Comment by sapphicsnail | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sapphicsnail | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> There are very few books of lasting value in any part of the library. Nothing of serious or intellectual interest.

I've noticed this at my library as well. I was shocked that there wasn't a copy of Spinoza's Ethics which seems kinda basic. That being said, I think people underestimate how much garbage each generation produces. Past generations have done the work of curating the good stuff of their time for us.

> And were I to give a factual description of the childrens and teens sections, I would get banned by dang.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about but I'm going to take a leap and assume you're complaining about the presence of LQBTQ books in the library. I've noticed this trend where conservatives think that any book with queer characters is sexual by definition. People get upset by children's books with 2 dads that are just like any other book and it's honestly tiring. Queer people exist and have normal, boring lives and there's nothing inherently sexual or pornagraphic about that.

Let's not jump to the gun here. It could be as well that there's nothing there, or so on. And being accused of something you didn't is something I think we'd all want to not deal with.

That being said, I do also very much hope it's not what you say because I've been noticing that trend too :(

In a world with so many different opinions, where you know neither my nation or city or native language, it's odd that you would immediately jump to this. After all, my library could be run by Scientologists attempting to propagandize children, or Soviet-era revanchist apologists, or so on. Regardless of what material it is, yes, anyone who propagandizes children really is "dangerous", and not in the fake patronizing way that the the author of the article means it either.

> After all, my library could be run by Scientologists attempting to propagandize children, or Soviet-era

I admitted it was a leap and you're absolutely free to clarify what you meant instead of pointing out some ridiculous edge cases without explaining yourself.

> Regardless of what material it is, yes, anyone who propagandizes children really is "dangerous", and not in the fake patronizing way that the the author of the article means it either.

I don't see how having books with queer characters is propaganda but having books with straight characters isn't. I'm queer and I don't go around insisting that people ban Christian books from the children's section even though I think those values aren't great.

But why did you make that particular leap with your utterly baseless accusation? And why are you saying that anyone else propagandizing children would be "ridiculous edge cases"? I urge you to work out your priors.

Why would you assume lgbt materials are synonymous with breaking the rules of this site? It’s obvious they don’t, and realistically the website has rather sparse rules, so what could both break the site and be considered integral to your movement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com