Arguing with Idiots: Censorship Edition

Timothy Birdnow

Here is a discussion about censorship on Facebook.

Alexis Worlock observes:

I agree these sexually graphic books don't belong in a school library. They can be easily accessed in other ways if a parent wants his or her kid to read them.

(Sargent) Schultz Schwamberger complains:

Perhaps out them in limited access. But banning is censorship PERIOD

Alexis Worlock replies:

Schultz Schwamberger Banning is the wrong word in this context. High schools CHOOSE the materials they carry, all of which are paid for by taxpayers, to advance the students' education. This is not a free-for-all. This is a public institution for a specific purpose--education.

If a private school wants to carry these books, it can. So can libraries. The books are not banned.

As a taxpayer, I for one do not want to be forced to supply sexually explicit novels to young teenagers.

Tim adds:

Exactly right Alexis Worlock. Why can't you find every single book in a library? I mean, why isn't the collected works of Leon Nutbutter there? (I just made him up.) There is "censorship" of books done all the time. It's just a matter of why and how.

The Left wants this stuff in the library and in schools to promote a societal change. They want a world where sex is as common as eating.

Doubt that? Read the works of the Marquis de Sade; he was quite influential in his day and was one of the architects of the Free Love Movement, which was the archetype of the Sexual Revolution. And while he is best remembered for his hallmark perversions, it is forgotten how influential the man was in his time - and remains so in ours.

De Sade is on record saying this; sex should be a simple, daily exercise, like brushing your teeth.

And that is the goal of introducing children to smut. It has nothing to do with art, or with education. It has everything to do with breaking down moral barriers and erasing decency. To worry about somehow damaging our freedoms by kicking this out of schools is like worrying about damaging our freedoms to defecate on the floor. We don't think our children ill-used when they are required to use the toilet, and yet some people think this is some slippery slope to tyranny that we won't allow the pornographers easy access to our children's minds.

And it must be remembered they are OUR children, not the States. That is a big part of this too; the liberals want to take the kids away from parents and their "old fashioned", "superstitious" reactionary thinking.

That's why they are quite happy to censor books on their own. Every look at a reading list for colleges? The Great Books are all gone, replaced by CRT and Social Justice and Marxist ideologies.

We rightly complain about that and are told to stuff it, but then we are somehow the bad guys when we want to not fund pornography for our children.

This is not censorship; you are absolutely correct. But forcing this on American children IS a kind of censorship, censorship of our culture, our heritage, or moral decency and way of life. And it is being done without our consent.


Janet Meckes says:

These "smut" books are viewed as value by many. Found this on google: 04-12-2016 The Bible is one of the most challenged books at public schools and libraries across the country, according to a new report by the American Library Association. The ALA says parents and groups complain that libraries violate the separation of church and state when they put a Bible on their shelves.

Ken Salkover observes:

Janet Meckes Separation of church and state isn't a law. Having the Bible available at a public library hardly violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Janet Meckes replies:

Ken Salkover The Bible teaches precepts that the Left and Liberals find to be a roadblock to their way of life being accepted. They don't want the children to see it.

I respond:

So one of the foundational books of western civilization, something that our laws and history is based upon to no small degree, is fair game but pornography isn't? Liberal heads are seriously screwed on backwards. The Bible has a venerable history and as such is something that belongs on a library shelf. Books about how to put condoms on cucumbers or about sado-masochisti

Nobody has every said otherwise.

Schultz Schwamberger chimes back in:

I believe that is how the Nazi's felt toward free uncensored reading of books. History repeats itself if we do not stay vigilant to prevent it. The books stay. Parents need to be hands on for their kids not police the library.

Perhaps out them in limited access. But banning is censorship PERIOD!

Censorship is censorship at any level. Period. Look at the list of banned books that already exist. To kill a mockingbird. Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn.......etc it starts with ONE BOOK.

I retort:

Schultz Schwamberger You keep missing the point; this is not a ban. It is simply maintaining standards for minors. You keep calling a ban but it in no way is such. You do not seem to understand the distinction. It is rather like saying we have a ban on alcoholic beverages. We have no such thing, despite the fact minors aren't allowed to buy or possess booze.

"Look at the list of banned books that already exist. To kill a mockingbird. Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn" So I suppose Huck Finn is comparable to Linda Lovelace in Deepthroat? Really? Funny; everyone has read these books you cite but how many have seen Debbie Does Dallas? So I suppose we should have these pornos in the schools too?

Oh, in case you missed it, the books you cite did quite well despite the so-called ban you mention. They didn't need your help.

Their being in schools suggests they are approved by parents and school officials. Saying they are "banned" is incorrect; they are not being banned like the Nazis did, just not given the stamp of approval by parents and school officials. It's a world of difference. These books are still available. They just aren't being promoted to children.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1088 words, total size 7 kb.