Political DBag Hall of Fame

[Enhance]

I’m quite certain you do and quietly agree with me.   If you want to go with an extremely limited ban as wording that’s fine and I won’t argue that.  But these other dips#!ts are acting like the books in question can’t be EASILY read by any child whose parents want them to read the books.  

FWIW I was joking.

But on a serious note, I think you're more wrong than you are right (not saying you're completely wrong). I have no context of what this debate is actually about, but in a general sense, book banning doesn't mean a book has to disappear everywhere. When schools or libraries remove a book, it's often considered a ban because it limits access for students who rely on those places for resources. Historically, bans have been about restricting availability in specific contexts, not erasing a book entirely. I'm pretty sure The American Library Association (ALA) defines a ban as the removal of materials from access by others, especially in libraries and schools. So even if a book can be found elsewhere, taking it out of schools still counts as a ban and affects kids who might not have easy access otherwise.
 

Just my two cents nobody asked for.

 

[JJ Husker]

FWIW I was joking.

But on a serious note, I think you're more wrong than you are right (not saying you're completely wrong). I have no context of what this debate is actually about, but in a general sense, book banning doesn't mean a book has to disappear everywhere. When schools or libraries remove a book, it's often considered a ban because it limits access for students who rely on those places for resources. Historically, bans have been about restricting availability in specific contexts, not erasing a book entirely. I'm pretty sure The American Library Association (ALA) defines a ban as the removal of materials from access by others, especially in libraries and schools. So even if a book can be found elsewhere, taking it out of schools still counts as a ban and affects kids who might not have easy access otherwise.
 

Just my two cents nobody asked for.

Well your two cents was way more valuable than the $200+ worth of commentary archy chipped in on this subject.

 

[Enhance]

I don't really have a strong opinion on it. Personally I think it's a trivial thing to debate this intently; it seems like a very culturally and societally common thing to refer to a removal of books from certain buildings/districts/etc. as a "book ban." It would definitely be more of a niche opinion and perspective to argue for it being something else.

 

[Archy1221]

Everybody agrees with you on the reality that banned books aren't universally banned, and everyone understands that the context of talking about banned books is one in which they are banned by a specific group of people in a specific context and not in all contexts. People agree with you so much, in fact, that it's not even worth the distinction to all of the rest of us because we all already know that and know that everybody else knows that. We could use that as a good point to engage in a conversation about what is meant, but no, we're all complicit in allowing you to bog us down in some real, genuine dips#!ttery.

Nobody is acting the way you are claiming. Everybody is acting as if your pedantry is completely besides the point as a weak and frivolous distraction. It's a neat trick, and to my shame one that is far too often successful in getting everybody to dive into the inane weak bulls#!t pitfalls that you love pulling people into instead of having decent conversation about the actual point.

But in reality, people arguing with me are not in fact agreeing that books not allowed in an elementary school are banned books.  And I will re-work my words to met people halfway and say “banned in the traditional sense of what people consider the word to mean”.   How do I know this???

Because I’ve had multiple people equate this discussion with something clearly not close to what I’m talking about.   A person actually equated this argument or getting the same book many other places within the same locale to Nazis going to another country in order to get a country wide banned book.  
 

Someone else equated this discussion to a women wanting an abortion and having to travel to an entire state or across country as if it’s the same as going to the local library instead of local elementary school.   

 

[Archy1221]

FWIW I was joking.

But on a serious note, I think you're more wrong than you are right (not saying you're completely wrong). I have no context of what this debate is actually about, but in a general sense, book banning doesn't mean a book has to disappear everywhere. When schools or libraries remove a book, it's often considered a ban because it limits access for students who rely on those places for resources. Historically, bans have been about restricting availability in specific contexts, not erasing a book entirely. I'm pretty sure The American Library Association (ALA) defines a ban as the removal of materials from access by others, especially in libraries and schools. So even if a book can be found elsewhere, taking it out of schools still counts as a ban and affects kids who might not have easy access otherwise.
 

Just my two cents nobody asked for.

This is why I’m coming off my stance to amend my wording a bit.  But as I just stated to the other person, the equivocation others are comparing this to is nonsense.   A book about gay sex not being available at your local elementary school, but is available at either the middle school or HS in the same school district is not at all like someone traveling for an abortion to an entire different state, or a nazi leaving an entire country for a banned book.    

With that said, do you think it gives the correct impression for people here to say books are being banned without ANY qualification as to where or what kind are not available in certain places?   I mean, when I hear something is banned, I equate that to being unavailable in general.    When I hear a book is banned from elementary school libraries, that gives me an entirely different context to things.   
 

It’s disingenuous for people to say books are being banned without the proper context of how few people are affected and what type in content is being restricted  and where it is restricted (which by the way is a much better term to use in this discussion) 

 

[Archy1221]

I don't really have a strong opinion on it. Personally I think it's a trivial thing to debate this intently; it seems like a very culturally and societally common thing to refer to a removal of books from certain buildings/districts/etc. as a "book ban." It would definitely be more of a niche opinion and perspective to argue for it being something else.

It’s not trivial for the reason I just stated to you.  ( I know I posted that response after you posted this).   
The other side of this discussion has a certain reason to want to I use “banned books” without providing context.   It allows them to inflate the restricting of  certain books in a very very limited area into a culture issue they want to claim is way  bigger than what reality dictates.   They want common sense restrictions to be seem as some draconian large scale book ban that it’s not.    So it’s quite important to push back on those clowns for doing so.  

 

[Enhance]

With that said, do you think it gives the correct impression for people here to say books are being banned without ANY qualification as to where or what kind are not available in certain places?   I mean, when I hear something is banned, I equate that to being unavailable in general.    When I hear a book is banned from elementary school libraries, that gives me an entirely different context to things.   
 

It’s disingenuous for people to say books are being banned without the proper context of how few people are affected and what type in content is being restricted  and where it is restricted (which by the way is a much better term to use in this discussion) 

I 100% agree context matters but this seems to be more of a semantics debate and comes off somewhat obtuse because it shifts the conversation away from the primary concern of limiting access to certain information. When I hear "books are being banned" I feel I have enough experience and societal awareness to know it is probably in reference to specific states, municipalities, libraries, etc., removing books from their shelves. My personal initial reaction is not to equate it to 'being unavailable in general.' 

When books are removed from schools or libraries, it's still commonly considered a ban because it limits access for students who rely on those resources. Even if the book is available elsewhere, taking it out of certain settings affects those who might not have other ways to obtain it. Using the term "restricted" might sound less severe, but the impact on access is essentially the same. Comparing this to someone traveling to another state seems a bit exaggerated; ultimately, it's about who controls access to information.

 

[knapplc]

This entire discussion is Steve Bannon "flood the zone with s#!t" kind of stuff. 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

And yet people would still be able to read the in 99% of the rest of the State and the poster could be read in other forums.  Good talk 

Tell that to your friends and co-voters who are proud and supportive of the book bans precisely because they're book bans.  

So if you were banned from HuskerBoard P&R, what word would you use to describe your status to the folks in the Football Forum?   

I mean, other than Unwelcome Anal Wart?

 

[Archy1221]

Tell that to your friends and co-voters who are proud and supportive of the book bans precisely because they're book bans.  

So if you were banned from HuskerBoard P&R, what word would you use to describe your status to the folks in the Football Forum?   

I mean, other than Unwelcome Anal Wart?

I would first ask why you compare me to this Guy character because I’m most usually described as the Kate Upton  Beauty Mark more than the Guy Unwelcome Anal Wart.   Then I would say I’m restricted from posting in P&R because certain whiny a$$ b!^@hes can’t handle accurate heat in a political forum and had to go cry to daddy so their feelings didn’t get hurt anymore.   

Not too complicated Mr. UWAW

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I would first ask why you compare me to this Guy character because I’m most usually described as the Kate Upton  Beauty Mark more than the Guy Unwelcome Anal Wart.   Then I would say I’m restricted from posting in P&R because certain whiny a$$ b!^@hes can’t handle accurate heat in a political forum and had to go cry to daddy so their feelings didn’t get hurt anymore.   

Not too complicated Mr. UWAW

Just remember that I'm the last person on HuskerBoard to support bans. I'm much more vigilant about rightwing scrotal sacs trying to hide their ugly instincts behind semantic games.

Kate Upton Beauty mark? Are you so navigationally challenged that you forgot you were in the Shed? Where I just led you? 

I call you an Unwelcome Anal Wart because the forefathers who created the Shed believed in my sacred freedom to do so. 

 

[Archy1221]

Just remember that I'm the last person on HuskerBoard to support bans.

That’s true.   Your other douche canoe brigade not so much though. 
 

Kate Upton Beauty mark? Are you so navigationally challenged that you forgot you were in the Shed? Where I just led you? 

Ummmm what.  Yes, I’m as beautiful as a Kate Upton Beauty Mark and while being as manly as a Tom Selleck mustache!   I know it’s hard to be both and takes a special person to pull it off, but I can give you pointers if that helps.  I understand how you don’t want the Anal Warts associated with you anymore.   Just DM me as I don’t want these beauty secrets getting out.  
 

I call you an Unwelcome Anal Wart because the forefathers who created the Shed believed in my sacred freedom to do so. 

 You call me that cause you’re just jelly and want to feel like someone else relates to you.  Maybe give that name to the knapper or Lorewarn Landlord or that commie Red Denver.  Not that I know much about anal warts like you seem to do, but if I imagined one, it would probably one of those guys/girls.   
 

This constant beat down I keep having to give you in the Woodshed reminds me of these characters Eminem and Papa Doc in a popular fable seen on the boob tube.   I somewhat hate how I have to make you feel so bad and crush your existence but I guess it is what it is, eh Clarence….errrr I mean Guy…..errrr Anal wart Guy.  
 

 I’m outtty

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

"If I can just talk to him, I can fix him."

No. It's been nine years. You can't fix people who think like that.

Stop enabling your abusers.

I understand the preference for a Politics & Religion forum that excludes half of America. It's certainly possible to create one, or to put them all on ignore. 

But since that sign is not up at the entrance, I will continue to engage with my adversaries, feeling neither abused nor under any illusions. 

 

[knapplc]

I understand the preference for a Politics & Religion forum that excludes half of America. It's certainly possible to create one, or to put them all on ignore. 

But since that sign is not up at the entrance, I will continue to engage with my adversaries, feeling neither abused nor under any illusions. 

It's just odd that you can't see that his point is not to engage in any kind of reasonable conversation, but to waste your time. 

I can promise you you're not going to miss out on anything - including a chance to change a person's mind - by putting Archy on ignore. 

 

[RedDenver]

It's just odd that you can't see that his point is not to engage in any kind of reasonable conversation, but to waste your time. 

I can promise you you're not going to miss out on anything - including a chance to change a person's mind - by putting Archy on ignore. 

Sure, but he's so easy to dunk on - like debunking flat earthers. It's fun sometimes. And like flat earth misinformation, somebody needs to debunk it to help the low-information people out there that don't always look passed the headline or gotcha comment.