Article by TheMarySue: Publishing giant Scholastic has made it easy for white supremacists in the Southern US to censor book fairs, by creating a category of “diverse books” that Scholastic will not send to book fairs if a organizers opt out.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Problem is, that’s a good way for even a company the size of Scholastics to go under. Parents can repeatedly go at the company for the maximum amount, and are likely to win at every point until this gets taken to the Supreme Court

          • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No actually, “the problem” is POC and LGBT people and topics being repressed, oppressed, and depressed.

            How much money a “publisher” owned by bankers have doesn’t concern me.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re missing the fucking point, perhaps deliberately.

              It is suicide for them to do as you suggest. Them doing that means a lot of people become jobless over a pointless gesture that ends up having zero impact on the issue of BME/LGBT rights and history because guess what? The same lawmakers that make these laws aren’t fucking listening.

              • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t believe they would go under and don’t care if they do.

                If they are choosing to cater to bigotry to avoid going under, then that is wrong.
                If they have to cater to bigotry or go under (they don’t) then not going under would be wrong.

                To speak of missing points, though, some asshole suggested this hateful policy was potentially enacted to protect teachers and I brought up what would actually protect librarians and them. Now you’re shitting about congress like we aren’t 4 layers deep in hypothetical at this point and Scholastic was never trying to protect people so the point you are arguing it moot.

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t believe they would go under and don’t care if they do.

                  They absolutely would, and you may not care but hundreds of thousands of parents and kids worldwide do. Scholastics is one of the biggest publisher’s for kids reading material out there.

                  If they are choosing to cater to bigotry to avoid going under, then that is wrong.

                  It’s not that simple. The choice is either ‘cater’ or don’t operate in that area at all. They don’t get to pick and choose which laws to abide by.

                  To speak of missing points, though, some asshole suggested this hateful policy was potentially enacted to protect teachers and I brought up what would actually protect librarians and them.

                  ‘Some asshole’? Because they pointed out a reasonable explanation? And no, you didn’t bring up something that would protect them; firstly the punishments going include the loss of teachers license (IE: they can never teach in a school in that state again) secondly because the state laws are so stacked against them that it would instead bankrupt scholastic. A mob of lawsuits can and will bury the publisher in legal fees.

                  So you can stop being so disrespectful to other people with other ideas.

                  Now you’re shitting about congress like we aren’t 4 layers deep in hypothetical at this point and Scholastic was never trying to protect people so the point you are arguing it moot.

                  Congress? I’ve been talking about state legislature, with a mix of Supreme Court, as that would be the only federal court that can strike down these laws as unconstitutional.

                  Hypothetical? Nah dude, these legal actions are already being abused to hell and back.

                  • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not reading all that bud.

                    It wasn’t to protect anyone and so it wasn’t a reasonable explanation.

                    Fuck hate and fuck any justification or minimization of complicity with hate.