Seriously with the book banning ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, they are rewriting Roald Dahl books to supposedly make them more appropriate for kids.

"They?" You're pissed off because the owners decided to do something with their property?

NP. The new publishers missed the entire point of Mr. Dahl’s books. Signed a progressive.

Still not book banning.
Signed,
An actual progressive

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, they are rewriting Roald Dahl books to supposedly make them more appropriate for kids.

"They?" You're pissed off because the owners decided to do something with their property?

NP. The new publishers missed the entire point of Mr. Dahl’s books. Signed a progressive.

Owners can be wrong about what they want to do with their property. That's almost the whole point of owning stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, they are rewriting Roald Dahl books to supposedly make them more appropriate for kids.

"They?" You're pissed off because the owners decided to do something with their property?

NP. The new publishers missed the entire point of Mr. Dahl’s books. Signed a progressive.

Owners can be wrong about what they want to do with their property. That's almost the whole point of owning stuff.

PP here. Of course, the owners CAN do what they want. But there is a difference between CAN and SHOULD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, they are rewriting Roald Dahl books to supposedly make them more appropriate for kids.

"They?" You're pissed off because the owners decided to do something with their property?

NP. The new publishers missed the entire point of Mr. Dahl’s books. Signed a progressive.

Owners can be wrong about what they want to do with their property. That's almost the whole point of owning stuff.

PP here. Of course, the owners CAN do what they want. But there is a difference between CAN and SHOULD.

Then start a spin off thread because THIS one is about book BANNING. Not whatever wild hoot you’re on.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

This is an important message illuminating who gets hurt when you ban books

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’S nOt FaScIsM

[Anonymous]

That predictable moment when the guy banning books is actually a child molester:

LGBTQ book ban proponent faces felony child molestation charge in Missouri

The man tried to have the award-winning graphic memoir “Fun Home,” among other LGBTQ titles, removed from school libraries in Kansas City.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/lgbtq-book-ban-advocate-faces-felony-child-molestation-charge-missouri-rcna14763

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That predictable moment when the guy banning books is actually a child molester:

LGBTQ book ban proponent faces felony child molestation charge in Missouri

The man tried to have the award-winning graphic memoir “Fun Home,” among other LGBTQ titles, removed from school libraries in Kansas City.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/lgbtq-book-ban-advocate-faces-felony-child-molestation-charge-missouri-rcna14763

This is my surprised face.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I've worked and volunteered in a few school libraries, and I've NEVER seen something like this. Huge boxes of books, several feet high, being thrown out.

This is in Broward Co, FL. The Broward Co Schools Communications Chief says the school is "updating and refreshing its inventory" but why are all the books about black people and Jews?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've worked and volunteered in a few school libraries, and I've NEVER seen something like this. Huge boxes of books, several feet high, being thrown out.

This is in Broward Co, FL. The Broward Co Schools Communications Chief says the school is "updating and refreshing its inventory" but why are all the books about black people and Jews?

Good for her.

I call bull on all those books being about GrOoMeRs. And anyway, the Republicans are always the ones grooming child victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an important message illuminating who gets hurt when you ban books

I think it’s worthwhile to put in the source that references and talks about the necessity of these books more generally.

“At an event, a librarian shared with Harris that It’s Perfectly Normal kept disappearing from the shelves. She replaced it several times, but it kept happening, and it was beyond their budget to keep doing so. Then, one day, they all came back in a backpack with a note: “I took this book because I thought no child or teenager should read it. Then my 14-year-old niece got pregnant, and now I realize that children do need books like this.”

[…]

In the interview with Marcus, Harris said:

I have been called a pornographer, a child abuser — every name in the book, as the saying goes. But whenever I am called one of those names, I think of that ten-year-old girl. I wish we never had to talk with kids about any of these aberrant behaviors. But we have to do so because they already know about them to some extent and because kids have a right to have the accurate information that can keep them healthy and safe. They need to know how to get help to make any abusive behavior stop.” Emphasis mine; this is why Republicans want these books pulled out of libraries. There’s no grooming in these books. They do not want children armed with knowledge.


https://bookriot.com/sex-ed-books-protect-kids/