Library Idiocy

[paradox]

Smart backpedal

Did you know that for homosexuality in psychiatry there is diagnosis which is now obsolete not because diagnosis is not valid but because of stigma?

 

[The Hammer]

Did you know that for homosexuality in psychiatry there is diagnosis which is now obsolete not because diagnosis is not valid but because of stigma?

It's called the discipline grew and matured. Did you know women with pissy attitudes were sent to the doctor for "hysteria", and he manually masturbated her to orgasm and sent her home, once upon a time. (It's actually why the vibrator was invented).


*See I'm full of on topic, but useless trivia too.

 

[Ella S.]

I know some very very open people and even though I’m a “filthy degenerate leftist” that makes me uncomfortable too. TMI!

On a slight tangent: I want to clarify that the word "degenerate" actually comes from Stoicism, and it's been appropriated by the alt-right mostly through Neostoicism.

"Degeneracy" was originally a term used specifically for behavior that Stoics themselves should not engage in, not a snarl word to insult others, and it was mostly a warning against leading a materialistic lifestyle or getting on the hedonic treadmill.

It did not refer to queer people until much later. Most early Stoics had no issue with queer people. Zeno's Republic would probably be considered "degenerate" by these new anti-intellectuals corrupting the term

 

[SomeRandom]

On a slight tangent: I want to clarify that the word "degenerate" actually comes from Stoicism, and it's been appropriated by the alt-right mostly through Neostoicism.

"Degeneracy" was originally a term used specifically for behavior that Stoics themselves should not engage in, not a snarl word to insult others, and it was mostly a warning against leading a materialistic lifestyle or getting on the hedonic treadmill.

It did not refer to queer people until much later. Most early Stoics had no issue with queer people. Zeno's Republic would probably be considered "degenerate" by these new anti-intellectuals corrupting the term

Don’t misunderstand me. I was being self deprecating. I use the word “degenerate” in a light hearted manner. Since I do not think there’s anything wrong with being one

 

[SomeRandom]

The only flaw that bothers me is, that the story goes backwards, and of course Viktor dies too soon.
what flaws you?

Yeah I agree
The flaws I find are with the scripts.
Personally I think many of the movies in the franchise have weak plot lines and can have some cringeworthy plot holes.
But eh, they’re still fun fantasy romps so I still enjoy many of them

Resident evil is also good movie btw, did you watch it?

Omg I love Resident Evil!!!!
Played the games as a kid lol
But the movie is just fun fan service lol

 

[muichimotsu]

Yup my little local library has all sorts of books I vehemently disagree with. But they aren't a threat to me... So why would I bother? It's knowledge, for someone else. Pure and simple.

I would be pissed if my local library closed for that reason. I would try to purchase as much of their book stock of unwanted books, and then put them up in a free lending library on my lawn.

Heck, I think I bought at least one that was there (though not directly even though that would've been simpler), a detailed Bible that compiles all the apocrypha, etc. Called "The Other Bible"

We sadly have had to dispose of some, though we try our best to recycle them rather than just put them in the garbage

And we have a free library of sorts, though it's always in flux and potentially overstuffed at times, we get lots of donations, moreso during the summer seemingly

 

[muichimotsu]

The only problem I have with discussing sexuality is when some people talk about it without self-respect.

Not sure what that exactly means: we're not perfect people, thus being open about sex can come with bad outcomes as a fact of our pasts. But being sex positive is arguably far better for society in the idea that it is a natural and social act we all tend to engage with in some form or fashion as adults

 

[muichimotsu]

Indeed good point!
Regarding gays, I can accept that they wish to stay gay and live such life, but why are they all shaking to show everyone they are gay?
ex. you are gay, OK, keep it for yourself.

I suppose one will say "I'm gay" to test whether you're also gay, I see no other rational reason to proclaim you're gay.

When the perceived norm is being straight, identifying yourself in contexts where that assumption is incorrect is hardly unreasonable, same with gender identity and contexts where that is brought up

 

[muichimotsu]

Well yeah... Which is why that sort of discussion is reserved for close friends. And not for bragging with acquaintances or coworkers. Imo. So it's not really "public" discourse.

And I would never consider a book discussing sex/sexuality as "public" either, even in a library. Otherwise there is a litany of classic works, they'd have to get rid of. Or anything by Nora Roberts... Or other "romance" authors that also depicted sex scenes.

I'm not sure who wrote some of the stuff that has covers like a Harlequin romance novel in our collection, but while sorting and shelving some of our paperbacks (a fairly small section), I legit read bits where they were definitely describing sex acts.

I'm no prude, but it was hilarious in a way, because I have to wonder if someone that'd be in their teens might pick that up and then realize part way it's basically a form of wish fulfillment smut for lonely women. And then they'd complain to the library somehow and the response is, "What'd you expect?"

 

[muichimotsu]

Did you know that for homosexuality in psychiatry there is diagnosis which is now obsolete not because diagnosis is not valid but because of stigma?

You sure it's actually valid? Or does it even describe homosexuality in itself rather than something that may overlap incidentally with homosexuality, but may just as easily reflect bisexuality, etc?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is their community. Their library. I approve of them controlling what books to include on their own shelves. Why would I object to that? I can still create my own libraries online and at home.

That is not the way that it works. You keep forgetting, majority rules with minority rights.

 

[PureX]

... homosexuality is definitely not huge part of human experience and beside that I think books on sexuality are absolutely unneeded.

But you are not the decider of what other people are interested in learning about. And neither is anyone else. What makes you think you should be, or that anyone else should be? Why should anyone be in charge of what other people want to read about in a library?

Why this need for 'control'?

 

[paradox]

When the perceived norm is being straight, identifying yourself in contexts where that assumption is incorrect is hardly unreasonable

Unless somebody invites someone to date I see no reason to proclaim your sexual preferences, because obviously neither a gay nor straight person would be happy to date each other.

You sure it's actually valid? Or does it even describe homosexuality in itself rather than something that may overlap incidentally with homosexuality, but may just as easily reflect bisexuality, etc?

I don't think it would be wise to debate over this, however you can do some research online if you're really interested.

But you are not the decider of what other people are interested in learning about. And neither is anyone else. What makes you think you should be, or that anyone else should be? Why should anyone be in charge of what other people want to read about in a library?

Why this need for 'control'?

Why would anyone be in charge of anything not just specific thing?

Obviously human societies all around the globe are governed by laws and state which enforces them, I don't like some laws and I'm sure a lot of people don't like a lot of different laws because it limits on what they're allowed to do.

You'll surely say, yes but laws ensure order and stability, that's unfortunate necessity due to the human nature to do evil to each other, so it then boils down to what is moral and what's not for construction of laws.
If you agree then tell who should decide what's morally OK and what's morally wrong? who should do the judgement?

 

[PureX]

Why would anyone be in charge of anything not just specific thing?

Obviously human societies all around the globe are governed by laws and state which enforces them, I don't like some laws and I'm sure a lot of people don't like a lot of different laws because it limits on what they're allowed to do.

You'll surely say, yes but laws ensure order and stability, that's unfortunate necessity due to the human nature to do evil to each other, so it then boils down to what is moral and what's not for construction of laws.

I disagree.

I think it boils down to what supports and protects peace and cooperation within a society. We don't make laws to make us "moral". We make laws to protect us from abusing each other, and to further our individual and collective well being. And I see no reason why having books about homosexuality in a library would require any such legal control, as I don't see any reason to believe those books pose a threat to anyone's well being, individually or collectively.

 

[paradox]

I think it boils down to what supports and protects peace and cooperation within a society. We don't make laws to make us "moral". We make laws to protect us from abusing each other, and to further our individual and collective well being

Ah, and who is responsible to say what is considered an abuse? can you really exclude morality in deciding what's abuse? how doesn't this lead to subjectivism?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The more frightened people get, the more they want to control everything and everyone around them. And the constant fear-mongering of right wing politicians and media has been driving some of these people to an absurd level of desire for control. It's what's driving all this social negation and authoritarianism.

I love the image of rugged Americans cowering in their shelters trembling in fear because there might be gay people somewhere near by.

 

[PureX]

Ah, and who is responsible to say what is considered an abuse? can you really exclude morality in deciding what's abuse? how doesn't this lead to subjectivism?

Experience and reason decide what is abuse and what isn't. As they decide everything we do. If you think homosexual literature is abusive and should be illegal then share your experience and reasoning with us. If it comports with our experience and reasoning then laws may be necessary.

My point is not that it shouldn't be "subjectively determined", or that is shouldn't be determined by a majority. My point is that it should be determined practically and functionally. Not based on personal ideology.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ah, and who is responsible to say what is considered an abuse? can you really exclude morality in deciding what's abuse? how doesn't this lead to subjectivism?

That is the function of constitutions, to protect minorities from the oppression of majorities. You must remember that there have been times when you could be punished for not attending (the right) church -- no matter what your beliefs. It is reasonable to outlaw making love to another person on the public sidewalk, but it is not reasonable to outlaw them making love in the privacy of their home -- no matter what their genders and orientations.

@PureX is quite right, we don't make laws to "make us moral."

 

[PureX]

I love the image of rugged Americans cowering in their shelters trembling in fear because there might be gay people somewhere near by.

Yes, so nearby that they may be one!

I don't actually think it's so much a fear of homosexuals as it is a fear of their loss of control over all. They see themselves losing ground (control) economically, politically, ideologically and culturally, and they don't know who to blame it on. They cannot see themselves as being the ultimate source of their own downfall, so they have to blame it on someone else. On the gays, on the brown people, on the black people, on the democrats, on the liberals, on the feminists, on the gender fluid, on the atheists, on the government, and even on the poor, the old, and the sick. Anyone and anything but their own privileged greed and selfishness run amok, and coming back to bite them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love the image of rugged Americans cowering in their shelters trembling in fear because there might be gay people somewhere near by.

You are one scary dude!