Faced with new legislation, Iowa's Mason City Community School District asked ChatGPT if certain books 'contain a description or depiction of a sex act.'
I don’t think shielding them outright is the real purpose with this law, as this passage hints at:
Speaking with The Gazette last week, Mason City’s Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Bridgette Exman argued it was “simply not feasible to read every book and filter for these new requirements.”
These laws are constructed such that it isn’t, here’s the list of banned books, but rather giving districts vague, open-ended requirements knowing there’s no realistic way to comply. That way a group of busy body zealots can find the ones that fell through the cracks, they bring lawsuits, the state can fiscally punish the school, and Fox And Friends can talk about it as an example of the culturally insert fascist dog whistle agenda to poison our youth. It’s about creating ammo for the culture war and austerity regimes.
I guess it’s like you said about emphasis, “think of the children!” is designed to get people to emphasize on the debate about what’s appropriate for children, so the debate doesn’t discuss what they’re actually trying to do.
Can’t speak for PKMKII ofc but it seemed like the difference is that they assert the goal isn’t to shield youth from depictions of sex at all, but rather to use it as a cudgel to exercise power against political & ideological opponents? I don’t know if there’s an actual disagreement per se, rather that it’s a dual purpose attack on opposing literature yknow?
I guess that the discussion shouldn’t be about what sexual material we should or should not be shielding kids from, but rather that the laws are designed to create bread and circuses distractions for cultural conservatives with a dash of neoliberalism.
I don’t think shielding them outright is the real purpose with this law, as this passage hints at:
These laws are constructed such that it isn’t, here’s the list of banned books, but rather giving districts vague, open-ended requirements knowing there’s no realistic way to comply. That way a group of busy body zealots can find the ones that fell through the cracks, they bring lawsuits, the state can fiscally punish the school, and Fox And Friends can talk about it as an example of the culturally insert fascist dog whistle agenda to poison our youth. It’s about creating ammo for the culture war and austerity regimes.
Sorry comrade maybe I’m not understanding but that seems like a distinction without a difference?
I guess it’s like you said about emphasis, “think of the children!” is designed to get people to emphasize on the debate about what’s appropriate for children, so the debate doesn’t discuss what they’re actually trying to do.
Honestly I’m not being a dick I still don’t really understand what you’re getting at
Don’t think you’re being a dick, but I’m also not sure how else to explain myself
What exactly do you disagree with about what I said in my original comment?
Can’t speak for PKMKII ofc but it seemed like the difference is that they assert the goal isn’t to shield youth from depictions of sex at all, but rather to use it as a cudgel to exercise power against political & ideological opponents? I don’t know if there’s an actual disagreement per se, rather that it’s a dual purpose attack on opposing literature yknow?
I guess that the discussion shouldn’t be about what sexual material we should or should not be shielding kids from, but rather that the laws are designed to create bread and circuses distractions for cultural conservatives with a dash of neoliberalism.