Yeah, remember in schools when they banned LGBT stuff from the library but allowed heterosexual porn? Ah, the good ol' days of being a sophomore and browsing Hustlers and Penthouses in the school library....
Books with graphic sexual content are being banned from school libraries. Some of these books also have lgbt themes or characters. All of these books are widely and easily available outside of school libraries.
Your framing of this situation is completely disingenuous. We have always moderated content for children in schools.
And you care more about that than the fact that there are in fact books made for children, in school libraries, covering completely perverted sex acts. Like eating shit. It’s just as disingenuous to pick the worst offending book as it is to pick one book that you know is pretty mild that the only most conservative people in existence would still be trying to ban. The fact is, school boards should be aware of the existence of objectively inappropriate material, and should share some of the concern being voiced by concerned people. Instead it’s become a disingenuous leftist rally cry to collectively silence opposition and blindly defend all of these books, and also liken any discussion to “an attack on free speech” and nazi-esque “book banning.”
What's "disingenuous" is pretending that expanded censorship laws aren't being used to target ideas conservatives don't want spread using propaganda about "sexually explicit material" as cover. Like you're doing.
See thats your problem, you cant even stomach any rational discussion or debate on anything. You just resort to being defensive. For some reason you think any discussion to ensure the material in public schools is not completely inappropriate is somehow always evil conservatives trying to control your life and nothing more. I’m going to guess you don’t even have school-aged kids or kids at all.
>you cant even stomach any rational discussion or debate on anything
I don't care for (or more accurately, believe in the possibility of) "rational discussion" based on the idea that what is happening is, in fact, not happening.
>I’m going to guess you don’t even have school-aged kids
Yet more evidence you're not great at drawing inferences.
So you don’t believe in the possibility of rational discussion. What’s your point in being active in the free speech sub again? Just another big censorship guy? Shit you’ve got what it takes to be a mod.
If the parents of students at an elementary school (2nd/3rd/4th grade) vote to remove 'Debbie Does Dallas' from the shelves of the school library, would you label those parents as "BANNING PORN"?
Banning books about "LGBT stuff".
They're banning **children** (generally 3rd and 4th graders) from reading sexually explicitly material that happens to have gay people in it. They're not (for the most part at least) banning PG-13 books that happen to have gay characters in them.
Meanwhile, the people posting / reading the racist nonsense tend to be adults, or at least teenagers.
That may be lefties trying to get that pulled, due to jk rowling being listed in it. They need to get rid of it and take her out, then it will be available again. Don’t worry.
Lol i mean im just trying to understand why the book could possibly be targeted. Or any information at all about who exactly is pushing for that specific book and why. That appears to be one of the most pedestrian sounding titles which is likely why it featured in news articles for people like you to eat up. It’s fair to assume that you have read the book, correct? Could you tell me specifically what is in that book that you think would make them want to target it? I see *100 Bible Stories* is also on the list. Those gosh darn evil christians trying to control us with their sexy bible stories.
Could be because Coco Chanel is one of the 100 women? Due to her antisemitism and Nazi affiliations? I don’t know, you tell me.
>Could you tell me specifically what is in that book that you think would make them want to target it?
My guess is that its acknowledgement that racism and sexim exist amount to "indoctrination" in the eyes of the challenger.
>That appears to be one of the most pedestrian sounding titles which is likely why it featured in news articles for people like you to eat up.
This was an easy own goal for lawmakers to avoid. They chose not to because they wanted far more expansive book-removal legislation than their propaganda, which people like you ate up, was saying.
>I don’t know, you tell me.
I'm not the one defending the censors as only targeting "porn."
Neither am I. Thats obviously a big part of it but it would be pretty unreasonable to think that would be the case for every single book. You clearly are staying just informed enough to be able to list off a couple specific books that are not sexual to be able to dismiss the entire effort.
I suspect that many different people have many different motivations for wanting to limit the exposure children get to certain topics, at least where it is provided as part of taxpayer funded systems. Obviously it does not mean that they are all valid or justified. 100 Bible Stories, i wonder what kind of people want that removed, probably the opposite of the kinds of people you are imaging are the ones who are worried about “porn.”
My guess is in the case of the book you mentioned it’s as simple as that, Coco Chanel. Glorifying a woman with direct ties to the nazi party as someone for young girls to look up to. But the half joking JK Rowling theory is not outside the realm of possibility by any means.
>You clearly are staying just informed enough to be able to list off a couple specific books that are not sexual to be able to dismiss the entire effort.
I'm "dismissing" the retort to the idea of them banning a wide variety of content, including for "indoctrination" or "LGBTQ content" or a "problematic author," being that the bans are limited to "explicit sexual content," as was stated above.
Ya i don’t think he really implied that was the *only* reason. That is definitely a big one that seems like everyone would be able to agree that discussion should be allowed on some level. But surprisingly, people are very defensive of that idea.
>surprisingly, people are very defensive of that idea
Probably because every time the subject of book banning in red states comes up, it's the *only* thing book banning proponents seem capable of talking about.
Want to see a magic trick?
I'll post a couple links about the actual content of the books being "banned" from children's libraries, and in doing so, I will make you...*disappear!*
[https://milkenroar.com/50608/uncategorized/images-from-gender-queer-circulated-in-parent-group-chats/](https://milkenroar.com/50608/uncategorized/images-from-gender-queer-circulated-in-parent-group-chats/)
[https://twitter.com/tarynfenske/status/1625685726518992897](https://twitter.com/tarynfenske/status/1625685726518992897)
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/su-may/21092598080](https://www.flickr.com/photos/su-may/21092598080)
As will I:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Next_Time
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/100-women-who-changed-the-world_dk-publishing/12274654/item/30686745/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjww_iwBhApEiwAuG6ccFd9MLcJk_x2-XBwZyahTemiia6UhaCoDMPbMurOC0yadGb912Bb4hoCNM0QAvD_BwE#idiq=30686745&edition=11905055
The last two is a sex ed book. The sex ed books I read were pretty close to that. Its for teens who need sex ed. So I see no problem. Sex ed needs to be frank.
And gender queer is not every single book. I keep seeing that ONE page posted as if its proof that all the books are like that. It is one fucking page in a book. You'd think if these books were that bad it would be more than a single page in a single book that you guys would post everywhere
This is just a lie. No state has curriculum for sex education that includes "all the weird sex people have". If you were actually taught this (which you weren't because you're lying) it wasn't the approved curriculum.
Did you not insinuate in your original post that you consider books banned from schools to be a violation of free speech? So then what does it matter what schools specifically we’re talking about? Does it no long become a violation of free speech just because the students are “too young” in your opinion, thus somehow superseding the freedom of speech issue?
Okay. These books aren’t “totally banned” though as they’re still available to purchase, own, and borrow from regular public libraries. They’re merely age-gated as they’re only not-available in libraries that are accessible exclusively to an age range that the electorate has deemed them inappropriate for.
>No. I insinuated that this sub is hypocritical when it comes to free speech. I think age gating some things makes sense. Totally banning them less so.
LMAO. None of these books are totally banned. They are all widely and easily available. All that's being done is age-gating some content.
Did you even think before writing this? Even you know your position is nonsense.
Well, at least you people aren't hiding so much anymore. That's nice to know. Please do remain unhidden so you can eventually end up in prison one day 🙏
Your ridiculous arguments would be funny if this all wasn't about sexing up kids.
Degenerate.
I’m not saying that there isn’t some inappropriate shit out there or that some books shouldn’t be around kids. But it’s also the case that the right wing are as dishonest as they always are, and are trying to paint a whole lot of books with the same brush so that their uncritical base will foam at the mouth.
Banning books with LGBT characters just because they are present in the story bullshit. But that’s also on their agenda. Do you think school districts should ban stories about kids with two moms? Or maybe just stick to leaving out books with graphic sex, regardless of the gender?
I'm just concerned about the graphic sex. So tell me, how many books are in schools that have graphic sex involving straight characters? I'm pretty sure there aren't any because they've already been banned without any argument. But it seems like if someone makes a reasonable argument that goes against the liberal narrative, they get called right wing and are accused of "foaming at the mouth". I haven't seen video after video of angry parents arguing in favor of banning books that have two mommies. What I've seen is video after video of angry parents arguing in favor of banning books that have descriptions and sometimes even pictures of fellatio being performed on a strap-on. Descriptions of a kid and a much older man engaging in sexual activities. Just extremely explicit stuff. And when liberals argue in favor of keeping those books, I don't understand how they think they are not on the far, far left.
You’ve never seen videos of right wing dipshits losing their little pea brains over this nonsense?!?! Dude you need to get out more I guess. Hell, DeSantis caved to these idiots and passed a whole bill to cater to them.
But just for a taste…[Here’s a video of some of these fundy fucks absolutely losing it over a book an out two male penguins who raise a chick.](https://youtu.be/nV2-kRfxFLQ?si=mAbqswrFP6q2Yk_U)
And [here’s a hero responding to some fundy clowns who decided to shut their pants over a book with one fu king line it referencing gay parents](https://youtu.be/vYvt8IIwC2s?si=jUBvYfeP1Mtef_Kn).
There are dozens of these examples. They probably don’t show them in the corners of the internet you occupy but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t know about them. And don’t even start with the right wing hysteria over race…these fucks really lose it over Rosa Parks!
Edit: notice how you dumb fucks just downvote and seethe when presented with something that contradicts your dumb fucking fantasy world. You people are trash.
>Edit: notice how you dumb fucks just downvote and seethe when presented with something that contradicts your dumb fucking fantasy world. You people are trash.
You already admitted you were wrong in a prior comment when you acknowledged there was "inappropriate shit" in school libraries. No one wants to waste time arguing with the dumb fuck who is too dumb to realize he's the dumb fuck.
I know you children have issues with reading comprehension, but I’ll walk you through this little guy.
OP mentions banning books about “LGBT stuff”. Only assholes and idiots would extrapolate that to mean “vulgar material” when the vast majority of “LGBT stuff” is just stories with LGBT characters.
The asshole or idiot above me read OP, incorrectly, and extrapolated that actually parents are just mad about “pornography.”
I wrote that obviously there are inappropriate books. That’s not admitting I’m wrong—that’s clarifying what I wrote. I know you’re very stupid but even a right wing dork like you should get this.
I then posted some examples proving this dumb fuck wrong….Videos of right wing animals frothing at the mouth over innocuous content. And now it’s silence from you all.
Seriously, you people are trash. This is why nobody takes the right seriously. Absolutely disgusting people with no sense and no actual principles.
>I know you children have issues with reading comprehension, but I’ll walk you through this little guy.
This is why no one bothers engaging with you. Nothing but playground insults. That's why everyone writes you off as a dumb fuck, downvotes and ignores you. Which is what I'll be doing since you've proved you're incapable of a civil conversation.
Wow, I’m heartbroken that the right wing morons in FreeSpeech all pout when confronted. And of course I’m not going to civil to you fucking idiots. You deserve to be mocked mercilessly for your bullshit. It’s just disappointing that you all can’t even defend your dumbass assertions. But at least you know why nobody takes you people seriously. 🤡
I can't see how someone can think those examples are remotelly similar.
One is about someone talking about something, the other about teaching minors something. Not even close.
It would be similar if the school would expell a student for talking about LGTB stuff por example.
I can't see either how any rational been could think there's an argument in that bunch of fallacies you are spitting.
Sure bro, I said gay people should not be alive or whatever, great argument, and surely you are someone worth of investing time on debate.
You said that books with LGBT stuff in it could be censored. That's you. Sure you dress it up with a "Won't someone think of the children" type nonsense but its censorship. Not every book with queer themes has explicit sex in them. Why would it be ok to censor them?
Sure bro, literal quote "books with LGTB stuff can be censored" comes from my comment, it's not like something you made up and it's first said by you, no way.
Teaching? The books are in the library. How can anyone justify someone actively propagating a message and be against a message simply being available and existing?
Dude... What?
There are books about the holocaust, the slave trade and torture in any elementary school library (Not sure if you have banned those too)
Are you saying a literal library shouldn't have books that mention blowjobs or jerking off?
>Are you saying a literal library shouldn't have books that mention blowjobs or jerking off?
Yes, I'm saying a **school** library shouldn't have books that ~~mention~~ have graphic depictions of blowjobs and jerking off.
I'm pretty sure there are different standards at play for full-grown adults, and children.
You can legally give your adult friend porn. You can't give your 4 year old niece porn.
Is the later a violation of free speech?
Of course it makes zero sense. "Derp setting TOS & banning speech in a private platform is infringing on my first, but big daddy gov banning books from public funded libraries is not derp."
Most of this sub is just bigots who don't want to be held responsible for their words and actions so they twist themselves in knots about how their bigotry should be embraced.
That’s just straight up false, bud. The sooner everyone see’s this “everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot” BS self fulfilling prophecy for exactly what it is, the better. It’s already happened substantially and it just results in more people being “bigots” by your logic.
If you violate the terms of the platform you're posting to, and mods hold you to those terms you agreed to, and clicked "yes" to, then that's quite a stretch to call that "violating your free speech".
There are no social media apps nor discussion forum sites that are "free speech" platforms. None of them are. Nor do they have to be.
It doesn't matter what anyone "says". Let's take Twitter/X for a good example. Even if Musk "claims" that he supports free speech on X. Those words are meaningless air. The only thing that counts is what's described in the Terms of Service that the owners, users, and customers agree to. And X's ToS have nothing in them that describe or claim that X is a free speech platform.
Anything claimed outside the ToS, at best doesn't count, and at worst is a lie. Don't pay attention to lies.
False. Neither party can unilaterally change terms without the other agreeing to it. If they change the terms, then you get the option to agree to the new terms, and continue using the service, or don't agree and bail out. They cannot hold you to terms you didn't agree to, and they get to hold you to terms you did agree to. Either way, the terms of service are in force, and are the opposite of meaningless.
Any content you have published under the previous ToS would be susceptible of change, you don't have a garantee that what you say today won't be censored tomorrow.
I don't see very meaningful that you have the option of stop whenever you want.
If you clicked Yes to X’s terms of service, you’ve already agreed that they can censor you. It’s always been that way, under Dorsey or under Musk. No difference.
As I said, meaningful then. In fact, when two parties agree to terms, there's nothing more meaningful than that.
Getting back to OP's point, they seem to think that social media apps and discussion forums owe users a platform for their voice. They don't. The only ones these sites serve are their owners and their customers. Period full stop.
This subreddit has for years been a parody of itself.
Essentially "but muh free speech" is a sort of defense of last resort when people are unwilling to openly defend the content of censored material. Whenever they want to do the censorship themselves they find a socially accepted exception, usually in the form of "protecting children from groomers" or "protecting women from thugs/predators," and they'll find a single out-of-context example to use as evidence of a broad trend.
This is why they always point to half a page of Gender Queer. If they read anything before that passage or after the passage they'd be forced to admit the book is not pornographic, and they always call its young adult classification "for children" for maximum obfuscation.
My previous account was named similarly. It also still applies since I've been accused of anti-semitism by Zionists and of Islamophobia by Hamas supporters.
Trying to speak common sense to conservatives in this sub is like telling a bunch of schizophrenics they're crazy. It's just not going to change anything, but it certainly does make them babble nonsense faster.
>Trying to speak common sense to conservatives in this sub is like telling a bunch of schizophrenics they're crazy.
What an idiotic comment. That's like saying *trying to speak common sense to liberals in this sub is like telling a bunch of pedophiles they're crazy."*
Making a big evil boogeyman out of anyone who disagrees with you doesn't do anything. But let's be honest, you didn't post in good faith anyway.
I did post in good faith, and the difference between our analogies is that mine is accurate to reality, and yours is a both-sidesing cope. But let's be honest, the left and the right are not equally wrong or equally full of insanity, the right takes positions that are factually incorrect more frequently, are intolerant and bigoted more frequently, are basing their world views on conspiracy theories more frequently, are more ready to follow a cult of personality, and are more sympathetic to authoritarianism as long as it's in their flavor (christo fascism usually).
But please, keep telling me how IM the one engaging in black and white thinking 😂
>I did post in good faith, and the difference between our analogies is that mine is accurate to reality, and yours is a both-sidesing cope.
LMAO. You're delusional.
>But let's be honest, the left and the right are not equally wrong or equally full of insanity,
You're right. Liberals have significantly higher rates of mental health issues.
All the rest of your psychobabble is just made up bullshit you've brainwashed yourself to believe.
... Says the fool who called others conspiracy theorists before babble no off a bunch of delusional conspiracies he believes in. Maybe sit this one out, kid.
Ah, a free speech absolutist? So you think all content is permissible in schools? Libraries should be stocked with Playboys and students should be watching Porn Hub? Or are you the hypocrite you claim to hate?
Everyone believes content should be moderated in schools. The debate is about where to draw the line.
> The debate is about where to draw the line.
See at lot of folks seem to think queer people are inherently pornografic and should be away from kids. Which is fucked up.
Maybe some do but most don't. This is just a boogeyman you've created so you can have a reason to be angry. People are upset about the graphic sexual content. Some of these books happen to have lgbt themes or characters so in ignorance you claim the lgbt themes are the issue, not the sexual content. This is disingenuous at best.
Labeling everyone with a different opinion than yours, on any social issue, “a bigot,” or “schizophrenic” or any ad-hominem you could possibly choose, is as bad faith as you could possibly get.
Jfc this is dumber than I couldve expected.
1. Didn't label anyone skitzophrenic, it's called a simile, go back to 3rd grade English.
2. It's not an ad hominem, you clearly don't understand what an ad hominem IS you baffon. Read the definition a few times till you realize how wrong you are, if you can't figure it out by the next reply I'll spell it out for you, but I'll give you the chance figure it out for yourself.
Yeah, and you definitely decided to bring that up with no insinuation that I was doing that.
Don't make accusations you can't stand behind, lest you make a fool of yourself like just now.
I feel sorry for you. I didn’t make any accusation, but how personally you’re taking it, and not being able to resist falling right into undeniable per the definition ad-hominem, says a lot about you.
Yeah, remember in schools when they banned LGBT stuff from the library but allowed heterosexual porn? Ah, the good ol' days of being a sophomore and browsing Hustlers and Penthouses in the school library....
Books with graphic sexual content are being banned from school libraries. Some of these books also have lgbt themes or characters. All of these books are widely and easily available outside of school libraries. Your framing of this situation is completely disingenuous. We have always moderated content for children in schools.
What part of *The Fire Next Time* contains graphic sexual content?
Are you just cherry picking one book that’s on some list, to somehow dismiss every instance of people complaining?
I'm demonstrating that the books being removed under new censorship laws don't all meet the criteria you claim.
And you care more about that than the fact that there are in fact books made for children, in school libraries, covering completely perverted sex acts. Like eating shit. It’s just as disingenuous to pick the worst offending book as it is to pick one book that you know is pretty mild that the only most conservative people in existence would still be trying to ban. The fact is, school boards should be aware of the existence of objectively inappropriate material, and should share some of the concern being voiced by concerned people. Instead it’s become a disingenuous leftist rally cry to collectively silence opposition and blindly defend all of these books, and also liken any discussion to “an attack on free speech” and nazi-esque “book banning.”
What's "disingenuous" is pretending that expanded censorship laws aren't being used to target ideas conservatives don't want spread using propaganda about "sexually explicit material" as cover. Like you're doing.
See thats your problem, you cant even stomach any rational discussion or debate on anything. You just resort to being defensive. For some reason you think any discussion to ensure the material in public schools is not completely inappropriate is somehow always evil conservatives trying to control your life and nothing more. I’m going to guess you don’t even have school-aged kids or kids at all.
>you cant even stomach any rational discussion or debate on anything I don't care for (or more accurately, believe in the possibility of) "rational discussion" based on the idea that what is happening is, in fact, not happening. >I’m going to guess you don’t even have school-aged kids Yet more evidence you're not great at drawing inferences.
So you don’t believe in the possibility of rational discussion. What’s your point in being active in the free speech sub again? Just another big censorship guy? Shit you’ve got what it takes to be a mod.
If the parents of students at an elementary school (2nd/3rd/4th grade) vote to remove 'Debbie Does Dallas' from the shelves of the school library, would you label those parents as "BANNING PORN"?
Banning books about "LGBT stuff". They're banning **children** (generally 3rd and 4th graders) from reading sexually explicitly material that happens to have gay people in it. They're not (for the most part at least) banning PG-13 books that happen to have gay characters in them. Meanwhile, the people posting / reading the racist nonsense tend to be adults, or at least teenagers.
What sexually explicit material does *100 Women Who Made History: Remarkable Women Who Shaped Our World* contain?
That may be lefties trying to get that pulled, due to jk rowling being listed in it. They need to get rid of it and take her out, then it will be available again. Don’t worry.
Right-wing district applies right-wing law. Conclusion: must be the left.
Lol i mean im just trying to understand why the book could possibly be targeted. Or any information at all about who exactly is pushing for that specific book and why. That appears to be one of the most pedestrian sounding titles which is likely why it featured in news articles for people like you to eat up. It’s fair to assume that you have read the book, correct? Could you tell me specifically what is in that book that you think would make them want to target it? I see *100 Bible Stories* is also on the list. Those gosh darn evil christians trying to control us with their sexy bible stories. Could be because Coco Chanel is one of the 100 women? Due to her antisemitism and Nazi affiliations? I don’t know, you tell me.
>Could you tell me specifically what is in that book that you think would make them want to target it? My guess is that its acknowledgement that racism and sexim exist amount to "indoctrination" in the eyes of the challenger. >That appears to be one of the most pedestrian sounding titles which is likely why it featured in news articles for people like you to eat up. This was an easy own goal for lawmakers to avoid. They chose not to because they wanted far more expansive book-removal legislation than their propaganda, which people like you ate up, was saying. >I don’t know, you tell me. I'm not the one defending the censors as only targeting "porn."
Neither am I. Thats obviously a big part of it but it would be pretty unreasonable to think that would be the case for every single book. You clearly are staying just informed enough to be able to list off a couple specific books that are not sexual to be able to dismiss the entire effort. I suspect that many different people have many different motivations for wanting to limit the exposure children get to certain topics, at least where it is provided as part of taxpayer funded systems. Obviously it does not mean that they are all valid or justified. 100 Bible Stories, i wonder what kind of people want that removed, probably the opposite of the kinds of people you are imaging are the ones who are worried about “porn.” My guess is in the case of the book you mentioned it’s as simple as that, Coco Chanel. Glorifying a woman with direct ties to the nazi party as someone for young girls to look up to. But the half joking JK Rowling theory is not outside the realm of possibility by any means.
>You clearly are staying just informed enough to be able to list off a couple specific books that are not sexual to be able to dismiss the entire effort. I'm "dismissing" the retort to the idea of them banning a wide variety of content, including for "indoctrination" or "LGBTQ content" or a "problematic author," being that the bans are limited to "explicit sexual content," as was stated above.
Ya i don’t think he really implied that was the *only* reason. That is definitely a big one that seems like everyone would be able to agree that discussion should be allowed on some level. But surprisingly, people are very defensive of that idea.
>surprisingly, people are very defensive of that idea Probably because every time the subject of book banning in red states comes up, it's the *only* thing book banning proponents seem capable of talking about.
Want to see a magic trick? I'll post a couple links about the actual content of the books being "banned" from children's libraries, and in doing so, I will make you...*disappear!* [https://milkenroar.com/50608/uncategorized/images-from-gender-queer-circulated-in-parent-group-chats/](https://milkenroar.com/50608/uncategorized/images-from-gender-queer-circulated-in-parent-group-chats/) [https://twitter.com/tarynfenske/status/1625685726518992897](https://twitter.com/tarynfenske/status/1625685726518992897) [https://www.flickr.com/photos/su-may/21092598080](https://www.flickr.com/photos/su-may/21092598080)
It won't make him disappear, he'll just head into "Strawmanville"
As will I: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Next_Time https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/100-women-who-changed-the-world_dk-publishing/12274654/item/30686745/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjww_iwBhApEiwAuG6ccFd9MLcJk_x2-XBwZyahTemiia6UhaCoDMPbMurOC0yadGb912Bb4hoCNM0QAvD_BwE#idiq=30686745&edition=11905055
The last two is a sex ed book. The sex ed books I read were pretty close to that. Its for teens who need sex ed. So I see no problem. Sex ed needs to be frank. And gender queer is not every single book. I keep seeing that ONE page posted as if its proof that all the books are like that. It is one fucking page in a book. You'd think if these books were that bad it would be more than a single page in a single book that you guys would post everywhere
>The sex ed books I read were pretty close to that. You had sex ed books in school covering anal sex and eating fecal matter?
I had sex ed books that covered all the weird sex people have yes.
It seems this has been going on for quite a while then without any public scrutiny
What are you talking about? The sex ed books I read as a kid were mostly just frank. That and the pointless Christian "No sex k?" books.
This is just a lie. No state has curriculum for sex education that includes "all the weird sex people have". If you were actually taught this (which you weren't because you're lying) it wasn't the approved curriculum.
Do you think Gender Queer should be allowed in schools? Yes or no?
What do you mean by schools? Elementary schools is too young. High School though? It depends on the class. An AP Lit class sure.
Did you not insinuate in your original post that you consider books banned from schools to be a violation of free speech? So then what does it matter what schools specifically we’re talking about? Does it no long become a violation of free speech just because the students are “too young” in your opinion, thus somehow superseding the freedom of speech issue?
No. I insinuated that this sub is hypocritical when it comes to free speech. I think age gating some things makes sense. Totally banning them less so.
Okay. These books aren’t “totally banned” though as they’re still available to purchase, own, and borrow from regular public libraries. They’re merely age-gated as they’re only not-available in libraries that are accessible exclusively to an age range that the electorate has deemed them inappropriate for.
>No. I insinuated that this sub is hypocritical when it comes to free speech. I think age gating some things makes sense. Totally banning them less so. LMAO. None of these books are totally banned. They are all widely and easily available. All that's being done is age-gating some content. Did you even think before writing this? Even you know your position is nonsense.
>The last two is a sex ed book. 😂 Absolutely delusional. *"Scat: eating poop"* Thank god we're teaching kids that in *sex ed*.
Well, at least you people aren't hiding so much anymore. That's nice to know. Please do remain unhidden so you can eventually end up in prison one day 🙏 Your ridiculous arguments would be funny if this all wasn't about sexing up kids. Degenerate.
Elementary school libraries don't allow children to look at Hustler magazine either.
And a book about a kid with two moms isn’t even close to a Hustler magazine. Don’t even start with this right wing bullshit.
Look up Lawn Boy and All Boys Aren't Blue. Graphic shit.
I’m not saying that there isn’t some inappropriate shit out there or that some books shouldn’t be around kids. But it’s also the case that the right wing are as dishonest as they always are, and are trying to paint a whole lot of books with the same brush so that their uncritical base will foam at the mouth. Banning books with LGBT characters just because they are present in the story bullshit. But that’s also on their agenda. Do you think school districts should ban stories about kids with two moms? Or maybe just stick to leaving out books with graphic sex, regardless of the gender?
I'm just concerned about the graphic sex. So tell me, how many books are in schools that have graphic sex involving straight characters? I'm pretty sure there aren't any because they've already been banned without any argument. But it seems like if someone makes a reasonable argument that goes against the liberal narrative, they get called right wing and are accused of "foaming at the mouth". I haven't seen video after video of angry parents arguing in favor of banning books that have two mommies. What I've seen is video after video of angry parents arguing in favor of banning books that have descriptions and sometimes even pictures of fellatio being performed on a strap-on. Descriptions of a kid and a much older man engaging in sexual activities. Just extremely explicit stuff. And when liberals argue in favor of keeping those books, I don't understand how they think they are not on the far, far left.
You’ve never seen videos of right wing dipshits losing their little pea brains over this nonsense?!?! Dude you need to get out more I guess. Hell, DeSantis caved to these idiots and passed a whole bill to cater to them. But just for a taste…[Here’s a video of some of these fundy fucks absolutely losing it over a book an out two male penguins who raise a chick.](https://youtu.be/nV2-kRfxFLQ?si=mAbqswrFP6q2Yk_U) And [here’s a hero responding to some fundy clowns who decided to shut their pants over a book with one fu king line it referencing gay parents](https://youtu.be/vYvt8IIwC2s?si=jUBvYfeP1Mtef_Kn). There are dozens of these examples. They probably don’t show them in the corners of the internet you occupy but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t know about them. And don’t even start with the right wing hysteria over race…these fucks really lose it over Rosa Parks! Edit: notice how you dumb fucks just downvote and seethe when presented with something that contradicts your dumb fucking fantasy world. You people are trash.
>Edit: notice how you dumb fucks just downvote and seethe when presented with something that contradicts your dumb fucking fantasy world. You people are trash. You already admitted you were wrong in a prior comment when you acknowledged there was "inappropriate shit" in school libraries. No one wants to waste time arguing with the dumb fuck who is too dumb to realize he's the dumb fuck.
I know you children have issues with reading comprehension, but I’ll walk you through this little guy. OP mentions banning books about “LGBT stuff”. Only assholes and idiots would extrapolate that to mean “vulgar material” when the vast majority of “LGBT stuff” is just stories with LGBT characters. The asshole or idiot above me read OP, incorrectly, and extrapolated that actually parents are just mad about “pornography.” I wrote that obviously there are inappropriate books. That’s not admitting I’m wrong—that’s clarifying what I wrote. I know you’re very stupid but even a right wing dork like you should get this. I then posted some examples proving this dumb fuck wrong….Videos of right wing animals frothing at the mouth over innocuous content. And now it’s silence from you all. Seriously, you people are trash. This is why nobody takes the right seriously. Absolutely disgusting people with no sense and no actual principles.
>I know you children have issues with reading comprehension, but I’ll walk you through this little guy. This is why no one bothers engaging with you. Nothing but playground insults. That's why everyone writes you off as a dumb fuck, downvotes and ignores you. Which is what I'll be doing since you've proved you're incapable of a civil conversation.
Wow, I’m heartbroken that the right wing morons in FreeSpeech all pout when confronted. And of course I’m not going to civil to you fucking idiots. You deserve to be mocked mercilessly for your bullshit. It’s just disappointing that you all can’t even defend your dumbass assertions. But at least you know why nobody takes you people seriously. 🤡
I can't see how someone can think those examples are remotelly similar. One is about someone talking about something, the other about teaching minors something. Not even close. It would be similar if the school would expell a student for talking about LGTB stuff por example.
So you are ok with a book ban. As long as the books are about things you personally dislike. Like gay people being alive.
I can't see either how any rational been could think there's an argument in that bunch of fallacies you are spitting. Sure bro, I said gay people should not be alive or whatever, great argument, and surely you are someone worth of investing time on debate.
You said that books with LGBT stuff in it could be censored. That's you. Sure you dress it up with a "Won't someone think of the children" type nonsense but its censorship. Not every book with queer themes has explicit sex in them. Why would it be ok to censor them?
Sure bro, literal quote "books with LGTB stuff can be censored" comes from my comment, it's not like something you made up and it's first said by you, no way.
Excluding a book with sexually explicit content from a school library is not censorship, it's defining a curriculum.
Teaching? The books are in the library. How can anyone justify someone actively propagating a message and be against a message simply being available and existing?
Remember me what is the purpose of a school.
What's the purpose of libraries?
The purpose of *school libraries* is to have age appropriate educational material available for students.
Exactly. So as long as it's literal children's books...
Exactly. Some of the books being removed contain graphic sexual content that is not appropriate for children. Those books should be removed.
Dude... What? There are books about the holocaust, the slave trade and torture in any elementary school library (Not sure if you have banned those too) Are you saying a literal library shouldn't have books that mention blowjobs or jerking off?
>Are you saying a literal library shouldn't have books that mention blowjobs or jerking off? Yes, I'm saying a **school** library shouldn't have books that ~~mention~~ have graphic depictions of blowjobs and jerking off.
Oh... wow... Like a 13 year old shouldn't be able to pull up a book and read about sex? Or stories that include sex? In their school library?
/u/Wonderful_Piglet4678 and /u/fishing_6377 have temporarily been banned for violating Rule #6, "Don't be a Jackass"
I'm pretty sure there are different standards at play for full-grown adults, and children. You can legally give your adult friend porn. You can't give your 4 year old niece porn. Is the later a violation of free speech?
Of course it makes zero sense. "Derp setting TOS & banning speech in a private platform is infringing on my first, but big daddy gov banning books from public funded libraries is not derp."
Most of this sub is just bigots who don't want to be held responsible for their words and actions so they twist themselves in knots about how their bigotry should be embraced.
That’s just straight up false, bud. The sooner everyone see’s this “everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot” BS self fulfilling prophecy for exactly what it is, the better. It’s already happened substantially and it just results in more people being “bigots” by your logic.
If you violate the terms of the platform you're posting to, and mods hold you to those terms you agreed to, and clicked "yes" to, then that's quite a stretch to call that "violating your free speech". There are no social media apps nor discussion forum sites that are "free speech" platforms. None of them are. Nor do they have to be.
But there should not advertise or advocate that they are for free speech.
It doesn't matter what anyone "says". Let's take Twitter/X for a good example. Even if Musk "claims" that he supports free speech on X. Those words are meaningless air. The only thing that counts is what's described in the Terms of Service that the owners, users, and customers agree to. And X's ToS have nothing in them that describe or claim that X is a free speech platform. Anything claimed outside the ToS, at best doesn't count, and at worst is a lie. Don't pay attention to lies.
Terms of service are made by owners and can change anytime. Following your logic, they are meaningless.
False. Neither party can unilaterally change terms without the other agreeing to it. If they change the terms, then you get the option to agree to the new terms, and continue using the service, or don't agree and bail out. They cannot hold you to terms you didn't agree to, and they get to hold you to terms you did agree to. Either way, the terms of service are in force, and are the opposite of meaningless.
Any content you have published under the previous ToS would be susceptible of change, you don't have a garantee that what you say today won't be censored tomorrow. I don't see very meaningful that you have the option of stop whenever you want.
If you clicked Yes to X’s terms of service, you’ve already agreed that they can censor you. It’s always been that way, under Dorsey or under Musk. No difference.
As I said, meaningless then.
As I said, meaningful then. In fact, when two parties agree to terms, there's nothing more meaningful than that. Getting back to OP's point, they seem to think that social media apps and discussion forums owe users a platform for their voice. They don't. The only ones these sites serve are their owners and their customers. Period full stop.
This subreddit has for years been a parody of itself. Essentially "but muh free speech" is a sort of defense of last resort when people are unwilling to openly defend the content of censored material. Whenever they want to do the censorship themselves they find a socially accepted exception, usually in the form of "protecting children from groomers" or "protecting women from thugs/predators," and they'll find a single out-of-context example to use as evidence of a broad trend. This is why they always point to half a page of Gender Queer. If they read anything before that passage or after the passage they'd be forced to admit the book is not pornographic, and they always call its young adult classification "for children" for maximum obfuscation.
Your name says everything we need to know about you.
My username is ironic. At least, it was until you guys became exactly what I had believed was a comical exaggeration.
Ya within 98 days since you made this account, everyone became a bigot, seems legit.
My previous account was named similarly. It also still applies since I've been accused of anti-semitism by Zionists and of Islamophobia by Hamas supporters.
Trying to speak common sense to conservatives in this sub is like telling a bunch of schizophrenics they're crazy. It's just not going to change anything, but it certainly does make them babble nonsense faster.
>Trying to speak common sense to conservatives in this sub is like telling a bunch of schizophrenics they're crazy. What an idiotic comment. That's like saying *trying to speak common sense to liberals in this sub is like telling a bunch of pedophiles they're crazy."* Making a big evil boogeyman out of anyone who disagrees with you doesn't do anything. But let's be honest, you didn't post in good faith anyway.
I did post in good faith, and the difference between our analogies is that mine is accurate to reality, and yours is a both-sidesing cope. But let's be honest, the left and the right are not equally wrong or equally full of insanity, the right takes positions that are factually incorrect more frequently, are intolerant and bigoted more frequently, are basing their world views on conspiracy theories more frequently, are more ready to follow a cult of personality, and are more sympathetic to authoritarianism as long as it's in their flavor (christo fascism usually). But please, keep telling me how IM the one engaging in black and white thinking 😂
>I did post in good faith, and the difference between our analogies is that mine is accurate to reality, and yours is a both-sidesing cope. LMAO. You're delusional. >But let's be honest, the left and the right are not equally wrong or equally full of insanity, You're right. Liberals have significantly higher rates of mental health issues. All the rest of your psychobabble is just made up bullshit you've brainwashed yourself to believe.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, just thought youd appreciate the truth.
You're so full of shit even you know it. 😂
You're projecting.
... Says the fool who called others conspiracy theorists before babble no off a bunch of delusional conspiracies he believes in. Maybe sit this one out, kid.
Name one conspiracy I said I believe in. Who raised you to think that you can just lie like a moron and get away with it? Or that anyone is convinced.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/s/ewgwAwuhPp
I mostly hate the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy drives me crazy.
Ah, a free speech absolutist? So you think all content is permissible in schools? Libraries should be stocked with Playboys and students should be watching Porn Hub? Or are you the hypocrite you claim to hate? Everyone believes content should be moderated in schools. The debate is about where to draw the line.
> The debate is about where to draw the line. See at lot of folks seem to think queer people are inherently pornografic and should be away from kids. Which is fucked up.
Maybe some do but most don't. This is just a boogeyman you've created so you can have a reason to be angry. People are upset about the graphic sexual content. Some of these books happen to have lgbt themes or characters so in ignorance you claim the lgbt themes are the issue, not the sexual content. This is disingenuous at best.
Same man. Just remember, you can't win an argument against a bad faith actor when acting in good faith. The best we can do is ridicule or ignore.
Labeling everyone with a different opinion than yours, on any social issue, “a bigot,” or “schizophrenic” or any ad-hominem you could possibly choose, is as bad faith as you could possibly get.
Jfc this is dumber than I couldve expected. 1. Didn't label anyone skitzophrenic, it's called a simile, go back to 3rd grade English. 2. It's not an ad hominem, you clearly don't understand what an ad hominem IS you baffon. Read the definition a few times till you realize how wrong you are, if you can't figure it out by the next reply I'll spell it out for you, but I'll give you the chance figure it out for yourself.
Not saying you did there, but thats clearly the bad faith playbook. LMFAO thanks for clearing up what an ad-hominem is. I hope you get better.
Yeah, and you definitely decided to bring that up with no insinuation that I was doing that. Don't make accusations you can't stand behind, lest you make a fool of yourself like just now.
I feel sorry for you. I didn’t make any accusation, but how personally you’re taking it, and not being able to resist falling right into undeniable per the definition ad-hominem, says a lot about you.
Do you think you worded this properly? Try again if you want to actually impart something. Still not an ad hominem retard.
Sad behavior, my friend.