Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

Hold on a second. Only, it seems, a moment ago this legislation was needed because it's explicit, in black and white. Now suddenly its vagueness is a virtue?

I consider it so. Because I don't personally see matters of sexuality as the only area of concern for age-appropriate designation. As I am sure many parents would agree.

The explicit nature of the legislation is that it requires policy and procedures that are openly presented to the public.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I consider it so. Because I don't personally see matters of sexuality as the only area of concern for age-appropriate designation. As I am sure many parents would agree.

The explicit nature of the legislation is that it requires policy and procedures that are openly presented to the public.

And as I said before, if you are concerned about such things it is the right of a parent to police what books your child reads.

But this gives such parents the right to police what ALL children are able to read. And that is censorship.

For all your complaints about 'grooming' you are advocating the exact same. You applaud a small group of parents determining what is normal for everyone by enforcing your morals on those that do not share them.
In a free country all people should have access to all books and then decide what they feel is moral based upon their own decisions.
But you do not wish a free country, you wish an authoritarian country where only those that agree with you get to make decisions.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Oh, and since it was suggested that events such as "Drag Queen Story Hour" were not relevant to this legislation/discussion:




Seems to me that a Drag Queen Story Hour would fall under the umbrella of an event. And there has been legislation proposed in MO, previously, to address these sort of event-related concerns.

The reason I worded my response as I did was to see if you had read the proposed legislation, as can be seen you hadn't until just a few posts of your ago.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But you do not wish a free country, you wish an authoritarian country where only those that agree with you get to make decisions.

Don't be fooled by the "I-just-wanna-have-a-good-policy" spiel. The book burners know exactly what books they want off the shelves.

Some pretend it's only about the children not getting their hands on adult porn because they know that if we see what the book burners want to burn we'd be shocked at the size of the fire*.

The phony we're-just-protecting-our-children crowd want to set up the mechanism by which the literature nazis would institutionalize their cultural genocide. Once the policy is in place the burners would be free to broaden the scope of their cleansings.

If history teaches us anything we can be sure that once these 21st century Goebbelses light a fire under the library they will turn their attention to our schools, art museums and concert halls.

---------------

*list of 850 books Texas rep. Matt Krause would ba:
https://static.texastribune.org/medi...828.1642682215

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Just normalizing them is harmful, imo. .

Thank you for illustrating the point I've made many times.

What, in your opinion then, is the harm?

The knowledge that LGBT or dressing in drag exists? How is that harmful?

You admit that others won't agree. You know why? Because you don't have any good reason. It's just your opinion, right? It's icky.

And somehow, that's a society problem that needs laws to solve.

I feel the same way about mushrooms. They are gross. There ought a be a law to save me...

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by arayder

Don't be fooled by the "I-just-wanna-have-a-good-policy" spiel. The book burners know exactly what books they want off the shelves.

Some pretend it's only about the children not getting their hands on adult porn because they know that if we see what the book burners want to burn we'd be shocked at the size of the fire*.

The phony we're-just-protecting-our-children crowd want to set up the mechanism by which the literature nazis would institutionalize their cultural genocide. Once the policy is in place the burners would be free to broaden the scope of their cleansings.

If history teaches us anything we can be sure that once these 21st century Goebbelses light a fire under the library they will turn their attention to our schools, art museums and concert halls.

---------------

*list of 850 books Texas rep. Matt Krause would ba:
https://static.texastribune.org/medi...828.1642682215

But don't you know that books that show that the earth is older than 6000 years are harmful? Or books that other religions exist? Or books that suggest that not all humans are heterosexual? Or books about science?

Think of the children!

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Lurch

WTAF, America.

The people who are ready to take up the pitchforks over children having some knowledge put into their little heads are not nearly so worked up and motivated to keep bullets from going in instead.

Guns are a tool for social change that they understand. Books, not so much.

[Darat]

Given the wording of the legislation all dictionaries that include words like "sex" or "penis" or "vagina" will have to be age restricted.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darat

Given the wording of the legislation all dictionaries that include words like "sex" or "penis" or "vagina" will have to be age restricted.

Any book with “he”, “she”, or “they” gets dangerously close to the topic of gender identity.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

She was Prussian. They don't do panto's....... but if they did

She had wealth and power and access to the depths of sleaze those allow. I'll bet they had all sorts of saucy puppet shows at the palace.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It isn't frustrating to defend at all.

And just look how you've defended it. Here's the list of real life incidents you provided documenting a chronic problem with children accessing sexually explicit materials like the Kama Sutra and Deep Throat:

Quote:

...

It's nearly as long as your previous documentation of freakish liberal ideals and beliefs being pressed on children by public school teachers:

Quote:

...

Quote:

But as I mentioned much earlier, the particular topic that was raised by others (drag queens) is for a different thread.

You seemed to think it was relevant when you wrote this:

Originally Posted by Warp12

I wouldn't directly equate [drag queens]. I would say, however, that parents would be reasonable to protest their young children being exposed to either.

Quote:

Not to mention the mischaracterization of my position.

How, exactly, has your position been mischaracterized?

Quote:

I won't be discussing it any further.

Bravely brave Sir Robin...

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Being against young children being exposed to drag queens does not make one a homophobe, I hate to tell you.

Let's try that another way.

"Being against young children being exposed to interracial couples does not make one a racist, I hate to tell you."

The funny thing about this is that the instance that made this a conservative bogeyman involved parents taking their young children to a library for book readings by people in costume. Those parents had every right to take their kids to that event, and every right to tell conservatives to **** off for objecting to that.

If the assumption is that a man dressed in costume as a woman is gay, then objecting to children being exposed to his very existence is, indeed, homophobic.

[Foster Zygote]

Parents wouldn't have to determine for themselves which books their kids aren't allowed to access. The sorts of people who would freak out if their kids brought home a Harry Potter book or a book about dinosaurs are going to be used to having fundamentalist authority figure tell them what to think, and they'll surely be provided with long lists of verboten materials.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Let's try that another way.

"Being against young children being exposed to interracial couples does not make one a racist, I hate to tell you."

The funny thing about this is that the instance that made this a conservative bogeyman involved parents taking their young children to a library for book readings by people in costume. Those parents had every right to take their kids to that event, and every right to tell conservatives to **** off for objecting to that.

If the assumption is that a man dressed in costume as a woman is gay, then objecting to children being exposed to his very existence is, indeed, homophobic.

That doesn't fit either. I don't automatically associate drag queens with homosexuality. I don't know why that theme keeps being presented. Some might, but I don't. It seems plenty of others in this thread do, for whatever reason.

I would have other concerns, as a parent. Clearly I am not the only one who feels this way. Which brings us back to this legislation. It wasn't presented because nobody has concerns. Maybe no liberals have concerns about what their young children are exposed to? Sure seems that way, from some of the commentary.

I don't know.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Maybe no liberals have concerns about what their young children are exposed to?

What do you think young children are being exposed to?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What do you think young children are being exposed to?

A variety of things that many parents find objectionable, or of concern. The specifics do not matter. Those would just be things to bicker about here, individually. As I say, it doesn't seem that liberals care too much. Of course that is part of what some conservatives might consider sick about the ideology.

It is literally playing out in this thread, a reinforcement of why conservatives have every reason to be concerned. And why legislation like this is absolutely needed.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What do you think young children are being exposed to?

And why do you think it’s the government’s job to make sure they’re not exposed to it?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

A variety of things that many parents find objectionable, or of concern. The specifics do not matter. Those would just be things to bicker about here, individually. As I say, it doesn't seem that liberals care too much. Of course that is part of what some conservatives might consider sick about the ideology.

It is literally playing out in this thread, a reinforcement of why conservatives have every reason to be concerned. And why legislation like this is absolutely needed.

Concerned about what specifically?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Warp12

A variety of things that many parents find objectionable, or of concern. The specifics do not matter. Those would just be things to bicker about here, individually. As I say, it doesn't seem that liberals care too much. Of course that is part of what some conservatives might consider sick about the ideology.

It is literally playing out in this thread, a reinforcement of why conservatives have every reason to be concerned. And why legislation like this is absolutely needed.

This is completely invalid circular logic with zero actual merit.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That doesn't fit either. I don't automatically associate drag queens with homosexuality. I don't know why that theme keeps being presented. Some might, but I don't. It seems plenty of others in this thread do, for whatever reason.

I would have other concerns, as a parent. Clearly I am not the only one who feels this way. Which brings us back to this legislation. It wasn't presented because nobody has concerns. Maybe no liberals have concerns about what their young children are exposed to? Sure seems that way, from some of the commentary.

I don't know.

Again this is known as a strawman.

[Lurch]

The panties-in-a-twist conservative turns the argument around by claiming that the liberal-minded are scared witless that their children might NOT be able to be exposed to non-straight culture. And so it's the liberals who are PUSHING that stuff on everyone else.

Live and let live is, to the conservative mind, tantamount to forcing an agenda.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Let's try that another way.

"Being against young children being exposed to interracial couples does not make one a racist, I hate to tell you."

The funny thing about this is that the instance that made this a conservative bogeyman involved parents taking their young children to a library for book readings by people in costume. Those parents had every right to take their kids to that event, and every right to tell conservatives to **** off for objecting to that.

If the assumption is that a man dressed in costume as a woman is gay, then objecting to children being exposed to his very existence is, indeed, homophobic.

I agree with Warp on this one. Drag queens aren't necessarily homosexual or even LGBTQ+. There are plenty of heterosexual drag queens. Not wanting kids to be exposed to drag is a different kind of bigotry and prejudice, maybe the term is dragphobic. Warp is still supporting bigotry, for sure, though.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What do you think young children are being exposed to?

Mushrooms.

They are the epitome of evil and need to be eradicated.

I object to exposing my kids to mushrooms or normalizing them in any way,.

If you can't see why mushrooms are evil, I can't help you. It's just my opinion, but I need the government to cooperate with my aversion and not force mushrooms down our throats.

Eta: warp agrees with me. "The specifics don't matter." So you can put anything you want in there.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

A variety of things that many parents find objectionable, or of concern. The specifics do not matter. Those would just be things to bicker about here, individually. As I say, it doesn't seem that liberals care too much. Of course that is part of what some conservatives might consider sick about the ideology.

You are, of course, unnecessarily vague and so very, very wrong about what other people think or care about. It’s just straw men all the way down.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That doesn't fit either. I don't automatically associate drag queens with homosexuality. I don't know why that theme keeps being presented. Some might, but I don't. It seems plenty of others in this thread do, for whatever reason.

You're just so much more progressive than the rest of us.

Quote:

I would have other concerns, as a parent.

Such as? What, specifically, would you find harmful about exposure to someone dressed in drag reading stories at a library, if you had children?

Quote:

Clearly I am not the only one who feels this way.

Who feels what way? What harm do you feel would be caused by kids hearing a children's book read allowed by what is, essentially, a costumed performer?

Quote:

Which brings us back to this legislation. It wasn't presented because nobody has concerns.

No ****. I can check 'argumentum ad populum' off my BINGO card. Plenty of people have "concerns" about all sorts of stupid things. Some people are deeply concerned about high school or college courses teaching about non-Christian religions. Some people are morally offended by children's books about dinosaurs that don't show them munching hay aboard Noah's Ark. And some people suffer an acute case of the vapors over the notion of public schools teaching about the central role of slavery in the American Civil War, or the lasting effects of racism in American society.

This legislation was proposed precisely because it would appeal to the numerous fundamentalist ignoranti whom Republican politicians have become so dependent upon.

Quote:

Maybe no liberals have concerns about what their young children are exposed to? Sure seems that way, from some of the commentary.

I thought you weren't finding it frustrating to defend your position. When you resort to a pathetic strawman like the above, it's equivalent to pointing and shouting "MY GOD! WHAT'S THAT?" and moving your rook to a more favorable position when you think no one is looking. That seems pretty frustrated to me.

Quote:

I don't know.

...how to present evidence.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

A variety of things that many parents find objectionable, or of concern. The specifics do not matter. Those would just be things to bicker about here, individually. As I say, it doesn't seem that liberals care too much. Of course that is part of what some conservatives might consider sick about the ideology.

It is literally playing out in this thread, a reinforcement of why conservatives have every reason to be concerned. And why legislation like this is absolutely needed.

Evasion noted.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I agree with Warp on this one. Drag queens aren't necessarily homosexual or even LGBTQ+. There are plenty of heterosexual drag queens. Not wanting kids to be exposed to drag is a different kind of bigotry and prejudice, maybe the term is dragphobic. Warp is still supporting bigotry, for sure, though.

I agree. That's why I wrote "if the assumption is...".

Warp keeps invoking the concerns of "some parents". Odds are that the great majority of such concerned citizens will assume that someone dressed in drag will be gay.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

A variety of things that many parents find objectionable, or of concern. The specifics do not matter. Those would just be things to bicker about here, individually.

But you say that at libraries kids are being exposed to grooming by drag queens. So it is about "something".

Quote:

As I say, it doesn't seem that liberals care too much. Of course that is part of what some conservatives might consider sick about the ideology.

Ya' got any quotes of liberals saying they don't care what their children are exposed to?

Quote:

It is literally playing out in this thread, a reinforcement of why conservatives have every reason to be concerned. And why legislation like this is absolutely needed.

Saying you are full of beans is not the same thing as saying one doesn't care what one's kids are exposed to.

If anything the liberals around here are grateful that libraries already have measures in place to see that children aren't exposed to inappropriate material.

Your argument fails again!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That doesn't fit either. I don't automatically associate drag queens with homosexuality. I don't know why that theme keeps being presented. Some might, but I don't. It seems plenty of others in this thread do, for whatever reason.

Maybe because most drag queens are gay men?

Though most drag queens are gay men and queer men, some are transgender and cisgender women.

Originally Posted by Warp12

I would have other concerns, as a parent. Clearly I am not the only one who feels this way. Which brings us back to this legislation. It wasn't presented because nobody has concerns. Maybe no liberals have concerns about what their young children are exposed to? Sure seems that way, from some of the commentary.

Maybe liberal parents just have different concerns like not raising bigoted and ignorant children.

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't know.

Clearly not.

ETA: I am more concerned about children dying from guns due to the sick gun culture of this country. I wonder how many children have died from being exposed to drag queens or learning why someone has two mommies or daddies.

Quote:

Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That doesn't fit either. I don't automatically associate drag queens with homosexuality. I don't know why that theme keeps being presented. Some might, but I don't. It seems plenty of others in this thread do, for whatever reason.

I would have other concerns, as a parent. Clearly I am not the only one who feels this way. Which brings us back to this legislation. It wasn't presented because nobody has concerns. Maybe no liberals have concerns about what their young children are exposed to? Sure seems that way, from some of the commentary.

I don't know.

All my kids are grown up now, but when they were young their mother and I both cared very much what they were exposed to. Details edited out for brevity and because they're not important. My three kids are all doing OK in their own ways, living comfortably and within the law. They are educated, sane and tolerant. And my stepson is a librarian. *

*He's a librarian, but it's a state prison library, in North Dakota of all places, so I am pretty sure he has plenty of standards to adhere to, though age appropriateness is not one of them.

So no, this is not about liberals having no concerns. You know it isn't. As political rhetoric, I suppose it's to be expected, but on a personal level it is not only irresponsible and insulting, but if actually believed, it would reveal a profound and incorrigibly deep ignorance of what real people in the real world outside your little bubble do, think, and aspire to.

My concern here is about the hubristic, preemptive desire of some to govern not just the behavior, but the thought, learning, and even the character, of all, based on the realization that, either because they lack competence or their ideas lack validity, they cannot accomplish it themselves even on their own children, and can never accomplish it on others except by imposition.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

So no, this is not about liberals having no concerns. You know it isn't. As political rhetoric, I suppose it's to be expected, but on a personal level it is not only irresponsible and insulting, but if actually believed, it would reveal a profound and incorrigibly deep ignorance of what real people in the real world outside your little bubble do, think, and aspire to.

Then you should have no problem with a requirement for policies and procedures. It really is that simple. If you look at the majority of the comments, the #1 concern seems to that there should be no requirements. People floating silly ideas like, "if you want to control what you child is being exposed to, look in their bookbag". How ridiculous.

Not one single compelling argument has been made against policies and procedures. The real lack of respect is the disregard for certain parent's concerns about their own children and what they are being exposed to.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Then you should have no problem with a requirement for policies and procedures. It really is that simple. If you look at the majority of the comments, the #1 concern seems to that there should be no requirements. People floating silly ideas like, "if you want to control what you child is being exposed to, look in their bookbag". How ridiculous.

Not one single compelling argument has been made against policies and procedures. The real lack of respect is the disregard for certain parent's concerns about their own children and what they are being exposed to.

Exactly what alternate universe are you living in?

The efforts of some to use the "policies thing" to ban everything they don't like, including awarding winning children's literature has been well documented here.

It's the subject of the thread!

Duh?

[Lithrael]

“I don’t like those rules” does not mean “I don’t like any rules”

“I am not interested in debating these rules that I think are put forward in bad faith” does not mean “I don’t like any rules” either.

“I am not interested in explaining the rules I do like to someone who implies that if I don’t like these rules, then I do not want any rules” also does not mean “I do not like any rules.”

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

“I don’t like those rules” does not mean “I don’t like any rules”

“I am not interested in debating these rules that I think are put forward in bad faith” does not mean “I don’t like any rules” either.

“I am not interested in explaining the rules I do like to someone who implies that if I don’t like these rules, then I do not want any rules” also does not mean “I do not like any rules.”

That argument might work if anyone had agreed that ANY requirement for rules was acceptable. That is how I started this debate, just trying to get agreement on that point. Now we have multiple pages of people shouting about how ANY requirement for rules is bad.

It isn't a matter of the specific rules. They won't even agree to a requirement for policies and procedures of any sort. It is mind-boggling.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That argument might work if anyone had agreed that ANY requirement for rules was acceptable. That is how I started this debate, just trying to get agreement on that point. Now we have multiple pages of people shouting about how ANY requirement for rules is bad.

It isn't a matter of the specific rules. They won't even agree to a requirement for policies and procedures of any sort. It is mind-boggling.

Why are you persisting on deliberately misunderstanding other peoples' points of view on this subject? They seem to have been very clear about what they are meaning, a number of times over in some cases. Even a foreigner like me understands what they are saying. Maybe I don't 100% agree with all of them, but at least I understand their POV. Or is being deliberately and proudly wrong and provocative a part of your coping mechanisms on this subject? Does it worry you somehow?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Then you should have no problem with a requirement for policies and procedures. It really is that simple. If you look at the majority of the comments, the #1 concern seems to that there should be no requirements. People floating silly ideas like, "if you want to control what you child is being exposed to, look in their bookbag". How ridiculous.

Not one single compelling argument has been made against policies and procedures. The real lack of respect is the disregard for certain parent's concerns about their own children and what they are being exposed to.

Maybe because, over and over and over, people have been pointing out that this is not about some abstract or general idea of "policies and procedures," which almost certainly exist already, but about the nature of the policies and procedures proposed, and the bias of those proposing them.


e.t.a. one of the things that seems to be missed over and over and over is the fact that there is a difference between a requirement and a state law. There are rules and procedures for libraries. Public libraries have boards and administrators, funding sources that must be appeased, legal liabilities that must be regarded, and librarians have expertise and education as well as obligation. You keep going on and on about how many people are calling for no requirements. That is not true . Many many people are calling for no STATE LAWS, (or at least no state laws like this one), no codification of requirements by persons whose only qualification is power. The legislation under question starts with the assumption that libraries are not doing their jobs well, and that those traditionally in charge of doing those jobs are incompetent.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

Maybe because, over and over and over, people have been pointing out that this is not about some abstract or general idea of "policies and procedures," which almost certainly exist already, but about the nature of the policies and procedures propose, and the bias of those proposing them.

That is not an argument against the requirement for policies and procedures. Which has been overwhelmingly presented. Every reason under the sun has be presented as to why there should be no requirements, regardless of what they are.

Now, are you saying that there should be a requirement for policies and procedures on age-appropriate materials...but only such policies/procedures that fit into your world view?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Not one single compelling argument has been made against policies and procedures.

This is grossly dishonest of you. You know full well that no one has had the slightest intent to argue against policies and procedures. You seem to be intent upon ignoring the fact that several people have pointed out to you that policies and procedures already exist, as evidenced by your complete failure to present any evidence supporting the claim that children are in any serious danger of being exposed to sexually explicit materials.

It's sad that you have to deliberately misrepresent other's positions to feel like you're defending your own.

Quote:

The real lack of respect is the disregard for certain parent's concerns about their own children and what they are being exposed to.

You're right. I don't have any respect for religious fundamentalists who are offended by children's books about magical fantasy or science. I don't give a **** about the concerns of racists who are angry about books that teach about slavery and racism. And homophobes who are terrified that their kids might not grow up hating and ostracizing gay people as much as they do because of books portraying them as normal human beings worthy of respect can go suck it.

This law has **** all to do with protecting children from pornography and you, by now, know it. Its intent is to pander to totalitarian minded morons who would like nothing better than to force their fundamentalist views on others, so that they'll vote for the right wing politicians who've learned to manipulate them so effectively. If those parents don't like the existing policies and procedures in place, then they should step up and try actually parenting, instead of trying to turn that duty over to the nanny state that they so often whine about.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is not an argument against the requirement for policies and procedures. Which has been overwhelmingly presented. Every reason under the sun has be presented as to why there should be no requirements, regardless of what they are.

Now, are you saying that there should be a requirement for policies and procedures on age-appropriate materials...but only such policies/procedures that fit into your world view?

No, I'm saying that policies and procedures are already in place, and the idea that there must now be a new state law, a new administrative agency and a new mechanism, is spurious and suspect.

The present proposal, as most of us see it, is designed to implement policies and procedures that, by their nature, virtually guarantee that the world view enforced will be that of a minority at the expense of all.

There will always be a difference between permission and prohibition, and that is true even if it is good, true, and necessary. One allows things that may be harmful, but does not compel them. The other only compels.

The proposition under discussion is predicated on the assumption that libraries now are failing to do their job properly and that another level of regulation is required to mitigate the harm they are actively doing to society. I do not think a good argument has been put forth yet that this is true.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

No, I'm saying that policies and procedures are already in place, and the idea that there must now be a new state law, a new administrative agency and a new mechanism, is spurious and suspect.

I am fairly certain that you can have no idea of what, if any, policies and procedures are in place across all libraries in the state, nor whether such are publicly accessible. But feel free to prove me wrong. Also, you are just confirming what I stated...that there is a reluctance to having a requirement for any at all.

Quote:

The present proposal, as most of us see it, is designed to implement policies and procedures that, by their nature, virtually guarantee that the world view enforced will be that of a minority at the expense of all.

I don't care how "most of you see it", considering the venue we are in. After all, in a den of thieves the honest man is persecuted. Minority? Only 12% of those in the state identify as liberals.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...tate/missouri/