I find people removing books from bookstores to be offensive. Shame on Boing Boing for celebrating it.
9 Likes
⌠nicely avoiding my point about the false dichotomy. But thanks for playing!
2 Likes
Youâre the one who made a false dichotomy, by comparing, or conflating, the right to request a book not be sold in a certain store to the right to âgetâ (i.e., force) the removal of any book he/she finds offensive.
And while you may be âplayingâ here and out to score points or something, whatevs, Iâm not.
2 Likes
Well, it would only be a matter of time till the book was banned in any case. Making cats sit? If thatâs not blasphemous Black Magic right there, well, I donât know what is.
2 Likes
I refused with my own kid, and I refuse now with othersâ to read Disney, et al tie-ins, usually bought by well-meaning grandparents and indifferent birthday present-purchasers. Firelighters, every one.
Well, the invasion advice would appear to involve âask the boysâ, as the girls werenât told what to do⌠
Just cut off the catâs legs.
1 Like
FYI, This is the girl version of The Dangerous Book for Boys:
http://www.amazon.com/Daring-Book-Girls-Andrea-Buchanan/dp/0062208969/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1380740354&sr=8-4&keywords=dangerous+book+for+boys
This delightful potpourri for ÂłĹtween² girls offers a variety of
topics. There are lessons on games of tag, hopscotch, slumber parties,
making stink bombs, performing CPR, and changing a tire. Lively role
models abound. In particular, the authors cite Jo March from LITTLE
WOMEN, who said she could never be friends with a girl who didnât
climb trees or jump fences. Other influential women who are discussed
include Joan of Arc, Salome, Cleopatra, Amelia Earhart, Abigail Adams,
Florence Nightingale, as well as Civil War and Revolutionary spies.
Ilyana Kadushin shows her versatility with a lively delivery that is
frequently characterized by a ³big sister² tone. M.T.B. Š AudioFile
2008, Portland, Maine-- Copyright Š AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This
text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
The mindset is always the same: âThese ideas are dangerous/offensive/distasteful. These ideas should not be permitted to spread.â All that differs is the degree of authority vested in the thinker to enforce that thought. A person controls the content of their own home library and that of their kids. A bookstore owner or manager controls the inventory available for sale. A librarian controls whatâs available in the public library. And a government may decide to wield a certain degree of control over what reading material is legally available to purchase or possess. Obviously, the higher up you go in authority, the more wide-ranging the power, and the greater the potential for cultural damage.
But in all cases, the urge to restrict other peopleâs access to books is always highly suspect. We might think it perfectly sensible to restrict other peopleâs access to sexist or racist materials (especially that of young and impressionable minds) because (Helllloo?!) theyâre so obviously sexist and racist and hence without value⌠or at least whatever value they may hold is compromised by the dangerous Bad Ideas.
And that would be just as sensible as those people who successfully pulled The Color Purple out of school libraries when I was a kid.
That busybody impulse is not to be condoned. Just because you think itâs bad does not mean that it is objectively bad.
9 Likes
Well, maybe yes, but if the feedback to Scholastic is, âwe pulled these as we agreed with our customers that they are sexist bullshitâ, then maybe Scholastic would sort their crack out. I get your point, but if no-one bitches, then things stay the same. There probably isnât a right answer. Yes, write and complain, and so forth, but this does kind of poke 'em with a pointier stick than an angry epistleâŚ
2 Likes
Porn isnât made available to kids at bookstores because a bookstore wouldnât stay in business if it tried to sell porn to kids. It doesnât need to be banned because itâs not a problem and never has been.
A reasonable argument can be made that the Bible has rampant, potentially damaging sexism, racism, endorsements of slavery, rape, and bigotry of all kinds. What to do?
And who, exactly, is the âweâ that would decide which speech will be âallowed?â People who agree with your point of view? People who agree with Sarah Palinâs point of view?
3 Likes
Freedom of speech doesnât mean publishers have to accept your manuscript just because you submitted it, or bookstores have to carry it just because itâs in print (the editorial choice of what to publish or sell being itself speech), nor does it mean that customers of a bookstore have to meekly accept their local storeâs editorial decisions (expressing the reason for, and conditions for lifting a boycott being also speech).
How about this: Valuing Free Speech as a basic principle means we will and should get more boycotts of speakers, not fewer.
3 Likes
A boycott is a reasonable protest. Donât buy from that store. Donât buy Scholastic books.
But this was not a boycott action. This was a decision made on behalf of other potential readers whose opinions werenât asked.
[quote=âmicah, post:28, topic:11147â]
starring every manner of licensed character and branded derivative thereof. Itâs all superheroes, cartoon characters, LegoâŚ
[/quote]
Yes, damn that Lego. First they distract my kid from TV by introducing him to imagination and creativity⌠now they want him to READ?!?
A boycott is meaningless if the reason for it is not communicated to the entity being boycotted.
âDear Lululemon, I wonât be buying your clothes until you sign on to the Bangladesh Safety Accord and demonstrate concrete action toward complianceâ and then acting on it is a boycott. Silently not buying their clothes is nothing and will achieve nothing.
âDear local bookstore, I wonât be shopping here as long as these books are on the shelvesâ and then acting on it is a boycott. Silently ceasing to patronize the store is nothing and will achieve nothing.
1 Like
You can believe it was the right move, or you can believe it was the wrong move.
But just so everyoneâs on the same page: we agree that this is exactly the same as a creationist getting a kidâs book about Darwin taken off the shelves and removed from the store, right?
You donât get to have it both ways. Unless you say âbut my opinion is right, so that justifies it!â
6 Likes
Iâll bet you want the little bugger not to leave it on the floor though, unless you wear hiking boots everywhereâŚ
Youâre right, as far as that goes. In that sense, it was a boycott. But it was a boycott to prevent other people from reading these books. And that, to my mind, is a pretty egregious misuse of the tactic.
Well, isnât any boycott such an attempt?
2 Likes
Does anyone else see hypocrisy here when you slide down the page a few points and find Xeni Jardin touting the erotic (?) dino-porn titles âMounted by the Gryphonâ and âT Rex Troublesâ and two grown up 8-YOs? Where is the outrage?
1 Like
