Book banning in Scotland, almost but not quite

[TSwizzle]

No, I went to school when schools were actually teaching knowledge and not virtue signaling wokeism. I do know people that attended that school. It was a well regarded school. But of course the founder is “problematical”. The school should be razed all things considered.

So burn down a school just because people are starting to realize that the anti-racism efforts of the mid-20th are still racially troubling in comparison to the anti-racism efforts of the early 21st? So troubled by this that you condone burning down a school?

Wait, are you suggesting that the madness ends just short of burning down the school ?

For doing the right thing for what it would be delusional to think was a wrong reason?

Taking these books out of the curriculum is not necessarily the right thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wait, are you suggesting that the madness ends just short of burning down the school ?

For doing the right thing for what it would be delusional to think was a wrong reason?

Taking these books out of the curriculum is not necessarily the right thing.

If you wish to argue that, you need to argue against yourself AND myself: again the part you can't seem to quote so as to speak to, again after a cut..

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

And now you have invoked

It's something I've thought a lot about. Even if we are just getting down to the prose here, the fact is, there is an order of magnitude -- more than an order of magnitude -- more people alive today. There are ten times as many people writing prose. There are ten times as many opportunities to see true genius born, and shine, and be magnificent.

The "classics" are but the biggest fish in a small, stagnant pond. Today, the pond is bigger, and there are bigger fish in it.

I wouldn't drop these books from the curriculum because they are "racist" though they are, in a pernicious way worse even than actual intentional racism. I would drop them, rather, because it is just a plain fact that there are better books to teach from.

And then your own argument to the point:

As you say, there are many valid reasons to drop these books from the curriculum, not a problem.

 

[TSwizzle]

If you wish to argue that, you need to argue against yourself AND myself:

They can leave the books in the curriculum or they can drop them from the curriculum. Either decision is not necessarily the right decision depending on how you view it. I'd say leave them in but if they want to refresh the curriculum with more contemporary books rather than for woke bullshit reasons, so be it.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you wish to argue that, you need to argue against yourself AND myself:

They can leave the books in the curriculum or they can drop them from the curriculum. Either decision is not necessarily the right decision depending on how you view it. I'd say leave them in but if they want to refresh the curriculum with more contemporary books rather than for woke bullshit reasons, so be it.

"Valid reasons to drop" are, in fact Valid, by tautological virtue. Having many valid reasons to do a thing equate to that thing being the right thing to do. That's how people use that word. It's is the many words that describe the single utterance.

Now when are you going to actually contend with this:

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

Edit: having reasons to do a thing and not doing it is, well unreasonable.

 

[TSwizzle]

"Valid reasons to drop" are, in fact Valid, by tautological virtue.

Woke virtue signaling is not a valid reason.

 

[TomC]

"Valid reasons to drop" are, in fact Valid, by tautological virtue.

Woke virtue signaling is not a valid reason.

Starting a thread about a foreign school changing their curriculum sounds like woke virtue signalling as well.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

"Valid reasons to drop" are, in fact Valid, by tautological virtue.

Woke virtue signaling is not a valid reason.

Do you need me to keep quoting the post you seem utterly blind to the core of? Are you pathologically unable to even see it?

The clear wrong is less a danger to the naive mind than the subdtle wrong, especially when done from an earnest position of wanting to be right.

And then the earnest message is then believed and actioned on. Better to learn other things first and leave the subtle racism and literary history of yesteryear for college students to disassemble.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is Dr. Seuss all over again.

You’re comparing TKAM to Dr Seuss ?

i am comparing the inflated outrage to the inflated outrage. The direct object of the outrage is a mysterious and elusive left-wing plot that, like fog, gets harder to see the closer you get.
Thst's what i am comparing, and you just do not come out of this looking good.

One school decides not to concentrate their curricula on a couple books, some others agree with their reason, suddenly there are whiny little snowflakes making a banning mountain out of a redirecting molehill.

Yup, left wing authoritarians love this shit.

'This Shit' doesn't really exist, though. In both cases, no books sre banned. Mone. Zilch. It's made-up bullshit to pretend there's s culture-war battle being fought , but it's purely fictional.

But in any event, the reasons given for taking the books out of the curriculum are ridiculous and the epitome of woke virtue signaling.

So, backing away from the charge of 'banning' the book, you still claim you're right though the facts show you were wrong.
This ids not an isolated case. There are American educators saying there are better books to use to teach today's youths the themes that these books were once chosen to demonstrate.
Books today's kids can relate to more easily.

If the teacher had an actual ounce of integrity he wouldn’t be teaching at that school considering the founder’s background.

shifting even further from the banning claim, now the teacher is at fault for...(checks notes)... fraternizing with a dead man.

 

[TSwizzle]

i am comparing the inflated outrage to the inflated outrage.

I’m not outraged fella.

shifting even further from the banning claim, now the teacher is at fault for...(checks notes)... fraternizing with a dead man.

Never claimed there was a banning. And the logical conclusion to the wokery on display is that James Gillespie was a nasty racist and as a matter of principle and world beating virtue signaling the teacher should look elsewhere for employment at a school that is as pure as him.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, so facts aren't support.

Facts that don't support your contention aren't support. What you said about the book was opinion, not fact; the facts you presented were facts about yourself, not facts about the book.

So, you are calling me a liar just say it. "Jarhyn is a liar" if you want to insinuate it.

Why did you write that? I didn't call you a liar; I didn't insinuate that you're a liar. You do not have the slightest reason to imagine that I insinuated that you're a liar. You made that up out of whole cloth. I assume of course that you are sincerely mistaking the drivel you wrote for a solid case. If you want to see what an insinuation looks like, this is an insinuation: Hanlon's razor

But moreover, you didn't even quote the autobiographical part. Merely the logical deconstruction of the mechanism.

You didn't even speak to the point.

"The" autobiographical part?!? You write a lot of autobiography; you frequently mistake it for substantive argument; I don't have to quote all of it to quote you talking about yourself.

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

"As to why this is worse than even intentional racism" is opinion about the book.

"I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking." is autobiography.

"It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful." is opinion and not even about the book.

'It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing".' is autobiography and opinion.

"I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice." is autobiography.​

So much for the passage you're lambasting me for not treating as support for your case. The rest of what you wrote is no better.

"the heavy-handed delivery specifically of those two stories" is opinion, and not even pertinent to their alleged racism.

"is what I see as one of the greatest disappointments with regards to my education in the written word." is autobiography.

'If you were born in, say, 1945, I can see a great deal of progressive thought in those books.... But again, that's "if you were born in 1945".' is opinion.

"The fact is, I see media that was good in 1995 that is no longer good now." is opinion, not in any way the fact you claim it to be.

"It's something I've thought a lot about." is autobiography.

'The "classics" are but the biggest fish in a small, stagnant pond.' is opinion.

"Today, the pond is bigger, and there are bigger fish in it." is a fact that doesn't support your contention, followed by an opinion.

'I wouldn't drop these books from the curriculum because they are "racist" though they are, in a pernicious way worse even than actual intentional racism.' is opinion.

"I would drop them, rather, because it is just a plain fact that there are better books to teach from." is opinion, not in any way the plain fact you claim it to be.

"If people want to read them on their own time, I will gladly provide copies, alongside plentiful discussion on how the contents of them have been dated. I will not, however, ever assign such." is autobiography.

"Maybe it's just a function of being born in a day and age where the world had already started to advance past what I was taught even while I was being taught it, but I can recognize when those things I learned and valued are to be set aside as childish things." is autobiography and opinion.​

You have presented zero facts that support your contention that those books are racist.

 

[Jarhyn]

Facts that don't support your contention aren't support.

The contention was that something wrong, but we'll meaning, could be more harmful than an overtly wrong thing.

The autobiographical part is about that happening, the consummation of the point.

It absolutely supports the point. So either I am a liar, and you can damn well say it or you can pipe down maybe ya?

I didn't call you a liar; I didn't insinuate that you're a liar.

yes. You did. In implying that my autobiographical consummation of the the point as invalid. Either I lived it happening, and it is a clear example or I did not, and I am a liar. That is how reality works. Now, I'm perfectly willing to go along with your suggestion and instead look to Hanlon's razor if you really want...

But moreover, you didn't even quote the autobiographical part. Merely the logical deconstruction of the mechanism.

You didn't even speak to the point.

"The" autobiographical part?!? You write a lot of autobiography; you frequently mistake it for substantive argument; I don't have to quote all of it to quote you talking about yourself.

You do, however, have to actually quite the part where I'm talking about myself to actually quote me talking about myself.

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

"As to why this is worse than even intentional racism" is a beginning of a thesis.

"I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking." is an initial observation of fact. That I made it and impugning it's "autobiographicality" is in fact an insinuation that my observation is either flawed.. but "autobiographical" is not "fallacious".

"It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful." Is an observation on human nature. Either refute it or accept it.

'It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing".' is reality. We are born in ignorance. Again, either refute it or accept it.

"I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice." is an observation of a generality, from an autobiographical prose.
.​

So much for the passage you're lambasting me for not treating as not for my case. The rest of what you wrote is no better.

"the heavy-handed delivery specifically of those two stories" is literary criticism, and one you can either refute or one you can accept.

"is what I see as one of the greatest disappointments with regards to my education in the written word." is in fact autobiography.

'If you were born in, say, 1945, I can see a great deal of progressive thought in those books.... But again, that's "if you were born in 1945".' is an implication that anyone who thinks these books are free of such pernicious racism as hopelessly dated in their own opinions

"The fact is, I see media that was good in 1995 that is no longer good now." is fact. Even The Fresh Prince had a large vein of Minstrel culture baked into it. It was good in 1995, bit it's not good today

"It's something I've thought a lot about." is autobiography.

'The "classics" are but the biggest fish in a small, stagnant pond.' is a thesis, supported by later text that you omitted, namely a description of the log scale growth of both population and technology.

"Today, the pond is bigger, and there are bigger fish in it." is again a fact, and you again omit the pertinent points of support so as to frame it as such.

'I wouldn't drop these books from the curriculum because they are "racist" though they are, in a pernicious way worse even than actual intentional racism.' is olinion... Again backed up by arguments of mechanism which you fail to answer to.

"I would drop them, rather, because it is just a plain fact that there are better books to teach from." is again a function of the demands of the advance of both quantities of opportunities to be better, and better opportunities

"If people want to read them on their own time, I will gladly provide copies, alongside plentiful discussion on how the contents of them have been dated. I will not, however, ever assign such." is a concession that I still do not believe in banning books, and it places bounds on the degree which even my own desire to form a sane curriculum would take me. It is the proof that such view are not leading me even so far as the OP whinges.

"Maybe it's just a function of being born in a day and age where the world had already started to advance past what I was taught even while I was being taught it, but I can recognize when those things I learned and valued are to be set aside as childish things." is autobiographical, and an implication that the books are childish, so an opinion... supported by the rest of my post. This is what you call a "conclusion" and is normally a part of any well formed argument.​

 

[Swammerdami]

Autobiographical facts are a valid type of evidence. A person's own experiences are one of the strongest and best-understood sources of information that person has. The small sample size (N=1) does not negate this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Please, let's ALL cool our tempers and observe the  Principle of charity in interpreting each other's posts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Autobiographical facts are a valid type of evidence. A person's own experiences are one of the strongest and best-understood sources of information that person has. The small sample size (N=1) does not negate this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Please, let's ALL cool our tempers and observe the  Principle of charity in interpreting each other's posts.

Point taken, and I shall.

 

[Patooka]

I’m not outraged fella.

You describe this as book banning.
You started off the thread with "When does this madness end?"
You equate this one particular incident as justification for homeschooling.
You dismiss the reasons as woke virtue signalling. Incidentally, both books are at least over 60 years old, so they fit the criteria for being described as dated.

You certainly need to go back to school, because you fit the textbook definition of faux outrage.

 

[TSwizzle]

You describe this as book banning.

Actually I don’t. I described it as almost but not quite banning.

You equate this one particular incident as justification for homeschooling.

Nonsense. There a few times where I’ve said no wonder parents opt out of state schools.

 

[Jarhyn]

You describe this as book banning.

Actually I don’t. I described it as almost but not quite banning.

You equate this one particular incident as justification for homeschooling.

Nonsense. There a few times where I’ve said no wonder parents opt out of state schools.

So you attempt to invoke the connotation of banning when banning is not happening nor it's ethical equivalent in quality or extent. I do not see how that is better.

 

[bilby]

You describe this as book banning.

Actually I don’t. I described it as almost but not quite banning.

So was that almost but not quite trolling?

Because that would almost but not quite be against the rules.

 

[TomC]

Actually I don’t. I described it as almost but not quite banning.

Nevertheless, you did start this thread out with a title claiming that one school in Scotland changing their literature curriculum is "almost" book banning. It's nothing close to banning. The staff just chose teaching tools they thought better than the dated foreign novels that they had used previously.

The most charitable characterization I can give your OP is bizarrely poor judgement. Perhaps you are imitating the The Woke? Like the folks who think a baker refusing to bake a Transition Celebration cake deserves to be put out of business by the state?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

The most charitable characterization I can give your OP is bizarrely poor judgement. Perhaps you are imitating the The Woke?

Well, there is that. Progressives have been leading the way for decades in calling attempts by prissy folk to remove books like The Catcher in the Rye from school curricula "book banning", and calling news stories they felt the mainstream media didn't adequately cover "censored". When you degrade the language, you can't expect to keep a monopoly on it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Autobiographical facts are a valid type of evidence. A person's own experiences are one of the strongest and best-understood sources of information that person has. The small sample size (N=1) does not negate this.

It's not an issue of the small sample size. The autobiographical facts Jarhyn keeps introducing are all facts about him. So they are a valid type of evidence for us to draw conclusions about him. None of them are facts about To Kill a Mockingbird. We can legitimately conclude from his reports that at some point he read the book and now in retrospect he feels it was racist. That is not evidence that it was racist. Evidence that it was racist would necessarily have to contain facts about the book.