• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biloxi Bans "To Kill a Mockingbird"

The headline kinda misleads. This is strictly for Junior High students, and the book is still in the libraries of the effected schools. I am not a fan of the decision, but I can see where it could be seen to be somewhat problematic for children that young. Most kids would probably be fine, but some might struggle with the content at that age. It has been too long since I read it so I don't really remember how I reacted to it.

I think some people might have missed this important point, so I'm quoting it here, with my bolding.

I read and liked it, in high school.
 
The headline kinda misleads. This is strictly for Junior High students, and the book is still in the libraries of the effected schools. I am not a fan of the decision, but I can see where it could be seen to be somewhat problematic for children that young. Most kids would probably be fine, but some might struggle with the content at that age. It has been too long since I read it so I don't really remember how I reacted to it.

Unless they were not familiar with the history at that time
I read that and Black Like Me around IIRC age 11 or 12.
 
Unless they were not familiar with the history at that time
I read that and Black Like Me around IIRC age 11 or 12.

As part of your class's lesson plan?
 
You totally misunderstand what social justice means. It's about perceived damage to society through perceived irresponsible or malevolent actions. Read the wiki or something.

Fixed it for ya. ;)
 
I liked the book. Read it in Eighth grade and saw the movie. Hated the ending with "Scout": but it was a book for its time though.
 
The beef is you're fighting white guilt.

That's it?

Don't knock guilt... Friend of mine used to say that without guilt he'd have no emotions at all. :)
 
You totally misunderstand what social justice means. It's about damage to society through irresponsible or malevolent actions. Read the wiki or something.

Hmm. "malevolent actions".

Kinda like the malevolent actions tearing down statutes, banning certain books, shutting down certain speakers, etc. etc?

Yeah, that'd be "damage to society" (and it's culture), from my view.
 
When will the stupidity end? SMH...

Depends on when the left stops, I guess.

Although not to say that the right doesn't do stupid things. It does.
 
LOL.

Yes, that's the definition you'd like accepted.

My definition of SJW is social action to create equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity; to maintain safe spaces, to eliminate all offense at pain of punishment, in short...to "balance the equation" via new utopia with the oppressed on top and their perceived oppressors on the bottom...Wikipedia notwithstanding. :coffeepap:

Agreed. This certainly seems what the radical left end of the political spectrum aims for.
 
"SJW" is a pejorative. Since someone brought up Wiki:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

Pretty much any time "warrior" is attached to something it's almost always mockery along the same lines as calling someone a "keyboard commando". It's about talking (or typing) a lot while risking nothing. Actual activists, like MLK,who took real risks are not SJWs. If you use the term, it will pretty much never be assumed that you're talking about anyone on the right. We have Social Conservative Warriors and some of the best entertainment you can get is when SJWs and SCWs get into it and argue over whose more moral.

Interesting to note that even in the Wiki definition, the definition refers to "identity politics", a tactic of the political left, which causes a great deal of division in the the electorate that they always seem to be complaining about. Hmm.
 
"SJW" is a pejorative. Since someone brought up Wiki:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

Pretty much any time "warrior" is attached to something it's almost always mockery along the same lines as calling someone a "keyboard commando". It's about talking (or typing) a lot while risking nothing. Actual activists, like MLK,who took real risks are not SJWs. If you use the term, it will pretty much never be assumed that you're talking about anyone on the right. We have Social Conservative Warriors and some of the best entertainment you can get is when SJWs and SCWs get into it and argue over whose more moral.

Good grief! "Virtue signaling"? ..."personal validation"?... We really aren't talking to one another these days, are we? Could it be that people have multiple motives when they join a particular movement: the aforementioned perhaps, plus a sense that want to move a situation from negative towards positive, help a particular person in need, want to find a date for NewYear's eve, etc.?

In the 50 years I proudly worked as an SJW, my main motivation was to make a living doing interesting things. The volunteers I supervised were asked to help out. For example, I used to evaluate political asylum claims for Amnesty International in the 1980s-90s. I had fun challenging the absurd Reagan-era decisions -- they were so bad we rarely lost -- and with the many storefront legal operations that did fabulous, unheralded work, we managed to have the asylum system completely overhauled under a republican administration, that of of Bush I. I presume that the college volunteers who researched each case in my office were attracted to the organization's name, wanted a nice thing to put on their resume for grad school applications, etc., but most worked selflessly on behalf of people they never met to provide them with information for use in immigration court.

The important thing was that neither I, nor the refugee, nor the attorney who might have represented them cared if the volunteers got some sort of personal validation from doing the work. True, here and there we ran into someone who was over the top silly. But they were often lousy volunteers. It was the same with volunteers for a union I worked with or at the agency that investigated civil rights. Lots of fun, meet nice people, help move a person or situation from point A to point B.

I have signaled so much virtue I can't stand myself. I am sure others will agree.
 
No, I should have clarified that. I was an avid reader.

In that case, this would not have affected you in any way. Contrary to the dishonest thread title and the assumptions made by those who did not read the source material, To Kill A Mockingbird was not banned and is in fact available at the school library. It was only removed from the 8th grade curriculum based on parental complaints.
 
In that case, this would not have affected you in any way. Contrary to the dishonest thread title and the assumptions made by those who did not read the source material, To Kill A Mockingbird was not banned and is in fact available at the school library. It was only removed from the 8th grade curriculum based on parental complaints.

I did read the article, I thing age 14 or so is an appropriate age to read and open up discussion.
 
I did read the article, I thing age 14 or so is an appropriate age to read and open up discussion.

I really do not know. Been to long since I was 14 for one thing.
 
Hmm. "malevolent actions".

Kinda like the malevolent actions tearing down statutes, banning certain books, shutting down certain speakers, etc. etc?

Yeah, that'd be "damage to society" (and it's culture), from my view.

Banning book and speaks are indeed wrong, but have nothing to do with social justice. Toppling of some statues that were erected to celebrate a war to preserve slavery or resist civil rights is ok by me, but I wouldn't connect it to social justice.
 
I did read the article, I thing age 14 or so is an appropriate age to read and open up discussion.

And knowing 14-year olds, once they learn it was banned...
 
Back
Top Bottom