment. Also there are some derezzed books. Didn't Mein Kampf get derezzed by Amazon or something?

>>11546 Being a parent shouldn't mean an unchecked authority over their kids autonomy and be indoctrinated into their parents views. They should be taught how to learn, taught how to listen to different views, analyze what has the better evidence, how to form their own opinions and let go of them when they are proven wrong. The world would be a better place. Parents just forbidding things only teachers criminal behavior once instead of parents being the authority it is the government that anything goes as long as you dont get caught.

>>11546 >Teach them yourself or send them to a school which shares your values is it unreasonable to hope that the local school for which you are basically forced to pay, should approximately follow the values of the parents, this being a republic and those parents citizens? >no need to ban books basically all these things talked about as bans in this context are requests that school libraries not include porn and unaligned propoganda. You can still buy these on Amazon or whatever. >Also there are some derezzed books. Mein Kampf on amazon... IDK about mein kampf but they have derezzed books like Paul Bernardo's one at (non American) government behest. >>11547 If not the parent, then who owns the child ? Who decides what it means to 'learn to learn' ? Who decides what views are used when you're teaching the kid to listen to different ones ? Someone is going to make these choices one way or another.

>>11547 The problem is that the schools aren't teaching anything to the kids anymore, not in America at least. Young Americans are basically illiterate. Some schools have been hickacked by activists who use public money to brainwash the youth, and they can not do that without censorship, lying by omission and a few other tricks that nobody could present as "being taught how to listen to different views".

>>11550 >the schools aren't trying there is obviously so much variety in US schools, even just public schools. I think you have a point but you don't have to defend it with such obviously false hyperbole.

>>8915 Books should not be "derezzed". For adults they should be available without question. But on the flip side they shouldn't be readily made available to children. Topics like Rape and Murder come up all the time in literature. It is your job as a parent to be involved in your child's hobbies. This is parenting 101 - if you use media (filtered or not) YOU are the problem. You should see the absolute brainrot on stuff like YouTube kids.

children nowadays don't even read lol

>>8916 >a book about the issues of racism should make you uncomfortable and make you reflect on yourself through this discomfort And what if after reflecting carefully I discover that the reason for my discomfort is that I know from my experience this book will incentivize some people to violently attack me for something I have no control over?

>>11769 They will tell you that racism is a magical one way thing which is your original sin you must ask forgiveness for and the excuse other ethicities can use to do anything they want. Try to not be a racist when this is the mainstream culture.

>>8916 >>8918 >>9002 >>9018 >>10773 A reasonable opinion? Perish the thought! Can't you see this is part of The Culture War?!? >>8917 > To Kill A Mocking Bird wasn't actually written with this in mind, but it is used, in modernity, as an example of racial injustice. Having read the book, it's pretty hard for me to believe that the author wasn't thinking about that at all while she wrote it. >>9015 >How about the parents who actually pay for the schools with their tax dollars can decide what the schools teach and everyone else who doesn't have a stake can stfu. Because the parents are retarded. Just look at >>9033 . Do you really want someone with an IQ that low deciding what books your children read? As to what qualifies as "derezzed book" -- I see at the top of one list A Clockwork Orange, which is rightfully considered high literature, and the rest is basically softcore porn. The first is pretty clearly the type of thing people ban for ideological reasons while the rest were clearly bought in the first place because the librarian didn't know they were porn. I think looking at the "most derezzed books" lists is pointless for this reason: the "most derezzed books" are not going to be in the first category, normally, they're going to be in the second category, meaning almost all of them are not going to have much literary merit. This obscures the real issue, which is that books with literary merit are also being derezzed for explicitly ideological reasons. To Kill a Mockingbird is a pretty clear example.