Awwe! I teared up! 'cause it's true!!!

Holy shit librarians are fucking wonderful.

Many of my coolest collaborators have been library science or information studies people. They are just the people I trust the most to have a sensible balanced worldview between theory and action, and with enough distance to understand the false idols of capital and power.

I feel librarians so often get to be the sort of people that teachers wish they could be, if those teachers weren't so micro-managed by the state and the system

Indeed. Power-hungry authoritarians, demagogues, and ideologues of all stripes (ethnic, religious, etc.) have always viewed books as dangerous.

Just look at the long list of major book-burning incidents throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents

Books are dangerous, because knowledge is dangerous -- dangerous to ignorance, censorship, and misinformation.

I really dislike fiction where the author tries to convince you it's real but has so many holes that it reads like more like a hastily conceived debate premise than a real work.

In reality libraries are one of the most conservative classes of people, especially odd the distinction since I'm sure there are plenty of progressive minded librarians. Doesn't help that the average age gap between a reader and their librarian is greater than average life expectancy.

Stalin was no librarian himself but owned over 25000 books/pamphlets and invented his own classification scheme.

1. Stalin’s Library by Geoffrey Roberts

2. https://youtu.be/aa-00IN1b6g

[dead]

[dead]

Ebooks and Internet sources of all forms of media have rendered public libraries moot as book providers: every person alive (in the US) has a cell phone, and most have laptops, and can with a modicum of bootstrapping access these sources, without having to travel to a special building (partially) filled with paper books, to obtain a copy of almost any book in existence.

> Today’s dangerous librarians are much more. They are part educator, part tech wizard, part data analyst, and part myth-slayer.

> They host storytimes, teach kids about misinformation, explain how to 3D print a prosthetic hand, and calmly help a grown man named Todd recover his Gmail password for the seventh time. All before lunch.

> [Librarians] are dangerous to: Misinformation, Censorship, Outdated printer settings, Small thinking, apathy, loneliness

Who asked them to play these roles? If the public school system has failed to the extent that people are incapable of using online methods to find books or other resources, or login to their Google account, why is it the role of a librarian to backfill these gaps (and for taxpayers to be forced to fund such a peculiar backfilling approach)?

And some of the touted roles ("dangerous to: Misinformation, Censorship, Small thinking, apathy") are clearly social activist in nature; the meaning of all of these is in the eye of the beholder. So why are taxpayers obligated to (unquestioningly) fund people who clearly perceive their role, at least in part, as activist in nature? IMO you are welcome to engage in activist activities on your own dime, not mine.

So I certainly wonder where the value is in "libraries" since, say, 2010 (and yes, I read the article). If not for "book banning" stories, I doubt librarians would be a topic of conversation. Libraries and librarians are like some weird 20th century anachronism which persists into the 21st century largely because it's part of a (by definition well-established) bureaucracy (and lobby/union).

Treating “knowledge” in the abstract is dangerous. “Knowledge” consists of manuscripts . A book store or library is merely a curation of those manuscripts (or their copies).

Librarians actually are dangerous, in that they present “knowledge” as neutral, and “more knowledge” as an unquestionable good. Nearly all librarians and book store clerks share a skewed ideology.

Everyone expects a Christian, Muslim or Jewish book store to be filled with a tailored curation of books. Libraries and book stores are ironically treated as neutral “knowledge repositories”.

My point is that every collection is curated according to the taste and the agenda of the curator or librarian.

It is the quality of the collection that makes it good, not the volume. Librarians are dangerous because they’ve convinced the public that they are gatekeepers of knowledge, when they are actually just curators.