If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
General politics thread (was: General U.S. politics thread)
Yeah that's what I got from it too.
So it was actually just Al Jazeera "flubbing" the Iranian protests for political reasons.
Also, I haven't read up on the details, but being a protester isn't mutually exclusive with being someone who murdered two police officers, either.
I had to double check to see if It was a prank.
Ah well I guess I should have specified; it was a random knife attack during a quiet lull. He just happened to see the two people in police-gear. Basically he might not even be a "protester" at all.
Well, yeah, but I think that any political decisions should be made in at a slower pace than this sort of thing, especially since they literally disbanded the religious police, which is a very major decision.
If that's the promo then the rest of the collection must be really bad.
Truth Social is amazing but not in the right way at all.
Maybe I should start a "Kari Lake Adventures" thread.
You trying to be a sane pro-life type of guy.
This was the first thing that came to mind;
Today I found out there was like a controversy over this somehow and it wasn't about Macron's apparent love for young Carribean men.
Also between this and Naked Tate I feel I may be crossing some invisible "well it's not actual adult content!" line.
it's shitposting all the way down
This really surprised me considering modern narratives.
I should probably look into the numbers in Hungary too sometime.
Also since I guess I'm doing this anyways, never forget;
It shouldn't, those who do not drink katechon kool-aid knew it for a good while. Unless you specifically mean "at least somewhat religious" - but that ain't surprising either, it's the attendance that dies first, not vague personal belief.
Yup Ted Cruz is still on about this.
An Unlocked Back Door!!
(One door that goes in and out of the school is such an amazingly bad idea).
Meanwhile in LakeLaLaLand;
TL;DR librarians are being targeted as part of the recent movement to ban various books, a part of the larger "culture war" movement
the article talks about both the book-banning movement and the experience and role of librarians in it
Yeah uh I mean it's obvious why? It's weird to pretend that librarians aren't super cool with certain books that parents don't want their kids reading. If I was a progressive, I'd be championing those books too, and they don't even pretend they aren't doing it, they just don't like that others don't want this stuff in kid's libraries.
[url="http:/https://ncac.org/news/amazon-book-removal/"]When Harry Became Sally[/url].
I really don't think books like Gender Queer (which is basically just a creepy nonce doujin dressed up with fancy words), This Book is Gay, Lawn Boy, and anything that includes graphic depictions and/or descriptions of sex (or any sex, really) should be accessible from the YA section of a publically-funded library.
Literally from WaPo.
>when you're not psychologically prepared to be a librarian
Also, I have this odd feeling of unease, like I'm expected to see a librarian a creepy spinster with a tight bun whose SHHHH!s can slice your soul to pieces, yet all I've actually met were, like, kind ladies who handed me books I asked for.
Read more carefully and you might notice how there's a lot more to this story. First, it was the American Library Association that goofed in putting the book on their list -- which, as you noted, the author himself (who isn't Burkman, for the record and for reference of those reading this) noted was an inappropriate recommendation. And second, people railed against it as "pedophilia" when it was actually as described in your excerpt (and incidentally, as a recollection in-universe).
Meanwhile, this "pedophilia" theme, and related accusations (e.g. "groomer"), have been used to paint basically anything even remotely related. And this is in both the use of this as a social bludgeoning tool -- note the highly uncivil tone and content of various communications directed at whoever (e.g. librarians) that's being targeted by this political movement, and also how such accusations are thrown around like candy -- as well as the scope of policies being proposed and passed, e.g. prohibiting "having or promoting books that address the study of sex, sexual preferences, sexual activity, sexual perversion, sex-based classifications, sexual identity or gender identity." (And that's just one example I ran across; I could just as easily simply point to Florida's relevant recently-passed law.)
What's happening is not some sort of careful consideration to exclude sexually explicit content. Rather, it's using sexually explicit content as at best a convenient excuse.
And not only is it not just sexually explicit content nor even just gender and sexuality more generally: There's a bunch of flaming directed at "critical race theory" and other topics, which I recall you yourself made hay of previously as well.
And speaking of earlier commentary, what about the argument of consistency, which you brought up in the other thread? It was just last year that conservatives were up in arms about merely the cessation of further printings of handful of Dr. Seuss books -- moves they decried as evidence of "cancel culture", yet now where's their impassioned defense of objectionable material?
In the meantime, the book-banning calls have caused a chilling effect on the availability of information and literature that doesn't fit certain traditionalist/conservative worldviews, and not just at lower grade levels either. And then there's the vitriol that well-meaning public servants get. I mean...
...holy shit, are you seriously implying that librarians, or anyone, should have to suffer the kinds of shit they're getting?
Like, man. I don't know. If this isn't bad enough for you then I don't think anything could be. This is the type of stuff that should be hidden away on the backpages of WPATH (which, at one point, it was), not in a public library for anybody to read.
An adult man wrote the book.
Here's the paragraph that was misquoted;
Presumably the confusion in the first part was due to the character reminiscing and then immediately skipping to the present.
I would post images from Gender Queer but it is, like I said, basically an adult graphic novel except with the adults replaced with 13-15 year olds.
what will the kids do
if they can't learn about sexual preferences
they will never learn such things elsewhere
Actually though the part about "sex-based classifications" is weird because I'm pretty sure conservatives (myself included) would like those to be a thing again.
Do you admit the sexually explicit content is a problem?
GMH have you even read a teen book lately? 50% of YA is yaoi (or yuri) now. Nobody had a problem with Rainbow Road, but stuff's gone off the deep end man, and it needs to be fixed. Even Love, Simon has an odd bit at the end where the 16 year old protagonist and his new boyfriend go a bit far for a teen book.
You think blackface and an adult man writing creepy things about 10 year olds are on the same level, morally?
I don't care how good their intentions are at exposing tweens to this nonsense.
Also I guess since we're talking about this, I'm pretty sure reading Angie Thomas makes your grammar and vocabulary worse.
Also the study cited to improve literacy via representation studied 17 children total.
Well, I was mostly being facetious, but the truth is that in the internet age eventually somebody's going to try and get your goat if you're a semi-public figure, and the best way to deal with it is not to turn inward and cry, especially when you then try to use crybully tactics to get your way being portrayed sympathetically in a newspiece.
Anyways, I had more stuff to say about the article.
Progressives have this immense problem of being unable to believe that people could believe something that they don't.
Okay, never mind. Here's Gender Queer.
Dude, if you give this to a tween girl who has body image issues, and she internalizes this, a lot of bad things could happen.
There's more of that too.
This book is a disgusting mess that also just kind of sucks as a graphic novel. The prose is at a 5 year old level, which is a road I don't want to go down.
Anyways, if you need more evidence, Google "Gender Queer Page 168". There's also a page where the protagonist lifting up her skirt as a four year old. Even if this did happen in real life, if I wrote this book, I'd definitely not write or draw this part.
Frankly, I think we all need less sexual stuff in our lives, and inserting it into YA and children's literature is merely making everything worse.
No, simply being disturbing content doesn't warrant this. Not for various other books that have been banned before, nor here.
Ironically, the excerpt you posted makes it less damning than your summary description did. Cause if that's all there is...is it still weird and wrong, yes, sure,
and if you're turned on by it I can see how you might mistake this for being pornographic,but it ain't the "OMG PEDOPHILIA LET'S GET OUR PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES AND KILL THE BEAST" madness.
And let's not forget that this recent madness isn't even focused on this book. Nor is it even restricted to teen/YA fiction. There's also entirely nonfiction teaching tools that are also being considered oh-so-offensive. And heck, even this book about seahorses!
The irony of this is that you're trying to say the latter is worse, but I'll tell you that when I was a kid I would not even understand whatever sexual content was presented to me, while the idea of being weirded out by people who look funny is something that's picked up way earlier and thus far more influential on a child. Heck, it's the opposite that has to be learned -- learning to be accepting of others who look weird rather than stereotyping them away.
And that justifies (at best very misguided) name-calling and harassment and death threats?
the kids will be protected from "this nonsense"
they will never run into sketchy content elsewhere
And ironically, depending on how one goes about it, arguing on the internet makes your grammar and vocabulary better.
"omg the librarians who are getting very disingenuously accused of being pedophiles and being subjected to harassment and death threats are looking sympathetic in the press! this is wrong; they should not be allowed to look sympathetic, because libraries have BAD BOOKS!!!"
Yet here are conservatives declaring that teaching kids about things not fitting their worldview constitute indoctrination: https://www.noleftturn.us/mission-goals-objectives/
And yet here I am speaking in defense even of books with disturbing content that I would not enjoy reading and would not ever recommend.
yeah go tell that to Andrew Tate and his ilk lol
aren't you're supposedly well-versed in YA lit? go yell at someplace like fanfiction.net (among others) and all the horny teen postings there. Rather than using this to try to justify making librarians' lives hell.
There's a story I wanted to tell one day, might as well be now. Back when I was a kid, there was an ad for a magazine in the Donald Duck comic I've been reading those days. Now, the magazine. How to describe it.
(There was a longish digression here which didn't really add anything, so I snipped it.)
Anyway, the magazine had a recurring set of child characters, who I guess were meant to be the stand-ins with whom the kids reading it could identify with. One of these fellas was black. Had that happy broad-lipped blackface look and all, wore a striped top hat. His name was Blacky. (Or Blackie; I don't remember every detail but as much as I can recall the first option is correct.)
Back in the simpler era ca. 2000, as a kid with a reputation for intellectual precociousness, I saw that as well-intentioned desire to show the kids that some folks around the world are of a different color and there's nothing odd with it.
On the other hand, squinty eyes is still in use as a stereotype, and not even just as a caricature. FWIW I looked up all six of the Seuss books pulled from publication and both of the elements I've mentioned so far have been in one or more of them.
For reference and the convenience of anyone reading this, the books are:
For the record, I'm not currently debating the merits of removing each of them from publication. Also, I should stress again that they're no longer being published, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being pulled from library shelves. I did a quick search and found the following on the first page of Ecosia search results:
* Denver Public Library: will not remove
* New York Public Library: will not remove; will allow the books to continue to serve their useful life (which basically means the same thing as "will not remove", as no library would be able to purchase new copies anyway)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-seuss-books-public-libraries-removal/ (mentions both Denver and New York)
* Wood County District Public Library (Bowling Green, Ohio): will not remove
* Welles-Turner Memorial Library (Glastonbury, Connecticut): will not remove
* Hartford Public Library (Hartford, Connecticut): "opened its own inquiry" but I haven't been able to find what eventually happened
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-dr-seuss-connecticut-libraries-20210304-ym6rek5vpndwbeqxmkvzzfzo6u-story.html (source for above two things)
* Chicago Public Library: will still honor holds (i.e. people who've requested to borrow the books while they're already checked out) but after that will be temporarily removing the books from shelves, for further evaluation
(according to a later(?) story, they removed them from circulation after honoring holds, see below; dunno if they're still available otherwise though)
Bonus finds from me trying to look up what happened in Chicago:
* Brooklyn Public Library: will not remove
* Queens Public Library: considering moving them to the reference section (which would be basically "will not remove" unless you specifically want them in circulation)
So yeah, most (if not all) of these are a decision to not remove the books. (N.B. these are public libraries and I didn't look up school libraries, which are somewhat different.)
My personal opinions on this are roughly echoed in the following excerpts from some of the articles I just linked:
(from the CBS article)
(from the WLTX article)
I'd add that I'd stress the need to keep the content available. I don't think there's currently any danger of this not happening, to be honest; there are multiple editions currently available on archive.org, and ironically I think the stoppage on further publication contributed to a "Streisand effect" that ended up giving the books more attention (which I don't mind either).
I wouldn't mind if they were banned from public libraries overall, because they all tend to lack literary and cultural merit. All they really do is lean on the identity politics in order to short-circuit progressive content board member's brains.
People will continue to be harassed on the internet about whatever, especially semi-public figures. They can't use that as an excuse to get their way.
Yeah it turns out that's not a good stance to take in terms of building a good and moral society.
Where did you get this idea that I'm a fan of Andrew Tate? I've been making fun of him for weeks before this Greta thing even happened.
Disgusting things written online and disgusting things made available on the tax-payer's buck in an environment that is supposed to build culture/literacy are seriously not the same thing.
Well, if you're going to take the position of wanting some morality police to ban and censor things, then so be it, but I'm not going to join you.
Like I said, I don't like it, and I find it very off-putting, but I'm not going to argue for stopping others from accessing it.
Also, you're forgetting that this goes far beyond sketchy YA fiction, as I already mentioned above.
Also, in most of these oh-so-nasty things aren't even required as part of a teaching syllabus. One article I ran across (I forgot which, sorry) points out something that's rung true in my life as well -- if it ain't required reading, few people will even bother with it. (Heck, it's more likely that you'd get the parents encouraging their children to read, and at that point the parents are involved anyway.)
I wasn't sure whether you were, but you certainly have been arguing that progressives are hypocritical for appreciating the schadenfreude arising from an insufficiently moral insult applied to him, a person whom even you describe as pretty much devoid of reasonable moral standards.
And a proper consideration for what books a library should carry and a harassment campaign are seriously not the same thing either.
Today at 1:35 PM
Today at 2:00 PM
How accurate would you say this is, and how widely applicable is it beyond just Poland (which is this writer's perspective)?
Gotta go now, more if you have questions.
so if i ask you questions you gotta go more?
So what's the nuance with regards to Serbia? Or any other nuances you think are worth mentioning?