Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[nebo113]

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

My library system is county funded.  Nor can I get a library card the next county over.  Even if I wanted to, it would be an hours drive.

[marshwiggle]

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.

"Obstinate" is curious. If adults categorically reject sexual relationships between adults and children, that's certainly obstinate, so I guess that does count as bigotry.

"Unreasonable" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, anyone assumes their own beliefs are "reasonable", and anyone assumes beliefs they strongly disagree with to be "unreasonable".

So it really does come down to a term used for any beliefs the speaker doesn't like. It's not helpful for actually identifying legitimate concerns that people might have, and tends to imply that none exist.

[marshwiggle]

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?

That's an odd take. "Minding your own business" traditionally would have meant not being either an ally or an opponent, but doing things like, as you say, "maximizing microeconomic transactions". "Minding your own business" involves not having to express any sort of opinion on anything which is not directly relevant to an action which must be taken or a decision which must be made.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

"Obstinate" is curious. If adults categorically reject sexual relationships between adults and children, that's certainly obstinate, so I guess that does count as bigotry.

"Unreasonable" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, anyone assumes their own beliefs are "reasonable", and anyone assumes beliefs they strongly disagree with to be "unreasonable".

So it really does come down to a term used for any beliefs the speaker doesn't like. It's not helpful for actually identifying legitimate concerns that people might have, and tends to imply that none exist.

It's simple, Marshy.  You are looking to rationalize your own prejudice.

As I posted, as we all know, the problem with adult/child sexual relationships is that we know it damages the child.  This belief is not a "prejudice."  This belief is a well documented phenomenon.

Certainly you can see this, right?  Or are you just being obstinate?  Those are not rhetorical questions.  I'm actually asking.  Do you really think it is a "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia?  I'm actually asking.  Don't run away.

Should we allow Catholic priests in the company of children?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I'm actually asking.  Are you going to ignore that?

If you have a problem with LGBTQ----for whom we have no evidence of harm any more than any other demographic----you have an unreasonable prejudice based upon no evidence.

It's a distant relation, but this is your cousin:

Reddit

[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

My library system is county funded.  Nor can I get a library card the next county over.  Even if I wanted to, it would be an hours drive.

On-line libraries can overcome the transport costs.

[ciao_yall]

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?

That's an odd take. "Minding your own business" traditionally would have meant not being either an ally or an opponent, but doing things like, as you say, "maximizing microeconomic transactions". "Minding your own business" involves not having to express any sort of opinion on anything which is not directly relevant to an action which must be taken or a decision which must be made.

Right. It's none of your business what race, religion, or sexual orientation someone has. So even if you have an opinion, you don't get to express it. I don't run up to every Black, Muslim and/or queer person I see in life and say I AFFIRM YOUR RIGHT TO BE YOU!

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

That's an odd take. "Minding your own business" traditionally would have meant not being either an ally or an opponent, but doing things like, as you say, "maximizing microeconomic transactions". "Minding your own business" involves not having to express any sort of opinion on anything which is not directly relevant to an action which must be taken or a decision which must be made.

Right. It's none of your business what race, religion, or sexual orientation someone has. So even if you have an opinion, you don't get to express it. I don't run up to every Black, Muslim and/or queer person I see in life and say I AFFIRM YOUR RIGHT TO BE YOU!

Upvote!

Why would you even feel you have to have an opinion on he way other good, healthy, law-abiding people live their lives? 

[ciao_yall]

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.

Fair enough.

Still, if someone believes that someone is causing harm, focus on that specific action. Don't say that it's not okay to ever be gay, live in a neighborhood while being gay, or vote while being gay. Because simply being does not "groom" children.

Just because one Jewish person made a questionable business decision doesn't mean all are in a secret cabal controlling the media and banks and need to be removed. Just because one person took offense at something another said does not mean that person is trying to "silence all conservative voices."

[Wahoo Redux]

Totally agree.  But again, we already have mechanisms in place to deal with things like libel, assault, child abuse, etc.

What we need to stay away from are mechanisms that shut down belief and expression. 

Remember, any time we institute rules, we, like Trump, may find those rules used against us.  If you have laws that limit what a neo-Nazi says, those laws can probably be applied to you.  Plus limits just drive bad people underground where they actually become stronger, more fanatical, and more sectarian.

We always think we can just silence the bad people, but it does not work that way.  And censoring even the bad people is wrong.

[ciao_yall]

Totally agree.  But again, we already have mechanisms in place to deal with things like libel, assault, child abuse, etc.

What we need to stay away from are mechanisms that shut down belief and expression. 

Remember, any time we institute rules, we, like Trump, may find those rules used against us.  If you have laws that limit what a neo-Nazi says, those laws can probably be applied to you.  Plus limits just drive bad people underground where they actually become stronger, more fanatical, and more sectarian.

We always think we can just silence the bad people, but it does not work that way.  And censoring even the bad people is wrong.

Is marching around with a sign inciting violence against a particular group of people a form of assault?

Or if that sign says they are inferior, disease-riddled beings that should not be allowed to live in polite society, is that a form of libel?

And if children see those signs that say these things against their own communities or their parents' identities, is that not child abuse?

[kaysixteen]

Keep all Catholic priests away from children?  Really?   You didn't actually just say that, did you?

Remember that although a small minority of RC priests are/have been pedophiles, and assorted corrupt bishops did cover for them, most RC priests have never been pedophiles (although many are homosexuals), and, of course and most centrally, the RCC does not teach that any form of child-adult sex is acceptable, whereas that is exactly the teaching of NAMBLA.

[marshwiggle]

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.

"Obstinate" is curious. If adults categorically reject sexual relationships between adults and children, that's certainly obstinate, so I guess that does count as bigotry.

"Unreasonable" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, anyone assumes their own beliefs are "reasonable", and anyone assumes beliefs they strongly disagree with to be "unreasonable".

So it really does come down to a term used for any beliefs the speaker doesn't like. It's not helpful for actually identifying legitimate concerns that people might have, and tends to imply that none exist.

It's simple, Marshy.  You are looking to rationalize your own prejudice.

As I posted, as we all know, the problem with adult/child sexual relationships is that we know it damages the child.  This belief is not a "prejudice."  This belief is a well documented phenomenon.

Certainly you can see this, right?  Or are you just being obstinate?  Those are not rhetorical questions.  I'm actually asking.  Do you really think it is a "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia?  I'm actually asking.  Don't run away.

No, I don't think it is "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia. Neither do I think it is "prejudice" to say it's wrong to administer "puberty-blockers" to children. I don't think it's "prejudice" to say biological males should not be put in womens' prisons, or compete in womens' sports, or be allowed in womens' shelters.

Should we allow Catholic priests in the company of children?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I'm actually asking.  Are you going to ignore that?

Priests, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, etc. should all have the same kind of vetting and precautions taken. Most organizations now have policies and procedures in place to reduce the risk of theses things, but even still parents should not let their kids be in situations where they are alone with some adult other than a trusted family member. That goes for adults in all of the categories above.

If you have a problem with LGBTQ----for whom we have no evidence of harm any more than any other demographic----you have an unreasonable prejudice based upon no evidence.

"A problem" is way too vague to be useful. I gave examples above of specific situations that I take issue with. I probably have at least "a" problem with every organization, institution, political party, etc. that I know of.
And I would assume anyone that knows me very well would have at least "a" problem with something I think or do.

[jimbogumbo]

Keep all Catholic priests away from children?  Really?   You didn't actually just say that, did you?

Remember that although a small minority of RC priests are/have been pedophiles, and assorted corrupt bishops did cover for them, most RC priests have never been pedophiles (although many are homosexuals), and, of course and most centrally, the RCC does not teach that any form of child-adult sex is acceptable, whereas that is exactly the teaching of NAMBLA.

I thought that was satiric, as in "all gays are pedophiles", or "all librarians are groomers".

[jimbogumbo]

Sorry for the double. WaPo Editors on this issue as it pertains to rewriting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/12/books-editing-retouching-free-expression/

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

"Obstinate" is curious. If adults categorically reject sexual relationships between adults and children, that's certainly obstinate, so I guess that does count as bigotry.

"Unreasonable" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, anyone assumes their own beliefs are "reasonable", and anyone assumes beliefs they strongly disagree with to be "unreasonable".

So it really does come down to a term used for any beliefs the speaker doesn't like. It's not helpful for actually identifying legitimate concerns that people might have, and tends to imply that none exist.

It's simple, Marshy.  You are looking to rationalize your own prejudice.

As I posted, as we all know, the problem with adult/child sexual relationships is that we know it damages the child.  This belief is not a "prejudice."  This belief is a well documented phenomenon.

Certainly you can see this, right?  Or are you just being obstinate?  Those are not rhetorical questions.  I'm actually asking.  Do you really think it is a "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia?  I'm actually asking.  Don't run away.

No, I don't think it is "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia. Neither do I think it is "prejudice" to say it's wrong to administer "puberty-blockers" to children. I don't think it's "prejudice" to say biological males should not be put in womens' prisons, or compete in womens' sports, or be allowed in womens' shelters.

Should we allow Catholic priests in the company of children?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I'm actually asking.  Are you going to ignore that?

Priests, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, etc. should all have the same kind of vetting and precautions taken. Most organizations now have policies and procedures in place to reduce the risk of theses things, but even still parents should not let their kids be in situations where they are alone with some adult other than a trusted family member. That goes for adults in all of the categories above.

If you have a problem with LGBTQ----for whom we have no evidence of harm any more than any other demographic----you have an unreasonable prejudice based upon no evidence.

"A problem" is way too vague to be useful. I gave examples above of specific situations that I take issue with. I probably have at least "a" problem with every organization, institution, political party, etc. that I know of.
And I would assume anyone that knows me very well would have at least "a" problem with something I think or do.

We tread a lot of water here. 

The things you object to above have nothing to do with libraries, are anomalies, are fair to object to, and (again) are very rare anomalies and thus not really worth objecting to.  Most people agree with your objections, myself including.  And that is not what I am talking about.  You had to dig really hard to find something to object to, didn't you?

And yes, try not to point out the obvious. Yes, parents should try to protect their kids. Yes, all organizations have abuse (including high ed).  But the Catholic church has a massive, generational, and pervasive problem with child abuse. Nice try sidestepping the issue, but if there is one demographic that should be banned from working with kids in the library, it is not the drag queens.  Do you disagree?

Have I read you wrong, Marshbeast?  If the issue does not involve sports, bathrooms, or prisons, are you okay with the LGBTQ community?  Honest not rhetorical questions: is it okay with you to have Heather Has Two Mommies on your public library shelves, and would you be okay with a drag queen reading during a story hour at your local public library?