US library defunded after refusing to censor authors
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
If so, being able to point to things like that would (IMO) be a good political tool in situations like this. "We're neutral and carry both sides" goes over better than "we carry books with the correct opinions, how dare you ask us to remove them" - and the best response to bad speech is more speech anyways.
Which kinda means that they should probably carry more copies, given that it's a 2020 book and still that popular.
> My local library , in an intensely liberal area, also has multiple copies.
Good for them, but sometimes censorship and political manipulation can be more subtle.
I have no idea how libraries decide on how many copies of a book to carry. I assume they have some sort of metrics or formula they learn in school though. If there are an librarians on HN, can you share what, if any, calculation in done for this?
Very often, they are not neutral.
Go to your local library's website, and check out the new arrivals section. Most likely, the political bias will be very evident.
Then go to the page where the list the board members, and Google their political affiliation.
Finally, if you are still not convinced, send them an FOIA request to see what books they are discarding from the catalogue.
But I think your point about differing value systems is exactly on point. The problem is, in theory your local libery association, or teacher’s union, etc., isn’t supposed to bear comparison to a gun rights organization or evangelical church. Like, I can imagine that folks in NYC would be unhappy if their local public library adopted the value system of an evangelical church or gun rights organization. Why is it surprising that the same reaction results when the shoe is on the other foot?
Imagine a scenario where everyone is taxed, say, 10%. Then, the government introduces an extra tax of 10%, for a total of 20%, and then gives everyone a tax exemption, so that everyone pays 10% after all, just like before. Is the new tax exemption an "implicit subsidy"? Do people feel subsidized by not having to pay extra 10% on top of 10% they already pay? No, at best they are grateful that they are losing less money to a bully.
Now, imagine we start from 0%, and again introduce a new tax of 10%, and a new exemption, so that nobody actually pays any tax after all. Again, in this no tax world, is the government "subsidizing" everyone? No, that's not what the word "subsidize" mean.
I don't pay income take on the donation.
That absolutely is a subsidy. About 30% of my donation comes from the public purse via tax not collected.
Churches owe taxes because they conduct business in the United States. The government pays those taxes instead. That's a subsidy.
And you owe the bully your lunch, because you conduct your presence in his class. When the bully says he won’t take your lunch today, he is actually buying you your lunch. That’s a subsidy.
If it sounds stupid, that’s because it is. Tax exemptions are not subsidies.
Alternatively, here's a definition of subsidy:
> A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks).
I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications.
It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.
I don't mean to be flippant, but engaging with a disconnected hypothetical takes away from the discussion of reality. In my original comment, I believe I sufficiently communicated that I disagree that taxes are extortion. In the context of funding libraries and churches, I don't think that disagreement is going to lead us anywhere.
But here's NYPL's new arrivals page: https://www.nypl.org/books-music-movies/new-arrivals
One quick check you can do is to look at the gender of the authors.
Here's the list of the board members: https://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/leadership/board-truste...
If I can, I will do a rough headcount of their political affiliation and then update this comment with it.
As of 2022, there aren't a lot of secular thinkers/thought leaders/morality preachers in our culture who are telling people to stop being gay/trans, or equating being LGBQT with being a groomer or a child predator.
So, yes, having a few books on LGBQT life (both religious and secular), and a few hundred books on Christian life (some of which happily and loudly condemn the former) in your library is a pretty good proxy for covering a wide range of viewpoints on the question of whether or not it's OK to be gay.
But if you do want to thoroughly all-sides this question, there's also nothing that stops you from throwing in some secular, or Islamic, or Hindi anti-lgbqt literature onto the shelves. I'm sure it exists, but it's not a major axis of thought in this country, at the moment.
I mean, the rights of individuals in the US is legally guaranteed because of belief in God, and the nation still stands under God.
74 million people voted in 2020 for a loudly Christian president and vice president. From that pool, a large percentage would have defunded the library as well. But not all were Christians. So the library probably represents a similar demographic, and why not provide towards a demographic, which likely included the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, secular conservatives, etc.
I disagree the major axis of thought in this country is pro-LGBQT by number of people, but would totally agree it's the presiding trend in most of the media, and maybe more than half of politicians, thereby seemingly being the major axis of thought.
As for secular morality preachers, I didn't know they exist. I wonder how they deal with moral standards if they're not set in stone, as they're believed to be in the Bible. Tomorrow killing Jews might become the moral thing to do. Who's to say otherwise? The Nazis thought it was moral.
This country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. It's not a Christian country. It's a country that happens to have Christians living in it.
> 74 million people voted in 2020 for a loudly Christian president and vice president.
Actually, 155 million people voted for a Christian president and VP. It's just that the Christian that got 81 million votes has a largely opposite take on this question.
> As for secular morality preachers, I didn't know they exist.
Literally anyone who gives moral advice without couching it in religion would qualify. Secular humanism enjoys some popularity.
> I wonder how they deal with moral standards if they're not set in stone, as they're believed to be in the Bible.
I don't think you have a good grasp on morality. Or on religion.
Nothing about the interpretation of the Bible is set in stone. It is interpreted this way and that to suit the the zeitgeist, or the personal interests of the chap behind the pulpit (or his friends).
Twenty different people look at it, and come up with completely contradictory conclusions about completely basic, fundamental things. And the vision that wins out is often the one with more guns and spearpoints and dollars behind it.
> Tomorrow killing Jews might become the moral thing to do.
Tomorrow?
Why not look at yesterday? Christian persecution of Jews is a millenia-old on-and-off tradition, which is a little difficult to reconcile with the so-called involatile morality. As would the heavily-Christian South, that only a century and a half ago fought a civil war with the heavily-Christian North over the right to enslave black people.
When the exact same founding documents produce such radically different conclusions, I think it's pretty clear that religious morality is about as involatile and set in stone as quicksand.
I never made the claim it was a Christian country. Yes there is separation of Church and State, but it was founded on Christian principles, and it is a fact our individual rights are legally guaranteed because by belief in God, not government or people.
>On secular morality preachers.
It's just news to me they exist. I have nothing against that.
>I don't think you have a good grasp on morality. Or on religion. Nothing about the interpretation of the Bible is set in stone. Etc.
I totally disagree. The Bible may have many stories, and some concepts may be difficult or "mysterious" to grasp, but there is nothing ambiguous about the actual commandments, and no room for interpretation. That's like saying it's ok for a State Attorney or judge to not disagree with certain laws but not others because they see things differently. They end up getting reprimanded, suspended, or their license revoked. Try telling a cop you have a different interpretation for speeding laws.
>Re: persecution of Jews and enslavement of Blacks.
The civil war was fought precisely because the declaration of independence states things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." And the South, driven by greed (not Christian beliefs), were unwilling to see a particular race as equal. Calling yourself a Christian doesn't mean you are a Christian, practicing it's teachings. It's like an American saying they don't believe in the Constitution or its laws; they're American in name only.
I don't think you've ever read the Christian portion of the Bible. You will only find God condemning people who treat others that way. There is literally no room for a different conclusion.
Re: Jewish persecution: Nazis made it legal to severely mistreat Jews. When rights and ethics aren't set in stone, moral standards can be bent that much.
would you complain that Fox News/Breitbart viewers refuse to read some ultra radical left wing news? (for purposes other than making fun of other side)
Libraries are not supposed to editorialize their collection. Consider the library as a physical version of the internet. Nobody is forcing users to read a specific page online, but we generally agree that ISPs shouldn't censor content that the user has requested.
The main principle in curating library content is adding value. If content does not add value to readers, it is useless. "Give the people what they want" is another principle (https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2014/01/17/the-process...)
On the other hand, the American Librarian Association's Library Bill of Rights says that libraries should have books presenting all points of view on current and historical issues, neither proscribed nor removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill
List of document interpreting those rights: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre...
Some choice quotes from https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre... :
> Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place.
> A balanced collection need not and cannot contain an equal number of resources representing every possible viewpoint on every issue. A balanced collection should include the variety of views that surround any given issue.
It all seems broadly reasonable; a library need not and cannot give equal shelf space to both sides of every issue. Nevertheless, a library should not categorically exclude one side of an issue, no matter how offensive.
Jean Luc Godard thought he was making fun of idiots when he wrote that in an unrelated context, but he was actually describing a mainstream US dogma.
There is no reason why every topics must have "both sides". The number of valid sides can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 7 or 42.
And just about everyone thinks they're the oppressed ones, and includes it in their messaging. Including literally Hitler. (His being thrown in jail is arguably the best thing that could have happened to the Nazis in the mid 20s IIRC)
An important point. True oppressors tend to view a move toward equality as oppression of themselves and they fight it hard for that reason.
But therein lies the assumption.
"Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism.
And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever.
The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.
This is the structural issue that underpins the criticality of active non-optimization through not engaging in the active suppression of bad ideas, but in the reiteration that bad ideas exist, and here's why they are classed as bad ideas.
It may not be popular, but I'm not kicking the Neo-Nazis off the stage to satisfy some thought by an accidental current majority, because that would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (equal opportunity, free access to information, aid for those in need, equality under the law, right to autonomy, safety from foreign influences, effective representation, a government constrained by a mandate it conduct business through due process, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), heaven forbid, should it ever become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events, would be similarly revoked of it's time in the air, and rightly so, as I very clearly communicated how I wished to be treated by reserving the right to silence in a position of power. I have faith that no matter how much what I value gets attacked by bad ideas, it'll always tend to come out on top, and produce better outcomes in the long run.
I'm sorry. I'm not willing to sacrifice the moral or pragmatic high ground here, because someone can't relegate some rambling to the mental bit bucket, or has such a small mind as to be deluded into thinking that Liberty should by definition only empower things they like.
I may not agree at all with the repugnants, but I will fight to the death for them. Someone's gotta be there. If no one is, then we've already given in to might makes right. If there is at least one principled person though; one spark, there is still hope for the downtrodden and the damned, to whom I refuse to deny the right to the pursuit of their happiness; even if there is a status quo that renders the legs they need to achieve it incredibly unlikely. They have the right to champion their own cause.
For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda) or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.
Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.
> That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events
That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy. Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.
Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'
I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.
It does huh? When I was growing up, I'd chance upon some people with thoroughly unpleasant opinions. Everyone in the neighborhood knew about them. Everyone ignored them. Nowadays, you've got mobs coordinating amongst one another to inflict harm on someone over a disagreeable worldview.
So no, that it exists only in my mind is, and always will be hogwash. Once again, it takes someone principled to stare down the angry mob and say "not one step further, y'all cool it."
I'm absolutely fine with doing away with NDAs as a recognized legal instrument to be quite honest. The conscience of good men being burdened or weighed down when justice demands one speak out is one of the legal system's longest standing shames in my opinion.
Libel reflects more on the character of the Libeler than of the Libeled, and the truth is a foolproof remedy, which makes it obvious to everyone who the fool/scoundrel in the room is. If anything, one can have Libel laws utilized as a powerful tool of oppression, particularly when wielded by those with disproportionate power or means at their disposal.
That Liberty invites the possibility of poor behavior or the actual exercise of freedoms unencumbered by threat of a nebulous System is a fear I am 100% familiar with, and okay with. It's worth it. There are more people on Earth looking to place fetters on everyone else that I don't see any reason to encourage anyone to do so no matter the convenience.
>Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'.
Congratulations. You just made my point why a library is best served in stock books that it's community may not like, in the interests of creating availability for the reader that just might need it! Or why free speech absolutism is the most prudent treatment of speech! Anything less is one person treading on another's freedom.
Good of the goose, good of the gander. You don't get to silence one group, (your freedom) because (your freedom) stops where their freedom begins. You may think it's a good idea. They may be really annoying to you. But just as you get to voice your bit, they get theirs. Anything else is self-referential inconsistency, to which the punishment is beatings with an organic carrot. No exceptions.
* The right of the library to freely collect and exhibit whatever information it pleases, a freedom of expression.
* The right of the taxpayers to freely decide how their tax dollars are spent, a freedom of association.
The library absolutely has their right to free expression, but so long as they use public money to operate, that right to free expression ends where the taxpayers' right to free association begins.
In this particular case, both rights were exercised and respected. The library is still free to collect and exhibit as it pleases, but not on the dime of taxpayers; and taxpayers no longer have to pay for a library they are not satisfied with.
If people really want to read things like that, then the publicly funded local liberal should carry them.
In fact, many US public libraries already do carry such books. Here's a search for books by David Irving in the catalogue of Brooklyn Public Library. [1] He is often accused of being a Holocaust denier. [2]
[1]: https://www.bklynlibrary.org/search?search=david+irving
Do US libraries typically offer books that glorify 9/11? (I mean the second 9/11 of 2001, not the first of 1973.)
I don't know any such books. If you have a specific one in mind, I will check to see.
But they do carry 9/11 truther books [1], which often claim that it was "an inside job" or "a hoax" or something.
If Maus were rated according to TV standards, there's no way it'd get less than TV-14. Unless you think shows rated TV-14 can be kids' shows, I think that disqualifies it as a kids' book.
Are 14 year olds adults?
It was still in the library.
I don't know the titles of any such books to search for, but my local public library has several books by notorious holocaust denier David Irving. So probably they wouldn't have a problem with a pro-9/11 book either.
edit: I didn't read the thread carefully, looks like Cato already pointed this out.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook
[2]: https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb21741991
The Anarchists Cookbook used to be found in libraries. I'd hope it still is, along with books on energetic backyard chemistry. Not a 100% match, but in the ballpark.
> photo books portraying motorcycle crash victims or war casualties?
Not sure about motorcycles, but I'm sure you can find war casualties. Napalm girl https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc at the very least.
> Hard core rape pornography?
Libraries do not typically carry porn. In fact, that's part of what the detractors would say this is about - that the pro-trans books sometimes contain pornographic images. (Of course, no one cares about 50 Shades or bodice rippers...)
If you ever been to library, kids section is for elementary/middle school, but high schoolers absolutely do read adult section books
I disagree with the notion that both sides are equal, deserve equal treatment and a compromise needs to be found. That's almost never the case with social questions.
Take the trans and anti-trans, jews and anti-semites, blacks and KKK-style racists, suffragettes and anti-woman rights people. Both positions are not equal - one desires equal rights and protection, the other goes between harassment and denying the right of existence of a group of people due to their characteristics. Anyone being "neutral" and "both siding" is usually only reinforcing the status quo. And what would a compromise look like here? Kill only some jews/trans people?
Just because the American political system is broken and it has only two sides doesn't mean everything has two equal sides. A flat earther is not a valid side worth listening to, and neither are anti-vaxxers, anti-trans etc activists.
Looking at it another way, they'd rather spend their money on things that probably affect their immediate lives more. It's certainly a lot easier to get whatever information you want online than it is to get your roads fixed.
I'm a tech-head (like most of us here) and recently joined my local library. I was amazed about all the cool books they had (i.e. they had a lot that's been recommended here). All free for you to take home.
Close the fancy macbook-pro and iphone for a weekend and try and explore the internet. It's probably harder than you think, especially if you're not financially capable or you have a crappy phone.
Then go visit your local library and marvel at the wealth of information. You might be surprised how long you spend there. I certainly got flashback to my childhood, just exploring and reading.
The vote result was so lopsided that there's no way the library board didn't see it coming. Given that things went as far as they did, that seems to point to the board members wanting to be allowed to have pornographic books in the kids' section so badly that they're willing to hold all of the useful services you mentioned hostage if they can't have that.
(Note: I did see that Gender Queer was in the adults' section. But as the letter in the article pointed out, there were other similar books that were in the kids' section.)
I tend to trust librarians (mostly) to know what they are doing. I think we have to be careful listening to the mob which I speculate the majority don't have library cards, have read a book in the last year or even have taken their kids to the library.
I worry that the mob will start saying we need to remove books based on religious beliefs (e.g. evolution) or climate change or pretty anything they don't fully understand or want to understand. "Maybe my son/daughter wouldn't have been X if they hadn't read Y".
>But as the letter in the article pointed out, there were other similar books that were in the kids' section
I think it's worth knowing exactly what those books are before painting it with the same brush as that graphic novel.
Teenage years are kinda hard for a lot of kids especially if they have non-majority sexual viewpoints. If they are going to the library to understand 'stuff' about themselves, it's worth considering that librarians may have more experience in books (and where to put them) and it might actually be helping them.
I looked up Gender Queer. I can't say if it belongs in a public library because I didn't read it. But it seemed like the explicit drawings were a small part and had a purpose. Graphic and pornographic are different.
It's no less absurd in this context. People almost exclusively move up out of their economic bracket by means of luck, not gumption and hard work. If hard work were all it took, then the people working 3 jobs and barely getting enough sleep to live would be millionaires.
Sure, it was coined that way. But remember that Schrödinger's cat was coined as an absurd impossibility too, to delegitimize the Copenhagen interpretation, which is nevertheless widely accepted today.
Local taxation and financing is exactly economically conservative view when rich towns get gorgeous libraries, while poor counties get very bad libraries.
I have libertarian leanings like the next HN'r, but come on, you're talking about stopping kids wanting to read books.
So in your case, you can vote for the party that's, in general, against what you are, or for the policies that you want (probably on the economic more than social side of conservatism, it'd be interesting for a gay person to be socially conservative).
That's why a two party system is extremely stupid.
I’m an immigrant from a Muslim country who used to be a Democrat, and now I vote Republican, in part because I think the way Democrats view race is bad for minorities, and also consciously or unconsciously a pretext for consolidating cultural power in the hands of white elites: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist. Moreover, I’ve been all around the country, the Midwest and the south, and I’ve never met anybody that is “against who I am.” What I’ve met is people who are concerned about cultural change, in the same way people from my home country would be if the shoe were in the other foot.
That's because in the era of mass- and social media, many racists have become quite skilled at encoding their views in dog whistles.
I went the opposite direction from you — formerly a pretty-conservative, reliably-Republican voter, now a Yellow Dog Democrat for the time being; formerly a Nozickian, now largely a Rawlsian.
A major milestone was visiting the National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, where MLK Jr. was assassinated. I've always been well-read in history, but the matter-of-fact exhibits on slavery and Jim Crow had me fighting back tears; a couple of times I came close to sobbing. (And yes, I know the Dems and GOP have switched places on that subject since Reconstruction.)
Generational head starts make a difference. If you haven't watched this YouTube video (kids doing a foot race but some being given big head starts), you should: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vvHWAjh3Ks
TLDR: We know.
Pundits like Ruy Teixeira treat (national) politics like k-means clustering along just two axis. (Cite Duverger's Law.) Plabum for political hobbyists. Axiomatic truths (meaning worthless) worthy of the NYT op-ed page
I absolutely guarantee you that Democrats know that Latinos, for instance, are culturally more conservative than college educated whites. Further, I absolutely guarantee you that campaigns work very hard to the thread the needle, accommodating a very diverse coalition.
The (national) coalition of Democrats is most simply defined as "not Republican". Inspiring, right? (Whereas the Republican coalition is simply defined as anti-majoritarian, pro-wealth, and reactionaries.) Given the Biden Admin's policy successes, and Republican's self-own with the SCOTUS, hopefully Democratic messaging will become affirmative (what we're for), not just what we're against.
You said it yourself. Coalition building is hard. And "big tent" left-wing coalitions are so much harder than the right-wing coalitions.
Along with the structural disadvantages, and normal organizational dysfunction, it's a wonder that Democrats ever win at all.
Knowing a bit about how this stuff works (but mostly doesn't), whereas most laypersons and pundits whinge about Democrats, for or against, I marvel whenever something good gets done.
(I'm not dunking on you; you've gotten, uh, pretty strident in the last year or so, but your conservatism is one of the things I appreciate about your presence here.)
And as someone who looked up to him, and would often be convinced by the carefully thought-out rationale he'd provide for his viewpoints, very articulately so, I think I veered toward conservatism myself with him. But in the last year, the luster has been a little bit lost. His take on things once used to be the decidedly adult-in-the-room take, despite being a lawyer, what he wrote never came off as slimey, slight-of-hand lawyerly drivel, no, it was intellectual, rigorous, and a pleasure to read. But something has changed in the recent months.
What's going on Rayiner?
To win hearts and minds either here in this little corner of the internet or out there in meat-space, it's not worthwhile or productive to say such a thing, if you do then in their view you're making a strawman so you lose a potential sympathetic ear and indeed the chance to win hearts and minds. Maybe qualify your statements differently, say "the heads at the DNC" instead of using indiscriminately general labels like "Liberals" or "Democrats" which tends to make the message start sounding adversarial.
By the by, is running for any political office in the stars for you? (I pose the same question to you, Thomas. Frankly I wish both of you would consider it).
If you'll allow someone to comment from the sidelines, because I can't help myself: I'm a second generation Japanese immigrant (Japanese-American), or what the Left would call a "minority" or worse "POC" ("Person Of Color") here in the US. I personally find such views, labels, generalizations, and implications nothing short of an insult to my character, heritage, and dignity.
I grew up being taught to see others for WHO they are, not WHAT they are, and treat everyone equally and fairly. "Judged by the quality of their character", as Martin Luther King once famously said.
It's one thing to be called Japanese or Asian, or even a Minority, because those are all objective facts and truths about what I am, but being called a "minority" or even worse "POC" for some worthless political game is insulting. By doing that, the Left are judging me by the "color of my skin" rather than "the quality of my character", by WHAT I am rather than WHO I am, and that's just not how people should treat each other.
I've voted strictly Republican ever since about 2016, because while I previously and still consider myself politically to be Centerist with some Conservative and Liberal leanings, it became steadily and abundantly clear to me as I aged and became wiser that I had about as little to do with the Left and Progressivism (no, not Liberalism; the Left are not Liberals) as water has to do with oil.
That's not to say I like the Republicans, necessarily, but I nonetheless find more in common with the Right and Conservatives/Liberals (who are primarily represented by Republicans) than I do the Left and Progressives (who are primarily represented by Democrats). Lesser of two evils, as they say. The Left are never getting another vote from me so long as they continue their stupid identity politics game, among many other bullshit.
Sure—I came to the realization that my color blind upbringing in Republican Virginia isn’t something my kids will be able to enjoy. Instead they’ll be writing essays about how their grandfather grew up in a village in Bangladesh to persuade some admissions officer that they should get into college/get a job/etc. As Hilary Clinton might say, I’m resentful about that: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-courts-roe-v-w...
> E.g., just now way too casually you've in broad strokes implicated democrats to be behind duplicitous and conniving schemes in which they treat Hispanics and minorities as mere pawns in their games.
I think it’s ignorance and wishful thinking. Building a coalition is hard and nobody wants to compromise. It’s easier to assume that non-white people think like your Latinx friend from grad school, and changing demographics will make traditional politics obsolete.
There’s also a kind of neo-colonialism. No less than the British in the 1700s, progressive Democrats believe that their own culture is morally superior. They think white societies have evolved the correct views about human rights, gender roles, sexual morality, raising children, etc. They want and need Muslim immigrants and religious Black and Latino people to vote for them, but have no intention of compromising with those groups over the party’s social agenda. (An amusing illustration of this phenomenon recently was white liberals calling Clarence Thomas “Uncle Tom” for views on abortion and same sex marriage that are typical for a Black man from the south.)
> To win hearts and minds
I think we’re past that. I think progressives are in a quasi-religious thrall, and moderate liberals defenseless against them. I’m hoping for a decade in the wilderness-type collapse of the Democratic Party, like what happened with Reagan, or what’s happened recently with Labour in the UK.
As for identity politics, how can we talk about that without observing the normalization of paramilitary culture on the right? From the ubiquitous thin blue line flags to the 3 %er sheepdog culture, large portions of the right are gearing up for political violence, most of it directed at black people.
The Republicans of my youth who stood for good governance, the rule of law, low taxes & strong civic engagement have been replaced at all levels by preppers, populists & grifters.
I can understand being disgusted by the racial politics of the anarchy-socialist wing of the left but to take up with the republicans of 2022 over it seems like madness.
It’s a lot easier for me to see a “coexist” bumper sticker than a “Hang all traitors, starting with the Democrats” one. But your mileage may vary.
There was an older gentleman I used to have conversations with in my teenage years when I was living in the midwest, an ardent NRA-supporter, Vietnam-war vet, an old-school American, good-hearted and sweet and wonderful to talk to, quite open to hearing out my then progressive-views and arguing against it. I met him again after a decade and saw that he was a full-on boisterous Trump supporter, unwavering in his belief that Jan6 was justified. Though it was tragic to see him go off in the deep-end, I could not in good conscience write him off, because I knew him and his history. I would like to believe that even the wave of paramilitary culture can be understood, lest we make a fundamental attribution error. Likewise I wish Rayiner would more often employ the principle of charity: engage not with views of people on Twitter, but with the views of the electorate that got Biden in the white house.
My best reading tells me that frustrations, particularly of elderly folks, can be traced in some part to the unfair expectation of them to always be up with the latest revision of a social code prescribed and concocted in a place far removed from their dwellings, and when they're not up on it they're quickly cast aside and sometimes demonized. Of course the slighted will show their anger, of course the left-aside will want to rise again.
The temperature is hot, and there isn't a moderating force in sight.
Strange times. Worrying times.
This seems about right, given that they couldn't even prevent their DA from being recalled in San Francisco. Progressives really are a small fraction of the Democratic Party.
(Compare to "Faith and Flag Conservatives", who make up a significantly larger fraction of the GOP electorate than progressives do for Dems, though still not much.) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/faith-and-fl...
That was absolutely true. Happily, those Boomers (and some Gen-X) are aging out of the party.
> I think progressives are in a quasi-religious thrall
Going to guess that you're referring to wokeness.
In my observation and experience, the people making a fuss, about the latest wedge issue, are not the people getting things done. And they're rarely party members.
The party (of whatever flavor) is about platforms, policy, and campaigns. It's a huge amount of work. Most of it really sucks. And the people doing this work don't have time for food fights on twitter and whatnot.
FYI, In reaction to the Civil Rights era, the white working class left the Democratic coalition. Most of the Democratic internecine warfare ("circular firing squad") since then has been about "if" and "how" to bring those whites back into the coalition.
I'm very involved in local politics. I've been PCO for my blue state's largest precinct in arguably the most left-wing legislative district (and therefore congressional district). Think Pramila Jayapal. The outsider and MSM depictions of how these things play out isn't even wrong.
I can't speak to how Arizona's or Maricopa County's misc Democratic Party orgs operate (each is distinct). From my (very) limited contact, my impression is they're not so different from my primary party org.
Newly arrived immigrants compete on the same job market for the same jobs, that these (now legal) older immigrants occupy: service jobs, hospitality, food, etc. any new immigrants puts downward pressure on wages and reduces overall pie.
I would say this is pure capitalist ideology at play here
Let's say, Alice wants to communicate a piece of information to Bob. Both are interested in it. Mike decides that it's against his interest and blocks the communication. This is textbook censorship.
In this example, Alice decides that certain information needs to be pushed into Bob's attention span at Bob's expense, and Bob refuses to fund it. I don't think it is the same. Denial of attention? Yes. Censorship? Not really.
They weren't just "on the shelf". That's why she resigned
My mother hated grim horror stuff, no Goosebumps for me. If the reading hour had books of that sort, my mother would pull me out of it. Those books were on the shelves, but she didn't allow me to read them.
It's not like we're talking about public schooling where children are a captive audience of the state (at least for any family that can't afford private schooling.) Library reading hours for kids are entirely at the discretion of parents.
The article had photos of materials distributed by opponents. They mentioned books added to the adult section. They didn't mention reading events. A Pride Month display in the young adult section was the closest thing. And where are children forced to attend public library readings?
What if I give a $50 kickback to an activist within the library that claims that the book is essential to some cause, but then the board shuts down the proposal? Is that censorship?
The institution in question is a public library, funded by public money (taxes). Because the library operates at the cost of the taxpayers, the library has an implicit obligation to act in a manner satisfactory to the majority of the taxpayers.
Ergo, the library operates at the pleasure of the public.
Now, you might ask why the taxpayers have such powers over the library? That is because the taxpayers have a right to demand and have their tax dollars be spent in a way that is satisfactory to them.
How do the taxpayers exercise their will, you might ask? By voting, as any upstanding citizen would do in a democracy, on measures that would allocate tax dollars to the library. And vote they did: 62% nays to 37% yays.
In summary, this is not censorship; not the least because the audience for the library in question are the voters who voted against its continued funding. This is simply the public exercising their right to decide how their taxes that they paid are used.
The same reason the Public University is viewed as being a bastion for the free exercise and pursuit of controversial ideas, so too is the Public Library.
I will never understand the mentality that makes people think Libraries are there to please you, or serve as ideological echo chambers. It's like you've never spoken with a Librarian before.
The problem here is, while libraries have a right to collect and exhibit whatever they please, in this case the library is doing so using tax dollars. This means that the taxpayers, the public, has an authoritative say on how the library operates with that money.
So the taxpayers, being dissatisfied with the way their tax dollars were being used, rightfully voted to cut off further funding. The library is free to exercise its right to free expression, but it got told to do so on its own dime.
Essentially, anything that operates off of Other Peoples' Money(tm) operates at the pleasure of those people. Certain rights can and should be exercised by such institutions, but the Other Peoples can also choose to then redirect their money elsewhere because it's their money and they rightfully get to choose how it's spent.
The orthogonal issue is what people who are on the government payroll then do with their tax-money-based salaries. Being government employees, they are subject to the US Constitution and its views on right to free speech, religion, etc.
This chain of events isn't censorship because the people defunding the library are quite literally the people the library serves. There is no third-party. The very people the library serves decided, democratically in a free and fair election, the library was not worth continued funding. This is akin to someone blocking another person on a communication medium because they don't like them, which is within their rights.
I'm just as against censorship as any other free speech advocate you can find, but calling this an infringement of free speech is disingenuous at best. The library is still free to collect and exhibit whatever books it wants; it just can't bill the people it serves, the taxpayers, for those books anymore.
Your logic clearly invites the tyranny of the majority.
Edit: Since someone offered to kill me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32173179 I pretty clearly had nothing to do with that term.
There is more context to this. Grooming is an established tactic of pedophiles and studied by scientists. It involves breaking the bond with parents ("it's our little secret"), desensitizing children - which have a natural aversion (yuk) - towards sex acts, and in general confusing them.
Many parents (not only conservatives) see the lgbtq+ materials presented to kids (even below 3rd grade) as accomplishing exactly these goals. Schools sometimes have policies of affirming gender changes and not informing parents (keeping secrets), lesson materials are seen as desensitizing towards sex acts. Children are sometimes told at a very early age they might be in the wrong body. And in school board meetings parents reading from books from the school library are silenced because the contents are 'pornographic'. Part of the outrage is of course fueled and carried too far by conservative Christians but that is not the story here.
This is part of a long history of attempts to vilify queerness by association with pedophilia (and bestiality). It's disgusting not just because of how blatant a lie it is, but also because it makes it harder to separate out actual claims of pedophilia while campaigns like this are active—some real pedophiles can hide their activity amidst the noise.
37% of the town wants the library funded, and I think out-of-town donations could be solicited too, donors probably wouldn't be too hard to find considering this controversy seems to have become international news.
Uuuuh, I mean, I could understand you saying that a /library/ doesn't need to be publicly funded, but a /public library/, being publicly funded is kind of its whole deal.
The 'public' in public library refers to who the library is open to, not how the library is funded.
A library endowment is, for example, a thing.
If residents think that queer pornographic novels should not be on display for kids at library, then it kinda makes sense to curate content to meet the needs of residents. Those who need this book desperately can always checkout this book online.
Good decision to organize grassroots movement among residents and tell library board clearly that library is not meeting needs of its residents/constituents/taxpayers.
the subject of grooming is very alarming too, indoctrination of kids (in one way) is unacceptable
Gosh, what an inflammatory claim. I better read the article to check that...
> The book, which includes depictions of sex, was in the adult section of the library.
Huh, I guess people really do like to spin things these days, don't they?
The letter said Gender Queer was placed in the library. The flyer said it was discovered. Where did you read it was prominently displayed?
I looked up Gender Queer. I can't say if it belongs in a public library because I didn't read it. But it seemed like the explicit drawings were a small part and had a purpose. Graphic and pornographic are different.
But high schoolers are the most vulnerable to false gender dysphoria due to propaganda and peer pressure
Do you honestly believe that a person can read a book about a gay person and think “yeah, sounds good. I’m gay now”?
I have no doubt that low intelligence ignorant homophobes believe this. They might not be aware of scientific research that links gayness with genetics. What do you believe?
Admittedly I never heard of a man doing this. Men seem to know they're gay from the start and stick with it, unless they are forced into a hetero "lavender marriage" by social rules. This idea of experimentation seems limited to women. But given that it happens so often, the phenomenon can't be entirely genetic.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-021-021...
you are just ignorant of these side effects of grooming and are not aware of scientific research that links peer pressure and media pressure(grooming) with fake gender confusion among teens
Papers lays out facts about fake gender dysphoria that was not caused by patient actually being trans, and mainstream trend of grooming and allowing early gender therapy to kids is only multiplying these victim kids who undergo gender change and immediately regret it and have to reverse the gender reversal.
Nobody wants to talk about downsides of grooming and it is alarming to many parents, and canceling researchers who study subject does not help understand this phenomenon better.
I believe I am not alone, and there are millions of parents across the country that will fiercely fight against this erroneous practice.
You can call these parents however you want: homophobes or other names, but that does not change their mind and does not present valid arguments against their view.
Her publication list is 1 paper on ROGD, 1 correction, 1 defense of the methodology, and 1 paper not on ROGD.[1] So 1 paper on ROGD. The findings weren't replicable when researchers asked the patients and looked at clinical evidence instead of asking hostile parents.[2]
> Author got canceled in media because her research was based on patients and parents' feedback that was against media status-quo.
She was criticized for ridiculous methodology. And media reported the controversy.
> Papers lays out facts about fake gender dysphoria
She laid out parents' perceptions and treated them like facts. And even she didn't call the dysphoria fake.
[1] https://littmanresearch.com/publications/
[2] https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext
she not only included parents, but asked patients as well, and their opinion does carry some weight in my book.
there are commentaries in support of her continued research for sake of current and future patients https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Suppor...
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext
Even she didn't think 1 paper made a valid medical diagnosis and treatment guidelines.
The 1st letter didn't dispute the critique of her methods. It said the question was important and should be studied more.
The 2nd letter writer didn't understand the 2nd paper apparently. Littman predicted ROGD and childhood onset were 2 different groups. The distribution in the 2nd paper didn't look like 2 different groups. 80% of the parents in Littman's paper said their adolescents had 0 gender dysphoria criteria in childhood. But gender knowledge is 1 of the criteria. n = 173 isn't much smaller than n = 256. The paper didn't say what she said it said about anxiety. It speculated long standing gender dysphoria or social complications could lead to more anxiety. And her speculation about why recent awareness was associated with lower anxiety scores ignored it was everyone's 1st visit.
Unless in church.
It doesn’t help that the American Library Association gave it their Alex Award, recognizing books for children 12-18 year olds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Queer. That resulted in the book being placed in numerous middle and high school libraries.
We’re a country where a supermajority of Americans supports same sex marriage and legal protections for LGBT people: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/icymi-bidens-bostock-eo-r... (“According to polls analyzed by FiveThirtyEight, President Biden’s most popular executive order thus far was his order prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity earning 83% in support.”)
We are also a sex negative country, one where a decisive majority of people, especially parents, and a third of self-identified “liberals,” believe teenagers having sex is immoral. https://news.gallup.com/poll/235415/four-say-teen-sex-morall...
I don’t think folks realize the harm they’re doing by trying to yoke unpopular sex positivism to movements seeking rights for sexual minorities. It’s not just GOP yokels in Michigan. The book generated a firestorm in northern Virginia as well, which is full of upwardly mobile Hispanic and Asian immigrants.
Another book that is promoted to children that includes explicit discussion of sexuality, and that has been challenged by the parents you're talking about, is the Diary of Anne Frank.
I don't think "Gender Queer" belongs in school libraries. I do think the Diary of Anne Frank belongs in school libraries. Can you offer an argument that acknowledges that? I'm skeptical.
As to distinguishing the two, the issue is what message is conveyed to children from authority figures. In my view, parents have a legitimate interest in the party line from adults to children being “no teenage exploration of sexuality for anyone.” The diary of Anne Frank has historical value, and the sexual exploration is incidental. In Gender Queer, it’s quite central to the book.
I don’t think a library should be defunded over it, but I do think it’s counterproductive for folks to close ranks around defending it. It reminds parents that folks at the ALA probably don’t share their values when it comes to sexuality among “young adults,” and unnecessarily tethers an unpopular liberal position (sex positivity) to a popular one (acceptance of trans kids).
A problem with progressive advocacy in general is that progressives have a bunch of unpopular beliefs (about sexuality, American history, etc.), and at the organizational level, can’t help but inject those beliefs into their advocacy for popular positions (be kind to people).
Again: the library we're talking about here had the book originally shelved in an adult section, and later behind a desk available on request.
Some trees grow quickly and dominate the forest after 15 years. But they fall to the passing storm in favor of the oak which took more time to grow but at first didn't appear so large, but then lasts for hundreds of years.
You can’t have liberty for some without liberty for all. Either you believe in liberty and free speech, or you don’t.
lol this vendetta and ire went deep
I have no doubt that they believe a teenager could read a book and decide to be gay. Studies on genetics say otherwise, but these are not the kind of folks who might not be inclined towards understanding genetics.
It's actually not that clear. Like most traits, both genetics and environment play a role.
Also, you are straw-manning the "homophobic" position. Humans have self-control, and having a desire doesn't mean one should act on it.
Then after some time they realize they are NOT trans and were falsely led to gender-change surgery, and have to reverse gender reversal surgery
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-021-021...
these are unfortunate consequences to all the media grooming and brainwash happening in mainstream discourse re lgbtq
It seems we are in early days in the science of trans-prepubescents and trans-adolescents. Different from LGBQ, trans decisions are sometimes medical and hard to reverse. I am not surprised that parents in a less liberal community would be allergic to any risk of their children becoming trans.
Censorship is abhorrent, probably even to that community, but they are in the fog of culture war and go to battle with the pathetic weapons they have.
With the ease of gender change surgery, this term is even more needed than before imho.
And i feel like for an anglo country who worship Hamilton, this is weird to be against more information tbh.
non-binary (like the rest of 72 genders) is just a social construct, created fairly recently, it has no connection to biology of homo sapiens as biological species or any foundation in science. Only people's emotions/human feelings are the main basis for 72 genders that are now being told to kids left and right, together with ridiculous dose of hormone blockers
Non-binary is (or at least was) a tool to avoid have teenagers and young (or older) adults feeling at odds with their assigned gender at a point in their life to avoid identifying as trans. IT IS TO AVOID those "ridiculous" dose of hormone blockers.
Please just read the comment you are responding to. please. I know i'm not a native speaker and i moght have troubles to explain myself on non-teck subject, but it is quite clear that i am NOT TALKING AT ALL about what you're responding to.
You are correct, gender is a social construct, so is motherhood and fatherhood and so on, but that doesn't mean those things aren't real, don't mean anything, or impact our lives or aren't deeply and sincerely held identities.
But they do: consider lions as an example. Male lions will guard the pride's territory while lionesses hunt for food.
I can only recognize universal nature laws, because I cant fight physics, and recognize legal laws, because they are enforced.
But social constructs - it is not 100% clear to whom they are applicable and whether one can selectively reject certain social constructs.
If a woman can reject social construct that she must be housewife and take care of kids, then by the same logic anyone can selectively reject any trendy social constructs like having gender #69
Could you please go ahead and explain gay relationships in wild animals? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals). What's the matter, they're watching too much TV?
> Findings about detransition should be used to improve our understanding of gender dysphoria and to better inform the processes of evaluation, counseling, and informed consent for individuals who are contemplating transition.
Did your not read your own study?
This discourse is not helpful, please read the guidelines for commenting :>
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
>>Reasons for detransitioning were varied and included: .. 2) becoming more comfortable identifying as their natal sex (60.0%);
so 60 out of 100 patients who gender transitioned were NOT in fact transgenders and were falsely led towards gender transition surgery
>>The majority (55.0%) felt that they did not receive an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting transition
This matches the parents' pushback argument that gender transition is being prescribed and promoted left and right, which leads to medical mistakes
Given that detransitioners are already a small minority of trans people, who are themselves already a small minority of society, this feels less like splitting hairs and more like splitting atoms. I simply cannot fathom how this study is enough for you to be spamming it to everyone. This study isn't spicy anti-trans statistical data. It's data that suggests that evaluation for medical transition needs to be improved. Indeed, as already mentioned, that's the explicit goal of the study... and yet you're here pretending like it's some gotcha moment.
And a lot of these mistakes happen due to social pressure (including pressure from medical professionals who should know better, but didnt't because opposing research is being canceled).
>>Clinicians, partners, friends, and society were named as sources that applied pressure to transition, as seen in the following quotes: >> - My gender therapist acted like it [transition] was a panacea for everything; >> - [My] [d]octor pushed drugs and surgery at every visit >> - I was dating a trans woman and she framed our relationship in a way that was contingent on my being trans >> - A couple of later trans friends kept insisting that I needed to stop delaying things >> - [My] best friend told me repeatedly that it [transition] was best for me
I dont deny that there is selection bias in Mrs. Littmann's research. But if I am parent and have only one child, I really dont care about percentage chances, and I simply dont want to play in this dumb lottery of wrongly identifying GD only to reverse it later. If current medical understanding is wrong, something needs to be done to improve medical approach. and current mainstream consensus doesn't help at all
Unfortunately this slides into ideological/political subject and current polarization of society doesn't help at all. Left wingers want to show off as a big LGBTQ allies and supporters, and any even slightly opposing opinion gets canceled fiercely.
School teacher can counsel my kid regarding gender confusion and not tell me about it. This is wrong and violation of my parents rights.
It is kinda becomes emotional and hard subject to reason logically. I support when adult gets the treatment they needed, but at the same time when it comes to my kids (who can be easily manipulated by public opinion) I want to keep my child away from mainstream propaganda that may sway my kid towards wrong route. Until they become adults and are free to choose themselves.
And people said the exact same stuff, verbatim, about gay people. Section 28 for example was a law passed in the UK in 1988 that reads eerily similar to Florida’s dubbed Don’t Say Gay Bill. Section 28 was literally passed in reaction to a Danish book called "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin" where a young girl and her two dads do sordid things like having a birthday party and visiting the launderette. And British youngsters were immeasurably damaged by Section 28 and the effects remain even though it was repealed in 2004.
Similarly, there were protests a few years ago of conservative parents who were """"concerned"""" that their children were being taught graphic gay sex when, in reality, children were merely being taught that some families have two mums or two dads. A lot of the puritanical moralism comes from conservatives unconsciously (or not) spreading ideologically framed, ambiguous statements. It’s like how you took the concept of teenagers seeking out that book in the adult section with that book “be[ing] on display to kids.” You made it sound worse than it was, so people interpret it as worse than it was, so it becomes a moral panic.
This is why I think it is important to protect children from bad influence, especially when it comes from mainstream sources like library, books, media.
I dont want my kids to experiment with same sex sexuality, trans gender stuff, just because it is considered trendy, diverse, equal, inclusive, etc. especially if they will regret it will have poor mental health because of that
My son's coming up on 16 now and he had a short period of gender-confusion where he questioned his identity, but he came and talked to us about it and spent a couple of weeks experimenting with his gender expression. And I honestly couldn't care less where his gender-confusion came from, the fact that he knew he could share that with us, could confide in us, was one of the most beautiful moments I've experienced and something that reminds me how blessed I am to have him as a son. If he came home from school one day and said he's got a boyfriend but literally only because it's trendy, am I supposed to start thrashing him or something? No, we'd have a conversation which would mostly involve me asking him whether he's safe and happy. If yes, then it's his business not mine. Our duty as his parents is to safeguard his best interests, not dictate and micromanage his entire life and thoughts.
all paths probably result in simply defunding though, but there is more introspective potential from pointing out the holes in the arguments for banning books with "confusing" themes
The right obviously wasn't pleased about it. But the lawsuits were made, and the courts established the precedents.
And now I don't think the left is going to be happy when they're on the receiving end, and the same courts force them to take down the rainbow flags, remove all the Kendi books, cut out the BLM activism and pride curriculums.
Because at this point, there is little difference between traditional religions and the newer "woke" ones being pushed. They've both got their dogmas, moral codes, icons, rituals, systems of punishments for heretics, etc.
And even if you don’t care about morality, but just being the majority opinion - the majority tends to swing back and forth and there are a lot of people who constantly switch sides. When you make inflammatory actions like banning the bible, or proposing to ban viagra (as some democrat did more as a symbolic gesture for banning abortion), you’re actually pushing away undecided voters and giving fuel to the “radical leftists” theory a lot of right-wingers seem to think is the entire left.
----------
For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.
----------
The reason these tools are used by those who use them is because they exploit existing imbalances and biases -- attempting to use the same techniques angled disfavorably against that bias will not be effective.
Can anyone knowledgeably comment on the accuracy of this statement?