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.