Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:33 Snowfish: “Boobie is a teenage pyromaniac who has killed his parents and kidnapped his baby brother with the intention of selling him to the highest bidder. Custis is an orphan who, for most of his wretched life, has been the sexual slave of middle-aged pedophile. Curl is a teenaged prostitute who has a dangerous crush on Boobie. These three miserable outcasts have formed a tenuous bond and are all on the run for Boobie’s murder.”

This sounds like a real winner. If you read the Kyle Rittenhouse thread people think he’s guilty because he played Call of Duty. Where exactly do you place the oh-so-touching-tale of “teenage rape victim and sex slave”? Completely sordid that this book is Democrats’ hill to die on. It should be burned. If you gave my child this to read, I’d file charges for child abuse.

Perhaps in an earlier time pre-internet we might have had a spirited conversation on this topic, but it makes no sense to complain about the content of library books in the internet age when everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--is available to view within seconds on a cell phone screen. Whatever idyllic notion you have of childhood innocence shattered by this book--or any others you choose--trust me, it was shattered long ago.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean a parent has absolutely no ability to consent or control over what their child sees or reads. This book in particular in my opinion is very dark and for a more mature audience than teens. It discusses pedophilia, murder, rape, prostitution, a snuff film, child abuse, pyromania and drugs in a very matter of fact way.

You can control what books you bring into your home, you can control whether your child has internet access at home or you can put parental blocks on their computer and phone (But for how long? Until what age?), you can even control who their friends are (But how do you know what undesirable material your child is accessing at their friends' houses?), and now apparently you want to control specific books available in your child's school library, but you are not going to control their exposure to unsavory topics...for very long. Good luck though!

Attitudes like yours is why Youngkin was elected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:33 Snowfish: “Boobie is a teenage pyromaniac who has killed his parents and kidnapped his baby brother with the intention of selling him to the highest bidder. Custis is an orphan who, for most of his wretched life, has been the sexual slave of middle-aged pedophile. Curl is a teenaged prostitute who has a dangerous crush on Boobie. These three miserable outcasts have formed a tenuous bond and are all on the run for Boobie’s murder.”

This sounds like a real winner. If you read the Kyle Rittenhouse thread people think he’s guilty because he played Call of Duty. Where exactly do you place the oh-so-touching-tale of “teenage rape victim and sex slave”? Completely sordid that this book is Democrats’ hill to die on. It should be burned. If you gave my child this to read, I’d file charges for child abuse.

Perhaps in an earlier time pre-internet we might have had a spirited conversation on this topic, but it makes no sense to complain about the content of library books in the internet age when everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--is available to view within seconds on a cell phone screen. Whatever idyllic notion you have of childhood innocence shattered by this book--or any others you choose--trust me, it was shattered long ago.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean a parent has absolutely no ability to consent or control over what their child sees or reads. This book in particular in my opinion is very dark and for a more mature audience than teens. It discusses pedophilia, murder, rape, prostitution, a snuff film, child abuse, pyromania and drugs in a very matter of fact way.

You can control what books you bring into your home, you can control whether your child has internet access at home or you can put parental blocks on their computer and phone (But for how long? Until what age?), you can even control who their friends are (But how do you know what undesirable material your child is accessing at their friends' houses?), and now apparently you want to control specific books available in your child's school library, but you are not going to control their exposure to unsavory topics...for very long. Good luck though!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:33 Snowfish: “Boobie is a teenage pyromaniac who has killed his parents and kidnapped his baby brother with the intention of selling him to the highest bidder. Custis is an orphan who, for most of his wretched life, has been the sexual slave of middle-aged pedophile. Curl is a teenaged prostitute who has a dangerous crush on Boobie. These three miserable outcasts have formed a tenuous bond and are all on the run for Boobie’s murder.”

This sounds like a real winner. If you read the Kyle Rittenhouse thread people think he’s guilty because he played Call of Duty. Where exactly do you place the oh-so-touching-tale of “teenage rape victim and sex slave”? Completely sordid that this book is Democrats’ hill to die on. It should be burned. If you gave my child this to read, I’d file charges for child abuse.

Perhaps in an earlier time pre-internet we might have had a spirited conversation on this topic, but it makes no sense to complain about the content of library books in the internet age when everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--is available to view within seconds on a cell phone screen. Whatever idyllic notion you have of childhood innocence shattered by this book--or any others you choose--trust me, it was shattered long ago.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean a parent has absolutely no ability to consent or control over what their child sees or reads. This book in particular in my opinion is very dark and for a more mature audience than teens. It discusses pedophilia, murder, rape, prostitution, a snuff film, child abuse, pyromania and drugs in a very matter of fact way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:33 Snowfish: “Boobie is a teenage pyromaniac who has killed his parents and kidnapped his baby brother with the intention of selling him to the highest bidder. Custis is an orphan who, for most of his wretched life, has been the sexual slave of middle-aged pedophile. Curl is a teenaged prostitute who has a dangerous crush on Boobie. These three miserable outcasts have formed a tenuous bond and are all on the run for Boobie’s murder.”

This sounds like a real winner. If you read the Kyle Rittenhouse thread people think he’s guilty because he played Call of Duty. Where exactly do you place the oh-so-touching-tale of “teenage rape victim and sex slave”? Completely sordid that this book is Democrats’ hill to die on. It should be burned. If you gave my child this to read, I’d file charges for child abuse.

Perhaps in an earlier time pre-internet we might have had a spirited conversation on this topic, but it makes no sense to complain about the content of library books in the internet age when everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--is available to view within seconds on a cell phone screen. Whatever idyllic notion you have of childhood innocence shattered by this book--or any others you choose--trust me, it was shattered long ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:33 Snowfish: “Boobie is a teenage pyromaniac who has killed his parents and kidnapped his baby brother with the intention of selling him to the highest bidder. Custis is an orphan who, for most of his wretched life, has been the sexual slave of middle-aged pedophile. Curl is a teenaged prostitute who has a dangerous crush on Boobie. These three miserable outcasts have formed a tenuous bond and are all on the run for Boobie’s murder.”

This sounds like a real winner. If you read the Kyle Rittenhouse thread people think he’s guilty because he played Call of Duty. Where exactly do you place the oh-so-touching-tale of “teenage rape victim and sex slave”? Completely sordid that this book is Democrats’ hill to die on. It should be burned. If you gave my child this to read, I’d file charges for child abuse.

Perhaps in an earlier time pre-internet we might have had a spirited conversation on this topic, but it makes no sense to complain about the content of library books in the internet age when everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--is available to view within seconds on a cell phone screen. Whatever idyllic notion you have of childhood innocence shattered by this book--or any others you choose--trust me, it was shattered long ago.

Anonymous wrote:33 Snowfish: “Boobie is a teenage pyromaniac who has killed his parents and kidnapped his baby brother with the intention of selling him to the highest bidder. Custis is an orphan who, for most of his wretched life, has been the sexual slave of middle-aged pedophile. Curl is a teenaged prostitute who has a dangerous crush on Boobie. These three miserable outcasts have formed a tenuous bond and are all on the run for Boobie’s murder.”

This sounds like a real winner. If you read the Kyle Rittenhouse thread people think he’s guilty because he played Call of Duty. Where exactly do you place the oh-so-touching-tale of “teenage rape victim and sex slave”? Completely sordid that this book is Democrats’ hill to die on. It should be burned. If you gave my child this to read, I’d file charges for child abuse.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not for burning books. But, I also don't have a lot of faith in recommendations from the American Library Association. Even the ALA said the book was a "dark tale." How dark? How many members reviewed the book?

Librarians who order book usually depend on those reviews to make decisions. Many have never seen the book and never even look at it. Librarians in school libraries order hundreds of books every year and depend on those reviews. Maybe it is time to learn how the reviewers are selected.

Remember, this is about books in school libraries. Banning a book from a school library is hardly the same as banning books from the public.

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with kids learning about sexual abuse, drug addiction, and prostitution. They are likely to encounter all of this in their teens.

Anonymous wrote:I do find it odd that that ratios of LGBTQ-themed to straight-themed books about teen relationships were so heavily skewed towards LQBTQ.

That’s just ….like I said - odd. Most teens are not LGBTQ, so it makes no sense that fiction books about teens dating should be 166-to-2 in favor of LGBTQ storylines.

I’m not suggesting book burning, but someone definitely needs to look into the library system’s procurement process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP isn’t fascist at all, they have literally nothing in common with the Nazis and they certainly don’t share the same ideology as them.

I assume this was sarcasm.