Okay. If people vote for this, what's the problem?

The stupidity of it? Of people vote for brexit or nazis or slavery is it fine just because they voted?

>brexit

They influenced voters! Those bastards!

Yes, with lies.

Look up "We send the EU £350m a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead" as one of the major examples.

All lies are lies, but some lies are more lie-y than others.

Surely you can see the difference between voting for a set of books to be/not to be in a school curriculum/library (through your elected representation) and Nazis ... right?

Nazis had to start somewhere.

Yes, I see the difference between different flavors of stupidity.

But I percieve human stupidity as a fifth elemental force. And disasters caused by it as sort of natural disasters.

And while I can see the obvious difference between flames consuming someone's house and a peacefully burning candle, I am aware of the connection between them and I can make up a scenario of how one can potentially lead to the other.

>I can make up a scenario

Thanks, I'm aware that, in situations related to school curricula, most people need to make up absurd strawmen in order to argue that something is happening that isn't (e.g. removing pornography from the school library inevitably leads to book burnings in the parking lot after the high school football game). In your example you'd be the one in favor of banning candles because you fundamentally don't trust people to handle things themselves in a reasonable way, according to their own interests and preferences.

I don't need to make up any scenarios of slippery slope. Book banning is by itself wrong in any shape or form. It's a manifestation of the same flavor of stupidity that makes people succumb to authocratic and theocratic ideas.

Exactly. And as we've established, no book is being banned here.

The only thing we established is that you ascribe way more meaning than necessary to the word ban when it's next to a word book. Which makes you opposed to using it to describe what occured.

Book burning was a critical communal activity that the Nazi party used to consolidate power. Although initially limited to Marxist and communist writings all of the famous Berlin book burning photos we have from Germany during that time were from a single event. It was both early and one of the largest book burning events sponsored by the Nazi party:

The destruction of the personal library of the first German clinic to offer gender reassignment surgery and gender affirming therapy all the way back in 1930.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-his...

You may not have been aware of the parallels to the rise of the nazi party and the situation here in America, but it is a VERY apt analogy and correct reference to make.

People voted for the Nazis too well knowing what they stood for.

The gas chambers were legal. What’s your point?

>People voted for the Nazis too well knowing what they stood for.

This is actually a lie that the Nazi party propagandized after Hitler seized the Chancellorship.

If people vote to boil kittens alive that doesn't make it okay. Don't make us spoon-feed you, you're acting in bad faith and you know it.

This case is about controls on school library inventory and class curriculum. I don't understand what boiling kittens has to do with this, other than it being a very weird strawman. Removing books that contain content some find objectionable is the same as boiling kittens? Is that what you're saying?

Everyone here knows what you're doing, it is extremely transparent. I'm telling you to stop it. You're not as clever as you think you are.

>I'm telling you to stop it.

Oh well in that case.

You brought up a ridiculous comparison (boiling kittens) in order to attempt to bully me into agreeing with your position that, for some reason, elected officials restricting library inventories and school curricula is "bad", ostensibly because you have different content preferences than the people involved (in Iowa, in this case).

Perhaps you should stop it.