1183
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
1183 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2015 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One thing is "banning" and another is deciding what "tax money" buys. You can get any book you want, that is not called banning
So government spending should be based on religious beliefs? Because there is no other reason for banning LGBTQ+ books, you know.
I think the Constitution has a word or two about that.
so we can forcebly stop selling guns because that's "not banning"?
Yeap, the fed can stop selling guns, no problem. They are not going to takr the guns you own are they? That is what banning would be. Are they caking your books? Nope, just like they are not taking your guns.
so, if I've understood you correctly - once you buy one single gun, there is no need to buy any other gun? nor for anyone else to buy a gun as they could just use your gun?
do you envision it like one gun for the whole country? or per state? would you use like a calendly link to book the gun?
Tha fuck are you talking about? Lol. You can buy as many guys as you want just like you can buy any book as many times as you want. Or sell, just dint foce anybody to buy you book that it would not sell by itself :)
ok, don't force anyone to support a war machine they don't want. don't force anyone to support roads they don't want built. don't force anyone to build hospitals, or fire stations, or schools, or sewers, or cut down trees, or maintain a police force.
what you seem to be missing is that I'm not literally claiming we should actively do things I'm saying
I'm making fun of the ridiculous points by making equally spurious suggestions in the other direction. my intention isn't to convince anyone that my comments are the correct course of action, they are simply mocking the ideas by parroting and rephrasing the sentiment.
well, every religious text- including the Bible would be banned. Which I'm not that bothered if someone doesn't read the Bible until they're 16, but also I understand that presents significant problems for a lot of society.
But also surely you can see the folly in saying "why do Christians need such a pornographic and violent book to praise God? Are they perverts?" it's obviously an inflammatory and ill-considered statement
And how are you defining sexual content? is "Billy's Mommy and Daddy gave birth to Billy's new sister, she is a tiny baby" sexual content?
It describes a sexual relationship between two people, but in a way I'd consider appropriate for a 6 year old.
Yes you can force the government to stop selling guns bought with tax payers money. What a stupid take.
you mean the military?
Not all library funds come from public tax dollars. So, assuming those books are bought with non public funds, what's the gripe there? Or, heck, what if I donate the books?
Or maybe this isn't actually about public funds... Maybe it's one group applying their subjective moral beliefs on another group, then retroactively defending their atrocious behavior as a "public funds" debate.
Shouldn't you be under a bridge somewhere?
I am, with all my homeless roommates here in San Francisco :)
So if they buy it from book sale money, it's fine?
What do you mean by "they"? What sale money?
So you aren't even aware that libraries have book sales to raise funds?
i.e. money that isn't taxpayer money?
Maybe you shouldn't make pronouncements about libraries if you never even set foot in them.
What are you even talking about? You were saying that taxpayer money shouldn't go to LGBT books in libraries if the community doesn't want taxpayer money to go to them. I'm showing you that taxpayer money doesn't have to go to them. So do you still have an issue with libraries buying books that cater to minorities in their community?
So you think the only reason libraries should have books that might interest black or gay people is to get "social points" and not to, I don't know, have books that gay and black people want to read?
Answer the question.
Sure keep making that up in your head