They are burning books in Tennessee
- Thread starter BuilderBob6
- Start date
Why is it such a big deal when a state decides to burn their two books? ")
They have three. The Bible stays.
This is certainly very concerning. It should and probably will be challenged. As a parent, when I find my 13 yr old kids watching soft porn on their computer am I supposed to let it go? Not this parent.
of course it’s ok for FB, Titter, etc. to ban people from their sites for saying things they font agree with. Right Bob?
these things are problems for both sides but libs only see one side.
What does your kids watching porn have to do with banning books?
Wrong Bruce. Yes, it's ok and LEGAL for private companies to run their platforms according to their rules........which include not allowing lies and fabrications and conspiracy theories to be posted. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about the truth. You violate those rules and you suffer the consequences. Unless of course you believe the government should step in and tell these private companies how they should run their businesses. Is that what you're advocating? What is that called?
It is censorship, Bob, for political purposes. Obviously in that case you are fine with it because you agree with their politics. But for parents trying to prevent schools from having pornography in school libraries and exposing their children to immoral sex practices you call “foul”.
Citation needed.
But, if a book containing mouse nudity is harmful to children, should not the same be said of one that includes two girls raping their father? I mean, if we're being consistent, seems like they both contain "objectionable" material and ought not be in the school library.
Last edited:
If it wasn't another complete lie from the extreme right I would.
For some reason my copied link won't paste... a girl had to go to court to be allowed to read her Bible at school in Illinois
"A win for religious liberty was reported last week after school officials reversed their decision to ban a student from bringing her Bible to school."
But yeah I am just making stuff up.
"A win for religious liberty was reported last week after school officials reversed their decision to ban a student from bringing her Bible to school."
But yeah I am just making stuff up.
So one school didn’t understand the law and tried to stop one kid from bringing a bible to school and was rightfully found to be in the wrong, subsequently changing their decision. That’s the same thing as the left “has banned” the Bible? As in past tense? And do you know if the teacher who confiscated it is a democrat?
Also, she didn’t go to court. ACLJ sent the school a letter and they changed their decision.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/202...-grade-girl-from-bringing-her-bible-to-school
Whose ruling made teachers, who are part of teachers' unions, who give more money to Democrat politicians than almost anyone, think this was necessary? Earl Warren's.
The left has banned God/the Bible, if you need more evidence you haven't been paying attention.
I think where you’re getting confused is that people don’t want someone else’s religion shoved down their throats. Not everyone subscribes to the Bible. But again, you were asked for specifics and all you did was spout off a nonsensical hypothetical.
I’m always amazed that the party of supposed personal freedom seems to really pick and choose what those freedoms are.
The same way many don’t want other’s gender delusions shoved down theirs.
So then you’d agree that if these are private companies and they should be able to set their own rules and enforcement of said rules, then those companies shouldn’t receive liability protections from the federal government under the false premise that they are free speech platforms?
And what conspiracy theories and disinformation would you be alluding to? Seems to me the only people that have a problem with the truth are those doing the censoring as damn near every “conspiracy theory” has proven true. Do we need to put together a list again?
How so? Why should I have to accept someone’s delusions as fact any more than you accepting someone’s religion?
Umm, you thought MyPillow Mike Lindell was going to overturn the election. Talk about accepting delusions as fact. My god dude read the room!! Lmao.
(warning a lot of words follow) I’m a bit amazed that along the lines of censorship of an event in a particular locale would gather particular interest and yet a much larger issue with larger in number people comments, studies and events effected by censorship in the social media and news if anyone seems to “feel” the news is different from other social media today is not noticed. THAT IS IF “Censorship” is the real concern rather than a distraction towards something else…particularly one granted special privileges while operating the “censorship” from a current legal perspective rather than the reality of the situation that it is in fact censorship.
As I’ve written before, Censorship or Bowdlerizing something goes back to the work of Thomas Bowdler 200 years ago on rewriting Shakespeare passages. Still further back 2000 years ago roughly, we have the various heresies of the Church…writings and teachings inconsistent with other writings…many with first century witness accounts that made the other “heresies” and so “Censorship” has been around for some time, but not to the degree and severity as today.
I’ve also previously referenced The Language Police book on censorship that shocked Diane Ravitch in how bad it was…and the censorship by both the left and the right to remove passages and books and the whole Multicultural “approval” for all k-12 textbooks. I have even written about the potential effects of poor DIF or Differential Item Function application…particularly with Intersectionality in play.
Even if ignoring the censorship by high tech, we now have a problem of finding potentially important historical understandings by just not being popular using a search engine. Lack of hits that are probably positively correlated with more intelligent thought, are quite simply not sought by the masses. Please tell me what to understand because learning by me should enter my thoughts by Osmosis.
Now, relevant to your comment about seniors. Yes, that is true “sometimes” as you stated. Computer usage, cell phone and many applications are not used, and not understood by many “seniors” and so the knowledge base of relevant information accumulated is not on full display sometimes. However, the alternative to senior citizens is a database deprived of experiences and relevant knowledge to have as informed opinion in many cases. THAT evolutionary understanding would fall under the constrained view in Thomas Sowell’ s Conflict of Vision that formulates whatever belief system the “seniors” may have...even those "unconstrained views".
I know this is more words than you prefer but is actually reduced for what all was written.
This is when I know you’ve got nothing else. Such a simple minded little troll.
Where’s the lie, though, jr? That’s not trolling. That’s just calling you out for some straight up bullshit on your part. Nothing more.
All teachers are part of teacher's unions? What do teacher's unions have to do with the situation you presented here?
All teachers give money to democrats?
Is it not possible for a republican teacher to have had the same misunderstanding of the nuances by which the separation of church and state is applied to public schools and to take the same action?
To be clear, I'm not saying this particular teacher is a republican. I'm saying the sources reporting on this situation don't tell us either way. You're making an assumption based on your own beliefs about "the left." What's more, I don't find this particular teacher's party affiliation particularly relevant. They clearly misunderstood how separation of church and state works in this case. That's a very different thing than school boards making official policy to ban a book.
I guess this is why I've never previously heard of either. I commend you for your excellent use of covert communications on a publicly-accessible internet message board to talk about this banned topic. Considering most Americans are Christian and you can buy a bible anywhere and take it anywhere, to suggest that it is banned is laughable.
All that said, I wonder if you might address my earlier point? "Maus" was removed from an 8th grade language arts curriculum because of cartoon mouse nudity and profanity. Surely, if that is not appropriate for 8th graders to be exposed to, the story of Lot's daughters is similarly inappropriate for 2nd graders (the age of the students in the situation you referenced), right?
And here you were the one clamoring “false equivalency”. Like I said, a simple minded little troll who can’t stay on topic.
Yeah man, we'd hate to lose out on your wildly entertaining and not-at-all-meandering anecdotes.
Umm, you were the one who immediately deflected from the original topic and tossed out the false equivalency. But by all means, keep deflecting, bud.
I was hopeful for an unusual response, like you understood. Perhaps, you would like to counter the comments so I understand what you are wanting to say, but can't state due to that missing knowledge? We can save DIF for last if you desire. Maybe start with the magnitude of censorship, then go into textbook adoption and then maybe algorithms of search engines. Go into DIF if you desire, but I think you will be able to stop before stepping into that potential area.
I've always looked at Section 230 as a form of tort control, which helped the growth of the internet so that platforms could grow with as long as they took timely and effect measures against illicit materials to avoid lawsuits. There was minimal concern about "censorship" by major players back then.
Quite frankly, our free market should be able to solve the ills and missteps of Twitter, FB or whomever. The demand for alternate viewpoints is there, so it can't be that hard to establish a forum or site (and a supporting infrastructure) that caters freely to them, right?
I think free market can solve "some" issues you listed, but how quickly and at what cost to the country is a or rather "the" concern. Years ago there was an expectation in school for your own work, to think on your own and not follow the herd blindly. The pedagogy of group work and group grades goes against independent thought and so youngsters conformance to a group may be worse today than in the past and if so...how do those that don't know...know? It used to be common that if you did something you shouldn't and used that as a reason for doing such, you would be corrected by someone saying, "If Jimmy jumped off a bridge would you do it?" In other words use your own mind and not do things others do without thought. The whole purpose of the first is to protect that speech that is unpopular...the whole purpose and yet here we are.
To quote ole Rummy... "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
And the courts have been overturning those bans for a long time.
Who is "we" in "we thought"? Did the country have one big meeting and decide?
Would you rather have less internet porn and more government control over what you can and can't read?
More hypocrisy from the party that holds the constitution so dear and rails against government overreach.
These social companies have no responsibility to protect your rights to freedom of speech..........anymore than any other media company does. As a reminder, the first amendment says you can express yourself without government censorship or control.
I assume you're referring to section 230.........and it wasn't designed to deal with free speech. It was created to do protect the platform from legal liability for what is posted. It has nothing to do with whether they are free speech platforms.
They are private companies that can control their content. Would you argue they should post any hate speech? Posts from anarchists or white supremacist groups? Anti Semitic groups?
What disinformation? Election fraud? Lies about Covid? 1/6 was a false flag or the protestors were Antifa?
This is the part of section 230 that people generally refer to, and then the companies are criticized for removing material even though they are not legally liable for the fact that it was posted. However, another part of section 230 says this...
"(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph"
Which protects the companies from liability for moderating the content. I've bolded "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" passage to highlight what you've rightfully pointed out, that non-governmental entities are not beholden to the first amendment with regards to free speech. So, Google, Twitter, etc. are not liable for what is posted on their platforms by other people and are also allowed to make good faith efforts to moderate said content. They have no responsibility to allow content they don't want to allow.
I’m unsure if anyone questioned the legality as written today, just due to the fact it has continued under existing law today. I don’t follow a lot of things here to know exactly what has been posted. Still, it does appear as you provided that google, twitter and FB are NOT liable today for what is posted and obviously brings into question why remove any posts of different opinions since they are not liable…and yes there are a lot of valid opinions removed. The mere fact of these outlets serving as a government media arm while eliminating …which we all know they do to opposing thought is not a whole lot different than Bagdad Bob or Goebbels in Germany.
Despite current law today, it is obvious to the most casual observer that censorship by the big three is not healthy for all whether today or in the future. Shutting down thought from opposition absent of malice paves many roads to hell. Failure to admit reality even with the current legality is disingenuous and lack of concern for that finds root in stupidity.
I'd argue that those saying Google or whomever is violating free speech are suggesting illegality.
I’m happy to acknowledge there have been errors made -- the standard in the law is “good faith,” after all -- and that there have been posts removed that should not have been. But, I reject the notion that they’re removing conservative opinions simply because they’re conservative. It’s not the companies‘ fault that it’s largely conservatives who believed, for instance, that vaccines made people magnetic. Moderating content that said such a thing would disproportionately affect conservative accounts. But that belief is not a conservative value, it’s just nonsense that could endanger people by convincing them not to get vaccinated that happened to be spouted more by conservatives. I’ve yet to see any examples of people being banned or posts removed because they advocate for small government, or low taxes, or robust military spending, or any other thing that’s actually just a political opinion. Marjorie Taylor Greene didn’t lose her Twitter account because she’s conservative, she lost it because she kept lying about Covid stuff.
On the contrary, I don’t think the McMinn County school board acted in a ”good faith” effort to protect children from objectionable or non-age-approprite content. Rather, they wanted to remove something from the curriculum that shows something bad white Christian people did to Jews and that, I guess, might make white kids feel bad about being white and/or Christian. I don’t find the profanity excuse to be a compelling justification for why 8th graders can’t use “Maus” to learn about the holocaust.
Last edited:
There was no specific thing I wrote that would disproportionately affect conservative accounts being removed. I mentioned opposition thoughts which by default suggest the other side is liberal thoughts. I mentioned opposing thought being removed which could be a valid thought as well as thought lacking any substance. I’m unaware of any data comparing things removed that are valid, versus those that are not, from either conservatives or liberals and wouldn’t begin to suggest that absurdities lie in the conservative population primarily, due to the likewise stupidity found in the liberal camps. Nor should I believe that those sites with current legality have the expertise to know what is factual and what is not.
Continuing with the reference to Marjorie Taylor Greene whom I have no idea on her stance on anything, or her political vision in general to understand that her blockage or removal is based on a single post or her own stance on many thoughts. I don’t even know what state she represents other than it isn’t Indiana. She is irrelevant to my comments that discussed censorship, textbook adoption, Diane Ravitch and DIF.
I’ve had Pfizer shots because it was right for me, but I have no desire for control and power like the liberals seek in everyday events. There are many reasons why people may not want the shot…all valid thoughts and do not impose upon their freedom. I personally know an anesthesiologist that suffered paralysis after a shot and has not been able to work for months. Science even suggests many valid reasons to not get the shot. Some of those people may be aware that the polio shots were stopped for a while due to many health issues for a year or two???? until they resumed. Should doctors that treated the virus successfully not be heard? None of this is about the virus…it is all about control and power which can be shown in a multitude of ways. Watching Fauci run away from gain of function, masks and his other flip flops is no different than looking in the eyes of fan sitting at the end of the tennis net flipping from side to side.
I have no idea the real reasons for McMinn County. I know Tennessee uses TVAAS, but unsure if that is statewide or not and have no idea how changes in curriculum may or may not affect the statistical model that Bill Sanders uses. It may not have any bearing on what happened, I just don’t know? Relative to that I thought it was interesting that you mentioned that the book showed “something bad that white people did” laughing as I type wondering if this was in reference to previous BLM garbage. What happened to understanding many white Americans freed the Jews from concentration camps the “Germans” put them in? It wasn’t a white thing…although that would go in line with the current agenda. Many whites were against what Hitler was doing anyway.
FWIW, my daughter was touched in the elementary by The Diary of Anne Frank. I have visited the museum in D.C. three different times for hours. I stood by my-ex father-in-law from Austria Hungary as he was looking at a few pictures in the museum talking about an invasion as he listed several family members that nobody ever heard from again. I visited Sachsenhausen north of Berlin which was the headquarters and model for other concentration camps… a place where Stalin’s son was shot as a deliberate suicide that prompted Stalin to say even in death his own son couldn’t do anything right. It was for “political prisoners”…let me repeat…for “political prisoners”. It housed Martin Niemoller who wrote “First They Came For the Jews”. Somewhere in this crowd I sat.
Somewhere I sat
Kim has met and talked with Eva Kor as well and the next trip to Munich will include Dachau. My first cousin a consultant on George Washington for Mount Veron says I need to go to Poland to see those. None of this has to do with some white people doing something bad. It had to do with the media in bed politically (like we see today) ultimately with Hitler and should serve as an example when politics drives the press. Here, we add to previous FBI and IRS ventures politically with the media…and ALL the distractions away from reality…the strawmen and such are no different than years ago.
How do you mention dangerous comments when you listen to Obummer’s two SCOTUS discuss masks and deaths? What can be more dangerous than Hunter Biden’s art being sold, the Clinton Foundation in the past, Shift and a whole list of bumbling idiots that gather the votes of the ignorant. How does Hank Johnson keep getting elected and a whole list of people trying to shut down dialog in free speech, attack the second. Can you imagine comparing one idiot on one side of the aisle to another. I suspect the lib list that doesn’t even know which restroom to use…just for starters would exceed those on the other side of the aisle…and no question which side is the most dangerous to our freedoms and the country in general.
Now, I hear the basektball forum calling and teh game is approaching. You nor I benefited by the selective comments and the blaring ommission of others. What we are seeing is a real danger and if you disagree...so be it. I'm not proofreading the above as I tried to write thing off and on through three phone calls
