Cross-posted on the "Suess" thread----but that doesn't always get a lot of commentary.
IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
Lower Deck:
QuoteThe cancellation of an art exhibit and other recent moves by university leaders have turned the campus into a free speech battleground.
Is there any other way to read the IU administration's actions as anything but cowardice, especially with the non-credible statements to cover up the lack of legitimate justification?
I think they were hoping to dodge controversy, but instead they increased it.
Quote from: Hegemony on February 26, 2024, 12:42:10 PMI think they were hoping to dodge controversy, but instead they increased it.
The "security costs" argument has been used for at least a few years to cancel presentation of "conservative" views, so it was only a matter of time until it got used for "liberal" views, (or, in this case, art).
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 12:53:19 PMQuote from: Hegemony on February 26, 2024, 12:42:10 PMI think they were hoping to dodge controversy, but instead they increased it.
The "security costs" argument has been used for at least a few years to cancel presentation of "conservative" views, so it was only a matter of time until it got used for "liberal" views, (or, in this case, art).
Why do conservatives always play the victim card?
The artist is Palestinian, not "liberal" anyway.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 03:00:18 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 12:53:19 PMQuote from: Hegemony on February 26, 2024, 12:42:10 PMI think they were hoping to dodge controversy, but instead they increased it.
The "security costs" argument has been used for at least a few years to cancel presentation of "conservative" views, so it was only a matter of time until it got used for "liberal" views, (or, in this case, art).
Why do conservatives always play the victim card?
What are you talking about? There have been all kinds of cases of speakers getting "disinvited" due to excessive security costs (and/or "concerns"). This is one of them. It's used by institutions to avoid saying that
they disagree with any of the speech
itself but can shut it down anyway. (Some places have alternately quoted a cost for security to whoever booked the speaker of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, which the group that booked the speaker can't afford so they have to cancel.)
Since this case isn't a "conservative" one, is this a case of "liberals" "playing the victim card"? And if so, does that make it somehow different?
You just provided a perfect example.
The objection to Halaby's art is that it is predicated upon Palestine, not "liberalism."
Point out where a conservative talk is shut down by overzealous, oversensitive far-left radical kids and I'll join in.
I might ask you to concede that the conservative talk is probably predicated on insulting and propagandizing a marginal group----but then I will defend their right to do so.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 04:50:32 PMYou just provided a perfect example.
The objection to Halaby's art is that it is predicated upon Palestine, not "liberalism."
Point out where a conservative talk is shut down by overzealous, oversensitive far-left radical kids and I'll join in.
I might ask you to concede that the conservative talk is probably predicated on insulting and propagandizing a marginal group----but then I will defend their right to do so.
Again, here was an easy google:
'Disinvitations' for college speakers are on the rise — here's a list of people turned away this year (https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7)
Here's a fascinating one, and a propos of the current discussion:
QuoteUniversity of Chicago — Bassem Eid
Students advocating for the Palestinian cause interrupted and shut down the political analyst and human-rights advocate's speech at the college. Eid, who is himself Palestinian, made comments that were seen as pro-Israel.
"Do not speak on behalf of the Palestinians again!" a student yelled during the event, The Chicago Maroon reported.
Note that it's "predicated on Palestine" as well.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 27, 2024, 05:01:09 AMAgain, here was an easy google:
Well, if it comes up in a Google search, it must be an Absolute Thing.
Does Google collect news about times people thoughtfully listened to different points of view, appreciated art coming from cultures with whom one was historically at odds, or just decided to do something else instead of buy tickets to shout down a speaker?
Always wondered about that.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 27, 2024, 07:10:03 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 27, 2024, 05:01:09 AMAgain, here was an easy google:
Well, if it comes up in a Google search, it must be an Absolute Thing.
So are you saying that's "fake news"?
QuoteDoes Google collect news about times people thoughtfully listened to different points of view, appreciated art coming from cultures with whom one was historically at odds, or just decided to do something else instead of buy tickets to shout down a speaker?
Always wondered about that.
Um, google
searches all kinds of online content, but what results it
displays depends on what
search terms are used.
So, a different search could have found "news about times people thoughtfully listened to different points of view, appreciated art coming from cultures with whom one was historically at odds, or just decided to do something else instead of buy tickets to shout down a speaker".
Similarly, a google search for something like "domestic harmony" would turn up lots of examples of healthy relationships. That doesn't mean that the results of a search for "domestic violence" are invalid, or that domestic violence isn't a problem.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 27, 2024, 05:01:09 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 04:50:32 PMYou just provided a perfect example.
The objection to Halaby's art is that it is predicated upon Palestine, not "liberalism."
Point out where a conservative talk is shut down by overzealous, oversensitive far-left radical kids and I'll join in.
I might ask you to concede that the conservative talk is probably predicated on insulting and propagandizing a marginal group----but then I will defend their right to do so.
Again, here was an easy google:
'Disinvitations' for college speakers are on the rise — here's a list of people turned away this year (https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7)
Here's a fascinating one, and a propos of the current discussion:
QuoteUniversity of Chicago — Bassem Eid
Students advocating for the Palestinian cause interrupted and shut down the political analyst and human-rights advocate's speech at the college. Eid, who is himself Palestinian, made comments that were seen as pro-Israel.
"Do not speak on behalf of the Palestinians again!" a student yelled during the event, The Chicago Maroon reported.
Note that it's "predicated on Palestine" as well.
And Marshyboo I have curated an entire thread about this very thing. Remember? You should repost that link on the "Seuss" thread.
And Marsh-Marsh-Baby I said I would join you in objecting to speaker cancelations.
Part of the deal is people like yourself laying down the victim card whenever their is "liberal" objection. Take note of ciao_yall's point that a lot of these talks go down and they are just fine. Ben Shapiro brings his preppy little hate talk for big money to all kinds of campuses, as do a number of other ultimately forgettable prognosticators riding the hate train.
And part of it is the hypocrisy which you seem utterly blind to.
You would happy ban drag queens from the library.
You support legislation which you misname "neutrality" when it is obviously aimed at a very specific demographic.
And then you cry abuse when a speaker is cancelled.
You give out hate you get hate back, my friend.
I don't believe it's fair to accuse marshwiggle of hate. He disagrees with you. He does so civilly. His manner of debating can be a bit annoying at times, but I've never known him to stoop to insulting anybody.
Quote from: apl68 on February 28, 2024, 06:32:49 AMI don't believe it's fair to accuse marshwiggle of hate. He disagrees with you. He does so civilly. His manner of debating can be a bit annoying at times, but I've never known him to stoop to insulting anybody.
I think Wahoo believes I'm far more emotionally invested in this than I am. The sad result of highly polarized debates is that it creates the illusion that moderate voices who aren't on either extreme don't exist, even though they're often a large group. For all kinds of issues, polls consistently show most people don't subscribe to the extreme views at either end of the spectrum, but because the extreme voices are the loudest ones that's all that
appears to exist.
Quote from: apl68 on February 28, 2024, 06:32:49 AMI don't believe it's fair to accuse marshwiggle of hate. He disagrees with you. He does so civilly. His manner of debating can be a bit annoying at times, but I've never known him to stoop to insulting anybody.
I will disagree.
I have no doubt that if Marshy finds a wallet on the sidewalk he makes sure that it gets back to the owner, cash and cards intact. If Marshy drove up on an overturned car spouting flames he would risk his own life to rescue the driver. He is very civil, as am I. Marshy has lots of friends, I am sure, and is devoted to and loved by his family. His coworkers all think he is boss.
But the things he has said constitute hateful positions. We discuss banning drag queens from the library----from the public sphere, really----and the erasure of rainbow crosswalks under the pretense of "neutrality"----the silencing of a traditionally marginalized and constantly threatened minority.
Marshy does not think he has hateful views or says hateful things, as do a great many good people, but the things he says and believes are hate.
The Mods may delete my posts or censure me, but so be it.
I'm sorry, Marshy. You are a good dude. That is why it is so disturbing to read the things you post which to you seem to be naturally wholesome. It is not a matter of how angry you get, it is the things you've been taught and recite.
QuoteThe sad result of highly polarized debates is that it creates the illusion that moderate voices who aren't on either extreme don't exist
I see very little moderate in your views, my friend.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 08:56:44 AMBut the things he has said constitute hateful positions. We discuss banning drag queens from the library----from the public sphere, really----and the erasure of rainbow crosswalks under the pretense of "neutrality"----the silencing of a traditionally marginalized and constantly threatened minority.
Marshy does not think he has hateful views or says hateful things, as do a great many good people, but the things he says and believes are hate.
So was society a much more hateful place a decade or so ago when there were neither rainbow crosswalks nor drag queen story time? Were all of those people marginalized
until crosswalks were painted and story time was instituted? Are drag queens only in "the public sphere"
because of story time?
(For comparison, I don't think Christians are "banned from the public sphere" if they can't have a nativity display on public property, or anything like that. How a group is viewed by the rest of the public is very little influenced by any sort of government declaration or display.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 09:51:49 AMSo was society a much more hateful place a decade or so ago when there were neither rainbow crosswalks nor drag queen story time?
Yes.
QuoteWere all of those people marginalized until crosswalks were painted and story time was instituted?
Real questions?
These folks were marginalized in a lot of ways.
Crosswalks and story times are just examples which have come up on these threads.
Crosswalks and story times might be considered metonyms of hate.
QuoteAre drag queens only in "the public sphere" because of story time?
Are these actual questions, or are you looking for some kind of purchase on debate? Because I do not think you are dense...but this is a silly question.
Quote(For comparison, I don't think Christians are "banned from the public sphere" if they can't have a nativity display on public property, or anything like that. How a group is viewed by the rest of the public is very little influenced by any sort of government declaration or display.)
In the U.S. we have the Separation Clause because the Founders recognized the hegemonic tendencies of religious people. They did not want a theocracy----which a lot of people still want.
However, Christians must be given Constitutional protection in public schools, (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html) and specifically Christians must be given access to libraries:
According to the American Library Association (https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/religionqa)
QuoteYes. Courts have consistently held that libraries may not exclude religious groups from their meeting rooms solely because the group is religious in character or because the meeting may include religious activities. American Library Association
I just want to see drag queens have the same protections as Christians. It is only fair.
Really, Wahoo? You really think that the only possible motive that anybody can have for opposing drag queen story hours at the public library is sheer, blind hatred? It was not many years ago that drag shows were generally regarded as a form of adult entertainment. There are many people who still consider them inappropriate for young children. They consider a drag story time significantly threatening and objectionable--something that's far too edgy for a public library.
If a significant portion of a community feels that way, then the library has to listen to them. Otherwise the library is in danger of losing the support of that section of the community. They may stop coming and bringing their children to the library, for fear of what the library will expose their children to next. And before you say "good riddance," recall that the library is there to serve all segments of the public. If people who consider drag shows threatening to their children--and again, they're not few in number in many communities--are made to feel unwelcome in a library, then there's a segment of a community that is not being well-served.
Not hosting drag queen story times doesn't mean that a library has driven out its local LGBT community. It still supplies them with materials--including materials that the library probably wouldn't have supplied them with not too many years ago. They still get waited on just like everybody else. They're simply going to have to find another venue for a particular type of event that another segment of the community finds greatly offensive and disturbing. They're getting only a part of what they would ideally want. So are those who disagree with their lifestyles. They'd rather the library didn't stock certain materials in the first place, but it does.
I realize that's not a satisfying compromise, but any institution that tries to serve the general public in a deeply divided society has to make compromises. It can't please everybody all the time. Everybody has to be satisfied with less than a whole loaf some of the time. These are very challenging compromises to negotiate, and I and my colleagues have to make tough choices. We can't just write off whole segments of the publics we're here to serve as haters who don't deserve a hearing-out.
Quote from: apl68 on February 28, 2024, 11:15:32 AMReally, Wahoo? You really think that the only possible motive that anybody can have for opposing drag queen story hours at the public library is sheer, blind hatred?
Yes.
It can be sublimated in all sorts of ways----in fact, sublimated so deeply that people may not know that they are actually acting on it----but yeah, that about sums it up.
Good people too.
Although, I did not say "sheer, blind hatred," simply "hatred" (a very human reaction) which people are taught to hold as a moral right.
The rest of your rationalizing is part and parcel of this.
QuoteIf people who consider drag shows African-Americans threatening to their children--and again, they're not few in number in many communities--are made to feel unwelcome in a library, then there's a segment of a community that is not being well-served.
What is the difference?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 10:10:35 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 09:51:49 AMSo was society a much more hateful place a decade or so ago when there were neither rainbow crosswalks nor drag queen story time?
Yes.
QuoteWere all of those people marginalized until crosswalks were painted and story time was instituted?
Real questions?
These folks were marginalized in a lot of ways.
Crosswalks and story times are just examples which have come up on these threads.
Crosswalks and story times might be considered metonyms of hate.
QuoteAre drag queens only in "the public sphere" because of story time?
Are these actual questions, or are you looking for some kind of purchase on debate? Because I do not think you are dense...but this is a silly question.
My point in both of these is that its highly unlikely that a significant change in public perception was
caused by things like painting crosswalks. If anything, it may be that some people may be more unlikely to
express their views because of them, but that's not the same thing.
QuoteQuote(For comparison, I don't think Christians are "banned from the public sphere" if they can't have a nativity display on public property, or anything like that. How a group is viewed by the rest of the public is very little influenced by any sort of government declaration or display.)
In the U.S. we have the Separation Clause because the Founders recognized the hegemonic tendencies of religious people. They did not want a theocracy----which a lot of people still want.
However, Christians must be given Constitutional protection in public schools, (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html) and specifically Christians must be given access to libraries:
According to the American Library Association (https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/religionqa)
QuoteYes. Courts have consistently held that libraries may not exclude religious groups from their meeting rooms solely because the group is religious in character or because the meeting may include religious activities. American Library Association
I just want to see drag queens have the same protections as Christians. It is only fair.
The right to
use a meeting room in a library is much different from the right to have an event in the
main space of the library. I'm guessing the right to use a meeting room applies to all kinds of groups, not just religious ones. That doesn't mean they all, (or
any of them, for that matter), get to hold events in the main space.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 11:41:54 AMQuoteIf people who consider drag shows African-Americans threatening to their children--and again, they're not few in number in many communities--are made to feel unwelcome in a library, then there's a segment of a community that is not being well-served.
What is the difference?
Being an African American is not a performance or an event. A drag queen story time is a performance and an event. If a drag queen came to our library, for example, then this person would receive service in the same manner as any other patron (This isn't a hypothetical situation, BTW--we had one who used to come here some years back. Got the same service as anybody else). If they wanted to hold a story time for young children, we would have to consider community reactions. Since we have good reason to believe that the reaction would be negative, we would have to decline. If this library was in another community this might not be the case. But this library does not serve that community. It serves this one. As librarians, we have to serve the community we have, not what some might wish it would be.
Quote from: apl68 on February 28, 2024, 02:23:17 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 11:41:54 AMQuoteIf people who consider drag shows African-Americans threatening to their children--and again, they're not few in number in many communities--are made to feel unwelcome in a library, then there's a segment of a community that is not being well-served.
What is the difference?
Being an African American is not a performance or an event. A drag queen story time is a performance and an event.
Unless I greatly misunderstand what it is, any "story time" is a performance and an event, no matter who reads----straight, white, African-American, drag, or normative clothing.
By not allowing a drag queen to read story time, you are enacting a prejudice.
Prejudice is a reaction of hate.
You are trying to rationalize the prejudice because of the fear of a "negative reaction" from the community. Rather than facing the prejudice, you give in to it.
What would you do if you have a sweet African-American grandmother who wants to perform a story time but the Klan members in the neighborhood would have a "negative reaction?"
How many injustices have been rationalized by serving the "community" or the "state" or the whatever?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 12:22:04 PMMy point in both of these is that its highly unlikely that a significant change in public perception was caused by things like painting crosswalks. If anything, it may be that some people may be more unlikely to express their views because of them, but that's not the same thing.
"Significant change"----no, of course not. But as a Christian you should know the importance of symbols.
If bigots are less likely to express their views then good.
QuoteThe right to use a meeting room in a library is much different from the right to have an event in the main space of the library.
No. It's not.
If one group gets to use the main space of a library all groups get to use the main space of the library.
QuoteI'm guessing the right to use a meeting room applies to all kinds of groups, not just religious ones. That doesn't mean they all, (or any of them, for that matter), get to hold events in the main space.
If no one gets to use the main space of the library, so be it.
If one group gets to use the main space of the library, all groups get to use the main space of the library.
You are squirming around trying to rationalize.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 11:31:40 AMQuote from: apl68 on February 28, 2024, 11:15:32 AMReally, Wahoo? You really think that the only possible motive that anybody can have for opposing drag queen story hours at the public library is sheer, blind hatred?
Yes.
It can be sublimated in all sorts of ways----in fact, sublimated so deeply that people may not know that they are actually acting on it----but yeah, that about sums it up.
Good people too.
Although, I did not say "sheer, blind hatred," simply "hatred" (a very human reaction) which people are taught to hold as a moral right.
So is it hate that motivates gay people who don't like pride parades (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2013/06/27/proud-of-who-i-am-not-of-gay-pride/)?
QuoteBut surely there are other reasons to march. What about dignity? Maybe I should have marched in Pride to show that I have dignity as a gay man. But if that's the reason to march, then some of the goings-on of the parade confuse me. It would be hard for me to convince my parents that I take pride in myself were I to march down their block in butt-less chaps and high-heels. I mean, in the proper contexts, sure, those things can be great, campy fun, and I understand the value of celebrating the queerness of queer. But I don't know that those things are really helping me make the case to my parents that gay people, too, have traditional family values.
So is it hate that motivates black people who don't support Black Lives Matter (https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/mli-files/pdf/20210224_Black_Lives_Matter_Orlu_COMMENTARY_FWEb.pdf)?
QuoteThe phrase "Black Lives Matter," as I understand it, can be interpreted in
three ways. First, one can consider it to be a philosophical statement affirming and acknowledging that, in the face of current and historical oppression, there is inherent value in the lives and experiences of people of
African descent. Second, it represents a global, but mostly Western, social
movement against police brutality and other forms of violence perpetrated
against Black persons. And finally, it signifies the physical, socio-political
parent organization, its chapters/affiliates, leaders, and advocates.
I contend that it is a mistake to assume that all three interpretations are the
same or that they all experience the same level of support. While I have no
serious issues with those who proclaim the first, it has little personal relevance to me because ascribing value based on immutable characteristics is
not how I interact with the world around me. My life matters not because I
am of African descent, but because I am human. The second interpretation,
which this commentary focuses mostly on, is imbued with kernels of truth
but is ultimately founded upon a flawed, cherry-picked, nuance-deficient,
and often hyperbolic interpretation of current reality
So is it hate that motivates trans people who don't think trans women belong in womens' sports (https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/caitlyn-jenner-says-fina-made-right-decision-change-transgender-policy-2022-06-22/)?
QuoteCaitlyn Jenner has come out in support of swimming's world governing body FINA after they voted to restrict the participation of transgender athletes in elite women's competitions, saying women's sport needs to be protected.
There seems to be a lot of self-hate in "marginalized communities", I guess.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Marshy.
Sometimes people just don't like things, and that's okay.
I don't like parades particularly, tomato aspec, or modern jazz. Those are not prejudices.
Let me remind you what the definition of "prejudice" and "bigotry" are.
Quoteprejudice
1 of 2
noun
prej·�u·�dice ˈpre-jə-dəs
Synonyms of prejudice
1
: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights
especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a
(1)
: preconceived judgment or opinion
(2)
: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b
: an instance of such judgment or opinion
c
: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Quotebigotry
noun
big·�ot·�ry ˈbi-gə-trē
pluralbigotries
Synonyms of bigotry
1
: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot
overcoming his own bigotry
2
: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
racial bigotry
What you posted are thoughtful commentaries on ongoing social issues.
You are now trying WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too hard.
Quote from: apl68 on February 28, 2024, 11:15:32 AMReally, Wahoo? You really think that the only possible motive that anybody can have for opposing drag queen story hours at the public library is sheer, blind hatred? It was not many years ago that drag shows were generally regarded as a form of adult entertainment. There are many people who still consider them inappropriate for young children. They consider a drag story time significantly threatening and objectionable--something that's far too edgy for a public library.
Was this the case before someone picked up the cause that Drag Queen Story Hour was a pretense for grooming children to become transgendered pedophiles?
If it be unacceptable to prevent a drag queen story hour at a pl, then what presentations, and by whom, would it be acceptable to deny access to said pl, and on what basis?
Hannah Arendt wrote of the "banality of evil"--this thread reminds us in a timely manner of the banality of hate. I think we overlook how ordinary hate can be even more than evil, because we think of hate as passionate. Sometimes it is, but like love, hate can be quiet, simple, and direct without people "getting worked up."
Consider Roald Dahl's infamous comments about Hitler and Jews: "I mean, there's always a reason anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't pick on them for no reason." Not a lot of manic, frothing passion there. You can imagine him saying this in a perfectly reasonable tone. Now substitute African-Americans. Now substitute drag queens. Now substitute trans. Now substitute gay. And you get the idea. It's hate, gang.
As for presentations that should be denied--how about story-readers who juggle flaming torches while on roller skates? There you've got some actual danger. Otherwise, maybe don't go to the library that day.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 04:31:22 PMWhat you posted are thoughtful commentaries on ongoing social issues.
You are now trying WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too hard.
So, how about these?
Multi-coloured road crossings pose a threat to people with sight loss, warn charities (https://www.rnib.org.uk/news/multi-coloured-road-crossings-pose-a-threat-to-people-with-sight-loss-warn-charities/)
Horses in the mounted unit of the Metropolitan Police Taskforce found the newly-painted crosswalks pretty scary. (https://horse-canada.com/horse-news/london-police-horses-train-rainbow-crossing/)
How about those hateful dogs and horses?
Could you paint a rainbow crosswalk for under $81,000 (https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/could-you-paint-a-rainbow-crosswalk-for-under-81000-7347993)
The rainbow conundrum at UVic: Crosswalk refresh no simple paint job (https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/the-rainbow-conundrum-at-uvic-crosswalk-refresh-no-simple-paint-job-7539753)
QuoteUVic has said any repainting of the rainbow crosswalk will have to wait until it holds conversations with staff, faculty and students. It's spending $24,000 on those consultations
Cost of painting another rainbow crosswalk too high, Kimberley council says (https://www.kimberleybulletin.com/news/cost-of-painting-another-rainbow-crosswalk-too-high-kimberley-council-says-6527036)
QuoteThe issue is cost. A staff report says that a rainbow crosswalk can cost 50 times what a traditional one costs. The Platzl rainbow crosswalk was painted in 2022 at a cost of $15,800. Today that quote has gone up almost $5,000.
Are
all of the people raising
all of these issues just expressing thinly-veiled hate?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 29, 2024, 08:10:14 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 04:31:22 PMWhat you posted are thoughtful commentaries on ongoing social issues.
You are now trying WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too hard.
So, how about these?
Multi-coloured road crossings pose a threat to people with sight loss, warn charities (https://www.rnib.org.uk/news/multi-coloured-road-crossings-pose-a-threat-to-people-with-sight-loss-warn-charities/)
Horses in the mounted unit of the Metropolitan Police Taskforce found the newly-painted crosswalks pretty scary. (https://horse-canada.com/horse-news/london-police-horses-train-rainbow-crossing/)
How about those hateful dogs and horses?
Could you paint a rainbow crosswalk for under $81,000 (https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/could-you-paint-a-rainbow-crosswalk-for-under-81000-7347993)
The rainbow conundrum at UVic: Crosswalk refresh no simple paint job (https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/the-rainbow-conundrum-at-uvic-crosswalk-refresh-no-simple-paint-job-7539753)
QuoteUVic has said any repainting of the rainbow crosswalk will have to wait until it holds conversations with staff, faculty and students. It's spending $24,000 on those consultations
Cost of painting another rainbow crosswalk too high, Kimberley council says (https://www.kimberleybulletin.com/news/cost-of-painting-another-rainbow-crosswalk-too-high-kimberley-council-says-6527036)
QuoteThe issue is cost. A staff report says that a rainbow crosswalk can cost 50 times what a traditional one costs. The Platzl rainbow crosswalk was painted in 2022 at a cost of $15,800. Today that quote has gone up almost $5,000.
Are all of the people raising all of these issues just expressing thinly-veiled hate?
Oh Marshy. My God, son.
If there is a legitimately dangerous reason for not having rainbow crosswalks, then don't do them.
If your reason for not having rainbow crosswalks is hate and bigotry (likewise story times at the library), then do them.
If these people are screwing the numbers to make a rainbow crosswalk look dangerous or expensive----and I'd want the hard evidence----then my God yes that is bigotry and hate.
Do not be too fast to believe the extraordinary claims of hatemongers, Marshy. I kind of doubt the expense or danger angles...
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 28, 2024, 10:23:03 PMIf it be unacceptable to prevent a drag queen story hour at a pl, then what presentations, and by whom, would it be acceptable to deny access to said pl, and on what basis?
Freedom is a dangerous thing.
If the Nazis or NAMBLA want to do story time, we have to let them. Their freedom guarantees our freedom.
You know who is dangerous to children? Catholic priests. We have the hard evidence.
But no one is going to object to a Catholic priest reading a story time.
Marsh, Marsh, Marsh...
QuoteTarmo Uukkivi, director of Operations and Protective Services, presented the report to council on July 26. The document presents the approximate prices for the crosswalk installation. Despite giving more details, staff had issues with nailing down the exact costs.
"In terms of the costing, this presented a challenge for staff," Uukkivi said in the meeting. "We approached a couple of companies that we typically used for line painting a lot in town and (they) refused to provide even general quotes on the work. That left us looking at what we could come up with as a general estimate for the cost."
Estimates could be as high as $81,000 without considering maintenance. However, this amount may be lower with more accurate calculations.
"A lot of towns have done this for a lot cheaper. But those aren't real numbers to us because we don't have a quote in our hands," Coun. Scott Morrison said. "I'm proposing a substitute motion because we don't have enough information for the council to make an educated decision right now."
The initiative is causing excitement among councillors.
Critical thinking, Marshy. Critical thinking.
And just like people, horses can be trained not to fear and hate new things and ideas.
QuoteTo enable us to ride and patrol safely we had training versions installed with help from @gevekomarkings who donated our new Bright Training crossings. We can get the horses used to them before riding them out in public.
I don't think these crosswalks cost the equivalent of $81K either.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 29, 2024, 10:06:51 AMIf there is a legitimately dangerous reason for not having rainbow crosswalks, then don't do them.
I thought hate was the
only reason for someone to oppose them.
QuoteIf your reason for not having rainbow crosswalks is hate and bigotry (likewise story times at the library), then do them.
If these people are screwing the numbers to make a rainbow crosswalk look dangerous or expensive----and I'd want the hard evidence----then my God yes that is bigotry and hate.
Do not be too fast to believe the extraordinary claims of hatemongers, Marshy. I kind of doubt the expense or danger angles...
The problem is putting the onus on anyone to "prove" that "hate"
isn't their motivation.
How about this from the UVic story?
QuoteCleo Philp, director of campaigns and community relations with the University of Victoria Students' Society, said that money could be used in better ways. "It just feels like throwing money to the wind."
Philp, who is trans and uses she/they pronouns, said "getting the right-coloured crosswalk" is not the solution for making trans people safer on campus. She would prefer that the money spent on consultants go to �student bursaries for low-income trans and queer students instead.
Is that hate??????
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 29, 2024, 10:47:51 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 29, 2024, 10:06:51 AMIf there is a legitimately dangerous reason for not having rainbow crosswalks, then don't do them.
I thought hate was the only reason for someone to oppose them.
Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawmarsh. Never said that. You said that.
If you oppose a rainbow crosswalk because it is a hazard, that is just prudence.
If you oppose a rainbow crosswalk because you have a prejudice against LGBTQ people, that is hate.
We've already covered this.
Please don't play stupid, buddy.
QuoteIf your reason for not having rainbow crosswalks is hate and bigotry (likewise story times at the library), then do them.
If these people are screwing the numbers to make a rainbow crosswalk look dangerous or expensive----and I'd want the hard evidence----then my God yes that is bigotry and hate.
Do not be too fast to believe the extraordinary claims of hatemongers, Marshy. I kind of doubt the expense or danger angles...
The problem is putting the onus on anyone to "prove" that "hate"
isn't their motivation.
How about this from the UVic story?
QuoteCleo Philp, director of campaigns and community relations with the University of Victoria Students' Society, said that money could be used in better ways. "It just feels like throwing money to the wind."
Philp, who is trans and uses she/they pronouns, said "getting the right-coloured crosswalk" is not the solution for making trans people safer on campus. She would prefer that the money spent on consultants go to �student bursaries for low-income trans and queer students instead.
Is that hate??????
[/quote]
Come on, man. Don't play stupid.
If you object to a rainbow crosswalk because it represents LGBTQ people then you are a bigot and you are in the throws of hate. If a person objects to five or six strips of color on blacktop because it represents a historically marginalized demographic they have already proved it.
If you have a legitimate reason (expense, danger, a better use for the money) that is something different.
The articles presented have a lot of open ends to them. I am extremely dubious that it takes $81K to paint a 24 X 6 stripe of pavement. It costs between $3K and $6K to paint a two-story house. It costs $1K to paint a car.
You're an academic. Think about it.
This is debate desperation, Marshy.
None of us who consider ourselves good people want to be labeled "bigots" or "hateful," but if you enact a prejudice then you are a hateful bigot.
Edit: it should be the "throes of hate." Sorry.
Dismissing my stance regarding drag queen storytimes as impossible to explain as stemming from anything other than hate is reductive. Every library and librarian sometimes has to make decisions not to permit a proposed library event or event in a library meeting room. Libraries have to make guidelines and policies, and then they have to make judgement calls when it turns out the guideline or policy was unable to spell out every possible contingency ahead of time. And every library has different guidelines and policies and judgements, because libraries and communities aren't all alike, and there's no one-size-fits-all.
In the case of community rooms, I have to tell people every year that we can't let them use our library's community room. It's generally for reasons that don't have anything to do with hot-button culture war issues. For example, we have a policy of not letting our community room be used for religious services, broadly defined. The room's not really there for such services in the first place, and we don't want to give any hint of favoritism toward one or another group, and the simplest way to manage that is to have a single rule that rules them all out. Our rule might not stand up to a court case, but we've never had a challenge to it--because, when we explain it and they have a chance to think about it, people can see that maybe the public library isn't really the best place to hold their religious service anyway.
And there are other reasons for turning requests down, which I won't get into here for lack of space. Hate or taking stances on issues doesn't figure into any of them. We just can't accommodate everything all of the time--sometimes for reasons considered general best practices, sometimes for practical matters involving our building, sometimes--in our case hypothetically, since so far I can't think of a time when it's ever actually been an issue here--because of community considerations.
I served my library apprenticeship in a very diverse university environment. I've spent over 19 years as a public librarian in a small town that's probably a good deal more diverse in various ways than many would give a town this size credit for. For two decades it has been my professional and personal commitment to give all the members of the community access to good library service. I've worked with the local housing authority and other agencies in various ways to try to better serve under-served segments of the community. I've spent over a decade building up the Dollie Parton's Imagination Library program in our county--we currently have over 600 children under the age of five here receiving books mailed to them free of charge each month because of that ongoing work.
All of which is to say that I have any librarian's commitment to reading and intellectual freedom. I buy books all the time that I personally would very much rather not have anything to do with--every librarian does; it's part of the job. Last year I stood up in the presence of our local state representative--a man it would be much in my interest to try to curry favor with--and said to his face in a public meeting that recent controversial library legislation that he supported was wrong. I wonder how many other people at The Fora have personally done something like that on an intellectual freedom issue, instead of just griping about it at an anonymous forum?
But by all means, write me off as a hater because I won't pronounce a particular shibboleth regarding drag queen story times or the like. Meanwhile I've got other things to worry about besides what to do about drag queen story times or where to shelve books the Legislature doesn't like. Stuff like a chronically balky HVAC system. And multiple vendors who've ghosted us when we've tried to get straight answers out of them. And wondering how best to deal with declining local tax revenues that have created a structural budget deficit that's draining down our operating reserves and might eventually force me to make some tough choices about cutting staffing levels and services. Most librarians have things like that to think about too, when they're not trying to justify themselves to people who are just so sure they know how to do their jobs that much better than they do.
You know, apl, I think all that was covered with my buddy the Mashbarian.
If there is a good practical reason not to give the community room to some group, so be it.
If no religious group gets to use the community room, I think you can be sued (from my meagre understanding after a Google search) but at least you are not playing favorites or behaving in a hypocritical manner.
And, like the Marshmaster, I have no doubt you are a person of true character.
But I would add a few things.
Nobody hates everything. Even people who think they hate everything don't hate everything. Hate is generally a very targeted thing.
So, a librarian who is a good, warm, wholesome person who does their job professionally, great, but if they deny the community room to a drag queen simply because that person is a drag queen then the librarian has a wee bit of hate in their heart.
I thought about it, and the problem with "serving the community" is that you play into the stereotypes and prejudices of the majority.
The other problem is making the mistake of kowtowing to the violence of bigots.
The other problem is that if a demographic in the community cannot be served because there is a drag queen in the community room it is the demographic's choice not to patronize the library, not the fault of the drag queen.
It is a choice that someone makes not to frequent the library, not that they are denied service.
If Shelly (who used to be Sam before the operation) walks into the periodicals room and sees Bob wearing a bright red MAGA hat and decides "I will not patronize an establishment which serves that kind of degenerate," the fault is on Shelly, not Bob.
Finally, this is not a question of any particular profession. All this holds true for the manager of a Bob's Big Burger or a Walmart as well as a library, but since the library is generally a public institution paid for with tax dollars, people like me do actually have a say.
Quote from: apl68 on March 01, 2024, 01:38:55 PMDismissing my stance regarding drag queen storytimes as impossible to explain as stemming from anything other than hate is reductive. Every library and librarian sometimes has to make decisions not to permit a proposed library event or event in a library meeting room. Libraries have to make guidelines and policies, and then they have to make judgement calls when it turns out the guideline or policy was unable to spell out every possible contingency ahead of time. And every library has different guidelines and policies and judgements, because libraries and communities aren't all alike, and there's no one-size-fits-all.
In the case of community rooms, I have to tell people every year that we can't let them use our library's community room. It's generally for reasons that don't have anything to do with hot-button culture war issues. For example, we have a policy of not letting our community room be used for religious services, broadly defined. The room's not really there for such services in the first place, and we don't want to give any hint of favoritism toward one or another group, and the simplest way to manage that is to have a single rule that rules them all out. Our rule might not stand up to a court case, but we've never had a challenge to it--because, when we explain it and they have a chance to think about it, people can see that maybe the public library isn't really the best place to hold their religious service anyway.
And there are other reasons for turning requests down, which I won't get into here for lack of space. Hate or taking stances on issues doesn't figure into any of them. We just can't accommodate everything all of the time--sometimes for reasons considered general best practices, sometimes for practical matters involving our building, sometimes--in our case hypothetically, since so far I can't think of a time when it's ever actually been an issue here--because of community considerations.
I served my library apprenticeship in a very diverse university environment. I've spent over 19 years as a public librarian in a small town that's probably a good deal more diverse in various ways than many would give a town this size credit for. For two decades it has been my professional and personal commitment to give all the members of the community access to good library service. I've worked with the local housing authority and other agencies in various ways to try to better serve under-served segments of the community. I've spent over a decade building up the Dollie Parton's Imagination Library program in our county--we currently have over 600 children under the age of five here receiving books mailed to them free of charge each month because of that ongoing work.
All of which is to say that I have any librarian's commitment to reading and intellectual freedom. I buy books all the time that I personally would very much rather not have anything to do with--every librarian does; it's part of the job. Last year I stood up in the presence of our local state representative--a man it would be much in my interest to try to curry favor with--and said to his face in a public meeting that recent controversial library legislation that he supported was wrong. I wonder how many other people at The Fora have personally done something like that on an intellectual freedom issue, instead of just griping about it at an anonymous forum?
But by all means, write me off as a hater because I won't pronounce a particular shibboleth regarding drag queen story times or the like. Meanwhile I've got other things to worry about besides what to do about drag queen story times or where to shelve books the Legislature doesn't like. Stuff like a chronically balky HVAC system. And multiple vendors who've ghosted us when we've tried to get straight answers out of them. And wondering how best to deal with declining local tax revenues that have created a structural budget deficit that's draining down our operating reserves and might eventually force me to make some tough choices about cutting staffing levels and services. Most librarians have things like that to think about too, when they're not trying to justify themselves to people who are just so sure they know how to do their jobs that much better than they do.
apl68, I'm sure you are often caught between a rock and a hard place, balancing opinions on all sides of the political spectrum about the appropriateness of various reading materials, as well as your own beliefs about such matters.
I did a little research and learned that Drag Queen Story Hours started in 2015 because LGBTQ+ parents were bringing their children to events they found very heteronormative, and wanted their children and their friends to be able to recognize all sorts of families and gender expressions.
Then I found this article by Chris Rufo, (https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour) which tries to create direct links between Drag Queen Story Hour and BDSM, pedophilia, subversion, "necrophilia, bestiality, and race fetishism."
QuoteWhen parents, voters, and political leaders understand the true nature of Drag Queen Story Hour and the ideology that drives it, they will work quickly to restore the limits that have been temporarily—and recklessly—abandoned. They will draw a bright line between adult sexuality and childhood innocence, and send the perversions of "genderfuck," "primitivism," and "degeneracy" back to the margins, where they belong.
But then, this.
Drag Brunch - Baby Shark (https://www.northjersey.com/videos/life/food/2019/03/21/two-year-old-sings-baby-shark-queen-taldes-drag-brunch/3237527002/)
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 01, 2024, 05:10:35 PMThen I found this article by Chris Rufo, (https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour) which tries to create direct links between Drag Queen Story Hour and BDSM, pedophilia, subversion, "necrophilia, bestiality, and race fetishism."
QuoteWhen parents, voters, and political leaders understand the true nature of Drag Queen Story Hour and the ideology that drives it, they will work quickly to restore the limits that have been temporarily—and recklessly—abandoned. They will draw a bright line between adult sexuality and childhood innocence, and send the perversions of "genderfuck," "primitivism," and "degeneracy" back to the margins, where they belong.
This is when hate boils over.
Good people who believe they are doing no harm when they deny drag queens the community room...
...because they are afraid of the community reaction...
...because they have been taught that drag queens are somehow wrong...
...because they think that God is upset about drag queens (while Israel and Gaza commit endless atrocities on each other and Putin threatens nuclear war)...
...because they have a personal, visceral reaction to drag queens (as they might a clown)...
...because they believe other people have an "ideology" (apparently unaware of their own)....
...or because they just don't like people who are different...
...feed into Rufo's fascist hysterical rage.
To deny a drag queen the community room or to stonewall a rainbow crosswalk may seem like small things, but those sorts of things hurt people very badly and encourage the deep hatemongers to act on their hatred.
Don't be those people.