Exposing Kids to Gay Themes in Library Books

Robin "In My Book" Blum spotted some Some Letters To The LATimes on "Exposing Kids to Gay Themes in Library Books."

"With all respect to the librarians of the world, theirs is not a job that demands much by way of physical courage. If they cannot find the intellectual strength to recognize narrow-minded bigots when they meet them, perhaps they should look for another line of work."

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dozy twits

You know, it doesn't at all surprise me that the intellectually naive and raving misohomonists don't understand that libraries and librarians are not responsible for what goes into books and that they have a fiduciary obligation to make available the widest possible range of opinions. To put it in the parlance of the commercial cybernetic culture: libraries and librarians are not content providers, they are signal providers.

And on a completely off topic tangent: the L.A. Times can take its invasive registration process, fold it until it is all sharp corners, and shove it up its ass.

Re:Dozy twits

Don't tell, but I have a great time making up personnas for the registration process (it helps to have an accurate list of zip codes).

Circular Reference

Attention: Flamebaiters and Trollers "Lock and Load".

>>If they cannot find the intellectual strength to recognize narrow-minded bigots when they meet them, perhaps they should look for another line of work.

Gay business aside, I am always perplexed when I hear "open-minded" folks label others with whom they disagree as "bigots".

As I understand the definition of the word bigot, doesn't calling someone this in fact make the author one as well??

Commence firing.

Re:Circular Reference

As I understand the definition of the word bigot, doesn't calling someone this in fact make the author one as well??

Only if the person to whom he is referring is not, in fact, a bigot. Otherwise it is merely an accurate assessment. If you know of anyone whose "hatred" for the homosexual demographic is based on reputable scientific proof that gays are morally disordered and intrinsically evil, then that person cannot be a bigot. If his "hatred" is based on "God tells me so", then he necessarily is a bigot. If I see such a person and label him a bigot because of his expressed attitudes, then I do so because I have scientific proof that he is such.

Re:Circular Reference

I didn't read the LA Times piece, so I don't know if the context of this article is based on religion.

Regardless, a bigot, by definition (according to the OED) is "a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion or ritual." American Heritage includes "religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". For good measure, Merriam-Webster gives us "intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions".

So, not only is religion a criterion for bigotry, but opinions and politics as well of which we all know this issue also includes. Hence my contention that this blatantly intolerant opinion ..." narrow-minded bigots when they meet them, perhaps they should look for another line of work" sounds, at least to this guy, as a bigoted comment. Your explanation exonerates those who make bigoted comments against bigots. I find no references to any "safe harbor" when making "bigot" aspersions involving religion, opinion, politics or race.

I would add that many who oppose homosexuality make a distinction between the act and the person. Many may have a "hatred" for homosexual behavior but "love" the homosexual.

Re:Circular Reference

Merriam-Webster gives us "intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions".

Yes, very pretty, and just who is more likely to be intolerantly devoted to his
opinion? The libertarian who allows you your right to your opinion while not
allowing you to trample on his right to his, or the person who would not permit you
your rights?

So, not only is religion a criterion for bigotry, but opinions and
politics as well of which we all know this issue also includes.

Congratulations, you've reached a foregone conclusion. What you've failed to do
is to consider that labeling a spade a spade is not necessarily a knee-jerk
reaction. It is in saying that all of X are Y wherein one expresses one's
bigotry. In the sample you cited:

Hence my contention that this blatantly intolerant opinion ..."
narrow-minded bigots when they meet them, perhaps they should look for another
line of work" sounds, at least to this guy, as a bigoted comment.

. . . the author specifically singles out narrow-minded bigots. He did not
write a broad and overvague description; "religionists when they meet them", for
instance. In short, he identifies a certain type of individual, not a certain
type of group. His demonstrated lack of tolerance does not necessarily stem from
a prejudice against narrow-minded bigots either. It could simply be an
expression of exasperation; even the tolerance of the rational is not unlimited.
The dogma that homosexuals are morally disordered and intrinsically evil,
however, is clearly as bigoted as saying, "All niggers are lazy trash running
around looking for white women to rape." For one thing, that statement does not
take into account those who have a homosexual orientation but who take other sex
parnters. (Never mind that psychologists don't even have any hard and fast
method by which a person can be identified as a homosexual. Reputable
psychologists, that is. There are religious bigots who diagnose and treat
according to biblical precepts. Those who think homosexuality can be cured and
who completely ignore the fact that science doesn't even know what causes it.)

Your explanation exonerates those who make bigoted comments against
bigots.

My explanation does no such thing; it is no more than an explanation. A rational
person is one who can control his prejudices, a bigot is a person who allows his
prejudices to control him. A rational person can look beyond his prejudices to
look at the facts of a situation and judge accordingly, and then alter that
judgment in the face of new evidence. The bigot cannot do either. There is
nothing wrong with judging a person a narrow-minded bigot who conforms to the
type and clearly demonstrates that he is such a person.

I find no references to any "safe harbor" when making "bigot"
aspersions involving religion, opinion, politics or race.

There is none, but as usual, you have failed to make proper distinctions. You
refuse to understand that every issue has two sides.

Quantum Physics: For every particle there is an antiparticle.

Classical Physics: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Sociology: For every social action (manifest function) there is an opposite and
equal social reaction (latent function).

Hence: the particle/antiparticle pair in book collecting is banning/selection.
In this case, the particle/antiparticle pair is a blind hatred for a demographic
against the rejection of the bankrupt ideas behind hatred and a revulsion for
those ideas.

Perhaps the best illustration of manifest and latent functions is the free
society itself. It appears on the face of it to be a paradox that in a society
which allows personal liberty and freedom, people can be free to call for a
totalitarian system and even to agitate for its implementation. In actuality you
can't have a free society in which there are no people demanding totalitarianism
unless the people themselves have grown beyond petty hatred and xenophobia.

At any rate your belief in one-sided issues flies in the face of duality; and it
restricts your understanding of the world.

I would add that many who oppose homosexuality make a distinction
between the act and the person. Many may have a "hatred" for homosexual behavior
but "love" the homosexual.

That's a cop out. It's an expression of simple and straight forward denial used
to abrogate one's responsibilty for one's intolerance. Religious bigots who say
that are engaged in the same type of exercise as the racist who says: Shoot, I
ain't a bigot; some of my best friends is niggers. Or the alcoholic who says: I
don't have a problem, I can walk away from a half empty drink. If you do a
reasonably indepth study of religious misohomonism you will find that such
bigots are not willing to accept even the idea of celibate homosexuals. The idea
that a person is a homosexual at all is intolerable to them even when that
homosexual might never have a taken a same sex partner. It isn't enough for a
gay person to not have homosexual sex, but the gay person must also be "cured".
In short, these people who the religious bigots profess to love are not allowed
to exist at all.

Plus, how can you possibly say you love the person when your dogma asserts:
homosexuals are morally disordered and intrinsically evil? If religious
bigots had any love for gays as people, they would respect the human dignity and
the rights of the individual. That they do not is proof alone that their
contention is false.

Civil libertarians and rational people do not have to agree with or even to like
the opinions of others. It is just that we believe that failure to allow you
your bankrupt notions establishes a precedent that will reach even to us. We are
still quite free to say that your notions are bankrupt and to point out that if
you don't like sharing this world with other people then it it is up to you to
get off of it; not them.

Re:Circular Reference

Thoughtful answer, though terms such as "rational person", which the dictionaries fail to include, are relative and will eventually put this argument on a slippery slope.

That aside, I am willing to buy your explanation if you are willing to concede that by applying your own careful description of bigotry, that you are in fact "bigoted" by virtue of past comments made on this board.

Take this prejudicial pejorative quip for example, "Americans don't know squat about their civil liberties".

In this case, instead of "lazy niggers", we have "dumb-ass and/or ignorant Americans". So using your defintion
this opinion, not based on any facts but rather seemingly prejudicial thoughts and directed to all Americans, would certainly be considered by any rational person as a "broad and overvague description". Obviously not targeted to a specific type of individual but to a "particular group". (In this case roughly 250 million people)

If applying the "calling a spade a spade" clause, then you are also inferring that all of our American colleagues on this board are "dumb as rocks" re civil liberties as well. These are your words.

I also assume that you agree that any attempts to qualify such statements "after-the-fact" are disingenuous. e.g. "I really meant some Americans" or " some civil liberties". You get the idea.

FWIW, this American, who does know a little about civil liberties, takes exception to your comments and considers them "bigoted" according to your defintion.

Re:Circular Reference

You have quoted me out of context again. What I wrote was: Most Americans don't know squat about their civil liberties. Furthermore, that statement is founded on the findings of surveys by civil liberties groups. Ergo: it has a scientific basis. Try again.

Re:Circular Reference

LOL!!!

I guess "most" doesn't qualify as a "broad and overvague description"? So the comment "Most niggers are lazy..." is ok until such time someone asks for evidence?

I find it ironic, though sadly predictable, that you qualify your statement, after-the-fact, about findings you've seen before. Of course, no mention or citation to these "findings" were included in your original comment. (though this is typical for bigoted comments) Remember David Duke's qualifying remarks about being a Klan member after popping off his pie hole?

You may notice that I often use cited references in my posts. A gentle "heads up" on what sources you use. Just as I tell our college students, just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it legit. We've all seen the data from the Jew haters who tell us that pre-post war population data conclude the Holocaust never happened.

So, I guess it comes down to how many is "most"? You've given yourself a lot of wiggle room here Fang, 51-99% as I see it. I am sure that you won't be so kind as to provide a more specific number before doing your quick web research to find one of these unbiased "surveys".

So I guess until such time you share these scientific "surveys" with us, your comments are really no different than anyone who would say "Most Niggers are lazy".

Enough hilarity for now.

Re:Circular Reference

Now, now.Perhaps only more concerning than naturally imperfect, relativist, humans deciding who bigots are and are not... is the decided tilt this debate has towards "scientific evidence" (or lack of it) being the only foolproof basis for bigoted vs. non-bigoted values.Various socio-political forces have used "science" quite effectively for the justification of all types of bigoted/hateful actions/positions. "Scientific evidence" or lack thereof really can't be used to ultimately identify the most morally conscientious social values.

Re:Dozy twits/Fake Name

If you're inclined to register with a fake name, here's a cool site to help you think of one:

kleimo.com/random/name.cfm

Syndicate content