Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    No, but they have their own love of banning books
    Yup. Extremists on both sides exhibit the same behaviours.

    The article about banning the Bible and the Diary of Anne Frank makes that fairly clear. It seems that the libraries in question are yielding to demands from both sides of the aisle. Maybe they'll go all the way and simply close.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It wasn't the left that wanted the removal of the Diary of Anne Frank from the Fort Worth school libraries.
    No, but they have their own love of banning books

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    We should just have a banned book library where we put all the books everyone wants to ban. That way they are not in the regular library but people can go there to read them if they want.

























    ...then we can watch who does and know who to cancel


    Stop giving them ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    We should just have a banned book library where we put all the books everyone wants to ban. That way they are not in the regular library but people can go there to read them if they want.

























    ...then we can watch who does and know who to cancel



    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Do they have any idea who is in charge of public libraries? Those librarians are government employees.
    That was more general defense about their various censorship policies. But they have ton's of defenses.

    Remember when the Alamo drafthouse broke discrimination law for wonder woman? They had "women's only" showings, and were going to only have women working that night. There were ton's of people defending that.

    Look at Stoic defending discrimination in minneapolis schools for teacher firings.

    There's always a rationalization that makes their use of tactics deemed bad on their face, to not be bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    There's always some sort of doublespeak involved to justify their tactics.

    It's not cancel culture, it's "consequence" culture.
    It's not censorship, it's enforcing the terms of service.
    They aren't the government, they are free to choose what they want on their platform.
    Do they have any idea who is in charge of public libraries? Those librarians are government employees.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    It wasn't the left that wanted the removal of the Diary of Anne Frank from the Fort Worth school libraries.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It’s not censorship. It’s responsible collection curation.

    It’s not censorship. It’s being accountable to your community, which is comprised of people from a myriad of backgrounds.

    It’s not censorship. It’s accountability.

    Who are they trying to convince? Those reading this drek, or themselves?

    Keep clicking those heels together as you say it and maybe, just maybe you can make it true.
    There's always some sort of doublespeak involved to justify their tactics.

    It's not cancel culture, it's "consequence" culture.
    It's not censorship, it's enforcing the terms of service.
    They aren't the government, they are free to choose what they want on their platform.
    Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 08-18-2022, 06:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    Source: https://bookriot.com/weeding-racist-books-at-libraries/


    WEED THE RACIST BOOKS, LIBRARIES

    The National Coalition Against Censorship is disturbed by the recent decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises to cease publication of six children’s books by Dr. Seuss because of their implicit racism.

    Our society is in the midst of a broad conversation about the racism embedded in many of our cultural touchstones. We need to acknowledge that many of the books that are part of America’s literary heritage express attitudes about race that may offend people. Almost all authors are influenced by the prejudices of their times. Dr. Seuss is no exception.

    However, we must draw a line between criticizing texts and purging them. If we remove every book that is offensive to someone, there will be very little left on the shelf.

    NCAC supports and celebrates efforts to diversify library holdings, expand the stories told through school curricula and encourage underrepresented voices to be heard. While we cannot ignore the insidious effect of allowing children to uncritically encounter embedded racism in the books they read, we should not expunge those books from the culture as a whole. It is important to preserve our literary heritage even when it reflects attitudes that are no longer tolerated as they once were.

    If nothing else, books like those that have been dropped by Dr. Seuss Enterprises show us how important it is to read critically and temper our admiration for beloved authors with the knowledge that they are often flawed human beings.


    Statements like this only further muddy the waters of the mission and goals of public libraries and what their responsibility is relating to books like these. NCAC believes in preserving books that even the organization dedicated to upholding a beloved author’s legacy has deemed racist is necessary. In doing so, they fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of libraries as well.

    So what does a library do?

    The good news is, there’s a simple solution.

    One of the responsibilities of public libraries is to maintain a collection development policy, which outlines the kinds of materials purchased with the budget, as well as the decision making that goes into removing books from a collection. One of the techniques most commonly used by libraries in the US is the CREW method. This freely-available manual was created by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission and is updated when appropriate. The latest edition, for example, includes guidelines for where and how to update ebooks.

    The CREW method was developed in 1976 with the goal of helping small and mid-sized libraries which have limited staff and budget to keep their collections as relevant as possible. It’s since grown in usefulness, and it’s a standard tool even among larger libraries. As it states in the introduction, “CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries attempts to describe clearly, practically, and in a step-by-step fashion a now tried-and-true method of carrying out the five processes of ‘reverse selection:’ inventory, collection evaluation, collection maintenance, weeding, and discarding.”

    MUSTIE is the quick and dirty acronym used with the CREW method for determining material needing to be evaluated in libraries: Misleading/factually incorrect material/poor content; Ugly/worn beyond repair; Superceded/there’s a new edition or a better book on the topic; Trivial/of no discernible literary, scientific, or cultural merit; Irrelevant to the needs or interests of the library community (this in particular explains why some books are readily available in one library but may not be in a library in another community); and finally, Elsewhere/the material is easy to obtain from another library for those seeking it out.

    It’s under the very first criteria — Misleading/factually incorrect material/poor content — where the CREW method explicitly states racist material is something to weed.

    Racist material is poor content, and in the case of these six Dr. Seuss books, the parent company’s decision to cease reprints due to their racist illustrations gives libraries any and all necessary proof of why the books need to be weeded.

    No, this doesn’t mean pulling Green Eggs and Ham nor The Cat in the Hat, both books which have long circulation histories, as well as remain perennial favorites in many communities.

    What it does mean is that And To Think I Saw it On Mulberry Street, If I Ran The Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer are ready to be decommissioned. Libraries which still have those titles among their holdings likely weren’t seeing much circulation of them prior to March 2, and with clear and direct admission of what’s inside those books from the organization responsible for publishing them, there’s no excuse to keep them around.

    It’s not censorship. It’s responsible collection curation.

    It’s not censorship. It’s being accountable to your community, which is comprised of people from a myriad of backgrounds.

    It’s not censorship. It’s accountability.

    Libraries are in a unique position here to be leaders, rather than followers by adhering to their own guidelines when it comes to what’s held within their stacks. Organizations like NCAC have it wrong — and they’ll continue to have it wrong as long as they fail to understand the purpose of the library, as well as when they have the book business as their priority. Their statement isn’t about helping readers or preserving literary heritage. It’s about the bottom line when it comes to making a buck.

    And libraries don’t have that as their central mission. They have serving their communities at the forefront, and to be leaders in doing just that, those six books need to be discarded.

    © Copyright Original Source

    It’s not censorship. It’s responsible collection curation.

    It’s not censorship. It’s being accountable to your community, which is comprised of people from a myriad of backgrounds.

    It’s not censorship. It’s accountability.

    Who are they trying to convince? Those reading this drek, or themselves?

    Keep clicking those heels together as you say it and maybe, just maybe you can make it true.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Which remark rather neatly brings this thread full circle and back to the image in the OP.


    Source: https://bookriot.com/weeding-racist-books-at-libraries/


    WEED THE RACIST BOOKS, LIBRARIES

    The National Coalition Against Censorship is disturbed by the recent decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises to cease publication of six children’s books by Dr. Seuss because of their implicit racism.

    Our society is in the midst of a broad conversation about the racism embedded in many of our cultural touchstones. We need to acknowledge that many of the books that are part of America’s literary heritage express attitudes about race that may offend people. Almost all authors are influenced by the prejudices of their times. Dr. Seuss is no exception.

    However, we must draw a line between criticizing texts and purging them. If we remove every book that is offensive to someone, there will be very little left on the shelf.

    NCAC supports and celebrates efforts to diversify library holdings, expand the stories told through school curricula and encourage underrepresented voices to be heard. While we cannot ignore the insidious effect of allowing children to uncritically encounter embedded racism in the books they read, we should not expunge those books from the culture as a whole. It is important to preserve our literary heritage even when it reflects attitudes that are no longer tolerated as they once were.

    If nothing else, books like those that have been dropped by Dr. Seuss Enterprises show us how important it is to read critically and temper our admiration for beloved authors with the knowledge that they are often flawed human beings.


    Statements like this only further muddy the waters of the mission and goals of public libraries and what their responsibility is relating to books like these. NCAC believes in preserving books that even the organization dedicated to upholding a beloved author’s legacy has deemed racist is necessary. In doing so, they fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of libraries as well.

    So what does a library do?

    The good news is, there’s a simple solution.

    One of the responsibilities of public libraries is to maintain a collection development policy, which outlines the kinds of materials purchased with the budget, as well as the decision making that goes into removing books from a collection. One of the techniques most commonly used by libraries in the US is the CREW method. This freely-available manual was created by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission and is updated when appropriate. The latest edition, for example, includes guidelines for where and how to update ebooks.

    The CREW method was developed in 1976 with the goal of helping small and mid-sized libraries which have limited staff and budget to keep their collections as relevant as possible. It’s since grown in usefulness, and it’s a standard tool even among larger libraries. As it states in the introduction, “CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries attempts to describe clearly, practically, and in a step-by-step fashion a now tried-and-true method of carrying out the five processes of ‘reverse selection:’ inventory, collection evaluation, collection maintenance, weeding, and discarding.”

    MUSTIE is the quick and dirty acronym used with the CREW method for determining material needing to be evaluated in libraries: Misleading/factually incorrect material/poor content; Ugly/worn beyond repair; Superceded/there’s a new edition or a better book on the topic; Trivial/of no discernible literary, scientific, or cultural merit; Irrelevant to the needs or interests of the library community (this in particular explains why some books are readily available in one library but may not be in a library in another community); and finally, Elsewhere/the material is easy to obtain from another library for those seeking it out.

    It’s under the very first criteria — Misleading/factually incorrect material/poor content — where the CREW method explicitly states racist material is something to weed.

    Racist material is poor content, and in the case of these six Dr. Seuss books, the parent company’s decision to cease reprints due to their racist illustrations gives libraries any and all necessary proof of why the books need to be weeded.

    No, this doesn’t mean pulling Green Eggs and Ham nor The Cat in the Hat, both books which have long circulation histories, as well as remain perennial favorites in many communities.

    What it does mean is that And To Think I Saw it On Mulberry Street, If I Ran The Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer are ready to be decommissioned. Libraries which still have those titles among their holdings likely weren’t seeing much circulation of them prior to March 2, and with clear and direct admission of what’s inside those books from the organization responsible for publishing them, there’s no excuse to keep them around.

    It’s not censorship. It’s responsible collection curation.

    It’s not censorship. It’s being accountable to your community, which is comprised of people from a myriad of backgrounds.

    It’s not censorship. It’s accountability.

    Libraries are in a unique position here to be leaders, rather than followers by adhering to their own guidelines when it comes to what’s held within their stacks. Organizations like NCAC have it wrong — and they’ll continue to have it wrong as long as they fail to understand the purpose of the library, as well as when they have the book business as their priority. Their statement isn’t about helping readers or preserving literary heritage. It’s about the bottom line when it comes to making a buck.

    And libraries don’t have that as their central mission. They have serving their communities at the forefront, and to be leaders in doing just that, those six books need to be discarded.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The article also refers to Heinrich Heine's "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people."
    Which remark rather neatly brings this thread full circle and back to the image in the OP.



    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Noting with interest that Rushdie gets a mention in an article about the Diary of Anne Frank getting caught up in the push to remove unsavoury books from schools in Fort Worth (along with the Bible). The article also refers to Heinrich Heine's "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people."

    Maybe a little common sense should be exercised in deciding which books should be subjected to censorship.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Ah - wasn't aware of that.
    More importantly, if you know where the post is, it's trivial to quote it, so the post # thing really just comes across as making someone jump through additional hoops for no good reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That's it, and to:



    Huh. So maybe it fixed itself whenever the last update happened.

    EDIT: Yep, the thread I was talking about was back in January, where I did the exact same post link action and Cowpoke kept getting redirected to just a page and not the direct post, and I was quite sure he was having me on:
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    Already literally linked it to you, AT YOUR REQUEST, and you replied to the post with the link and completely ignored it. You're quite clearly at this point not an honest actor, and have no desire to actually read the answer to the question you asked.
    Going back, just tried that link that I gave in that thread that wasn't redirecting cowpoke correctly, looks like it is working now whether I'm signed in or not.

    So yeah, something must have gotten fixed with one of the forum software updates or something.
    Last edited by Gondwanaland; 12-12-2021, 12:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    That one takes me to this post:


    Where does this one take you?
    https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...04#post1330104
    That's it, and to:



    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    They are interesting prohibitions.

    The prohibition against graven images applies to "anything in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters below," and yet the same book -- Exodus -- records the specifications for the Ark of the Covenant, including graven images of cherubim for the cover.

    The prohibition against speaking YHWH is not found in Scripture. (I am skeptical there was a prohibition against writing it. If there were, it would not occur in Scripture, but it does.) I've always been a bit bemused by the fact that I AM was very explicit in revealing His name to Moses, and told Him,

    “This is my name forever,
    the name you shall call me
    from generation to generation."

    And yet at some point they became reverently afraid to actually "call" Him by that name. When they read the Scriptures and came to YHWH, rather than speak it, they spoke "Adonai."

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 08:05 PM
2 responses
21 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:14 PM
11 responses
39 views
1 like
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 01:35 PM
2 responses
27 views
0 likes
Last Post Juvenal
by Juvenal
 
Started by seer, 09-27-2022, 07:04 PM
22 responses
219 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by CivilDiscourse, 09-27-2022, 12:11 PM
22 responses
90 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Working...
X