this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
1801 points (98.4% liked)
Comic Strips
12399 readers
2778 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok, I'll bite.
It feels like most of your position comes from a place of misunderstanding just what goes into a lesson plan about literature; possibly even a deliberate misunderstanding. Schools aren't giving children books with smut and senseless violence. These materials are constantly being reconsidered and reevaluated. Vonnegut was something taught when I was in school, and removed right after I graduated.
This comic is pointing at the fact that nearly every book on these lists isn't there because the content is actually a problem. The lists just have books that some religious group dislikes regardless of whether or not they're being used.
Besides, somehow the christian Bible is somehow still "approved" while having more rape and violence and men kissing men than any book I ever had to read for school.
Thr bible has some of the most fucked up things happen in it.
In the Bible payment is made in foreskins.... Yes foreskins... So much fucked up shit in that book.
You're missing a key part to the story, Saul (no, not that Saul/Paul) was ~~buying~~ selling a human woman with those foreskins.
And who was the person who ~~wanted~~ traded these foreskins in exchange for the human woman? David, as in, David and Goliath.
Edit: swapped the vendor/purchaser. I left the religion about 20 years ago, so I should probably fact-check myself before posting.
Well you didn't think that sling was just made of out any old leather, did you?
It's a sling, but if you rub it, it becomes a catapult.
Kinda got it backwards-King Saul required David to do it for his daughter’s hand in marriage. David and his squad killed 200 of Saul’s (Israel’s) sworn enemies. That was the source of the payment.
Thanks for the correction. I left the religion about 20 years ago, so I should probably fact-check myself before posting about it. Memories are not perfect.
Oh isn't there also a part when the israelites circumsize the whole enemy army after defeat or something like that? I also like the part about Job where god literally bets with the devil how Job will keep his faith and then proceeds to kill his family and destroy his livelihood, bringing him to poverty and edge of death. And because he keeps believing he then gives him a new family and stuff but how fucked up is that for a "benevolent' god?
My favorite is the time god smites a dude because he was an asshole.
But then, like, his brother needed to get the wife preggo* and didn’t so he could inherite all of his dad’s shit, so he kept up with some awesome pull out game**… so god smites him, too.
So she goes off without a son cuz the daddy ain’t doing his thing either… until he goes to war… then she becomes a camp follower (aka prostitute.) seduces him, gets preggo, takes his banner as proof; or something… and the. Comes back with a son…
*levitate marriage. Widows without children where basically not taken care of… so, the idea is the brother gives his son an heir, the widow can take care of the son’s inheritance, blah blah blah)
**that never works irl. It’s almost like god just wanted to smite another asshole…helped him out a little.
And that's why you'll go to hell if you touch yourself down there, Billy.
I'll take my chances with the sky fairy rather than the courts. One has a track record of being wrong a lot and causing grievous financial harm, and the other is imaginary.
I can top that with scripture. In 2 Kings 2:23-25 Elisha goes to Bethel and a bunch of children make fun of him for being bald. So Elisha prays to God to handle it and God sends two bears out of the woods to maul all 42 of the children to death.
I mean... you know. Being bald is hard. totally understandable. killing 42 kids, over baldie jokes.
idk what you're talking about, genociding 99.99% of the world is perfectly moral when god does it obviously
I mean if we believe the idea that he created rhe world and humans then I guess he has the right to do so. How moral it is I will not comment.
I mean I don't know if that necessarily gives him the right... I can't exactly murder my kid just because I made them unfortunately
I think the comic is the one that is pushing sillyness about lesson planning, it's saying not to do to that and instead just assume the banned books have value simply because they're banned.
Why don't we just agree that there are plenty of books on the list that genuinely don't belong in schools and that if we have a problem with the legislatory system we should propose sensible ways of screening books rather than pretending every banned book is Ray Bradbury and acting like every time a book isn't passed for inclusion in the curriculum it's literally nazi 1984.
Or, you know, we could keep the issue out of the legislature entirely and put it back in the hands of the people with MASTERS DEGREES IN LESSON PLANNING AND EVALUATING THE AGE APPROPRIATENESS OF BOOKS FOR MINORS (i.e., teachers and librarians). Because letting the legislature decide what anyone can and can't read is LITERALLY NAZI 1984.
Books are being banned with zero consideration for their worth, or even if they're being used in a classroom. These books are on those lists purely for existing.
Or maybe you believe that the Nazis did nothing wrong. You're entitled to that. But I draw the line at books being banned because they talk about them. A wrong thing can be just a useful teaching tool as a right thing. Counter examples are just as useful as affirming examples.
I think you're confused what is happening, do you think when the Nazis banned books they still sold them in shops and carried them in public libraries? Do you think banning books was the sole extent of the bad things they did? I don't know why you'd assume I'd think they did nothing wrong when I'm simply arguing that there's a very clear reality not all books are suitable for children or a school environment.
Do you not think that there should be rules for schools? You think that the process by which books are banned is wrong but i bet if you suggested a system it'd involve public accountability and etc which would lead to you coming up with something very similar to the actual system in place.
What you mean is you think the people democratically elected to control school boards and educational departments are the wrong people for the job, and of course in many cases I very much agree.
That doesn't mean I think every 'banned book' should be taught to children as a matter of principle.