“Stuff Some Adults Don’t Want You to Read” at Langley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

No, it was put in the display because it is a book that some adults literally tried to have banned from FCPS libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

[Anonymous]

I don't get this uproar at all. Bookstores and schools have been creating sections like this forever. When I was in high school in the 90s, my librarian in my Jersey township school had a section called "Banned Books."

I remember Native Son and Catcher in the Rye being in that display. There were others, but these were the two I picked up and read, so I remember them.

When did parents become so super involved in policing every aspect of education and their kid's lives? It is really mentally draining to watch,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

No, it was put in the display because it is a book that some adults literally tried to have banned from FCPS libraries.

The part I was calling a lie was the idea that people objected to the book because it was LGBTQ+, rather than the fact it included images of sex acts. I’m quite confident the people objecting to the book would object to images of straight sex being in the school library as well.

[Anonymous]

They should have hosted a banned books fire sale. All proceeds could go to a fund to buy and send banned books to kids down south. Much better than a bake sale!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

You think FCPS librarians (and those of many other school libraries) chose to purchase Gender Queer for their libraries for the sole purpose of putting pictures of gay sex in their libraries.

This discussion has officially turned batshit. It’s like you’re not even trying anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

This thread is about a book display at Langley. That is literally the topic of the discussion. If liberal parents at Langley also complained about the display, I think they were wrong too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it was at Langley. At any other high school in this region, parents would be applauding the librarian, but the rich white bored moms at Langley are outraged. Too many similarities to Loudon families.

Unlike Loudoun county, Mclean is very liberal. I am surprised parents had any issue at all with the display. It was probably just a few nutjobs making a lot of noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just the principal. The Region 1 superintendent (Doug Tyson) issued a separate apology as well. It’s just sad they feel the need to apologize for looking for creative ways to encourage kids to read.

I am in the a let people read camp.

I feel this sign was grossly inappropriate and the librarian should be disciplined.

An apology was appropriate from both the principal and the district superintendent.

“Grossly inappropriate”?!!!! PLEASE. Some adults don’t want kids to read those books. Undeniable. That fact makes teens curious to do their own thinking. Encouraging teens to do their own thinking is what good schools, and good librarians, do.

YES! And let's remember these are high schoolers. Are parents going to be calling Universities next?! What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe Rogan has published a couple books. Were the librarians displaying those in the same section? How would that make OP feel?

They could be posted in the children's section. Did you check there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just the principal. The Region 1 superintendent (Doug Tyson) issued a separate apology as well. It’s just sad they feel the need to apologize for looking for creative ways to encourage kids to read.

I am in the a let people read camp.

I feel this sign was grossly inappropriate and the librarian should be disciplined.

An apology was appropriate from both the principal and the district superintendent.

“Grossly inappropriate”?!!!! PLEASE. Some adults don’t want kids to read those books. Undeniable. That fact makes teens curious to do their own thinking. Encouraging teens to do their own thinking is what good schools, and good librarians, do.

YES! And let's remember these are high schoolers. Are parents going to be calling Universities next?! What a joke.

Yes, she will. Anything for a Fox News appearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

You think FCPS librarians (and those of many other school libraries) chose to purchase Gender Queer for their libraries for the sole purpose of putting pictures of gay sex in their libraries.

This discussion has officially turned batshit. It’s like you’re not even trying anymore.

It’s hard to have a conversation with someone whose reading comprehension is so poor. I said nothing about the motivations of the librarians. I only addressed the motivations of the people objecting to the book Gender Queer. Pp said it was because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex acts. I clarified that many parents object to images of any sex acts in public schools, gay, straight or otherwise. It honestly boggles my mind that fact has to be explained to anyone.