Your thought experiment asks: what if the banned book library contained out-of-print white supremacist books instead of historically banned books?
The answer should be obvious: it would be a white supremacist library.
Given that the present administration includes fans of those books, their banning seems unlikely. Perhaps a refresher on the kinds of books that are presently under threat is in order? https://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10
Books that are assigned reading in schools and universities, and promoted by libraries, are "under threat", while books nearly impossible to find, never on any reading lists, and whose promoters get their speeches shut down by French police [1], or get investigated by the FBI and kicked out of university [2], are to be considered widely available, got it.
And your "historically banned" is just "occasionally removed from public school libraries on parental request". Not using tax money to promote them to children is a low, low bar for "banned". While actual availability is, of course, completely ignored. Whatever tells the best story, facts be damned.
We've decided collectively as a society that some ideas are "good" and others are "bad". For example, racism and white supremacy have been decided to be "bad".
There's an alternate reality where white supremacy is mainstream, where queer fiction is impossible to find, and that would be a different world.
Instead, what's being preserved are the books written that celebrate the values that match our broad cultural values, despite a handful of cultural deviants attempting to suppress the parts of the rest of humanity they dislike.
It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate.
You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.
I'm curious of your take on one thing. Many of the sexuality oriented books (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of) tend to, unsurprisingly, have sexual content which is often rather explicit. Some of these books even have explicit artwork within them. I'm sure you'd agree that if books had ratings then many/all of these books would R, if not NC17, rated.
And even in high schools screening R-rated movies is generally heavily restricted. Where it is allowed, it generally requires a permission slip from the parents. And that's not like showing gratuitous films, but ones with historically relevant and educational context like e.g. Schindler's List.
So why is it unreasonable for parents (or other interested parties) to be against having such material in a children's library? In many ways its quite odd that a rating system was never adopted for books. And for one other question, do you even see a difference between these sort of books being restricted from schools, and other books whose content would be generally be rated appropriate for children, being banned on political/ideological basis? Because to me the difference is not only tremendous but the defining issue here.
"My" list? I don't have a list. If you're talking about OP's list, I disagree with that. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are not sexual books. From what I know of many of the other more recent books people have tried to ban, I absolutely would not agree the ratings would be R/NC17 for those either. Here's a list of PG13 (And PG!) movies with nudity. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls548607223/
I agree that 7 year olds should not be shown sexual content. There exists content with sexual themes which are appropriate for teenagers.
Also, the comment you replied to is downthread in an argument over whether it's a "lie" to call books that someone banned, a banned book.
I was referencing the one you were implicitly defending that started this line of chatter: https://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 Most of the books from that list are widely available and easily accessible. The 'under threat' rhetoric is just from them being removed from some schools due to content being deemed age inappropriate. Those pg13 movies with nudity tend to be things like a few seconds of sideboob in a shower or whatever.
The top book on that 'challenged' list is a diary style book of a 13 year old girl who is sold into sex slavery, repeatedly raped, abused, and so on - with descriptions of each 'encounter.' The book is meant to be, and indeed is, extremely disturbing as it's part of the author's activism against sex trafficking throughout the world - as it was based on real events as per her research. In any case, it most certainly is not PG13 by any stretch of the imagination. It's much closer to something like Requiem for a Dream than it is to Tomb Raider.
I also think that's a great book to have on top, because it emphasizes that the issue isn't ideological, but content. I think there's few people who would claim Sold doesn't have tremendous value, or that it should be banned. But there's going to be a lot of people that don't want books like that anywhere near children. And for good reason - it's the same reason I wouldn't really care if my kids wanted to watch Total Recall or Terminator, but no way would I let them watch Requiem for a Dream. The violence and triple titted aliens of Total Recall are borderline comical, but I don't think stuff that gives you that awful 'ughhhh' feeling like Requiem for a Dream (or indeed - Sold) is something that's going to be at all healthy for a child's development.
We no longer say that "cannabis is illegal in California"; that would be factually incorrect. Instead we say, "cannabis was formerly illegal". In standard usage of English, the same pattern applies to banned vs formerly banned books.
It deliberately conveys an impression that is opposite of the truth. But feel free to continue to split hairs and twist words to argue that technically you're not actually lying.
Just because you decided to interpret something one way, doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice by the other party, nor does it mean your interpretation is common.
> technically you're not actually lying.
What did I say that you consider a lie? Could you quote me?
More precisely, you need the idea and mechanisms to prevent competition, such as proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale, and branding.
> statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
I think that's a really fun idea and I'd love to see it if you do it :)
One thought is maybe you don't need the numbers? Like for n<=2 they're redundant anyway, and maybe it's good to discourage ratios that are more complex by making them longer lexically.
eg reddish purple is just rrb, and dark blueish-grey is bwwkkkk – I kinda like how that reads
Ohhh I really like that for the visual side of it. If the letter takes up more space in the code, it's more like that colour. That makes a lot of sense.
I might ask around some digital-artist friends to see what they think about this generally! I know a lot of digital-painters think of hex codes as more of an ID to a colour than a colour description, so it needs to be brought into some UI before it's understandable.
Unfortunately this is my broad experience of medical systems across multiple countries and, weirdly, it strikes me as one of the few problems that isn't caused by rent-seeking in the healthcare industry, or at least only very distantly (minus the "don't want to remortgage my house to go to emergency" element, obviously).
Medicine has a curious form of parochial paternalism: doctors, endowed with complete responsibility for your body, bodies in general, and anything that might affect a body, will confidently make claims and assumptions far outside their expertise, and completely ignore the factors outside their purview. Their role is to be the calm and reassuring face of medicine, even at the expense of a necessary humility about the complexity of the systems outside their office.
The bulk of the actual care is done by various non-doctors with a dizzying and overlapping matrix of responsibilities, all but guaranteeing that important things get dropped or missed. But all of that is meant to be fine, because the doctor is the single responsible person who will catch whatever the patchwork misses. Only they don't, because they're doctors, not social workers, not healthcare administrators; they rarely see the full picture.
This leaves only the patient, who, while suffering and with no particular expertise, has to become their own doctor, pharmacist, technician, administrator and patient advocate if they want to receive the best care.
Of course, the best care usually isn't necessary for a good outcome, and if you have an uncomplicated problem with a standard solution, chances are the medical system works just fine for you. But when you slip off the beaten path you very quickly realise that the facade has so many cracks that it's as much cracks as facade.
At some point, every man comes face to face with the lie of his potency. We're told our willingness to turn ourselves into ruthless avatars of purpose makes us powerful. Unstoppable. We can do anything if the call is great enough. Is it suspicious that the call takes the voice of more powerful men? Pay it no mind. The world is yours for the taking.
Then, one day, the tide comes in. You learn what old men know. What women know. What every victim of circumstance knows. Sometimes the world just happens to you.
We're the leaves floating down the river. Sometimes we float through the sunshine in gentle water. Inevitably we crash through the rapids and down the waterfall. You can fight it, but you won't win. Like many in the thread are saying, the author of the post should be grateful for the good fortune that his partner is still alive, right now, and they can still be together. Every moment spent raging against the rapids means lost moments with the love of his life that he could regret forever.
There's something to be said for fighting for the people you love. We all should. But the fight needs to make sense, and I'm not sure fighting cancer on short order is the right fight.
Regardless, this situation hurts my heart. I feel for him, and her. Nature is ruthless.
It's passivity about things you can't control. I'm all for engaging with things within my control. I just spent the morning under my car replacing CV axles because I wanted it done faster, for less, on my own schedule. Why sit around waiting? I suppose what I'm advocating here isn't passivity at all, but engaging in loving his partner in ways that would matter to her while he still can. That can be a very active and engaged way of handling this.
After watching several family members die from cancer though, the notion of fighting that rather than being with my family as they pass sounds terrible. At some point you have to accept that death is on the way. Love people while they're here. Curing cancer is a generational goal accomplished by huge numbers of people, hopefully, not a single person in short order.
I have very positive thoughts about his love and concern, too. I just hope it's put to good use while it still can be.
Also, he reminds me of my dad who was similarly convinced if he cared for my mom just right she'd be okay. It has been almost 20 years and he still hates himself for it. There was no stopping it. There's no sense in having these expectations of yourself.
A curiously frivolous way to frame the decision to get involved with a notorious sex trafficker. Nothing to do with values, integrity or culpability, just some boys missing their mommies.
'...a short jail stint in one’s past for “soliciting prostitution” simply doesn’t sound disqualifying, according to the secular liberal morality that most academics hold, unless you researched the details, which most didn’t.'
Really. If you polled a random selection of academics, I'm confident you'd find that a majority of them consider soliciting prostitution to be somewhere between "shouldn't even be illegal" and "bar fight".
(I repeat for emphasis, since I know people will bring it up if I don't, that the ages of the people Epstein solicited and the circumstances under which he solicited them were not as widely known at the time.)
Scott’s experience burning most of his friendship bridges over Israel/Palestine has left him with a cynical image of academia.
“Secular liberal morality” here plays the same role as “cultural Marxism” elsewhere: neither exists concretely as an actual entity, but if you abstract away enough of the details you can still point to it like a bogeyman or a cryptid.
Market cap and it's not even close. Turns out financialisation is the classic you-get-what-you-asked-for-not-what-you-wanted of capitalism. We told the optimiser to make number go up, and number has certainly gone up. China's number? Not as up.
I think it could have gone differently if we gave our economic system something to optimise other than itself, but then we wouldn't have centibillionaires, so... swings and roundabouts I guess?
Who cares which country has a higher market cap? That's a capitalist concept, of course the capitalist country has more. I'm talking who has the more advanced technology.
That was the point. We optimize for a higher market cap instead of for advanced technology, that is way why get a higher market cap instead of advanced technology. The system is working as intended. Goodhart's Law all the way down.
You know how it's considered a kind of low-effort disrespect to answer someone's question by pasting back a response from an LLM? I think equivalently if you ask a question where the best response is what you'd get from an LLM, then you're the one showing a disrespectful lack of effort. It's kind of the 2026 version of LMGTFY.
If you still want a copy-paste response to your question, just let me know – I'm happy to help!
The answer should be obvious: it would be a white supremacist library.
Given that the present administration includes fans of those books, their banning seems unlikely. Perhaps a refresher on the kinds of books that are presently under threat is in order? https://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10
(You can find contemporary Huck Finn censorship attempts in their database here, by the way: https://airtable.com/appZthgrTU9u1Bf5d/shr4J8Mgiua2CV2Ig?mWW... )
reply