“He banned Fahrenheit 451 which is a book about banning books.”
Banning 1984 is insane to me. You have to be either so stupid that you decided it should be banned but completely missed the point of the book, or you have to be straight up cartoon levels of evil.
This was more a case of malicious compliance. Province said “give us a list of books you have that meet these stupid criteria” and the school boards took their amateurishly worded MO and produced a list that met that criteria.
Malicious compliance can mean finding ways to make a good law cause problems out of some other grievance, or it can be exposing how bad a law is by following it to its logical conclusion in a public and dramatic way. This is the latter, like those groups trying to get the bible removed in southern states with these kind of laws. It’s not about the bible, it’s about showing how bad book bans are.
1984 was dropped from Ontario curriculum in 1984. My English teacher told us this and then quit at the end of the year. After that, there was only a stupid focus on Shakespeare.
It doesn’t even make sense if they want to ban “inappropriate” books on sex ed. The only reason to ban 1984 is because deep down they know they’re building Ingsoc
Literally 1984.
Can’t think of a better advertisement for 1984 though, kids might actually read it these days thinking its an “illegal” book.
Oh shit, we didn’t want to bad old books, we just wanted to ban queer books! Hang on a minute while our lawyers figure out a better way to encode “we hate gays” in legal jargon.
– the government of Alberta
Don’t post pictures of text
A picture of [allegedly] mother, sitting behind a young girl with a contempt smile. The girl also smiles as she looks into an open red book titled ‘ʜᴏʟʏ ʙɪʙʟᴇ’
Overtext:
Ezekiel 23:20
“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” [seems to be cited from New International Version]
Just downvote and move on if you don’t like it
deleted by creator
It’s an accessibility issue. Screen readers for the blind can’t read text in images, and this one doesn’t have complete alt text. So it’s more polite to transcribe the text, either alongside the image, or instead of it.
Making a flat demand without explanation isn’t a useful way of bringing the matter up, though, because people who aren’t already aware tend to assume it’s just a personal preference.
Ty for the explanation. The irony is they could’ve also provided meaningful help by just transcribing it themselves for accessibility users but chose not to.
That is assuming they were not using a screen reader that just read ‘image, Ezekiel 23:20’ to them, which is current alt text
That doesn’t say what’s in the image.
Yes, that was my point, kinda 🤔
This would have been much better than “stop”
Thank you
- We all know the difference between the items in 1 and 2.
Yeah, that’s not how laws work. You can’t write a broadly applicable law, and then say “You know what it really means.”
Unsure if Shakespeare is now porn.
Will jerk to twelfth night and report back tomorrow if paper cuts aren’t too severe.
Actual questions: is a mental image caused by a book an image? How will they define image? What is pornograph-y/ic? Is sex ed / biology exempt?
Shakespeare was always porn.
The bible should be taken out of Alberta because of this law. All the incest, rape, sex, murder, genocide, etc. in that book is amazing.
Typical Danielle Smith bullshit.
Cheeto Pedo worshipper Smith? Of course.
But the strings get pulled by an org much the same as the Heritage Foundation called Take Back Alberta. She’s their lapdog.
So I’m allowed to jerk off in the theater?
Don’t be like US
