Book Bans

[jross]

6 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

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. 

Do you support the left leaning parents that influenced banning books with racist words in them?  The book ban supporters are not limited to 'conservative' politics.

Edited October 25, 2023 by jross
clarity

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

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. 

Actually agree with this...and it's why we ask.  But wish this held true for all topics...but it doesn't.  Ex. There is a school board in New Jersey who canceled Halloween activities in the schools in their district due to DEI "things"...many many examples of things getting "banned" because a very small few feel "offended"....flags, signs, etc.  If it is wrong for the books it should be wrong for a lot of other things.  And I'd say we "ban" things that have WAY LESS impact on kids then explicit books describing sexual acts and/or gender identity issues.

[WrestlingRasta]

32 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.  

"Conservative" isn't solely exclusive to politics.   The term and its meaning relates to many things other than politics: values, ideals, religious practices, etc.  It is a combination of these things that make up our politics, but speaking about conservative values and ideals is not exclusive to defining one's politics.  And that's how I took that statement, relating more to values and ideas than politics.

[jross]

52 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta 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." - TPT

Probably the best point in the whole write up.

The first sentence sums up TPT position well.  I like it.  It is correct. It is also said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps.

It has been studied that exposure to information creates risk for psychological harm, radicalization, unethical behavior, bad health decisions, misinformed decisions, etc.  

While there is balance, it is Parents, rather than the government, that have the primary responsibility for children's upbringing.  This statement seems like one of the debated points.  What is the argument that says the government has primary responsibility?  What do we learn from observing nature?  (parental care is prevalent across the animal kingdom)

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

The first sentence sums up TPT position well.  I like it.  It is correct. It is also said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps.

It has been studied that exposure to information creates risk for psychological harm, radicalization, unethical behavior, bad health decisions, misinformed decisions, etc.  

While there is balance, it is Parents, rather than the government, that have the primary responsibility for children's upbringing.  This statement seems like one of the debated points.  What is the argument that says the government has primary responsibility?  What do we learn from observing nature?  (parental care is prevalent across the animal kingdom)

Highlighted for emphasis.  For what it's worth, I am completely against book banning, period.   Because of the emphasized statement.

[jross]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Highlighted for emphasis.  For what it's worth, I am completely against book banning, period.   Because of the emphasized statement.

To me, this implies that you feel the government has more responsibility than parents about children's upbringing.  If so, okay, say more about it.  What are your reasons?

What is your role in relation to the debate (teacher of certain grades, parent, concerned citizen, etc)?  This is not a gotcha question, it just gives more context.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 minute ago, jross said:

To me, this implies that you feel the government has more responsibility than parents about children's upbringing.  If so, okay, say more about it.  What are your reasons?

What is your role in relation to the debate (teacher of certain grades, parent, concerned citizen, etc)?  This is not a gotcha question, it just gives more context.

How did you get, from my response, that I feel the government has more responsibility than parents to raise their children.  I emphasized your statement that said the opposite, then said i was against book banning period for that reason.

I'm confused.

[Plasmodium]

MAGA is missing the main point.   Parents are responsible for their children and no one asserts they aren't.  The issue is whether they are also responsible for mine and everyone else's.

[Offthemat]

Parents who protest vigorously at school board meetings are doing so out of fear?

Books that are not allowed to be read aloud at board meetings (banned) should be allowed in school libraries?

 The data is in and shows that parents best option for public schools is charter schools.  The best option for the country is elimination of the Department of Education and teachers unions. 

[Ohio Elite]

[Bigbrog]

32 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

MAGA is missing the main point.   Parents are responsible for their children and no one asserts they aren't.  The issue is whether they are also responsible for mine and everyone else's.

Despite the stupid first sentence I see what you are saying.  But the last sentence could be used in the opposite direction as well.  

I do feel that the majority of teachers are in a terrible position in regards to their role in today's society...they are damned if the do and they are damned if they don't.  No matter what, they get "attacked" by "one side or the other".  My opinion of what the root cause of this problem is is that most of their administrations are terrible (at least in my little circle and based on what I hear from friends and family across the country and read about)!  And I think they get that way because they are "political" roles in that they are voted on.  Thus, like all politicians, their motivation may differ than what is the motivation of parents and teachers and teaching our kids core subjects.  Not to mention teachers get abused by kids and are not able to discipline in any sort of way these days.

[Ban Basketball]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Do you support the left leaning parents that influenced banning books with racist words in them?  The book ban supporters are not limited to 'conservative' politics.

Currently,  and legislatively it is only coming from the right authoritarians. 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Despite the stupid first sentence I see what you are saying.  But the last sentence could be used in the opposite direction as well.  

I do feel that the majority of teachers are in a terrible position in regards to their role in today's society...they are damned if the do and they are damned if they don't.  No matter what, they get "attacked" by "one side or the other".  My opinion of what the root cause of this problem is is that most of their administrations are terrible (at least in my little circle and based on what I hear from friends and family across the country and read about)!  And I think they get that way because they are "political" roles in that they are voted on.  Thus, like all politicians, their motivation may differ than what is the motivation of parents and teachers and teaching our kids core subjects.  Not to mention teachers get abused by kids and are not able to discipline in any sort of way these days.

An apt first sentence, I am just trying to portray the lay of the land.  I  don't see many RINOs protesting MAGA issues.  I could be wrong.

You won't get much pushback on incompetent administrations but the votes you are talking about are ultimately the constituents of a school district.  There is a degree of separation or two as the superintendent reports to the board and the teachers report indirectly to the superintendent, but the point stands.

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

4 minutes ago, jross said:

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.
 

 

As I think of 'conservative' as attempting to maintain current norms and culture rather than exploring the possibilities that come with change and cultural diversity. That is what I was trying to imply. Conservativism is not evil or wrong in and of itself. You like what you like and you want to keep it that way. Fine, but you live in a society. We're not broken into tribes, scratching and clawing for the survival of our offspring, from marauders. That some people try to take advantage of others is unfortunate but can be dealt with and the thirst for power and influence only helps those that would burn it down to serve their own purpose to do just that. 

If we work cooperatively to advance society and keep in check those that would do it harm, things can and have gotten better. Its when the pendulum swings too far one way(usually conservative) that things get out of control and bad things happen. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, jross said:

Do you support the left leaning parents that influenced banning books with racist words in them?  The book ban supporters are not limited to 'conservative' politics.

No. They are wrong too and for the same if not a better reason. But as usual context is king. Who is challenging the book and for what reason? People that have been and continue to be on the wrong end of those slurs have some trauma that need to be addressed. Those words falling out of favor to the general public would help. They would have more of a leg to stand on then just a difference of opinion about sex or religion. Whereas their trauma has been experienced and would hope their children wouldn't have to suffer beneath it as well. Not just perceived like the other parents. Generational trauma is a tricky thing. We try to ignore it and wave it away as weakness(as a country, we're not great at coming to terms with and seeking help for our trauma) or someone trying to get a handout. But its real. 

This is kind of like the argument against your kids swearing. Words don't have power in and of themselves. The usage and the cultural significance is what gives them power. Slurs should not be tossed around in polite society. If works of literature use them in service of education, then I feel they are fine to keep and kids should have those conversations with THEIR PARENTS as to when and how they are appropriate. 

 Pro-Book

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Actually agree with this...and it's why we ask.  But wish this held true for all topics...but it doesn't.  Ex. There is a school board in New Jersey who canceled Halloween activities in the schools in their district due to DEI "things"...many many examples of things getting "banned" because a very small few feel "offended"....flags, signs, etc.  If it is wrong for the books it should be wrong for a lot of other things.  And I'd say we "ban" things that have WAY LESS impact on kids then explicit books describing sexual acts and/or gender identity issues.

I think that is ridiculous. The 'evil' theme of Halloween can go, sure. Because there is no such things as evil. But they can still have kids dress up and have fun. Lame!

[Bigbrog]

14 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

As I think of 'conservative' as attempting to maintain current norms and culture rather than exploring the possibilities that come with change and cultural diversity. That is what I was trying to imply. Conservativism is not evil or wrong in and of itself. You like what you like and you want to keep it that way. Fine, but you live in a society. We're not broken into tribes, scratching and clawing for the survival of our offspring, from marauders. That some people try to take advantage of others is unfortunate but can be dealt with and the thirst for power and influence only helps those that would burn it down to serve their own purpose to do just that. 

If we work cooperatively to advance society and keep in check those that would do it harm, things can and have gotten better. Its when the pendulum swings too far one way(usually conservative) that things get out of control and bad things happen. 

You were doing so well with this paragraph until the parentheses.  That is the problem right there...blaming one side or the other.  Bottom line is both sides do need to work together but the attitude of "If they would just do it my way" never works...then division is caused.  And both sides blame the other for starting it first.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, jross said:

The first sentence sums up TPT position well.  I like it.  It is correct. It is also said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps.

It has been studied that exposure to information creates risk for psychological harm, radicalization, unethical behavior, bad health decisions, misinformed decisions, etc.  

While there is balance, it is Parents, rather than the government, that have the primary responsibility for children's upbringing.  This statement seems like one of the debated points.  What is the argument that says the government has primary responsibility?  What do we learn from observing nature?  (parental care is prevalent across the animal kingdom)

So you're saying that people are better off less informed, with less exposure to other cultures and perspectives? This will lead to more ethical behavior and better health decisions? 

I have never heard of something so blatantly dishonest or ignorant. 

You are rationalizing yourself into your little bubble and trying to keep out anything that might influence your spawn(in any way whatsoever) for FEAR(yes, I said it) of the things you listed(which are always a risk with kids).

Seems like you want to be your own Mennonite cult. Keep your kids sheltered from everything(read your examples, seems like every single thing). Cut them off from all society or outside community. Then when they try to go out into the world and fail, they come back to you.   Have fun with that!

Primary responsibility to raise kids. But government does have an incentive to have a robust population to pass the government on to. If you'd rather have a theocracy what would you do? Squeeze public education, nominate judges that rule to knock down the wall between church and state so public funds can go to church business, allow churches to advocate for political candidates,... shall I continue cuz a lot of those things seem to be happening. Lest I forget, nominate and elect an authoritarian orangutan that has vowed to prosecute his political enemies. Y'all might not be for all those things, but they don't seem like deal breakers when the darn well aught to be! No one from the non-conservative side is offering up ideas like these at all. Let's see, better health care, better education, better infrastructure, lets try to get along with countries instead of committing war crimes to get reelected,... ya know the normal stuff.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, jross said:

To me, this implies that you feel the government has more responsibility than parents about children's upbringing.  If so, okay, say more about it.  What are your reasons?

What is your role in relation to the debate (teacher of certain grades, parent, concerned citizen, etc)?  This is not a gotcha question, it just gives more context.

Are you liberatrian? Isn't it like communism? works on paper but the human condition can't/won't abide by that kind of system. 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Parents who protest vigorously at school board meetings are doing so out of fear?

Books that are not allowed to be read aloud at board meetings (banned) should be allowed in school libraries?

 The data is in and shows that parents best option for public schools is charter schools.  The best option for the country is elimination of the Department of Education and teachers unions. 

Some of them are. They cannot all be well informed and have all the data. So some are doing it out of fear and some are following the herd and some have legitimate concerns. So as a whole no. But some most definitely are and that you can't see or admit that is dishonest. Either fear of their kids learning things they don't want them to learn AT ALL(things that go against their faith), or icky things, or fear of condemnation from other parents for not getting in line. 

Saying things out loud in public is different. Although words aren't magic, so grow up! But reading something in the privacy of your own head should not be banned EVER!

What data? Sources please? 

Pushing towards charter schools is the next step to outright funding religious schools with tax money. Its BS and should not be tolerated. Fight for the schools with the least funding to get way more and the tide will raise all boats. 

Are you in favor of a theocracy? 

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

1.  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.

2.  If you can't admit that parents don't act out of fear when they invoke 'protect the children' you're lying to yourself.

3. 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.  

4. Wrongs need to be righted and at a quicker pace then you are probably comfortable with. 

5. Then tell your kids not to read it.

6. Will the child be permanently scarred? 

7.  If you have these conversations, then how could you support book bans?

8. You know that, because conservatives never do.

9. Threats against opposers.  Why do you think that is? 

10.  ...Rather than sympathy and understanding. 

11. Spanking
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. 

1. That comment disrespects parents whose nature-observed responsibility is to protect their child.

2. I agree with you that book bans come from fear.  However, there are other emotions and motivations that drive support: protectiveness, community support, political ideology, cultural sensitivity, religious beliefs, moral outrage, educational standard, etc.  The fear of 'uncomfortable' conversations is one of MANY concerns.  

3. There is a balance between parents and educators, and the value of parental involvement should be recognized.  Communication and collaboration are best here.   

4. Please say more about which wrongs need to be righted, and which books are banned that prevent faster progress?

5. There is unnecessary risk (mentioned before) in educating children enough about topics for them to understand they are too young to learn more about it.  The young'uns lack self-control as well... this gets better with age.  

Development stages is a studied topic and clear to parents/coaches with children experience from toddler through high school.  Age appropriateness matters. 

6. Books have had long-lasting effects on children. (both good and bad).  Should the magazine "Inspire" be available to elementary children?

7.  Golden rule.  I have empathy and understanding for other parents who want to protect their children from sensitive book materials, as I would hope they would be considerate to mine.

8. Given the left-leaning parents are also successful in banning books, let's adjust your statement and look at it again.

• I'm probably wrong about a good number of parents. But if you let these parents be your voice and your leaders then those are your ideals. If you don't stand up and vocally admonish these parents then you give them power. They will not stop. You know that, because parents never do. Their grip is slipping and they are getting more and more desperate. Which has led to an increase in violence aimed at those opposed to parents views

9. Some people are nutty regardless of their views.  Why did Susan Rosenberg, advocate for social justice, openly advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government through armed struggle and the use of violence... and then get charged for bombing the US Senate?  Are all social justice warriors like Susan?  Are all conservatives like the people that harassed reps about the speaker race?  

10. Where is the sympathy and understanding for the parents that act according to nature, by doing what they believe protects their children?  Balance...

Extra.  One of your central arguments is that banning books takes away informational access to kids so poor that they do not have access to books at school, public library, home, and acquaintances.  Isn't the bigger problem that kids in poverty have limited access to books in general?  It would seem the focus should be on books that helps kids learn to write their name and count to 20, rather than focus on the books that use racial language and have graphic visuals of sex that parents find age inappropriate.  And what role does a teacher have, if not to educate?  Surely, teaches can educate children to think critically without limiting their sources to a small number of school-banned materials.

[jross]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

How did you get, from my response, that I feel the government has more responsibility than parents to raise their children.  I emphasized your statement that said the opposite, then said i was against book banning period for that reason.

I'm confused.

I got there because the emphasized was followed by the statement "For what it's worth, I am completely against book banning, period."  This is why I stated what I thought you meant, and used the language "if so."

[jross]

1 hour ago, Ban Basketball said:

Currently,  and legislatively it is only coming from the right authoritarians. 

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Some of them are. They cannot all be well informed and have all the data. So some are doing it out of fear and some are following the herd and some have legitimate concerns. So as a whole no. But some most definitely are and that you can't see or admit that is dishonest. Either fear of their kids learning things they don't want them to learn AT ALL(things that go against their faith), or icky things, or fear of condemnation from other parents for not getting in line. 

Saying things out loud in public is different. Although words aren't magic, so grow up! But reading something in the privacy of your own head should not be banned EVER!

What data? Sources please? 

Pushing towards charter schools is the next step to outright funding religious schools with tax money. Its BS and should not be tolerated. Fight for the schools with the least funding to get way more and the tide will raise all boats. 

Are you in favor of a theocracy? 

You may say that they ‘fear’ that their children are being groomed, but the meaning in that context isn’t fear. It’s more like see, realize, understand and are enraged.  That’s why they stand and confront the people who are responsible for it. 
Constitutionally, there is no restriction to public funding of religious entities.  There has been much bastardization of a phrase from a letter.  In our country’s early stages there was significant government funding of religious schools.  
The performance of charter schools is easy to find, here’s one example:

       “The researchers demonstrate that these learning gains were realized by tens of thousands of charter school students across the country, and progress was particularly strong among Blacks and Hispanics and those living in poverty. The study notes that these gains show that it is possible to achieve positive learning outcomes at scale and accelerate growth for students who have been inadequately served by traditional public school systems.”
 

https://www.hoover.org/research/charter-schools-new-evidence-student-success-matter-fact-national-charter-school-study-iii

They may not have been tested on their ability to condomize a cucumber, though. 

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

No. They are wrong too and for the same if not a better reason. But as usual context is king. Who is challenging the book and for what reason? People that have been and continue to be on the wrong end of those slurs have some trauma that need to be addressed. Those words falling out of favor to the general public would help. They would have more of a leg to stand on then just a difference of opinion about sex or religion. Whereas their trauma has been experienced and would hope their children wouldn't have to suffer beneath it as well. Not just perceived like the other parents. Generational trauma is a tricky thing. We try to ignore it and wave it away as weakness(as a country, we're not great at coming to terms with and seeking help for our trauma) or someone trying to get a handout. But its real. 

This is kind of like the argument against your kids swearing. Words don't have power in and of themselves. The usage and the cultural significance is what gives them power. Slurs should not be tossed around in polite society. If works of literature use them in service of education, then I feel they are fine to keep and kids should have those conversations with THEIR PARENTS as to when and how they are appropriate. 

 Pro-Book

Babylon Bee post here somewhere... Parents sing the lyrics of Cardi B's 'Bongos' song while advocating to ban books for language that triggers generational trauma.