Shopping the 'vicious compliance section': Stores see sales after Alberta book ban

[John F]

Originally Posted by rcentros

...

I think sometimes people forget that public schools are paid for by the public. And, usually, the public is more conservative than the school administrators, who often seem to be on the cutting edge of "Woke" ideology.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by PeterT

From W8kiPedia


which I take to mean that all streaming versions have the dryer scene removed.

I'll have to have a watch of the US animated version of Lilo & Stitch to double check.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

That's the way I see it. Win-win. People who want to read these books can still get them at a bookstore and the public isn't forced into paying for books they don't want their kids to read in public schools.

I think sometimes people forget that public schools are paid for by the public. And, usually, the public is more conservative than the school administrators, who often seem to be on the cutting edge of "Woke" ideology.

Why is it you approve of book banning?

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you know if the dryer scene is edited from Disney+ in the UK?

I'd assume so.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Why is it you approve of book banning?

That is an inflammatory statement thinly disguised as a question. Addressing "age inappropriate" issues is not synonymous with "book banning".

The problem is that book banners will often site age appropriateness as the reason for the bans they want. And conversely, those wanting children to have a too-early introduction to atypical lifestyle choices that kids wouldn't even understand use book banning as the reason they call for "any book for any child".

There is such a thing as "age appropriateness". And there is such a thing as "restricting speech".

It is the extremists on either side that cause the problems. Not the normal people who desire a workable solution somewhere in the middle. The childish rhetoric of accusing someone of being a "book banner" or a "child groomer" does not help, and just makes the issue more difficult to solve.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by haertig

That is an inflammatory statement thinly disguised as a question. Addressing "age inappropriate" issues is not synonymous with "book banning".

The problem is that book banners will often site age appropriateness as the reason for the bans they want. And conversely, those wanting children to have a too-early introduction to atypical lifestyle choices that kids wouldn't even understand use book banning as the reason they call for "any book for any child".

There is such a thing as "age appropriateness". And there is such a thing as "restricting speech".

It is the extremists on either side that cause the problems. Not the normal people who desire a workable solution somewhere in the middle. The childish rhetoric of accusing someone of being a "book banner" or a "child groomer" does not help, and just makes the issue more difficult to solve.

Is there such a thing as age appropriateness? Some 12 year olds might be fine with some content, others not so much. Even when you look at things like film and game ratings, it's incredibly subjective and cultural. Titles that have some light nudity might be rated 17+ in North America and 12+ in Europe or Japan, meanwhile a violent title might be 13+ rated in NA and 18+ in Japan. What's actually age appropriate?

There is no solid line. And politicians definitely shouldn't be the ones demarcating it.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

There is no solid line.

Very true. And the exact reason why I am advocating for a compromise middle ground solution rather than anything coming from the extremes. Blacklisting books for questionable reasons is an extreme. Any book for any child is an extreme. Promoting that there is no such a thing as age appropriateness is an extreme. I oppose all of these.

[jackm8]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

There is no solid line. And politicians definitely shouldn't be the ones demarcating it.

Someone should be the one doing it, though. Most of the books on banned school lists aren't suitable for children. Most of them would never be in the school library forty years ago, simply because we had responsible librarians then.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jackm8

Someone should be the one doing it, though. Most of the books on banned school lists aren't suitable for children. Most of them would never be in the school library forty years ago, simply because we had responsible librarians then.

What age range are you talking about? I agree that some of the banned books are not for younger kids. But to ban them outright is wrong. The ones not for younger kids should be restricted to teens.

When I was 13-14, I was reading beyond my age. And my parents allowed it. They even allowed me to pick my own books. I read a lot of SF/Fantasy books. The thing is, how many books did I read that you would consider not appropriate for a youngish teen? I think it's up to the parents and not the prudes and politicians to decide what kids can and cannot read.

If you think these books should be banned, then most of what's taught in school would be inappropriate such as Shakespeare. Look at Romeo & Juliet. It features suicide and hatred.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think it's up to the parents and not the prudes and politicians to decide what kids can and cannot read.

Exactly. But it's not up to those of loose or no morals to decide either.

If a book is considered inappropriate by by some (meaning a reasonable group, not just one individual), then it should not be available to any (in the same age range) without parental involvement. Explicit parental knowledge and consent being the lowest level of involvement I'm talking about here. Yes, there will be some "what about this fringe case?" things that my generalization above won't apply to, but I'm talking "general case" not one-off oddball cases.

If the parents of little 7 year old Johnny are OK with him reading about and looking at pictures of how this interfaces with that, when other 7 year olds don't even know what this and that are yet, Johnny's case should not dictate what the other kids are given unrestricted access to. But "Johnny sets the goalposts" seems to be what some people are arguing for, while saying anything less is restriction of speech and ideas. I disagree. I don't think this and that books belong in elementary school libraries. Or even middle school libraries. High school libraries are probably OK - given that parents are notified that it will be happening and have options to protect and guide their children as they see fit.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by jackm8

Someone should be the one doing it, though. Most of the books on banned school lists aren't suitable for children. Most of them would never be in the school library forty years ago, simply because we had responsible librarians then.

Do you actually have any proof that many of those books were not available in the school libraries 40 years ago (and please limit yourself to those books that were published more than 40 years ago)? And unlike what many people seem to think, the library in an elementary school will not have the same books as a middle or secondary school library. Even in some of the unified schools, the libraries have sections for the different age levels.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Do you actually have any proof that many of those books were not available in the school libraries 40 years ago (and please limit yourself to those books that were published more than 40 years ago)? And unlike what many people seem to think, the library in an elementary school will not have the same books as a middle or secondary school library. Even in some of the unified schools, the libraries have sections for the different age levels.

Hint: Consider the subject matter of the four "pornographic" books that Alberta specifically wants to ban. It's not that librarians from 40 years ago were more responsible. It's that the Overton window has shifted and that those subjects are more accepted.

[jackm8]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Do you actually have any proof that many of those books were not available in the school libraries 40 years ago (and please limit yourself to those books that were published more than 40 years ago)? And unlike what many people seem to think, the library in an elementary school will not have the same books as a middle or secondary school library. Even in some of the unified schools, the libraries have sections for the different age levels.

Well, most of them on the list were not written 40 years ago, so they could not possibly be available. That's the whole point. Explicit sexual content was never allowed in school libraries. Bans are in place to correct what was always a norm.

I'm also quite baffled by your lack of understanding of the bans in place. The list is quite clear. Explicit sexual content is restricted up to Grade 12. Non-explicit sexual content is restricted up to grade 9. And then there's a large section of books and comics that are allowed for all grades. It's certain that this was not a political thing, it was clearly a carefully researched project.

Schools became lazy, they've allowed modern books that contain sexual content into libraries, so an overarching directive was put in place.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by jackm8

Well, most of them on the list were not written 40 years ago, so they could not possibly be available. That's the whole point. Explicit sexual content was never allowed in school libraries. Bans are in place to correct what was always a norm.

Really? 1925 was less than 40 years ago? 1931 was less than 40 years ago? That makes me feel so much younger. 1984 was less than 40 years ago? The Great Gatsby, Brave New World and The Handmaid's Tale respectively were the three books mentioned in the article link posted by the OP. Heck, two of them were the first books mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Originally Posted by jackm8

I'm also quite baffled by your lack of understanding of the bans in place. The list is quite clear. Explicit sexual content is restricted up to Grade 12. Non-explicit sexual content is restricted up to grade 9. And then there's a large section of books and comics that are allowed for all grades. It's certain that this was not a political thing, it was clearly a carefully researched project.

So well researched that the ban has now been limited to books with explicit illustrations.

Originally Posted by jackm8

Schools became lazy, they've allowed modern books that contain sexual content into libraries, so an overarching directive was put in place.

And sadly, that directive has now been dropped to, if I remember correctly, 4 books. I will admit that my parents allowed me to read what I wanted. Heck, they even let me read that shrine of pornography called the Bible with incest, graphic sexualization, etc.

[pdurrant]

Moderator Notice
Clearly, the hope that this thread will not go into P&R territory was a vain one.

Thread closed.