I plan to make my children toxic towards people denying other peoples basic human rights, directly and indirectly (e.g. by limiting access {e.g. by banning or burning} to books).
who's "basic human rights" are being denied here? Are you saying that the publisher of Dr.Seuss is committing human rights abuses by choosing not to publish some of the books THEY own the rights to?
Also, maybe teaching your children to be toxic towards anything won't really improve the world they will have to live in?
are you saying that private entities don't get to choose what products to cease production of? Once you start producing a product, you are obligated to continue indefinitely?
No, I'm saying the opposite: the private owner should lose exclusive production rights if they cease production permanently; i.e others should be able to freely produce this book, now it is out of production, without fear of being sued over copyright.
Surpressing information is wrong. The publisher not publishing is a minor case here, the Karens and SJWs who make existing work disappear by having it banned from libraries and/or public marketplaces are the main enemy here.
Also, being tolerant to intolerance breeds autocratic and non free societies. A lesson mankind seems to have to learn over and over and over again. My children will be taught that you do not suffer the Nazi, the Communist, the self-righteous conservative calling for a ban or the SJW.
There aren't any. The legion of SJWs and progressive use of government bans are totally made-up things.
Propaganda has been very strong the last few years, and people feel like defending racism is actually some sort of legitimate fight because they actually believe that things like Antifa, Social-Justice-Warriors, and government bans initiated by progressives are real organized things. They are invented ideas and tools used by propagandists to keep people divided and working against the interests of other Americans.
yea that was the reason why I asked for examples as I figured they were just parroting reactionary talking points without any evidence to back it up. I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm still waiting on those examples...
that's not an example of "Karens and SJWs who make existing work disappear by having it banned from libraries and/or public marketplaces". That's just vague gesturing at lists of controversial books all of which are readily available.
Most of them might be "banned" in a few select conservative/christian schools and that's it. Come up with actual examples of the things you are claiming or stop fear-mongering.
