Seriously with the book banning ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

It isn't provided to children.

And FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!@

Or are you not an actual American?

You banned Dr. Seuss. You are a book banner.

+1
And "To Kill a Mockingbird." Interesting how that never comes up.

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

I watched it.

And I still say: NO CENSORSHIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

It isn't provided to children.

And FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!@

Or are you not an actual American?

You banned Dr. Seuss. You are a book banner.

+1
And "To Kill a Mockingbird." Interesting how that never comes up.

Who banned that? It is on my kids' reading lists.
The work did become a little less popular after the sequel came out, and it didn't quite fit the tidy picture of the original.
It seems in the first draft Harper Lee had Atticus as a thorough racist, only he put the law first and insisted on a fair trial.

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

It isn't provided to children.

And FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!@

Or are you not an actual American?

You banned Dr. Seuss. You are a book banner.

+1
And "To Kill a Mockingbird." Interesting how that never comes up.

Who banned that? It is on my kids' reading lists.
The work did become a little less popular after the sequel came out, and it didn't quite fit the tidy picture of the original.
It seems in the first draft Harper Lee had Atticus as a thorough racist, only he put the law first and insisted on a fair trial.

Democrats banned it. Among other titles:

[Anonymous]

Also, a school district in Washington State.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/mukilteo-school-district-removes-to-kill-a-mockingbird-from-required-reading-list/

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

I watched it.

And I still say: NO CENSORSHIP.

+1. It's not different than books that have been available for a long time with the exception that the kinds of descriptions that were words are now including pictures and it's LGBTQ content rather than strictly heterosexual. I keep referencing Judy Blume because it's essentially the same to me.

I think the person who keeps posting this link didn't read much in highschool which is why they are freaking out about these books.

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

I watched it.

And I still say: NO CENSORSHIP.

+1. It's not different than books that have been available for a long time with the exception that the kinds of descriptions that were words are now including pictures and it's LGBTQ content rather than strictly heterosexual. I keep referencing Judy Blume because it's essentially the same to me.

I think the person who keeps posting this link didn't read much in highschool which is why they are freaking out about these books.

DP but it's also clear they are a man which is why they assume pictures are more er, titillating than words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

All books passed the Milker test.

So your position is that anything passing the miller test should be provided to children in schools?

Yes at the highschool level or even middle school.

[Anonymous]

The book banning, the anti-LGBTQ, it's all part of an organized, orchestrated agenda.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/11u6m5e/christian_extremism_infiltrating_american_politics/

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

That night be more convincing if conservatives weren’t fighting bans on marriage under age 18 around the country. Clearly you all have no problem with children having sex as long as there’s a ring involved.

[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:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

I watched it.

And I still say: NO CENSORSHIP.

+1. It's not different than books that have been available for a long time with the exception that the kinds of descriptions that were words are now including pictures and it's LGBTQ content rather than strictly heterosexual. I keep referencing Judy Blume because it's essentially the same to me.

I think the person who keeps posting this link didn't read much in highschool which is why they are freaking out about these books.

I'm the person who posted the video. Guess what? I've always been a huge bookworm - and was a big fan of Judy Blume back in the day. Of course, I wasn't allowed to read some of her books ("Forever," "Deenie") because they were sexually explicit. I did read them, of course, but the point was that they weren't easily available to me because the adults in my life cared about my exposure to sexual themes. It was annoying at the time, but in retrospect, that protectiveness probably prevented me from doing some really stupid things.

Now we have actual pornographic images in books available in public school libraries and some of you are a-ok with that. This thread is absurd. We will never agree on this topic, and it's exhausting dealing with gaslighters.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The list of books banned in Florida is publicly available (and it’s been linked and discussed on this thread, though it’s been ignored by the fascists) and it’s not smut. It’s multicultural books. Books that acknowledge gay people as humans. Books that talk about the contributions of women and not White people to our culture, to technology. Books that talk about age appropriate sexuality, things like consent (i.e., your body is your body and people can’t touch it without your permission) and appropriate names for body parts.

So basically everything that Republicans fear.

+1 Stop pretending this is about porn, it’s not.

It’s their typical BS arguments. They try to minimize it but everyone knows what’s happening.

If it’s not about porn for you, Why not agree that graphic depictions Of sexual activity not be provided by the government to other people’s children?

So you obviously don't believe in sex ed.

Also the government is not "giving" those kids books. Their parents have every right to say "my child cannot check out or read this book." You are trying to ban books for OTHER people's children.

What if a group decided to ban the Little House on the Prairie books because of harmful stereotypes of Indians? Do they have that right to decide your kids shouldn't be exposed to material they feel is harmful?

We are not talking stereotypes from little house on the prairie. We are talking about the graphic depiction of sexual acts. Stay on topic. You are free to provide this material to your children. Why are you so invested in providing this content to other people’s children? Please answer this question.

Are only photos graphic? But verbal descriptions ok? Define graphic. I'm a woman and prefer reading erotica to visuals so if you're assuminf pictures are bad, but words are ok, it depends on the person. If you're going with words = graphic, that's quite a slippery slope

You like erotica. Great. Explain to me why it must be provided to children in schools.

I didn't say it must be.

Define graphic. Define what verbal descriptions of sex are allowed vs not? Or is it just pictures that bother you?

So now you are against providing erotica to kids in school? Sounds to me like you are a book banner. Why do you hate the 1st amendment.

Rolls eyes. Define what version of graphic is ok or not. Stull waiting for your definition.

Frankly I haven’t seen Republicans supply the titles of any books routinely supplied to school children that contain graphic anything.

DP. Spare us. It's been posted repeatedly, you just refuse to watch this video. Gosh, can't imagine why...

I watched it.

And I still say: NO CENSORSHIP.

+1. It's not different than books that have been available for a long time with the exception that the kinds of descriptions that were words are now including pictures and it's LGBTQ content rather than strictly heterosexual. I keep referencing Judy Blume because it's essentially the same to me.

I think the person who keeps posting this link didn't read much in highschool which is why they are freaking out about these books.

DP but it's also clear they are a man which is why they assume pictures are more er, titillating than words.

DP. I'm a woman, as I imagine most of the other posters are. No doubt some of you advocating for porn in schools are men though.