“What the fuck”
Saved you a click and way too much scrolling
There’s an article?
I probably can’t afford that car, but I definitely can’t afford that blender.
Oh come on now. You expect these people to be able to afford to just be able to send you text? For free. Madness!
Also, use Firefox mobile, install those ad blockers. Have a useful mobile internet again.
I’m all for the use of ad blockers but I really hope that statement was intended to be ridiculous.
First part, a bit. Although we seem to have replaced most journalism with “ChatGPT, please rewrite this press release as a news article”.
Second part, no.
thats a great 8dea heh
I only wish I could use it as the system WebView implementation.
There’s Chromium based mobile browsers with AdBlocker that can be used as WebView. Vivaldi, for example. Not FOSS, though, no freedom, only beer.
Firefox Focus for visiting random sites. Adblock built in drops all cookies on exit.
Man, how do you guys survive an ad-unfiltered internet?
Crouch in the corner and hope it forgets about us.
Extended
Yeah, we could tell
AdBlockers, my buddy in Buddha, AdBlockers.
It’s pronounced bodhisattva.
deleted by creator
I guessed right 🤣
My guess was “Fuck you too” or “Go fuck yourself”.
For the last one he could just have quoted Al. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J-ZfahRzz_w
My guess was the last one.
Go f yourself
It’s okay, you can swear here, I won’t tell mom.
glances around fuck
thank you!!!
Doing the lord’s work. Thank.
To save you visiting the hellscape that is The Independent: those 3 words were “What the fuck?” Nothing really remarkable.
Could have fit that right in the headline without even increasing the number of words.
Thank you for your service.
But then they would have printed the word fuck on a headline. Can’t have that, someone might see it.
These headlines here are becoming some google news clickbait titles.
Becoming?
perfectly remarkable, i think.
i mean, its pretty obvious what the 3 words were just given the context of the title.
I snapped this at my local library last week.
The image is a flyer for a “Banned Books Club” (Bokklubb för förbjudna böcker) targeted at young people between the ages of 13 and 18 in Bromölla, Sweden. It invites readers to explore the topic of banned books, asking questions like “Which books are banned, where are they banned, and why?” The club aims to discuss these books during the fall and winter, and the first meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 19, from 3 to 4 p.m. at the library (biblioteket).
The flyer has a “STOP” sign, a warning label at the bottom, and a bird illustration. It encourages participants to sign up via email and features logos for Kulturpunkten and Bromölla Municipality.
It’s just gobbledygook
jättemycketbra!
Every book report in high school where I could choose the author was a Stephen King novel and I turned out fine. And in Florida too. Class of 1991. 😁. BRD.
Back in the ‘80’s I had a high school English teacher that had us read his Night Shift short stories. The entire class loved it.
Night Shift is fantastic.
I read The Stand and It before high school, and lots of other mature books with “inappropriate” material. It resulted in improved reading skills.
Definitely don’t tell kids about libgen.
“The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.”
Love that book. There’s some sad sex in it and a very unsympathetic preacher, but overall pretty tame by King standards.
“What the fuck? Fuck that shit. That’s fucking stupid.”
The sex in It was a but weird but 23?
Did you forget about the shit weasels in Dreamcatcher, the various instances of SA in Hearts in Atlantis, the forced abortion in the Gunslinger, insomnia, and so forth
you forgot the necrophilia in Under The Dome! ;)
Damn, I knew I was forgetting one. Lol
I’m not for banning any books, but with that said, Stephen King has some very fucked up books, like the one where the 10-year-olds have a spontaneous orgy at the end of It.
Technically it was a train, and they were experiencing a transcendent connection across time with their older selves, in a deliberately unsettling and transgressive scene meant to evoke the rawness of adolescence being laid bare before the worst cosmic horror – an eldritch carrion-eater who feeds on destroying the souls of children – as a way of reclaiming strength from vulnerability. At any rate, depiction is not endorsement.
But yes, considering how many actual adults misinterpret and mischaracterize that scene, I don’t recommend that particular book to children – not because they’ll be damaged by it, but because they won’t have the wisdom of age to understand it.
I read IT in the 8th grade and I didn’t really get the whole “transgressive scene meant to evoke the rawness of adolescence being laid bare before the worst cosmic horror” part, but I did understand that they were doing it as a way to ‘ground’ themselves to reality. And as a 13 year old boy, I thought it was kinda hot.
I always read it more acting as a final severing of their childhood to protect against It as it preferred to eat children. Not to mention as a more substantial blood pact as part of the ritual of chud to become metaphorically one being in the cosmic fight
THIS IS WHAT WE CANNOT LET HAPPEN!
/s
This guy book reviews
Yeah. It was horrible but literally “need to grow up fast” as a kind of pseudo protection from the demon that is pennywise.
The entire book is a series of horrors. Another story that hits just as hard but in a different way is Needful Things. Definitely an apt metaphor for how people can be cajoled and manipulated into doing heinous things.
It’s definitely messed up just like the old vampire in the body of a 13 year old in the Diaries of a Vampire series.
It’s fair to have an issue with it but what about all the other books?
I bet I can guess what they don’t like about them and that isn’t it
Technically, it was Stephen King being high out of his mind on cocaine and booze. He’ll be the first to admit it.
Did he write It during his cocaine years? I know Cujo, Tommyknockers, and Maximum Overdrive were
The real turning point in the non cocaine years is Dreamcatcher. And that was morphine.
Which really explains Dreamcatcher.
Definitely. I’ve even read about him talking about that specific scene in It in the context of his addictions.
Where can I subscribe to your blog?
I think high schoolers can handle that. But I guess when you’re in a state where the intention is to prevent young people from understanding sex, it starts to make sense.
Now violence on the other hand… No problem there.
Yea. There has to be some kind of balancing act. I don’t know what the right answer is. My wife is a teacher and we spar over this sometimes. I lean towards not banning but she claims the resources just aren’t there to vet and manage check-out. She concedes that if there were more resources and staff available then it wouldn’t be an issue.
This does bring up a good question though: Should access be
- Completely unrestricted?
- Somewhat restricted?
- Heavily moderated?
The last time I posed this question I got dogpiled on Lemmy but I feel like people are really not thinking through the consequences. And if you can’t, then you should really pause and think about it.
There are pros and cons for each stance. I just don’t think it’s that simple as many here want it to be.
Edit : to be clear, Im not pro-banning. I’m just musing online hoping to hear other perspectives. I’m not offended if you down vote, but I was hoping to hear more your opinion.
This is just more bullshit to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. We should not be restricting books at all. Isn’t it always Republicans that talk about small government and that it should be parents protecting their kids? Well why can’t parents just attempt to be aware of what they’re child is reading?
What is the worst possible outcome of someone reading about sex? It’s just puritanical bullshit, and forcing everyone else to adhere to their beliefs. Would love to hear how this comports with “limited government”.
I’m not a republican. I’m a soc-dem.
I was interested in exploring the various scenarios and having a conversation, but as usual -and in typical lemmy fashion- we went straight to labels.
You really think the only conversation around book bans revolves around some people that are prudish? There aren’t any other possible scenarios?
Nope. No other scenarios. You are free to choose what you read. Parents are free to filter what their children read until they come of age. End of conversation.
The burden of freedom is embracing the lack of safety it affords us.
Should a 7 year old victim of SA be exposed to a novel with graphic depictions of rape?
Should a 9 year old check out a book that gives instructions on making pipe bombs?
Are all parents ever-present in their children’s lives?
You really can’t spend two seconds thinking about this? I’m not asking you to compromise your abolutist position. I’m OK if you don’t shift on this position. I’m just asking you to reflect on why it’s not so simple.
Exposed to? Everyone has the Internet. Trying to stop exposure via books when the whole Internet is on their phone is silly and just causes more harm than good as groups of people get to decide what is ok and what isn’t.
So you’re saying because the internet is available school libraries should let 7 year Olds watch “A Serbian Film”. What is this logic? Do you understand what we’re even debating at this point? We’re talking about who has the onus to moderate school books.
Yes. For some, it will help them process what happened. Hopefully they have an adult they can discuss it with
Yes. I did, and haven’t killed anyone yet. Overreaction to basic chemistry and physics stifles the engineer or creator in too many of us.
If a kid doesn’t have a trusted adult guiding them, being able to explore moral quandaries through books is even more important.
It’s simple
I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.
I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.
I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.
When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?
I think maybe you don’t understand how libraries work, particularly ones for children in public elementary schools. I’d be far more concerned about what kids in private schools are being exposed to. It’s not like sexually explicit books are just on display when you walk in. This is a non-issue and it’s insane that we even have to discuss this.
Also, kids use the Internet. If parents aren’t stopping them from reading sexually explicit books, what do you think they’re doing online? Should we remove all sexual content from the Internet (don’t disregard this question, Project 2025 ultimately wants to literally ban pornography. That’s real. JD Vance is that type of dude)?
The complete lack of an ability to see historical context and learn from past mistakes is disturbing. We’ve been through this, it is not something that needs to be rehashed. I’m so fucking tired of having to learn the same fucking lessons over and over again because people refuse to believe that maybe we do things a certain way for a reason. Maybe we started with the thing you want, and over time adjusted it again and again due to real world conditions (in some cases, like with regulations, people literally died), until we got where we are… Maybe we shouldn’t just throw all that knowledge and understanding away every ~50 years or whatever.
Unfortunately, when it comes to education and reading, it creates a negative feedback loop. Kids aren’t raised with the resources they need to think critically, and in turn, they grow up to allow politicians to pass laws banning the books they should have read. Rinse and repeat until you have an electorate that lets you get away with murder because everyone is so goddamn ignorant.
/rant
I sincerely think that access to books should never be restricted, I think even stuff like Mein Kampf should be available, just that for kids, there should be guidance to help digest it, both for Stephen King and Mein Kampf. So if you ask me, it should be completely unrestricted, but moderated, so if you check out Mein Kampf, you get a free mandatory lesson on the Holocaust.
I guess I got downvoted since one of those US dipshits did something stupid, and my opinion on it was more nuanced than “lol, idiot”.
The idea of this super moderated availability of books sounds super great when you write it out like that. But there aren’t even enough teachers around to teach the bare minimum. I don’t know how you imagine that would be manageable.
Side point. If Mein Kampf should be accessible, do you think so should all the hate speech and misinformation everyone tries to ban from social media ?
To your first point, I’m just saying that the problem politicians created by defunding education is not going to be solved by politicians banning books.
On the other thing, should it be available? Yes. Should it be blasted in your face at the expense of everything else without context? Hell no. Imagine if Fox News was only available with live fact-checking, it would not be nearly as effective.
I have a seven year old that reads at a fifth grade level (he was lucky he learned early). I can think of a miriad things worse than Mei kampf that I’m conflicted he should have access to. I’m all for unrestricted access, but what if he picks up a book with graphic depictions of rape? I don’t know that I want him confronting this at such a young age. What about kids with trauma?
These are just off the bat of my head. I can think of many more examples. That’s why when the unrestricted crowd comes in I sometimes scratch my head. Do you guys have children? It’s not so simple if you think about it for more than a few seconds. Again, I don’t have a right answer. I just wish people stopped and reflected a bit.
And yet librarians and teachers have handled this all along, much better than politicians are.
I honestly think it’s just a resource issue. If there are enough staffers and teachers around then there really should be a problem. The main counter my wife (a teacher) gave is that most school districts just don’t have the necessary staff to moderate/work with the kids.
“The skibidi toilet”
“Skibidi toilet Ohio”, even.
I could have done it in 2 words and I’m no great writer.
best i can do is 1 and yes it is “fuck”
I was hoping for “go fuck yourselves”
“What? You scared?”
I would also accept “Sucks to Suck” or “cool story, bro.”
I was hoping for an “Actual Cancel Culture”
“I love you”
“Please and Thanks.”
“Man who supports genocide says, what the fuck. More at 7”
To be fair, that’s pretty much every American. They’re all blood thirsty monsters. Just watch them come to tell me I’m a Nazi for not supporting a second holocaust lmfao
Wide sweeping generalizations of an entire population is quite literally the problem.
This would be the same as saying pretty much all Palestinians are bloodthirsty monsters who support Hamas, or pretty much all Israelis are bloodthirsty monsters who support the eradication of Palestine. Do you not see that? Do you really think your statement is reasonable or considered, or are you just trolling?
Jawohl, mein Führer 🙄
dont be a bigot. strive for change.
I started reading King in like the 4th grade. WTF is right
