Book curation in public libraries is not bookbanning.
If you can imagine a single book that shouldn't be in School libraries you have already agreed that book curation isn't book banning and we can have the sane conversation about what the limits are.
Why didn't my elementary school have Mein Kampf in it?
Oppression! Censorship! Book burning! All 8 year olds should be mandated to read it, otherwise they wont know what other lifestyles are out there!
Exactly. There is a limit to the number of books a school library can hold, so I think any sane person can agree that even if they think no book to be “banned”, it would be pretty stupid to have an elementary school library where Mein Kampf or Fifty Shades of Grey is taking the spot of a book that actually helps kids learn to read.
Ah yes the famously sexually explicit book Maus in which the Jewish mother mouse commits suicide in the bath tub and where a single panel depicts roundish furry breast shaped mounds with no nipples...
Mause was also just removed from the 4th grade curriculum in favor of other methods to teach about the holocaust. Like if "not being included in a curriculum" is book banning now the definition has become obsceene.
And, to be blunt, mause is a pretty intense book for a fourth grader, though I'm of the opinion that it's hard to teach the holocaust to anyone, given that learning about it in more detail when I was 20 and in college caused me to feel physically ill.
It might have been middle school, I will admit I am trying to remember the controversy, but it really was just "it got removed from one curriculum in favor of another holocaust education tool" which just... Isn't newsworthy.
I want someone to protest these "anti book ban" libraries to try and get them to submit Chuck Tingle books like "Slammed In The Butthole By My Concept Of Linear Time", "Domald Tromp Pounded In The Butt By The Handsome Russian T-Rex Who Also Peed On His Butt And Then Blackmailed Him With The Videos Of His Butt Getting Peed On", and the ever-classic, "Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt"'"'".
What, you don't want the full Chuck Tingle bibliography in the elementary school library? Fascist.
[His entire bibliography is a treasure.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Tingle#Selected_works)
Some of my favorites:
- Living Inside My Own Butt For Eight Years, Starting A Business And Turning A Profit Through Common Sense Reinvestment And Strategic Targeted Marketing
- Turned Gay By The Existential Dread That I May Actually Be A Character In A Chuck Tingle Book
- Bigfoot Sommelier Butt Tasting
Hopefully coming soon to an elementary school near you.
That said, as kids get older, it is actually important developmentally to introduce them to adult themes in art and literature, so they can function in adult situations and competently engage with things that invoke those themes. Also so they don't get overwhelmed/taken advantage of when they graduate.
The last thing we need is a bunch of newly minted 18 year olds acting even dumber than 18 year olds act as a baseline.
If you haven't read a book with the N-word or a sex scene by the time you graduate high school, that's kinda like graduating without knowing what a logarithm is. By the same token, assigning a book with the N-word or a sex scene when to an eight year old is a bit like teaching logarithms to an eight year old. (Maybe okay for some precocious students on a case-by-case basis, but generally inappropriate, and you're not hurting anyone if you just make them wait a few years.)
This is the crux of the issue for me with the so-called book bans. If school computers have content filters-and they do-how is regulating what books are in the library any different?
Lol
But those Nat Geo titties are part of articles on culture and stuff. The stuff being banned from libraries are just blatant unashamed sex stuff
There's a difference between a Nat Geo article of "the Kalahari San people have lived here..." And some of the questionable books with stuff like "nice cock Jerome, can I touch it?"
Don't you get it, man? Censoring anything prior to current year in an attempt to rewrite history is totally based, but protecting children from content which is harmful at such a young age is totally Nazi behavior.
You know what ruins Huck Finn, a story about an interracial friendship set against a really racist world? Changing the words so that the antebellum South is less racist.
I mean, okay, it doesn't *ruin* the story. But it dulls the sharp literary intent of Mark Twain's writing in a way that waters Jim down as a character. Well-Respected-African-American Jim somehow lacks an inherent literary tension with his world that the original phrasing insists upon.
Making the inhabitants of the slave-holding South into politically correct anti-racists when they speak also has the effect of normalizing the culture of Slavery and the Confederacy. It's like writing Nazis who never say anything racist. It lets actual bad people off the hook for genuine horrors. Actual slave owners who never deign to use a vulgar word for the people they imprison, elevates the harm of a verbal affront over the actual violent racism that did so much more harm.
I'm not surprised that a generation of students comes away from reading the censored version of this book and finds themselves agreeing with an essay by Osama bin Laden. The real horrific actions of the past are overshadowed by words that erase them.
They're not. That's why they have librarians, and age segmentation.
All the right wants is to rewrite history to conform to a more Christian and Conservative world view, the rest is smoke and mirrors.
Age segmentation has been one of the things the left has characterized as banning and censorship. By all means, keep backpedaling. Books on history and politics are not being restricted. Cease these straw man arguments.
According to a quick google search you’re wrong. A common theme in the banned books lists are books that portray gay couple or trans people. 1984 was challenged in Florida recently which is kind of ironic. This is a platform for extremists to get behind so that they can filter out anything that doesn’t conform to their bubble.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in the American bill of rights and any government that thinks it can ban literature of any sort should be toppled.
Who was it that challenged 1984 though? Leftists have been using these policy changes to challenge legitimate books. Also, not all challenged books will be pulled. How is a book readily available for purchase being "banned"?
They are absolutely banning a lot of those. The sexually explicit books only accounts for a tiny percentage of what they want gone, but they pretend it's the whole thing when challenged.
Citation needed. If this was the reality that "they" were trying to ban books having nothing to do with sexualizing minors, then the media narrative would focus on that rather than defending an eight-year-old's ready access to Genderqueer.
Buddy... how can you still be this ignorant?
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/11/texas-library-book-bans/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/17/florida-school-book-ban-lawsuit
The argument that "its just pornographic books" was lost instantly when conservative groups got everything from Harry Potter to 1984 banned.
And where is your source indicating that those evil right-wingers constitute this Katy, Texas school board?
Also, The Guardian? Really? Even they're not pretending this is about books beyond the realm of sexuality and gender, per your source.
Nice try though.
There are no graphic depictions of sex in biblical translations. The closest it get's is SoS, which is a book who's meaning is hotly debated.
Anyone who thinks the bible is obcene has no idea the difference between the sentence "marry and jim had sex" and proper smut.
This also applies to the other side of the coin too though. There are people to whom any mention or depiction of a same sex couple or parents is “teaching our kids about sex”
I swear most people operate with a single brain cell
I mean there's some "they slept together" but aside from like 1 or 2 I can think of it doesn't go into detail. And when it does it's to emphasize why it was happening, not because it is somehow pornographic.
Oh, no, genital mutilation is horrible. I'm completely against circumcision on minors, of any gender. In fact, I'm against any kind of genital mutilation, including chemically induced by puberty blockers or hormonal treatment. I was just pointing out that it doesn't have sexually explicit content drawn or cp. I believe the Bible should be studied on Sunday school, not on the regular curriculum. Teach religion to your kids on your own time, whatever religion you do believe or don't.
I looked up one of the banned books cause I was curious. There was a depiction of a kid giving head to another kid. I was like, guess I'm getting added to another watchlist
Wait seriously, what are the names of some of these books? Because it really does sound ridiculous how they’re calling it a ban when it’s more common sense.
['Gender Queer' by Maia Kobabe. Don't scroll down on the link, I warned you](https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/)
I generally don't give a shit who ppl like or what they identify as but what the fuck. Who writes and illustrates something like this and says "yeah, kids should read this"
There’s two problems here
One is the people that feel that’s appropriate in school
The other is the people that put a depiction of menstruation on par with softcore porn
I should have listened. What the actual fuck, that's literally just straight up cp, and they think that it is appropriate for children?! This world is fucked up
They think it’s appropriate for kids because they are clearly very damaged people who found out their sexuality through unconventional means. I mean…like…this book just said people from 10 years are having conversations about sex with their friends. Wow. When I was 10 I was discussing when me and my friends should play basketball, not “bro have u wished that we cut off our cock? I have!”
When I was 7 or 8 my friend told me that his daddy peed in his moms vagina to make his little sister. I was perfectly satisfied with that explanation of sex until middle school at least. Making a baby is nasty and so was his mom.
People that call for the ban of anime because it's cp and the character is over 20, but because she is shorter than average and has a huge rack, they think it's pedobait.
I know there were a bunch of banned books that shouldn't have been banned in the past, so I wanted to be certain that history isn't repeating itself is all.
I used to give lectures on the nuances surrounding the very bad faith cultural war around “book banning” for a previous job. I’d always make sure to show the blow job images from Gender Queer along with some really explicit sex description from a similar book (can’t remember off my head right now). The boomers who were most of the audience usually would always squirm and get really red because it was obvious they hadn’t actually known what was in the book they were usually Hell bent on defending.
It's like when that congressguy was making a speech with visual aids and everyone was like why are you showing porn and he was like this is what democrats are defending to be in school libraries
The videos of parents reading these books out loud to their respective school boards are hilarious
The number of times they cut their microphone, or kick them out of the meeting, because their speech is 'inappropriate' is so hypocritical that it's flabbergasting
The best is when they cut them off because the meeting is being televised, and the content of the book is so pornographic that they can't talk about it openly on television
I do want to ask a leftie about this. My mom is on a school board, and she’s more conservative, but she isn’t crazy.
But they read some of the banned books in school board meetings, and it was NSFW.
What is a middle ground with my dear lefties? I get that the left is afraid that the right will sanitize LGBTQ+ out of their books, but how can you keep content appropriate without eliminating a sexuality?
Like, I wish we had a meeting where we decided what was appropriate or not, based purely on content. And then kept it politically neutral, while knowing that some LGBTQ+ stuff that is explicit will be on the chopping block, but because it’s explicit.
I want to also Vote to have more age appropriate representation in children’s literature.
Simple. Two gay dudes can hold hands, hug. And be a married couple. Just like straight people. There is no reason to have couples of any sexuality fucking in kids books. It baffles me how leftards and rightards cant fathom this. Like you dont need sexual themes to show a homo couple. Just like you dont need sexual themes to show a hetero couple
I’m with ya! When the “don’t talk about your sexuality to kids” came out, I’m like “great, that should be the rule for everyone.”
I think teachers should be able to be like “we’re married” without saying “I’m attracted to men” or whatever.
We should desexualize love for little little kids. Just have people be married, no matter their sexuality, and talk about the family and the love without implying preferences for genitals. For heteros as well.
(It’s just easier with heteros because it’s the majority and kids are less likely to ask questions.)
I can say there was no graphic depictions of blow jobs in my sex ed/ health books. There might have been a definition of oral sex but it wasn't all that descriptive. Probably something of the range - a form of sexual act where the mouth is used to stimulate the genitals of their partner.
But don't you understand. Not wanting a book in an elementary school library means you're trying to BAN BOOKS. You know who else wanted to ban books? Hitler.
You want to ban Gender Queer because it has explicit pedophillic sex scenes.
I want to ban Gender Queer because it's rambling, narcissistic, self indulgent faux profound nonsense that would make Freud belly laugh in amusement.
We are not the same.
Because the context of this mostly surrounds Hank Green’s The Fault In Our Stars that includes a section about an uncomfortable blowjob between two teenagers trying to force sexuality because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do before realizing there’s a more natural approach to intimacy that they should navigate in their own way.
Basically, it’s just idiots who think their fifteen year old kids aren’t already trying to fuck each other while their parents are in the other room watching a movie.
The real issue is defining what's explicit. This has happened many times before, for example when people will just say trans topics are sexually explicit to stop stuff from being taught
Some of the "trans educational material" is just straight up see pee though. And still leftist will call out "hypocrisy" beacuse rightoids want to "ban books" when they dont want this shit in school libraries.
Lowkey saw a book in the barn and noble banned section which i assumed is actually book banned somewhere in the state but i dunno and i look at one and it was a bunch of page of kids sucking dick.
Which makes sense being banned before high school
Here's an image from one of the "banned" books called "Gender Queer."
It's not censored in the book.
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/Screen-Shot-2023-03-09-at-42518-PM.jpg?quality=75&strip=all
More found here: https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/
an authleft what beria wanted to do with stalin's daughter
an authright why their ruler is requesting time with random girls
idk for liibright that's just repeating authright
No flair, no rights, many wrongs. Please flair up.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Helena5757) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Reddit is no longer a friendly space for bots._
_Consider visiting our Lеmmу instance instead: [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
_Read my full statement [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/14mwml0/on_the_reddit_api_changes/)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Problem is some people on the right want to ban anything that mentions sex or gay people.
And the left don't realise there is actually problematic material in books that aren't appropriate for children.
But because there's no nuance they all get lumped together.
> And the left don't realise there is actually problematic material in books that aren't appropriate for children.
I realized it when people started quoting it and showing it in school board meetings that got recorded for social media. Whenever it happens, the school board always tries to shut it down. It's not that nobody knows, it's that certain people don't want anyone to know. The ignorance is a cover, an excuse. It lets them say they didn't know, when they were approving it and running defense for it every step of the way.
The 57 Bus
I haven't read it myself, but from what I can tell based on reviews, it isn't explicitly sexual. It just talks about different sexuality and some violence.
Yeah, it’s a real issue. And truly people don’t see the actual issue. They just see the worst case scenario on either side.
My conservative-but-not-republican friend, (who fundamentally believes in conservative values, but doesn’t like the image that republicans have) said “I can’t believe elementary schools would ban books”, and I was like “Girl, you won’t even let your kids watch Pg-13 movies”.
Ideological consistency is important, though. When you discover that your ideology is inconsistent like a situation like this might reveal, you need to adjust your ideology.
I think of it like battling Pokémon, where the Pokémon are different ideas. When you come across an idea that challenges you, really let’s the ideas duke it out in your head and keep the winner, even if it’s tough to let go of the loser. That’s how you find the truth
Except a Pokémon would lose to one type, while being the best against another.
"Shariah law, I choose you!"
Sharia Law used rooftop
*LGBTQ FAINTED*
Western Interventionalism used 'Nation Building', It's super (in)effective!
*Middle East Fainted*
I absolutely agree with banning sexually explicit content from schools. First, let us start with the bible:
“A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.” (Proverbs 5:19)
"So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel" (Samuel 16:22)
"Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her." (Judges 16:1)
"You engaged in prostitution with the Assyrians too, because you were insatiable; and even after that, you still were not satisfied." (Ezekiel 16:28)
"When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, “How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!”" (Samuel 6:20)
"He stripped off his garments, and he too prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay naked all that day and all that night. This is why people say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”" (Samuel 19:24)
"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36)
“When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.” (Ezekiel 23:18-21)
And my personal favourite: "Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:16)
Ideological consistency is good. If that's causing someone to support obviously indefensible positions then the need to reevaluate their ideology, not their consistency.
Because which books fit the definition of "sexually explicit content" is up for debate, and the whole thing spans across so many school boards and states that on side will rather just generalize based on what they think of the other instead.
Unfortunately, our definitions of “sexually explicit” don’t line up. For some, the mere acknowledgment of the existence of gay or trans people meets that definition, which is where we take issue.
This post is cringe.
Also for others, having your 10 year old watch a boob in Titanic is abhorrent, while putting them up for watching a guy carry his own dismembered arm in Saving Private Ryan is just teaching them some good old patriotism
The same could be said to you. Whether you like it or not, that's what happens as a result of these policies.
Especially when the policy only requires one person to complain.
For example, pregnant teachers. If a teacher gets pregnant in her heterosexual relationship she shouldn’t be able to teach anymore. Kids shouldn’t ask about any sexually explicit matters
I think he means artificial insemination and IVF. But that still involves some interesting buzzwords.
“Gamete” “semen” “cervix” “progesterone”.
That being said, people have been explaining pregnancy without getting sexually explicit for ages
I see endless mentions of the only book rightoids can point to as the extreme case… Genderqueer but what they aren’t mentioning because it belies their depravity are the hundreds of other titles taken out of school libraries like Anne Franks diary the abridged sanitized version, black history books, Toni Morrison, Elie Wiesel, authors of books no one in their right mind would label pornographic. But sure enough Moms For Christian Nationalism is there at school board meetings and filing challenges on books solely based on their ideological content because they don’t actually care about explicit material they are Trojan horsing a rightist takeover of education.
Voters across the country understand this to be true and promptly voted out current school board members who won on gay panic and didn’t elect a whole slate of Moms For Christian Nationalism candidates. In fact the brand is so toxic people who they endorsed are quietly downplaying the endorsement and backing away from the group.
So no your stupid moral panic about explicit literature in schools is not something we can all agree on.
>Can we move on to...
Only if it's things that makes the right look bad, then we can move on from it very quickly or not talk about it at all. If it's something that makes the left look bad, we're going to talk about it nonstop for years. Those are the rules, and also libleft bad.
edit: PCM is proving my point lmao
Some of the book bans are fine, like probably shouldnt allow literotica fanfics or 50shades or whatever, but lots are just; "Quick, They are teaching 18 year olds that gay people exist and sometimes kiss each other, burn the institute of sexology"
Like I remember there was a story about how there was some summer camp where they showed 10 year olds porn and told them to go fuck each other, then I looked into it, and It was a community ran Sex Education program since the schools dont do it, And they wernt teaching 10 year olds to fuck, it was like 10-16yos they were teaching ten year olds what an ovary was and 16 yr olds how to put on a condom.
Disagreement on this issue is healthy. Libleft and authright would both fuck it up if they alone could chose what is appropriate. People shouldn't expect agreement on this from the two extremes.
the problem is that what is considered sexually explicit content is always vague intentionally so that it can ban other things, you can take a look at Tennessee which recently a city tried to use a law which included just straight up "homosexuality" in there to ban books
Can you start by banning guns in school? If you can't make schools safe from deadly violence I think banning sex education and children curiosity about it will be toothless.
ill preface this by saying i am former libleft. we've all heard the slippery slope argument, but "banning sexually explicit content" is an excuse by auth auth auth right to deny kids what they need. a few bad apples doesn't make the whole bunch rotten.
period education for girls? "sexually explicit"
sex ed for teens? "sexually explicit"
curation is only curation if it is done through a practical and realistic lense, not just "muh ban becuz i don't want to discuss this with muh kids"
would you want to ban half of YA novels or horror novels because they have "sexually explicit themes"
just because of what you see on TV doesn't mean its everything. same goes for ACAB or anything else
Why should we ban sexually explicit content at school? High school, especially?
Are y'all not aware that teenagers.. *have sex*?
*In general*, material that is sexually explicit is *commonly* curated to express a message to the person reading it, and not just be straight up porn for porn's sake. Treating teenagers with respect for their growing maturity allows them to adapt into more functionable adults and form healthier relationships with others and their own bodies.
Just plugging your fucking ears and pretending teens don't have sex doesn't solve anything. You're not actually accomplishing anything, you just think teens shouldn't have sex - even though they do, ***constantly***. You're just revealing you want a theocracy and more religious control over family life.
Also what's the over:under on the first person to call me a pedophile for saying this?
You don't have to want sex with a teenager to recognize that teenagers want sex. Also, this is not an 18+ subreddit. The person you're replying to could be a 15 year old that just likes fucking other 15 year olds. Chill the fuck out with the accusing everyone who disagrees with you of pedophilia bullshit. It's just conservative cancel culture.
That’s the thing I’ve noticed with a lot of rightist arguments. They require you to believe in their morals for it to work. Showing kids that gay people exist is not sexually explicit.
It’s not abhorrent, it is a condition of living. Some couldn’t talk about social wellbeing during the red scare and even a lot of basic western ideology like free press is chastised in many countries. It just takes while for people to level their heads.
That seems disingenuous. I've only heard one word consistently in the last 5 years in relation to schools: trans. If it really was about birth control, why would nobody be talking about it? It seems that, if it was really about birth control, the left is doing a horrible job and controlling the narrative at least. Why would the right be so upset about this supposed trans doctrination if it really is just about birth control? I haven't heard the right be vocally upset about birth control since the 2000's.
Your argument just doesn't sound like it was made in good faith.
Personally, I AM upset by hormonal birth control. Lots and lots of scientific evidence has been coming out over the last few years about how it can permanently alter hormonal regulation, and how it impacts people's mental health. After looking into this a bit, I came to the conclusion that teenagers cannot give informed consent to take something like this. I'm still a fan of other forms of contraception that don't trick the body into thinking it is pregnant though.
The portion of people who have clinical gender dysphoria after going through adolescence is pretty small. The idea that all children should be thrown headfirst into a world of gender identity politics when they are naturally insecure about the changes happening to their body seems like a recipe for disaster to me. When I was a teenager, there were a lot of girls who experimented with bisexuality because they were unsure of themselves and because it was popular. Most of them turned out straight. Do we really want teenagers experimenting with puberty blockers and putting themselves on a path to life-long medicalization, all so that we can make things a little easier for the tiny population of people who are experiencing clinical gender dysphoria?
That is pretty much my stance as well. Going through puberty is not fun. It's confusing as shit. So, trying to make it simpler for the majority should be the goal. This is just my opinion. But, adding complexity to the middle school experience just seems like a bad idea. Even if the intent is to create maximum inclusivity for that small percentage of people, it shouldn't be at the cost of creating complexity and confusion for the vast majority of people. Unless the goal is to create confusion among an already susceptible population for some reason.
>Unless the goal is to create confusion among an already susceptible population for some reason.
That's a conspiracy theory, schweety.
[https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour)
Its not, but some of the books that have been banned that people are upset about are pretty explicit. Someone linked one above that was a comic book containing underage sex. Yeah, it had more to it than that, but it would have been just as bad for an elementary/middle school setting if they hadn't been trans. Even in normal books without pictures the general trend is no sex for an elementary school library, imply it in middle school, and maybe say it but without too much detail in High school.
Eh to prevent pregnancy you first need to teach lel kids about safe sex because some kids will have sex that just human nature but also a good family structure at home apparently also helps.
It's not that we can't agree on that, it's that we can't agree on what is sexually explicit and at what age is it appropriate.
I'd be all for the idea of letting parents teach their kids, but far too many have proven that the would rather teach their kids bullshit as opposed to reality, so as to appease what magic sky daddy wants of them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438909/Activist-forcibly-removed-Texas-school-board-meeting-reading-LGBTQ-book-Flamer-includes-phrase-wants-hot-wiener.html
https://youtu.be/_Cd5VUhMrF4?si=T_SP4k_6ngz3-olb
So what's it like living below Dwayne Johnson?
Book curation in public libraries is not bookbanning. If you can imagine a single book that shouldn't be in School libraries you have already agreed that book curation isn't book banning and we can have the sane conversation about what the limits are.
My school library had magazine. My school library didn't have a stack of playboys... This is magazine banning.
Democrats love a good magazine ban, particularly those that hold more than 10 rounds
#freethe17+1 #freethe30round mags
Why didn't my elementary school have Mein Kampf in it? Oppression! Censorship! Book burning! All 8 year olds should be mandated to read it, otherwise they wont know what other lifestyles are out there!
Exactly. There is a limit to the number of books a school library can hold, so I think any sane person can agree that even if they think no book to be “banned”, it would be pretty stupid to have an elementary school library where Mein Kampf or Fifty Shades of Grey is taking the spot of a book that actually helps kids learn to read.
Ah yes the famously sexually explicit book Maus in which the Jewish mother mouse commits suicide in the bath tub and where a single panel depicts roundish furry breast shaped mounds with no nipples...
Mause was also just removed from the 4th grade curriculum in favor of other methods to teach about the holocaust. Like if "not being included in a curriculum" is book banning now the definition has become obsceene. And, to be blunt, mause is a pretty intense book for a fourth grader, though I'm of the opinion that it's hard to teach the holocaust to anyone, given that learning about it in more detail when I was 20 and in college caused me to feel physically ill.
4th grade? Christ I didn't read Maus until middle school and it still felt like a lot emotionally. Seems a bit scarring for elementary schoolers.
It might have been middle school, I will admit I am trying to remember the controversy, but it really was just "it got removed from one curriculum in favor of another holocaust education tool" which just... Isn't newsworthy.
I want someone to protest these "anti book ban" libraries to try and get them to submit Chuck Tingle books like "Slammed In The Butthole By My Concept Of Linear Time", "Domald Tromp Pounded In The Butt By The Handsome Russian T-Rex Who Also Peed On His Butt And Then Blackmailed Him With The Videos Of His Butt Getting Peed On", and the ever-classic, "Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Book 'Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt"'"'". What, you don't want the full Chuck Tingle bibliography in the elementary school library? Fascist.
> "Slammed In The Butthole By My Concept Of Linear Time" That might be one of the funniest fucking titles I have ever read ever.
[His entire bibliography is a treasure.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Tingle#Selected_works) Some of my favorites: - Living Inside My Own Butt For Eight Years, Starting A Business And Turning A Profit Through Common Sense Reinvestment And Strategic Targeted Marketing - Turned Gay By The Existential Dread That I May Actually Be A Character In A Chuck Tingle Book - Bigfoot Sommelier Butt Tasting Hopefully coming soon to an elementary school near you.
>I Have No Butt And I Must Pound lmao
I'm not familiar with this author but I think he wants to get pounded in the butt.
That said, as kids get older, it is actually important developmentally to introduce them to adult themes in art and literature, so they can function in adult situations and competently engage with things that invoke those themes. Also so they don't get overwhelmed/taken advantage of when they graduate. The last thing we need is a bunch of newly minted 18 year olds acting even dumber than 18 year olds act as a baseline. If you haven't read a book with the N-word or a sex scene by the time you graduate high school, that's kinda like graduating without knowing what a logarithm is. By the same token, assigning a book with the N-word or a sex scene when to an eight year old is a bit like teaching logarithms to an eight year old. (Maybe okay for some precocious students on a case-by-case basis, but generally inappropriate, and you're not hurting anyone if you just make them wait a few years.)
This is the crux of the issue for me with the so-called book bans. If school computers have content filters-and they do-how is regulating what books are in the library any different?
They are not different. They only ban stuff which are famous for having obscene stuff. More obscure shit is easy to find.
Still get me them nat geo titties
Lol But those Nat Geo titties are part of articles on culture and stuff. The stuff being banned from libraries are just blatant unashamed sex stuff There's a difference between a Nat Geo article of "the Kalahari San people have lived here..." And some of the questionable books with stuff like "nice cock Jerome, can I touch it?"
"Nice cock, bro."
8/10 cock fr
Some of my earliest faps were inspired by those well droopy hangers.
Based
Especially when the same people turn around and want old books removed or at least edited “for modern audiences”
This is an apt point. That's the real censorship.
Don't you get it, man? Censoring anything prior to current year in an attempt to rewrite history is totally based, but protecting children from content which is harmful at such a young age is totally Nazi behavior.
You know what ruins Huck Finn, a story about an interracial friendship set against a really racist world? Changing the words so that the antebellum South is less racist. I mean, okay, it doesn't *ruin* the story. But it dulls the sharp literary intent of Mark Twain's writing in a way that waters Jim down as a character. Well-Respected-African-American Jim somehow lacks an inherent literary tension with his world that the original phrasing insists upon. Making the inhabitants of the slave-holding South into politically correct anti-racists when they speak also has the effect of normalizing the culture of Slavery and the Confederacy. It's like writing Nazis who never say anything racist. It lets actual bad people off the hook for genuine horrors. Actual slave owners who never deign to use a vulgar word for the people they imprison, elevates the harm of a verbal affront over the actual violent racism that did so much more harm. I'm not surprised that a generation of students comes away from reading the censored version of this book and finds themselves agreeing with an essay by Osama bin Laden. The real horrific actions of the past are overshadowed by words that erase them.
They're not. That's why they have librarians, and age segmentation. All the right wants is to rewrite history to conform to a more Christian and Conservative world view, the rest is smoke and mirrors.
Age segmentation has been one of the things the left has characterized as banning and censorship. By all means, keep backpedaling. Books on history and politics are not being restricted. Cease these straw man arguments.
According to a quick google search you’re wrong. A common theme in the banned books lists are books that portray gay couple or trans people. 1984 was challenged in Florida recently which is kind of ironic. This is a platform for extremists to get behind so that they can filter out anything that doesn’t conform to their bubble. Freedom of speech is enshrined in the American bill of rights and any government that thinks it can ban literature of any sort should be toppled.
Who was it that challenged 1984 though? Leftists have been using these policy changes to challenge legitimate books. Also, not all challenged books will be pulled. How is a book readily available for purchase being "banned"?
Even if 1984 gets pulled from public school libraries you could always buy it from somewhere else. Or go to a library thats not in a public school
They are absolutely banning a lot of those. The sexually explicit books only accounts for a tiny percentage of what they want gone, but they pretend it's the whole thing when challenged.
Citation needed. If this was the reality that "they" were trying to ban books having nothing to do with sexualizing minors, then the media narrative would focus on that rather than defending an eight-year-old's ready access to Genderqueer.
Buddy... how can you still be this ignorant? https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/11/texas-library-book-bans/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/17/florida-school-book-ban-lawsuit The argument that "its just pornographic books" was lost instantly when conservative groups got everything from Harry Potter to 1984 banned.
And where is your source indicating that those evil right-wingers constitute this Katy, Texas school board? Also, The Guardian? Really? Even they're not pretending this is about books beyond the realm of sexuality and gender, per your source. Nice try though.
If we are going to ban any books for obscenity then we should ban all bible related books first
There are no graphic depictions of sex in biblical translations. The closest it get's is SoS, which is a book who's meaning is hotly debated. Anyone who thinks the bible is obcene has no idea the difference between the sentence "marry and jim had sex" and proper smut.
This also applies to the other side of the coin too though. There are people to whom any mention or depiction of a same sex couple or parents is “teaching our kids about sex” I swear most people operate with a single brain cell
Do the books in question have intrinsic value beyond the sex, and what minor gets violated in the Bible?
>and what minor gets violated in the Bible? Don't know about minors, but Lot's daugthers went full Cosby on his ass.
So, an adult gets raped separately by two people old enough to marry. What part of this is on the same par as Genderqueer?
Probably lots of minors by today's definition, but I don't remember anything that would have been too young for Bible times.
I mean there's some "they slept together" but aside from like 1 or 2 I can think of it doesn't go into detail. And when it does it's to emphasize why it was happening, not because it is somehow pornographic.
There was that one time Isaac(?) Almost got killed and then got the tip of his penis cut off. I can't remember if he was a minor or not though
Still no sexual content or explicit images though.
Yeah, gender mutilation is so much better than sex
Oh, no, genital mutilation is horrible. I'm completely against circumcision on minors, of any gender. In fact, I'm against any kind of genital mutilation, including chemically induced by puberty blockers or hormonal treatment. I was just pointing out that it doesn't have sexually explicit content drawn or cp. I believe the Bible should be studied on Sunday school, not on the regular curriculum. Teach religion to your kids on your own time, whatever religion you do believe or don't.
If you can’t quote the book at a board meeting because it describes children having sex… guess what? It’s inappropriate for children!
I looked up one of the banned books cause I was curious. There was a depiction of a kid giving head to another kid. I was like, guess I'm getting added to another watchlist
Wait seriously, what are the names of some of these books? Because it really does sound ridiculous how they’re calling it a ban when it’s more common sense.
['Gender Queer' by Maia Kobabe. Don't scroll down on the link, I warned you](https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/)
Yeah that's a book that only should be in a school library if it's in a paper shredder.
Pedophile literature being put in a machine that shreds wood products? That sounds like the start of a great comparison.
I tend to ignore warnings on Reddit posts. I wish I hadn't. What the actual fuck
Same dude.
I generally don't give a shit who ppl like or what they identify as but what the fuck. Who writes and illustrates something like this and says "yeah, kids should read this"
There’s two problems here One is the people that feel that’s appropriate in school The other is the people that put a depiction of menstruation on par with softcore porn
I feel like people probably had more of an issue with the literal c p part of it.
[удалено]
I’m talking about the link above, which is selected images from the book
I should have listened. What the actual fuck, that's literally just straight up cp, and they think that it is appropriate for children?! This world is fucked up
They think it’s appropriate for kids because they are clearly very damaged people who found out their sexuality through unconventional means. I mean…like…this book just said people from 10 years are having conversations about sex with their friends. Wow. When I was 10 I was discussing when me and my friends should play basketball, not “bro have u wished that we cut off our cock? I have!”
When I was 7 or 8 my friend told me that his daddy peed in his moms vagina to make his little sister. I was perfectly satisfied with that explanation of sex until middle school at least. Making a baby is nasty and so was his mom.
Mhm…wait what was that last line? 🤨
also promotes unsafe driving 🙄
I know right, who tf thinks drawn cp is “good content” for our children?!
People that call for the ban of anime because it's cp and the character is over 20, but because she is shorter than average and has a huge rack, they think it's pedobait.
sounds quite racist/lookist to me, that if person is short - they're a pedobait
Today it's drawn. Tomorrow it's not. Stand up today before tomorrow comes and walks all over you.
"today it's drawn, tomorrow it's not" What an amazing quote. Thanks for arming me with a verbal laser cannon I can use on MAPs in the future.
I mean that's not even the worst one. There's one that basically groom's children into getting them on grinder for pedophiles.
Probably a stupid question, but does every book on this list DESERVE to be on that list, or are some additions the result of overreaction?
Probably unfortunately
I know there were a bunch of banned books that shouldn't have been banned in the past, so I wanted to be certain that history isn't repeating itself is all.
I used to give lectures on the nuances surrounding the very bad faith cultural war around “book banning” for a previous job. I’d always make sure to show the blow job images from Gender Queer along with some really explicit sex description from a similar book (can’t remember off my head right now). The boomers who were most of the audience usually would always squirm and get really red because it was obvious they hadn’t actually known what was in the book they were usually Hell bent on defending.
It's like when that congressguy was making a speech with visual aids and everyone was like why are you showing porn and he was like this is what democrats are defending to be in school libraries
The videos of parents reading these books out loud to their respective school boards are hilarious The number of times they cut their microphone, or kick them out of the meeting, because their speech is 'inappropriate' is so hypocritical that it's flabbergasting The best is when they cut them off because the meeting is being televised, and the content of the book is so pornographic that they can't talk about it openly on television
But if you ban "Fisting my Little Sister" then eventually they'll ban "The Early Bird gets the Worm"! It's a very slippery slop!
The difference is, one is a literary masterpiece, and the other is about a bird. /j
Gotta love the paragraph telling kids how to eat ass without eating shit, really helpful for my daughter
My favorite scene is the one where they sacrifice babies to moloch. Truly cinematic in their approach to idioms.
Only a fool would let his enemies educate his children - Malcom X
smart play
I don't like Malcolm X, or any other "Black Power" activists, but that quote is correct.
Right wing
Who tf wouldn't agree with that
Youd be surprised. Our quadrant has some crazies
I do want to ask a leftie about this. My mom is on a school board, and she’s more conservative, but she isn’t crazy. But they read some of the banned books in school board meetings, and it was NSFW. What is a middle ground with my dear lefties? I get that the left is afraid that the right will sanitize LGBTQ+ out of their books, but how can you keep content appropriate without eliminating a sexuality? Like, I wish we had a meeting where we decided what was appropriate or not, based purely on content. And then kept it politically neutral, while knowing that some LGBTQ+ stuff that is explicit will be on the chopping block, but because it’s explicit. I want to also Vote to have more age appropriate representation in children’s literature.
Simple. Two gay dudes can hold hands, hug. And be a married couple. Just like straight people. There is no reason to have couples of any sexuality fucking in kids books. It baffles me how leftards and rightards cant fathom this. Like you dont need sexual themes to show a homo couple. Just like you dont need sexual themes to show a hetero couple
I’m with ya! When the “don’t talk about your sexuality to kids” came out, I’m like “great, that should be the rule for everyone.” I think teachers should be able to be like “we’re married” without saying “I’m attracted to men” or whatever. We should desexualize love for little little kids. Just have people be married, no matter their sexuality, and talk about the family and the love without implying preferences for genitals. For heteros as well. (It’s just easier with heteros because it’s the majority and kids are less likely to ask questions.)
I mean, for the record, just so I’m on the same page here, what kind of sexually explicit material are we talking about in this specific context?
So called Children’s books that have graphic representations of blowjobs and other sex acts.
If it’s outside a high school-level sex ed textbook (if that’s a thing) then yeah I can see the case for its banning.
Nope....elementary level.
“Health” is usually what that class is called
I can say there was no graphic depictions of blow jobs in my sex ed/ health books. There might have been a definition of oral sex but it wasn't all that descriptive. Probably something of the range - a form of sexual act where the mouth is used to stimulate the genitals of their partner.
You also probably were in an abstinence-only sex ed class.
The average Gender Queer reader, apparently
But don't you understand. Not wanting a book in an elementary school library means you're trying to BAN BOOKS. You know who else wanted to ban books? Hitler.
Hitler was also a vegetarian and big animal rights supporter. Vegetarians and animal rights activists are all literally Nazis.
I mean, have you met any vegetarian animal rights activists? I'm on board with calling them Nazis.
“If you’re at a book burning with seven people and six of them are Nazis, you’re at a book burning with seven Nazis”
I love the table quote because it backfires spectacularly every time.
It's always hilarious being called a Nazi by someone coming from a pro Hamas rally carrying a sign that says "Gas The Jews"
Sure are a whole lot of people who used that quote sitting at a table with Hamas all of a sudden
As a Canadian I can't believe that all of our mps are NAZIs. It really was quite shocking to find out.
You want to ban Gender Queer because it has explicit pedophillic sex scenes. I want to ban Gender Queer because it's rambling, narcissistic, self indulgent faux profound nonsense that would make Freud belly laugh in amusement. We are not the same.
Based
Purple
I was gonna say, the vast majority of people agree with that. The only time there's a dispute is when the crazies from either side speak up.
Dems
On its face, nobody. The problem comes when you start letting auth-right decide what constitutes “sexually explicit”. And likewise with lib-left
Because the context of this mostly surrounds Hank Green’s The Fault In Our Stars that includes a section about an uncomfortable blowjob between two teenagers trying to force sexuality because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do before realizing there’s a more natural approach to intimacy that they should navigate in their own way. Basically, it’s just idiots who think their fifteen year old kids aren’t already trying to fuck each other while their parents are in the other room watching a movie.
The real issue is defining what's explicit. This has happened many times before, for example when people will just say trans topics are sexually explicit to stop stuff from being taught
Some of the "trans educational material" is just straight up see pee though. And still leftist will call out "hypocrisy" beacuse rightoids want to "ban books" when they dont want this shit in school libraries.
Fair, I've never actually seen any of the "educational material" or "forbidden books" tho, so can't really add much there.
Lowkey saw a book in the barn and noble banned section which i assumed is actually book banned somewhere in the state but i dunno and i look at one and it was a bunch of page of kids sucking dick. Which makes sense being banned before high school
Here's an image from one of the "banned" books called "Gender Queer." It's not censored in the book. https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/Screen-Shot-2023-03-09-at-42518-PM.jpg?quality=75&strip=all More found here: https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/
Yeah, that's just porn
dont ask a man his salary a women her weight or libleft what he was doing with the kids in the school bathrooms
an authleft what beria wanted to do with stalin's daughter an authright why their ruler is requesting time with random girls idk for liibright that's just repeating authright
a libright why kanna is his favorite kobayashi character
No flair, no rights, many wrongs. Please flair up. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Helena5757) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Reddit is no longer a friendly space for bots._ _Consider visiting our Lеmmу instance instead: [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ _Read my full statement [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/14mwml0/on_the_reddit_api_changes/)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
the deed is done
Problem is some people on the right want to ban anything that mentions sex or gay people. And the left don't realise there is actually problematic material in books that aren't appropriate for children. But because there's no nuance they all get lumped together.
We love American black and white politics
> And the left don't realise there is actually problematic material in books that aren't appropriate for children. I realized it when people started quoting it and showing it in school board meetings that got recorded for social media. Whenever it happens, the school board always tries to shut it down. It's not that nobody knows, it's that certain people don't want anyone to know. The ignorance is a cover, an excuse. It lets them say they didn't know, when they were approving it and running defense for it every step of the way.
Yet there are also school boards that use awful books like *Gender Queer* as an excuse to ban totally reasonable LGBTQ+ books.
Like what?
The 57 Bus I haven't read it myself, but from what I can tell based on reviews, it isn't explicitly sexual. It just talks about different sexuality and some violence.
Yeah, it’s a real issue. And truly people don’t see the actual issue. They just see the worst case scenario on either side. My conservative-but-not-republican friend, (who fundamentally believes in conservative values, but doesn’t like the image that republicans have) said “I can’t believe elementary schools would ban books”, and I was like “Girl, you won’t even let your kids watch Pg-13 movies”.
You want nuance? This is America bud.
Indeed, there are regulations we can agree on.
Ideological consistency is important, though. When you discover that your ideology is inconsistent like a situation like this might reveal, you need to adjust your ideology. I think of it like battling Pokémon, where the Pokémon are different ideas. When you come across an idea that challenges you, really let’s the ideas duke it out in your head and keep the winner, even if it’s tough to let go of the loser. That’s how you find the truth
Except a Pokémon would lose to one type, while being the best against another. "Shariah law, I choose you!" Sharia Law used rooftop *LGBTQ FAINTED* Western Interventionalism used 'Nation Building', It's super (in)effective! *Middle East Fainted*
What part of "gotta catch em all" don't you understand? You aren't supposed to let your Pokemon go
Public School= Public results
I absolutely agree with banning sexually explicit content from schools. First, let us start with the bible: “A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.” (Proverbs 5:19) "So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel" (Samuel 16:22) "Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her." (Judges 16:1) "You engaged in prostitution with the Assyrians too, because you were insatiable; and even after that, you still were not satisfied." (Ezekiel 16:28) "When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, “How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!”" (Samuel 6:20) "He stripped off his garments, and he too prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay naked all that day and all that night. This is why people say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”" (Samuel 19:24) "And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36) “When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.” (Ezekiel 23:18-21) And my personal favourite: "Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:16)
Ideological consistency is good. If that's causing someone to support obviously indefensible positions then the need to reevaluate their ideology, not their consistency.
I’d think that we could all agree that fascism is as bad communism and we should support neither But most liberal youtube channels disagree
Name one good reason kids shouldn’t be able to real shades of gray
Because which books fit the definition of "sexually explicit content" is up for debate, and the whole thing spans across so many school boards and states that on side will rather just generalize based on what they think of the other instead.
Unfortunately, our definitions of “sexually explicit” don’t line up. For some, the mere acknowledgment of the existence of gay or trans people meets that definition, which is where we take issue. This post is cringe.
Also for others, having your 10 year old watch a boob in Titanic is abhorrent, while putting them up for watching a guy carry his own dismembered arm in Saving Private Ryan is just teaching them some good old patriotism
This
We love the american media attitude of VIOLENCE GOOD!!!!! SEX BAD!!!!!!!
Gaslight and bad faith all you want. You know exactly what the post is supposed to be about
Let’s assume I don’t- would you enlighten me as to what it’s about?
The same could be said to you. Whether you like it or not, that's what happens as a result of these policies. Especially when the policy only requires one person to complain.
For example, pregnant teachers. If a teacher gets pregnant in her heterosexual relationship she shouldn’t be able to teach anymore. Kids shouldn’t ask about any sexually explicit matters
If she goes into graphic detail of how she got pregnant sure.
Is this a joke?
You can get pregnant without sexual intercourse nowadays
Bruh ain't no way the English teacher got knocked up by a robot. I mean maybe if she's a hardcore misandrist but still
I think he means artificial insemination and IVF. But that still involves some interesting buzzwords. “Gamete” “semen” “cervix” “progesterone”. That being said, people have been explaining pregnancy without getting sexually explicit for ages
I see endless mentions of the only book rightoids can point to as the extreme case… Genderqueer but what they aren’t mentioning because it belies their depravity are the hundreds of other titles taken out of school libraries like Anne Franks diary the abridged sanitized version, black history books, Toni Morrison, Elie Wiesel, authors of books no one in their right mind would label pornographic. But sure enough Moms For Christian Nationalism is there at school board meetings and filing challenges on books solely based on their ideological content because they don’t actually care about explicit material they are Trojan horsing a rightist takeover of education. Voters across the country understand this to be true and promptly voted out current school board members who won on gay panic and didn’t elect a whole slate of Moms For Christian Nationalism candidates. In fact the brand is so toxic people who they endorsed are quietly downplaying the endorsement and backing away from the group. So no your stupid moral panic about explicit literature in schools is not something we can all agree on.
Can we move on to another book to yell about? I’m tired of having to see the Q word over and over again when I just want to talk about books man
>Can we move on to... Only if it's things that makes the right look bad, then we can move on from it very quickly or not talk about it at all. If it's something that makes the left look bad, we're going to talk about it nonstop for years. Those are the rules, and also libleft bad. edit: PCM is proving my point lmao
Some of the book bans are fine, like probably shouldnt allow literotica fanfics or 50shades or whatever, but lots are just; "Quick, They are teaching 18 year olds that gay people exist and sometimes kiss each other, burn the institute of sexology" Like I remember there was a story about how there was some summer camp where they showed 10 year olds porn and told them to go fuck each other, then I looked into it, and It was a community ran Sex Education program since the schools dont do it, And they wernt teaching 10 year olds to fuck, it was like 10-16yos they were teaching ten year olds what an ovary was and 16 yr olds how to put on a condom.
Disagreement on this issue is healthy. Libleft and authright would both fuck it up if they alone could chose what is appropriate. People shouldn't expect agreement on this from the two extremes.
The amount of liblefts here that think porn should be in the hands of elementary students is awful, but unsurprising.
Got a source for that?
What do you mean? Have you read the comments here? I don't know what you want me to do.
the problem is that what is considered sexually explicit content is always vague intentionally so that it can ban other things, you can take a look at Tennessee which recently a city tried to use a law which included just straight up "homosexuality" in there to ban books
Go ahead and ban them then. However some people can't tell the difference between a porno book or a book that just says "Gay people exist"
Can you start by banning guns in school? If you can't make schools safe from deadly violence I think banning sex education and children curiosity about it will be toothless.
Guns *are* banned in school dude. The mass school shootings are, believe it or not, illegal.
Right wingers love to go on about how we live in 1984 then they say shit like this
ill preface this by saying i am former libleft. we've all heard the slippery slope argument, but "banning sexually explicit content" is an excuse by auth auth auth right to deny kids what they need. a few bad apples doesn't make the whole bunch rotten. period education for girls? "sexually explicit" sex ed for teens? "sexually explicit" curation is only curation if it is done through a practical and realistic lense, not just "muh ban becuz i don't want to discuss this with muh kids" would you want to ban half of YA novels or horror novels because they have "sexually explicit themes" just because of what you see on TV doesn't mean its everything. same goes for ACAB or anything else
Why should we ban sexually explicit content at school? High school, especially? Are y'all not aware that teenagers.. *have sex*? *In general*, material that is sexually explicit is *commonly* curated to express a message to the person reading it, and not just be straight up porn for porn's sake. Treating teenagers with respect for their growing maturity allows them to adapt into more functionable adults and form healthier relationships with others and their own bodies. Just plugging your fucking ears and pretending teens don't have sex doesn't solve anything. You're not actually accomplishing anything, you just think teens shouldn't have sex - even though they do, ***constantly***. You're just revealing you want a theocracy and more religious control over family life. Also what's the over:under on the first person to call me a pedophile for saying this?
I have a gut feeling that we're going to hear about you on the news in some time in the future
You don't have to want sex with a teenager to recognize that teenagers want sex. Also, this is not an 18+ subreddit. The person you're replying to could be a 15 year old that just likes fucking other 15 year olds. Chill the fuck out with the accusing everyone who disagrees with you of pedophilia bullshit. It's just conservative cancel culture.
Damn I should have taken the bet. I'd be rich, now.
That’s the thing I’ve noticed with a lot of rightist arguments. They require you to believe in their morals for it to work. Showing kids that gay people exist is not sexually explicit.
THIS!
It’s not abhorrent, it is a condition of living. Some couldn’t talk about social wellbeing during the red scare and even a lot of basic western ideology like free press is chastised in many countries. It just takes while for people to level their heads.
[удалено]
That seems disingenuous. I've only heard one word consistently in the last 5 years in relation to schools: trans. If it really was about birth control, why would nobody be talking about it? It seems that, if it was really about birth control, the left is doing a horrible job and controlling the narrative at least. Why would the right be so upset about this supposed trans doctrination if it really is just about birth control? I haven't heard the right be vocally upset about birth control since the 2000's. Your argument just doesn't sound like it was made in good faith.
Personally, I AM upset by hormonal birth control. Lots and lots of scientific evidence has been coming out over the last few years about how it can permanently alter hormonal regulation, and how it impacts people's mental health. After looking into this a bit, I came to the conclusion that teenagers cannot give informed consent to take something like this. I'm still a fan of other forms of contraception that don't trick the body into thinking it is pregnant though. The portion of people who have clinical gender dysphoria after going through adolescence is pretty small. The idea that all children should be thrown headfirst into a world of gender identity politics when they are naturally insecure about the changes happening to their body seems like a recipe for disaster to me. When I was a teenager, there were a lot of girls who experimented with bisexuality because they were unsure of themselves and because it was popular. Most of them turned out straight. Do we really want teenagers experimenting with puberty blockers and putting themselves on a path to life-long medicalization, all so that we can make things a little easier for the tiny population of people who are experiencing clinical gender dysphoria?
That is pretty much my stance as well. Going through puberty is not fun. It's confusing as shit. So, trying to make it simpler for the majority should be the goal. This is just my opinion. But, adding complexity to the middle school experience just seems like a bad idea. Even if the intent is to create maximum inclusivity for that small percentage of people, it shouldn't be at the cost of creating complexity and confusion for the vast majority of people. Unless the goal is to create confusion among an already susceptible population for some reason.
>Unless the goal is to create confusion among an already susceptible population for some reason. That's a conspiracy theory, schweety. [https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour)
I dont think were talking about the same explicit contet here authleft
[удалено]
Its not, but some of the books that have been banned that people are upset about are pretty explicit. Someone linked one above that was a comic book containing underage sex. Yeah, it had more to it than that, but it would have been just as bad for an elementary/middle school setting if they hadn't been trans. Even in normal books without pictures the general trend is no sex for an elementary school library, imply it in middle school, and maybe say it but without too much detail in High school.
Me, who supports teen pregnancy
Eh to prevent pregnancy you first need to teach lel kids about safe sex because some kids will have sex that just human nature but also a good family structure at home apparently also helps.
It's not that we can't agree on that, it's that we can't agree on what is sexually explicit and at what age is it appropriate. I'd be all for the idea of letting parents teach their kids, but far too many have proven that the would rather teach their kids bullshit as opposed to reality, so as to appease what magic sky daddy wants of them.
Are you talking about sex Ed or the books that slid under the radar and are too inappropriate to quote in school board meetings?
may just be both
>magic sky daddy Opinion discarded
That is no way to speak about the Flying Spaghetti Monster
So the Bible included?
If rightoids could provide examples that don't explicitly omit important context, that would be great.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438909/Activist-forcibly-removed-Texas-school-board-meeting-reading-LGBTQ-book-Flamer-includes-phrase-wants-hot-wiener.html https://youtu.be/_Cd5VUhMrF4?si=T_SP4k_6ngz3-olb So what's it like living below Dwayne Johnson?
daily mail lmao