Mollifying by Modifying

This week's installment of liberal censorship involves a reparative therapy conference.

Any takers here willing, or perhaps able, to discuss reparative therapy titles held in your library? If WorldCat is any indication, it will be a very cozy group.

Comments

You support right-wing censorship but you don't support left-wing censorship. This is hypocrisy. To borrow a quote, "A patriot is a man who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works." Why are you not rejoicing that your system is working? Is it perhaps that those you perceive as political enemies are coopting your own tactics?

If you were anyways honest about this, you would not be pretending that the liberal segment in America is the same kind of oppressor that ultra-conservatives or hatemongers are. And "liberals" who engage in censorship are the flip side to conservatives who believe in and support the Bill of Rights and personal freedom.

I'm pleased you see this as censorship. Perhaps only sensible, color coordinated jackboots being the difference here.

But friend, you are the hypocrite, not I. It's only when taken by the nape and your nose rubbed, the one that only sniffs to the right, in stories like this do you lose your reticence. No outrage. No knee-jerk hyperbole levied at liberal "modifiers". No disk space made available at your Lair re billboard bandits. And no guts to admit that your Save the easily offended: ban everything speaks for you as well.

Wrong again, Tomeboy. I do have samples of left-wing censorship, you just don't bother to look for them; and there's a good chance this case will end up posted to my site. You, on the other hand, do actively support right-wing censorship while crying piteously about being censored when you're the one being inconvenienced.

you would not be pretending that the liberal segment in America is the same kind of oppressor that ultra-conservatives or hatemongers are.

Interesting choice of words. Liberal = good, but sometimes goes astray. Ultra-conservatives* or hatemongers = bad, Chimpy McHitlerBurton.

Not just conservative, but ULTRA-Conservative! New ULTRA-Conservative with Bleach.

ff, your knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution is a bit anemic from what I've gleaned in your posts in the past couple of days.

My system has one copy of a reparative therapy title: Reparative Therapy of Male homosexuality. Looking in Worldcat has a severe limitation. At one point, many libraries may have had more titles that didn't circulate. If a NF book doesn't circulate for 3 years or more, it gets weeded, and it is entirely conceivable that public libraries had more titles that simply didn't go out. Unfortunately, there is, as far as I know, no way test for that hypothesis.

Secondly, books on Reparative Therapy may not have received good reviews because it is well outside of the mainstream of traditional science and medicine. We rely, to a certain extent, on reviews by knowledgable sources. Not always, as the few books we have on alternative medicine would attest to. However, there is, in my experience, a great interest on many of my patrons for alternative medicine, and those books circulate frequently. I don't think the same thing can be said of books about RT.

Secondly, books on Reparative Therapy may not have received good reviews because it is well outside of the mainstream of traditional science and medicine.

Outside the mainstream may be one way to characterize the absence of reparative therapy reviews. I say politically incorrect and offensive to my colleagues is more accurate. How many Eastern medicine, Dr. Phil, Leo Buscaglia, et al reviews have I read in Library Journal over the years???

Certainly librarians, the good ones anyway, don't restrict their collections to what a few trade journals consider meeting the benchmark of "traditional" or "acceptable".

As for your WorldCat explaination, respectively RedCard, this is really justification based on a guess. You've got to buy'em to circulate them.

Oh, absolutely, the Worldcat explanation, as I stated, is simply a hypothesis, or a guess if you will. But no less of a guess than your assumption that because not many of those titles currently appear in Worldcat one can conclude that libraries NEVER bought them.

I'm willing to bet the number of Eastern Medicine books that are published far outnumber the Reparative Therapy books. For better or worse, I think our public (patrons) are more interested in Eastern Medicine than in RT. I can say from my personal experience, in my library, at least, that I have every month queries about books on Eastern, or Alternative, Medicine. To date I have never been asked about RT.

The lack of RT books may not be because of any great plot on the part of Liberal Librarians, but simply a reflection of the lack of interest on the part of our patrons. Despite what many fear, libraries do not lead cultural or social movements, we usually tag WAY behind. The inclusion of gay-themed books is a great example. We only started providing those long after it became clear that general societal views about homosexuality had changed. Look at our collections of erotica and sex. For many of us, the Joy of Sex, and other sex manuals, are graphically the raciest books we own.