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: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.

This.

[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.

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.

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sigh. It's noteworthy because the book in question at the time was Beloved, and now McAuliffe is claiming it's a "racist dog whistle" to object to that book. But in reality, 14 members of the Black Caucus found it objectionable enough to support the bill. Which Terry vetoed. Guess it isn't "racist" to object to graphic, violent sex scenes, as Terry would have you believe.

[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.

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."

No, they don’t.

[Anonymous]

The NY Times Book Review in 2006 surveyed a "couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify 'the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years.'"

Beloved won.

Any other outcome would have been startling, since Morrison's novel has inserted itself into the American canon more completely than any of its potential rivals. With remarkable speed, "Beloved" has, less than 20 years after its publication, become a staple of the college literary curriculum, which is to say a classic. This triumph is commensurate with its ambition, since it was Morrison's intention in writing it precisely to expand the range of classic American literature, to enter, as a living black woman, the company of dead white males like Faulkner, Melville, Hawthorne and Twain. When the book first began to be assigned in college classrooms, during an earlier and in retrospect much tamer phase of the culture wars, its inclusion on syllabuses was taken, by partisans and opponents alike, as a radical gesture. (The conservative canard one heard in those days was that left-wing professors were casting aside Shakespeare in favor of Morrison.) But the political rhetoric of the time obscured the essential conservatism of the novel, which aimed not to displace or overthrow its beloved precursors, but to complete and to some extent correct them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/books/review/scott-essay.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

No, they don’t.

Then you obviously haven't bothered to read the entire thread. Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NY Times Book Review in 2006 surveyed a "couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify 'the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years.'"

Beloved won.

Any other outcome would have been startling, since Morrison's novel has inserted itself into the American canon more completely than any of its potential rivals. With remarkable speed, "Beloved" has, less than 20 years after its publication, become a staple of the college literary curriculum, which is to say a classic. This triumph is commensurate with its ambition, since it was Morrison's intention in writing it precisely to expand the range of classic American literature, to enter, as a living black woman, the company of dead white males like Faulkner, Melville, Hawthorne and Twain. When the book first began to be assigned in college classrooms, during an earlier and in retrospect much tamer phase of the culture wars, its inclusion on syllabuses was taken, by partisans and opponents alike, as a radical gesture. (The conservative canard one heard in those days was that left-wing professors were casting aside Shakespeare in favor of Morrison.) But the political rhetoric of the time obscured the essential conservatism of the novel, which aimed not to displace or overthrow its beloved precursors, but to complete and to some extent correct them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/books/review/scott-essay.html

No one has claimed it isn't an excellent, powerful book. That has nothing to do with the very valid criticisms of its graphically violent sexual content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

So where will you be, MOM, when your kid is in college next year? Managing his reading still? It's called education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

I'm continually amazed at the utter obtuseness of some of you. That you can even equate GRAPHIC RAPE SCENES with any of the above is pretty shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

So where will you be, MOM, when your kid is in college next year? Managing his reading still? It's called education.

I think you responded to the wrong person, but I'll respond to you anyway. When my kids are in college, they're 18. Why would I manage an adult's reading material?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

I'm continually amazed at the utter obtuseness of some of you. That you can even equate GRAPHIC RAPE SCENES with any of the above is pretty shocking.

So, graphic eye-gouging scenes in literature are ok, graphic child abuse scenes in literature are ok, but graphic rape scenes in literature are not ok - because why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

So where will you be, MOM, when your kid is in college next year? Managing his reading still? It's called education.

I think you responded to the wrong person, but I'll respond to you anyway. When my kids are in college, they're 18. Why would I manage an adult's reading material?

My kid turned 18 halfway through senior year. So I should have managed my kid's reading material in the fall of senior year, but not in the spring of senior year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

No, they don’t.

Then you obviously haven't bothered to read the entire thread. Do better.

Yes, I have. There have been a lot of posts highlighting the distinction between sex and rape.

[Anonymous]

I thought The Pledge commercial was bad, but this one takes the cake.