School Board Meeting 9/23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends, you know the GOP trolls have been running rampant on this board for the past year, right?

It’s alarming because their voices are so amplified…the rest of us are just trying to cope with COVID and raising our kids and working, and these nutters have the time to manufacture these controversies and drive our elected leaders bonkers with them…worse, then cause the schools to make these reactionary decisions because the outsized amplification makes it seem like these are real people part of a real movement. Regular Fairfax voters and parents are shaking our heads wondering who invited all the lunatics?

What? I’m a regular parent at fcps. I was mortified at the content read at the meeting on Thursday. Stop looking at everything through the clouded lens of politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Books at fcps high schools promoting pedophilia and pornography, true?

Can anyone verify if this is true?

Wow. That graphic novel. How is cartoon pedophilia legal much less approved to be in schools? Wtf???

You are completely nuts.

There is no “pedophilia” in either book.

A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.

Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.

The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.

Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”

I personally don't think it's worth defending, but on the other hand, it is worth defending as it will just lead to parents combing over tons of books in the library, trigging these challenges, and tying up educators who are just trying to get kids reading and back in the groove of school this year. Censorship is a slippery slope.

Frankly, there are TONS of great books out there for kids to read. The books in question don't fit into the category of "great books." If you want your kid to read them, buy them or go to a public library.

I am a former educator and not keen on book banning, but I also believe schools should be selective about the books they purchase for their libraries given limited funding.

Why aren’t they “great”?

Because they are way too sexually explicit for a high school library. They are porn.

You are objectively wrong. Pornography is by definition intended to sexually arouse. These books have mature language but they aren’t intended to sexually arouse the reader. Your average grocery store romance novel has way more explicit passages than these, and far less literary value.

The committees reviewing the books will allow them to remain in the few library collections that have them. The problem is that the damage will have been done…damage being ginning up this entire manufactured controversy to pull more voters for the GOP side. Because most people, like commenters here, have emotional reactions that are precisely the intent of this manufactured controversy…they’re based on information taken out of context and entirely misrepresented.

[Anonymous]

The committees reviewing the books will allow them to remain in the few library collections that have them. The problem is that the damage will have been done…damage being ginning up this entire manufactured controversy to pull more voters for the GOP side. Because most people, like commenters here, have emotional reactions that are precisely the intent of this manufactured controversy…they’re based on information taken out of context and entirely misrepresented.

They may, or may not be, porn. But, they are salacious and obscene. Ask yourself, why did the graphic pics depicting sexual acts have to be in the graphic novel? Why did the author have to put in such graphic language describing sex between young kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The committees reviewing the books will allow them to remain in the few library collections that have them. The problem is that the damage will have been done…damage being ginning up this entire manufactured controversy to pull more voters for the GOP side. Because most people, like commenters here, have emotional reactions that are precisely the intent of this manufactured controversy…they’re based on information taken out of context and entirely misrepresented.

They may, or may not be, porn. But, they are salacious and obscene. Ask yourself, why did the graphic pics depicting sexual acts have to be in the graphic novel? Why did the author have to put in such graphic language describing sex between young kids?

Because it was part of the journey for gender identity.

Because it how he remembered his sexual awakening.

[Anonymous]

Because most people, like commenters here, have emotional reactions that are precisely the intent of this manufactured controversy…they’re based on information taken out of context and entirely misrepresented.

Exactly. It’s misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The committees reviewing the books will allow them to remain in the few library collections that have them. The problem is that the damage will have been done…damage being ginning up this entire manufactured controversy to pull more voters for the GOP side. Because most people, like commenters here, have emotional reactions that are precisely the intent of this manufactured controversy…they’re based on information taken out of context and entirely misrepresented.

They may, or may not be, porn. But, they are salacious and obscene. Ask yourself, why did the graphic pics depicting sexual acts have to be in the graphic novel? Why did the author have to put in such graphic language describing sex between young kids?

+1. Defending the indefensible seems to be what this crowd lives for, whether it’s filth in school libraries or their CRT-fueled student surveys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The committees reviewing the books will allow them to remain in the few library collections that have them. The problem is that the damage will have been done…damage being ginning up this entire manufactured controversy to pull more voters for the GOP side. Because most people, like commenters here, have emotional reactions that are precisely the intent of this manufactured controversy…they’re based on information taken out of context and entirely misrepresented.

They may, or may not be, porn. But, they are salacious and obscene. Ask yourself, why did the graphic pics depicting sexual acts have to be in the graphic novel? Why did the author have to put in such graphic language describing sex between young kids?

+1. Defending the indefensible seems to be what this crowd lives for, whether it’s filth in school libraries or their CRT-fueled student surveys.

Speaking of emotional responses based on misinformation…

[Anonymous]

They may, or may not be, porn. But, they are salacious and obscene. Ask yourself, why did the graphic pics depicting sexual acts have to be in the graphic novel? Why did the author have to put in such graphic language describing sex between young kids?


+1. Defending the indefensible seems to be what this crowd lives for, whether it’s filth in school libraries or their CRT-fueled student surveys.


Speaking of emotional responses based on misinformation

…

Certainly the crowd on this forum defending it. I haven't seen any good defense of the materials.

Also, what concerns me is the reaction of a member of the SB who is defending it because he thinks it is an attack on the LGBT community. I would be just as upset if it were pictures of a heterosexual couple experimenting with each other at the age of 10. Defending the graphic nature of these books is not helpful to his cause.

I did not care for the speaker who chose to pray. I am not of her faith, but she did have the right to do it. From movies I've seen, I don't think I would call it an "exorcism," asone of the SB members did. But, I don't know much about it. I do think it reflects on the wide range of beliefs and faiths within our community.
Interesting that Ms Omeish frequently thinks we should all bow to her beliefs, but I find it hard to believe that her faith would support having those books available in our school libraries.

I'm also guessing that many atheists would also object.

But, the SB member who read the long statement at the end of the meeting tried to make it all about his own orientation. I'm sure there are some who do object based on that. But, I believe that more object just based on the obscene nature of the words and pictures.

[Anonymous]

Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

It’s an attack on kiddy porn. Do you associate kiddy porn with lgbtq?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

Why don't you point out the other books with graphic pictures of heterosexual experimentation and vulgar language?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

It’s an attack on kiddy porn. Do you associate kiddy porn with lgbtq?

Well, it’s not “kiddy porn” so….

See if you can make a valid point based on FACTS. Not MISINFORMATION.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

Why don't you point out the other books with graphic pictures of heterosexual experimentation and vulgar language?

DP. The orgy scene in It is at least as graphic (I'd say a fair bit more graphic) and it's a standard read for a lot of high schoolers and I count at least 17 copies in Fairfax County Schools libraries. It's also a fantastic book and should be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

Why don't you point out the other books with graphic pictures of heterosexual experimentation and vulgar language?

It’s Banned Books Week so I’m sure many FCPS librarians will set up a special display as a FU to book banners.

But you’ll need to actually R.E.A.D. the book if you want to request a review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the RWNJs decide to focus on these two particular books out of all books with sexual content in the libraries?

Hard to see how it’s NOT an attack on LGBTQ+.

Why don't you point out the other books with graphic pictures of heterosexual experimentation and vulgar language?

DP. The orgy scene in It is at least as graphic (I'd say a fair bit more graphic) and it's a standard read for a lot of high schoolers and I count at least 17 copies in Fairfax County Schools libraries. It's also a fantastic book and should be there.

Wait.. what? there is an orgy scene in IT. Sounds like the glorification of sex and satanic ritual to me. Someone better alert the RNC about this one!

[img]