Seriously with the book banning ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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/

Reddit? No thanks.

[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...

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.

"You all"? Way to make a sweeping generalization. I'm all for a ban on marriage under age 18, as are millions of others. Weird that you try to conflate the two issues.

[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.

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.

I read them all and was not promiscuous and ended up in a monogamous long term marriage. Books were not making or breaking my sexual activities any more than the p*rn magazines I found hidden in my teen brother's room. Judy Blume was in my school library so I don't freak out at books turning kids into s*x robots the way you do.

[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.

You are offended by these books. Other people are offended by the stereotypes in Little House on the Prairie. Why does what offends you predominate over what offends other parents? No one is "providing" these books to kids in libraries. If you want your kids to avoid any mention of romance or sexuality in any form then you have the right to ban them from checking out books in the library.

I’m not offended by these books at all.

People seem to not comprehend that the freedom to publish and distribute this material is the not the same thing as the government providing it to children in an educational setting.

Why is the government providing impressionable young minds books with harmful stereotypes?

[Anonymous]

1930s Germany

Book banning first

[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.

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.

I assume you’d like to ban The Hunger Games then in schools. I mean kids might start killing one another. WAY worse than having sex don’t you think?

[Anonymous]

Better ban kids from art museums while you’re at it. Too many nudes and pictures of gods raping women and nymphs.

[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...

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.

"You all"? Way to make a sweeping generalization. I'm all for a ban on marriage under age 18, as are millions of others. Weird that you try to conflate the two issues.

There are only seven states that have a ban like that when the entire Republican Party is yelling about groomers.

[Anonymous]

Another example of the things Florida found to be "problematic" in school textbooks:



DeSantis's Florida is completely off the rails and is suppressing history in the name of deranged "anti-wokeness."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another example of the things Florida found to be "problematic" in school textbooks:



DeSantis's Florida is completely off the rails and is suppressing history in the name of deranged "anti-wokeness."

Source for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Reddit? No thanks.

Stop making excuses and watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4tBFKxvkLg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another example of the things Florida found to be "problematic" in school textbooks:



DeSantis's Florida is completely off the rails and is suppressing history in the name of deranged "anti-wokeness."

Source for this?

Freedom to Read project, already confirmed as true by others. https://pen.org/florida-textbooks-rosa-parks-history/

[Anonymous]

Yes, there is an *actual* secretive, yet vast, established, organized, well-funded Christian far right conspiracy to censor and ban books, legislate against LGBTQ and other repressive actions:

https://newrepublic.com/article/167002/council-national-policy-documents-right-wing-conspiracy

They are driving legislative changes in dozens of red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Reddit? No thanks.

Stop making excuses and watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4tBFKxvkLg

Did they include the part where the state rejected that textbook for "overreach?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there is an *actual* secretive, yet vast, established, organized, well-funded Christian far right conspiracy to censor and ban books, legislate against LGBTQ and other repressive actions:

https://newrepublic.com/article/167002/council-national-policy-documents-right-wing-conspiracy

They are driving legislative changes in dozens of red states.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/20/alliance-defending-freedom-multimillion-dollar-conservative-christian-group-attacking-lgbtq-rights