Run Glen Younkin run Glen Younkin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Exactly. That is why I demand that 120 days of sodom is provided for 12 year olds. It’s not p*rn.

OK, I googled this book, it's by the Marquis de Sade, and he wrote it in 1785 in French, supposedly (according to Wikipedia) while he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Exactly. That is why I demand that 120 days of sodom is provided for 12 year olds. It’s not p*rn.

OK, I googled this book, it's by the Marquis de Sade, and he wrote it in 1785 in French, supposedly (according to Wikipedia) while he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

If you don’t provide this material to 12 year olds in school then you are a book banner! How dare you ban books because YOU don’t like it! FASCISTS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Nope. You're trying to pretend that we don't differentiate between images and words. We do. If you want to change that, say that. Maybe you have to good explanation why we should change that. Instead, you're being dishonest by saying they're the same.

You're responding to multiple posters. You can explain your criteria about what is and is not porn ("I know it when I see it?") to the other poster.

Meanwhile, what you're talking about is banning books. Graphic novels are books.

Graphic novels are images. They are more akin to movies than books. We rate movies and video games and schools follow those ratings.

For consistency, we should rate graphic novels. The ones in question would be rated M for mature. Inappropriate for children. Inappropriate for school libraries.

It's dishonest to argue otherwise.

Books. B o o k s. Books. Graphic novels are books. Just like picture books are books. Picture books are not movies, they are books. Books with pictures in them.

You haven't given any reason why we should change the long standing distinction between words and images. What is your reason?

Which long standing distinction are you talking about? Also, who is "we"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:republicans have truly become the anti choice party.

They want a choice only when it benefits them.

God forbid your middle school child learns how sex works. Suprise, he's rubbing one out every night in his bedroom anyways. Get over it you prudes.

Thanks for displaying the kind of "intellect" the left represents. Wow.

I grew up going to a Catholic school in Potomac and kids were getting HJs in the back of the rooms at school dances, myself included. Middle school in the 90s in a conservative catholic school. What do you think is happening now? Get over yourself. Your kids are into sex, one way or another.

Kids are actually much less sexually active than they were when we were in high school and middle school in the 90s.

Because they are all watching half naked girls on tik tok/instagram and rubbing one out in their bathroom

These books are nowhere as scandalous as social media.

And are public schools showing sexual TikToks to students? Nope. You are not making the case you think you are. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

The point is your kids are seeing these images one way or another. Who cares if it's in a book at school.

Just admit you're a prude. Sex is not taboo for middle school kids nowadays. It's everywhere you look. Heck, PG13 movies have sex in them and middle schoolers are watching those movies. I'm not advocating you watch porn with your kid, but you all need to be realistic. They will find it out one way or another and the other avenues, outside of books at schools, are far worse.

Only weird conservative prudes think sex is taboo. You'll be in for a rude awakening when your kid starts exploring in unhealthy ways.

Wow, are you clueless. I’m hardly a prude - got a good laugh out of that. However, as a PARENT, I recognize that graphic sexual material is not for kids. Of course they’ll find it online regardless, but that doesn’t mean schools need to provide that material to them. It’s beyond bizarre that you think school libraries are the place for porn. As several posters have said, just take your kids to the public library or order them all the graphically sexual material you want from Amazon. School libraries are completely inappropriate places for this trash to be accessible.

You’re most likely not even a parent at all - just the usual troll insisting kids NEED easy access to this garbage. And btw - I’m an independent, but people like you definitely make Democrats look repulsive.

How old are your kids?

Ages 17-24. And yours? Do you even have kids?

Yes, of course. It's a mommy website. 11-16

How did your kids learn about blowjobs, dildos, masturbation, etc?

Did they have cell phones?

Good grief, you're thick. THE POINT is that school libraries are not appropriate places for this crap. We get that you can't get enough of it and want to make sure your kids get their hands on it as soon as possible, but there is no reason for explicit books to be in the SCHOOL LIBRARY. Get it?

They are simple questions. Where did your kids learn about these things?

And what if your kid was questioning their sexuality/identity. Would you support them reading books written by others to learn about their experiences?

No. I would support them talking first to their parents.

What if they weren’t comfortable with that?

Waiting to hear...what if your kids aren't comfortable talking to you? Where should they seek out information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Exactly. That is why I demand that 120 days of sodom is provided for 12 year olds. It’s not p*rn.

OK, I googled this book, it's by the Marquis de Sade, and he wrote it in 1785 in French, supposedly (according to Wikipedia) while he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

If you don’t provide this material to 12 year olds in school then you are a book banner! How dare you ban books because YOU don’t like it! FASCISTS!

We are talking about books in HIGH SHOOL libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Exactly. That is why I demand that 120 days of sodom is provided for 12 year olds. It’s not p*rn.

OK, I googled this book, it's by the Marquis de Sade, and he wrote it in 1785 in French, supposedly (according to Wikipedia) while he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

If you don’t provide this material to 12 year olds in school then you are a book banner! How dare you ban books because YOU don’t like it! FASCISTS!

To repeat: Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

It occurs to me that people whose hobby is banning books, on the grounds that they're "porn", either do not actually engage with the material at all, or spend a whole lot of time reading and/or looking at things they consider "porn."

The first option is just plain ignorant ("Have you read Lady Chatterley's Lover?" "No, but I know it's obscene!"), and the second option requires - allows? enables? provides an excuse for? - a whole lot of time reading and/or looking at things that may or may not be porn.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to have this thought. Also, I have not read Lady Chatterley's Lover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

The books are inappropriate. But that's a word that is subjective, so some have resorted to using stronger language.

Would you agree that the books are inappropriate? Probably not. So the argument has shifted to stronger terms. Hasn't succeeded yet but has kept the discussion going - and has seriously embarrassed liberal people who are supporting and now promoting these books.

"I actually don't think it's porn, but people didn't agree with me when I said the books were "inappropriate," so I started calling them porn instead."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard pass. He should never have been elected in the first place.

White women did it. Idiots.

Why do you put all white women in the same box? It takes ignorance and racism to do this. Keep quiet until you can say something helpful and inspiring.
I did not vote for Y.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

The books are inappropriate. But that's a word that is subjective, so some have resorted to using stronger language.

Would you agree that the books are inappropriate? Probably not. So the argument has shifted to stronger terms. Hasn't succeeded yet but has kept the discussion going - and has seriously embarrassed liberal people who are supporting and now promoting these books.

"I actually don't think it's porn, but people didn't agree with me when I said the books were "inappropriate," so I started calling them porn instead."

"and I actually never read them to I have no idea what I'm talking about"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

The books are inappropriate. But that's a word that is subjective, so some have resorted to using stronger language.

Would you agree that the books are inappropriate? Probably not. So the argument has shifted to stronger terms. Hasn't succeeded yet but has kept the discussion going - and has seriously embarrassed liberal people who are supporting and now promoting these books.

I think they are fine for HS teens to have available if they seek it out. They are stories of LGBTQ+ journeys and kids should have various relatable stories available to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Exactly. That is why I demand that 120 days of sodom is provided for 12 year olds. It’s not p*rn.

OK, I googled this book, it's by the Marquis de Sade, and he wrote it in 1785 in French, supposedly (according to Wikipedia) while he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

If you don’t provide this material to 12 year olds in school then you are a book banner! How dare you ban books because YOU don’t like it! FASCISTS!

To repeat: Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

It occurs to me that people whose hobby is banning books, on the grounds that they're "porn", either do not actually engage with the material at all, or spend a whole lot of time reading and/or looking at things they consider "porn."

The first option is just plain ignorant ("Have you read Lady Chatterley's Lover?" "No, but I know it's obscene!"), and the second option requires - allows? enables? provides an excuse for? - a whole lot of time reading and/or looking at things that may or may not be porn.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to have this thought. Also, I have not read Lady Chatterley's Lover.

New poster. So you want to give other peoples 14 year olds American Psycho and 120 days. I think we all know why you are fighting so hard to provide explicit material to minors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

DP. We've long made a distinction between images and words. You want to pretend that there's no difference. But you're getting pushback from people who do think there's a difference.

You aren't even bothering to explain why we should change this. You are just attacking people for wanting to ban books. It doesn't look like you're operating in good faith.

DP. I mean, yes. Yes, I am. I am disagreeing with people who want to ban books. 100% true.

Be clear. We're talking about banning graphic graphic novels.

Those are books. Graphic novels are books. When you're talking about banning graphic novels, you're talking about banning books.

Exactly. That is why I demand that 120 days of sodom is provided for 12 year olds. It’s not p*rn.

OK, I googled this book, it's by the Marquis de Sade, and he wrote it in 1785 in French, supposedly (according to Wikipedia) while he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

If you don’t provide this material to 12 year olds in school then you are a book banner! How dare you ban books because YOU don’t like it! FASCISTS!

To repeat: Have you read it? Did you read it in the original French? Which school library did you check it out from?

It occurs to me that people whose hobby is banning books, on the grounds that they're "porn", either do not actually engage with the material at all, or spend a whole lot of time reading and/or looking at things they consider "porn."

The first option is just plain ignorant ("Have you read Lady Chatterley's Lover?" "No, but I know it's obscene!"), and the second option requires - allows? enables? provides an excuse for? - a whole lot of time reading and/or looking at things that may or may not be porn.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to have this thought. Also, I have not read Lady Chatterley's Lover.

New poster. So you want to give other peoples 14 year olds American Psycho and 120 days. I think we all know why you are fighting so hard to provide explicit material to minors.

Which school libraries have you checked those books out from? And did someone "give" them to you and stand over you forcing you to read them, or did you find them on the shelf all by yourself?

Also, is there some right-wing internet rabbit hole where all the book-banners are finding out about this 238-year-old book by a French aristocrat that none of them had previously heard of (I mean the book, although probably also the French aristocrat), let alone actually read? I just checked my local library system, and they do have something listed as this book, as an e-book, in English, although the publisher is highly shady, so who knows what's actually in the "e-book" (and I don't plan to find out).

Though actually I also remember seeing volumes and volumes of the collected works of de Sade, in a handsome old edition that would look great on a high school stage set for Baker Street, at the local friends of the library bookstore. Did you buy them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The books are not porn. Describing a sexual act - even with pictures - does not automatically make something porn. Folks are ignoring that the books are essentially the same as Judy Blume in graphic novel form.

Not porn.

x1 million

The books being debated are not porn.

American Psycho isn’t porn. Should I give it to your 14 year old?

You could. I read Stephen King and Dean Koontz in highschool. What's your point?