Florida TV Cuts Feed as Ron DeSantis Shows Explicit Content in School Books

[ThatRobGuy]

Florida TV cuts feed as Ron DeSantis shows explicit content in school books

During a news conference, the governor said reports that his administration is banning books was "a hoax."

www.newsweek.com

• Gov. Ron DeSantis showed a video featuring explicit content in some books pulled from schools during a news conference.
• Some news stations cut their live feeds when books with graphic content were displayed

I think this situation would create a bit of a conundrum and highlights the issues with getting "dug in" to a particular "side" of the debate. Tampa's NBC affiliate hasn't been shy about bashing DeSantis for the Florida GOP efforts to remove books from schools, and by taking something of an absolutist stance (rather than wanting take a more nuanced approach), basically allowed themselves to be set up.

I don't think it was any random coincidence that he happen to choose the books "gender queer" and "flamer" to show excerpts from in the preprepared montage that he showed. Most books with an LGBT character or "LGBT Acceptance" theme aren't that graphic and don't contain that kind of content. But by taking a blanket approach of "any effort to remove any LGBT book is bad because we need to fight against the GOP", they walked right into the "egg in the face" trap where they've defended certain books being in libraries in schools that they don't even feel comfortable showing to adults who may be watching their news broadcast.

And hopefully that was a "teachable moment" for them that highlights why the best response to "censor all LGBT books" isn't always "defend all LGBT books at all costs".

It sort of ties in with the things that Democratic strategist and author Ruy Teixeira (Senior Fellow at progressive think tank orgs like Center for American Progress and Brookings Institute) mentioned when he wrote the piece called "The Fox News Fallacy", in which he says
"This is the idea that if <insert prominent conservative pundit/outlet/politician> criticizes the Democrats for X then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often." and said "It’s Blinding the Democrats to Real Problems".


It would've been better for progressives to say "Okay, well...he's right about some of these books so go ahead and remove those particular ones from schools, but he's using those extreme examples of why he should ban all of them so we still need to fight for the rest of the books to remain" instead of what they did do, which was to pretend that objections to books like "Gender Queer" was a "nothingburger" and some even went as far as defending it as "appropriate for schools" and passed it off as a "regular ol' coming of age book, just from a LGBT perspective"

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the problem with pro-CRT discourse is often a motte-and-bailey tactic. And when challenged, "We are just defending teaching history".

I think it's a case of overall context, and sometimes that nuance is lost in heated rhetoric. You can use seemigly "colorblind" rhetoric to advance a pro-social message that everybody be treated equally, or you can use it to minimize the unique problems that Blacks face due to systemic racism.

However, in terms of books, DeSantis is indeed trying to censor what kids can read about, because he and his buddies don't want critical thought in schools that might challenge the simplistic nationalist narrative they favor. Like banning "The Handmaid's Tale", a serious and important piece of literature that criticizes totalitarian regimes' frequent abuse of women's bodies. Perhaps that one hits too close to home.

 

[disciple Clint]

Florida TV cuts feed as Ron DeSantis shows explicit content in school books

During a news conference, the governor said reports that his administration is banning books was "a hoax."

www.newsweek.com

• Gov. Ron DeSantis showed a video featuring explicit content in some books pulled from schools during a news conference.
• Some news stations cut their live feeds when books with graphic content were displayed

I think this situation would create a bit of a conundrum and highlights the issues with getting "dug in" to a particular "side" of the debate. Tampa's NBC affiliate hasn't been shy about bashing DeSantis for the Florida GOP efforts to remove books from schools, and by taking something of an absolutist stance (rather than wanting take a more nuanced approach), basically allowed themselves to be set up.

I don't think it was any random coincidence that he happen to choose the books "gender queer" and "flamer" to show excerpts from in the preprepared montage that he showed. Most books with an LGBT character or "LGBT Acceptance" theme aren't that graphic and don't contain that kind of content. But by taking a blanket approach of "any effort to remove any LGBT book is bad because we need to fight against the GOP", they walked right into the "egg in the face" trap where they've defended certain books being in libraries in schools that they don't even feel comfortable showing to adults who may be watching their news broadcast.

And hopefully that was a "teachable moment" for them that highlights why the best response to "censor all LGBT books" isn't always "defend all LGBT books at all costs".

It sort of ties in with the things that Democratic strategist and author Ruy Teixeira (Senior Fellow at progressive think tank orgs like Center for American Progress and Brookings Institute) mentioned when he wrote the piece called "The Fox News Fallacy", in which he says
"This is the idea that if <insert prominent conservative pundit/outlet/politician> criticizes the Democrats for X then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often." and said "It’s Blinding the Democrats to Real Problems".


It would've been better for progressives to say "Okay, well...he's right about some of these books so go ahead and remove those particular ones from schools, but he's using those extreme examples of why he should ban all of them so we still need to fight for the rest of the books to remain" instead of what they did do, which was to pretend that objections to books like "Gender Queer" was a "nothingburger" and some even went as far as defending it as "appropriate for schools" and passed it off as a "regular ol' coming of age book, just from a LGBT perspective"

It would be better for the children if progressives stopped trying to indoctrinate them at the earliest possible ages.

 

[disciple Clint]

I think the problem with pro-CRT discourse is often a motte-and-bailey tactic. And when challenged, "We are just defending teaching history".

I think it's a case of overall context, and sometimes that nuance is lost in heated rhetoric. You can use seemigly "colorblind" rhetoric to advance a pro-social message that everybody be treated equally, or you can use it to minimize the unique problems that Blacks face due to systemic racism.

Can you provide specific examples of "systemic racism"

 

[FireDragon76]

Can you provide specific examples of "systemic racism"

I'm not going to debate systemic racism. That would be like debating if the moon landing happened, as far as I'm concerned. If you don't understand what systemic racism is, google is your friend.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/racism/upload/racism-and-systemic-racism.pdf

 

[disciple Clint]

I'm not going to debate systemic racism. That would be like debating if the moon landing happened, as far as I'm concerned. If you don't understand what systemic racism is, google is your friend.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/racism/upload/racism-and-systemic-racism.pdf

If you cannot provide an example then it does not exist outside of your mind.

 

[USincognito]

If you cannot provide an example then it does not exist outside of your mind.

Why are you pretending she didn't provide a link discussing systemic racism?

 

[disciple Clint]

Why are you pretending she didn't provide a link discussing systemic racism?

I asked for a specific example not a propaganda sheet

 

[USincognito]

I asked for a specific example not a propaganda sheet

So now you've moved on to attacking the source instead of addressing the content. I suspect any specific example (like redlining, or studies showing a "black" name on one of two copies of the same resume will get rejected) as "propaganda".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the problem with pro-CRT discourse is often a motte-and-bailey tactic. And when challenged, "We are just defending teaching history".

I think it's a case of overall context, and sometimes that nuance is lost in heated rhetoric. You can use seemigly "colorblind" rhetoric to advance a pro-social message that everybody be treated equally, or you can use it to minimize the unique problems that Blacks face due to systemic racism.

However, in terms of books, DeSantis is indeed trying to censor what kids can read about, because he and his buddies don't want critical thought in schools that might challenge the simplistic nationalist narrative they favor. Like banning "The Handmaid's Tale", a serious and important piece of literature that criticizes totalitarian regimes' frequent abuse of women's bodies. Perhaps that one hits too close to home.

Valid points...

But I think the problem of "absolutism" (with regards to how it ties to rhetoric) sets people up to look foolish if an example can be provided that lends any validation to the other side's position.

This conversation ended up getting framed within the context of "book bans" vs. "anti book bans". Everyone "picked their side"...when in reality, 99% of people out don't actually have an absolutist position on that. No matter which side a person's on, there's a certain level of censorship they agree with, the disagreement is on where the line should be.

For instance, if school districts were putting anti-vaccine and conspiracy theory books in school libraries, I'd have zero doubt that some on the left would be 100% in favor of removing those books. If they started using that as the pretext for removing other books conservatives were sympathetic to (most of which weren't nearly as extreme), then conservatives would be the ones holding up signs saying "absolutely no book bans!", thereby walking into the same kind of trap where all a person would have to do is find a particularly extreme example of a conspiracy book (by someone like Alex Jones or the like) hold it up in an interview and proclaim "See!, this is what they're defending!"

What progressives should've done in this case was to concede on the "token example" books (like Gender Queer and Flamer) and agree that those shouldn't be in schools once it became clear that those particular examples weren't just "manufactured outrage", and clarified their position and continued to fight for the other books that were getting axed. By taking a "all books that republicans want to ban must be worth defending", they basically stood on the trap door and told their opponents where the lever was.

 

[FireDragon76]

Valid points...

But I think the problem of "absolutism" (with regards to how it ties to rhetoric) sets people up to look foolish if an example can be provided that lends any validation to the other side's position.

This conversation ended up getting framed within the context of "book bans" vs. "anti book bans". Everyone "picked their side"...when in reality, 99% of people out don't actually have an absolutist position on that. No matter which side a person's on, there's a certain level of censorship they agree with, the disagreement is on where the line should be.

For instance, if school districts were putting anti-vaccine and conspiracy theory books in school libraries, I'd have zero doubt that some on the left would be 100% in favor of removing those books. If they started using that as the pretext for removing other books conservatives were sympathetic to (most of which weren't nearly as extreme), then conservatives would be the ones holding up signs saying "absolutely no book bans!", thereby walking into the same kind of trap where all a person would have to do is find a particularly extreme example of a conspiracy book (by someone like Alex Jones or the like) hold it up in an interview and proclaim "See!, this is what they're defending!"

The real problem is that our culture doesn't have an agreement on how to discourse about the common good anymore, without resorting to this kind of tribalism. This is a point at which I am in agreement with the Notre Dame professor, Patrick Deneen. It's not a question that some books don't belong in a library, the issue is we can't agree on how to go about exploring what is good, because we've relegated pursuing goodness to the private sphere only, in ones inner desires.

 

[Larniavc]

Some news stations cut their live feeds when books with graphic content were displayed

America is so prudish. I reckon it’s half of America’s social issues because they are so uptight about sexuality.

And anyway, Flamer is YA fiction. Not for younger children.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

America is so prudish. I reckon it’s half of America’s social issues because they are so uptight about sexuality.

And anyway, Flamer is YA fiction. Not for younger children.

This has nothing to do with being "prudish". There's a difference between simply discussing a subject matter and/or depicting nudity, and depictions of underage people performing certain acts on each other... Acts, which, if done by adults, would be too weird for even mainstream adult video websites.

I have to assume that people asserting that this content is just "PG-13" (or even just R-rated) must be doing so because they haven't actually seen it, and just assumed because some folks on their own side of the debate dismissed it as an "overreaction by conservatives".

I'd provide a description of an example of some of the content depicted that has people upset, but merely describing it would certainly catch me a ban from CF (and probably land me on some sort of FBI watch list)

 

[FireDragon76]

This has nothing to do with being "prudish". There's a difference between simply discussing a subject matter and/or depicting nudity, and depictions of underage people performing certain acts on each other... Acts, which, if done by adults, would be too weird for even mainstream adult video websites.

I have to assume that people asserting that this content is just "PG-13" (or even just R-rated) must be doing so because they haven't actually seen it, and just assumed because some folks on their own side of the debate dismissed it as an "overreaction by conservatives".

I'd provide a description of an example of some of the content depicted that has people upset, but merely describing it would certainly catch me a ban from CF (and probably land me on some sort of FBI watch list)

Maybe leaving that book out of elementary and secondary schools isn't such a bad idea, then...

 

[rambot]

Can you provide specific examples of "systemic racism"

Can you provide a thoughtful and intelligent critique of examples of systemic racism?

Feel free to rebut any of these examples:
5 Examples of Systemic Racism in the USA

There's only 5. I can find more if you like.

If you are more of the buffet type, take a stab at any of these:
64 Examples of Systemic Racism Against Black Americans — Curious Refuge

 

[Larniavc]

This has nothing to do with being "prudish". There's a difference between simply discussing a subject matter and/or depicting nudity, and depictions of underage people performing certain acts on each other... Acts, which, if done by adults, would be too weird for even mainstream adult video websites.

I have to assume that people asserting that this content is just "PG-13" (or even just R-rated) must be doing so because they haven't actually seen it, and just assumed because some folks on their own side of the debate dismissed it as an "overreaction by conservatives".

I'd provide a description of an example of some of the content depicted that has people upset, but merely describing it would certainly catch me a ban from CF (and probably land me on some sort of FBI watch list)

Which part of Flamer is not suitable for a young adult?

 

[FireDragon76]

Which part of Flamer is not suitable for a young adult?

The book contains sexually explicit content, and it's a graphic novel. So you do the math.

Just keep in mind it's illegal in Florida to depict minors engaged in sexual acts. In any other context, a person could get prison time and registry on a sex offender list simply for posessing that kind of material.

There are other ways to help gay kids than what amounts to graphic novels with explicit sexual content. Whoever thought the graphic novel needed to be on library shelves at schools was not exercising good judgement.

 

[Pommer]

The book contains sexually explicit content, and it's a graphic novel. So you do the math.

Just keep in mind it's illegal in Florida to depict minors engaged in sexual acts. In any other context, a person could get prison time and registry on a sex offender list simply for posessing that kind of material.

There are other ways to help gay kids than what amounts to graphic novels with explicit sexual content. Whoever thought the graphic novel needed to be on library shelves at schools was not exercising good judgement.

I just now borrowed and read “Flamer” from my local library; I failed to see any sexuality explicit content. There was a kiss, on the (face) cheek.
The imagery of a wrist-slitting fantasy was more disturbing.

Overall it looks like an internal dialog of a young (14) gay boy coming to terms with himself, (with pictures).

 

[FireDragon76]

I just now borrowed and read “Flamer” from my local library; I failed to see any sexuality explicit content. There was a kiss, on the (face) cheek.
The imagery of a wrist-slitting fantasy was more disturbing.

Overall it looks like an internal dialog of a young (14) gay boy coming to terms with himself, (with pictures).

According to Newsweek, and several right-leaning media outlets like The Florida Voice and Fox News, the book is sexually explicit, containing masturbation, body fluids, and it has depictions of nudity and an erection. Considering this is a graphic novel, I can understand why people would find that problematic.

So either you overlooked this, or a whole lot of news outlets, including Newsweek are being misleading.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which part of Flamer is not suitable for a young adult?

Okay, here goes (we'll see if this sticks or if I get in trouble, I'll try to not use any explicit verbiage here)

There's a scene in the book where it visually depicts underage adolescent boys playing a game where each one has to "do a certain something" into a Gatorade bottle, and whoever "completes the deed last" has to drink it.

Does that clarify? If not, you're free to get on google and search for the book title and "Gatorade bottle" if you really wanna know.

I'm certainly not posting the actual illustration here.

**Correction: It was a mountain dew bottle