Book Bans

[Plasmodium]

Young adult books target 12-18.  6th grade is marginally YA.

[Ban Basketball]

Six pages "debating" legislative cancel culture regarding sexuality, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, oppression, suppression in 2023, friends.

As Joe Scarborough, darling of the "tea party," said, "yes, it can get worse. "

Edited October 18, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[jross]

6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Young adult books target 12-18.  6th grade is marginally YA.

It does not belong in K-6 lib, like is mentioned in a story where a third grader found it.

[Ban Basketball]

19 minutes ago, jross said:

It does not belong in K-6 lib, like is mentioned in a story where a third grader found it.

Oh,  the SIN!

Get the legislature on them NOW!

[Plasmodium]

57 minutes ago, jross said:

It does not belong in K-6 lib, like is mentioned in a story where a third grader found it.

I gotta say, you're splitting hairs.  You are overprotective IMO, but you probably already know that.

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, jross said:

Key point: the books are still accessible for everyone outside the school!

If we engaged in a lengthy conversation, we would identify inappropriate content that you believe should have restricted access to children.   

We would likely align to support book bans on a case-by-case basis, preserving intellectual freedom, and age-appropriateness, and addressing (parental, educator, etc.) concerns through open communication and alternative options rather than outright censorship.  Examples... parental emails on books accessed, lib policy for parent permission to access targeted books, alternative assignments, etc.  

-------

@ThreePointTakedown seemed to agree with you initially, but later his statement: "I agree with parents in Cali. Well done." might support the parent's behavior to influence "Flamer" removal from the K-6 library.  (article link)

Have you been able to read into that situation?  Is Flamer appropriate for K-6 school libraries?

They are not accessible to everyone out side of school because not every has the resources to access them. So please stop saying that. 

As I mentioned before the author's website has the book as appropriate for kids 13 or 14+. That point is over. If a mistake happened, let it go. If the books are meant by the author or publisher to be for kids older than have access in a school library and professionals agree, fine. 

Seems as though you feel this issue is black and white(with us or against us, sound familiar?), it is not. The spectrum of 'appropriate' material ebbs and flows as a child matures, becomes exposed to new things, and becomes curious about new things. Some material that may be a bit 'much' for a child can be a good thing. Can spark creativity and curiosity and expanding of the mind. Does this mean you might have to have uncomfortable conversations with your child? Yes. Welcome to being a parent.

[ThreePointTakedown]

10 hours ago, jross said:

Now who is dishonest?  

Did I say the book is shoved in their faces?

Is K-6 young adult?  

You keep repeating it but provide no evidence. You claim to have seen it, where? What can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

[jross]

29 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

You keep repeating it but provide no evidence. You claim to have seen it, where? What can be declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

 

Ugh.

Quote

A third grade student at Wilson Elementary School in Costa Mesa found the graphic book “Flamer” at their school library on the K-6 shelves. The book contains pictures and descriptions of graphic underage sex acts and supporting characters going through puberty and exploring sexual inclinations.

https://costamesaconfidential.com/2022/08/graphic-inappropriate-novel-discovered-at-wilson-elementary-school-library/

[jross]

39 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

They are not accessible to everyone out side of school because not every has the resources to access them. So please stop saying that. 

Stop.
Public library.
Book borrow from a friend.
Work and pay $9.00 for the book online.  

Edited October 18, 2023 by jross

[jross]

41 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

If the books are meant by the author or publisher to be for kids older than have access in a school library and professionals agree, fine. 

Class dismissed. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, jross said:

Stop.
Public library.
Book borrow from a friend.
Work and pay $9.00 for the book online.  

Do you understand that not everyone has the resources to do any of these things? 

This is a particularly crappy thing to assume. 

Your first instinct will be to deflect and try explain it away. You can't. It is fact that there are people(and when I say 'people' I mean children) out there that cannot do any of the things you suggest in order to get a book or acquire reading material outside of a (probably ill funded)public school. Parents that can't afford these things or live near a library. Or have parents interested in their children's schooling because for generations their schooling was never emphasized as important. So therefore not interested in working to ensure their kids take extra time or effort to acquire this knowledge. That you can't fathom these scenarios or think there are easy ways overcome them is either ignorant or malicious. I'd love for you to answer which? 

That you take this holier-then-thou approach and are obviously ignorant of everyone outside of your small circle, reflects poorly on you and you show your @_$s. It makes it clear you have no interest in helping people less fortunate than you and raise everyone up, but to keep your children in a carefully controlled bubble. Only for them to regurgitate the information you are comfortable with them knowing. Which reading your posts, is not much. You make our community look like narrowminded hypocrites and I would show you the door if I could, but instead I'll scold you and try to gain some ground with everyone else that reads this because you seem too emotional and defensive to understand that your approach at best leads to stagnation of ideas and at worst out right hostility to those in a lower socioeconomic situation as you. 

When I said before, that you get all wound up and pointed at the boogeyman of the day. Read your quote in this post. You're doing it in real time. You don't even realize it. You are punishing people who might not have any other option, for not other reason then you can't or won't have a discussion with your kids if/when(and it is WHEN, because they get things from all over) they come home with ideas different from your own. I have a feeling you didn't read down this far because you're all wound up, what's three times five? And its not even that you won't have the conversation you won't entertain the idea of a conversation ever taking place and you want to stop it before it ever happens. That's sad. 

[Bigbrog]

[Ban Basketball]

Up to six pages of people suppotting big gubment cancel culture in a country that espouses free expression. 

Never would have dreamed authoritarianism would take hold so suddenly and welcomed. 

[Offthemat]

Would have never dreamed the necessity to enforce simple decency. 

[mspart]

That's the issue.   There is no simple decency anymore.   It has to be argued about forever.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

I couldn't imagine going through life with such a horrible view of life that some people have.   That can't be enjoyable.

[jross]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Do you understand that not everyone has the resources to do any of these things? 

15.

Let's rehash.  You laid out fighting words in the original topic post.

• confrontational tone
• assuming supporters are motivated by fear
• framing a simple view as if it is only a matter of having difficult conversations with children

This bullshit-worded post came from a place much more profound, as you are just starting to explain (poor kids).  Please explain why you are against book bans and what makes people 'weak' for supporting them.

I am a parent who supports book bans as a concept, even when I disagree with parents (and educators) over what should be banned.  I have uncomfortable and difficult conversations with my children.

I am being confrontational.  How many assumptions, accusations, and over-generalizations are made in your last statement?

I agree that not everyone has easy access to a public library, parents that care, etc.  I am likely ignorant for believing that kids in low socioeconomic situations can still access banned books... and perhaps a bigger ignorant for expecting the education system (absent banned books) to cover the content kids need to know.  

I don't understand the anti-book ban argument from a parent's perspective.  In a different example concerning the risk of child harm, many schools have policies restricting where peanuts can be eaten or outright banning their presence.  This is done to protect 1-2% of children at risk.  My kids love peanut butter, and it sucks that they can't eat it for school lunch.  It is no big deal that they can't eat PB because of the risk (to others).  So when a group of parents says that a few books may harm their children (at their age), I support them as I assume most considerate parents would.

[Lipdrag]

On 10/17/2023 at 11:45 AM, Ohio Elite said:

Can you translate that into to English?

Nope.  He's a teechur and they ain't got no lernin'.  Just ignernt. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 10/18/2023 at 2:41 PM, jross said:

15.

Let's rehash.  You laid out fighting words in the original topic post.

• confrontational tone
• assuming supporters are motivated by fear
• framing a simple view as if it is only a matter of having difficult conversations with children

This bullshit-worded post came from a place much more profound, as you are just starting to explain (poor kids).  Please explain why you are against book bans and what makes people 'weak' for supporting them.

I am a parent who supports book bans as a concept, even when I disagree with parents (and educators) over what should be banned.  I have uncomfortable and difficult conversations with my children.

I am being confrontational.  How many assumptions, accusations, and over-generalizations are made in your last statement?

I agree that not everyone has easy access to a public library, parents that care, etc.  I am likely ignorant for believing that kids in low socioeconomic situations can still access banned books... and perhaps a bigger ignorant for expecting the education system (absent banned books) to cover the content kids need to know.  

I don't understand the anti-book ban argument from a parent's perspective.  In a different example concerning the risk of child harm, many schools have policies restricting where peanuts can be eaten or outright banning their presence.  This is done to protect 1-2% of children at risk.  My kids love peanut butter, and it sucks that they can't eat it for school lunch.  It is no big deal that they can't eat PB because of the risk (to others).  So when a group of parents says that a few books may harm their children (at their age), I support them as I assume most considerate parents would.

Being able to imagine others less fortunate than yourself is important when making decision for a society. We can't let our privilege deny someone else of critical resources that could help them make their way into a better place. 

Stop getting hung up on feeling attacked. You don't know me I don't know you. I don't care what you think of me. I try to remain civil but can get carried away in the editing process. My points are all that matter. Are they legit or not. Can I defend them or not. 

Motivated by fear? That's what it seems like. Because I have not heard a single good reason come from the side of taking books out of schools that stands up to even a little bit of scrutiny. If you can't admit that parents don't act out of fear when they invoke 'protect the children' you're lying to yourself. Because they are not experts and rarely if ever bring in a credible expert to study or advocate for their positions. Amateurs should not be in charge of deciding what stays and goes. And you're going to say that they aren't in charge of that. Its the school board members that make those decisions. That's a distinction without a difference. Because you do not need any qualifications to be on those boards(or congress and look at the faces those leopards are eating) and many have run(recently for sure, lots of money has been funneled into school board races from conservatives groups)  just so they can have the authority to force their will on topics of books and curricula. 

Protecting a purity culture has been the motivation for horrendous things in the past. 

You have mentioned that your circle is fairly progressive in their thinking. I hope that is true. But it is not indicative of the leaders you elect as a whole. By trying to keep this information from kids is a way of avoiding the conversations and acknowledgement of adults. We know(it has been studied) that traveling and meeting new and different people with different experiences causes us to become less conservative in our own thinking. By keeping our children from this information it is a way to avoid it in our adult lives. These things need to be addressed. Wrongs need to be righted and at a quicker pace then you are probably comfortable with. Putting your head in the sand is not going to stop the train of progress from coming. 

My opinion that someone is weak for supporting a book ban is simple. If you can't handle the information, fine. Then tell your kids not to read it. If they don't or can't listen to you and read it anyway. You have to deal with it. Will the child be permanently scarred? Not likely. But some parents are fine with their children exploring and reading about the topics your so SCARED to have your children read. So therefore, you have no right to expect the book to be taken off the shelf. 

If you have these conversations, then how could you support book bans? Is it a community thing? You enjoy the community support of the people who do want books banned? Because that is a thing. But you can find that sense of community somewhere else less harmful to society. 

Confrontational: not sure, probably a few. I'm probably wrong about a good amount of conservatives. But if you let these people be your voice and your leaders then those are your ideals. If you don't stand up and vocally admonish these people then you give them power. They will not stop. You know that, because conservatives never do. Their grip is slipping and they are getting more and more desperate. Which has lead to an increase in violence aimed at those opposed to conservative views(look at the current Speaker race, death threats to family members of reps that voted against certain candidates, you're eating yourselves but still not willing to break for fear of losing community and death threats will do that too). Why do you think that is? 

 I am pro-book and knowledge. Again, are you and expert? Are the parents, you blindly support, experts? No. More than likely, and I could be wrong, they are acting out of fear of something they know little about. Rather than sympathy and understanding. Kids make us all emotional. I want kids to be safe and cared for and learn about the harsh world they live in. 

It seems to me, and this is not a new opinion(George Carlin), that those who identify themselves as pro-life rarely are for the whole life. Just birth. After that, they don't want kids to get the funding a rich society could or should provide them to get ahead in life. Often cloudy by a sense of morality. That often manifests itself in a 'I made it without that stuff so you should too'. Which is not beneficial or moral, its just selfish. Like spanking, 'I was hit and I turned out fine!' NO! You probably didn't. And we know now that that stuff doesn't work on kids. But we can't see these things because we're always in damage control and to admit it would open up wounds we couldn't possibly handle. 

[jross]

@ThreePointTakedown are you a parent?  What grade level do you teach, if any?  This is not a gotcha question.  

Edited October 25, 2023 by jross
add educator question

[WrestlingRasta]

23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

We know (it has been studied) that traveling and meeting new and different people with different experiences causes us to become less conservative in our own thinking. By keeping our children from this information it is a way to avoid it in our adult lives.

Probably the best point in the whole write up.

[Ban Basketball]

Six pages and STILL arguing the merits of cancel culture big gubment censorship. 

Never would have dreamed. 

[Bigbrog]

I agree @WrestlingRasta with that part of the post other then the part of "become less conservative".  Again why insert any sort of "politics" into that statement...it should hold water regardless of political affiliation.  By engaging in the activity  the post suggests does not make you not a conservative and not doing it doesn't make you a conservative.  It's just a good thing to do.  

This isn't directed at you rasta...but back on the book "banning" and the dissertation the take down dude wrote, It is so full of generalities as assumption it starts to lose any sort of objectivity or logical meaning.  I also find it completely ridiculous to keep using the word "expert" when talking about what is appropriate for kids and what isn't.  I am sorry, I AM the expert when it comes to my kid and what is appropriate in terms of when he should learn about sexuality and gender related issues.  I am a very "liberal" parent in terms of those issues as I feel it is important for my kid to feel comfortable talking about those things in order for him to make the best decisions and I can help guide him as appropriate.  However, it is 100% within my prevue to decide if he should be exposed to gender identity topics and related acts in k-3!  And to try and disregard someone as a parent by continually using the term "expert" and "fear" is actually laughable...I never understood how someone else can claim to know what someone truly feels in their heart without ever meeting them...but hey...it's the internet and people can say whatever they want and claim to be an "expert" on every topic.  But no one will ever try and pretend to be the "expert" in terms of what is best for my kid.  

I'll ask this of @ThreePointTakedown...if two or three kids parents, or the kids themselves would be offended by the type of books in questions should the books be removed from access in school??

[jross]

The use of 'conservative' is tricky because @ThreePointTakedown has voiced anti-conservative ideology.  I had to think about the word choice twice because of who the author is.  However I understand 'conservative' in this sentence to imply it is good to question traditional/established beliefs, and to be willing to consider alternative viewpoints.  And this is true for everyone as per your comments.
 

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

We know(it has been studied) that traveling and meeting new and different people with different experiences causes us to become less conservative in our own thinking.

6 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I agree @WrestlingRasta with that part of the post other then the part of "become less conservative".  Again why insert any sort of "politics" into that statement...it should hold water regardless of political affiliation.  By engaging in the activity  the post suggests does not make you not a conservative and not doing it doesn't make you a conservative.  It's just a good thing to do.  

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by jross
spelling

[ThreePointTakedown]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I agree @WrestlingRasta with that part of the post other then the part of "become less conservative".  Again why insert any sort of "politics" into that statement...it should hold water regardless of political affiliation.  By engaging in the activity  the post suggests does not make you not a conservative and not doing it doesn't make you a conservative.  It's just a good thing to do.  

This isn't directed at you rasta...but back on the book "banning" and the dissertation the take down dude wrote, It is so full of generalities as assumption it starts to lose any sort of objectivity or logical meaning.  I also find it completely ridiculous to keep using the word "expert" when talking about what is appropriate for kids and what isn't.  I am sorry, I AM the expert when it comes to my kid and what is appropriate in terms of when he should learn about sexuality and gender related issues.  I am a very "liberal" parent in terms of those issues as I feel it is important for my kid to feel comfortable talking about those things in order for him to make the best decisions and I can help guide him as appropriate.  However, it is 100% within my prevue to decide if he should be exposed to gender identity topics and related acts in k-3!  And to try and disregard someone as a parent by continually using the term "expert" and "fear" is actually laughable...I never understood how someone else can claim to know what someone truly feels in their heart without ever meeting them...but hey...it's the internet and people can say whatever they want and claim to be an "expert" on every topic.  But no one will ever try and pretend to be the "expert" in terms of what is best for my kid.  

I'll ask this of @ThreePointTakedown...if two or three kids parents, or the kids themselves would be offended by the type of books in questions should the books be removed from access in school??

No. Because in this scenario we don't know what it is that is offensive. Mentioning a round Earth could be the offending topic. And kids are kids, they can't be held accountable for things they do, legally, to an extent. Similar in this case. That they are offended is not a reason to take away a book. 

We would need to have more detail. How many books would be left if it to 2 or 3 parents from taking a book off the shelves? As it turns out we have an idea. Parents challenging books and getting them taken off the shelves left and right. Then the Bible is challenged and all hell breaks loose and it is one of if not THE worst offender of all.