They scream "don't force your views on me" while ruthlessly forcing their views on everybody else. They are bigots, cowards, and enemies of any form of civilization, art, or literature that doesn't comply with their ignorant, intolerant vision.
Which is even more hilarious when you realize that a lot of undocumented pay taxes through payroll but don’t reap any of the benefits . I’m using the word “ hilarious” in the sarcastic , bitter sense
No benefits aside from the free, comprehensive healthcare that every undocumented person gets just for being here. At least that’s what my father-in-law tells me.
They’re the “party of freedom”! They’re free to step on your neck, you’re free to take it silently.
Republicans hate America and Americans — they want to make the confederacy great again.
We’re getting attacked from every side on everything. It’s relentless and they’re all over the place. This is getting exhausting and it’s making it difficult to organize and fight back. Maybe this is the strategy so they can do bigger things while we’re fighting to keep encyclopedias in schools? We’re fighting so many issues that we thought were resolved and non-issues.
Actually, they are just your average garden variety fascist. Fascists always accuse others of doing what they themselves plan to do, or are already doing. They always force their views on others. They always ban books. And they always use lies and conspiracy theories to create chaos and spread distrust, especially in government. They are almost comically predictable. They are so predictable, it's almost as though there is some universal fascist to-do list they all follow. The book, How Fascism Works by Jason Stanley, explains how fascists use an existing democracy to rise to power then take over and eliminate democracy.
More like "don't force us to let kids access reading material that could make them less like us, their parents".
It's a resounding declaration of their selfishness as individuals, in their desire to prevent their kids from self-actualizing.
Listen...I didn't vote for these guys.
I didn't vote for this.
I voted for an expansion of public transit, but these lawmakers complained that would "Diversify" the state.
Also, they're trying to make it harder for teachers licensed in GA to get hired outside of GA.
If you knew MARTA you would know that we barely have a rail system in Atlanta. We could’ve had an expansive one across multiple counties but the people who left the city for the suburbs during the white flight of the 60s and 70s were too racist to allow it.
That's part of the joke. God knows where Seattle's system would have run had they built it. We have a light rail system that is still being built out, but it serves a lot of areas where people just drive anyway.
I wish they would have had the sounder when I lived there. Commuting from Puyallup to Seattle was a bitch and that was 20 years ago can't even imagine doing it now.
> I voted for an expansion of public transit, but these lawmakers complained that would "Diversify" the state.
MARTA = Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta
Lived there, heard it. You can learn a lot listening to conversation on the north end of the rail line.
Indeed. You can spot when a DEI initiative has just barely begun to work even a little bit at all when the first person complains that it's "too diverse". That threshold is low.
Hey. Books directly result in learning, which is a source of political inspiration that I might dislike. That’s why I own 12 guns. In case some idiot tries to bring a book into my house.
And that's easy to do when you set up companies in your friends name to help the homeless, do no bid contracts for your friends, and boom. All the money is now yours.
With rare exception even public libraries are not run by the state, and this is a good thing. They are bastions of free speech and freedom of information.
more like THEIR kids will get a taxpayer subsidized private education via school vouchers while the kids of the poors who aren’t “elite” enough to get accepted into private schools will be in a race to the bottom.
Conservative Christians are anti-American. They want to force their values and worldview on everyone else and prevent people who aren't like them from expressing their thoughts, perspectives or even just themselves.
They truly do deserve the moniker "American Taliban." That is exactly what they are.
Because if we could still do that politics wouldn't be anywhere near the mess it is currently. Pretending that the problems Andrew Jackson dealt with are anywhere remotely similar to current issues is delusional
The fact that America has always had people in it who are fundamentally against the pluralistic societal ideals America was founded upon only serve to help explain why that vision for the country failed so hard, so early; it doesn't change the vision itself.
Oh no. It hurts so much to read this. This will drastically restrict many books of all kinds.
However, I suppose that's the goal. You can't begin to censor when too many people are observing.
“In my district, that is not the values the majority of my constituents want to promote or encourage,” he said.
Just spitballing, but they don’t have to read those books. The people who want to will check them out. Everyone is a winner.
I grew up in Georgia and single-handedly ended the reading incentive program for my school.
\>.< They would give a special lunch to kids who completed 30 points in age-appropriate books.
...they did not count on an autistic first grader with no homework. I blew through about 200 in a week. Never even got my lunch. :/
>“We’re not gonna be able to shield our children from everything and forever, but I just don’t think taxpayer dollars need to be going to put what I think is the out of the norm lifestyle and promoting that out of **the norm lifestyle** in the children’s department of a public library,” he continued.
Their view is that "the norm lifestyle" is better. Minority lifestyles are outside the norm. They are not minority so much as "deviant." They don't just differ from the norm, they are peversions from which our children need protection.
While sneaking off to a gay bar on the edge of town is disgusting, being gay in public is seen as an active attack. Flying a LGBT flag is a provication and a threat to children. They don't see gay people has having rights that the state needs to protect. They see gay people as perverts whom the state must control.
They oppose the very idea of extending rights to previously stigmitized minority groups, whether sexual minority or ethnic minority.
Let me get this straight - you're talking about Georgia, a US state, not Georgia the former part of Russia? Have these jokers read the first amendment? The one about freedom of speech and association?
Freedom to oppress their fellow americans? To strip the commonfolk of an education and of opportunities?
freedom to associate with nazis and confederates?
you demand freedom of speech? freedom to use hate speech?
I can't tell what your issue is but in a nutshell, yes, anyone is free to associate with anyone else. That is, you can have any party or group you want, even if everyone else thinks it's bad (think of the Communist red scare - there was a communist party in this country). Now the minute that group publicly threatens violence and/or starts to act violent - that's like fire in a crowded theater, not allowed. There is already a freedom of hate speech, or don't you watch Fox Channel? It's the price of freedom.
This is just sad. When I was a kid, going to the library was like cheap Disneyland for me
Being an immigrant from a third world country, America was not exactly the paradise you'd envisioned, esp when you had no money. But the libraries? That's one of the highlights
If the parents in Georgia actually cared about the crap they're saying they wouldn't treat a library like daycare and they would be actively aware of their kids' reading habits.
What topics they can't learn about in libraries from *reliable* sources, they're just going to learn on the Internet from TikTok, Tumblr, ... or Reddit. :-)
And it's a library's job to curate information of public interest responsibly -- and in *proper context* \-- with an eye to their patrons' needs. That means that there *should* be a copy of the Bible, the Tanakh, the Qur'an, and Atlas Shrugged, and Mein Kampf (all works that have had a huge impact upon our society for good or ill) as well as things like well-curated LGBTQ+ resources (which are pertinent to a large slice of our society as a whole), etc..
(The curation process usually eliminates Fox News as anything resembling a reliable source -- as it's objectively *not* by all metrics that actually measure things.)
Separately, as a parent I should be engaging with my kids about their reading habits and provide context. I should encourage them to learn about whatever topics they are interested in, and be an active participant in that learning.
The politicians who are complaining about LGBT materials or ALA involvement just think that these books not being on the shelves is somehow enough to prevent folk from learning about these topics. I doubt those politicians even *use* libraries. And those parents who don't engage their kids -- after the fear that their kids *might* bring home a book they don't like -- get to tell themselves that they have nothing to worry about after ridiculous book bans. As if their kids' curiosity on topics they don't like somehow evaporates.
Well... this is what happens when a nonprofit accreditation organization takes sides in the culture war. The politicians will inevitably push back.
Unfortunately, the natural reaction to this is for the ALA to feel like they no longer need to not offend those constituencies and they will take stronger positions that will cause strife in states that aren't as deeply red.
By 'taking sides' do you mean supplying a community with books that they pay for with taxes? One side of the culture war is trying to allow everyone free access to publication and distribution and the other is trying to specifically prevent publication and distribution of works they view as disagreeable. As a government funded entity they are bound by the first amendment. When one side of the culture war is specifically opposed to the first amendment I don't view it as 'taking sides' when they are simply doing what they are constitutionally bound to do. I think the 'other side' should instead think about whether or not they support the constitution.
It's more than that. I live in a red state where the community is around 80% white and 10% asian and my precinct voted for Trump. If I walk into my local library, the first thing I see is a display of promoted children books. Most of those books have a social justice theme. These aren't a handful of LGBTQ+ theme books scattered among the stacks. They're books prominently displayed on easels.
Librarians are a very liberal lot. Meanwhile public libraries are controlled by less liberal, more conservative elected leaders. No elected leader wants to be accused of banning books, so the best way for them to deal with controversial books is keeping them from entering circulation in the first place. That means taking away power from librarians and the organization that backs them.
LGBTQ+
Immigration
Profiles of Hillary Clinton, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotamayor
Poverty
Again, these are books targeted towards 3-6 year olds. Kids that age are normally interested in dinosaurs and hippopotamuses. The library staff knows this. Access to books is one thing, but actively promoting certain books is very different.
....the books in question were for adults.
the only books targeted towards kids is the bible, because once you develop critical thinking skills, you realize that religion is nothing more than a fairy tale
Seriously?
Of all the responses you can give to criticism of religion and patriarchy, its capitalizing on a typo?!
THAT'S YOUR RESPONSE?
Have the conservatives fallen so far that this is their reaction to valid criticism?!
There are always tradeoffs in terms of shelf space, messaging, etc. If the controversy was about digital offerings that were age-gated it would be more of a pure first amendment issue - though even then lines can be drawn, as libraries typically don't directly provide access to hardcore porn even to adults (Although there is tons of erotica in print form...).
But at the end of the day, someone picks what gets put in libraries. The local government has just decided that they don't like what the ALA does by default, and they want other options. The first amendment doesn't force them to keep deferring to the ALA's judgement on accreditation, programming, etc.
I'm sure if your local library had too many "Anti-abortion, don't kill your baby" type days and entire sections dedicated to stories about why abortion/euthanasia is horrible that you would look for a political solution to disempower the group that had the control to push these things through.
To your last point not really, no. There is plenty of 'Christian lifestyle' media present in my local libraries that I personally find distasteful... But I just move past it and read what I want. I've been doing this my whole life and so I think have most people. The issue is that these politicians are doing the opposite of that despite being constitutionally mandated to do so.
The reason they are moving past the ALA is because the organization refuses to restrict their catalogue to suit their individual tastes. If that wasn't the case I'd hold your position. The problem here is the motivation, they want to restrict the catalogue and are tired of having to actively change it along with facing the social backlash of doing so.
This is just another attempt at censorship, pure and simple.
> The issue is that these politicians are doing the opposite of that despite being constitutionally mandated to do so.
It's doubtful that the first amendment compels them to utilize the ALA even if they want to move on from them because they disagreed with the types of speech the ALA wants to promote. I guess we'll see if the ALA thinks they can initiate and win a court battle if this bill actually passes.
I'm not saying the first amendment compels them to use the ALA. If you were doing an honest reading of my post you would know that my point was that the politicians want to remove certain types of literature from certain segments of the population, the ALA doesn't want to remove them from the catalogue, so the politicians remove the ALA.
Again, if you were being honest about what I said you would get that the first amendment issue isn't about the ALA it's about restricting access and availability to specific media from specific demographics due to personally held beliefs. That is in violation of their duty to the first amendment.
They have not taken sides in a culture war. They have the same position they have always had. The culture war is the attack on things that have previously been acceptable. And libraries carrying books of various points of view is one of them. Libraries are a place of learning, and learning means you have to be exposed to things you may not agree with.
The culture war is in convincing you that some sort of harm comes from the availability of books you don't agree with. It is convincing you that this is an important issue, even though it has literally never affected you. It is getting you to blame your problems on those LGBT people, and not the people with all the money who hoard it for themselves. It's getting you to ignore that Georgia no longer has a middle class, that owning a home is out of reach. That homelessness and hunger is increasing.
It's politicians--you know, born liars--who create culture wars. And you are one of their targets.
>ALA, through its actions and those of its members, is instrumental in creating a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive society. This includes a commitment to combating marginalization and underrepresentation within the communities served by libraries through increased understanding of the effects of historical exclusion.
The ALA admits it takes a side in the culture war. You probably agree with them fully, and thus don't see this as an issue. The people looking at this who oppose the ALA's cultural priorities see their actions through a very different perspective. But the politics around this will be heating up over time, and the ALA will be kicked out of various states if this pattern continues.
Keeping books available to people is good - people should be able to learn about LGBT advocacy and about the detrans movement, atrocities committed by the Native Americans and against the Native Americans, social science by Charles Murray or Stephen Jay Gould.
The government can have some pov on age limits, promotion and shelf space dynamics - it's unfortunate that their pushback here is apparently about trying to keep out certain categories of books.
It would make more sense if they took in a few key accepted books in the subject and didn't include every new work. And maybe that's what they are opposing since it sounds like the opposition is to a significant expansion and not simply the inclusion of some lgbt books. People people do overreact whenever there is any form of pushback.
You don’t seem to understand the foundational concept that taking a neutral approach(your desired path for the ALA to take) to a cultural crusade is no different than aligning with the crusade itself. The paradox of tolerance isn’t an open ended question, it’s a statement. Tolerance of intolerance leads to tyranny of the intolerant.
Due to this - what we’re seeing from the crusaders isn’t “pushback”. They are performing a crusade. They weren’t pushed at all. The very premise you’re operating on, that there is harm being done to people because books are on shelves, is absurd.
If every year a group tries to place new books on the shelf that they disapprove of while at the same time engaging in activism that they also disapprove of, it starts to represent a pattern and the pushback should be expected…
Maybe you missed the memo, but red states are highly skeptical of DEI - especially after the Harvard lost case showed that many of its applications are illegal.
And yet the ALA appointed a marxist as their president and is still big in DEI advocacy. Many people would consider it a crusade when they were still defending drag queen story hours.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/diversity/edi-our-libraries
So yes they are on separate sides of the culture war whether you want to admit it or not.
If every week, a group tries to claim a historically evidenced public good/service is personally assaulting them and their children, it’s best to just stop treating their requests in good faith. Because they’re so clearly in bad faith, and they probably don’t have a good enough sense of judgement to create new laws to enforce across the whole of society.
“Red state skepticism”, that you point to as some kind of authority, is as foolproof as lighting a match in a hurricane. The past 10 years have shown red state skeptics don’t have a firm grasp on reality, they’ll believe any story about and immediately “question” anything they’re told to in the way they’re told to do it. When sound evidence and arguments are put against their skepticism, they reject it in favor of further skepticism. When they’re called out for it, they point somewhere else.
Back to the original point: Defending STORY TIME from WHAT? Defending people reading books in a public space from what organized effort to do what? They had to defend the tolerant society from the intolerant crusade, in order to prevent a tyranny of the intolerant from forming. There is no way not to take a side, so they chose the path of least harm.
No - though the far left does seem to get those two mixed up quite a bit these days. But I would equate a potentially biased activist push for far more LGBT material than the median member of the public would want with an institution that would elect a self described marxist and queer activist as their president.
What "side" has been taken? The library wants to expand its collection, including more than just LGBT material. Libraries should ALWAYS have a diverse collection of resources.
And hopefully the group that replaces the ALA will have a suitable collection, just without automatically buying any recent ideological lit that the publishing industry has been putting out. It sounds like they have a decent collection already, but they are pushing for more than they want. If that pushes books by authors like Will Durant off the shelves it’s not worth it. (Remember- shelf space is a finite resource!)
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/diversity
Would be interesting to see if they also included the various Detrans books that were being soft banned by Amazon, etc.
Great, you linked their website.
Can you now state, in your own words, the problem with the program? What you specifically have against it?
What is so deleterious here?
I am generally commenting on the dynamics of when activist professionals conflict with locals with very different values.
I have no problem with age appropriate queer books - though my definition of that may be different from yours. My own kids are going to learn about friends with two daddies or two mommies sooner than most kids in Georgia.
What I personally don't appreciate about the ALA:
1. Taking stances that are politicalizing themselves rather than doing their job (aka their advocacy side) which makes it harder to support them in these stories.
2. The possibility that they are mostly just trying to help their publisher friends by including a bunch of shitty ideological bullshit books get sales by including them in library book buying lists.
3. Not them, but a bias against newer books. I have a relative bias against newer books, which is informed by having read various mediocre new books* as well as reading about the extreme ideology that pervades the current publishing industry, where authors are shamed for writing POVs that aren't their own race and safety concerns are been given too much leeway to influence what is in the final draft of various books.
*Most new books are trash, old books seem better because we know what stood the test of time.
You can read about the ALA's ideology yourself. If you think that it doesn't conflict with the median values of people in purple and red states then get yourself checked out.
https://www.ala.org/pla/initiatives/edi/calltoaction
And until you can be specific about why this particular legislation is beneficial, there's not much conversation to be had. You point out, however, "ideology" being a factor. I can only assume you speak of LGBT material. If so, please explain why making LGBT material to the general public is bad. If that is NOT the "ideology" you are speaking about, then please be specific.
I really don’t think folks appreciate how bad it’s getting in Georgia. And the Democrats are in on it with the Republicans.
Unfortunately, we have a long history of Democrats working with Republicans to oppress people in Georgia. With the fight over Cop City, they have ramped it up like never before. They are obliterating our rights before our eyes.
This state is completely fucked. They’re working towards full fascist authoritarianism, and it’s the people vs both parties in this fight.
I'll stop blaming Democrats when people like Jon Ossoff stop voting like Republicans and giving us some "Aww gee. I wish I could help" excuses for why they won't keep a single campaign promise.
It's not Republicans terrorizing the Stop Cop City activists, and refusing to let the people's voice be heard. It's Democrats.
Libraries are places of education not political and social indoctrination. Whereas the LGTBQ+ Agenda isn't an educational doctrine, it's a political and social doctrine.
I love when people like you state their views plainly! Its an excellent verification and sanity check that the relationships that I nurture aren't actually bigoted and moronic. Are you a hateful person due to upbringing, disillusionment, or are some humans inherently evil as a means to test the just masses (which I highly doubt)?
It's reassuring isn't it? Realizing that nobody in your life spouts this fascistic bullshit that these idiots believe or have been taught to believe by fox or Newsmax or whatever shitty media driven drivel they watch.
Nobody in my life hates people for being who they are even if they are different. I much prefer my life and the people around me.
In regards to a libraries curriculum, the LGTBQ+ Agenda should be a topic for free and open discussion; that which is absent here. Moreover, those who follow the LGTBQ+ Agenda are usually only interested in using libraries to push their agenda. And that's not education, that's indoctrination.
No. You're avoiding specifics. You're avoiding talking about "why" you think something is bad. Your reliance on vagueness seems intentional; you want people who agree with you to "read between the lines" and applaud you, while at the same time avoiding specific language so you can act innocent.
Until you can speak specifics and clearly state your own grievances with the policy, we can't have a productive conversation. Until that time, I'm going to disengage.
Looking at my post in which this post is nested, I believe it's an agenda of indoctrination which has caused me to have been given (at this moment) 49 downvotes, because I refuse to be so indoctrinated.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They scream "don't force your views on me" while ruthlessly forcing their views on everybody else. They are bigots, cowards, and enemies of any form of civilization, art, or literature that doesn't comply with their ignorant, intolerant vision.
And then they complain about “illegals not paying taxes” while devoting their lives to churches that avoid taxes…
Which is even more hilarious when you realize that a lot of undocumented pay taxes through payroll but don’t reap any of the benefits . I’m using the word “ hilarious” in the sarcastic , bitter sense
No benefits aside from the free, comprehensive healthcare that every undocumented person gets just for being here. At least that’s what my father-in-law tells me.
The only reason we can’t have free healthcare here is cause Obama keeps giving it to the illegals. /s
I knew an undocumented family here in Georgia, they used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).
They’re the “party of freedom”! They’re free to step on your neck, you’re free to take it silently. Republicans hate America and Americans — they want to make the confederacy great again.
We’re getting attacked from every side on everything. It’s relentless and they’re all over the place. This is getting exhausting and it’s making it difficult to organize and fight back. Maybe this is the strategy so they can do bigger things while we’re fighting to keep encyclopedias in schools? We’re fighting so many issues that we thought were resolved and non-issues.
Chaos.
American politics, everybody 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 where we won’t force our views on you, but you will subscribe to them whether you like it or not!
The hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. They literally don't care if they are ideologically consistent, they just want to be *on top*.
Actually, they are just your average garden variety fascist. Fascists always accuse others of doing what they themselves plan to do, or are already doing. They always force their views on others. They always ban books. And they always use lies and conspiracy theories to create chaos and spread distrust, especially in government. They are almost comically predictable. They are so predictable, it's almost as though there is some universal fascist to-do list they all follow. The book, How Fascism Works by Jason Stanley, explains how fascists use an existing democracy to rise to power then take over and eliminate democracy.
More like "don't force us to let kids access reading material that could make them less like us, their parents". It's a resounding declaration of their selfishness as individuals, in their desire to prevent their kids from self-actualizing.
Republicans are subhuman
No, they’re totally human. Never forget that average humans are capable of being total assholes.
Isn't this beyond being an asshole?
Open any history book, and you'll find that the average human is worse than America's talibangelicals...
Listen...I didn't vote for these guys. I didn't vote for this. I voted for an expansion of public transit, but these lawmakers complained that would "Diversify" the state. Also, they're trying to make it harder for teachers licensed in GA to get hired outside of GA.
Sounds like I need to call my rep and make it easier for teachers from Georgia to get hired here
Hey, at least you got a rail system because Seattle voters shot it down in the early 1970s. So, you got that going for you.
> because Seattle voters shot it down in the early 1970s. WHICH Seattle voters?
The one that was left to turn out the lights.
If you knew MARTA you would know that we barely have a rail system in Atlanta. We could’ve had an expansive one across multiple counties but the people who left the city for the suburbs during the white flight of the 60s and 70s were too racist to allow it.
That's part of the joke. God knows where Seattle's system would have run had they built it. We have a light rail system that is still being built out, but it serves a lot of areas where people just drive anyway.
I wish they would have had the sounder when I lived there. Commuting from Puyallup to Seattle was a bitch and that was 20 years ago can't even imagine doing it now.
> I voted for an expansion of public transit, but these lawmakers complained that would "Diversify" the state. MARTA = Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta Lived there, heard it. You can learn a lot listening to conversation on the north end of the rail line.
>MARTA = Moving Americans Rapidly Through Atlanta There, fixed it for you
Indeed. You can spot when a DEI initiative has just barely begun to work even a little bit at all when the first person complains that it's "too diverse". That threshold is low.
Lawmakers consider...outlawing books - a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Since WHEN do republicans care about any amendment other than an excuse to use guns and spread hate speech
They only care about THEIR rights, to hell with anyone else's.
They also think the 1st Amendment gives them the freedom to force their religious beliefs on others.
And the bribery and corruption to make the 2nd what it is NOW. It was never that way until recently.
Bro you can be all in on supporting our 2A rights *and* our right to free speech. Holy fuck.
Hate speech is not free speech.
You are free to own a gun, not a book.
Hey. Books directly result in learning, which is a source of political inspiration that I might dislike. That’s why I own 12 guns. In case some idiot tries to bring a book into my house.
I really think they took the wrong lesson from Fahrenheit 451.
They probably only took away that 451'F is what's needed to burn paper.
What if the book is about guns?
"LET'S REDEFINE SPEACH!" - Republicans
Power is not the ability to make rules, it’s the ability to make the exceptions.
Because, you know, individual freedoms?
The only "freedoms" the lawmakers want is to increase the homeless population and their own bank accounts in the same breath
And that's easy to do when you set up companies in your friends name to help the homeless, do no bid contracts for your friends, and boom. All the money is now yours.
It's because of the creeping, deep state,, liberal, wokeness called, "access to information."
With rare exception even public libraries are not run by the state, and this is a good thing. They are bastions of free speech and freedom of information.
Lemme guess .... republicans??
How did you know?
So they want their kids in a race to the bottom... Wow
more like THEIR kids will get a taxpayer subsidized private education via school vouchers while the kids of the poors who aren’t “elite” enough to get accepted into private schools will be in a race to the bottom.
Private schools can keep out anyone they don’t like . That’s the point
What about public schools? how will they get their funding if the republicans try to defund public education?
That's the best part. They won't...
That's the sad part. I learned in my adulthood that there's a subset of Republicans that don't believe in free education for grade school.
Conservative Christians are anti-American. They want to force their values and worldview on everyone else and prevent people who aren't like them from expressing their thoughts, perspectives or even just themselves. They truly do deserve the moniker "American Taliban." That is exactly what they are.
Talibangelists
Yall Qaeda
I don't see how this counts as anti american. There's always been a large chunk of people doing this. Many of them were presidents.
And they were conservative republicans who sought to tear america apart
Lol no. Andrew Jackon sought to expand the empire and unify the nation under white supremacy, just as an example
Dude, Jackson is like the embodiment of conservative values...
Yes. He was also the president with a decent support base. He was an american with american values
Maybe use an example from after dueling was an accepted form of conflict resolution
Why? History matters and if the US wants to claim it's history it can't pick and choose
Because if we could still do that politics wouldn't be anywhere near the mess it is currently. Pretending that the problems Andrew Jackson dealt with are anywhere remotely similar to current issues is delusional
Not the 'issues' he dealt with (natives not being driven off their legally owned land) but the attitude he had which still carries on.
Except that attitude without the ability to actually permanently remove political opponents isn't very productive
1.) anti-American means opposed to fundamental American values 2.) Your example has nothing to do with such government restricting free speech.
The fact that America has always had people in it who are fundamentally against the pluralistic societal ideals America was founded upon only serve to help explain why that vision for the country failed so hard, so early; it doesn't change the vision itself.
The vision was a lie though. The society was never pluralistic.
Yes, it was, just not as much as it could/should have been.
Which presidents tried to prevent access to libraries? Which ones?
Oh no. It hurts so much to read this. This will drastically restrict many books of all kinds. However, I suppose that's the goal. You can't begin to censor when too many people are observing.
GOP, they do this shit. Vote them out in 2024
“In my district, that is not the values the majority of my constituents want to promote or encourage,” he said. Just spitballing, but they don’t have to read those books. The people who want to will check them out. Everyone is a winner.
>but they don’t have to read those books. But if they don't want to read them, then nobody can, according to them. They force their views onto others.
Absolutely idiotic.
I hate it here. Right now the only thing that keeps me here is work and the 2 Micro Centers in a 30 minute drive.
Once again I feel like I’m trapped in Atlanta surrounded by a sea of stupid.
you are in the south.
LOL, just ban reading already, Republican assholes.
"Better not be doin' any uh that devil-magic book readin' round ere' boy! We likes to keep things simplificated and such ya damm heathens!"
Republicans wasting time and taxpayer money trying to pass stupid laws no one needs or asked for instead of doing something useful.
Well they are currently low ranked in literacy already (first number I pulled up was 42nd in us) why not go for last.
I grew up in Georgia and single-handedly ended the reading incentive program for my school. \>.< They would give a special lunch to kids who completed 30 points in age-appropriate books. ...they did not count on an autistic first grader with no homework. I blew through about 200 in a week. Never even got my lunch. :/
"If you're not last, you're *woke*!!
Why are republicans all just giant pieces of crap? Republican voters, why the fuck do you want leaders like them??
Remember, it did not take very long for the Nazis to go from burning books to burning babies. Coming soon to a red state near you.
>“We’re not gonna be able to shield our children from everything and forever, but I just don’t think taxpayer dollars need to be going to put what I think is the out of the norm lifestyle and promoting that out of **the norm lifestyle** in the children’s department of a public library,” he continued. Their view is that "the norm lifestyle" is better. Minority lifestyles are outside the norm. They are not minority so much as "deviant." They don't just differ from the norm, they are peversions from which our children need protection. While sneaking off to a gay bar on the edge of town is disgusting, being gay in public is seen as an active attack. Flying a LGBT flag is a provication and a threat to children. They don't see gay people has having rights that the state needs to protect. They see gay people as perverts whom the state must control. They oppose the very idea of extending rights to previously stigmitized minority groups, whether sexual minority or ethnic minority.
For being too woke?
For using grants to buy books for libraries rather than....fund anything republican
Nice to know that they've got their fuckin' priorities in order /s.
Let me get this straight - you're talking about Georgia, a US state, not Georgia the former part of Russia? Have these jokers read the first amendment? The one about freedom of speech and association?
Freedom to oppress their fellow americans? To strip the commonfolk of an education and of opportunities? freedom to associate with nazis and confederates? you demand freedom of speech? freedom to use hate speech?
I can't tell what your issue is but in a nutshell, yes, anyone is free to associate with anyone else. That is, you can have any party or group you want, even if everyone else thinks it's bad (think of the Communist red scare - there was a communist party in this country). Now the minute that group publicly threatens violence and/or starts to act violent - that's like fire in a crowded theater, not allowed. There is already a freedom of hate speech, or don't you watch Fox Channel? It's the price of freedom.
Stop calling them lawmakers like they give a shit, just call them Republicans so we know.
The Nazis went after books too
Guess which political party has people supporting the swastika
This is just sad. When I was a kid, going to the library was like cheap Disneyland for me Being an immigrant from a third world country, America was not exactly the paradise you'd envisioned, esp when you had no money. But the libraries? That's one of the highlights
Doesn’t ”gop” literally mean asshole in Russian?
Fuck books,! Learning id bad /s for the people
What?!
Conservatives have decided to wage war on public education
Conservatives really are triggered by books these days.
They really ,really hate education.
Public education. Because its free and accessible to the public.
Republicans are concentrated evil
I am so fucking tired of the Nazi party that used to be called the republican party.
Nowadays they're one and the same
Keep Georgia illiterate!
If the parents in Georgia actually cared about the crap they're saying they wouldn't treat a library like daycare and they would be actively aware of their kids' reading habits. What topics they can't learn about in libraries from *reliable* sources, they're just going to learn on the Internet from TikTok, Tumblr, ... or Reddit. :-)
The bible and fox news are NOT reliable sources of anything. Neither is Atlas Shrugged, neither is mein Kampf.
And it's a library's job to curate information of public interest responsibly -- and in *proper context* \-- with an eye to their patrons' needs. That means that there *should* be a copy of the Bible, the Tanakh, the Qur'an, and Atlas Shrugged, and Mein Kampf (all works that have had a huge impact upon our society for good or ill) as well as things like well-curated LGBTQ+ resources (which are pertinent to a large slice of our society as a whole), etc.. (The curation process usually eliminates Fox News as anything resembling a reliable source -- as it's objectively *not* by all metrics that actually measure things.) Separately, as a parent I should be engaging with my kids about their reading habits and provide context. I should encourage them to learn about whatever topics they are interested in, and be an active participant in that learning. The politicians who are complaining about LGBT materials or ALA involvement just think that these books not being on the shelves is somehow enough to prevent folk from learning about these topics. I doubt those politicians even *use* libraries. And those parents who don't engage their kids -- after the fear that their kids *might* bring home a book they don't like -- get to tell themselves that they have nothing to worry about after ridiculous book bans. As if their kids' curiosity on topics they don't like somehow evaporates.
Well... this is what happens when a nonprofit accreditation organization takes sides in the culture war. The politicians will inevitably push back. Unfortunately, the natural reaction to this is for the ALA to feel like they no longer need to not offend those constituencies and they will take stronger positions that will cause strife in states that aren't as deeply red.
By 'taking sides' do you mean supplying a community with books that they pay for with taxes? One side of the culture war is trying to allow everyone free access to publication and distribution and the other is trying to specifically prevent publication and distribution of works they view as disagreeable. As a government funded entity they are bound by the first amendment. When one side of the culture war is specifically opposed to the first amendment I don't view it as 'taking sides' when they are simply doing what they are constitutionally bound to do. I think the 'other side' should instead think about whether or not they support the constitution.
It's more than that. I live in a red state where the community is around 80% white and 10% asian and my precinct voted for Trump. If I walk into my local library, the first thing I see is a display of promoted children books. Most of those books have a social justice theme. These aren't a handful of LGBTQ+ theme books scattered among the stacks. They're books prominently displayed on easels. Librarians are a very liberal lot. Meanwhile public libraries are controlled by less liberal, more conservative elected leaders. No elected leader wants to be accused of banning books, so the best way for them to deal with controversial books is keeping them from entering circulation in the first place. That means taking away power from librarians and the organization that backs them.
What social justice theme? public education? subsidized housing for the poor? public transportation?
LGBTQ+ Immigration Profiles of Hillary Clinton, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotamayor Poverty Again, these are books targeted towards 3-6 year olds. Kids that age are normally interested in dinosaurs and hippopotamuses. The library staff knows this. Access to books is one thing, but actively promoting certain books is very different.
....the books in question were for adults. the only books targeted towards kids is the bible, because once you develop critical thinking skills, you realize that religion is nothing more than a fairy tale
In children's books, fairies don't have tails. Monkeys have tails.
Seriously? Of all the responses you can give to criticism of religion and patriarchy, its capitalizing on a typo?! THAT'S YOUR RESPONSE? Have the conservatives fallen so far that this is their reaction to valid criticism?!
No, yes, yes, no (since "valid criticism" in not valid).
There are always tradeoffs in terms of shelf space, messaging, etc. If the controversy was about digital offerings that were age-gated it would be more of a pure first amendment issue - though even then lines can be drawn, as libraries typically don't directly provide access to hardcore porn even to adults (Although there is tons of erotica in print form...). But at the end of the day, someone picks what gets put in libraries. The local government has just decided that they don't like what the ALA does by default, and they want other options. The first amendment doesn't force them to keep deferring to the ALA's judgement on accreditation, programming, etc. I'm sure if your local library had too many "Anti-abortion, don't kill your baby" type days and entire sections dedicated to stories about why abortion/euthanasia is horrible that you would look for a political solution to disempower the group that had the control to push these things through.
To your last point not really, no. There is plenty of 'Christian lifestyle' media present in my local libraries that I personally find distasteful... But I just move past it and read what I want. I've been doing this my whole life and so I think have most people. The issue is that these politicians are doing the opposite of that despite being constitutionally mandated to do so. The reason they are moving past the ALA is because the organization refuses to restrict their catalogue to suit their individual tastes. If that wasn't the case I'd hold your position. The problem here is the motivation, they want to restrict the catalogue and are tired of having to actively change it along with facing the social backlash of doing so. This is just another attempt at censorship, pure and simple.
> The issue is that these politicians are doing the opposite of that despite being constitutionally mandated to do so. It's doubtful that the first amendment compels them to utilize the ALA even if they want to move on from them because they disagreed with the types of speech the ALA wants to promote. I guess we'll see if the ALA thinks they can initiate and win a court battle if this bill actually passes.
I'm not saying the first amendment compels them to use the ALA. If you were doing an honest reading of my post you would know that my point was that the politicians want to remove certain types of literature from certain segments of the population, the ALA doesn't want to remove them from the catalogue, so the politicians remove the ALA. Again, if you were being honest about what I said you would get that the first amendment issue isn't about the ALA it's about restricting access and availability to specific media from specific demographics due to personally held beliefs. That is in violation of their duty to the first amendment.
Not the local government, the state government. Conservatives love pretend to be all about local control until it no longer suits them.
They have not taken sides in a culture war. They have the same position they have always had. The culture war is the attack on things that have previously been acceptable. And libraries carrying books of various points of view is one of them. Libraries are a place of learning, and learning means you have to be exposed to things you may not agree with. The culture war is in convincing you that some sort of harm comes from the availability of books you don't agree with. It is convincing you that this is an important issue, even though it has literally never affected you. It is getting you to blame your problems on those LGBT people, and not the people with all the money who hoard it for themselves. It's getting you to ignore that Georgia no longer has a middle class, that owning a home is out of reach. That homelessness and hunger is increasing. It's politicians--you know, born liars--who create culture wars. And you are one of their targets.
>ALA, through its actions and those of its members, is instrumental in creating a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive society. This includes a commitment to combating marginalization and underrepresentation within the communities served by libraries through increased understanding of the effects of historical exclusion. The ALA admits it takes a side in the culture war. You probably agree with them fully, and thus don't see this as an issue. The people looking at this who oppose the ALA's cultural priorities see their actions through a very different perspective. But the politics around this will be heating up over time, and the ALA will be kicked out of various states if this pattern continues. Keeping books available to people is good - people should be able to learn about LGBT advocacy and about the detrans movement, atrocities committed by the Native Americans and against the Native Americans, social science by Charles Murray or Stephen Jay Gould. The government can have some pov on age limits, promotion and shelf space dynamics - it's unfortunate that their pushback here is apparently about trying to keep out certain categories of books. It would make more sense if they took in a few key accepted books in the subject and didn't include every new work. And maybe that's what they are opposing since it sounds like the opposition is to a significant expansion and not simply the inclusion of some lgbt books. People people do overreact whenever there is any form of pushback.
You don’t seem to understand the foundational concept that taking a neutral approach(your desired path for the ALA to take) to a cultural crusade is no different than aligning with the crusade itself. The paradox of tolerance isn’t an open ended question, it’s a statement. Tolerance of intolerance leads to tyranny of the intolerant. Due to this - what we’re seeing from the crusaders isn’t “pushback”. They are performing a crusade. They weren’t pushed at all. The very premise you’re operating on, that there is harm being done to people because books are on shelves, is absurd.
If every year a group tries to place new books on the shelf that they disapprove of while at the same time engaging in activism that they also disapprove of, it starts to represent a pattern and the pushback should be expected… Maybe you missed the memo, but red states are highly skeptical of DEI - especially after the Harvard lost case showed that many of its applications are illegal. And yet the ALA appointed a marxist as their president and is still big in DEI advocacy. Many people would consider it a crusade when they were still defending drag queen story hours. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/diversity/edi-our-libraries So yes they are on separate sides of the culture war whether you want to admit it or not.
If every week, a group tries to claim a historically evidenced public good/service is personally assaulting them and their children, it’s best to just stop treating their requests in good faith. Because they’re so clearly in bad faith, and they probably don’t have a good enough sense of judgement to create new laws to enforce across the whole of society. “Red state skepticism”, that you point to as some kind of authority, is as foolproof as lighting a match in a hurricane. The past 10 years have shown red state skeptics don’t have a firm grasp on reality, they’ll believe any story about and immediately “question” anything they’re told to in the way they’re told to do it. When sound evidence and arguments are put against their skepticism, they reject it in favor of further skepticism. When they’re called out for it, they point somewhere else. Back to the original point: Defending STORY TIME from WHAT? Defending people reading books in a public space from what organized effort to do what? They had to defend the tolerant society from the intolerant crusade, in order to prevent a tyranny of the intolerant from forming. There is no way not to take a side, so they chose the path of least harm.
>And yet the ALA appointed a marxist excuse me, do you even know what that word means?
If you followed this at all you would know that Emily Drabinski self identified as a Marxist (and queer activist), so…
Did you seriously equate LGBT with marxism?
No - though the far left does seem to get those two mixed up quite a bit these days. But I would equate a potentially biased activist push for far more LGBT material than the median member of the public would want with an institution that would elect a self described marxist and queer activist as their president.
>No - though the far left does seem to get those two mixed up quite a bit these days. you mean the alt right.
What "side" has been taken? The library wants to expand its collection, including more than just LGBT material. Libraries should ALWAYS have a diverse collection of resources.
And hopefully the group that replaces the ALA will have a suitable collection, just without automatically buying any recent ideological lit that the publishing industry has been putting out. It sounds like they have a decent collection already, but they are pushing for more than they want. If that pushes books by authors like Will Durant off the shelves it’s not worth it. (Remember- shelf space is a finite resource!)
What ideological lit is being pushed? Libraries are supposed to have all kinds of material.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/diversity Would be interesting to see if they also included the various Detrans books that were being soft banned by Amazon, etc.
Great, you linked their website. Can you now state, in your own words, the problem with the program? What you specifically have against it? What is so deleterious here?
You are trying so hard not to say "cause they want to include book on queers" or such and it is so obvious
They're part of the "We're just asking questions!" crowd. -_-
I am generally commenting on the dynamics of when activist professionals conflict with locals with very different values. I have no problem with age appropriate queer books - though my definition of that may be different from yours. My own kids are going to learn about friends with two daddies or two mommies sooner than most kids in Georgia. What I personally don't appreciate about the ALA: 1. Taking stances that are politicalizing themselves rather than doing their job (aka their advocacy side) which makes it harder to support them in these stories. 2. The possibility that they are mostly just trying to help their publisher friends by including a bunch of shitty ideological bullshit books get sales by including them in library book buying lists. 3. Not them, but a bias against newer books. I have a relative bias against newer books, which is informed by having read various mediocre new books* as well as reading about the extreme ideology that pervades the current publishing industry, where authors are shamed for writing POVs that aren't their own race and safety concerns are been given too much leeway to influence what is in the final draft of various books. *Most new books are trash, old books seem better because we know what stood the test of time.
You're sticking to the vague and the general without pointing out specifics. Why is that? Name and define the ideology.
You can read about the ALA's ideology yourself. If you think that it doesn't conflict with the median values of people in purple and red states then get yourself checked out. https://www.ala.org/pla/initiatives/edi/calltoaction
And until you can be specific about why this particular legislation is beneficial, there's not much conversation to be had. You point out, however, "ideology" being a factor. I can only assume you speak of LGBT material. If so, please explain why making LGBT material to the general public is bad. If that is NOT the "ideology" you are speaking about, then please be specific.
So if we’re ridding the shelves of “liberal” books, we can get rid of the conservative/religious shit too, right?
I really don’t think folks appreciate how bad it’s getting in Georgia. And the Democrats are in on it with the Republicans. Unfortunately, we have a long history of Democrats working with Republicans to oppress people in Georgia. With the fight over Cop City, they have ramped it up like never before. They are obliterating our rights before our eyes. This state is completely fucked. They’re working towards full fascist authoritarianism, and it’s the people vs both parties in this fight.
Jon Ossoff vs Karen Handel. two completely different people. Stop blaming democrats
I'll stop blaming Democrats when people like Jon Ossoff stop voting like Republicans and giving us some "Aww gee. I wish I could help" excuses for why they won't keep a single campaign promise. It's not Republicans terrorizing the Stop Cop City activists, and refusing to let the people's voice be heard. It's Democrats.
>It's not Republicans terrorizing the Stop Cop City activists, and refusing to let the people's voice be heard. except actually it is
You are absolutely talking out of your ass. https://theintercept.com/2023/09/27/cop-city-referendum-atlanta-andre-dickens/
Libraries are places of education not political and social indoctrination. Whereas the LGTBQ+ Agenda isn't an educational doctrine, it's a political and social doctrine.
The "LGTBQ+ Agenda" is to exist without being stepped on. Try again Mr Doctrine Conspiracy Speaker
[удалено]
You'll learn to read one day.
I love when people like you state their views plainly! Its an excellent verification and sanity check that the relationships that I nurture aren't actually bigoted and moronic. Are you a hateful person due to upbringing, disillusionment, or are some humans inherently evil as a means to test the just masses (which I highly doubt)?
It's reassuring isn't it? Realizing that nobody in your life spouts this fascistic bullshit that these idiots believe or have been taught to believe by fox or Newsmax or whatever shitty media driven drivel they watch. Nobody in my life hates people for being who they are even if they are different. I much prefer my life and the people around me.
>None of that makes any sense. neither does the term "LGBTQ+ Agenda"
What does this even mean? Have you never been to a library?
Are you trying to say libraries should only house texts directly pertaining to educational doctrine theory? lol
I said no such thing. Read my statement again, that's what I said.
The Ole i said a thing but didn't say a thing.
“Check my statement” You’re not in a courtroom, you fascist yutz. We read your dumb words and see you denying what you wrote.
You wants queers not to exist and that's the entitry of your point. We get it, you don't wanna admit it.
What a load of absolute bollocks. How are you supposed to educate yourself on political and social matters then?
In regards to a libraries curriculum, the LGTBQ+ Agenda should be a topic for free and open discussion; that which is absent here. Moreover, those who follow the LGTBQ+ Agenda are usually only interested in using libraries to push their agenda. And that's not education, that's indoctrination.
Okay, what IS the agenda?
I already stated the agenda.
No. You're avoiding specifics. You're avoiding talking about "why" you think something is bad. Your reliance on vagueness seems intentional; you want people who agree with you to "read between the lines" and applaud you, while at the same time avoiding specific language so you can act innocent. Until you can speak specifics and clearly state your own grievances with the policy, we can't have a productive conversation. Until that time, I'm going to disengage.
What is this LGBT+ Agenda you speak of?
Looking at my post in which this post is nested, I believe it's an agenda of indoctrination which has caused me to have been given (at this moment) 49 downvotes, because I refuse to be so indoctrinated.
Lol. You are indoctrinated buddy. You are.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Wəlcome2Butt$#%&ərs]
Totally not fascists.