• stevedice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won’t buy any book they deem inappropriate. I’m sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.

    From the article:

    The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Doesn’t know the book: check Casually dismisses the entire topic of moderating children’s content intake: check

      It’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about on any level here.

      • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sounds like you’re having a bad day. I even gave you a quote from the article that answers your exact question. Everything okay at home?

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m responding to this:

          I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.

          • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I may be over focusing on that one part of your comment but it does stand out from the rest as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point.

              • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Nah, mate. Wanna take a guess at what actually does stand out as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point?

                • scarabic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  The part where you implied something must be wrong in my personal life because I didn’t give your comment the response you think it deserves? You’re right - that too.

                  • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I didn’t imply that. You did by leaving an overly hostile response to a comment about an article you didn’t read with objections that were addressed before you left your comment.