Let us begin with someone very slowly figuring out the reasons that people stay in and socialize over digital methods rather than going out and doing it in meatspace. Several of the reasons are present in this piece, even as the author steadfastly tries to push past them, as if they aren't real reasons. Like needing to make rent and expenses, or the absolute lack of places that allow young people to hang out and be young people without seeing them as pests, or the part where young people aren't interested in doing a lot of the riskier behavior of previous generations, because who wants to end up as someone's meme fodder or to have unhappy parents confronting them about their behavior because the parents have installed trackers and spyware to make sure they're behaving well? There's really precious little time and money for anyone to use either on mediocre in-person experiences when there may be better ones available over stream, or in groups of people they know are going to be okay and friendly and wanting to do something enjoyable together?
The Autauga-Prattville Library Board must be replaced, because they chose to ban all books for children under 17, and demand all adult books be labeled as dangerous to children.
These rules are a affront to the ethics of the library profession, are almost certainly contrary to the laws of the country, and there are really two ways to deal with this policy: ignore it as the overreach it is and no nothing to enforce it (risky, probably going to get fired before you have the legal shield to ignore it), or to enforce what was written, rather than what was intended, and make sure that all the books for children and teens are safely secured and stored somewhere, and when there are complaints about nearly no books on the shelves, point to the Board policy and explain every book with a gendered pronoun in it had inappropriate "gender identity" in it, and any references to a mother, father, or parent is inappropriate "sexual intercourse," and to make very sure that the religious books with all of the sex and violence in them are very prominently displayed, since they're the ones with the exceptions. (Still risky, because malicious compliance usually provokes retaliation.)
The board has to be replaced. And then replaced again until the board understands the current policy must be fully repealed. Because they don't want to be sued into the ground.
It's not likely to happen, though, because so many lawmakers, administrators, and people in power have decided they are no longer bound by the requirement to keep their religion out of government and are on crusades to impose their personal, often fringe, morality on the rest of us. The linked article is an exemplar, and someone who feels confident enough he can operate in the open instead of even having to find a fig leaf of a secular reason.
A journal has issued a retraction notice for three papers they had previously published, citing issues with the methodology and conclusions of the papers, as well as undisclosed possible sources of bias in the research and researchers. The primary author of all three retracted studies complained back and said their science was perfectly fine and they're being persecuted for having conclusions outside of accepted orthodoxy. Why do we care about these papers? They were heavily cited in a Texas judge's ruling that ordered the FDA to take mifepristone, one of a pair of drugs usually used to perform a medication abortion, off the market because they supposedly did not do sufficient and proper studies of the drug's safety. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case as to whether mifepristone will still be allowed in the United States, and with the current makeup of the Court, it's pretty decent odds that even with the retractions of the supporting papers, the justices will find some manner or method to enact the order and demand the FDA remove mifepristone, despite the evidence of several other, likely more scientifically rigorous, studies on the safety of the drug and the process of its use. The fact that this seems to be the agreed opinion of both those who want forced birth and those who want reproductive choice says quite a bit about the perceived legitimacy of the court and the likelihood that their decision will be respected.
Greece joins the Century of the Fruitbat, although it does not extend the ability of married couples to have a child through surrogacy.
( The rest is inside )
Last for tonight, The Testimonials of the Collectively Abandoned, the accounts, pleas, and requests from those who cannot go back to normal to their fellow radicals, anarchists, punks, and people who still care to continue to maintain their precautions and do their best to be inclusive while diseases (and other disasters) continue to rage on.
(Materials via![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
adrian_turtle, azurelunatic, boxofdelights, cmcmck, conuly, cosmolinguist, elf, finch, firecat, jadelennox, jenett, jjhunter, kaberett, lilysea, oursin, rydra_wong, snowynight, sonia, the_future_modernes, thewayne, umadoshi, vass, the ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
meta_warehouse community, little_details, and anyone else I've neglected to mention or who I suspect would rather not be on the list. If you want to know where I get the neat stuff, my reading list has most of it.)
The Autauga-Prattville Library Board must be replaced, because they chose to ban all books for children under 17, and demand all adult books be labeled as dangerous to children.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the library shall not purchase or otherwise acquire any material advertised for consumers ages 17 and under which contain content including, but not limited to, obscenity, sexual conduct, sexual intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender discordance,” the updated 53-page policy states. “Age-appropriate materials concerning biology, human anatomy, or religion are exempt from this rule.”
These rules are a affront to the ethics of the library profession, are almost certainly contrary to the laws of the country, and there are really two ways to deal with this policy: ignore it as the overreach it is and no nothing to enforce it (risky, probably going to get fired before you have the legal shield to ignore it), or to enforce what was written, rather than what was intended, and make sure that all the books for children and teens are safely secured and stored somewhere, and when there are complaints about nearly no books on the shelves, point to the Board policy and explain every book with a gendered pronoun in it had inappropriate "gender identity" in it, and any references to a mother, father, or parent is inappropriate "sexual intercourse," and to make very sure that the religious books with all of the sex and violence in them are very prominently displayed, since they're the ones with the exceptions. (Still risky, because malicious compliance usually provokes retaliation.)
The board has to be replaced. And then replaced again until the board understands the current policy must be fully repealed. Because they don't want to be sued into the ground.
It's not likely to happen, though, because so many lawmakers, administrators, and people in power have decided they are no longer bound by the requirement to keep their religion out of government and are on crusades to impose their personal, often fringe, morality on the rest of us. The linked article is an exemplar, and someone who feels confident enough he can operate in the open instead of even having to find a fig leaf of a secular reason.
A journal has issued a retraction notice for three papers they had previously published, citing issues with the methodology and conclusions of the papers, as well as undisclosed possible sources of bias in the research and researchers. The primary author of all three retracted studies complained back and said their science was perfectly fine and they're being persecuted for having conclusions outside of accepted orthodoxy. Why do we care about these papers? They were heavily cited in a Texas judge's ruling that ordered the FDA to take mifepristone, one of a pair of drugs usually used to perform a medication abortion, off the market because they supposedly did not do sufficient and proper studies of the drug's safety. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case as to whether mifepristone will still be allowed in the United States, and with the current makeup of the Court, it's pretty decent odds that even with the retractions of the supporting papers, the justices will find some manner or method to enact the order and demand the FDA remove mifepristone, despite the evidence of several other, likely more scientifically rigorous, studies on the safety of the drug and the process of its use. The fact that this seems to be the agreed opinion of both those who want forced birth and those who want reproductive choice says quite a bit about the perceived legitimacy of the court and the likelihood that their decision will be respected.
Greece joins the Century of the Fruitbat, although it does not extend the ability of married couples to have a child through surrogacy.
( The rest is inside )
Last for tonight, The Testimonials of the Collectively Abandoned, the accounts, pleas, and requests from those who cannot go back to normal to their fellow radicals, anarchists, punks, and people who still care to continue to maintain their precautions and do their best to be inclusive while diseases (and other disasters) continue to rage on.
(Materials via
adrian_turtle, azurelunatic, boxofdelights, cmcmck, conuly, cosmolinguist, elf, finch, firecat, jadelennox, jenett, jjhunter, kaberett, lilysea, oursin, rydra_wong, snowynight, sonia, the_future_modernes, thewayne, umadoshi, vass, the meta_warehouse community, little_details, and anyone else I've neglected to mention or who I suspect would rather not be on the list. If you want to know where I get the neat stuff, my reading list has most of it.)
