Should public libraries carry stuff like this?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Should public libraries carry stuff like this?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#3104972 17-Jul-2023 11:01

When it comes to banning books both the left and the right are just as guilty as each other. Plenty of examples from both sides.

Kookoo

787 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3104991 17-Jul-2023 11:48

No, they shouldn't. People tend to politicize this stuff right away, but it's not a question of politics, it's a question of quality and importance.

I'm assuming the libraries have limited budget, so they should be spending it wisely. There's a wealth of right-wing and left-wing thinkers who wrote well-researched, well-presented arguments that contribute to the public discourse. You may not agree with their views, but you can't deny the overall quality of output. Alternatively, you can consider the impact a specific book had on the course of history, irrespective of its qualities. "Atlas Shrugged" is nonsensical in almost every aspect, but it had undeniable impact on modern politics, especially in the US, so there is merit in carrying it. Same can be said for "The Communist Manifesto".

Alex Jones' conspiracy theories belong to none of the above categories, so they should have no place in public libraries.

Hello, Ground!

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#3105041 17-Jul-2023 13:09

Kookoo:
No, they shouldn't. People tend to politicize this stuff right away, but it's not a question of politics, it's a question of quality and importance.

I'm assuming the libraries have limited budget, so they should be spending it wisely. There's a wealth of right-wing and left-wing thinkers who wrote well-researched, well-presented arguments that contribute to the public discourse. You may not agree with their views, but you can't deny the overall quality of output. Alternatively, you can consider the impact a specific book had on the course of history, irrespective of its qualities. "Atlas Shrugged" is nonsensical in almost every aspect, but it had undeniable impact on modern politics, especially in the US, so there is merit in carrying it. Same can be said for "The Communist Manifesto".

Alex Jones' conspiracy theories belong to none of the above categories, so they should have no place in public libraries.

Do you agree with censoring the internet too? Those books will be available online.

Edit: just checked. It’s available on kindle too.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3105047 17-Jul-2023 13:26

Toxic ideas, just like toxic cigarettes, should come with a warning label but they should not be banned. Maybe there should be a special section labelled 'Unwholesome'. Libraries are a public service and they should reflect society but there is no need for them to promote published stupidity. In any case, I hope any fees and royalties accruing from the Jones sewage go towards the billions owed the families he defamed and put through hell. He should not be allowed to eat anything other than bread and water until the debt is paid in full!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3105051 17-Jul-2023 13:30

freitasm:
Citation needed.

Here's a citation. It shows the opposite of what the OP claimed, but it is a citation:

While activists across the political spectrum have sought to restrict or protest some forms of literature, the vast majority of book challenges are from conservative-leaning groups, researchers say. Only a handful of efforts have also come from liberal sources, mainly targeting books with racist or offensive language.

I chose ABC News for the source because they're quite bland with no axe to grind either way, and because they do decent fact-checking on their reporting (see the sources they cite for the story).

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#3105052 17-Jul-2023 13:31

freitasm:

Citation needed. Rewriting Roald Dahl's books was the estate decision. They could just say no.

So please give substance to your claims about the left banning books.

I specifically mentioned the religious right are quite bad for trying to ban books. I'm not arguing with that. And, it is also wrong.

But , by omission you seem to blame book banning on conservatives . My observation is that woke liberal's are mainly at fault.

You say the Dahl family are behind the rewriting of Roald Dahl ... So what? The books were still rewritten because they breach some kind of ridiculous newly invented rules, these rules are certainly not conservative values . . .

"Puffin Books worked with a consulting group called Inclusive Minds to make changes to Dahl's books, published mostly from the 1960s to 1990."

They removed gender terms, references to 'fat', and removed the idea of mothers and fathers. "

eg, they deny the existence of two sexes, and can't use words that might injure feelings.

It's really easy to find information and examples of woke cancel culture...it is not just books, the same cultural movement is behind trying to cancel historical figures such as Winston Churchill. It takes all of 10 seconds to come up with a few links...

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/uk-news/books-hit-woke-content-warnings-27704578

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9263735/Woke-teachers-cut-Shakespeare-work-white-supremacy-colonization.html

https://nypost.com/2021/02/16/shakespeare-ditched-by-woke-teachers-over-misogyny-racism/

https://theboar.org/2023/03/the-rewriting-of-roald-dahl-is-terrifying-for-literature/#:~:text=The%20publisher%20Puffin%20and%20the,Dahl%20to%20add%20more%20context.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/opinions/churchill-racist-great-white-men-view-toye-opinion/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230530-roald-dahl-the-fierce-debate-over-rewriting-childrens-classics

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/woke-book-burners-should-wake-up-to-themselves-20230223-p5cn0j.html

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3105062 17-Jul-2023 14:37

Reading through the "Shakespeare ditched by woke teachers" link you posted. If anyone goes past the headline you will find

Liz Matthews, a ninth grade English teacher at Hartford Public High School in Connecticut, where the student body is 95 per cent black or Hispanic, said she had replaced Shakespeare with authors who wrote about people like her students.

'I replaced Romeo and Juliet with The House On Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros last year, and Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds this year,' she said.

Mango Street was published in 1984; Long Way Down was published in 2017. Romeo and Juliet was first published in 1597.

'Simply put the authors and characters of the two new books look and sound like my students, and they can make realistic connections,' Matthews said. 'Representation matters.'

This is not "banning". It's making education a subject that's closer to the students.

I think most of the links show something different if one reads past the headlines.

Also, the fact you used the word "woke" as an adjective for liberals. Woke is just that kind of word thrown around by anyone who wants to demonise current events without going into the substance.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#3105090 17-Jul-2023 15:25

freitasm:

Reading through the "Shakespeare ditched by woke teachers" link you posted. If anyone goes past the headline you will find

Liz Matthews, a ninth grade English teacher at Hartford Public High School in Connecticut, where the student body is 95 per cent black or Hispanic, said she had replaced Shakespeare with authors who wrote about people like her students.

'I replaced Romeo and Juliet with The House On Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros last year, and Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds this year,' she said.

Mango Street was published in 1984; Long Way Down was published in 2017. Romeo and Juliet was first published in 1597.

'Simply put the authors and characters of the two new books look and sound like my students, and they can make realistic connections,' Matthews said. 'Representation matters.'

This is not "banning". It's making education a subject that's closer to the students.

I think most of the links show something different if one reads past the headlines.

Also, the fact you used the word "woke" as an adjective for liberals. Woke is just that kind of word thrown around by anyone who wants to demonise current events without going into the substance.

I'll agree to disagree. This is getting too much into politics.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3105105 17-Jul-2023 15:26

Book censoring is politics.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#3105107 17-Jul-2023 15:31

freitasm:

Book censoring is politics.

Haha, yes, this would easily slot into the politics thread.

johno1234

2793 posts

Uber Geek

#3105108 17-Jul-2023 15:35

Rikkitic:

Toxic ideas, just like toxic cigarettes, should come with a warning label but they should not be banned. Maybe there should be a special section labelled 'Unwholesome'. Libraries are a public service and they should reflect society but there is no need for them to promote published stupidity. In any case, I hope any fees and royalties accruing from the Jones sewage go towards the billions owed the families he defamed and put through hell. He should not be allowed to eat anything other than bread and water until the debt is paid in full!

This relies on someone (let's call him a censor for this discussion) determining what is a toxic idea and what is not and that is the nub of the problem. One person's toxic is another person's drivel. Who should this person be? Why are they better than you to determine what you should read? What if that person's idea of toxic is different. Say you consider this Alex Jones material (never heard of him until now) to be toxic yet this censor determines it is just drivel, do you accept this? Why? What if the censor determines that say the Green Party Aotearoa manifesto is toxic. Are you going to just accept that because he says so? Or do you accept it when you agree with the censor and not accept it when you disagree with him? Rules and laws need to be universal, consistent and precise or they are just ineffectual words.

There has to be a very high bar to censorship. Being "toxic" is too imprecise.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3105114 17-Jul-2023 15:49

johno1234:

There has to be a very high bar to censorship. Being "toxic" is too imprecise.

This argument has gone on for years in reference to art vs pornography. The principle is the same.

It is quite possible to achieve a consensus opinion without a precise definition. A large majority of any random collection of people can agree that something is or is not offensive without really being able to explain why. Likewise, a jury of one's peers can agree that Jones fails even the most rudimentary sniff test. So don't ban him or string him up (tempting as that might be) but do put his spewings in the section marked 'unwholesome'. It is a good common sense solution.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Kookoo

787 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3105119 17-Jul-2023 16:36

Wombat1:

Do you agree with censoring the internet too? Those books will be available online.

Edit: just checked. It’s available on kindle too.

The essence of the question is - should public libraries curate the books they buy, and if they should - what criteria should they use.

This isn't censorship, this is wise use of public money. You are free to go and buy any book you like, print or digital.

Hello, Ground!

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#3105120 17-Jul-2023 16:43

Kookoo:

This isn't censorship, this is wise use of public money. You are free to go and buy any book you like, print or digital.

Say I am a university student and am doing a thesis on Alex Jones... I should be able to go to the library to get his book. Besides, the guy is a saint compared to some other autobiographies etc you will find at a library. If you ban his book, where do you stop?

Kookoo

787 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3105121 17-Jul-2023 16:45

freitasm:

Book censoring is politics.

That's a really meaningless statement. Censorship is a question of ethics, philosophy, pedagogy, sociology and psychology, religion, and yes - politics. But the key point is - excluding a book from a library on a basis of objective criteria is not censorship. Censorship is when you say "I don't like the idea, so I'm not including the book." or - "I don't like these words or phrases, so I'm going to have them erased or replaced."

Saying "This non-fiction book fails the test of quality or historical significance and I therefore won't spend any public money on it" isn't censorship - it's quality control.

Hello, Ground!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4