This Is What Ignorance Looks Like

@DEFinning

On the Llano Front, if you have not heard, the county commissioners voted to keep the libraries open for now. I think the county commissioners court is appealing the decision. Once that process is finished, it will be on the chopping block again.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/13/llano-county-library-books/

 

To give you an idea, some books in Florida were banned that had the word Gay, or a gay character, or a gay theme, and such. And for people of color, most of those books had people of color central to the book, like Roots for instance, and a few others.

 

I'm just wondering if a pasty white heterosexual could get his book about pasty white heterosexual folk removed by the librarian (or maybe just not considered at all) on the basis that its a book about pasty white heterosexual folk written by a pasty white heterosexual.

 

A gay theme?

What exactly is a "gay theme"?

How about an example? Give us a good plot.

 

there are plenty of cookbooks out there. Every winner of Master Chef and Master Chef Jr has written a cookbook. So, what makes that cookbook special compared to Christine Ha's cookbook or Dorian Hunter or Dara Yu? Then of course we have Paula Dean, Barefoot Contessa, Gordan Ramsey and others. And if a library does have a cookbook, it will be donated and must have some sort of uniqueness about it to some degree.

 

I don't know, ask Florida. So far, they have removed some 700 books so far. One of the books removed was a nature book in which two male penguins adopted a rock as if it was their own.

Here is a list of 178 books that one Florida county has banned.

https://pen.org/banned-books-florida/

You may want to take particular note of some of the titles such as Dumpling Soup, Dreamers, or Fry Bread.

 

Let me guess, two male black penguins and a girl lump of limestone?

Cause if so, you can imagine how the implied imagery might not go over so well in some circles.

Also, curious that the author in the above piece has LBGTQ and "people of color" both together each and every time in each and every occasion. It's seems like the author is implying that there is some relationship between the LBGTQ and the "people of color" in the general sense.

 

This part-

The author has LBGTQ and "people of color" real cozy. It just does not seem right. If they had written - "written by or about homosexuals or Asians", or "written by or about lesbians or Caucasians" it would not seem right either. It's not a natural association.

 

The books were not removed, specifically because of the color or sexuality of the writer. As far as the characters, for graphic novels, those with alternative sexuality themes would probably have the vague law applied more broadly to them. Perhaps black female characters, in graphic novels, are drawn with more emphasized buttocks, for example, which the librarians did not want to chance being arrested for leaving on the shelves. Obviously, the information you are asking, is too specific to have been provided in the text of the news article. All we can do is speculate as to why there would be a greater corroboration of works by or about people of color, or someone LGBTQ, and books pulled, because of this law.

The law is only about graphic representation-- but does that mean we can be sure that some librarians didn't try to stay ahead of the curve, by pulling unillustrated texts, but which perhaps have some graphic literary imagery, about an LGBTQ character? The answer, btw, is no, we cannot know.

Another interesting possibility that occurs to me, is that this could potentially be indicative of a greater difficulty for black authors, to get published, so that maybe a niche market that does publish their work, is for LGBTQ fiction. Therefore, minority authors may be better represented, in that group. If a librarian yanks one of their books, then, they could be removing the voice of an author who is both gay & black, spoken through a story which has both gay & black characters, which could well be more easily relatable, for students who are either black or gay, but which will no longer be there for them.

 

Ironic.

 

Yes. When you passive aggressively tell someone to use a dictionary you should make sure you don't make any spelling mistakes or you will look a fool.

For most people the single word ''ironic'' is enough to convey this message.

 

Spot on.

 

That all you got?

No substance, just complaining about a typo. Nice.

 

Covers it.

 

Hyperbole much? In the end what shut down the library was a judge who decided he new better than parents what their children should have access to oh and seven narcissistic idiots.

 

The myth is what the left wants kids to learn. Because the truth doesn't further the approved narrative.

 

Yeah. And, according to government and media sources (and good old mom) if you smoked crack cocaine just once you would become instantly addicted. Until, whoops... I actually, and quite possibly stupidly, but nonetheless, I smoked crack cocaine. Did not become instantly addicted. Imagine what that one single moment did to my faith in government and media, especially when it comes so "illegal" drugs. Someone out there, and to this day I still have not figured out precisely who, even though that enlightening moment happened in the early-mid 90s, has an agenda.

Same with fentanyl. Hardly a single day goes by that I do not hear about some guy getting busted coming over the border with enough fentanyl to literally "kill everyone in the country". And, while some people are dying from it (though I consider that a homicide by poisoning, not a drug overdose), if it were really that prevalant, they would be dropping by the tens of thousands, if not more, because every day in this country tens of millions of people are doing some kind of "illegal" drug, and virtually all of them survive.

Oops.

 

i suspect that you do not understand too much.

the most basic premise of the entire document is the quaint enlightenment notion of "natural rights." just an easy answer to the king's claim of "divine rights."

 

the RW, are indeed more closly allied to fascist principles than any left party, but if you dont read books, you would never know being tucker educated and fox news, its a vicious circle

 

"pluribus" includes us all. not just your preferred class, race, religion, sex or gender. we will never get to "e pluribus unum" "with a bunch of ignorant America hating americans like you."

 

So you are saying that the assistant superintendent of Goshen Indiana schools was lying to the teacher to whom he was speaking? I wonder why he would do that? Sorry that the talking points you have read and heard are lies. They teach CRT in public schools every day. They just call it something else as the assistant superintendent was suggesting. Haven't you figured out that most political "facts" are actually something else? I figured it out a long time ago.

 

Where did I say they should be put away. Try to stick to criticizing what I actually write.

I'm wide awake. I don't think some books are appropriate for children unless parents agree to it. Sorry, the children do not belong to the state. Can you explain why some parents are complaining about some books in children's libraries? Have you been to those libraries to see what is there? Consider yourself well indoctrinated in wokeness. I think I will take a nap now.

Government doesn't have the "freedom" to expose children to things against the will of the parents of those children. The parents' don't have the freedom to raise their children as they see fit?

 

There you go. Fight rudeness with more rudeness. That should work.

 

that is the only way to deal with sock puppets who consider "wokeness" or community to be bad things.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with where in the Constitution you can find the authorization (or authority) for Congress to create such an agency. Maybe you can help me find it? Because my copy must be defective or something.