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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was undecided who to vote for in this election, but for Youngkin to placate the entitlement of mothers like this?
Well, it's sealed the deal for me.

This ad was a huge mistake.

m

You were undecided, yeah, right, uh huh, ok, yeah.

[Anonymous]

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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

+100
Great post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much misinformation on this thread. First of all, the mother wanted a *temporary* ban on this title in FCPS, only until new rules were put into place to notify parents of sexually explicit materials in school library books. McAuliffe vetoed that legislation.

Murphy sought a temporary ban on the book until new rules governing how schools would handle books with “objectionable material” were put in place, The Washington Post reported in 2013.

In the ad, Murphy recounts how Youngkin’s opponent, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, vetoed legislation she pushed for that would have required schools to tell parents if books assigned to their children contained sexually explicit material.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/mom-wanted-ban-beloved-featured-215512464.html

Yeah, she didn't want to BAN ban the book, she just wanted to, you know, ban it. Temporarily.

She wouldn’t have been unreasonable in thinking at the time that McAuliffe would have signed, rather than vetoed, the bill providing for notification that was supported by other Democrats, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul (in which case the moratorium would have been lifted).

In other words, she actually did want to ban it. Sorry, not a ban, a "moratorium."

Normal people not sparring during election season understand the word “ban” connotes a permanent restriction.

Normal people understand that she wanted to ban the book and that you don't want to be in the position of defending book-banners.

+1

Which makes it odd that Youngkin would double-down on book banning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I got to read Shakespeare, Melville, and Ralph Ellison in AP English instead. That is some seriously challenging prose to parse if you’re not from a particular background.

Morrison was quite explicit about who was and wasn’t her intended audience. Realistically there are a lot of high school students who’ll give up trying to understand her prose for reasons totally unrelated to its sexual content.

Yes, Shakespeare and Melville are both widely known as highly accessible, easy-to-read writers! For example, here's Shakespeare:

Why, all delights are vain; but that most vain,
Which with pain purchased doth inherit pain:
As, painfully to pore upon a book
To seek the light of truth; while truth the while
Doth falsely blind the eyesight of his look:
Light seeking light doth light of light beguile:
So, ere you find where light in darkness lies,
Your light grows dark by losing of your eyes.
Study me how to please the eye indeed
By fixing it upon a fairer eye,
Who dazzling so, that eye shall be his heed
And give him light that it was blinded by.
Study is like the heaven's glorious sun
That will not be deep-search'd with saucy looks:
Small have continual plodders ever won
Save base authority from others' books
These earthly godfathers of heaven's lights
That give a name to every fixed star
Have no more profit of their shining nights
Than those that walk and wot not what they are.
Too much to know is to know nought but fame;
And every godfather can give a name.

And here's Melville:

Ahab well knew that although his friends at home would think little of his entering a boat in certain comparatively harmless vicissitudes of the chase, for the sake of being near the scene of action and giving his orders in person, yet for Captain Ahab to have a boat actually apportioned to him as a regular headsman in the hunt—above all for Captain Ahab to be supplied with five extra men, as that same boat’s crew, he well knew that such generous conceits never entered the heads of the owners of the Pequod. Therefore he had not solicited a boat’s crew from them, nor had he in any way hinted his desires on that head. Nevertheless he had taken private measures of his own touching all that matter. Until Cabaco’s published discovery, the sailors had little foreseen it, though to be sure when, after being a little while out of port, all hands had concluded the customary business of fitting the whaleboats for service; when some time after this Ahab was now and then found bestirring himself in the matter of making thole-pins with his own hands for what was thought to be one of the spare boats, and even solicitously cutting the small wooden skewers, which when the line is running out are pinned over the groove in the bow: when all this was observed in him, and particularly his solicitude in having an extra coat of sheathing in the bottom of the boat, as if to make it better withstand the pointed pressure of his ivory limb; and also the anxiety he evinced in exactly shaping the thigh board, or clumsy cleat, as it is sometimes called, the horizontal piece in the boat’s bow for bracing the knee against in darting or stabbing at the whale; when it was observed how often he stood up in that boat with his solitary knee fixed in the semi-circular depression in the cleat, and with the carpenter’s chisel gouged out a little here and straightened it a little there; all these things, I say, had awakened much interest and curiosity at the time. But almost everybody supposed that this particular preparative heedfulness in Ahab must only be with a view to the ultimate chase of Moby Dick; for he had already revealed his intention to hunt that mortal monster in person. But such a supposition did by no means involve the remotest suspicion as to any boat’s crew being assigned to that boat.

[Anonymous]

The funny thing is I went to a private religious school and we read The French Lieutenant's Woman and When Heaven and Earth Changed Places (bith of which cintain sexual content) in our AP Class. Because the school actually cared about prepping us for college lit.

[Anonymous]

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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

There are lots of books with sex in them. The fact that you point the finger about books about slavery or discrimination against LBGTQ kids is the tell...that's where the actual objection lies.

The reality is that there is a vocal segment of parents in Virginia who objects to any book that doesn't promote white, christian viewpoint of the world. So glad my kids are in private school where they read a wide array of high quality books and the administration does not tolerate book burners trying to hijack things.

[Anonymous]

Of course the Fascist Party of America wants to ban books. They’d happily strip the public libraries, too, and they’d tell us it’s just temporary or in our own best interests or something.

The woman is a right wing extremist.

[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.

No, Democrats correctly state that children aren’t being taught Critical Race Theory. Republicans don’t actually know what any of that means, but they know they don’t want the facts of American history taught to children. Have to catch ‘em early with the propaganda version or they might begin to side with the enslaved rather than the people who stole their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, Democrats correctly state that children aren’t being taught Critical Race Theory. Republicans don’t actually know what any of that means, but they know they don’t want the facts of American history taught to children. Have to catch ‘em early with the propaganda version or they might begin to side with the enslaved rather than the people who stole their lives.

DP. Is the current elementary school history curriculum not to your liking?

[Anonymous]

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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

There are lots of books with sex in them. The fact that you point the finger about books about slavery or discrimination against LBGTQ kids is the tell...that's where the actual objection lies.

The reality is that there is a vocal segment of parents in Virginia who objects to any book that doesn't promote white, christian viewpoint of the world. So glad my kids are in private school where they read a wide array of high quality books and the administration does not tolerate book burners trying to hijack things.

There was never any doubt but that a lot of McAuliffe supporters revel in self-congratulatory postings about how elite, yet open-minded, they are. There’s no acceptance of the idea that other parents might be more culturally conservative when it comes to graphic, explicit sexual materials. As long as it’s in a book that has received an “award” bestowed by others with equally progressive views - often because the book deals with other favored topics written by authors who are neither white nor Christian - any reservations about the appropriateness of the material are quickly dismissed. It’s more than a little condescending, and yet so predictable.

[Anonymous]

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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

I'm all for bans on CRT-esque lessons, so I have no problem with that. But you're going to have to cough up a link for the bolded, which is a lie.

The parent who wanted to ban books about LGBTQ characters spoke at the FCPS school board meetingand Youngkin featured her on his ads in less than a week. And there are no CRT lessons— the Texas crt ban has teachers closing their libraries and administrators telling their teachers to teach “both sides” of the Holocaust. You are “all for” that?!

[Anonymous]

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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

There are lots of books with sex in them. The fact that you point the finger about books about slavery or discrimination against LBGTQ kids is the tell...that's where the actual objection lies.

The reality is that there is a vocal segment of parents in Virginia who objects to any book that doesn't promote white, christian viewpoint of the world. So glad my kids are in private school where they read a wide array of high quality books and the administration does not tolerate book burners trying to hijack things.

There was never any doubt but that a lot of McAuliffe supporters revel in self-congratulatory postings about how elite, yet open-minded, they are. There’s no acceptance of the idea that other parents might be more culturally conservative when it comes to graphic, explicit sexual materials. As long as it’s in a book that has received an “award” bestowed by others with equally progressive views - often because the book deals with other favored topics written by authors who are neither white nor Christian - any reservations about the appropriateness of the material are quickly dismissed. It’s more than a little condescending, and yet so predictable.

But if a parent has chosen to allow their child to take an AP class, then don’t they need to accept their children will be reading college level texts? If you don’t think your child is ready for college level materials, then don’t let them take a college level class. This seems like a totally reasonable level of parental choice to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, Democrats correctly state that children aren’t being taught Critical Race Theory. Republicans don’t actually know what any of that means, but they know they don’t want the facts of American history taught to children. Have to catch ‘em early with the propaganda version or they might begin to side with the enslaved rather than the people who stole their lives.

No one should object to teaching facts; however, it’s rather obvious you simply wish to replace one version of propaganda with a different but equally simplistic version of propaganda more to your liking.

[Anonymous]

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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

I'm all for bans on CRT-esque lessons, so I have no problem with that. But you're going to have to cough up a link for the bolded, which is a lie.

The parent who wanted to ban books about LGBTQ characters spoke at the FCPS school board meetingand Youngkin featured her on his ads in less than a week. And there are no CRT lessons— the Texas crt ban has teachers closing their libraries and administrators telling their teachers to teach “both sides” of the Holocaust. You are “all for” that?!

Nah, they wanted to remove books with explicit language and explicit pictures. But you think children need exposure to exploit gay sex in order to be worldly...

[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.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

There are lots of books with sex in them. The fact that you point the finger about books about slavery or discrimination against LBGTQ kids is the tell...that's where the actual objection lies.

The reality is that there is a vocal segment of parents in Virginia who objects to any book that doesn't promote white, christian viewpoint of the world. So glad my kids are in private school where they read a wide array of high quality books and the administration does not tolerate book burners trying to hijack things.

There was never any doubt but that a lot of McAuliffe supporters revel in self-congratulatory postings about how elite, yet open-minded, they are. There’s no acceptance of the idea that other parents might be more culturally conservative when it comes to graphic, explicit sexual materials. As long as it’s in a book that has received an “award” bestowed by others with equally progressive views - often because the book deals with other favored topics written by authors who are neither white nor Christian - any reservations about the appropriateness of the material are quickly dismissed. It’s more than a little condescending, and yet so predictable.

But if a parent has chosen to allow their child to take an AP class, then don’t they need to accept their children will be reading college level texts? If you don’t think your child is ready for college level materials, then don’t let them take a college level class. This seems like a totally reasonable level of parental choice to me.

It’s perfectly possible to teach college-level writing and analytical skills without subjecting minors to sexually explicit material. Go revel in your smut if you like, but stop pretending that a steady diet of such material is a necessary hallmark of maturity.