Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

See point before about sophistry and how your argument really should be making little difference.

Are you really going to argue that there is a vast difference between a character sucking on a fake penis vs a person sucking on a natural penis?

"Sophistry" to point out a literal factual error. K lol.

Human and designed more for entertainment which yeh that book is.

XD

That's so naive it's almost cute. Like talking to a nun from the 1300s.

From the article that kicked this off



Sorry what was that about the books not being banned?

Did you... did you actually read that article you've just quoted? Or did you just ctrl-F for "banned books" and then highlight them?

Because it repeatedly says that she linked her students to places where they could read books that have been banned. Uhrm, yes, that's what the "books unbanned" list is: it's right there in the title.

But those books weren't banned from her school library. Hell, we don't even know if the school library carried these books in the first place! A state direction instructed her to cover (NOT REMOVE) books. She complied, but also linked people to a list of books which have been commonly banned, curated by the Brooklyn Public Library. Then a parent checked the list, spotted 'Gender Queer' on it, and complained.

Please, I'm begging you, learn the basic details of something if you're going to angrily rant about it. Just the basics. Please.

Pretty sure I said she wasn't fired. Which she wasn't, she chose to quite before the investigation finished.

You said she wasn't suspended. That was factually untrue, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Care to explain to me how you believe school library books are not part of a schools budget again?

Part of the issue is said books are banned in school libraries or according to you in contradiction to the article that started this not banned.

Either you once again failed to read what I said or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said by applying a context it was never said in.

So care to explain how it's factually untrue that school library books are part of the school budget if it's an actual school only library? Because unless I'm mistaken the magical money fairy doesn't cover the cost of school books for school libraries.

Books in the school library are (usually) part of the school budget.

This case has nothing to do with providing books to the school library or removing them. Zero. Zilch. There's no indication the school ever carried 'Gender Queer' or 'Lawn Boy', and nothing was ordered to be removed.

Literally the only reason "Gender Queer" came up is because a parent opened the "Books Unbanned" list-- which contains many hundreds of books (including stuff like Mein Kampf, I believe) and is curated by the Brooklyn Public Library, not this teacher-- and saw it there. The books on the "Books Unbanned" list is not a list of books contained in her school library. There's zero reason to assume that books you see on that list will also be in some random school library.

And hilarious to see you realise quite how little you really know about what you're talking about

You have zero fucking clue about the very basic facts about the case, and you refuse to bother to learn. Just repeat errors over and over again, whining about irrelevant shit like school budgets which are utterly unrelated to whether or not a public library carries something.

 

[Trunkage]

By the time it got itself into my grubby hands, the Power of One had been a bestselling book and had a rather critically successful feature film adapted from it. And its author, Bryce Courtney, a well celebrated writer in Australia. Its content was not a secret by any means. It is perhaps possible they relied on their door stopping size - each one is about the size of Order of the Phoenix - and the dryness of the subject matter (on the surface) to dissuade all but the most devoted bibliophiles.

You hit on what can save a book from being banned

It's not the content. It's the popularity

 

[Silvanus]

Yes. I do think that sending people to a list of books constitutes advertisements for the top of the list. The top 3 books on the list all contain explicit blowjob scenes.

"Top of the list", ok. I'm starting to think nobody here has even looked at what the teacher linked.

So, I've scanned the QR code, and it takes you directly here. Which exact "list" are you talking about with those three books with "explicit blowjob scenes" right at the top? Because as you can see, it's not actually just a website with a list on it.

If you go on Borrow --> Books, it defaults to a list of the ~500,000 books in the catalogue.... which is automatically sorted by a self-chosen filter at the top, not by an individual choosing what to put there. Currently the top for me is "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" because "Most Popular" was the default filter.

Is that what you're talking about? That the teacher should be blamed (and suspended!) for... the fact the website applied a filter, which might possibly (we don't know) have listed Gender Queer near the top at some point? That's the conscious "advertisement" you're talking about? Because that's the kind of function you can find on literally any good library's website nationwide.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"Sophistry" to point out a literal factual error. K lol.

In term of actual difference it should make the answer is very little. But no you can't let it go because it's all you have to resemble a cogent argument at this point so you'll thrash and wail about how much it totally matters to try and muddy the waters and keep crying foul hoping people believe you had some major game changing point.

So once again.

It's a sex toy designed to look like a penis, is it really such a specific importat difference it changes the entire context of things? If so please explain how?

XD

That's so naive it's almost cute. Like talking to a nun from the 1300s.

Says the person whose already displayed their naivety in regards to sexual stuff already in this thread and admitted that sex education didn't really teach you much........ and you call me naïve?

Did you... did you actually read that article you've just quoted? Or did you just ctrl-F for "banned books" and then highlight them?

Yes, yes I did, clearly you didn't.

Because it repeatedly says that she linked her students to places where they could read books that have been banned. Uhrm, yes, that's what the "books unbanned" list is: it's right there in the title.

And where do you think the books have been banned from moon base fucking alpha? Atlantis? The secret Hollow Earth library? stop and think for a little bit won't you?

But those books weren't banned from her school library. Hell, we don't even know if the school library carried these books in the first place! A state direction instructed her to cover (NOT REMOVE) books. She complied, but also linked people to a list of books which have been commonly banned, curated by the Brooklyn Public Library. Then a parent checked the list, spotted 'Gender Queer' on it, and complained.

Please, I'm begging you, learn the basic details of something if you're going to angrily rant about it. Just the basics. Please.

Oh please, you ask me to learn simple detail yet simple logic fails you?

Let me spell it out.

If the book was in the school library and fine to be there approved by the school board what do you believe would have happened when a parent complained? What are you arguing the school board suspended a teacher for show to pretend they were acting? You know how much trouble that would cause for a school and how much of a case she'd likely have for wrongful action taken against her?

I get that people following your ideology don't get logic after the whole 2+2=5 arguments but do please try.

You said she wasn't suspended. That was factually untrue, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

I said she wasn't fired.

Books in the school library are (usually) part of the school budget.

This case has nothing to do with providing books to the school library or removing them. Zero. Zilch. There's no indication the school ever carried 'Gender Queer' or 'Lawn Boy', and nothing was ordered to be removed.

Literally the only reason "Gender Queer" came up is because a parent opened the "Books Unbanned" list-- which contains many hundreds of books (including stuff like Mein Kampf, I believe) and is curated by the Brooklyn Public Library, not this teacher-- and saw it there. The books on the "Books Unbanned" list is not a list of books contained in her school library. There's zero reason to assume that books you see on that list will also be in some random school library.

And why do you think it was controversial and a problem then if the school was so perfectly fine with the book?

And again where do you think some of these books were banned from? North Korea? The Mens room on the Orient Express? Some random book Christian bookshop in bumblefuck nowhere?

You have zero fucking clue about the very basic facts about the case, and you refuse to bother to learn. Just repeat errors over and over again, whining about irrelevant shit like school budgets which are utterly unrelated to whether or not a public library carries something.

There are two kinds of people in this world you appear to be the second kind
Those who can derive assumptions from incomplete information

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"Top of the list", ok. I'm starting to think nobody here has even looked at what the teacher linked.

So, I've scanned the QR code, and it takes you directly here. Which exact "list" are you talking about with those three books with "explicit blowjob scenes" right at the top? Because as you can see, it's not actually just a website with a list on it.

If you go on Borrow --> Books, it defaults to a list of the ~500,000 books in the catalogue.... which is automatically sorted by a self-chosen filter at the top, not by an individual choosing what to put there. Currently the top for me is "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" because "Most Popular" was the default filter.

Is that what you're talking about? That the teacher should be blamed (and suspended!) for... the fact the website applied a filter, which might possibly (we don't know) have listed Gender Queer near the top at some point? That's the conscious "advertisement" you're talking about? Because that's the kind of function you can find on literally any good library's website nationwide.

You mean this list

National Library Week kicks off with State of America’s Libraries Report, annual 'Top 10 Most Challenged Books' list and a new campaign to fight book bans

Book challenges top 700 – the most since 2000

www.ala.org

The 1 I found in 30 seconds and 1 click on that site?

 

[Seanchaidh]

At this point you're basically a parody.

Says the Pro-NATO "socialist".

 

[Silvanus]

So once again.

It's a sex toy designed to look like a penis, is it really such a specific importat difference it changes the entire context of things? If so please explain how?

I wasn't correcting "the entire context of things". I was correcting a simple factual error.

Says the person whose already displayed their naivety in regards to sexual stuff already in this thread and admitted that sex education didn't really teach you much........ and you call me naïve?

If you think literally any depiction of a sexual nature is porn, then yes, childishly naive.

And where do you think the books have been banned from moon base fucking alpha? Atlantis? The secret Hollow Earth library? stop and think for a little bit won't you?

The books on the "books unbanned" list have been banned from countless different places.

Let me get this straight: you believe that the "books unbanned" list, which is operated by the BROOKLYN PUBLIC LIBRARY, is dedicated to a list of books banned by a specific school in OKLAHOMA?

Oh please, you ask me to learn simple detail yet simple logic fails you?

Let me spell it out.

If the book was in the school library and fine to be there approved by the school board what do you believe would have happened when a parent complained? What are you arguing the school board suspended a teacher for show to pretend they were acting? You know how much trouble that would cause for a school and how much of a case she'd likely have for wrongful action taken against her?

I get that people following your ideology don't get logic after the whole 2+2=5 arguments but do please try.

XD

The teacher was suspended for providing a QR code which directed kids to the "books unbanned" list, which is a list operated by the BROOKLYN LIBRARY, unrelated to this school. I've explained this to you several times now.

There is literally no indication whether or not the book was in the Oklahoma school or not.

I said she wasn't fired.

And that she wasn't suspended. Which was false.

And why do you think it was controversial and a problem then if the school was so perfectly fine with the book?

They weren't fine with it. Doesn't change the fact that the school didn't stock it. It was in a public library, having zero impact on the school's budget.

What they objected to was someone linking to a list which contained it.

You mean this list

National Library Week kicks off with State of America’s Libraries Report, annual 'Top 10 Most Challenged Books' list and a new campaign to fight book bans

Book challenges top 700 – the most since 2000

www.ala.org

The 1 I found in 30 seconds and 1 click on that site?

Ah right, okay: so the list that's on a third-party website that the Brooklyn Library website linked them to, not even the actual website the QR code sent them to.

 

[Silvanus]

Says the Pro-NATO "socialist".

I'd love a world without NATO. Unfortunately, the recent invasion perpetrated by Russia is causing it to grow: proven that if nations in Eastern Europe don't have collective security of some kind, then they can expect constant invasion and violent domination by an imperial expansionist neighbour.

Your preferred course of action has strengthened NATO more than anything else over the past several decades.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I wasn't correcting "the entire context of things". I was correcting a simple factual error.

Which doesn't change the main point in any meaningful way so is just a pointless distraction.

If you think literally any depiction of a sexual nature is porn, then yes, childishly naive.

Ok then it's sexual explicit to degree it's not appropriate, that better for you?

The books on the "books unbanned" list have been banned from countless different places.

Let me get this straight: you believe that the "books unbanned" list, which is operated by the BROOKLYN PUBLIC LIBRARY, is dedicated to a list of books banned by a specific school in OKLAHOMA?

No. just ones commonly banned and also likely banned from said school or else why direct students to it if they could just walk into the school library and read them now?

XD

The teacher was suspended for providing a QR code which directed kids to the "books unbanned" list, which is a list operated by the BROOKLYN LIBRARY, unrelated to this school. I've explained this to you several times now.

There is literally no indication whether or not the book was in the Oklahoma school or not.

A simple analysis of the situation should easily tell you the likely answer as to if the book was in the school library or not.

And that she wasn't suspended. Which was false.

Again I said she wasn't fired.

They weren't fine with it. Doesn't change the fact that the school didn't stock it. It was in a public library, having zero impact on the school's budget.

What they objected to was someone linking to a list which contained it.

And I was explaining the issue with activist books and school libraries.

Also just stop and think for a few minutes as to why you think they'd have a problem with the books and the list of they didn't have a problem stocking the books in school .........

Ah right, okay: so the list that's on a third-party website that the Brooklyn Library website linked them to, not even the actual website the QR code sent them to.

1 click, on the main page of the site lol

 

[Silvanus]

Which doesn't change the main point in any meaningful way so is just a pointless distraction.

Don't really care whether you think it's important or not. We'd have moved on long ago if you'd just admitted a simple factual error.

Ok then it's sexual explicit to degree it's not appropriate, that better for you?

I mean, not really, because that definition is so vague as to be completely meaningless.

"Pornography" is understood to mean a depiction in which the primary purpose is to arouse. You, I, Tstorm, and everyone else here knows full well that's not true of these books.

No. just ones commonly banned and also likely banned from said school or else why direct students to it if they could just walk into the school library and read them now?

? Because the school might not have all of them, or maybe because the Brooklyn Library provides additional resources? Or because they had to be covered (as per state instructions) in the school library?

A simple analysis of the situation should easily tell you the likely answer as to if the book was in the school library or not.

A simple analysis shows that the whole situation is completely unrelated to whether the books were in the school library or not. Because the state instruction did not involve removing books, and the teacher was suspended for directing kids to a public library resource.

Again I said she wasn't fired.

Again, you also said she wasn't suspended. Which was false.

And I was explaining the issue with activist books and school libraries.

And in doing so, you made a factual error. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to admit.

Also just stop and think for a few minutes as to why you think they'd have a problem with the books and the list of they didn't have a problem stocking the books in school .........

So your position is just that "well if they objected they must have a point"?

I guess all those Satanic Panic people were completely right about Dungeons & Dragons, too then! Because why would they have a problem with them otherwise?!

1 click, on the main page of the site lol

Uhrm, yes, websites link to other websites.

She's to blame for the content of websites that the Brooklyn Library links to as well, then?

 

[Gergar12]

TLDR: For you young men out there, not wearing slim, tight clothing that showcases your body is unattractive.


The reason from a realist perspective is that it kills the fog of war for women. If women can see your body shape, they can make inferences about you, and thus it eliminates uncertainty, being fit of course is no replacement for being wealthy, but it is second best.

Yes, that is the state of the world we live in right now.

 

[Gordon_4]

TLDR: For you young men out there, not wearing slim, tight clothing that showcases your body is unattractive.


The reason from a realist perspective is that it kills the fog of war for women. If women can see your body shape, they can make inferences about you, and thus it eliminates uncertainty, being fit of course is no replacement for being wealthy, but it is second best.

Yes, that is the state of the world we live in right now.

Only if you take seriously the caliber of person who spends their time on reddit.

 

[Gergar12]

Only if you take seriously the caliber of person who spends their time on reddit.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X

 

[Gordon_4]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X

Attractive people fuck other attractive people. In other recent news, water confirmed to be wet.

 

[Gergar12]

Attractive people fuck other attractive people. In other recent news, water confirmed to be wet.

These results indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women.

Basically, if you are an unattractive man, with a non-geometric-symmetric body/face, and you are wealthy you will have a better chance with women than someone who isn't wealthy but isn't attractive either.

The second side of the coin is that the more money a well-off woman makes the worse her outcomes for dating since women date above, and across(generally).

Funny story I know of a very attractive woman who is 30 but looks like she is 25, but her boyfriend, and both of their families forced her to go back to China from Japan where she was an accountant because her aunt was similarly wealthy but had no mates. I still don't know what was the right decision for her, does she stay forever alone as a wealthy independent woman or be forced to take care of children?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Don't really care whether you think it's important or not. We'd have moved on long ago if you'd just admitted a simple factual error.

So yeh, doesn't matter and you just brought it up for some cheap attempt at political point scoring and distracting from the main argument here. I will also note not demanding the same level of acceptance from the person who initially posted about the story here claiming it was a librarian under attack not a teacher.

So yeh I call sophistry again

I mean, not really, because that definition is so vague as to be completely meaningless.

"Pornography" is understood to mean a depiction in which the primary purpose is to arouse. You, I, Tstorm, and everyone else here knows full well that's not true of these books.

Some one term you won't accept because it's "too vague" and another you won't accept because it isn't designed to turn people on.

Well done on proving there basically is no definition you'd accept for the content that would even somewhat accurately describe it if said term doesn't sound entirely harmless and innocent lol.

? Because the school might not have all of them, or maybe because the Brooklyn Library provides additional resources? Or because they had to be covered (as per state instructions) in the school library?

So then she wouldn't have been suspended by the school board if the books were acceptable and known to be so. That simple.

A simple analysis shows that the whole situation is completely unrelated to whether the books were in the school library or not. Because the state instruction did not involve removing books, and the teacher was suspended for directing kids to a public library resource.

Which would strongly suggest they school board and or state didn't approve of said books being made available to said students otherwise they wouldn't have suspended her........

Again, you also said she wasn't suspended. Which was false.

No I said she wasn't fired.
Something I believe you asserted had happened.

And in doing so, you made a factual error. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to admit.

I'm sorry you still haven't explain how it's a factual error that school library books are part of a schools budget.

It's not a factual error to argue "But the books were part of a public library" when the post in question was specifically about the subject of activist books in school libraries a tangent from the main topic.

You're arguing that if I said there was no banana in a fruit bowl I was factually wrong because there are bananas for sale at the supermarket. Wouldn't make it factually incorrect unless the banana was in the fruit bowl. So again how is it factually incorrect of me to say school library books are part of a schools budget?

So your position is just that "well if they objected they must have a point"?

I guess all those Satanic Panic people were completely right about Dungeons & Dragons, too then! Because why would they have a problem with them otherwise?!

So to be clear you believe.
The Parent was wrong.
The School Board and administration were wrong
The state is wrong.

But the teacher is right despite her not even having the conviction in her own position being right to see the investigation through?

Also Dungeons and Dragons didn't contain secret occult rituals to summon Satan. The books in question here do contain explicit sexual imagery

Uhrm, yes, websites link to other websites.

She's to blame for the content of websites that the Brooklyn Library links to as well, then?

On the front page, it's not some secret hidden link she couldn't possibly have known about.

This is kind of like arguing a teacher linking to an all my links site isn't directing people to an onlyfans it just happens to be one of the links there. It fools no-one and her reaction to the thing suggests she was more than aware what she was doing in this regarding. If it were truly an honest mistake she not be kicking up half the political stink she's choosing to do.

 

[tstorm823]

"Top of the list", ok. I'm starting to think nobody here has even looked at what the teacher linked.

So, I've scanned the QR code, and it takes you directly here. Which exact "list" are you talking about with those three books with "explicit blowjob scenes" right at the top? Because as you can see, it's not actually just a website with a list on it.

If you go on Borrow --> Books, it defaults to a list of the ~500,000 books in the catalogue.... which is automatically sorted by a self-chosen filter at the top, not by an individual choosing what to put there. Currently the top for me is "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" because "Most Popular" was the default filter.

Is that what you're talking about? That the teacher should be blamed (and suspended!) for... the fact the website applied a filter, which might possibly (we don't know) have listed Gender Queer near the top at some point? That's the conscious "advertisement" you're talking about? Because that's the kind of function you can find on literally any good library's website nationwide.

Well, you see, what you did is ignore the specific page that was linked to, and instead clicked into the generic Brooklyn Library content from the left navigation bar to find the list of all books available from the Brooklyn Public Library.

If you do what I did, and clicked the links in the article instead of immediately navigating away from the banned books page, you'd find the top 10 list I referenced in the second link on that site, and down on the right labelled "Top 10 most challenged books", and if you click the big panel labelled "Use Your Library". And if you click "get reading" from that panel instead, you get to the curated Books Unbanned booklist on that website which has Gender Queer in the second slot and Lawn Boy in the third.

 

[Gergar12]

Okay okay okay, riddle me this how is it okay to make 12/hr as a techie taxi driver at Uber, or to spend 1 million dollars for a fucking medallion to be a taxi driver. Honestly, people call me communist and fascist but hypnotically if I was in power, and more violent the people who maintain those ideas are the first people I would go after.

 

[Trunkage]

These results indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women.

Basically, if you are an unattractive man, with a non-geometric-symmetric body/face, and you are wealthy you will have a better chance with women than someone who isn't wealthy but isn't attractive either.

The second side of the coin is that the more money a well-off woman makes the worse her outcomes for dating since women date above, and across(generally).

Funny story I know of a very attractive woman who is 30 but looks like she is 25, but her boyfriend, and both of their families forced her to go back to China from Japan where she was an accountant because her aunt was similarly wealthy but had no mates. I still don't know what was the right decision for her, does she stay forever alone as a wealthy independent woman or be forced to take care of children?

Look, I dont want to point out an obvious flaw in this logic but.....

You know that women generally get paid less than women right. Almost all dating done by women HAS to be done across or above due to this very reason. I dont know why this would be shocking

 

[Gergar12]

Look, I dont want to point out an obvious flaw in this logic but.....

You know that women generally get paid less than women right. Almost all dating done by women HAS to be done across or above due to this very reason. I dont know why this would be shocking

Only by 7% in the same occupation.