News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
We had like everything, from childrens books to engineering stuff. It's filed differently so your fragile mind won't need to see "adult" books if you don't want to I guess.
Books discussing about the horrors of the Holocaust is "adult", I guess.
Lmao
My fragile mind doesnt want minors to see things they shouldnt see till later. That should be a pretty obvious thing that everyone wants for children...
Get rid of anything that mentions rape, prostitution, genocide, or god forbid SODOMY?
Out goes the bible then. No one under 18 should read it.
Incest. Don't forget incest.
Unironically yes.
The difference between the Bible and other more modern books is that the Bible is the most influential book in western civilization. If you want to have a censored on that removed those exact passages then that seems like a reasonable compromise.
Fuck that, the wretched thing doesn't deserve special treatment. There is nothing about the contents of the bible that are worth granting exception for. You want to ban adult themes? I can think of nothing more deserving of such a ban than the oldest book to incorporate rape, divinely ordained murder (all over the place), instructions on how to perform an abortion, incest, and the severly mixed message of "god loves everyone, unless you don't worship them, then you get tortured forever".
Like it or not the Bible is the most influence book in western history, so yes it gets special treatment. But again, if you want to make a censored version for kids that takes out those parts, it seems like a reasonable compromise.
Fun fact: the events in Anne Frank's diary and Maus actually happened. They are far more valuable than the Goat Herder's Guide to the Galaxy.
The book that was objected to what not Anne Franks diary...
Nah, you're just some Christofascist. The correct and moral thing to do is ban you, from society.
I guess so if that includes not showing sexual things to kids.
What you're not getting is that it being that influential is a bad thing and that it's time to pull it from its podium. It's just a religious text and if you're censoring any religious texts, you should censor all of them.
Just like all christians do, they just want to pick the ones that fit their agenda and ignore the rest.
What "the rest" are we ignoring?
How about selling your daughter to slavery. why aren't christians doing that?
I didn't know, all the passages they don't like talking about. Do you know about 2 Kings 2 23-24? I'll tell you, even in context it makes God look like a psychopath. God literally sends a bear into a village to maul 42 children to death because they made fun of a delicate man's bald head. That's not even twisting the story.
I like how this argument assumes schools are just regularly stocking school libraries with your Literotica history.
I didnt say they were. If its not happening very often why are you guys so against books being removed?
If it's not happening often, why are you hellbent on banning books? They are edge case, but your ilk act like every school library is chuck full of inappropriate books.
I am hellbent on protecting children from adults that will do them harm. If its only edge cases then why are you hellbent on putting rules in place to remove questionable books?
Because the rules are in place and curated by professionals. What I don't want is every semi-educated group of extremists to have the ability to whine enough that they get important books banned.
Ah yes, "professionals". After covid you guys should have learned how experts are not so expert. I dont want children to see books with sexual content in them, does that make me an extremist?
It's quite clear one group of people only want morons dictating what people can do, as opposed to those who listen and trust experts (who have often spent their entire life's acquirung knowledge in their area of speciality).
After all, who wants a doctor with 20yrs experience operating on their spleen, when Harry the butcher could do it.
You are right, I want to dictate that state funds cant be used to show sexual materials to children. I am guilty!
Pray tell- what is so sexy about The Diary of Anne Frank or Maus?
Its not The Diary of Anne Frank, its Anne Franks Diary... And thats a great point, why did they add sexual material to a young girls diary that had nothing sexual in it?
This is called a motte-and-bailey. We were discussing a group trying to ban books about the Holocaust, and the larger concept about groups of parents being able to ban anything by whining about it enough. You put forward a different argument you think is bullet proof about banning sexual content with the implication that this argument defends the much weaker argument about banning Holocaust books or whatever books the mob may choose.
Just pointing that out. It's a common fallacy and one that feels right, it isn't necessarily done intentionally.
The freakout about sexual content is fabricated and designed to play to emotions. School libraries already ban sexual content. There's no smut or erotica at them. The small handful of books that people wanted to ban were either educational or were similar to many books that were not targeted by those parent groups and the sexual situations were not the focus of the book. The main similarity was that they were about LGBT sexualities.
Why was that book about Anne Frank objected?
You'll protect children right until it affects your wallet. It's not about children, it's about control. Always has been.
So remove them entirely? It's not like the kids are going read one by chance and if they are seeking them then they are ready
the world is hard and kids need to be taught about us in a controlled environment like a school.
I’ve worked in school libraries.
The funny thing is that kids will only read things that are of interest to them, and if they’re interested in it, they’re old enough to read it. If they borrow it because they like the cover or all their friends have apparently read it or some such reason, you can be assured it’ll be returned after they get through the first page.
I understand, but there are literally millions of books, why do we have to have the few books with sexual material that a significant portion of parents object to?
I doesn’t sound like it’s parents objecting to these books.