Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Wahoo Redux]

So?  Pay for your own library then.  No one can stop you.  Apparently unable to deal with the rest of society, you feel the need to retreat.  Pick a room in your house; move your books there; voila! 

In your bubble, no one can bother you with ideas of equality.

But again, let us not pretend.  The Nazis are not following my ideology.  I know we always trot out the Nazis for people we disagree with----but I really am talking about Nazis following the homophobic sentiments. 

Video Shows Nazi Protesters With Ron DeSantis 2024 Signs Outside Disney

So sure, wax tragic regarding the thought police that badger your about your personal prejudices, but the Nazis really are in your camp in the real world.

And, BTW, this is why the "live and let live as long as no one tries to force me to like them" really doesn't work.  I am going to call these real live Nazis a bunch of sociopathic, antisemitic, homophobic, racist A-holes----and I am fine if they do not think I am respecting their opinions.  They can also have their own libraries and I am going to call them a bunch of bigots anyway.

[marshwiggle]

Let me try a couple of examples:

1. Many people are vegan, and believe that eating meat is morally wrong. I don't agree, but I respect their position and if I'm going to dinner with someone who is vegan, I will make sure to choose a place with vegan options. I may even have a vegan meal myself. But I don't feel the need to pretend to be vegan or to share that philosophy.

2. Many people smoke weed. I don't, and I think it's unhealthy in various ways, but I don't offer unsolicited criticism. (If they're smoking in a designated non-smoking area, or smoking while driving, I might, since they would be violating a clear rule or law that applies to everyone.) However, treating them with respect doesn't require me to pretend to agree with their views.

This is the problem with a culture where activists claim things like "You are either a hater or an ally." Being an "ally" implies being totally supportive of whatever someone else thinks, feels, says, or does. (Or more realistically, pretending to do so.)

As long as progressives insist on that level of total agreement as necessary for someone to be considered a decent human being, they're going to be at odds with all kinds of normal people who are moderate and willing to treat others with respect and dignity without having to pretend to drink every drop of Kool-Aid.

It's all the same, Marshman.  You are pretending this is something different than it it.

1.  Fine.  Just don't try to stop vegans being vegans.  And don't pretend that is not what's happening when we discuss LGBTQ rights.  Leave the vegan books on the shelves.

2.  Fine.  Don't smoke weed.  As long as it is legal where you live, mind your own beeswax.  And that is apples and oranges anyway.  Leave High Times in the magazine rack----if you don't want your kids reading it, then be a parent, not a censor.

Fine.  You don't want to be an "ally."  Then keep your bigotry to yourself.  Or at least don't try and legislate your bigotry.

Please define "bigotry". If bigotry means somebody telling someone else they shouldn't do something, then vegans who tell others they shouldn't eat meat are bigots. Pacifists who tell others they shouldn't serve in the military are bigots. Most people are bigots for saying adults should not have sexual relationships with children. Or is the only distinction between "bigotry" and legitimate speech whether it has sufficient public support? If enough people agree, it's OK; otherwise it's bigotry?

(Or is it like the old saw about pornography; "I know it when I see it"?)

[nebo113]

via APL:  Separate rooms for children and young adults are still pretty common, depending on the size of the library and the decisions made in the design process.   The real difference between now and back in the dark ages is the different library card, which prohibited us from entering the main adult section or checking out any books from there.  The mark of Cain!

[Wahoo Redux]

Please define "bigotry". If bigotry means somebody telling someone else they shouldn't do something, then vegans who tell others they shouldn't eat meat are bigots. Pacifists who tell others they shouldn't serve in the military are bigots. Most people are bigots for saying adults should not have sexual relationships with children. Or is the only distinction between "bigotry" and legitimate speech whether it has sufficient public support? If enough people agree, it's OK; otherwise it's bigotry?

(Or is it like the old saw about pornography; "I know it when I see it"?)

You can play dumb games, Marshy, as many people are want to do.  I'm just going to go with the online dictionary (see bolded):

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Play stupid if you want. 

As far as vegetarianism goes, I do not run into very many vegans or vegetarians who try to ban books.  Sure, I see the "Meat is Murder" signs----but they don't get the Nazis, as do the homophobes, and there are some very good, practical reasons for being vegetarian:

----Cruelty of factory farming (my reason for being a pescatarian)
----Environmental factors of factory farming (including but not limited to water usage, green house gasses, deforestation, and contamination)
----Obesity epidemic (fueled to a large degree by the burger joints) and the protein imbalances in many Americans from overconsumption of meats
----The use of contingent labor
----The amount of grain used to feed chickens and cattle which could feed millions of humans
----And readily available alternatives to dead animals for eating.

The same is true for pacifists (which I am not necessarily) who feel that human beings should not maim and kill other human beings or invade other countries.

The same is true for child sexual abuse for which we have unfortunately more than ample evidence hurts children.

But what we don't have is any evidence that the LGBTQ community poses any threat to anybody----we've actually been over this----at least the LGBTQ community is less dangerous than the Christian community----which we have also been over.

To put it simply, "bigotry" is not simply having an opinion or belief.  It is NOT "somebody telling someone else they shouldn't do something."  It never was, even here.  See above for definition.

Now you can go and pick some more apples to go with the oranges we have here. 

[ciao_yall]

The state of someone being a vegan, carnivore, cannabis user, atheist, non-White, non-Christian or LGBTQ does not harm or impact anyone else.

However, if an employer, landlord, or realtor refuses to hire, rent an apartment or sell a home to someone simply because they are any or all of the above, then that someone is harmed. That action is being a hater and a bigot.

Being an ally simply means minding your own business and engaging with others based on maximizing microeconomic transactions. Who can do the job, has good credit, or offers the most for the house?

[ciao_yall]

Aha!  Nazis!  NAMBLAites!   Would it be acceptable for Swastika-clad Nazis or 'I love man-boy sex t-shirt' donning NAMBLAites to come to your library and distribute literature?  Why or why not?  Or even without distributing any lit, hang out in the children's room?

Because both these groups advocate doing harm.

That's a pretty reasonable standard for refusing to allow entry.

[Wahoo Redux]

Aha!  Nazis!  NAMBLAites!   Would it be acceptable for Swastika-clad Nazis or 'I love man-boy sex t-shirt' donning NAMBLAites to come to your library and distribute literature?  Why or why not?  Or even without distributing any lit, hang out in the children's room?

Freedom of speech and thought are very, very dangerous.  Someone will always say something evil. 

That is the price.

So yeah, these people can come to the library.

I know you were thinking I would reply otherwise, but I am not.  NAMBLA has a right to distribute literature, as do the Nazis.

The rest of us have freedom of speech too, and we can tell them to F-Off as is our right!  But we have no right to stop them saying what they want to say.

[dismalist]

Aha!  Nazis!  NAMBLAites!   Would it be acceptable for Swastika-clad Nazis or 'I love man-boy sex t-shirt' donning NAMBLAites to come to your library and distribute literature?  Why or why not?  Or even without distributing any lit, hang out in the children's room?

Because both these groups advocate doing harm.

That's a pretty reasonable standard for refusing to allow entry.

Ah, corollary to Godwin's Law: The first person to refer to the Nazi's has lost the argument!

Of course there cannot be free entry. The question is: "Who decides?" It all depends on proper governance. In the case of libraries, I envision small groups of citizens close to a library to control the activities of the library. In other words, the library is locally controlled, rather than necessarily by a county or State. That way, one library can keep sex books targeting minors out of the library, and Mein Kampf, too. It may well be the opposite down the road. And the libraries can compete with each other!

Colleges, even State colleges, by and large have independent governance already. Let them promulgate what speech is allowed by whom, and publish it ahead of cancellations and firings. Then see how many students they can attract.

Small is beautiful

[Wahoo Redux]

In other words, Big-D, you DO endorse censorship. Your mechanism are the local bigots, or who you hope are local bigots.  Fair enough.

If you really want to keep children safe, keep the Catholics, the Mormons, and even the Baptists out of the library, physically and philosophically.  Heck, most Christian denominations need to stay well away from the kids.  Again, ask the Duggars.

Who brought up the Nazis first?  If you do a search, they have been mentioned several times----usually by or in relation to Marshwiggle.

But in my case, I am actually referring to REAL live Nazis in the news two days ago supporting DeSantis who has made a campaign of intolerance----I don't think Godwin's law applies here.  If you can link your belief system to an authoritarian politicians who has real live neo-Nazis in his camp, rethink. 

[dismalist]

In other words, Big-D, you DO endorse censorship. Your mechanism are the local bigots, or who you hope are local bigots.  Fair enough.

If you really want to keep children safe, keep the Catholics, the Mormons, and even the Baptists out of the library, physically and philosophically.  Heck, most Christian denominations need to stay well away from the kids.  Again, ask the Duggars.

Who brought up the Nazis first?  If you do a search, they have been mentioned several times----usually by or in relation to Marshwiggle.

But in my case, I am actually referring to REAL live Nazis in the news two days ago supporting DeSantis who has made a campaign of intolerance----I don't think Godwin's law applies here.  If you can link your belief system to an authoritarian politicians who has real live neo-Nazis in his camp, rethink.

We clearly differ on many issues. We probably live on different planets.

[Wahoo Redux]

In other words, Big-D, you DO endorse censorship. Your mechanism are the local bigots, or who you hope are local bigots.  Fair enough.

If you really want to keep children safe, keep the Catholics, the Mormons, and even the Baptists out of the library, physically and philosophically.  Heck, most Christian denominations need to stay well away from the kids.  Again, ask the Duggars.

Who brought up the Nazis first?  If you do a search, they have been mentioned several times----usually by or in relation to Marshwiggle.

But in my case, I am actually referring to REAL live Nazis in the news two days ago supporting DeSantis who has made a campaign of intolerance----I don't think Godwin's law applies here.  If you can link your belief system to an authoritarian politicians who has real live neo-Nazis in his camp, rethink.

We clearly differ on many issues. We probably live on different planets.

Facts, my friend.  Same planet, both of us.  Those statements above are based on facts.

[ciao_yall]

Aha!  Nazis!  NAMBLAites!   Would it be acceptable for Swastika-clad Nazis or 'I love man-boy sex t-shirt' donning NAMBLAites to come to your library and distribute literature?  Why or why not?  Or even without distributing any lit, hang out in the children's room?

Freedom of speech and thought are very, very dangerous.  Someone will always say something evil. 

That is the price.

So yeah, these people can come to the library.

I know you were thinking I would reply otherwise, but I am not.  NAMBLA has a right to distribute literature, as do the Nazis.

The rest of us have freedom of speech too, and we can tell them to F-Off as is our right!  But we have no right to stop them saying what they want to say.

I would put these groups in the category "Free speech doesn't cover falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." Or, as Fox News discovered, knowingly presenting lies as truth.

A group that argues for the taking away of rights for others, or threatens their dignity, or attempts to take advantage of people who cannot legally consent to participating in such activities, doesn't have free speech rights.

[Wahoo Redux]

You know, ciao, I'm with you.  But think of the arguments people use against the LGBTQ group.  "They're after our kids."  "They want to silence conservative voices."  "They want to destroy [name the traditional belief]."  Posters on this very thread have essentially made these very arguments in one form or another.   The way some people look at it, to disagree is paramount to forcing them to be an "ally" or an attempt to shut them down.

And if you have free speech, you have to make room even for the people you disagree with or who frighten you.  Banning the neo-Nazis from the library actually takes away their rights. 

If they shout "fire" in a crowded library seminar room or knowingly slander or liable someone, we have laws to deal with these situations. 

And we have the right to call them on their bigotry and censorship, just as we have done here.

[kaysixteen]

OK, simple language for minimum ambiguity: is there no proper role for 'community standards' allowing the censorship of disreputable views, esp in or around the children's area?

[Wahoo Redux]

OK, simple language for minimum ambiguity: is there no proper role for 'community standards' allowing the censorship of disreputable views, esp in or around the children's area?

Sure.  Always has been.  Laws too.  No problem.

But (in simple language for minimum ambiguity) these 'community standards' cannot enforce prejudice. 

If 'community standards' have a "Whites Only" policy in the romper room (and some places would enforce this if they could) the 'community standards' need to go out the window. 

Nor can the 'community standards' limit what adults can do----which is really the issue here. 

Or how about this: quit trying to use the kids to enforce your prejudice.  The 'for-God's-sake-won't-someone-think-of-the-children' reasoning is paper thin and not really what all this is about.  Right next to 'the-Nazis-are-next' is the 'save-the-children' strawman. 

Or even more direct, quit scrounging around for egregious reasons to justify prejudice.  The issue here is NOT the children----it is prejudice.  Some people do not like drag queens, trans people, gay people, and bisexual people (among many, many others).  So they try to justify their prejudice in all sorts of ways; when they are desperate, they try to defend the kiddies from some nonexistent boogeyman (or woman).  And it is as old and as tired as the hills.

If the neo-Nazis want to do a story time, call the Nazis a bunch of fascists to their faces, grab your kid, and leave.  Make an example for junior.

As I said, if you are really worried, K16, keep the Catholic priests at bay.  The peeps here really want to ignore that one.