Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself to be very liberal and am an avid reader who thinks all books should be available. I don't generally worry about what my kids are reading, I'm happy they are reading and being exposed to many viewpoints. I've read Lawn Boy and have zero issue with it being included in a school library. The graphic novel Gender Queer does give me pause. Seeing detailed pictures of blow jobs prompts a different reaction for me than reading about the same thing. There is more escape when it is words and you supply your own imagination to make the picture. It's also easier to skim through or ignore if it's triggering for you. But seeing the oral sex happening on the page feels different and I can understand why parents would prefer this be available in a public library, but not in their school's library.

What’s refreshingly reasonable response. Quite different from the erroneous screams of “pedophilia!” And “pornography!” I agree that comic books / graphic novels are different in terms of visual literacy. The question is whether the book has merit on its own despite the potentially problematic frame. Professional school librarians who make these difficult choices decided for whatever reason that there was a need within their school community for a comic book style treatment of a non-binary teen. A reasonable committee of teachers, parents, students, and others can assess the book and see if they agree or if the book, on the whole, would be better as a voice in the public library only. Screams of “filth” and “smut” are a ridiculous outsized reaction to a book that sensitively portrays a person’s feelings toward their body, gender expression, relationships, hopes, and dreams. No trainable person reading either could conclude that they are porn or promotion of anything, from sex to gender identity to sexual orientation. They are heartfelt stories. Maybe one doesn’t belong. Maybe it does. But a reasonable person like you could email a principal or librarian and say, “I was concerned about a book in your collection so I read it in it’s entirety. I am concerned that the illustration on page 76 is unsuitable for a high school library. I would like to request that the title be reconsidered.”

That would trigger a committee’s review and the book might be removed. But THIS….this was a circus deigned to make people start freaking out that, “Democrats on the School Board are buying porn and books with pedophilia for school libraries rather than building new schools or teaching cursive!” Just look at the reactions here from people who haven’t even read the books. It’s a crazed witch hunt.

*reasonable, not trainable

Fully agree.

Also agree. FCPS HS Librarians order 1,000+ books every year. They rely on professional journal sources as they cannot read all of them (although they do read a lot!). I’m a school librarian. I’ve had parents challenge books before and it ran through the established process. No hard feelings there—there is an established process for a reason. I’ve also had parents tell kids to return a book they thought was inappropriate. More often than not, kids actually are pretty good at self-censoring and will put down a book they find inappropriate based on their own/family values.
I read these two book this weekend. I agree with the above assesment…I think Lawn Boy is appropriate for high school collections. I personally would be fine with my kids reading Gender Queer as I think 1) It’s a memoir and their experience 2) Yes, there is a strap on, but the reality is that this is a situation a high schooler might encounter and it is dealt with in a healthy way. YA literature should reflect the experiences of teens and model different outcomes. With that said, should this be in a secondary library where 7th graders have access? Maybe not. I am glad a committee is reviewing it. I am, however, appalled at the way this challenge was made. The school board meeting was not the right forum for the theatrics that the mom (a trained actress, btw) and was clearly a political move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is how did this parent find these two books to begin with?

She said that she heard they were being banned in Texas so she wanted to see if any FCPS schools had them. She hadn’t read the books. It was just more politics…fodder for the screaming right wing outrage machine.

If you frame the Lawn Boy excerpt as a man talking about touching a 4th grader sexually, sure, it sounds horrific. These reactionary loons are all screaming PEDOPHILIA in all caps!

If you read the book and know that it is a sensitive story about a young man trying to find the American Dream and reflecting on how a soulless jerk in his community who treats him like dirt happens to be someone who he once sexually experimented with when *they both were in 4th grade*, it’s an entirely different context. You hear the language as bravado masking hurt. There was no pedophilia involved and clearly it is not *promotion* of anything…in context, they guy is struggling with his place in the world. It’s a mature book appropriate for some teenagers.

But if you read a few sentences from a 300 page book a loud and completely mischaracterize their context, you can get in the news and score political points. A huge win for Republicans and a huge loss for our community, which seems no linger to be led by educated, well read people who are capable of thinking rationally. (Actually, I take that back. In terms of most of the School Board, they are leading with thought and care. It’s just that the screeching voices of people who are ricocheting from one reactionary stance to another are louder.)

[Anonymous]

If you have concerns about a book in your child's FCPS library, complete this form and email to the principal:
https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/is706.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is how did this parent find these two books to begin with?

She said that she heard they were being banned in Texas so she wanted to see if any FCPS schools had them. She hadn’t read the books. It was just more politics…fodder for the screaming right wing outrage machine.

If you frame the Lawn Boy excerpt as a man talking about touching a 4th grader sexually, sure, it sounds horrific. These reactionary loons are all screaming PEDOPHILIA in all caps!

If you read the book and know that it is a sensitive story about a young man trying to find the American Dream and reflecting on how a soulless jerk in his community who treats him like dirt happens to be someone who he once sexually experimented with when *they both were in 4th grade*, it’s an entirely different context. You hear the language as bravado masking hurt. There was no pedophilia involved and clearly it is not *promotion* of anything…in context, they guy is struggling with his place in the world. It’s a mature book appropriate for some teenagers.

But if you read a few sentences from a 300 page book a loud and completely mischaracterize their context, you can get in the news and score political points. A huge win for Republicans and a huge loss for our community, which seems no linger to be led by educated, well read people who are capable of thinking rationally. (Actually, I take that back. In terms of most of the School Board, they are leading with thought and care. It’s just that the screeching voices of people who are ricocheting from one reactionary stance to another are louder.)

For the record, I’m not the same person as the school librarian above. I have read Lawn Biy but not Gender Queer. But I do trust school librarians’ professionalism and effort. I know there is a process for review of books and other supplementary materials at the school level. A true concerned parent could simply have contacted the school and initiated a review. But that wasn’t the point of this. The point was to get people screaming that the School Board buys gay porn instead of building new schools or whatever. It’s preposterous but look what’s happening right here. People buy it hook, line, and sinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s no surprise that the county has officials who are OK with purchasing books that casually and graphically portray gay sex acts involving children, and then going to considerable lengths to defend those decisions. You know damn well if these books had displayed a white boy penetrating a Black girl or an Asian girl pleasuring a white male, with accompanying text that the girl “liked” the experience, this School Board would be all over itself apologizing for the inappropriate content. But say it’s about exploring “gender identity” or “queer studies” and it’s all good. Pathetic.

On the flip side, why is it that the RWNJs have zeroed in on these two particular books with their faux outrage?

Was it really just a coincidence that both were written by LGTBQ+ authors?

The question seems a bit circular for the reasons discussed in earlier posts.

Why are we even talking about these book *now*? Years after they were published?

Because RWNJs decided they were the focus of their faux outrage.

Not very circular when there is a clear source for this BS...

Ah, back to railing against “RWNJs”?

You need to expand your vocabulary if you don’t want to be so obvious.

Ok. How about we change that to…

“Because the astroturfing GOP POSs decided they were the focus of their faux outrage. “

I’m not trying to hide anything. Unlike the lying GOP POSs.

Even better. Because we already knew your vocabulary consists of little other than “RWNJ,” “POS,” and “astroturfing.”

For you, there are never legitimate concerns to be addressed, unless they somehow relate to “equity,” only imaginary political opponents to bury. What a rude awakening it must be to find out people don’t tolerate smut in their schools or allow themselves to be silenced by your insults.

You don't know anything about me. Except that I don't tolerate BS when it comes to our schools. I have zero tolerance for political POSs trying to harm our schools and our kids.

Go find your next faux issue. RWNJs have already struck out with FCPS parents on "CRT", anti-masking/vaccines, and now book banning.

Spoiler: Nothing will get your Trumphumper Youngkin elected in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself to be very liberal and am an avid reader who thinks all books should be available. I don't generally worry about what my kids are reading, I'm happy they are reading and being exposed to many viewpoints. I've read Lawn Boy and have zero issue with it being included in a school library. The graphic novel Gender Queer does give me pause. Seeing detailed pictures of blow jobs prompts a different reaction for me than reading about the same thing. There is more escape when it is words and you supply your own imagination to make the picture. It's also easier to skim through or ignore if it's triggering for you. But seeing the oral sex happening on the page feels different and I can understand why parents would prefer this be available in a public library, but not in their school's library.

What’s refreshingly reasonable response. Quite different from the erroneous screams of “pedophilia!” And “pornography!” I agree that comic books / graphic novels are different in terms of visual literacy. The question is whether the book has merit on its own despite the potentially problematic frame. Professional school librarians who make these difficult choices decided for whatever reason that there was a need within their school community for a comic book style treatment of a non-binary teen. A reasonable committee of teachers, parents, students, and others can assess the book and see if they agree or if the book, on the whole, would be better as a voice in the public library only. Screams of “filth” and “smut” are a ridiculous outsized reaction to a book that sensitively portrays a person’s feelings toward their body, gender expression, relationships, hopes, and dreams. No trainable person reading either could conclude that they are porn or promotion of anything, from sex to gender identity to sexual orientation. They are heartfelt stories. Maybe one doesn’t belong. Maybe it does. But a reasonable person like you could email a principal or librarian and say, “I was concerned about a book in your collection so I read it in it’s entirety. I am concerned that the illustration on page 76 is unsuitable for a high school library. I would like to request that the title be reconsidered.”

That would trigger a committee’s review and the book might be removed. But THIS….this was a circus deigned to make people start freaking out that, “Democrats on the School Board are buying porn and books with pedophilia for school libraries rather than building new schools or teaching cursive!” Just look at the reactions here from people who haven’t even read the books. It’s a crazed witch hunt.

*reasonable, not trainable

Fully agree.

Also agree. FCPS HS Librarians order 1,000+ books every year. They rely on professional journal sources as they cannot read all of them (although they do read a lot!). I’m a school librarian. I’ve had parents challenge books before and it ran through the established process. No hard feelings there—there is an established process for a reason. I’ve also had parents tell kids to return a book they thought was inappropriate. More often than not, kids actually are pretty good at self-censoring and will put down a book they find inappropriate based on their own/family values.
I read these two book this weekend. I agree with the above assesment…I think Lawn Boy is appropriate for high school collections. I personally would be fine with my kids reading Gender Queer as I think 1) It’s a memoir and their experience 2) Yes, there is a strap on, but the reality is that this is a situation a high schooler might encounter and it is dealt with in a healthy way. YA literature should reflect the experiences of teens and model different outcomes. With that said, should this be in a secondary library where 7th graders have access? Maybe not. I am glad a committee is reviewing it. I am, however, appalled at the way this challenge was made. The school board meeting was not the right forum for the theatrics that the mom (a trained actress, btw) and was clearly a political move.

Hopefully we can get a new Superintendent and a new School Board that aren't pushing an inappropriate agenda and will make sure librarians are hired who aren't fine with introducing smut into public school libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s no surprise that the county has officials who are OK with purchasing books that casually and graphically portray gay sex acts involving children, and then going to considerable lengths to defend those decisions. You know damn well if these books had displayed a white boy penetrating a Black girl or an Asian girl pleasuring a white male, with accompanying text that the girl “liked” the experience, this School Board would be all over itself apologizing for the inappropriate content. But say it’s about exploring “gender identity” or “queer studies” and it’s all good. Pathetic.

On the flip side, why is it that the RWNJs have zeroed in on these two particular books with their faux outrage?

Was it really just a coincidence that both were written by LGTBQ+ authors?

The question seems a bit circular for the reasons discussed in earlier posts.

Why are we even talking about these book *now*? Years after they were published?

Because RWNJs decided they were the focus of their faux outrage.

Not very circular when there is a clear source for this BS...

Ah, back to railing against “RWNJs”?

You need to expand your vocabulary if you don’t want to be so obvious.

Ok. How about we change that to…

“Because the astroturfing GOP POSs decided they were the focus of their faux outrage. “

I’m not trying to hide anything. Unlike the lying GOP POSs.

Even better. Because we already knew your vocabulary consists of little other than “RWNJ,” “POS,” and “astroturfing.”

For you, there are never legitimate concerns to be addressed, unless they somehow relate to “equity,” only imaginary political opponents to bury. What a rude awakening it must be to find out people don’t tolerate smut in their schools or allow themselves to be silenced by your insults.

You don't know anything about me. Except that I don't tolerate BS when it comes to our schools. I have zero tolerance for political POSs trying to harm our schools and our kids.

Go find your next faux issue. RWNJs have already struck out with FCPS parents on "CRT", anti-masking/vaccines, and now book banning.

Spoiler: Nothing will get your Trumphumper Youngkin elected in VA.

Apologize for leaving your newest phrase "Trumphumper" from your agit-prop lexicon.

You are a joke of a human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is how did this parent find these two books to begin with?

She said that she heard they were being banned in Texas so she wanted to see if any FCPS schools had them. She hadn’t read the books. It was just more politics…fodder for the screaming right wing outrage machine.

If you frame the Lawn Boy excerpt as a man talking about touching a 4th grader sexually, sure, it sounds horrific. These reactionary loons are all screaming PEDOPHILIA in all caps!

If you read the book and know that it is a sensitive story about a young man trying to find the American Dream and reflecting on how a soulless jerk in his community who treats him like dirt happens to be someone who he once sexually experimented with when *they both were in 4th grade*, it’s an entirely different context. You hear the language as bravado masking hurt. There was no pedophilia involved and clearly it is not *promotion* of anything…in context, they guy is struggling with his place in the world. It’s a mature book appropriate for some teenagers.

But if you read a few sentences from a 300 page book a loud and completely mischaracterize their context, you can get in the news and score political points. A huge win for Republicans and a huge loss for our community, which seems no linger to be led by educated, well read people who are capable of thinking rationally. (Actually, I take that back. In terms of most of the School Board, they are leading with thought and care. It’s just that the screeching voices of people who are ricocheting from one reactionary stance to another are louder.)

For the record, I’m not the same person as the school librarian above. I have read Lawn Biy but not Gender Queer. But I do trust school librarians’ professionalism and effort. I know there is a process for review of books and other supplementary materials at the school level. A true concerned parent could simply have contacted the school and initiated a review. But that wasn’t the point of this. The point was to get people screaming that the School Board buys gay porn instead of building new schools or whatever. It’s preposterous but look what’s happening right here. People buy it hook, line, and sinker.

It’s not just gay porn. It underage gay porn. Not sure if you truly enjoy looking at 4th grade d but most people would agree that sort material does not belong in a school library.

I’m happy the mom brought it up on Thursday. It should anger decent people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is how did this parent find these two books to begin with?

She said that she heard they were being banned in Texas so she wanted to see if any FCPS schools had them. She hadn’t read the books. It was just more politics…fodder for the screaming right wing outrage machine.

If you frame the Lawn Boy excerpt as a man talking about touching a 4th grader sexually, sure, it sounds horrific. These reactionary loons are all screaming PEDOPHILIA in all caps!

If you read the book and know that it is a sensitive story about a young man trying to find the American Dream and reflecting on how a soulless jerk in his community who treats him like dirt happens to be someone who he once sexually experimented with when *they both were in 4th grade*, it’s an entirely different context. You hear the language as bravado masking hurt. There was no pedophilia involved and clearly it is not *promotion* of anything…in context, they guy is struggling with his place in the world. It’s a mature book appropriate for some teenagers.

But if you read a few sentences from a 300 page book a loud and completely mischaracterize their context, you can get in the news and score political points. A huge win for Republicans and a huge loss for our community, which seems no linger to be led by educated, well read people who are capable of thinking rationally. (Actually, I take that back. In terms of most of the School Board, they are leading with thought and care. It’s just that the screeching voices of people who are ricocheting from one reactionary stance to another are louder.)

For the record, I’m not the same person as the school librarian above. I have read Lawn Biy but not Gender Queer. But I do trust school librarians’ professionalism and effort. I know there is a process for review of books and other supplementary materials at the school level. A true concerned parent could simply have contacted the school and initiated a review. But that wasn’t the point of this. The point was to get people screaming that the School Board buys gay porn instead of building new schools or whatever. It’s preposterous but look what’s happening right here. People buy it hook, line, and sinker.

It’s not just gay porn. It underage gay porn. Not sure if you truly enjoy looking at 4th grade d but most people would agree that sort material does not belong in a school library.

I’m happy the mom brought it up on Thursday. It should anger decent people.

"Decent people" don't push misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is how did this parent find these two books to begin with?

She said that she heard they were being banned in Texas so she wanted to see if any FCPS schools had them. She hadn’t read the books. It was just more politics…fodder for the screaming right wing outrage machine.

If you frame the Lawn Boy excerpt as a man talking about touching a 4th grader sexually, sure, it sounds horrific. These reactionary loons are all screaming PEDOPHILIA in all caps!

If you read the book and know that it is a sensitive story about a young man trying to find the American Dream and reflecting on how a soulless jerk in his community who treats him like dirt happens to be someone who he once sexually experimented with when *they both were in 4th grade*, it’s an entirely different context. You hear the language as bravado masking hurt. There was no pedophilia involved and clearly it is not *promotion* of anything…in context, they guy is struggling with his place in the world. It’s a mature book appropriate for some teenagers.

But if you read a few sentences from a 300 page book a loud and completely mischaracterize their context, you can get in the news and score political points. A huge win for Republicans and a huge loss for our community, which seems no linger to be led by educated, well read people who are capable of thinking rationally. (Actually, I take that back. In terms of most of the School Board, they are leading with thought and care. It’s just that the screeching voices of people who are ricocheting from one reactionary stance to another are louder.)

For the record, I’m not the same person as the school librarian above. I have read Lawn Biy but not Gender Queer. But I do trust school librarians’ professionalism and effort. I know there is a process for review of books and other supplementary materials at the school level. A true concerned parent could simply have contacted the school and initiated a review. But that wasn’t the point of this. The point was to get people screaming that the School Board buys gay porn instead of building new schools or whatever. It’s preposterous but look what’s happening right here. People buy it hook, line, and sinker.

It’s not just gay porn. It underage gay porn. Not sure if you truly enjoy looking at 4th grade d but most people would agree that sort material does not belong in a school library.

I’m happy the mom brought it up on Thursday. It should anger decent people.

It should, but the speaker was addressing the FCPS School Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s no surprise that the county has officials who are OK with purchasing books that casually and graphically portray gay sex acts involving children, and then going to considerable lengths to defend those decisions. You know damn well if these books had displayed a white boy penetrating a Black girl or an Asian girl pleasuring a white male, with accompanying text that the girl “liked” the experience, this School Board would be all over itself apologizing for the inappropriate content. But say it’s about exploring “gender identity” or “queer studies” and it’s all good. Pathetic.

On the flip side, why is it that the RWNJs have zeroed in on these two particular books with their faux outrage?

Was it really just a coincidence that both were written by LGTBQ+ authors?

The question seems a bit circular for the reasons discussed in earlier posts.

Why are we even talking about these book *now*? Years after they were published?

Because RWNJs decided they were the focus of their faux outrage.

Not very circular when there is a clear source for this BS...

Ah, back to railing against “RWNJs”?

You need to expand your vocabulary if you don’t want to be so obvious.

Ok. How about we change that to…

“Because the astroturfing GOP POSs decided they were the focus of their faux outrage. “

I’m not trying to hide anything. Unlike the lying GOP POSs.

Even better. Because we already knew your vocabulary consists of little other than “RWNJ,” “POS,” and “astroturfing.”

For you, there are never legitimate concerns to be addressed, unless they somehow relate to “equity,” only imaginary political opponents to bury. What a rude awakening it must be to find out people don’t tolerate smut in their schools or allow themselves to be silenced by your insults.

You don't know anything about me. Except that I don't tolerate BS when it comes to our schools. I have zero tolerance for political POSs trying to harm our schools and our kids.

Go find your next faux issue. RWNJs have already struck out with FCPS parents on "CRT", anti-masking/vaccines, and now book banning.

Spoiler: Nothing will get your Trumphumper Youngkin elected in VA.

Apologize for leaving your newest phrase "Trumphumper" from your agit-prop lexicon.

You are a joke of a human being.

Oops - I must have struck a nerve.

Must suck knowing that you are on the side of amoral scum. Lying and cheating. Can't win on actual issues so you need to push lies and misinformation.

[Anonymous]

New Poster. Neither party supports kiddy porn. This was brought up in the manner it was for political purposes, obviously. That is part of the reason people are talking the way they are. There are many ways to challenge a book or books. And overall they are more productive in the long run that doing it this way. But again, that clearly was not the purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New Poster. Neither party supports kiddy porn. This was brought up in the manner it was for political purposes, obviously. That is part of the reason people are talking the way they are. There are many ways to challenge a book or books. And overall they are more productive in the long run that doing it this way. But again, that clearly was not the purpose.

I envy the innocence of those who suggest following established protocols for raising issues with FCPS is productive.

They are lazy and self-serving, and their values do not reflect those of the communities they are paid/elected to serve. Calling them out publicly and repeatedly is the only way to motivate them, and if they are not responsive there's at least a record to support their removal.

[Anonymous]

Point...missed. Oh well, beautiful day for a game of golf. Enjoy your afternoon. Off I go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did thre right wing media send out the bat signal to ban books now? Every parent has the right to opt out of books for their kods but the nuts at tonight’s school board meeting want to pray and ban books. The latest idiot wouldn’t stop talking when her time was up and made the Board have to recess. No rules for these sheep. Where did these backwards folks come from?

It only going to get worse.

They are emboldened because of Don the con.

We must vote the GOP out or we are hosed.

These freaks want control we must stop them. Religion and book banning should not be in public school.

Neither should explicit books, whether between two boys or a boy and girl. Or man and woman, or two men or two women, etc.

Eh I don’t have a problem with it. Flowers in the attic was written to be titillating and it was read for that purpose as well. It was circus. No more then dime store garbage but it was fun. Get it out of libraries because it’s junk; not because it’s porn.

The book being discussed....I haven’t read it bit I want to read it because the words quoted are really well written. Poetic and lyrical. The books that stand the test of time are either relatable and have a strong moral arc. The best books I’ve ever read in some way lead to me a greater understanding of the complexity of what it means to be human. I don’t have to have personally lived something in order to learn from it. How many people discuss the why or how they did something. Lit gives one the opportunity to get inside of a characters mind to understand the why to explain the how. To understand humanity. Trust we are all a sum of our actions and decisions. The balancing of right and wrong and the fallout that ensues no matter the choice we make. All of that plays out in well written Lit.

Well literature, and yes usually it is the lit that is considered controversial for its day, is what actually helps to develop critical thinking skills. You know the ability to actually think things through. To weigh the costs and benefit, to align your actions with your belief system. Woe is the man who is incapable of looking beyond a few morally objectionable words or imagery. Who sees no value in challenging thought and belief systems. Who is afraid of a books power to formulate ideas, opinions and beliefs. Who get’s trip wired by a few “dirty” words or images. Colloquialisms “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!”

I think it is shocking the number of people who fell and are falling in-line behind right wing extremist doctrine who are hell bent on destroying this country for what? Whether it be for economic power, or just power. Getting you all worked up about a book is just one more way of praying on your ignorance your lack of innate intelligence. Your fears and your inability or unwillingness to peek behind the curtain or under the bed in any area of your life.

Ask yourselves why do my “leaders” want me to be ignorant? Why do they want my kids to be ignorant. The world is moving on while you fight your insipid culture wars. Put it to rest already. Do the book burners even read? Genuine question. Do you actually read in your downtime? When is the last time you read anything other than rantings of some weirdo friend of a friend who reposted from a friend of a distant Facebook friend... you know a long ranting screed “needin to learns your children on the dangers of devil books”. With a long list of books that need to be banned “right now” . Most of which, all of which you’ve never even heard of, let alone read.

“The great pleasure of ignorance is the pleasure asking questions. The man who has lost this pleasure, or [Worse] exchanged it for the pleasure of dogma, which is the pleasure of answering, has already begun to stiffen”

To the more intelligent and liberal among us I quote “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” Get out and vote in state and local elections at every single opportunity.

The books are gross and don’t belong at school. Period.

If you have raised your children in your dogma, and you've done your job well, then why would they be tempted to read these books? I don't see the problem. Minors experiment with sexuality. It happens. In more dogmatic cultures the idea that a boy would experiment with another boy is actually way more acceptable than mixing with the opposite sex. Again what is the problem? Is the issue that one wants to hang onto the idea of children as asexual beings until they aren't? Are children no longer children when they start acting on natural feelings and urges? Genuinely curious.