Nope. No other scenarios. You are free to choose what you read. Parents are free to filter what their children read until they come of age. End of conversation.
The burden of freedom is embracing the lack of safety it affords us.
Should a 7 year old victim of SA be exposed to a novel with graphic depictions of rape?
Should a 9 year old check out a book that gives instructions on making pipe bombs?
Are all parents ever-present in their children’s lives?
You really can’t spend two seconds thinking about this? I’m not asking you to compromise your abolutist position. I’m OK if you don’t shift on this position. I’m just asking you to reflect on why it’s not so simple.
Exposed to? Everyone has the Internet. Trying to stop exposure via books when the whole Internet is on their phone is silly and just causes more harm than good as groups of people get to decide what is ok and what isn’t.
So you’re saying because the internet is available school libraries should let 7 year Olds watch “A Serbian Film”. What is this logic? Do you understand what we’re even debating at this point? We’re talking about who has the onus to moderate school books.
So you’re saying because the internet is available school libraries should let 7 year Olds watch “A Serbian Film”. What is this logic
Nice straw man (with a little slippery slope mixed in). You know that’s not happening. Just stop.
In fact, I find it quite disturbing that this is where your mind went while discussing children’s reading materials… Nobody is thinking about a Serbian Film but you, dude.
It’s called “reductio ad absurdio”. It’s a method in philosophy to examine arguments/principles by taking to the most extreme example and it’s what came to mind. Again, I personally am not for banning. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.
So far all the arguments brought by repubs in favor of banning have not convinced me. The only thing so far has been conversations with my wife who is a teacher.
To be clear, I’m just musing on an internet forum because censorship is an interesting topic to me. I’m not on the “pro-ban camp”.
Edit: also it’s not a “straw man” if it logically follows from the original premise. People : stop throwing this expression around unless you really understand how logical fallacies work.
Ok, with reductio ad absurdio in mind. You’d be ok with banning all the books that have romance in them, thats inappropriate for young people to be thinking about relationships. At least some people would think so, just like in this case. The banning of books falls apart when you realize that the decisions of what books to ban are based on personal morals.
Also, I agree with them, it is a strawman. A book about a girl realizing she might like other girls is not the same as having kids watch a snuff film. It’s not related to things they will experience in their life, no one is asking to watch it, it is no where even close to the same. You’re building up that wild stance, or straw man, to fight an entirely different topic. You might as well have asked if they could take them on field trips to executions. It’s ridiculous.
Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.
It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.
Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.
The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.
Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.
Yes I do understand the topic… Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I don’t understand. That’s a bit close minded. We are talking about banning books in school, which is why it’s weird you brought up a snuff film.
Those are not even close to the same thing…
A book about a girl getting her first period is not some horrible experience that they need to be sheltered from. You’re putting a snuff film and a book about “my first period” in the same category…
Ok, lets say banning books is good. Who gets to decide what is banned and why? I could come up with reasons to ban nearly anything. But guess what, kids can still find it on the Internet. You’re not going to stop anything, you’re just going to shelter and isolate them. “It seems like all the books at school about relationships are girls and guys, not guy and guy. Something must be wrong with me.” That’s what you’re creating.
Your stance is to push your morals on others and only allow what you think is right. My stance is to allow parents to, you know, parent their kids. Prepare them for the real world. And I think we can do that without making them watch snuff films.
I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.
I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.
I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.
When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?
Apologies, I didn’t mean to imply everything you read into that.
I did explore chemistry as a kid, with a chemistry set that could make energetic reactions. I did abuse that knowledge with household chemicals to create noise and violence. I was occasionally stupid with it, despite a grandfather who lost fingers. While there was some risk, it also furthered my love of science and engineering - it was a fun way of learning how stuff works.p and no one got hurt
I was trying to make the point that basic explosives knowledge exists and can’t un-exist. Ingredients for explosives are all around us. Trying to censor that is more likely to harm kids love of science, than it is to facilitate harm.
I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.
I think maybe you don’t understand how libraries work, particularly ones for children in public elementary schools. I’d be far more concerned about what kids in private schools are being exposed to. It’s not like sexually explicit books are just on display when you walk in. This is a non-issue and it’s insane that we even have to discuss this.
Also, kids use the Internet. If parents aren’t stopping them from reading sexually explicit books, what do you think they’re doing online? Should we remove all sexual content from the Internet (don’t disregard this question, Project 2025 ultimately wants to literally ban pornography. That’s real. JD Vance is that type of dude)?
The complete lack of an ability to see historical context and learn from past mistakes is disturbing. We’ve been through this, it is not something that needs to be rehashed. I’m so fucking tired of having to learn the same fucking lessons over and over again because people refuse to believe that maybe we do things a certain way for a reason. Maybe we started with the thing you want, and over time adjusted it again and again due to real world conditions (in some cases, like with regulations, people literally died), until we got where we are… Maybe we shouldn’t just throw all that knowledge and understanding away every ~50 years or whatever.
Unfortunately, when it comes to education and reading, it creates a negative feedback loop. Kids aren’t raised with the resources they need to think critically, and in turn, they grow up to allow politicians to pass laws banning the books they should have read. Rinse and repeat until you have an electorate that lets you get away with murder because everyone is so goddamn ignorant.
I’m not a republican. I’m a soc-dem.
I was interested in exploring the various scenarios and having a conversation, but as usual -and in typical lemmy fashion- we went straight to labels.
You really think the only conversation around book bans revolves around some people that are prudish? There aren’t any other possible scenarios?
Nope. No other scenarios. You are free to choose what you read. Parents are free to filter what their children read until they come of age. End of conversation.
The burden of freedom is embracing the lack of safety it affords us.
Should a 7 year old victim of SA be exposed to a novel with graphic depictions of rape?
Should a 9 year old check out a book that gives instructions on making pipe bombs?
Are all parents ever-present in their children’s lives?
You really can’t spend two seconds thinking about this? I’m not asking you to compromise your abolutist position. I’m OK if you don’t shift on this position. I’m just asking you to reflect on why it’s not so simple.
Exposed to? Everyone has the Internet. Trying to stop exposure via books when the whole Internet is on their phone is silly and just causes more harm than good as groups of people get to decide what is ok and what isn’t.
So you’re saying because the internet is available school libraries should let 7 year Olds watch “A Serbian Film”. What is this logic? Do you understand what we’re even debating at this point? We’re talking about who has the onus to moderate school books.
Nice straw man (with a little slippery slope mixed in). You know that’s not happening. Just stop.
In fact, I find it quite disturbing that this is where your mind went while discussing children’s reading materials… Nobody is thinking about a Serbian Film but you, dude.
It’s called “reductio ad absurdio”. It’s a method in philosophy to examine arguments/principles by taking to the most extreme example and it’s what came to mind. Again, I personally am not for banning. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.
So far all the arguments brought by repubs in favor of banning have not convinced me. The only thing so far has been conversations with my wife who is a teacher.
To be clear, I’m just musing on an internet forum because censorship is an interesting topic to me. I’m not on the “pro-ban camp”.
Edit: also it’s not a “straw man” if it logically follows from the original premise. People : stop throwing this expression around unless you really understand how logical fallacies work.
Ok, with reductio ad absurdio in mind. You’d be ok with banning all the books that have romance in them, thats inappropriate for young people to be thinking about relationships. At least some people would think so, just like in this case. The banning of books falls apart when you realize that the decisions of what books to ban are based on personal morals.
Also, I agree with them, it is a strawman. A book about a girl realizing she might like other girls is not the same as having kids watch a snuff film. It’s not related to things they will experience in their life, no one is asking to watch it, it is no where even close to the same. You’re building up that wild stance, or straw man, to fight an entirely different topic. You might as well have asked if they could take them on field trips to executions. It’s ridiculous.
Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.
It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.
Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.
The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.
Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.
Cheers!
Yes I do understand the topic… Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I don’t understand. That’s a bit close minded. We are talking about banning books in school, which is why it’s weird you brought up a snuff film.
Those are not even close to the same thing… A book about a girl getting her first period is not some horrible experience that they need to be sheltered from. You’re putting a snuff film and a book about “my first period” in the same category…
Ok, lets say banning books is good. Who gets to decide what is banned and why? I could come up with reasons to ban nearly anything. But guess what, kids can still find it on the Internet. You’re not going to stop anything, you’re just going to shelter and isolate them. “It seems like all the books at school about relationships are girls and guys, not guy and guy. Something must be wrong with me.” That’s what you’re creating.
Your stance is to push your morals on others and only allow what you think is right. My stance is to allow parents to, you know, parent their kids. Prepare them for the real world. And I think we can do that without making them watch snuff films.
Yes. For some, it will help them process what happened. Hopefully they have an adult they can discuss it with
Yes. I did, and haven’t killed anyone yet. Overreaction to basic chemistry and physics stifles the engineer or creator in too many of us.
If a kid doesn’t have a trusted adult guiding them, being able to explore moral quandaries through books is even more important.
It’s simple
I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.
I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.
I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.
When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?
Apologies, I didn’t mean to imply everything you read into that.
I did explore chemistry as a kid, with a chemistry set that could make energetic reactions. I did abuse that knowledge with household chemicals to create noise and violence. I was occasionally stupid with it, despite a grandfather who lost fingers. While there was some risk, it also furthered my love of science and engineering - it was a fun way of learning how stuff works.p and no one got hurt
I was trying to make the point that basic explosives knowledge exists and can’t un-exist. Ingredients for explosives are all around us. Trying to censor that is more likely to harm kids love of science, than it is to facilitate harm.
I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.
Thanks!
I think maybe you don’t understand how libraries work, particularly ones for children in public elementary schools. I’d be far more concerned about what kids in private schools are being exposed to. It’s not like sexually explicit books are just on display when you walk in. This is a non-issue and it’s insane that we even have to discuss this.
Also, kids use the Internet. If parents aren’t stopping them from reading sexually explicit books, what do you think they’re doing online? Should we remove all sexual content from the Internet (don’t disregard this question, Project 2025 ultimately wants to literally ban pornography. That’s real. JD Vance is that type of dude)?
The complete lack of an ability to see historical context and learn from past mistakes is disturbing. We’ve been through this, it is not something that needs to be rehashed. I’m so fucking tired of having to learn the same fucking lessons over and over again because people refuse to believe that maybe we do things a certain way for a reason. Maybe we started with the thing you want, and over time adjusted it again and again due to real world conditions (in some cases, like with regulations, people literally died), until we got where we are… Maybe we shouldn’t just throw all that knowledge and understanding away every ~50 years or whatever.
Unfortunately, when it comes to education and reading, it creates a negative feedback loop. Kids aren’t raised with the resources they need to think critically, and in turn, they grow up to allow politicians to pass laws banning the books they should have read. Rinse and repeat until you have an electorate that lets you get away with murder because everyone is so goddamn ignorant.
/rant