1023
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 10 Dec 2024
1023 points (99.3% liked)
Uplifting News
11654 readers
1107 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Them banning the bans makes me chuckle.
Conservatives should have banned ban-bans first if they wanted to get their way.
Isn’t that in Project 2025 somewhere?
Yes but project 2025 has been banned so we are all good there
"Somehow, Palpatine returned..."
Then Democrats hit 'em with the ban ban ban ban.
Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden thi yer?
I recommend reading the US constitution. Basically this is what the Bill of Rights is.
Also many States added bans on banning of abortions to their Constitutions for the same reason.
We need a lot more of these, like bans on bans of encrypted apps without backdoors. Bans on bans of "vagrancy" and other laws made to target black people. Bans on book bans in prison.
The land of freedom has reached the point that we must ban banning things rather than framing it as guaranteeing the right to d9 a thing.
I’m interested how this works, technically. I’m against banning books. I’m also against elementary school kids picking up Naked Lunch in the school library and leaving through it. I presume no librarian would elect to have that book anyway, so it will never be tested whether it can be barred somehow. There are also probably soft mechanisms that get used like “it’s in the library and you can check it out with a parental permission form.” Anyway how to handle obscene material has been a question since the beginning of time.
Leaving a gap open for “developmentally inappropriate” makes sense in the face of it, but when Evangelicals try to ban any book that has a depiction of a gay character, this is the rationale they use: that kids should not be subjected to sexual material. I’m not saying their argument holds water, just that the gap left open by this prohibition is the exact favorite entry point of book ban abusers.
I don't really understand what this bill changes either :/
The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won't buy any book they deem inappropriate. I'm sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven't read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can't get on the Internet nowadays.
From the article:
Doesn’t know the book: check Casually dismisses the entire topic of moderating children’s content intake: check
It’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about on any level here.
Sounds like you're having a bad day. I even gave you a quote from the article that answers your exact question. Everything okay at home?
I’m responding to this:
So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?
I may be over focusing on that one part of your comment but it does stand out from the rest as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point.
Nah, mate. Wanna take a guess at what actually does stand out as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point?
The part where you implied something must be wrong in my personal life because I didn’t give your comment the response you think it deserves? You’re right - that too.
I didn't imply that. You did by leaving an overly hostile response to a comment about an article you didn't read with objections that were addressed before you left your comment.