the left slowly pushes to normalize pedophilia

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I think I am 1/2 way between all of you.  I don't think she is simulating sex or even knows largely WTF she is doing.   I do find it bizzare how much people are encouraging that specific thing and where she learned to do it in the first place.  

Sorry, that video is a bit creepier than I was expecting.  

Why are you insinuating that anyone here holds the kid responsible for the behavior in these situations? 

[Voltaire 4,556]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I think I am 1/2 way between all of you.  I don't think she is simulating sex or even knows largely WTF she is doing.   I do find it bizzare how much people are encouraging that specific thing and where she learned to do it in the first place.  

Sorry, that video is a bit creepier than I was expecting.  

I don't see how you're halfway off my position, because that's most of our reactions and those two objections sounds identical to my position.

In fairness, you'd been agreeing with gutterboy on the last page or the page before, and had me grinding my teeth, so there is room for disagreement.

[Voltaire 4,556]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why are you insinuating that anyone here holds the kid responsible for the behavior in these situations? 

I don't see that in this post. It looks like he's agreeing with us.

[BuckSwope 654]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm shocked anybody is clicking on the video link. Anyone who has should be ashamed of themselves.

 

I'm not supposed to know what we are specifically talking about?  

[Shooter McGavin 589]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

I don't see how you're halfway off my position, because that's most of our reactions and those two objections sounds identical to my position.

In fairness, you'd been agreeing with gutterboy on the last page or the page before, and had me grinding my teeth, so there is room for disagreement.

Just so we're clear, the two sides of the position are

1) meh, let the kid be a kid and have fun

And the other sides is

2) when kids dance like this then pedos are accepted.

Are those the two sides?

[BuckSwope 654]

Just now, Voltaire said:

I don't see that in this post. It looks like he's agreeing with us.

That's because I didn't write it in my post.  I am agreeing with you.  Some people don't like that for some unknown reason.  

[Voltaire 4,556]

9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm shocked anybody is clicking on the video link. Anyone who has should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Are you serious of being facetious?

I hope you're serious, I'd like to think we've won over you like we've apparently won over Buck.

[Shooter McGavin 589]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

That's because I didn't write it in my post.  I am agreeing with you.  Some people don't like that for some unknown reason.  

So you think this kid is normalizing sex with her?

[Voltaire 4,556]

2 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Just so we're clear, the two sides of the position are

1) meh, let the kid be a kid and have fun

And the other sides is

2) when kids dance like this then pedos are accepted.

Are those the two sides?

The two sides are:

there's nothing wrong with twerking in front of 4 year olds and teaching them how

vs

it's already inappropriate to twerk in front of 4 year olds and even worse to teach them how

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

4 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Are you serious of being facetious?

I hope you're serious, I'd like to think we've won over you like we've apparently won over Buck.

"Won me over..." I've never once said I was okay with it. Go back and check the threads. I've only ever said if a parent chooses to take their kid to one of these things- that is their right to do so. I wouldn't take my kid there but I don't parent other people's kids.

I'm just saying- that if there is something I don't generally want to see- even if someone posts a link- I don't click on it. I mean if someone posted a video link of a person pissing on someone during sexual foreplay- are you clicking that link? I sure as hell ain't. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

6 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I don't see that in this post. It looks like he's agreeing with us.

Yes he did. He said he’s halfway, and the first side he addresses is that he doesn’t think the kid knows what she’s doing or simulating sex. Seeing as no one has said that, his insinuation is that someone did. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

8 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I'm not supposed to know what we are specifically talking about?  

You could just stick to the things that you can mention about without clicking on the individual link. I mean- I'm sitting out the portion of the conversation centered around the content of the video. 

[Shooter McGavin 589]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

The two sides are:

there's nothing wrong with twerking in front of 4 year olds and teaching them how

vs

it's already inappropriate to twerk in front of 4 year olds and even worse to teach them how

Putting it that way, I agree with you.

Funny thing is that's not what's in the video that started all this.

But using your definition, I don't think adults should twerk in front of kids and teach them how.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Putting it that way, I agree with you.

Funny thing is that's not what's in the video that started all this.

But using your definition, I don't think adults should twerk in front of kids and teach them how.

Why not? I thought it was just dancing? 

[BuckSwope 654]

17 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

On the bolded part- YUP! More fun to add words in I guess. More power to em.

 

Funniest note I've ever seen on a book that someone tried to ban was in Canada. They tried to get Hop on Pop pulled from a community library because the book encouraged violence against fathers and the library should be forced to pay any and all medical costs incurred by the dads getting hurt. 

Just like most things, the nuts are the most vocal and instead of focus on the actually books that should be flagged and taken out, which is probably only a handful in each library, we have lists cluttered with Dr. Suess and Harry Potter.   Hard to take anybody seriously when they are doing that, and it really takes away from a legitimate concern.  

 

[BuckSwope 654]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You could just stick to the things that you can mention about without clicking on the individual link. I mean- I'm sitting out the portion of the conversation centered around the content of the video. 

You are free to do that.  It's a bit odd to have an good opinion and discussion about something I haven't seen, though.  

I prefer to know specifically what people are talking about within reason.  

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Just like most things, the nuts are the most vocal and instead of focus on the actually books that should be flagged and taken out, which is probably only a handful in each library, we have lists cluttered with Dr. Suess and Harry Potter.   Hard to take anybody seriously when they are doing that, and it really takes away from a legitimate concern.  

 

Yup..once the door is open- every crazy person follows in and out yells the original people. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

You are free to do that.  It's a bit odd to have an good opinion and discussion about something I haven't seen, though.  

I prefer to know specifically what people are talking about within reason.  

Well here's what you will find- regardless of you watching the video and commenting on it and regardless of how many things you say on it between now and eternity- to some posters here (you can probably guess) you will only ever be a "pedo" or a "groomer" or "okay with 4 year olds twerking" because you didn't yell enough outrage up front. 

[BuckSwope 654]

14 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

So you think this kid is normalizing sex with her?

I think this kid is like all the other kids I've met - they are sponges for what is around them and what they are reinforced to do.   

I found it creepier than I was expecting, based on that very short clip.   That the video was just that specific motion, and that there was that big of a group around her and adults dancing with her.  My impression is that what people in here are against is that this is normalized in the sense that they are encouraging it and it's a positive thing to be celebrated.  On this specific example, I am with them and found the video creepy.   

 

[BuckSwope 654]

7 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Well here's what you will find- regardless of you watching the video and commenting on it and regardless of how many things you say on it between now and eternity- to some posters here (you can probably guess) you will only ever be a "pedo" or a "groomer" or "okay with 4 year olds twerking" because you didn't yell enough outrage up front. 

Oh, I am 100% aware, and even after less than a month here I am confident I could name at least 4-5 posters that you are also probably thinking of.   I'm not doing it for their benefit, I am doing it so I am educated as to what people are talking about.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

So thousands, 7k ?, of pedophiles are being released way too early in California.  I’d make an educated guess and say the great majority of them groomed their victims. But Don’t say groomer. 

[MLCKAA 395]

59 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Looking at a toddler moving her hips and thinking about her having sex is disgusting.  Maybe you should keep out of these discussions 

I’m not surprised by this disingenuous and facile response. I know you’re smarter than that. 

[BuckSwope 654]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So thousands, 7k ?, of pedophiles are being released way too early in California.  I’d make an educated guess and say the great majority of them groomed their victims. But Don’t say groomer. 

The problem is you and other like minded people call everybody groomers.   

I am sure you are right that most of them groomed victims.   I would guess that we'd see a mix of D and R pedophiles, from all walks of life.  I would also bet a lot, that you would encounter anybody on these boards or IRL that would take issue with you calling these people POS groomers.   

What you can't seem to grasp is that what people are taking issue with is people like you calling every teacher, librarian, doctor, parent, whatever a POS groomer (largely because they vote differently than you).    Makes you look like the POS and makes word that should have a very negative connotation largely meaningless.  Then they start ignoring you or taking you seriously, which of course ramps up your "why don't you care about the pedos!!" anger, and repeat... 

 

[Horseman 1,513]

13 minutes ago, MLCKAA said:

I’m not surprised by this disingenuous and facile response. I know you’re smarter than that. 

No, he isnt.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

The problem is you and other like minded people call everybody groomers.   

I am sure you are right that most of them groomed victims.   I would guess that we'd see a mix of D and R pedophiles, from all walks of life.  I would also bet a lot, that you would encounter anybody on these boards or IRL that would take issue with you calling these people POS groomers.   

What you can't seem to grasp is that what people are taking issue with is people like you calling every teacher, librarian, doctor, parent, whatever a POS groomer (largely because they vote differently than you).    Makes you look like the POS and makes word that should have a very negative connotation largely meaningless.  Then they start ignoring you or taking you seriously, which of course ramps up your "why don't you care about the pedos!!" anger, and repeat... 

 

I call everyone a groomer? What is it with you people making me the subject of your twisted little fantasies? 

[Voltaire 4,556]

Three pieces here. This thread can go in a few directions

• First, it's good that we've seemed to gel around a red line here with the inappropriateness of that video.

 

• In Sean's direction, the next step would be looking at where reasonable people can disagree on if parents should be able to take their kids to twerking lessons or drag show. Personally, I would have these banned in my community and would chose to live in a place where such activity is illegal. The strength of that opinion waivers, obviously, in blue areas. People see the LGBTQ agenda and issues around grooming differently. Since blue areas are more hospitable to such things, I suppose I'd have to deal with it. Frankly, I would as soon see these things banned there too, but there's too much disagreement. The most importantly things is I absolutely want it banned in my community. Consequently, I'd be willing to strike a compromise to let drag queens and twerkers alone to groom blue state children in areas that embrace that sort of thing. In doing so, I'd like assurences that red areas can ban such things, venues holding them can be shut down, and groomers and pedos insisting on performing in red areas facing criminal prosecution.

 

• Then there's Buck's direction, which is talking about banning books. I'm not sure there's an apetitite for banning Harry Potter, the Great Gatsby, nor Dr. Seuess. Certainly nobody in the Geek Club has called for that and those, they've been mainstream and accepted for years. I'd not even known there had ever existed flap on the later two and the Harry Potter one was very confined. The books people are complaining about are LGTBQ books, many outright pornographic and aimed at children. Jazz Jennings and such. And no, they shouldn't be in libraries. Since books promoting religious themes are not there, this alternate and decidedly worse morality shouldn't be tolerated either. Again I suppose, that cuts by the social and cultural values of wherever you live. These libraries are funded by taxpayers, make sure your librarian shares the same values as your community and things will work out well.

[BuckSwope 654]

9 hours ago, Voltaire said:

Three pieces here. This thread can go in a few directions

• First, it's good that we've seemed to gel around a red line here with the inappropriateness of that video.

 

• In Sean's direction, the next step would be looking at where reasonable people can disagree on if parents should be able to take their kids to twerking lessons or drag show. Personally, I would have these banned in my community and would chose to live in a place where such activity is illegal. The strength of that opinion waivers, obviously, in blue areas. People see the LGBTQ agenda and issues around grooming differently. Since blue areas are more hospitable to such things, I suppose I'd have to deal with it. Frankly, I would as soon see these things banned there too, but there's too much disagreement. The most importantly things is I absolutely want it banned in my community. Consequently, I'd be willing to strike a compromise to let drag queens and twerkers alone to groom blue state children in areas that embrace that sort of thing. In doing so, I'd like assurences that red areas can ban such things, venues holding them can be shut down, and groomers and pedos insisting on performing in red areas facing criminal prosecution.

 

• Then there's Buck's direction, which is talking about banning books. I'm not sure there's an apetitite for banning Harry Potter, the Great Gatsby, nor Dr. Seuess. Certainly nobody in the Geek Club has called for that and those, they've been mainstream and accepted for years. I'd not even known there had ever existed flap on the later two and the Harry Potter one was very confined. The books people are complaining about are LGTBQ books, many outright pornographic and aimed at children. Jazz Jennings and such. And no, they shouldn't be in libraries. Since books promoting religious themes are not there, this alternate and decidedly worse morality shouldn't be tolerated either. Again I suppose, that cuts by the social and cultural values of wherever you live. These libraries are funded by taxpayers, make sure your librarian shares the same values as your community and things will work out well.

I fully agree about #1.   I said yesterday somewhere that's it's best to take it example by example.  I've had much more productive conversations that way, and have found that people agree way more than they probably think.   It's also best to keep a mildly open mind when dealing with examples we don't agree on.   A lot of time there are grey areas like your other two points, and it's not like the things people disagree on are dudes with kiddie porn on their computer.  Sometimes the disagreement is about how much we should be controlling what people do with their kids or what people might have access to if they choose it.  

Anyway:  

• yes, we agree on the Times Square video as I saw it.

as I said above, I think it's best that we stick to an example by example way of talking about these cases like Drag Queen Story hours.  When I thought about it, especially #2, I have a "ramping up" of inappropriateness.   

• Addressing # 2, for me when I look at the examples it's all about: where is it, what is being worn, what is being read, and what is being promoted/discussed?   For example, I would have 0 issues somebody dressed in drag most of the time, came in dressed without boobs and body parts sticking out, and read Curious George to my kid at school and left.   It still leaves the question of why do they "have" to do it in drag, but I have bigger thinks to worry about, that's pretty tame, and I would also guess it's an outlier example.   As you start adding in the elements that I listed is when it starts getting the "nope" from me.   For example, if the exact same situation happened but they also had a group activity where they had the kids pick their pronouns or choose drag queen names? nope.   Exact same situation, but instead of a school or library, it's hosted at a bar or strip club?  Nope.   But to me this is fully what I would want anybody to do, and it has nothing to do with who it doing it.   I don't want my kid's 2nd grade teacher to read to her in a G-string with her ta-tas flopping out, and I don't want them instructing them about pronouns either.    That's the job of guidance counselors and similar professions.   Again, if we go example by example, I'd guess a lot of us would agree on a lot of the specific examples.  

 

• For #3, I am willing to even focus on the LGTQB books you talk about.  I think we agree that those other examples are real, but are more rare now (but just for an example, the Harry Potter series showed up in the top 10 most challenged books as recently as 2019, so that is why I include it as a kooky example).   Most of the heat revolves around books like Gender Queer.  I looked at a couple articles that listed the top 10 most challenged books of 2021, so that's probably a good place to start for an honest discussion of the examples.    I have a similar set of questions that I weed through in my head when I look at examples such as:  what exactly is the reason it's being asked to be removed from the shelves, what age group/school are we talking about, is it being assigned/read/suggested or is it just on the shelf available, is that reason being applied to all things, and does the book in question have any other value that might be a reason to keep it on the shelf available.     
• I realize that I am more forgiving than some about what should be available on a shelf in a library, so this one I've had more disagreements with people about than things like drag queen hour.   One thing that has really stuck with me over the last couple years through covid is how much too many kids depend on schools for resources from meals to counseling to access to books.  IMO that is a big factor here and part of the reason I feel I am more likely to vote for keeping something available, especially if it's something that might have an overall reason to be there that trumps the offending section of the book.  I also have 0 issues if we suggest a sort of rating system with books for schools as well, and have discussions about that.   To me the biggest factors are the age we are talking about and if the book in question is being actually taught/suggested or it's just in the library.  
• One thing I would like to point out is that when I look around at lists from articles, the wording really sticks out and it's there on all of them and raises instant question.  It's this phrasing and is always listed first:  "challenged for LGBTQIA+ content".    This showed up in some form on 5 of the top 10 from 2021.   This I believe exactly what I and I believe Sean were talking about.   Why would that be on there, if it's really the sexual content that is the issue?   To me that seems odd.  I have no problem with us agreeing, and guess we largely do, that something like a graphic depiction of a blow job should not be in a book at a school library.   I have 0 clue why it would matter if it was between straight or gay people.   I hope most of us can agree that at the very least it calls into question some of the motivations of some of these books being challenged and if we are going about it in the right way.   Also, I can't suggest enough to people serious about this to stop with the hyperbole and chicken little posting.  Be specific, honest, and talk about specific examples and why.     Sorry, if you are ranting and raving about this super offensive book being "taught" to kids in school at least take the time to educate yourself about the book, and if I look up the example and it's collecting dust on a shelf in a HS library (you know, not being "taught" in any form), you lose people quick.  Talking in general, not specifically to you Voltaire. 

 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

 One thing I would like to point out is that when I look around at lists from articles, the wording really sticks out and it's there on all of them and raises instant question.  It's this phrasing and is always listed first:  "challenged for LGBTQIA+ content".    This showed up in some form on 5 of the top 10 from 2021.   This I believe exactly what I and I believe Sean were talking about.   Why would that be on there, if it's really the sexual content that is the issue?   To me that seems odd.  I have no problem with us agreeing, and guess we largely do, that something like a graphic depiction of a blow job should not be in a book at a school library.   I have 0 clue why it would matter if it was between straight or gay people.   I hope most of us can agree that at the very least it calls into question some of the motivations of some of these books being challenged and if we are going about it in the right way.   Also, I can't suggest enough to people serious about this to stop with the hyperbole and chicken little posting.  Be specific, honest, and talk about specific examples and why.     Sorry, if you are ranting and raving about this super offensive book being "taught" to kids in school at least take the time to educate yourself about the book, and if I look up the example and it's collecting dust on a shelf in a HS library (you know, not being "taught" in any form), you lose people quick.  Talking in general, not specifically to you Voltaire. 

 

So just to further the example (long post- sorry). There is a book on the most commonly challenged list called "Out of Darkness." It is written by a woman named Ashley Hope Perez and is a love story between a Mexican-American girl and an African American boy set at the school of the 1937 New London explosion in Texas (it's historical- look it up). The book itself showed up on a hit list that has become circulated by Christian fundamentalist groups. Many of these groups are at local levels. They hold seminars on which books to challenge, how to challenge them, how to get Christian values back into schools and even down to like how to stalk a teacher's social media pages so you can uncover things. It is a very well organized- and well funded- attack system. Either way this book ends up on the list because (and maybe you've seen the video of the blonde mom at the school board meeting yelling about "I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANAL SEX")

The reason she is yelling that is because on one page of the book- a few horny teenage boys are at the high school and they see the white girl walking and one of the boys mentions about cornholing her. Which as that blonde mom points out "IS A SLANG TERM FOR ANAL SEX." It is one line in the book. The boys are clearly objectifying her which would have been common for that time period. Hell- John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men- spends a majority of its time objectifying Curley's wife calling her a "tart" and a "" and basically saying she is just there to potentially get railed by the men on the ranch. 

So anyway- in Out of Darkness it is about this girl lost her mom during the birth of her younger brother so now she is living with the stepdad and her half siblings. Her stepdad is a white born again Christian who is basically molesting her as he is trying to replace the loss of his wife with his stepdaughter. There is also a group of characters called "The Gang" which is a group of white kids.  The school building blows up and the townspeople are pissed as many children are left dead and they are looking for someone to blame. They settle on the young African American boy as he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are looking to lynch the boy but he and the girl escape only to be found by the stepdad who is pissed that they are leaving him behind. So he ties the boy to a tree, assaults the stepdaughter and then kills both of them before being gunned down. 

The push is about the "anal sex" thing because they feel it is something that people will agree on. They can't say the issue is that they have white people looking to lynch a black person because that could be met with "it's historically accurate for the time period and location," or "well the lynching stuff is overshadowed by the stepdad's actions" etc. But they figure everyone will agree on the anal sex stuff- which is funny because if you've never walked the halls of a high school....well high school teenage boys will make comments related to this a lot. So the "anal sex" or "sexually explicit" thing is used as a Trojan horse complaint. Come in on one issue so they can hide what the real issue is. This was a book by the way that was in the library and not one that kids were forced or asked to read. The book itself is okay...I'm far more against it in that the ending feels way over the top compared to the slow burn of the rest of the story. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

Calling someone a groomer is worse than the actual grooming. Got it. 

[Voltaire 4,556]

30 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I fully agree about #1.   I said yesterday somewhere that's it's best to take it example by example.  I've had much more productive conversations that way, and have found that people agree way more than they probably think.   It's also best to keep a mildly open mind when dealing with examples we don't agree on.   A lot of time there are grey areas like your other two points, and it's not like the things people disagree on are dudes with kiddie porn on their computer.  Sometimes the disagreement is about how much we should be controlling what people do with their kids or what people might have access to if they choose it.  

Anyway:  

• yes, we agree on the Times Square video as I saw it.

as I said above, I think it's best that we stick to an example by example way of talking about these cases like Drag Queen Story hours.  When I thought about it, especially #2, I have a "ramping up" of inappropriateness.   

• Addressing # 2, for me when I look at the examples it's all about: where is it, what is being worn, what is being read, and what is being promoted/discussed?   For example, I would have 0 issues somebody dressed in drag most of the time, came in dressed without boobs and body parts sticking out, and read Curious George to my kid at school and left.   It still leaves the question of why do they "have" to do it in drag, but I have bigger thinks to worry about, that's pretty tame, and I would also guess it's an outlier example.   As you start adding in the elements that I listed is when it starts getting the "nope" from me.   For example, if the exact same situation happened but they also had a group activity where they had the kids pick their pronouns or choose drag queen names? nope.   Exact same situation, but instead of a school or library, it's hosted at a bar or strip club?  Nope.   But to me this is fully what I would want anybody to do, and it has nothing to do with who it doing it.   I don't want my kid's 2nd grade teacher to read to her in a G-string with her ta-tas flopping out, and I don't want them instructing them about pronouns either.    That's the job of guidance counselors and similar professions.   Again, if we go example by example, I'd guess a lot of us would agree on a lot of the specific examples.  

 

I think even the mildest form of drag queen story hour -reading something innocuous like Curious George without the fake body parts-  the drag queen is still normalizing deviant behavior and still involving children in their sex fantasy. And I do wonder what they're reading, I doubt it really is Curious George; my understanding is that the prefer controversial LGBTQ book with genderfluid characters instead. If they actually want to read Curious George because they want to help kids, they can do so dressed as a man. They don't need to confuse kids or require kids to affirm their femininity.

I'm on a federalism kick. I'd certainly expect red states and red school boards to protect kids by preventing their exposed to this. Meanwhile I realize that blue areas either don't care enough to stop it or else embrace this stuff outright. If blue area mayors and city councils embrace it and win elections doing so, that's their prerogative. Trying to pick up the sword to legislatively beat the blue areas into electoral submission means that when the worm turns and the shoe is on the other foot, they'll reverse things and beat us with it. The safer thing is just let the blue areas do as they like and allowing red areas to use legal measures to prevent drag queens that want to dress up in front of kids from doing so. We can go our own ways.

[Raven Fan 362]

31 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I think even the mildest form of drag queen story hour -reading something innocuous like Curious George without the fake body parts-  the drag queen is still normalizing deviant behavior and still involving children in their sex fantasy. And I do wonder what they're reading, I doubt it really is Curious George; my understanding is that the prefer controversial LGBTQ book with genderfluid characters instead. If they actually want to read Curious George because they want to help kids, they can do so dressed as a man. They don't need to confuse kids or require kids to affirm their femininity.

I'm on a federalism kick. I'd certainly expect red states and red school boards to protect kids by preventing their exposed to this. Meanwhile I realize that blue areas either don't care enough to stop it or else embrace this stuff outright. If blue area mayors and city councils embrace it and win elections doing so, that's their prerogative. Trying to pick up the sword to legislatively beat the blue areas into electoral submission means that when the worm turns and the shoe is on the other foot, they'll reverse things and beat us with it. The safer thing is just let the blue areas do as they like and allowing red areas to use legal measures to prevent drag queens that want to dress up in front of kids from doing so. We can go our own ways.

Drag time story time almost never happens in this country.  Why such a focus from the right?

Know what does happen in this country, child abuse via churches, youth groups, and organizations like the boy scouts.  But conservatives don't say boo about that.

Instead you focus on these things that are miniscule compared to the real problems.

Conservatives just love to grab onto something largely inconsequential and make it a focus of their fear.

SAD

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

Is there any other group that has a story hour?  If no then why should chicks with d1ck have them?

[Raven Fan 362]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Is there any other group that has a story hour?  If no then why should chicks with d1ck have them?

good lord, most libraries have storytime time multiple times per week you cretin.  It literally happens thousands of times a week across the country.

SMH...SMH

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

36 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I think even the mildest form of drag queen story hour -reading something innocuous like Curious George without the fake body parts-  the drag queen is still normalizing deviant behavior and still involving children in their sex fantasy. And I do wonder what they're reading, I doubt it really is Curious George; my understanding is that the prefer controversial LGBTQ book with genderfluid characters instead. If they actually want to read Curious George because they want to help kids, they can do so dressed as a man. They don't need to confuse kids or require kids to affirm their femininity.

I'm on a federalism kick. I'd certainly expect red states and red school boards to protect kids by preventing their exposed to this. Meanwhile I realize that blue areas either don't care enough to stop it or else embrace this stuff outright. If blue area mayors and city councils embrace it and win elections doing so, that's their prerogative. Trying to pick up the sword to legislatively beat the blue areas into electoral submission means that when the worm turns and the shoe is on the other foot, they'll reverse things and beat us with it. The safer thing is just let the blue areas do as they like and allowing red areas to use legal measures to prevent drag queens that want to dress up in front of kids from doing so. We can go our own ways.

I'll preface by saying perhaps you are not advocating this....but some of this really comes off as trying to declare a culture war and there are so many other things to worry about in how our country runs.

Also, I mean if someone is just dressing up in drag to read a storybook I'm not sure that is "deviant behavior." Now if they were teaching kids how to do pelvic thrusts or something while reading the book I can see that being a bigger issue and everything. I'm fairly certain a kid is just going to look at the person and think "This weird person is reading me a book."

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

24 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

good lord, most libraries have storytime time multiple times per week you cretin.  It literally happens thousands of times a week across the country.

SMH...SMH

Duh. That’s not what I asked 

is there a fireman story hour? How about a scientist story hour? How about straight white male story hour?

why do the freaks of the freaks get their own special sh1t?

[Raven Fan 362]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Duh. That’s not what I asked 

is there a fireman story hour? How about a scientist story hour? How about straight white male story hour?

why do the freaks of the freaks get their own special sh1t?

99.9% of the story times are women story times.  And I'm sure they have other professions come in occasionally.

Here's an idea.  Don't like who's reading?  Don't take your kids.

jesus what is wrong with you people?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,625]

Yeah, there was no backlash against the church or the Boy Scouts for their pedophilia scandals. No reporting, no investigations, no movies made. The church has seen a dramatic decrease  post scandal and the Boy Scouts went bankrupt.   Yes, their scandals were met with silence. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

is there a fireman story hour? How about a scientist story hour? How about straight white male story hour?

Yes there are

 

https://www.nesmithlibrary.org/image-gallery/firefighter-story-hour

https://behrend.psu.edu/school-of-science/research-outreach/science-story-time 

Plenty of straight males do storytime at their kids schools.

 

[Raven Fan 362]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, there was no backlash against the church or the Boy Scouts for their pedophilia scandals. No reporting, no investigations, no movies made. The church has seen a dramatic decrees post scandal and the Boy Scouts went bankrupt.   Yes, their scandals were met with silence. 

And yet millions and millions of people still attend church and boy scouts and give them their money.

Compare the reaction to those scandals to you retards focus on non-existent issues like grooming and bad books in libraries.  You're all up in arms about that.  When was the last time you tards held a rally against the church or boy scouts?

SMH

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

10 minutes ago, Raven Fan said:

99.9% of the story times are women story times.  And I'm sure they have other professions come in occasionally.

Here's an idea.  Don't like who's reading?  Don't take your kids.

jesus what is wrong with you people?

where did you equate I have a problem with it or I don't think thats the answer? I was simply asking a question

I agree with the last 2 lines