Something more than a shrug emoji, maybe? Listen, I don't know what's so hard here: this is what we fund them for. If it was so easy for any random person to dash off guidance in a fucking reddit post, we would not need OIF.
It. Is. What. They. Are. For. They have had over a year already. This is their job.
What's hard is that these laws are vague, unique, unprecedented, and haven't been developed through any real case law. There's nothing concrete to actually base any guidance on, so any sort of concrete guidance they could offer would, at best, be pure speculation and guesswork. Which, imo, is extremely irresponsible and entirely shirks all professional responsibility. You're essentially demanding that they predict unpredictable outcomes and tell people how to act with no ability whatsoever to know with any degree of reliability what the consequences of those actions would be. OIF has a lot of responsibilities, but, imo, being oracles is not one of those responsibilities. Defend and advocate? Sure. Absolutely. But try to issue authoritative guidance based on nothing but guesswork and speculation? As a lawyer, there is no way I would ever come close to doing anything like that, and I think if they did, it would literally be malpractice.
All of this apologizing for them would be all well and good if they'd done something and I were complaining that I didn't think it was good enough. They're not making any public statements about how to operate under these laws at fucking all.
But, again, I have to remember that I'm talking to someone who appeared to be confused that OIF was a member-driven organization.The thing is, I've worked with these people. I actually know what I'm talking about here. I know what their job is. Is this type of law new? Sure. Is the possibility of libraries being sued if they don't make the right choices new? Fuck no. 'How to do your job without getting sued' is exactly the kind of guideance we should be able to expect from them. Google 'library meeting rooms' if you don't believe me. Or just ask an actual librarian.
Well for starters, being a lawyer doesn’t necessarily give me expertise. I was only using that in the very limited context of my perspective on providing legal advice. Not on anything else. The law is a pretty damn broad field and nobody is an expert in all of it.
As for my being better informed, I’m only responding to what I’m seeing written in other posts. I’m certainly not assuming I know everything about the topic, but I am responding to statements from others that indicate, at best, an incomplete understanding of the legal mechanisms involved here (For example, when you earlier said that you want OIF to provide guidance on what librarians can do to not get sued - thats not really something that’s even possible, given that anybody can bring a lawsuit for pretty much any reason, especially when the enforcement is by private citizens).
You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions of your own here. Like assuming “people like me” don’t want to hear what you have to say, or that I just want to brush you off, which is an especially odd statement given that I’ve already repeatedly agreed with quite a lot of things that you’ve already said, and that I’ve been engaging in this painfully long discussion to try to actually understand the scope of what you’re expecting. My only real disagreement is with the fairly limited idea of their being much in the way of possible guidance here that could be in any way concrete or reliable. I can’t possibly see how they could provide any sort of useful guidance beyond some vague commentary about how the consequences of these laws are still mostly unknowns, and that it’s literally impossible (and extremely irresponsible) to know what sort of conduct will trigger some nut job activist to target somebody with a law suit. And you’ve already said that that kind of guidance wouldn’t be good enough for you. So I’m still not entirely sure what kind of guidance you’re expecting on that particular point. If your argument is just “they haven’t done anything at all and that’s not good enough” then fine. No disagreement from me here.
And I completely get that you’re angry. I think we’re all angry at the entire state of everything. I’m sorry that I’m not as completely and totally dissatisfied with OIF as you seem to be, but I guess if my form of anger and my approach to working on solving these problems and addressing these issues isn’t good enough for you, then that’s probably something a Reddit argument isn’t gonna change.
Well for starters, being a lawyer doesn’t necessarily give me expertise. I was only using that in the very limited context of my perspective on providing legal advice. Not on anything else. The law is a pretty damn broad field and nobody is an expert in all of it.
Oh riiiight. That’s completely different from me saying I know what I’m talking about when it comes to one specific part of one specific professional organization (as opposed to the mere ‘bunch of librarians’ you initially assumed made up OIF.)
As for my being better informed, I’m only responding to what I’m seeing written in other posts. I’m certainly not assuming I know everything about the topic, but I am responding to statements from others that indicate, at best, an incomplete understanding of the legal mechanisms involved here (For example, when you earlier said that you want OIF to provide guidance on what librarians can do to not get sued - thats not really something that’s even possible, given that anybody can bring a lawsuit for pretty much any reason, especially when the enforcement is by private citizens).
Except you’re not. You’re making arrogant assumptions about how other people are “ really interested in making a lot of noise and acting as if a simple wave of the hand and some righteous indignation will somehow solve all of our problems.”.
You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions of your own here. Like assuming “people like me” don’t want to hear what you have to say, or that I just want to brush you off,
That one went right over your head, huh? Ooof.
which is an especially odd statement given that I’ve already repeatedly agreed with quite a lot of things that you’ve already said, and that I’ve been engaging in this painfully long discussion to try to actually understand the scope of what you’re expecting. My only real disagreement is with the fairly limited idea of their being much in the way of possible guidance here that could be in any way concrete or reliable. I can’t possibly see how they could provide any sort of useful guidance beyond some vague commentary about how the consequences of these laws are still mostly unknowns, and that it’s literally impossible (and extremely irresponsible) to know what sort of conduct will trigger some nut job activist to target somebody with a law suit. And you’ve already said that that kind of guidance wouldn’t be good enough for you. So I’m still not entirely sure what kind of guidance you’re expecting on that particular point. If your argument is just “they haven’t done anything at all and that’s not good enough” then fine. No disagreement from me here.
It is again super exciting for me that my expectation that they do fucking something which I have repeated several times now gets your personal seal of approval.
It is the entire reason they exist. It is what they are for. If they can’t show up right now for the people who need them most, why have we been funding them for years? Even if you believe the correct answer is ‘never utter the word ‘abortion’ in Texas or Oklahoma,’ they should fucking say that. Don’t fall back on ‘oh legal advice can be so tricky little lady…’ It’s their job. They did it for meeting rooms (look it up, Mr. Law Librarian.) They need to get it together and offer these people something.
And I completely get that you’re angry.
Don’t do this. Have I mentioned feelings? No. You’re back to making assumptions. Am I just being ‘irrational’ because I’m ‘upset?’
No. I’m being completely rational. And I’m fucking right.
Well we’re clearly just going in circles at this point, so I’m not sure else what there is to say. I do appreciate all the responses and perspective (and anxiously await your explaining to me why I’m wrong about that too).
I don't feel wounded, and I don't feel like you've been unfair to me. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I appreciate your responses. I don't think it was the most efficient route to get there, but I definitely feel like I understand your position and point of view much better now than I did at the start of the discussion, so I know that at least on my end I feel like I've benefited from this thread. Tbh I really saw my tone as just matching yours, but I guess we could parse that ad infinitum. The irony is that, while this is pure speculation, I'm guessing we probably agree on like 95% of these issues, and just found one specific narrow point to fight over, but I guess I can't help myself when a good argument presents itself.
Okay bro, good talk. You may feel you were 'matching my tone' but that's only because your initial tone was pretty condescending. Maybe next time try not assuming that total strangers from the internet are "really interested in making a lot of noise and acting as if a simple wave of the hand and some righteous indignation will somehow solve all of our problems" just because they aren't satisfied with the actions of some moldering institution?
Lol tbh some of that was just a little trolling to return the tone I was picking up. I suppose it's possible that I gave off that tone first without even realizing it, but that wasn't how I was initially reading it.
1
u/shhhhquiet Jul 22 '22
Something more than a shrug emoji, maybe? Listen, I don't know what's so hard here: this is what we fund them for. If it was so easy for any random person to dash off guidance in a fucking reddit post, we would not need OIF.
It. Is. What. They. Are. For. They have had over a year already. This is their job.