'Challenges our authority': School board in Florida bans book about book bans

[Zaha Torte]

What you call smut other people call literature. Why should it not be available to them in a public library paid for by the community as a whole?

The public library is different than a school library because a parent is often present or can see what is checked out at the public library.

The same thing applies to the public school. Why should we remove books that are deemed useful by the librarian many of the parents just to protect your children from them?

Because members in the community don't want to be peddling smut to children.

Yes, the parents could go buy the book, but why should they have to, just because a few parents have lurid ideas about sexualizing children?

Can you explain why it is absolutely necessary for these banned books to present in these school libraries?

Can you think of any books that should not be included in these school libraries? If so, can you explain why?

 

[BCP1928]

The public library is different than a school library because a parent is often present or can see what is checked out at the public library.

My parents stopped going to the library with me when I was about 12. The only reason they went with me so long is that they wanted to get books out too.

Because members in the community don't want to be peddling smut to children.

How many members are enough to have a book removed?

Can you explain why it is absolutely necessary for these banned books to present in these school libraries?

Can you think of any books that should not be included in these school libraries? If so, can you explain why?

I have no idea. People are trained and credentialed in school librarianship, I'll leave it up to them. Smut is just smut; if the school librarian picks out something I think is smut I can deplore it and tell my kids that I don't want them reading it and why. But it's just smut, not an existential threat.

 

[Zaha Torte]

My parents stopped going to the library with me when I was about 12. The only reason they went with me so long is that they wanted to get books out too.

Ok. So?

How many times did your parents come with you to the school's library?

How many members are enough to have a book removed?

That's a great question. What is the current process?

I have no idea.

Sounds like you haven't given the matter much thought then.

People are trained and credentialed in school librarianship, I'll leave it up to them.

An appeal to authority fallacy.

Smut is just smut; if the school librarian picks out something I think is smut I can deplore it and tell my kids that I don't want them reading it and why.

That's good - however - if my children got the smut from a person that I trusted - you don't think I would have words for that person?

But it's just smut, not an existential threat.

I agree with this, and I believe so would most parents.

Yet the institution's insistence on introducing our children to smut and their push back against parents for calling out the smut (by labelling them as domestic terrorists) is the actual threat.

It is how the institutions responded to parental oversight that violated our expectation and eroded our trust.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok. So?

How many times did your parents come with you to the school's library?

None. Why should they come during the school day?

That's a great question. What is the current process?

Through the school board, most likely.

Sounds like you haven't given the matter much thought then.

An appeal to authority fallacy.

An appeal to expertise, not authority.

That's good - however - if my children got the smut from a person that I trusted - you don't think I would have words for that person?

I agree with this, and I believe so would most parents.

Yet the institution's insistence on introducing our children to smut and their push back against parents for calling out the smut (by labelling them as domestic terrorists) is the actual threat.

Labeling those who went beyond merely demanding that books be removed to making actual threats? Good idea.

It is how the institutions responded to parental oversight that violated our expectation and eroded our trust.

But that really doesn't address the matter. How much influence should a minority of parents have who subscribe to narrow and eccentric notions of the sexualization of children?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are free to share as long as you don't violate the forum rules.

I am curious to see if your answer will be based on nothing but your bias.

Define "bias". Because of course I'm biased. For a lot of reasons.

Basic reading comprehension.
My knowledge of the English language.
My basic reasoning and critical thinking skills.
Those all contribute to my bias, of course.

For the same reason that I have a bias when I see someone present Flat Earth theories. But it's certainly a lot more than just bias, because it is informed bias.

Or, to put it a different way. I don't find reading the Qu'ran difficult. Though I disagree with its contents. So mere religious disagreement certainly isn't the issue.

But a lazy forgery and poorly written Bible fanfiction using really bad borrowed KJV English? That I have a difficult time reading.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zaha Torte]

Define "bias". Because of course I'm biased. For a lot of reasons.

We both know what bias means - and I was asking if you based it on "nothing but" your bias.

Basic reading comprehension.
My knowledge of the English language.
My basic reasoning and critical thinking skills.
Those all contribute to my bias, of course.

For the same reason that I have a bias when I see someone present Flat Earth theories. But it's certainly a lot more than just bias, because it is informed bias.

Or, to put it a different way. I don't find reading the Qu'ran difficult. Though I disagree with its contents. So mere religious disagreement certainly isn't the issue.

But a lazy forgery and poorly written Bible fanfiction using really bad borrowed KJV English? That I have a difficult time reading.

-CryptoLutheran

Sounds like it is based on your bias and whatever anti-LDS website you skimmed recently.

If you want to talk about this more - perhaps by you providing examples and getting more in depth - feel free to DM me.

I don't want this thread to be flagged for being off topic.

 

[Bradskii]

The public library is different than a school library because a parent is often present or can see what is checked out at the public library.

You have yet to explain why you can't question your child in regard to the book he or she has taken out from the school library. Or why you can't simple ask to be informed if they take out any book? Or why you can't just tell your child that certain books are not to be read?

 

[BCP1928]

You have yet to explain why you can't question your child in regard to the book he or she has taken out from the school library. Or why you can't simple ask to be informed if they take out any book? Or why you can't just tell your child that certain books are not to be read?

No, it's about other people's children who will be sexualized by reading those books.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it's about other people's children who will be sexualized by reading those books.

As we have seen by certain groups trying to ban books in public libraries as well.

 

[SimplyMe]

While not quite the same, I remember when I was in college there was the movie "Looking for Mr. Goodbar." It didn't initially create a lot of interest, in the town my college was located, until some people in the town became concerned about the content of the movie and started talking of banning it. Suddenly, the movie was sold out every night as the talk of a ban generated interest, lots of people (including all the impressionable students) wanted to go see it before it was banned.

My experience is that censorship tends not to work and can even backfire. I'm guessing that many of these kids, that people are trying to "protect," only get more interested after finding out certain books have been banned from their schools.

 

[RileyG]

O

While not quite the same, I remember when I was in college there was the movie "Looking for Mr. Goodbar." It didn't initially create a lot of interest, in the town my college was located, until some people in the town became concerned about the content of the movie and started talking of banning it. Suddenly, the movie was sold out every night as the talk of a ban generated interest, lots of people (including all the impressionable students) wanted to go see it before it was banned.

My experience is that censorship tends not to work and can even backfire. I'm guessing that many of these kids, that people are trying to "protect," only get more interested after finding out certain books have been banned from their schools.

Exactly right!

If you want to make a book (or other media) look interesting, ban it! People will be too curious not to check it out!

 

[driewerf]

What if the majority of parents wanted organized prayers back in schools? Would that even matter?

The point is that not having organized prayers in schools does not prevent anyone from praying.

Just like how banning certain books in schools does not prevent anyone from reading those books.

False equivalency.
Praying doesn't require the physical presence of anything.
Reading a book requires the physical presence of said book. Banning or removing a book from a shelf does exactly that. Preventing someone from reading it who does want to do that (or at least create an extra hurdle).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sounds like it is based on your bias and whatever anti-LDS website you skimmed recently.

I don't visit anti-LDS websites. I don't read anti-LDS literature. I don't study anti-LDS polemics. But kudos on using the playbook, blame everything on anti-LDS sources.

Like I said, whatever answer I gave would be one you wouldn't like.

But back to the subject at hand: While I consider your book to be lazy and lousy, I still wouldn't want it banned. Regardless of what I happen to think about your beliefs, I don't want your religion banned, your books banned, or your beliefs and words censored.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't visit anti-LDS websites. I don't read anti-LDS literature. I don't study anti-LDS polemics. But kudos on using the playbook, blame everything on anti-LDS sources.

Like I said, whatever answer I gave would be one you wouldn't like.

But back to the subject at hand: While I consider your book to be lazy and lousy, I still wouldn't want it banned. Regardless of what I happen to think about your beliefs, I don't want your religion banned, your books banned, or your beliefs and words censored.

-CryptoLutheran

The Book of Mormon and my religion would not be "banned" or "censored" if they were not found or talked about at public schools.

If you want to talk about your concerns about the Book of Mormon and my religion - feel free to DM me - but I think we both know they crumble under scrutiny.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

You have yet to explain why you can't question your child in regard to the book he or she has taken out from the school library. Or why you can't simple ask to be informed if they take out any book? Or why you can't just tell your child that certain books are not to be read?

Why, that would require actually parenting. And there is nothing these parents rights people hate more than the idea of actually being a parent to their children. They would much rather have big daddy government insure there is no situation that could come up where they would have to have a difficult conversation with their own kids.

 

[Bradskii]

Why, that would require actually parenting. And there is nothing these parents rights people hate more than the idea of actually being a parent to their children. They would much rather have big daddy government insure there is no situation that could come up where they would have to have a difficult conversation with their own kids.

How these people deal with the internet I have no idea. They're worried about some cartoon genitalia when the most hard core porn is freely available a few clicks away. Or so I've been told...

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Book of Mormon and my religion would not be "banned" or "censored" if they were not found or talked about at public schools.

Do you believe that a religiously neutral discussion of religion(s) in a public school setting is wrong?

My senior year of high school we had an elective class called Contemporary Issues, the first half of the school year we covered various world religions. When Christianity is discussed, there were several representative groups included, the year I took it we had a Mormon representative, a Catholic representative, a Jehovah's Witness representative, and a Calvary Chapel representative offer their different takes and understandings of Christianity. Each year was different, the goal was to be as unbiased and neutral. We also had someone come in to talk about Judaism, someone came in to talk about Islam, two people came in to talk about Buddhism, there was also a Wiccan represntative, and a couple people from the local Bahai community talk about their religion.

I see no reason to ban or censor discussions about religion in a public school setting.

The second half the class discussed current world events, again attempting to be neutral, offering differing political views on major subjects with American politics, and the class focused on emphasizing critical thinking, objectivity, and forming one's own opinion by listening to a diversity of views--religious, political, etc.

It was arguably the best class I took my final year in high school Exposing students to variety, to the unfamiliar, and teaching students to learn how to think for themselves are good things.

If you want to talk about your concerns about the Book of Mormon and my religion - feel free to DM me - but I think we both know they crumble under scrutiny.

I'm not interested, sorry. Think and feel about that however you wish, that's cool. You do you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you explain why it is absolutely necessary for these banned books to present in these school libraries?

Seems like attempts like this to shift the burden of proof might be less effective than, oh, I don't know, actually reading the book and quoting what is so horribly offensive to children.

 

[BCP1928]

Seems like attempts like this to shift the burden of proof might be less effective than, oh, I don't know, actually reading the book and quoting what is so horribly offensive to children.

It's not necessarily offensive to children--that's not the problem. The problem is that they might read it before someone tells them that they are supposed to be offended by it.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not necessarily offensive to children--that's not the problem. The problem is that they might read it before someone tells them that they are supposed to be offended by it.

That's fair. I probably should have asked for any sort of fact-based reason that it might be banned ... in contrast to all of the hypothetical scenarios we've read based on not actually having read the book in question.