Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

The problem here is not the books in question.

No, it’s the people who are scared their kids will catch The Gay if they’re ever exposing to anything acknowledging that h in man sexuality exists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The meeting was nonsense.

Well it worked, and now the books are banned .

No. They aren’t. They were referred for review. Just like they would have been if there had been a calm, rational discussion with school admin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

Agreed. However, our flaw is that in the spirit of sincere thought and rational exchanges, we think/hope these folk will be persuaded. As evidenced by this thread, they won't.

What we should be doing (as some have), is calling them out for encouraging the moral decline of the system. Defining deviancy down.

Young people explore their sexuality. There is nothing deviant about that.

You have done weird hang-ups.

School is not the place to teach that/

Books to read in high school are how we take kids and (hopefully) turn them into thoughtful mature adults. Sexuality is part of life and it's definitely part of life for high schoolers, whether they're having it or not. I'm fine with the books in question, though I understand good faith disagreement on that, but I'm really troubled by the broader implication that there can be no sex in high school libraries. The culture is awash in sex and actual pornography, a place where high schoolers can see depictions of adult sexuality that AREN'T Pornhub is really important, now more than ever.

The same can be said of opiates, other drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and vaping. American culture is awash with combinations of these things.

Should kids explore heroin, smoking, beer, and vapes at school too?

We are not debating about kids having sex at school! The graphic novel’s objectionable page isnt even primarily about sex. It’s about two people communicating after one of then feels awkward, and then they decide to stop their play with a sex toy. It’s about consent and trust and honesty. So, yes, I don’t mind high school library books that include characters figuring out this to communicate and respect consent. Kids are certainly not getting that from porn.

I support books that similarly show characters dealing with heroin use or coping with friends with addictions or dealing with peer pressure to try gaping. Thiese are the books we DO need in our schools. They’re not actually ebgagaing in this activity. They are reading about it, putting themselves in others” shoes, developing empathy, deciding what they might do in similar circumstances. Developing discernment and insight. That’s what literature can do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

Agreed. However, our flaw is that in the spirit of sincere thought and rational exchanges, we think/hope these folk will be persuaded. As evidenced by this thread, they won't.

What we should be doing (as some have), is calling them out for encouraging the moral decline of the system. Defining deviancy down.

I’m sorry, moral deviant read this book to elementary school kids again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

The problem is being dealt with. And would have been dealt with the exact same way if we had gone straight to the committee she was referred to. She is literally “solving” the problem kids being exposed to this material by exposing many more kids to it than would have been exposed via the library. And no parent who had a 2nd grader on hand when she started her performance appreciates it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The saddest part to me is that books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are offensive now and not being read in school.

Excellent point

You are simply proving the point that right-wing seamounts will lost and Rooney and repost and praise lies after lies after lies without even taking a single minute to check an easily verifiable (or refutable) claim.

Similar to how all these people are on page 34 of this thread screeching their outrage about the books without reading either one. You look more ridiculous than parents in the movie Footloose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

The problem here is not the books in question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The saddest part to me is that books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are offensive now and not being read in school.

Excellent point

Why on earth do you think that? They aren't banned in FCPS. They are even on these librarian's book list:

https://robinsonss-fcps.libguides.com/c.php?g=586909&p=4082586

I just checked the library catalog and both books are there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The saddest part to me is that books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are offensive now and not being read in school.

Excellent point

Why on earth do you think that? They aren't banned in FCPS. They are even on these librarian's book list:

https://robinsonss-fcps.libguides.com/c.php?g=586909&p=4082586

Anonymous wrote:The saddest part to me is that books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are offensive now and not being read in school.

Excellent point

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

Agreed. However, our flaw is that in the spirit of sincere thought and rational exchanges, we think/hope these folk will be persuaded. As evidenced by this thread, they won't.

What we should be doing (as some have), is calling them out for encouraging the moral decline of the system. Defining deviancy down.

Young people explore their sexuality. There is nothing deviant about that.

You have done weird hang-ups.

School is not the place to teach that/

Books to read in high school are how we take kids and (hopefully) turn them into thoughtful mature adults. Sexuality is part of life and it's definitely part of life for high schoolers, whether they're having it or not. I'm fine with the books in question, though I understand good faith disagreement on that, but I'm really troubled by the broader implication that there can be no sex in high school libraries. The culture is awash in sex and actual pornography, a place where high schoolers can see depictions of adult sexuality that AREN'T Pornhub is really important, now more than ever.

I don't think getting rid of smutty books in FCPS libraries means the end of Family Life Education. These books don't pass the smell test. I can understand why those who have a knee-jerk reaction to defend everything FCPS does and the all-Democratic School Board that's responsible for the oversight of FCPS might try to move the goal posts here, but it's not going to make those particular books less objectionable.

I literally DGAF about the school board.

I do GAF when GOP astroturfers try to hurt our schools and our kids.

You *legit* don’t like the books? Submit a request for review. Tell your kids not to read them. Don’t spread misinformation (it’s not pedophilia FFS) or throw a tantrum at the school board to get a spot on the RWNJ channels.

It’s intellectually dishonest to play dumb on the GOP’s role here.

So many cliches. Can you go away for a spell while people try to clean up this mess?

Truth hurts.

I'll be here calling out the astroturfers each and every time.

Repeating an earlier comment: This can't be an issue about parenting and what is appropriate for the school library. Try to engage, and you'll be attacked.

For the left, EVERY issue is about politics. Politics IS their religion, sadly. This is you.

If it were an issue about parenting, then parents would have brought it up with the librarian or principal. No, it had to be a big public spectacle. A political stunt.

And enough with the intellectual dishonesty. We all know WHY this is being discussed NOW and WHO is pushing it.

I do NOT want politics in school. And I certainly don't want politicians and their lackeys (hello, PDE) hurting our schools for their own personal benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

Agreed. However, our flaw is that in the spirit of sincere thought and rational exchanges, we think/hope these folk will be persuaded. As evidenced by this thread, they won't.

What we should be doing (as some have), is calling them out for encouraging the moral decline of the system. Defining deviancy down.

Young people explore their sexuality. There is nothing deviant about that.

You have done weird hang-ups.

School is not the place to teach that/

Books to read in high school are how we take kids and (hopefully) turn them into thoughtful mature adults. Sexuality is part of life and it's definitely part of life for high schoolers, whether they're having it or not. I'm fine with the books in question, though I understand good faith disagreement on that, but I'm really troubled by the broader implication that there can be no sex in high school libraries. The culture is awash in sex and actual pornography, a place where high schoolers can see depictions of adult sexuality that AREN'T Pornhub is really important, now more than ever.

I don't think getting rid of smutty books in FCPS libraries means the end of Family Life Education. These books don't pass the smell test. I can understand why those who have a knee-jerk reaction to defend everything FCPS does and the all-Democratic School Board that's responsible for the oversight of FCPS might try to move the goal posts here, but it's not going to make those particular books less objectionable.

You'd do well to at least imagine that the people you're arguing with have honest, thoughtful reasons for their beliefs. I'm not a partisan Democrat and I've got no particular feelings about the school board. I'm just a parent, who looked at the books and thinks they're appropriate for high schoolers. This is surely a fault of people on both sides of this question, but the assumption that I must be a knee jerk defender of the school board makes you seem like someone so closed minded that it's pointless to talk to you.

We changed school names costing the county $300K-500K a pop because a minority of the people in the various school communities found the names offensive, but you're going to the mat to defend obscene books - the disposal of which would cost nothing - that have graphic depictions of sex acts involving minors and to suggest that the views of those with concerns are ultimately to be disregarded.

I'm sorry, but it gets tiring to deal with this much hypocrisy and this many double-standards.

I know it's the standard of internet debates but it's still discouraging to see you refuse to listen to people who disagree with you. I think the books are acceptable, but I'm fine with the process going forward and if they're removed so be it. I'm not so caught up in other political stuff that I'm not willing to hear other citizens who disagree with me.

As I said, it's a problem on all sides, but it's a shame. We should try to do better.

The saddest part to me is that books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are offensive now and not being read in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

Agreed. However, our flaw is that in the spirit of sincere thought and rational exchanges, we think/hope these folk will be persuaded. As evidenced by this thread, they won't.

What we should be doing (as some have), is calling them out for encouraging the moral decline of the system. Defining deviancy down.

Young people explore their sexuality. There is nothing deviant about that.

You have done weird hang-ups.

School is not the place to teach that/

Books to read in high school are how we take kids and (hopefully) turn them into thoughtful mature adults. Sexuality is part of life and it's definitely part of life for high schoolers, whether they're having it or not. I'm fine with the books in question, though I understand good faith disagreement on that, but I'm really troubled by the broader implication that there can be no sex in high school libraries. The culture is awash in sex and actual pornography, a place where high schoolers can see depictions of adult sexuality that AREN'T Pornhub is really important, now more than ever.

I don't think getting rid of smutty books in FCPS libraries means the end of Family Life Education. These books don't pass the smell test. I can understand why those who have a knee-jerk reaction to defend everything FCPS does and the all-Democratic School Board that's responsible for the oversight of FCPS might try to move the goal posts here, but it's not going to make those particular books less objectionable.

I literally DGAF about the school board.

I do GAF when GOP astroturfers try to hurt our schools and our kids.

You *legit* don’t like the books? Submit a request for review. Tell your kids not to read them. Don’t spread misinformation (it’s not pedophilia FFS) or throw a tantrum at the school board to get a spot on the RWNJ channels.

It’s intellectually dishonest to play dumb on the GOP’s role here.

So many cliches. Can you go away for a spell while people try to clean up this mess?

Truth hurts.

I'll be here calling out the astroturfers each and every time.

Repeating an earlier comment: This can't be an issue about parenting and what is appropriate for the school library. Try to engage, and you'll be attacked.

For the left, EVERY issue is about politics. Politics IS their religion, sadly. This is you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double and triple down.

These are your Democrats people.

The sad thing is these folks think they are being clever with this type of rhetorical jiu jitsu. Normal people see through it as an obvious attempt to deflect and avoid dealing with the problem.

Agreed. However, our flaw is that in the spirit of sincere thought and rational exchanges, we think/hope these folk will be persuaded. As evidenced by this thread, they won't.

What we should be doing (as some have), is calling them out for encouraging the moral decline of the system. Defining deviancy down.

Young people explore their sexuality. There is nothing deviant about that.

You have done weird hang-ups.

School is not the place to teach that/

Books to read in high school are how we take kids and (hopefully) turn them into thoughtful mature adults. Sexuality is part of life and it's definitely part of life for high schoolers, whether they're having it or not. I'm fine with the books in question, though I understand good faith disagreement on that, but I'm really troubled by the broader implication that there can be no sex in high school libraries. The culture is awash in sex and actual pornography, a place where high schoolers can see depictions of adult sexuality that AREN'T Pornhub is really important, now more than ever.

I don't think getting rid of smutty books in FCPS libraries means the end of Family Life Education. These books don't pass the smell test. I can understand why those who have a knee-jerk reaction to defend everything FCPS does and the all-Democratic School Board that's responsible for the oversight of FCPS might try to move the goal posts here, but it's not going to make those particular books less objectionable.

You'd do well to at least imagine that the people you're arguing with have honest, thoughtful reasons for their beliefs. I'm not a partisan Democrat and I've got no particular feelings about the school board. I'm just a parent, who looked at the books and thinks they're appropriate for high schoolers. This is surely a fault of people on both sides of this question, but the assumption that I must be a knee jerk defender of the school board makes you seem like someone so closed minded that it's pointless to talk to you.

We changed school names costing the county $300K-500K a pop because a minority of the people in the various school communities found the names offensive, but you're going to the mat to defend obscene books - the disposal of which would cost nothing - that have graphic depictions of sex acts involving minors and to suggest that the views of those with concerns are ultimately to be disregarded.

I'm sorry, but it gets tiring to deal with this much hypocrisy and this many double-standards.