The system they're using is in their faq, in detail. Basically it is books that were previously available but have been removed due to external pressure.

So it's not really fair to say it's a ban. You can have the book at school, but the school library won't have it.

Would you agree for the school to have the book "The Passing of the Great Race", a famously racist and white supremacist book in your school library?

Good things are good and bad things are bad.

I have absolutely no problem saying that bigots who insist that no books containing LGBT characters appear in libraries are bad people while also thinking that The Turner Diaries shouldn't be in public schools.

My aunt is a Republican lobbyist. She believes that nobody is actually gay and that it is a mental illness where people are tricked into thinking it is possible to be gay and that this can originate from being exposed to gay people.

She has a bisexual daughter who has attempted suicide twice. She has told her daughter that she’d be better off dead than bi.

Also I’m very sorry if there are books that contain gay characters where there aren’t constant asides reminding the reader that these people are going to hell. The “gay lifestyle” is just gay people existing.

> glorifying LGBT lifestyle

What is an LGBT lifestyle?

My life before and after discovering the nature of my queerness is remarkably similar, though with a fair few more relationships and a lot less anguish afterwards.

Weasel words like those are usually used by people to distance themselves from outright hatred of the people they dislike. "Oh, I don't hate you for being LGBT, I just hate and disagree with your lifestyle, which is something that you chose." See, totally different!

The implication of "lifestyle" usually being "ability to exist in a society without any major obstacles due to being LGBT", "ability to receive true healthcare related to being LGBT", "ability to be legally recognized and accommodated as a result of it" or "ability to express your queerness in public without being seen as the villain".

Maybe then you can be much more specific about "books glorifying LGBT lifestyle", because you are using the same exact words as bigots who think that two gay people in a book being happy is the same as showing children hardcore pornography.

Can someone have a golf lifestyle? Like, they go to golf courses, they own golf clubs, they socialize with other golfers? I mean it in that sense. You seem defensive.

And this is what I find funny about the term "LGBT lifestyle." Most definitions of the term, including yours, could just as easily apply to cohorts of straight people if you just swap the gender of one of the subjects.

Imagine somebody getting upset for glorifying a straight lifestyle. Funny stuff.

I am just trying to actually understand why some people are upset. It seems wise for others to do the same, rather than simply dismiss the concerns. If the concerned are in the majority and they are dismissed consistently for years, then good luck to their opponents. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I just think most of society is regarded at this point and I feel like an alien trying to understand humans.

I don't know, I didn't come in here with particularly strong feelings about what "ban" means or should mean re books but people keep coming at me extremely hot for saying not much about it at all.

Personally I think using banned for "actively prevented from accessing in ways other books are not" makes plenty of sense even if you can effectively circumvent those attempts somehow.

The strict meaning that people seem to want to apply in here does not seem particularly useful to me. Almost no books have ever been banned by that standard, but there is a clearly organized movement in the US to remove all reference to queerness from public life. Flexible on nomenclature here but that context is very important.

The hell kind of library are you visiting?

What queer book with that content was in libraries?

I suspect that whatever example they had in mind, it's a passage that is descriptive of someone's personal experience while not being prescriptive in telling the reader step-by-step how to follow in their footsteps.

For high school students, sure. I'd be very uncomfortable, but know thy enemy.

In my state (South Carolina) this is exactly how they handled it. If a parent or activist wishes see a book banned it goes through reviewed based on school-level appropriateness. A book like The Kite Runner with its deprecations of Bacha Bazi are a bit rough for a 5th grader but considered acceptable for a High Schooler given the cultural significance of the work.

As cryptically referred to by the villain in the perhaps most famous of American novels. Credit Wikipedia:

> Grant became a part of popular culture in 1920s America. Author F. Scott Fitzgerald made a lightly disguised reference to Grant in The Great Gatsby. In the book, the character Tom Buchanan reads a book called The Rise of the Colored Empires by "this man Goddard", a combination of Grant and his colleague Lothrop Stoddard. ...

> ... "Everybody ought to read it", the character said. "The idea is if we don't look out the white race will be — will be utterly submerged. It's all scientific stuff; it's been proved."

Is it currently there now?

>You can have the book at school, but the school library won't have it.

False.

The most targeted book in america is Looking For Alaska. You and I have a very different understanding of what "sexually explicit material" means if you think that this book is erotica.

Remember that the parents are deciding for other parents what appears in libraries.

Apparently I made my point poorly. Kama sutra was an example that I think everybody could agree shouldn't be in a children's library. My point was that everybody gets to decide what is in their children's library. Most of the people in that area probably agree. But, everybody can still go to any bookstore and find the same books. They are not banned in any way. As the OP said, without criteria on why a book is "banned" lists like this are pointless. A library or school district deciding they don't want a book doesn't make it banned. The problem is that people thousands of miles away think that those people far away are too restrictive or liberal in their book selections presented to children.

My second point was that since all these "banned" books are still available for sale; getting on a banned book list is just a tactic to sell more books. This list even has affiliate links to the books. Which make the whole page click bait.

Bigoted parents forcing librarians to remove books that they feel have educational merit because they offend the sensibilities of bigoted parents is bad.

You can call it a different word if you want I guess. But I'm absolutely baffled that people are spending their time worrying about the word "banned" here. This shit is awful.

Conversations like these are so immensely frustrating to have on Hacker News.

This thread is full of people falling over themselves trying to convince you that a book ban isn't actually a book ban, and whatever it happens to be isn't that big of a deal.

If the banning of books from libraries isn't a big deal - why is it being done in the first place? Is it just virtue signaling, or does it have a specific objective? If it has a specific objective, isn't that objective worth interrogating instead of brushing off as not a big deal because the book is still available through other means?

I think it might be the literalism sometimes common with autistic spectrum. Uhm, not to cause offense, I relate to it?

As someone who is also on the spectrum, literalism explains confusion over the definition, but not the downplaying of the consequences.

The objective is a foothold in culture war stuff, largely around LGBT people but about other things too. The ultimate goal is to re-establish a culture where gay people are unable to be out in public, especially in places where there are children. This means no gay teachers. No gay characters in media. Websites with LGBT content being treated as pornographic and requiring age verification.

The narrative is "look at these liberals forcing sex on children." Parents go to school board meetings and read passages ripped from context as lurid eroticism to rile up their neighbors. If normies go along with this "think of the children" stuff then it becomes a foothold to the next steps. We've seen this trans people, where bigots have successfully converted "this is about girl's sports" into policies banning healthcare and safe bathroom use.

At this point it's extremely clear - objectively, by counting criminal convictions - which demographic is a real danger to kids, not just sexually but in many other ways.

And it's very much not the writers of books with LGBT content.

I can understand why the real culprits might want to deflect attention from their moral failings onto others, and why pointing out the facts might make them very, very angry.

But it's going to have to be done at some point.

"The parents get to decide when sexually explicit material is appropriate for their children."

It's always strange to me when the concern is "sexually explicit material" and not "violently explicit material".

Not sure what your point is. 1984 is available at my middle school, high school and public libraries and every book store. Not available at elementary schools because it is generally above grade level.

The purpose of the ministry of truth was to redact and rewrite history. Shape peoples thoughts, their vocabulary and show them how good they have it compared to their primitive ancestors. (Those naked bare foot people who build all those megalithic structures, castles and cathedrals) History should of course have a carefully engineered list of banned books.

The work is never done, after removing the books with practical tutorials, blue prints and historical revisionism you always continue to have a candidate at the top of the list. The work that remains now are all fictional books that portray an uncomfortable reality.

After those are all gone the new reality will again have a most terrible book. The work is never done.

I don't know what the poster's intention was but perhaps "Fahrenheit 451" would have made the point more clearly?

Nobody is going around hunting for banned books in all formats and destroying them let alone a government agency for that purpose.

True but the internet is scrubbed all the time and we will never know how many people know not to mention things.