BuckSwope

I get what you are saying here, but I think the reasonable way to approach that is with honest discussion about what the examples we are talking are. IMO if you got about 10-20 rational adults together to look at examples you'd start form a decent line of what could be acceptable in a school setting. That should be a discussion for each school district. The problem is, nothing is ever with rational people, so it often seems like it's a battle of Bible thumping Moms for Liberty vs. anything goes leftie freaks. It's unreasonable for parents to want to know there is some sort of reasonable restrictions on books that are in a school library and factoring age groups. Right or wrong, people also look differently at a 1000 page horror novel with a few pages of strong sexual content vs. examples where teen relationships and sexuality are the core theme of the book.

Can you give examples, or is this something you've encountered with your own kids bringing stuff home to read? My usual go-to is something like Stephen King. I know there is some sex in those because I've read them, and I don't think most parents would blink an eye if their HSer was reading one of his books. That said, some of the examples I have seen like Gender Queer or other books that are non-graphic novels are way worse than I thought, and of course should be challenged. ETA: I use King because I have also seen his books in HS libraries, but to be fair have occasionally seen him on challenged lists too. Personally, I don't know why there isn't a ratings system for books like other media or an easier way to vet these things before the kids consume them. I have 2-3 free sites I know of that I can check about movies and shows, and get pretty detailed descriptions of the plot and specific examples of language used and things like that. I looked at your list and tried to find examples of what might be in Twilight and just randomly Perfect Chemistry, and found basically jack sh1t.

All the gloryhole stuff makes more sense knowing all the research Eternal has done in the lgbtq section. Take a break and read some Tom Clancy or something once in awhile.

I've always objected, so that's not new for me either. I would guess no to the last part. Just going to see more and more of this it seems.

How about if we try again, @jerryskids? It was stupid that the left redefines terms like racism or woman. We now see that in the last week or so now "antisemitism" includes critics of Isreal the country. I think that is also stupid and should stop. Do you agree? I hated this trend we saw from the left when stuff happened in employers and schools: demand an apology, demand they use the proper words, call for jobs, etc. To be that is core behavior of cancel culture, and opposite of the exchange of ideas we should encourage. We now see this from the right on this topic. Do you agree?

Jerry, you are better than this. Do you really think I am talking about actual violence against students and enforcement of a policy like that? If so, maybe reread some of my posts.

Wtf did I say that? It's telling that you all can't think of any other ways to address this besides act like the same obnoxious snowflakes they were.

As people are cheering it on from the right, look at what their policy changed to. Really read it and think about it. Sorry, it's worse and it's going to come back even more soon when Jews aren't the wronged group of the moment. My position you don't have to and shouldn't act like they do. That's how the race to the bottom gains speed. Stop cheering this on, or at the very least stop acting as though you are against it when another BLM pops up.

Next posts coming up will take on the "but the left does it" tone. Ignoring that of course they were still Trump noms, and they were the nomination based on their position on one issue.

You might want to follow this trail a little bit closer.

Sound familiar righties? 1. Demand an apology and/or change in terms and policies. 2. Still not enough so firings are in order. 3. Complaints of things like speech, walking past posters, etc are making you feel unsafe. I could go on. All the stuff you supposedly hate with BLM and trans people among others on full display here and you are nodding in agreement now that it aligns with something you agree with.

Funny how these comedians are good at framing topics this way. I often point to Chapelle's stand up about lbgtq and trans (the bit about them riding in a car) as being great at framing the issue in a accurate and funny way. That said, Bill doesn't quite get it because my sticking point is the terms like "murder" and "killing" being used. To me that implies a being that is alive first to be able to kill. That's where the right loses me as we get closer and closer to conception.

who were not secretive about saying they would do exactly that - overturn RvW. Important info for this discussion. That's the point, even if one of them wasn't confirmed through the process there wouldn't have been anybody nominated who wasn't upfront about this topic.

Yes, in your scenario I am in your camp, but for me the bolded is the biggest piece of the puzzle, and evidence to my position that neither party truly cares about the issue because that is what is left to fester as they just battle over the rate of flow across the border. My solutions would include a reasonable limit on a number of people allowed combined with a complete overhaul of the asylum system and a way to catch up on the 4 year backlog of cases. I've said many times that there is too much $ to be made having the border the way it is from both sides of the aisle, so all of that is not a bug of the system. Cheap labor in some of the biggest industries in the country combined with companies profiting both on the incarceration of and the transportation out of the country of illegals? Any politician successful in "shutting down" the border in a way that you or I would want would immediately lose the backing of just about any big lobby you can think of. And they all know it, so they just fight about walls that will never get built and don't do anything of substance.

Mostly disagreeing with solutions presented from each side. Just an issue off the top of my head where I don't feel I'd have a home on from either side.

Oh, its very possible I don't pay too much attention to contracts. Is that function of following a smaller market team? I get the deferment part, but I thought "hit" the teams took look deferment or more evenly distributed each year.

GTFO with that. That seems like it would open a whole other can of worms with contracts.

You are such the good little cheerleader. Makes your posts about others being non-thinking sheep all the funnier. So you just think the opposite of posters like worms? Does agreeing with a lib on an issue get you kicked out of club or something? Pathetic man. Pro-tip that idiots like you and HT don't seem to understand - saying you are more in the center doesn't mean you believe you are in some magical "middle or other" on every issue. Sometimes I am (the border), sometimes I side with the right (guns, trans) sometimes I side with the left (drugs, abortion). I know it's shocking for people like you when others think about an issue first and then form their opinion, not caring if another anonymous person on the internet agrees with them or not.

Yeah, that was the rumbles last week. Gop acting like the lefties and trying to redefine terms so they can demonize people. It's bizarre.

Lol. I thought you saw that and was being sarcastic above.

I've been telling the right to stop acting like them for years. You aren't adopting their beliefs, you are acting like childish snowflakes like they do.

Me too, because they are hypocrites.

Love all the righties now slow clapping to the cancel culture.

This is pretty much where I am. I can't think of a rational person I know who would have an issue with something like Gender Queer not being available in a school library. It's a clear cut as you can get, IMO. Where the conversation starts to derail is that as with the bolded, often (at least for me) there is a huge falsehood with the story when I read it or see people talking about. For example "it's being taught in schools" when it was a book in a library, and never suggested or taught in a classroom. It's framed as being in a younger school, but it was actually a High School. Things like that. I usually have a question for each side of the debate that never seems to get answered. For the right: if it's JUST about sexuality in materials, why is it that when I look at the list of books being pulled and flagged is it 90% LGBTQ materials? We can't deny there is a reason people wonder if you are anti-lgbtq if it is so one sided. For the left: WTF do most of the lgbtq materials on the lists come in the form of graphic novels and/or feature a heavy focus on sex and offensive pics? I am open to materials of a variety being available to check out in schools, but some common sense must apply and I've seen too many examples of graphic novels where they aren't appropriate for the age being discussed.

I agree. There was a little exaggeration about the "yelling" I posted, but evidently he just went up to the guy in the dining room and said something to the tune of "you must love Putin/Russia too" and started arguing with him. What I witnessed was just the customer coming up as he left and wanting to inform somebody what happened. The old coot was still looking to fight and was arguing with me in the back. I'm used to customers yelling at us and throwing stuff our way, first time I've seen this. See, that's why you old farts need to get away from the internet machines.