Yes, yes, you’re in favor of the unabashed greed of copyright maximalism and think anyone who owns a copyright should be allowed to exploit it in every conceivable fashion until the heat death of the universe. Find a new song, you off-key lounge singer—this one is all played out.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
a well-known liberal talk show host got caught spreading Holocaust misinformation
Whoopi Goldberg said that she didn’t believe the Holocaust was rooted in racism. Her opinion, foolish as it was to both believe in and express, wasn’t trying to deny the objective fact that the Nazis systematically mass murdered millions of Jewish people.
Nothing beats having a quality copy of a good book to hold in your hands and put on a bookshelf—especially a reference book like a dictionary or a journalism stylebook.
You can teach about the Holocaust without using one "swear-word" or are you really suggesting that not using swear-words dilutes horrific stories about the Holocaust somehow?
I’m saying that censoring swear words out of books that use them (which is what the school board suggested be done with Maus) is, at a bare minimum, watering down the words of people writing about horrific tragedies. That isn’t exactly the same as diluting those stories themselves, but it isn’t much better than doing so.
What's more important, teaching kids about the Holocaust or teaching kids about the Holocaust with swear-words?
Teaching kids about the Holocaust without trying to make it more “palatable” for children, that’s what is more fucking important. If a book can get across the teaching of the Holocaust without swear words, great, fine. But if a book about the Holocaust uses swear words and it didn’t go “unpunished” for that until recently, maybe the issue isn’t the book.
You’re acting like the issue is the swears when I can all but guarantee that plenty of schools—likely including schools that this school board oversees—stock the unabridged and uncensored version of To Kill a Mockingbird. Is the N-word, in any context, more or less offensive than “goddamn”? Schools stock the Bible—are the verses talking about rape and sexual emissions and such more or less offensive than a drawn image of the bare tit of a suicide victim lying in a bathtub?
The internet is littered with stories how schools try to appease irate parents by doing stupid things.
Appeasement is accomodation, and one parent (or a small group of parents) trying to control what all students can learn in school is accomodation for fascists. Fuck all of that.
I’m not saying a school board is wrong to look at potentially offensive materials and go “yes, this isn’t something we need to let our students read on our time and dime”. That’s both their right and a generally good idea. And parents absolutely should have a say in what their kids are reading; opt-in permission slips can help with that, as can good ol’ fashioned parental guidance. But when the real reason for taking a book out of a curriculum is “we gotta shut these whiny fucks up”, that’s a show of cowardice. Banning Maus isn’t really about the swear words or the crude cartoon picture of a bare tit—it’s about a small group of parents wanting to ban content that they’re uncomfortable with because it doesn’t “protect” children.
A parent who doesn’t want their child to read Maus isn’t a problem. A parent who doesn’t want everyone else’s children to read Maus is a censor-happy asshole. If you think—for even a microsecond—that my issue here is with the first parent instead of the second, you’re objectively wrong.
The only objections to the book was the profanities and one graphic depiction, nothing more.
That’s my whole fucking point: They wanted a “less offensive” book to use when teaching about the Holocaust. Also, if people think eight swear words and a non-sexualized drawing of the bare breast of a suicide victim lying in a bathtub are more offensive than the depictions of the mass murder of Jewish people, something is fucked up, and it isn’t the comic book.
The real question is, has something changed with the parents' standards, or were they just not aware of it until recently?
No, the real question is this: What book do they want in the curriculum instead? Because you can’t teach the Holocaust without offending people in some way. If a few swear words and a picture of a naked tit in a story about the mass murder of millions of people are more offensive to someone than the historical events that story is recounting, said someone has more problems than being offended by the word “goddamn”.
The fact that a bunch of similar book bans (or attempted bans) have been happening in schools and public libraries across the country in the past year suggests a coordinated effort. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if “dark money” conservative groups are behind it. The objections to certain kinds of books—specifically books both about and by queer people and people of color—make me believe this is some post-Trump bullshit intended to galvanize his base around local elections.
What becomes acceptable nationally always begins locally. Make a bunch of these bans seem acceptable on a local level and, well, Congressfolk will certainly think about passing some sort of law to prevent certain things from being read/taught/talked about in schools. Look at Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” bill: If that passes down there, I guarantee you’ll see a similar bill filed in Congress when the GOP once again controls at least one chamber.
Do you think that people who view this as a "bad shoot" would change their mind and think it was a "good shoot" if the victim had possessed the gun illegally?
The legality of the gun is ultimately irrelevant in the bigger picture. Amir Locke was subjected to an invasion of his home by armed intruders who didn’t identify themselves as police. If he had been able to to defend himself with a weapon—including an illegally obtained handgun—he would’ve been well within his rights to do so.
This was a “bad shoot” because the cops put themselves in the position to make it one. They could’ve chosen another way to apprehend Amir Locke—one that didn’t involve lethal violence or an unannounced home invasion. That they chose a way in which they knowingly put themselves into a dangerous situation is on them, not Amir Locke. He didn’t commit any crime worth losing his life over, not even in the last ten seconds of his life.
they had no substitute literature readily available for it
They likely never will, since they apparently wanted a less offensive book than Maus for the Holocaust portion of the curriculum. The problem with that notion is that you can’t teach the Holocaust without talking about some pretty goddamned offensive things—like the motivations of Hitler, how the Jews were treated in the death camps, how queer people were treated both before and after the liberation of those camps, and how Hitler took inspiration from both racist laws and the eugenics movement within the United States.
Any attempt to water down the teaching of the Holocaust only dilutes the impact of said teaching. People should be offended by the Holocaust. Anyone who isn’t has bigger problems than a kid seeing a non-sexualized bare breast in a comic book about the Holocaust.
I’d like to thank Penguin Random House for providing more proof that libraries would never get off the ground these days if they hadn’t already existed. Thanks for showing us the pure greed and sociopathy of capitalism! 🙃
Your refusal to accept that the idea of inward-opening external dooes isn’t related to the police is your problem. Guess who gets to fix it. (ProTip: It isn’t someone else.)
If not being on a curriculum means it is “banned,” then so is every other book not on any school’s curriculum.
The book was part of the curriculum until the school system said “nope fuck that”. The removal likely happened due to pressure from parents who were inspired by other such bans that have been coincidentally happening all over the country within the past year.
It may not have been “banned” from the school in the sense that the school board had the book removed from the school library or barred students from bringing it to school. But the book was removed from the curriculum about the Holocaust, and that seems like enough of a ban to me.
So, too, is “hiding the realities of racism, homophobia, and the history of slavery”—at least according to the multiple attempts to ban the teaching of Criticial Race Theory outside of universities (where it wasn’t being taught), the numerous bills (such as Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” bill) attempting to silence speech that somehow hurts conservative feelings, and the organized effort to ban books by and about minorities from school and public libraries.
perhaps the reason the NRA isn't up in arms … about this incident is that it's an example of a situation that they prefer to ignore: someone is dead expressly because he bought a gun to protect himself.
the number of people in positions of power and influence who consider any opinion with a hint of conservatism "extremist"
What are their names? When have they expressed the position on conservative speech that you say they hold, and with what phrasing? What specific “conservative” opinions have they called “extremist”? What makes the opinions to which they refer exclusively “conservative”?
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Yes, yes, you’re in favor of the unabashed greed of copyright maximalism and think anyone who owns a copyright should be allowed to exploit it in every conceivable fashion until the heat death of the universe. Find a new song, you off-key lounge singer—this one is all played out.
On the post: Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Whoopi Goldberg said that she didn’t believe the Holocaust was rooted in racism. Her opinion, foolish as it was to both believe in and express, wasn’t trying to deny the objective fact that the Nazis systematically mass murdered millions of Jewish people.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
For what, being too soft on crime?
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Nothing beats having a quality copy of a good book to hold in your hands and put on a bookshelf—especially a reference book like a dictionary or a journalism stylebook.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
I’m saying that censoring swear words out of books that use them (which is what the school board suggested be done with Maus) is, at a bare minimum, watering down the words of people writing about horrific tragedies. That isn’t exactly the same as diluting those stories themselves, but it isn’t much better than doing so.
Teaching kids about the Holocaust without trying to make it more “palatable” for children, that’s what is more fucking important. If a book can get across the teaching of the Holocaust without swear words, great, fine. But if a book about the Holocaust uses swear words and it didn’t go “unpunished” for that until recently, maybe the issue isn’t the book.
You’re acting like the issue is the swears when I can all but guarantee that plenty of schools—likely including schools that this school board oversees—stock the unabridged and uncensored version of To Kill a Mockingbird. Is the N-word, in any context, more or less offensive than “goddamn”? Schools stock the Bible—are the verses talking about rape and sexual emissions and such more or less offensive than a drawn image of the bare tit of a suicide victim lying in a bathtub?
Appeasement is accomodation, and one parent (or a small group of parents) trying to control what all students can learn in school is accomodation for fascists. Fuck all of that.
I’m not saying a school board is wrong to look at potentially offensive materials and go “yes, this isn’t something we need to let our students read on our time and dime”. That’s both their right and a generally good idea. And parents absolutely should have a say in what their kids are reading; opt-in permission slips can help with that, as can good ol’ fashioned parental guidance. But when the real reason for taking a book out of a curriculum is “we gotta shut these whiny fucks up”, that’s a show of cowardice. Banning Maus isn’t really about the swear words or the crude cartoon picture of a bare tit—it’s about a small group of parents wanting to ban content that they’re uncomfortable with because it doesn’t “protect” children.
A parent who doesn’t want their child to read Maus isn’t a problem. A parent who doesn’t want everyone else’s children to read Maus is a censor-happy asshole. If you think—for even a microsecond—that my issue here is with the first parent instead of the second, you’re objectively wrong.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
That’s my whole fucking point: They wanted a “less offensive” book to use when teaching about the Holocaust. Also, if people think eight swear words and a non-sexualized drawing of the bare breast of a suicide victim lying in a bathtub are more offensive than the depictions of the mass murder of Jewish people, something is fucked up, and it isn’t the comic book.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
“Bitch, please!”
— DMX, “X Gon’ Give It To Ya”
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
To wit: The Bible, which is full of depictions of violence and plenty of sexual content.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
No, the real question is this: What book do they want in the curriculum instead? Because you can’t teach the Holocaust without offending people in some way. If a few swear words and a picture of a naked tit in a story about the mass murder of millions of people are more offensive to someone than the historical events that story is recounting, said someone has more problems than being offended by the word “goddamn”.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
The fact that a bunch of similar book bans (or attempted bans) have been happening in schools and public libraries across the country in the past year suggests a coordinated effort. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if “dark money” conservative groups are behind it. The objections to certain kinds of books—specifically books both about and by queer people and people of color—make me believe this is some post-Trump bullshit intended to galvanize his base around local elections.
What becomes acceptable nationally always begins locally. Make a bunch of these bans seem acceptable on a local level and, well, Congressfolk will certainly think about passing some sort of law to prevent certain things from being read/taught/talked about in schools. Look at Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” bill: If that passes down there, I guarantee you’ll see a similar bill filed in Congress when the GOP once again controls at least one chamber.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
The legality of the gun is ultimately irrelevant in the bigger picture. Amir Locke was subjected to an invasion of his home by armed intruders who didn’t identify themselves as police. If he had been able to to defend himself with a weapon—including an illegally obtained handgun—he would’ve been well within his rights to do so.
This was a “bad shoot” because the cops put themselves in the position to make it one. They could’ve chosen another way to apprehend Amir Locke—one that didn’t involve lethal violence or an unannounced home invasion. That they chose a way in which they knowingly put themselves into a dangerous situation is on them, not Amir Locke. He didn’t commit any crime worth losing his life over, not even in the last ten seconds of his life.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
They likely never will, since they apparently wanted a less offensive book than Maus for the Holocaust portion of the curriculum. The problem with that notion is that you can’t teach the Holocaust without talking about some pretty goddamned offensive things—like the motivations of Hitler, how the Jews were treated in the death camps, how queer people were treated both before and after the liberation of those camps, and how Hitler took inspiration from both racist laws and the eugenics movement within the United States.
Any attempt to water down the teaching of the Holocaust only dilutes the impact of said teaching. People should be offended by the Holocaust. Anyone who isn’t has bigger problems than a kid seeing a non-sexualized bare breast in a comic book about the Holocaust.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
I’d like to thank Penguin Random House for providing more proof that libraries would never get off the ground these days if they hadn’t already existed. Thanks for showing us the pure greed and sociopathy of capitalism! 🙃
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Doors. That should be doors, like the one I’m slamming my head against for not catching that in proofreading.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Your refusal to accept that the idea of inward-opening external dooes isn’t related to the police is your problem. Guess who gets to fix it. (ProTip: It isn’t someone else.)
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
The book was part of the curriculum until the school system said “nope fuck that”. The removal likely happened due to pressure from parents who were inspired by other such bans that have been coincidentally happening all over the country within the past year.
It may not have been “banned” from the school in the sense that the school board had the book removed from the school library or barred students from bringing it to school. But the book was removed from the curriculum about the Holocaust, and that seems like enough of a ban to me.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
So, too, is “hiding the realities of racism, homophobia, and the history of slavery”—at least according to the multiple attempts to ban the teaching of Criticial Race Theory outside of universities (where it wasn’t being taught), the numerous bills (such as Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” bill) attempting to silence speech that somehow hurts conservative feelings, and the organized effort to ban books by and about minorities from school and public libraries.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Something tells me that’s not qwhite the reason.
On the post: The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup
What are their names? When have they expressed the position on conservative speech that you say they hold, and with what phrasing? What specific “conservative” opinions have they called “extremist”? What makes the opinions to which they refer exclusively “conservative”?
Be specific.
Next >>