[delayed]

Excellent riposte!

(I’m already responding more thoughtfully in other areas of this thread, so won’t regurgitate the same points here)

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

that's just a kid, unsupervised where are the parents in your scenario anyways that's how I learned to fly, without the chains people like you want to throw on the rest of us stay down there in the muck and grime

This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, but you also correctly guessed that I think TikTok is bad.

But I don't relate to any of the reasons you listed. I think TikTok is bad for two reasons:

1. It is controlled by the government of China, and I don't trust them to avoid influencing Americans with propaganda.

2. It is bad in the same ways as all other social media.

The worse part of tiktok, like much of the web, is that it clips up your attention span into such tiny chunks that the consumer can NEVER feel the joy of thinking or talking. You can never voyage into someone else's mind deep enough to bee truly terrified or blown away, never see how they are fundamentally different from you nor why. All other complaints are a mere distraction by comparison.

The real question is, what is it that you're so afraid of with gender/sexuality that you think it makes sense to show some expressions of it but not others? Sexual norms change regardless of what is officially considered normative and regardless of what is repressed, so you must know you're fighting a losing battle. So who or what is it exactly that you're fighting for? I think it has more to do with yourself than with children.

They may be ready that's why they are looking but you might not be.

What is it about “sexual subcultures” that are inherently dangerous as opposed to the main culture that is inherently safe.

Is a book character being gay unsafe for kids in a way that the same character being straight is not?

Being compelled to pay attention to violent struggles doesn't sound to me like a particularly good thing. Nothing wrong with empathizing, donating, doing what you can for the causes you happen to hear about. But in my experience, people who are incapable of ever tuning out violence inevitably fall down radicalization spirals about it. There's just nothing I can meaningfully say or do about most of the violence in the world.

Yeah, it's my view that people don't truly understand how fragile life is unless they've seen how easily it is shattered.

People would get in less street fights and do less dumb shit if they knew what the world was like. The cartels are not your friend, falling and hitting your head can kill you, wearing a seatbelt is mandatory, there are no winners in armed conflict, factory farming is not ethical, etc.

People that say these things, but they don't truly understand them until they see it.

(for the record it's all inconsequential pedantry and in good cheer :) thanks for being a good sport)

I wouldn't put these in the same category. The inversion of "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less" or "unloose" meaning "loose" are similar.

But "near miss" is more a parsing ambiguity, if not a mere disagreement about grammar. People who think it is illogical seem to assume it is "nearly missing". But in actual usage it is more that "near miss" is like a "narrow miss" and a "far miss" is like a "wide miss", all encoding distance to the implied target/hit zone.

I did use literally correctly.

And I can't agree with you. As a non native speaker, I deeply appreciate people making an effort to use language correctly to transmit information. I call that being mindfull of your interlocutors.

In a way there’s nothing wrong with ”near miss”. It’s a miss not far from the target. Still a miss.

George Carlin had a bit about “near miss” and other illogical phrasings.

> I still think the most important thing we can do is empower children to be as smart and well-rounded as they can be

I agree. If we were actually gifted kids they should have given us real challenges with a chance of failure or discovery. Instead they just told us how smart we were and taught to emulate the appearance of intelligent people. Memorizing passages, quotes, checking out prestigious books. It’s to such a degree that much of millennial culture is references and tokens of intellectual landmarks from the 20th century - with no accomplishments for itself.

I did NOT experience this level of abuse or control but I did go to a religious school - not a weird one but you know they beat children just as much or more as the other schools there did and all that talk about the kindness of Jesus seemed to mean very little to them. Information was not controlled there, however, so one eventually did get to make one's own mind up.

I can see how you had a struggle to emerge and overcome a form of control. I can understand it because I had a similar, though much smaller, struggle.

Half of all people are above average.

(Or maybe a third of all people if you count it as a range rather than a point.)

What did it do for you?

Yeah that blows my mind. Of all places I'd not expect a cartoon to be. There are so many books kids could read. I don't see how a librarian can view a screen as anything they'd allow in their building.

My kids daycare added a TV. The "teachers" said it was allowed by law. I said sure and pulled them out. Sucked because they'd just replaced most of the staff and the new staff was pro-tv while the old staff had never once turned on a TV.

It's not a difficult read. It's the historical context that's hard to get. The major political players of a century ago are mostly gone now.

In the early 20th century, there were still a lot of kings, emperors, and princes hanging onto power. The era of monarchy was on the way out, but it wasn't over yet. WWI started after an archduke was killed by an inept but lucky assassin. The ancient noble families still mattered.

The Marxists were quite active. They were the anti-monarchists. Today, Marxists are nearly extinct. There are still some Communist states around, but no Marxist mass movements.

The Catholic Church was still a major political power. That's gone.

Hitler was a competent craftsman and had done construction work. This was an era which required a huge number of people doing manual labor in big groups to get things done. That's when unions arise, by the way. "Working class" was very real, and that's where Hitler started. The term "macho" wasn't available yet, so he wrote: "In times when not the mind but the fist decides, the purely intellectual emphasis of our education in the upper classes makes them incapable of defending themselves, let alone enforcing their will. Not infrequently the first reason for personal cowardice lies in physical weaknesses."

There's a long rant about Jews, which seems to come from clerk jobs in the WWI German army being dominated by Jews, described as physically weak and overly intellectual. Today, that might be a rant about AI. There's a similar grumble about parliamentarians, elected legislators and their staffs, who talk too much and don't exercise enough. The ideal is a muscular, disciplined society run by strong working people. He writes approvingly of how the US exercises quality control on immigrants, rejecting the sick and weak ones.

Now, this is where a librarian can help. Someone reading this needs background reading on Europe from 1900 to 1925. Searching with Google for "The World in 1900" turns up a terrible essay on Medium that looks like LLM-generated clickbait. A good librarian will offer better choices.

Kids who get all that background will question the way things are today, of course. Which scares some people.

> doubt it's true

Do you always immediately disregard what people say in favor of your own beliefs?

> obviously inappropriate just at a difficulty level

I had a collegiate reading level in first grade... I taught myself to read at age 3 in order to escape my situation. I should not have to suffer because other people did not invest the same amount of time and energy into their literacy.

> What's the best case for giving k-5 Mein Kampf?

I learned about Hitler and why he was a massive piece of shit, but also formed my viewpoint while considering all available information and opinions, instead of just internalizing what other people told me.

> the state should subvert the primacy of the nuclear family and the parent/child relationship

No, the State needs to get the fuck out of my business. That's the point.

> would you want a hypothetical extremist Catholic state to be able to subvert your relationship with your own (hypothetical) children?

See the above. Providing protections for open access to information is translatable across both situations you've described. Access is access. Censorship is censorship.

This isn't about the "nuclear family". It's about me, an individual, and my inalienable rights for self-determination, regardless of what others around me want.

Make no mistake, I am not using my anecdotal experience as the basis for my beliefs. I am using it as supplementary evidence for why this is all so important. My heart goes out to every child who has been or is currently in the situation I faced growing up. I don't want them to be like me, holding a gun in their mouth with the finger on the trigger at the ripe age of 9, wishing to escape a seemingly unending violent war for control of my thoughts. The represented majority will never understand the struggle of the unrepresented minority.

Under Rawls' Veil of Ignorance I actually want the state to protect me as a child born into a random family that could happen to be abusive.

here is an example https://youtu.be/G0XWn6S1_iA

Inside the United States.

Wikipedia has a complete collection of titles that have been banned.

https://pen.org/book-bans/pen-america-index-of-school-book-b...

> I thought it was clear that the point is that "banned book week" is not about exposing people to fringe materials. It's about exposing people to the things that the librarian/teacher approve of but the community doesn't/didn't agree.

Yes, but that was already a given, and is the entire topic of this thread. Librarians in many cases became involved in the struggle for access to information even if "the community" didn't agree. I was raised in an extremely backwards, religiously zealous, racist, totalitarian-supporting Deep South state and never once have I thought, "I better do what the community thinks".

> The real banned books are the ones that don't even show up at a sanctioned "banned book week." That list of books is long.

Pat yourself on the back, you've discovered that librarians have to make compromises in order to continually push the envelope and not undo all of the progress that has been made. This is called politics.

This was simply not the case at my middle school, and since my aunt was the librarian, I had a lot of insight into the administrative war going on behind the scenes. She was constantly being denied books that she wanted to introduce into our library.

The tone was set by the parents and administration, which comes from a heavy Christian brand of authoritarianism which has had the Deep South in a vice grip since the beginning.

The librarians did the best they could under the circumstances, and the only way we can consider them censors is if we overgeneralize and oversimplify the situation to the point where words start to lose their semantic value and anything can be anything else if you squint hard enough.

Providing a wide range of books based on pedagogical goals and training in library sciences or education is quite a bit different than showing up at a school board meeting to get a book removed because you read a one page excerpt that involved something in the valence of sex.

And it's a bullshit argument meant to invalidate people working against authoritarian measures. If everything (even selecting/recommending books for others to read is censorship than the term becomes meaningless, which I guess is the intent of the argument).

Enemy troops?

Tolerance of censorship?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the Dalton translation. Reading excerpts is borderline useless because so much builds upon earlier chapters.

Yeah, reading the whole thing is a bit excessive.

>> As far as I know, it's never been banned in the US

The question is not if it is banned.

The question is if it is general circulation in public libraries.

This is motte and bailey. If a school library decides not to include a book in their library, that's curation, if it is a book you don't like. If it is a book you do like, it is censorship.

If you walk into your public library and browse the shelves, is the Anarchist Cookbook there? Mein Kampf? If they're not, does that mean they are banned?

I go to my public library quite often, and the books I am interested in are most often not on the shelves there, and the books that are on the shelves there have a political slant towards a politics that I detest. Librarians are in fact dangerous.

Now, that doesn't mean the books I want to read are banned, I have to put a hold on them from the stacks at central and they will ship them over, but they will never be on display at my local library.

They're not banned. But the books on display at my local branch library are curated by dangerous librarians I want nothing to do with.

The Anarchist Cookbook is a great example. I had to acquire that from the internet.

The people responding here mainly just come across as either ignorant or intentionally obtuse, thinking that if they can prove that in some cases the school administration overruled our teachers and librarians on the most egregious texts (as they constantly did), then the entire idea of "banned book week" is performative and not useful

No one here seems to have actually made a real point, just looking for "gotchas".

> It's just a well-known example of a book that most people would agree to restrict.

That's just completely wrong. In America it's a book most libraries would keep around as a visible indicator that they're not censoring books, and a book the letter-writing busybodies who want to censor books would not prioritize because there's no sex in it.

> It's just a well-known example of a book that most people would agree to restrict.

I don't think most reasonable people would agree to restrict such an impactful piece of history. It's shocking to me that people think something they disagree with should be entirely censored.

Mein Kampf has been available at every school I've been at. It's not part of the curriculum but why would it be? Libraries usually have it because they have robust collections on authoritarianism for obvious reasons.

The Anarchist Cookbook not so much. But neither are terrorist training manuals or other guides for making improvised weapons.

Yes, most interlibrary loans are via OhioLINK. I generally can’t get anything that’s valued over $1,000, which is… basically a great deal of out of print books.

Oh wow, I didn’t know about that one. His Shakespeare and Bible books are tons of fun, I’ll have to track that down.