Unable to Book Ban,Library is defunded

[JSWolf]

delete post

[haertig]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

What you are suggesting is that every time a panicky and ill-informed parent comes running in sweating about a book they heard an opinion on, but have not yet read (or even seen), be banned, that book must immediately be removed.

I suggested no such thing. That is your hyperbole, not mine.

How about the people they hired to run the library?

And that is a reasonable suggestion. But if the people paying for the library don't like the decisions being made by those who work there, what is the next step? Personally, I would say they should fire the library administrators who are not doing what the community wants, and hire new administrators. Maybe they tried that. We don't know. Which is the gist of my comment several posts back, "I imagine there is a lot more behind the majority voting "no" on the funding than this news article is presenting."

Many people contributing to this thread are arguing a viewpoint regarding "Is it right or wrong to ban books that advocate the LGBT lifestyle?" But that's not the question here. The question is "Do the taxpayers who provide the money for the library to operate have a say in what the library does with their money?" These are two separate and distinct questions.

I am arguing that "Yes, the taxpayers have a say." And if you can believe the news report, they have chosen what they want by a strong majority. Twice. I may think those taxpayers have made a decision that is contrary to my beliefs, but I also think that they have a right to make that decision. However shortsighted or self-serving it may be. I could say this same thing about many states in this last election as well. My thoughts may be "Wow, those voters are idiots!" But it's their state, their vote. I can certainly play armchair quarterback, but the reality is, I'm not in the game, I have zero say in how it is played or its outcome. I'm can only express my opinion of how the game was played. But that doesn't change anything. Nor should it.

[ZodWallop]

LGBT lifestyle? Really? Anyway...

Originally Posted by haertig

they have chosen what they want by a strong majority. Twice.

56% to 44% isn't a strong majority. And you have to imagine that some percentage of the defund votes are Libertarian leaning people that just don't want to fund anything, as has happened with school districts.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

LGBT lifestyle? Really? Anyway...

To be fair, we should also ban books that promote the heterosexual lifestyle. Unfortunately, that would rather deplete the library shelves.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

To be fair, we should also ban books that promote the heterosexual lifestyle. Unfortunately, that would rather deplete the library shelves.

I certainly don't want them contaminating my reading room, but I'm willing to tolerate it for the good of all the identified-as-straight little children to have something to read. Who knows, maybe even I, as a lifelong gay, might once have gained some perspective (of the "nope, that's definitely not me!") variety by reading some of those books as a child.

Seriously, calling it a "lifestyle" is not really any different than putting "the" in front of gays. Change it to a different word and you see just how discriminatory it is.

[haertig]

I did not realize that the word "lifestyle" is considered offensive now. Sorry about that. Sometimes it's a little hard to keep up when you're not part of a particular community. Can someone tell me the more acceptable way to write the sentence that I did?

[DiapDealer]

I'm not sure you can correct it. In addition to reducing being gay to a "lifestyle", you've also unfortunately implied that LGBTQ characters in books must be " advocating" being LGBTQ rather than merely going about their day in their story. You've also implied that you're somehow not part of a community that contains LGBTQ people. *shrug*

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not sure you can correct it. In addition to reducing being gay to a "lifestyle", you've also unfortunately implied that LGBTQ characters in books must be " advocating" being LGBTQ rather than merely going about their day in their story. You've also implied that you're somehow not part of a community that contains LGBTQ people. *shrug*

I understand that some people are perpetually offended. I don't think anyone can please that group of people no matter what they do. However, I did try to learn how to not be offensive. I asked how to correct my ignorant mistake. And for that I got, ... well, people can read the response on their own.

And I also got this bizarre one:

You've also implied that you're somehow not part of a community that contains LGBTQ people. *shrug*

I thought it was quite clear that I was stating that I am not up to date on everything that may be offensive to the LGBT community (can I say "community"?) because I am not in the LGBT community. I am heterosexual.
That is neither a point of shame nor a point of pride for me. It is just a description of my situation. It boggles my mind that you could not understand what I meant, and went off on some silly tangent of "not part of a community that contains LGBT people. To use your own words ... *shrug*

Let me ask you this: If someone makes a mistake, asks how to be better next time, and then gets attacked for asking ... is that more likely to (1) invite them into the group at hand, or (2) repel them from it? If you want to gain friends and supporters, you kind of have to be friendly and supportive back.

[Almamida]

Originally Posted by haertig

I understand that some people are perpetually offended. I don't think anyone can please that group of people no matter what they do. However, I did try to learn how to not be offensive. I asked how to correct my ignorant mistake. And for that I got, ... well, people can read the response on their own.

And I also got this bizarre one:

I thought it was quite clear that I was stating that I am not up to date on everything that may be offensive to the LGBT community (can I say "community"?) because I am not in the LGBT community. I am heterosexual.
That is neither a point of shame nor a point of pride for me. It is just a description of my situation. It boggles my mind that you could not understand what I meant, and went off on some silly tangent of "not part of a community that contains LGBT people. To use your own words ... *shrug*

Let me ask you this: If someone makes a mistake, asks how to be better next time, and then gets attacked for asking ... is that more likely to (1) invite them into the group at hand, or (2) repel them from it? If you want to gain friends and supporters, you kind of have to be friendly and supportive back.

If you're genuinely trying to understand issues around the LGBT communities, I think people would totally welcome your questions, but maybe you should not be so opinionated to start with?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

I understand that some people are perpetually offended. I don't think anyone can please that group of people no matter what they do. However, I did try to learn how to not be offensive. I asked how to correct my ignorant mistake. And for that I got, ... well, people can read the response on their own.

And I also got this bizarre one:

I thought it was quite clear that I was stating that I am not up to date on everything that may be offensive to the LGBT community (can I say "community"?) because I am not in the LGBT community. I am heterosexual.
That is neither a point of shame nor a point of pride for me. It is just a description of my situation. It boggles my mind that you could not understand what I meant, and went off on some silly tangent of "not part of a community that contains LGBT people. To use your own words ... *shrug*

Let me ask you this: If someone makes a mistake, asks how to be better next time, and then gets attacked for asking ... is that more likely to (1) invite them into the group at hand, or (2) repel them from it? If you want to gain friends and supporters, you kind of have to be friendly and supportive back.

You'd've had a different response if the passive-aggressiveness wasn't dripping from your question.

What boggles my mind is your suggestion that being heterosexual somehow excludes you from knowing how to speak to/about LBGTQ people without offense. I'm also heterosexual and still manage to pull it off.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What boggles my mind is your suggestion that being heterosexual somehow excludes you from knowing how to speak to/about LBGTQ people without offense. I'm also heterosexual and still manage to pull it off.

What boggles my mind is that your knowledge on this somehow excludes you from knowing how to speak to the less knowledgeable without offense.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by haertig

However, I did try to learn how to not be offensive. I asked how to correct my ignorant mistake.

I think you raised some hackles because the word "lifestyle" implies choice. As far as we know, homosexuals cannot change their sexual attractions any more than heterosexuals can. We were all born a certain way, and currently it's impossible to change it, even if we wanted to. As such, you can't call it a lifestyle, which suggests that you've chosen it from a range of possible options. It's like saying somebody is living a "left-handed lifestyle". It makes no sense, since you're born either right- or left-handed and have no say in the matter. Sexuality is an aspect of who you are, not just something you do.

[jhowell]

To me "lifestyle" is neutral in regards to choice. It didn't sound particularly offensive to me. Others may not see it that way.

On the other hand I am hetero and have LGBTQ friends. The idea of us being in separate communities is strange to me.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Almamida

If you're genuinely trying to understand issues around the LGBT communities, I think people would totally welcome your questions, but maybe you should not be so opinionated to start with?

Could I ask what opinion I expressed that was offensive to the LGBT community? I now understand that my word choice of "lifestyle" was offensive, but that was an ignorant word choice, not an opinion. The opinion I was attempting to express in this thread is that I think taxpayers have a right to determine how their tax money is used. My opinion on that would be the same if we were talking about books on LGBT, or skin color, or overweight people, or old people. I may disagree with banning those books (an I do disagree if you really want to know), but that does not change my opinion that those paying for a service should be able to direct what that service does, even if I don't like the direction being promoted/shutdown.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by haertig

The taxpayers pay for the library. It's their choice to fund it or not, for whatever reason(s) they decide. They voted against this libraries funding not once, but twice. That is not a mistake or an anomaly.

Yep. This was a 10 year bond and often city departments ask for more than they need – so a certain number of no votes (probably the majority) will be against the bond in general. Apparently this library recently obtained $265,000 in a GoFundMe funds, but that won't "last long." Huh? This is a small library in a town of 8,000 to 10,000 people, how big does their operating budget need to be? I see they're currently understaffed and the library is open for limited hours – and they're looking to hire more employees. So the hyperbole from USA Today and other "news" outlets seems to be a little skewed when talking about how they'll "have to shut down."

Originally Posted by haertig

I imagine there is a lot more behind the majority voting "no" on the funding than this news article is presenting. The article implies that the voters are pushing an agenda. My gut tells me that it is more likely the news media that is pushing an agenda. You can't trust the media to report in an unbiased manner any more. So my take on this is, "There is more to this story..."

I think you're probably right, but the mainstream media never let's the truth get in the way of "good propaganda."