- trivia -

Christmas is still some months away but if you're looking for something a little different for advent this year .....

1786797348543.png

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."

 
Censorship again (of course it's Texas so no surprise there)

It's not the foul language. It's education they are really objecting to​

"And then there's the Bible ....." S2 #222
Champions of ignorance.

It's education they are really objecting to S2 #222

Seems hypocritical to me.
If these banned texts should not be read, how do the book-banners know? Did they read them?
If they did, where's the harm? They seem to have survived.
If they didn't, on what basis is the ban?
 
If these banned texts should not be read, how do the book-banners know? Did they read them?
If they did, where's the harm? They seem to have survived.
If they didn't, on what basis is the ban?
It's pretty clear that in many cases the people complaining about a book and wanting to have it banned haven't read it.

BTW, the vid mentions "Romeo and Juliet" Juliet is explicitly stated to be 13 years old (close to turning 14). Romeo's exact age is never mentioned in the text, but most scholars and readers estimate he is around 16 to 18 years old based on his behavior and storyline. And they spent the night together in Juliet's bed. I'm sure that if people realized how young they were that would be enough to have the book banners up in arms. (On that topic we did study that play when I was in high school but none of us realized how old they were and, if the teacher knew, it was never mentioned in class.

And I can just imagine what the reaction would be to a book like "Rainbow Boys". Basically it's about young teens, crushes, coming of age - the sort of stuff that would make a good Harlequin Romance - only thing is, the teens are gay.
 
468948388_18468318763063269_7359968236219993463_n.jpg
 
"My child is free to call himself/herself/their what-ever he/she/they choose." #228
This bears the superficial appearance of being sensible. BUT !
This became an issue somehow, enough of an issue to trigger policy.

Ridicule / satire has a role to play in our culture.
Fortunately self-impressed narrow-minded satire is not decisive compulsory policy. The disempowered and vulnerable among us continue to need protection.
 
I remember my grade 5 class - there were three boys named James - when the teacher commented that it was going to be confusing they were asked to check with their parents about possible nicknames.

All three came back the next day with parent approved options. One was Jim, one was Jamie, and the third was Jay. And those name stuck thru adulthood (not sure about Jamie because he ended up going to different high school and I lost track of him) - Jim ended up teaching at a small west coast university and Jay ended up as managing partner of his law firm (even the company masthead included the name Jay).
 
"I remember my grade 5 class -
All three came back the next day with parent approved options. One was Jim, one was Jamie, and the third was Jay. " S2 #230
If it had been me, 5th grade, I might have come up with CAPTAIN BICEPS !! - or worse -

I suspect the policy relates to a negative, taunting nicknames such as "fatso".
I would hope that such policy is intended to protect, and not impede. BUT !
Authority is occasionally abused.
 
No - in this case the teacher was adamant that our parents had chosen our names when we were born and the school was not going to use any name that our parents hadn't approved of.

That didn't mean that we didn't use other nicknames among ourselves. Only that we had to use names our parents approved of in school.
 
Back
Top