I don't disagree that she's doing her job well. My point is that the hairs raise a bit on the back of my neck when she's excluding various political books. Yes, I agree those books are garbage.
I also acknowledge that every book can't make it in and that decisions have to be made. I just worry about similar logic twisted to negative …
I don't disagree that she's doing her job well. My point is that the hairs raise a bit on the back of my neck when she's excluding various political books. Yes, I agree those books are garbage.
I also acknowledge that every book can't make it in and that decisions have to be made. I just worry about similar logic twisted to negative purposes by those all around us. I also worry about the impact on the impressionable when a truthful statement can be made, "You won't find a single book in the library about the 2020 election theft." Said impressionable goes and does their own research and finds that it is true. Confirms that 'they' are trying to suppress the 'truth'.
It is much the same as the concept of not banning the Nazi rally on the town square. It is hateful and repugnant, but it is also political speech; and both letting it be seen for what it is, and not going down the road of suppressing that which we disagree with are important concepts.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Not Voltaire's exact words, but his presumed sentiment.
Thanks for the clarification on "not Voltaire's exact words." But who are you quoting when you wrote "You won't find a single book in the library about the 2020 election theft"? That's not what mjdlight said. He or she (I think mjd is a woman) said she would "not buy books that 'prove' the 2020 election was stolen."
I myself would read such a book and probably purchase it, even though I myself am sure there is no such proof. I might display it along with a number of reviews from non-partisan publications like Kirkus or Publisher's Weekly that evaluate whether the claim (it was stolen) was proved or not. Or with other books that prove, with the abundance of evidence publicly available, it was fair and square.
Yes, I can see a scenario where the impressionable make such a case if a particular book is not in the collection. Still, there are procedures (authorized by the voters' representatives) for investigating a librarian's purchasing decisions. The impressionable can claim whatever they want. Do they utilize the procedures? Probably not. In which case what they say can be ignored, unless you are another impressionable who has already bought the Big Lie.
Easy now. I'm not making the case for the big lie. When I make a quote up about "You won't find a single book in the library about the 2020 election theft" I'm speculating about the words that those in support of Trump will use.
As for ignoring the impressionable who do not utilize proper procedure, I think they are too dangerous to ignore, and I'd suggest the events of January 6th as evidence of that.
As far as I can tell from past interactions and postings, you and I agree for the most part on various topics. I am making a small distinction about being careful using what can be seen as a political lens to decide which books to have in a library.
I don't disagree that she's doing her job well. My point is that the hairs raise a bit on the back of my neck when she's excluding various political books. Yes, I agree those books are garbage.
I also acknowledge that every book can't make it in and that decisions have to be made. I just worry about similar logic twisted to negative purposes by those all around us. I also worry about the impact on the impressionable when a truthful statement can be made, "You won't find a single book in the library about the 2020 election theft." Said impressionable goes and does their own research and finds that it is true. Confirms that 'they' are trying to suppress the 'truth'.
It is much the same as the concept of not banning the Nazi rally on the town square. It is hateful and repugnant, but it is also political speech; and both letting it be seen for what it is, and not going down the road of suppressing that which we disagree with are important concepts.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Not Voltaire's exact words, but his presumed sentiment.
Thanks for the clarification on "not Voltaire's exact words." But who are you quoting when you wrote "You won't find a single book in the library about the 2020 election theft"? That's not what mjdlight said. He or she (I think mjd is a woman) said she would "not buy books that 'prove' the 2020 election was stolen."
I myself would read such a book and probably purchase it, even though I myself am sure there is no such proof. I might display it along with a number of reviews from non-partisan publications like Kirkus or Publisher's Weekly that evaluate whether the claim (it was stolen) was proved or not. Or with other books that prove, with the abundance of evidence publicly available, it was fair and square.
Yes, I can see a scenario where the impressionable make such a case if a particular book is not in the collection. Still, there are procedures (authorized by the voters' representatives) for investigating a librarian's purchasing decisions. The impressionable can claim whatever they want. Do they utilize the procedures? Probably not. In which case what they say can be ignored, unless you are another impressionable who has already bought the Big Lie.
Easy now. I'm not making the case for the big lie. When I make a quote up about "You won't find a single book in the library about the 2020 election theft" I'm speculating about the words that those in support of Trump will use.
As for ignoring the impressionable who do not utilize proper procedure, I think they are too dangerous to ignore, and I'd suggest the events of January 6th as evidence of that.
As far as I can tell from past interactions and postings, you and I agree for the most part on various topics. I am making a small distinction about being careful using what can be seen as a political lens to decide which books to have in a library.