Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm pretty confident it's the overly sexual nature, not the fact that it's about LGBTQ people, are the reasons people want the book(s) pulled. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find something that explicit anywhere else in the library, and I think if you could, people would be upset about that as well. So yes, I think all books should play by the same set of rules, regardless of topic. When some librarians in support of the books are questioned, they say "the books give the LGBTQ community a voice". Well, that's making an exception is it not?
From what I've seen of Gender *****, I 100% agree it should be removed from schools. I don't care what the book is about, the images don't belong in a school library, period.
FTR, its the BJ/strap on drawing that you object to, correct? I just need to level set (with you) to know where your line in this convo is. I agree that isn't an illustration for young kids. But you won't ever get me to agree that a person ~12 months away from being old enough to get their ass shot off in Khe Sanh or Fallujah isn't old enough to see a drawing of a BJ. But I will stand down on this one as it seems close enough "to the line" that I certainly wouldn't die on this hill for "that picture".
If you are bent over the sports bra, or the drawing of the naked greeks or discussion of what happens during a period then we have much bigger fish to fry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m378
Here are the recent changes that were made to the WCPSS policy. The wording is insanely vague (I assume that was intentional) - "pervasively vulgar". Good luck to any librarian deciphering that one. But if the images in Gender ***** don't fall into that category, what does?
Edit: Sorry I just ninja-edited the hell out of this message.
Reminds me of BRDs written by people who have never seen a technology solution work. As you said, good luck.
Big picture I do think there is something to be said for the idea that just because the book is there, it isn't (as far as I know) required reading. Little m378 could get all the way through HS and never even encounter it in a school library. I think the outrage would make "more sense" (and be much more "political" in terms of motivation of the school/teacher) if it was on a required reading list for say Jr English at Panther Creek or something.
Out out of curiosity, are National Geographic boobies bannable content in a school library?
Out out of curiosity, are National Geographic boobies bannable content in a school library?
Can't tell if serious, but...
I can only speak to WCPSS and as we already discussed their policy is vague, but I don't think anyone would consider a picture of a woman in a country where bare chests are the norm, "pervasively vulgar".
We had National Geographic on the library shelf back in the stone age when I went to school.
I can only speak to WCPSS and as we already discussed their policy is vague, but I don't think anyone would consider a picture of a woman in a country where bare chests are the norm, "pervasively vulgar".
We had National Geographic on the library shelf back in the stone age when I went to school.
No I was being completely serious.
Ehhh you never know. I think there are people who think tatas, regardless of context, are sexual in nature.
I mean even Facebook/Instagram have policies about women's nipples vs men's. [shoulder shrug]
Classic Triangle CD move just jumping on people without even reading.
I misunderstood your post, so for that I'm sorry.
I still don't get why you all are so afraid of your kids being exposed to the FACT that some people are gay, gender-ambiguous or otherwise. You don't have to agree with them, but they are still out there. If you do as you preach, and teach YOUR values in the home, then you don't have to worry about your kid being "turnt gay" (or whatever irrational fear).
My daughter went through that phase. I loved her through it, talked to her about it, helped her through tough times.... She's married now (to a man), and has a beautiful family. We are close, the people that shamed her for not conforming to their idea of 'normal', not so much.
Your kids, your choice. Why do you (not "you", but "collective you') feel the need to indoctrinate others into your vision of non-acceptance, hate and fear? Live and let live...
And for what it's worth, history has proven that bans only make the banned item more popular, and more attractive to kids.
Sorry, I just don't get it. I think that the people like you are the reason that there is more confusion among children today, not the people who are open-minded and willing to discuss uncomfortable subjects with their kids. (Not a personal attack, again the "collective you". You have a different world view, one you're entitled to, but I think it's wrong and I don't appreciate it being forced on everyone.)
^^^Discussions like this are why I left the P&OC forum, and hopefully why I'll leave this discussion too. I enjoy your other posts in other threads...
I still don't get why you all are so afraid of your kids being exposed to the FACT that some people are gay, gender-ambiguous or otherwise. You don't have to agree with them, but they are still out there. If you do as you preach, and teach YOUR values in the home, then you don't have to worry about your kid being "turnt gay" (or whatever irrational fear).
My daughter went through that phase. I loved her through it, talked to her about it, helped her through tough times.... She's married now (to a man), and has a beautiful family. We are close, the people that shamed her for not conforming to their idea of 'normal', not so much.
Your kids, your choice. Why do you (not "you", but "collective you') feel the need to indoctrinate others into your vision of non-acceptance, hate and fear? Live and let live...
And for what it's worth, history has proven that bans only make the banned item more popular, and more attractive to kids.
Sorry, I just don't get it. I think that the people like you are the reason that there is more confusion among children today, not the people who are open-minded and willing to discuss uncomfortable subjects with their kids. (Not a personal attack, again the "collective you". You have a different world view, one you're entitled to, but I think it's wrong and I don't appreciate it being forced on everyone.)
^^^Discussions like this are why I left the P&OC forum, and hopefully why I'll leave this discussion too. I enjoy your other posts in other threads...
See this is exactly the problem, you’re making assumptions. Someone being against sexually explicit material being in school libraries is most likely just that. Sure there are likely some that are also against LGBTQ books in libraries, but making that blanket statement is wrong . if theres a book with pictures of a straight woman giving a blowjob to a man that sits in WCPSS libraries, you can be sure that I’m against it. If there’s a book about an LGBTQ person and their struggles in daily life that doesn’t have explicit sexual imagery or text, then you can be sure I’m NOT against it.
I don’t know what gave you the impression that I’m closed minded or unwilling to talk about uncomfortable topics with my kids, but again that’s an assumption and not true.
Of course. I’m not trying to invalidate the conversation. I have engaged in good faith the entire time.
I was legitimately curious whether Nat Geo counted or not
Sorry, I can hardly keep up with who said what, but the overarching theme of the "they're trying to ban books" hysteria is trying to put the conversation outside the realm of what's socially acceptable. I'm sure we can find people who think anything is offensive, but what we're seeing is a tactic to try to invalidate majority cultural norms. And to be clear, I don't mean that majority cultural norms shouldn't become more inclusive and tolerant, but you do that by changing hearts and minds, much as we've seen on the gay marriage issue. This wasn't accomplished by making it unacceptable to say marriage is between a man and a woman. This tactic only hardens and entrenches people. And now we're seeing the backlash. This is why so many people who have seen themselves as progressives have turned away from this movement, because it is not in fact producing progress, but the opposite.
And in fact, the 91st, 92nd, 93rd and 97th congresses had 4 repubs. The 99th had 5. By the 104th, 8 of the 12 were repub. As the republican party grew in nc, it gained outsized influence, yet according to you was being heavily gerrymandered by the dems. Huh?
You've made multiple false statements here in this thread and think you are credible on this issue?
That the GOP did better in some elections vice others (again, despite Democrat gerrymandering efforts) in NC does not discredit the reality of Democrat gerrymandering efforts.
Let's recap and respond: Despite your claims, no, everyone in NC was not a Democrat and, thus, negating the need to gerrymander by Democrats. Again, even in the 1960s as I showed, the GOP was regularly winning 40% of the popular vote in NC, yet were winning far below their vote total in seats in the US House. This wasn't coincidence.
Additionally, and again despite your claims, the GOP (as shown in my posts) did not just magically start to win a significant vote share in NC after the 1960s had ended.
Still, let's take a look at the election that voted in the 91st Congress (election of 1968) as an example, as the results (4 GOP seats won to 7 Dem seats won), per usual, don't actually help your cause. In that election, the GOP won 633,012 to the Democrats' 765,065, or more than 45% of the vote. Yet, in a strong year for the GOP they still didn't win seats equaling their popular vote totals, again due to partisan gerrymandering being a factor. True, this was more balanced than in previous years, but still disproportionate and was a trend that would reverse several cycles later. I do need to reiterate, though, that GOP successes under periods of Democrat control of the NCGA during redistricting cycles came despite Dem partisan redistricting efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Wister
Your logic escapes me. If districts have to be compact then how does one create republican majority districts where there are few republicans?
Because there weren't few Republican voters, as the numbers bear out (you are doing a good job ignoring those pesky facts that disprove your narrative). Again, it's been established that the GOP was regularly winning around 40% (or more) of the popular vote PRIOR to the 1970s, yet were getting slaughtered in terms of actually winning seats, with 0 to 2 seats being common for the party.
If voters are concentrated around one part of the state that account for 40% of the popular vote for US House elections, then there are a critical mass of voters with which to draw districts that fairly represent their strengths and interests. Precisely because US House seats are drawn to be of equal population, concentrated groups of ideological voters in one area actually make drawing compact districts comprising these voters fairly easy. That's if you don't engage in partisan gerrymandering to limit this group's power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Wister
Its not about what I think, its about facts and reality. Are you denying that from the early to mid 20th century NC was not overwhelmingly democratic?
Now you're trying to move the goal post to the Great Depression, I see Even then, it's not hypothetical and its easy to check your "facts," which are actually anything but, as I continue to show below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Wister
You actually think tens of thousands of north carolinians were eager to vote republican during the great depression?
Try hundreds of thousands. And it's not what I think. It's fact. Actual fact, as opposed to what you've been selling. This is too much. We don't need to guess about how many North Carolinians were voting GOP during the Great Depression or any other period. It's in the historic record, which I cited to from the US House history website that shows election results going back to 1920. Again: https://history.house.gov/Institutio...on-Statistics/.
Looking at the 1932 election, the GOP won 214,022 votes in NC US House elections (or just over 30%), whereas Democrats won 492,050 (or just under 70%).
In the 1934 midterms, the GOP won 38% of the vote among contested races (of which 9 out of 11 were; the 2nd and 5th districts were uncontested those years), and 35% of the vote if you count all races.
Yet, in both of those years (and through the 1930s and 1940s, the GOP won ZERO US House seats.
Your facts and understanding of the political realities on the ground in NC continue to be flawed, as is anyone's understanding who claims that North Carolinians just magically started providing significant votes to the Republicans post 1968, etc., and that everyone voting Democrat prior to that explains why there were zero elected GOP members of the US House.
Of course, North Carolina isn't unique from the rest of the south in this regard either. In southern state after southern state, Republicans began to improve and eventually win majorities in the state legislatures, etc., as the national Democrat Party moved farther and farther to the left. (And, in NC's case, Republicans were winning close to 40% of the US House popular vote even during the Great Depression years!) But this was despite Democrat gerrymandering efforts. Again, it's weird to me that you actually think--despite all the evidence to the contrary over significant GOP voter strength in NC in the 1960s, etc., yet extremely poor seat showing--Democrats in the NCGA weren't gerrymandering
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Wister
Then stop using it as one.
I'll stop bringing it up when you acknowledge the actual history on the ground.
Nobody disputes that Democrat-aligned voters represented a majority of North Carolinians for most of the state's history. But that doesn't mean that Democrats did not gerrymander to maximize their political power (they did) when they controlled the NCGA. The data fully support the success of their gerrymandering efforts, with the GOP routinely getting shut out (or close to getting shut out) decade after decade despite winning significant percentages of the popular vote. Again, the fact that a national Democrat Party's move leftward led the GOP to actually overcome these partisan lines does not mean that Democrats didn't gerrymander for partisan gain. No, it means that the GOP did well in some years and after some time despite gerrymandered districts drawn by Democrats in the NCGA.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 05-05-2023 at 02:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even then, it's not hypothetical and its easy to check your "facts," which are actually anything but, as I continue to show below.
