I largely agree with you for the time being; I think right now we are in the "dumb authoritarian" phase because Trump, Musk, Thiel can't keep their mouths shut about their true motivations. I fear that there are probably a smarter generation of authoritarians who are more clever (Russel Vought, for example), and not in the spotlight, waiting for their time to ascend.
The loud ones come first, because they have to corrupt the minds of the youth and the mentally weak so they can have a movement.
The librarians should curate, not the parents. The parents are welcome to decide for their own children what is permissible and not, but should have no authority to prevent others' children from accessing materials they do not find objectionable.
Why is it about "parental rights" when it comes to anti-vaccination, but authoritarian control mechanisms when it comes to someone else's kid reading a fucking book?
Of course it worked. Any authoritarian intent on banning a book just could give the spurious reason that "the library does not have enough room" and then there is no censorship ever, according to the original post. See how childish that reasoning is?
This usage of "banned" has been around for over a century, beginning in the USA when the USPS tried to interdict copies of Joyce's Ulysses. It further gained popularity when Tropic of Cancer and Lady Chatterly's Lover were challenged as obscenity in landmark 1950s-60s trials.
The first Banned Books Week happened in 1982, sponsored by the American Library Association.
However, yes, since 2021 there has been a big spike in the usage of the term "banned" books. Perhaps it was because around that time, there has been a massive push to challenge books (the ironically named "Moms for Liberty" though whose liberty they are protecting seems to be up for debate). 2023 saw >4,000 books challenged, whereas an average year between 2001-2020 saw ~275.
Perhaps if people stopped trying to police the reading habits of others' children, people would be less apt to talk about so called "banned" books?
I, for one, think that policing the reading habits of other people, and the micromanagement of libraries, is far more odious than the hyperbolic use of the word "banned." No one has to check out a book they don't want to.
human language != computer languages and that's why the latter exists. if human language had the precision you are (futilely, ahistorically) pining for, then we could program with them.
I guess once someone is a felon, they should never be allowed income? You might be right to criticize the company itself, but is their specific felonious behavior problematic (if so, you haven't spelled that out)? The way you say it, just the fact of them being felons is the problem.
The grandparent of your post, however, blamed capitalism for the destruction of the environment, as though other economic systems would not do the same. So your comment isn't really that relevant if the parent to your post is just offering a counterexample. I get it, you don't like capitalism, but jumping every time capitalism is mentioned--particularly when your point isn't really relevant--doesn't really win others to your side.