Libraries and the Culture Wars

[Wahoo Redux]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

Disagree.

You are all about suppression and repression, dismalist.

My good friend Marshy is all about hypocrisy. 

You both want to dictate what other people do and think, and you hide behind the notions that you somehow stand up for community interest and freedom of thought.

[Kron3007]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

Tell that to the few LGB people living in a small town...

I grew up in a rural area and suppression and discrimination was alive and well.

Look, this thread is about libraries. Get a national law that says LGB material has to be put into libraries. Perhaps prominently, perhaps not. Opt in or opt out for parents?

That would be really terrible. That would be suppression of people who don't want their kids to come near this stuff.

But this will not be a barrier in cities and big towns.

But the public can't pay for my whims to have my own library. That's the "money is free" fallacy.

People differ. The point is to find a way to live together peacefully. Decentralization does not impose.

You dont need laws specifically stating that LGB material must be put into libraries, simply a non-discriminatory framework for libraries to work under to ensure a breadth of diverse reading material that dosnt suppress any group without just reason (ie hate speech etc.).   

De-centralization can only go so far since libraries only exist to serve a population of sufficient size.  They are by definition centralized.  A smaller county/town/region is just as likely (or more) to suppress the interests of the minority than a larger center since they may have more of a voice in the larger city. 

I think books spouting creationism are harmful to society and indoctrinating our youth, but I would never push to have them removed or banned from the library.  The whole book banning thing seems to be from one side of the aisle.         

[marshwiggle]

My good friend Marshy is all about hypocrisy. 

You both want to dictate what other people do and think, and you hide behind the notions that you somehow stand up for community interest and freedom of thought.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can get along perfectly well with people of other faiths; Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Religious texts from all of those groups along with the Bible are perfectly fine to have in libraries, where anyone is free to read them. Just because there are points on which different religions disagree, it doesn't mean the majority religion in an area has to supress the others. So while I'm in favour of all of those books being in the public library, I would rather not have public readings from any including the Bible to illustrate the point that our society allows people freedom of conscience, so we can all treat each other with dignity despite our differences of opinion even over things which we all think are very important.

[jimbogumbo]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

[dismalist]

a non-discriminatory framework for libraries to work under to ensure a breadth of diverse reading material that dosnt suppress any group without just reason (ie hate speech etc.). 

Non-discrimination in books prescribes substance which some will not like! In addition, suppressing hate speech suppresses only what some consider hate speech. And on and on.

In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.

[Wahoo Redux]

My good friend Marshy is all about hypocrisy. 

You both want to dictate what other people do and think, and you hide behind the notions that you somehow stand up for community interest and freedom of thought.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can get along perfectly well with people of other faiths; Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Religious texts from all of those groups along with the Bible are perfectly fine to have in libraries, where anyone is free to read them. Just because there are points on which different religions disagree, it doesn't mean the majority religion in an area has to supress the others. So while I'm in favour of all of those books being in the public library, I would rather not have public readings from any including the Bible to illustrate the point that our society allows people freedom of conscience, so we can all treat each other with dignity despite our differences of opinion even over things which we all think are very important.

I have no doubt you respect (almost) everyone.  Personally, I have no problem with faith groups using publicly owned spaces as long as these spaces are equally open to all faiths, and as long as the publicly owned organizations are not organizing, advertising, or profiting from the faith activity.  In fact, I think the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of this very thing with high school student Christian groups.

But that wasn't what I was talking about.

You cannot refuse books on library shelves or call a voluntary reading group "indoctrination" (which it is not) and also claim to support "intellectual freedom" or the freedom to chose. 

[marshwiggle]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

[Wahoo Redux]

In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.

Who says?

Jim Crow was pretty decentralized. 

And sorry, we live in a country.  We have a centralized government.  All of us are bound by federal law whether or not we agree with it.

[dismalist]

In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.

Who says?

Jim Crow was pretty decentralized. 

And sorry, we live in a country.  We have a centralized government.  All of us are bound by federal law whether or not we agree with it.

Jim Crow was not decentralized. It occurred with the acquiescence of the national government to end Reconstruction with a deal to overcome an electoral college dispute: Hayes, a Republican was deemed President, and the Democrats got their way to end Reconstruction.

All governments make mistakes. Centralized governments make bloody big ones!

Anyway, this is about libraries, not slavery. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.

Who says?

Jim Crow was pretty decentralized. 

And sorry, we live in a country.  We have a centralized government.  All of us are bound by federal law whether or not we agree with it.

Jim Crow was not decentralized. It occurred with the acquiescence of the national government to end Reconstruction with a deal to overcome an electoral college dispute: Hayes, a Republican was deemed President, and the Democrats got their way to end Reconstruction.

All governments make mistakes. Centralized governments make bloody big ones!

Anyway, this is about libraries, not slavery. :-)

I think the point is that there is a reason we are centralized.  Local governments make bloody big mistakes too.  Jim Crow were state and local statutes that grew out of post-Civil War "black codes."

[jimbogumbo]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

[Wahoo Redux]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

We have to let even the A-holes, scoundrels, psychos and nutbags speak.  Our job is to be there also and to challenge them----in person, in the press, in our research, in our private conversations, on the streets, or, like here, online.

You will always have the "but what if the Nazis want to march?" scenarios.  The worst of the worst will always stymie the debate.  There will always be someone who compares our causes and opinions to Hitler.

I don't want Jones' screeching his commercially-motivated bullshit in a public library either, but we have to allow him so our freedom remains sacrosanct.

Freedom is a very dangerous thing.  But what is the other option?   

[ciao_yall]

Well, someone obviously voiced their interest in having these books included at local libraries already.  Now, a larger noisier group with political influence seeks to remove them on grounds of moral superiority.  The issue with a majority rules public outcry mentality is that the majority group that shows up in matching t-shirts can often suppress the interests of the minority people who weren't paying that much attention.

There. FTFY.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't want Jones' screeching his commercially-motivated bullshit in a public library either, but we have to allow him so our freedom remains sacrosanct.

I don't think that's quite right. Public spaces are not obligated to offer themselves up to anyone who wants to use them. Those who are charged with maintaining those spaces have the task of determining whether, in their judgement, a particular event is in the interests of the community they serve. The result will be that although some spaces may judge that they should welcome Jones, most will not--especially when he's just peddling his usual bullshit. And that's as it should be.

Remember the paradox of tolerance, from Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.  —  In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

[dismalist]

I don't want Jones' screeching his commercially-motivated bullshit in a public library either, but we have to allow him so our freedom remains sacrosanct.

I don't think that's quite right. Public spaces are not obligated to offer themselves up to anyone who wants to use them. Those who are charged with maintaining those spaces have the task of determining whether, in their judgement, a particular event is in the interests of the community they serve. The result will be that although some spaces may judge that they should welcome Jones, most will not--especially when he's just peddling his usual bullshit. And that's as it should be.

Remember the paradox of tolerance, from Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.  —  In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Charlie Popper! Very good.

Absolutely agreed, except possibly for who is to run a local public good in the interests of the community they serve.