Remix.run Logo
like_any_other 2 hours ago

> "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books

Yes, many people are either unaware of, or willing participants in, this lie. That doesn't make it any less of a lie.

margalabargala an hour ago | parent [-]

It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate.

You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.

somenameforme an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm curious of your take on one thing. Many of the sexuality oriented books (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of) tend to, unsurprisingly, have sexual content which is often rather explicit. Some of these books even have explicit artwork within them. I'm sure you'd agree that if books had ratings then many/all of these books would R, if not NC17, rated.

And even in high schools screening R-rated movies is generally heavily restricted. Where it is allowed, it generally requires a permission slip from the parents. And that's not like showing gratuitous films, but ones with historically relevant and educational context like e.g. Schindler's List.

So why is it unreasonable for parents (or other interested parties) to be against having such material in a children's library? In many ways its quite odd that a rating system was never adopted for books. And for one other question, do you even see a difference between these sort of books being restricted from schools, and other books whose content would be generally be rated appropriate for children, being banned on political/ideological basis? Because to me the difference is not only tremendous but the defining issue here.

margalabargala 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

> (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of

"My" list? I don't have a list. If you're talking about OP's list, I disagree with that. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are not sexual books. From what I know of many of the other more recent books people have tried to ban, I absolutely would not agree the ratings would be R/NC17 for those either. Here's a list of PG13 (And PG!) movies with nudity. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls548607223/

I agree that 7 year olds should not be shown sexual content. There exists content with sexual themes which are appropriate for teenagers.

Also, the comment you replied to is downthread in an argument over whether it's a "lie" to call books that someone banned, a banned book.

shwaj 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Formerly banned books" would be more accurate.

We no longer say that "cannabis is illegal in California"; that would be factually incorrect. Instead we say, "cannabis was formerly illegal". In standard usage of English, the same pattern applies to banned vs formerly banned books.

Edit: wording

like_any_other an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's not a lie.

It deliberately conveys an impression that is opposite of the truth. But feel free to continue to split hairs and twist words to argue that technically you're not actually lying.

margalabargala an hour ago | parent [-]

> deliberately conveys

Just because you decided to interpret something one way, doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice by the other party, nor does it mean your interpretation is common.

> technically you're not actually lying.

What did I say that you consider a lie? Could you quote me?