Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not right wing. But where I live (deep blue state, deep blue district, deep blue school board) the only serious efforts at book banning have come from the left. There aren’t enough right-wingers here to even try it.

The left here has also tried to decimate rigor in education, kept the schools closed for far longer than necessary, enacted restorative justice that destroyed classroom discipline, and stopped having kids read whole books because whole books were too hard to understand.

I just can’t see the Democrats as the party of education any more.

+1000
The dumbing down of education is most definitely coming from the left. The idea that kids should now only be assigned excerpts to read because they "couldn't possibly" manage to read entire books comes from the left. Our all-D school board advocates idiotic policies like this.

What do their republican counterparts think of science?

You mean like there's unlimited numbers of genders? That science???

There’s plenty of research on how brain structure doesnt always match external genetallia. It’s perfectly defensible to say that some people are born the “wrong” gender.

In the department of philosophy, sure.

What's your background to make such a statement? The PP is right. The biology not matching the gender identity is not new. It's been around for as long as I've been alive. And pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make it go away.

I know at least 3 families with trans kids and these kids are smart, well-adjusted, from "good families", etc. etc. "Good" by any metric. They're real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not right wing. But where I live (deep blue state, deep blue district, deep blue school board) the only serious efforts at book banning have come from the left. There aren’t enough right-wingers here to even try it.

The left here has also tried to decimate rigor in education, kept the schools closed for far longer than necessary, enacted restorative justice that destroyed classroom discipline, and stopped having kids read whole books because whole books were too hard to understand.

I just can’t see the Democrats as the party of education any more.

+1000
The dumbing down of education is most definitely coming from the left. The idea that kids should now only be assigned excerpts to read because they "couldn't possibly" manage to read entire books comes from the left. Our all-D school board advocates idiotic policies like this.

What do their republican counterparts think of science?

You mean like there's unlimited numbers of genders? That science???

There’s plenty of research on how brain structure doesnt always match external genetallia. It’s perfectly defensible to say that some people are born the “wrong” gender.

In the department of philosophy, sure.

What's your background to make such a statement? The PP is right. The biology not matching the gender identity is not new. It's been around for as long as I've been alive. And pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make it go away.

I know at least 3 families with trans kids and these kids are smart, well-adjusted, from "good families", etc. etc. "Good" by any metric. They're real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Why not just send your kids to a religious school? We shouldn’t have to handicap public education because you have feelings about a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

lol…are they’d hiding the pornography next to the litter boxes where the furries pee? Eating the cats and dogs in the lunch room?

You people are INSANE.

Is this even a good distraction from president PEDO, increasing prices, and loss of civil rights? Increasing inflation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

lol…are they’d hiding the pornography next to the litter boxes where the furries pee? Eating the cats and dogs in the lunch room?

You people are INSANE.

Is this even a good distraction from president PEDO, increasing prices, and loss of civil rights? Increasing inflation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

We used to prosecute school employees like that and put them in jail.

Now they've found a home in the democrat party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.

There is no rational world in which a teen needs school librarians providing them graphic porn. Absolutely none. The safeguarding concerns alone should scuttle that and anyone who is pushing that should not be allowed around children.

And those books are graphic, as in drawings of explicit oral sex. You’d have to pay for that if it was on OnlyFans but I am supposed to believe it should be put in school libraries? No. Absolutely not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not right wing. But where I live (deep blue state, deep blue district, deep blue school board) the only serious efforts at book banning have come from the left. There aren’t enough right-wingers here to even try it.

The left here has also tried to decimate rigor in education, kept the schools closed for far longer than necessary, enacted restorative justice that destroyed classroom discipline, and stopped having kids read whole books because whole books were too hard to understand.

I just can’t see the Democrats as the party of education any more.

+1000
The dumbing down of education is most definitely coming from the left. The idea that kids should now only be assigned excerpts to read because they "couldn't possibly" manage to read entire books comes from the left. Our all-D school board advocates idiotic policies like this.

What do their republican counterparts think of science?

You mean like there's unlimited numbers of genders? That science???

There’s plenty of research on how brain structure doesnt always match external genetallia. It’s perfectly defensible to say that some people are born the “wrong” gender.

In the department of philosophy, sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping books out of ES and MS is NOT banning books IMO. If you prevent them from being printed or published, that is banning books.

I agree - and Republicans have *never* tried to prevent any book from being printed, published, or sold. Liberals, otoh, were outraged when Target sold “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and demanded they take it off their shelves - which Target did, temporarily.

Republicans simply don't want sexually explicit books in school libraries.Not sure how you can argue with that when you can easily borrow them from any public library or order them from Amazon to share with your kids.

Then why are books regularly challenged that deal with racism, sexism, bullying, gay marriage, and non-explicit LGBTQ content?

Even when there’s no explicit sexual content, Republicans will claim there is, because they define the very existence of gay people as deviancy. Any mention of homosexuality, any depiction of same-sex parents, and the Moms for Liberty types immediately jump to “perverts!! what are they doing in bed?” Notice how they don’t do that for the thousands and thousands of heterosexual people depicted in books. Shouldn’t we be challenging the Berenstain Bears? Just what are Mom and Pop Bear doing in bed together? They’ve had sex at least twice and presumably share a bed, which makes them offensive role models for children.

If you find that weird and gross, you’ve just identified the hypocrisy behind automatically challenging LGBTQ content.

As for “just order it from Amazon!”, for many kids, the school library is their only way to access books. Not all kids can afford to buy books. Not all kids live within walking distance of a public library. That’s a flimsy rationalization that allows people to feel good about blocking access to representation for the kids who need it most. It’s important for kids to see themselves reflected in books. It’s important for young people to feel empowered about who they are. It’s important for young women to understand and take ownership of their bodies. Taking these books out of school libraries sends a loud and clear message: “You don’t matter, your questions don’t matter, and your struggles don’t matter. Keep quiet. Society wants you erased.”

This forum is full of posts whining about how white men feel hated and persecuted, but they’re not the ones being scrubbed out of libraries.