New Youngkin ad starring a parent who wanted Toni Morrison's 'Beloved' removed from schools because

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

Why can't we teach books about slavery and/or race that don't involve sex? I read Their Eyes Were Watching God in high school English and I don't recall any graphic sex scenes.

Sexual violence against slaves was rampant. If you’re reading a book about slavery and doesn’t involve sexual violence at some point, it’s a very sanitized story.

+1

What a stupid post. I imagine any kid - regardless of their race - would be traumatized from reading those scenes. I know I was and I was an adult when I read it.

Actually what I’ve found much more traumatizing is hearing from non-Black kids and adults that “slavery wasn’t all that bad….”. If you want to avoid traumatizing kids with actual history, literature and classroom discussion could be a good introduction. OTH, if these advanced HS students have actually had a solid grounding in American history, and the history of Virginia, then anything potentially traumatizing should have already been covered.

Literally NO ONE has ever said those words, or thought those thoughts. But keep on with your absurd strawman. It really gives you so much credibility.

I’m not sure you know what “literally” actually means.





https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49842601

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s not what “false flag” means…

Oh, BS. During the 2016 Trump campaign, and beyond, we heard Democrats constantly insisting that anything criminal other Democrats were accused of had to be a Republican "false flag" to make them look bad. In short, it's what you trot out whenever you're (correctly) blamed for something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Beloved is not that it is about slavery, but the graphic descriptions of rape, bestialisty, etc. It's not just references to it, but the violent descriptions of it. Not all teens are mature enough for this type of book. And, remember, this is for an English class--not a History class.

While a majority of teens may be sexually active, not all are. This book is not appropriate for high school.

Precisely this. Those arguing otherwise seem to have a very strange idea of what they want their kids exposed to. It has nothing to do with "sex." The rape scenes are incredibly vicious and harrowing - and explicit.

The question in this case, though, is whether the book is appropriate for college. If the community wants the school to offer optional AP courses, then it has to accept the reality of a college level curriculum with college level materials. This is neither a required course, or a required text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

What kind of "graphic" are we talking about? -np

Go ahead and look it up. You know how to use google, right?

Google the whole book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

What kind of "graphic" are we talking about? -np

Go ahead and look it up. You know how to use google, right?

Google the whole book?

If you’ve never read it, perhaps you should before joining the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

It really speaks volumes as to how coddled children are from conservative families.

I hope these conservative parents understand that every single one of their coddled children has looked at porn on the internet. Every. single. one.

That's not true, but even if it were it is a weak argument for saying public schools shouldn't bother to tell parents when they are assigning sexually explicit material. As understood by the many legislators, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul, who supported the bill that McAuliffe vetoed.

+1
Plenty of Democrats agree with at least notifying parents when assignments will contain sexually explicit material. Seems the hyper-partisan left - which apparently includes McAuliffe - refuses to admit this fact. Anything to win, I guess.

Let’s put those vetos into context:

“In his first veto message, McAuliffe said ‘this legislation lacks flexibility and would require the label of ‘sexually explicit’ to apply to an artistic work based on a single scene, without further context.’ In his second veto message, he said the Virginia Board of Education had ‘determined that existing state policy regarding sensitive or controversial instructional material is sufficient and that additional action would be unnecessarily burdensome on the instructional process.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/27/glenn-youngkins-viral-child-ad-is-missing-important-context/

So basically, he vetoed the first one because it was too restrictive, and then vetoed the second one because VDOE had already determined that existing regulations provided for the kind of notice addressed in the bill.

Ok - let's note who *did* support the bill which Terry vetoed: 18 Democrats, including 14 members of the Black Caucus. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 17 I was already living on my own with a job and going to college.

This boy's mommy worries about the nightmare he has from reading a book. I don't know who I'm more embarrassed for - the man child, this mom or us a society that we don't vote losers like this off the island.

And so you feel exactly the same way about snowflake liberal college "kids" who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings - right?

Surely you can distinguish people not tolerating personal attacks against their identity from a Pulitzer award winning novel

What on earth are you babbling about? Many college students demand trigger warnings for any slightly upsetting topic - rape being one of them - and colleges are bending over backward to acquiesce. Yet naturally, you'll defend these idiot snowflakes and insist they be dealt with using kid gloves because they're just too fragile (as ADULTS IN COLLEGE) to participate in uncomfortable discussions. The liberal hypocrisy is deafening.

Typical whataboutism.

Funny you should mention "the liberal hypocrisy" & liberal snowflakes, and yet... here we are, talking about this Republican snowflake, and her snowflake baby of a 17 year old. 🤡

And as expected, you totally deflected. We all know about safe spaces and trigger warnings on campus. Not because one person complained, but because MANY liberal college students were just too fragile to deal with a class assignment or discussion. But that was ok with you, right? It's just this ONE boy and his mom that has you so triggered - because they happen to be conservatives. Maybe we'd take you more seriously if you had even once called out those on the left who have done the same thing for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

So post the graphic passages here. I mean, "it's just sex." Still waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

It really speaks volumes as to how coddled children are from conservative families.

I hope these conservative parents understand that every single one of their coddled children has looked at porn on the internet. Every. single. one.

That's not true, but even if it were it is a weak argument for saying public schools shouldn't bother to tell parents when they are assigning sexually explicit material. As understood by the many legislators, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul, who supported the bill that McAuliffe vetoed.

+1
Plenty of Democrats agree with at least notifying parents when assignments will contain sexually explicit material. Seems the hyper-partisan left - which apparently includes McAuliffe - refuses to admit this fact. Anything to win, I guess.

Let’s put those vetos into context:

“In his first veto message, McAuliffe said ‘this legislation lacks flexibility and would require the label of ‘sexually explicit’ to apply to an artistic work based on a single scene, without further context.’ In his second veto message, he said the Virginia Board of Education had ‘determined that existing state policy regarding sensitive or controversial instructional material is sufficient and that additional action would be unnecessarily burdensome on the instructional process.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/27/glenn-youngkins-viral-child-ad-is-missing-important-context/

So basically, he vetoed the first one because it was too restrictive, and then vetoed the second one because VDOE had already determined that existing regulations provided for the kind of notice addressed in the bill.

Ok - let's note who *did* support the bill which Terry vetoed: 18 Democrats, including 14 members of the Black Caucus. Interesting.

Why do you find it particularly noteworthy that members of the Black Caucus supported the bill? It didn’t relate to race, it related to sexually explicit content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

So post the graphic passages here. I mean, "it's just sex." Still waiting.

You sound really desperate to read graphic rape scenes. If you think they should be posted, feel free to do so. I’m not going to spend time digging them up for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

So post the graphic passages here. I mean, "it's just sex." Still waiting.

No, it’s not “just sex.” It’s rape. Get your facts straight if you want anyone to take you seriously.

[Anonymous]

This 100% validates McAuliffe’s comment about parents not dictating what should be taught in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember the case when this happened. To be sure, Beloved is a harrowing book, but that's kinda the point of it... Maybe the mother thought "a book about slavery" (in an AP English class!) would be Gone With The Wind?

If you want that kind of control over your child's school curriculum, you need to homeschool.

At least you can all see that books about slavery (from the black perspective) are indeed being taught in our public schools. Funny how Democrats claim that's just not happening.

This is an AP course in high school. Most of the phantom menace complaints about CRT are focused on elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This 100% validates McAuliffe’s comment about parents not dictating what should be taught in schools.

+1. I don’t want anyone trying to dictate what my kids should learn based on propaganda they read in Daily Caller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

So post the graphic passages here. I mean, "it's just sex." Still waiting.

No, it’s not “just sex.” It’s rape. Get your facts straight if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Guess you didn't pick up on the sarcasm. It's absolutely brutal rape - but the liberals defending it brush it off as "just sex."