I am observing the biggest leftward cultural shift since 2008

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

We used to prosecute school employees like that and put them in jail.

Now they've found a home in the democrat party.

Exactly this! It's unreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

We have seen the pictures you are defending. If someone sent those exact same pictures to a teenager outside of the school library, that person could and should be prosecuted. But you apparently think it’s fine for school employees to give that same material, which shows children giving and receiving oral sex, to children that they issue grades for and otherwise control at school.

That’s what the Democrats stand for these days when it comes to education. And it is truly awful.

DP. I could not agree more. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

+1
The mindset of parents who actually advocate for this garbage being available in schools is mindboggling. The "handicapping public education" comment actually made me laugh out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

+1
The mindset of parents who actually advocate for this garbage being available in schools is mindboggling. The "handicapping public education" comment actually made me laugh out loud.

Democrats who think Democrats are good on education:

I would like to know specifically how not allowing school employees to provide graphic pictures of children giving each other oral sex is “handicapping public education.” Please be specific. Many thanks.

[Anonymous]

What a laughable thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

Again - wanting *sexually explicit books* - like "Gender Queer," "Lawn Boy," et al - out of school libraries doesn't equate to removing books with two moms/dads. And sorry, but if you think books like the titles just mentioned belong in our school libraries, I will continue to protest against them. There is no world in which graphically sexual books need to be available to my kids. If you like to share those "stories" with your own kids, feel free.

These sexually books that you're railing about have only ever shown up in a handful of libraries nationally. These are isolated incidents. There's no "the Dems" here for you to point a finger at. And in some of those libraries there wasn't even an entry in the card catalog or record of the book having been procured before "Moms for Liberty" magically found within just minutes of looking.

So I personally think this whole thing is about 98% manufactured hit job and 2% bad judgement by a handful of libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

All that's really happened is democrats have grown the administrative staff in schools. They look at it as a jobs program, just like every other arm of government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

Again - wanting *sexually explicit books* - like "Gender Queer," "Lawn Boy," et al - out of school libraries doesn't equate to removing books with two moms/dads. And sorry, but if you think books like the titles just mentioned belong in our school libraries, I will continue to protest against them. There is no world in which graphically sexual books need to be available to my kids. If you like to share those "stories" with your own kids, feel free.

These sexually books that you're railing about have only ever shown up in a handful of libraries nationally. These are isolated incidents. There's no "the Dems" here for you to point a finger at. And in some of those libraries there wasn't even an entry in the card catalog or record of the book having been procured before "Moms for Liberty" magically found within just minutes of looking.

So I personally think this whole thing is about 98% manufactured hit job and 2% bad judgement by a handful of libraries.

These seems to be a recurring theme when you democrats get caught red handed. You ask for proof. When it's presented, you claim it's an isolated incident.

Not too predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right. So the fact that Republicans won the White House, House, Senate and more governorships is clearly an indication of a shift to the left. Survey says? NO. It is a clear rejection of the lurch to the left. Open your eyes…. Migration away from Blue states to Red is even more evidence as people are literally voting with their feet and their dollars. Private schools cannot meet the need as people flee disastrous public schools hijacked by unions. I mean honestly what are you even talking about. Good lord you are delusional.

Americans, especially those whose ancestors were LEGAL immigrants and became CITIZENS by following the LAW, are tired if our tax money wasted . We celebrate ICE, DOGE, President Trump & his Administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. So the fact that Republicans won the White House, House, Senate and more governorships is clearly an indication of a shift to the left. Survey says? NO. It is a clear rejection of the lurch to the left. Open your eyes…. Migration away from Blue states to Red is even more evidence as people are literally voting with their feet and their dollars. Private schools cannot meet the need as people flee disastrous public schools hijacked by unions. I mean honestly what are you even talking about. Good lord you are delusional.

Americans, especially those whose ancestors were LEGAL immigrants and became CITIZENS by following the LAW, are tired if our tax money wasted . We celebrate ICE, DOGE, President Trump & his Administration.

No, real Americans don’t agree with this Nazi peso crime ring, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

+1
The mindset of parents who actually advocate for this garbage being available in schools is mindboggling. The "handicapping public education" comment actually made me laugh out loud.

No one is going to take you seriously until you stop supporting pedophilia.

Not about education, not about anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. So the fact that Republicans won the White House, House, Senate and more governorships is clearly an indication of a shift to the left. Survey says? NO. It is a clear rejection of the lurch to the left. Open your eyes…. Migration away from Blue states to Red is even more evidence as people are literally voting with their feet and their dollars. Private schools cannot meet the need as people flee disastrous public schools hijacked by unions. I mean honestly what are you even talking about. Good lord you are delusional.

Americans, especially those whose ancestors were LEGAL immigrants and became CITIZENS by following the LAW, are tired if our tax money wasted . We celebrate ICE, DOGE, President Trump & his Administration.

So, just to be clear, you agree that foreign nationals who have valid green cards that allow them to live and work in the US should be rounded up, sent to detention centers with no notification to their families, and then deported to random third world countries? Because that’s what’s happening under this fascist administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

+1
The mindset of parents who actually advocate for this garbage being available in schools is mindboggling. The "handicapping public education" comment actually made me laugh out loud.

Democrats who think Democrats are good on education:

I would like to know specifically how not allowing school employees to provide graphic pictures of children giving each other oral sex is “handicapping public education.” Please be specific. Many thanks.

I think it's hilarious that MAGA worries about what literature children read, but could care less about politician involvement in a literal pedo ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Right back at you. Your "feelings" that kids need to be exposed to sexually graphic material shouldn't take precedence over my feelings that kids should be protected from inappropriate material.
DP

Not giving kids porn is handicapping them? Dems love to throw money at education but never stop to ask why all the increased spending has not improved results.

+1
The mindset of parents who actually advocate for this garbage being available in schools is mindboggling. The "handicapping public education" comment actually made me laugh out loud.

Democrats who think Democrats are good on education:

I would like to know specifically how not allowing school employees to provide graphic pictures of children giving each other oral sex is “handicapping public education.” Please be specific. Many thanks.

I think it's hilarious that MAGA worries about what literature children read, but could care less about politician involvement in a literal pedo ring.

The hypocrisy of maga and republicans is total lunacy.