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

[Larniavc]

So what age group is the target audience for the kind of act depicted on page I mentioned?

"YA novels are ages 12–18, and tackle more mature and adult themes and content."

Young adult fiction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think (with respect) that you may be out of touch with the youth of today.

 

[Larniavc]

and it's something that every adolescent male does

Crikey! Have I got news for you!

 

[Pommer]

I never said anything like that. There's a difference between advocating that everybody be treated equally, and not discriminated against, and advocating for any and all content in schools.

We're talking about a public school. The public has every right to object to content they deem obscene or inappropriate.

Right, that’s what we fight about all of the time! “What’s going on in the schools!?”
That’s as American as it gets. If we wen’t fighting about the schools we might as well pack it in.
This is “normal”.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you implying queer fiction is a 'staple' at schools? Is it on any of the lessons reading lists? I bet t he teachers notes are fun.

It was clearly present at some of the schools, otherwise there wouldn't have been a reason for some schools to remove it.

And if there was no intent to have more content like that, then why the backlash over the proposed restriction to prevent it from being added to certain school libraries?

 

[Larniavc]

It was clearly present at some of the schools, otherwise there wouldn't have been a reason for some schools to remove it.

How old are the kids that go to that school?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is prudishness. America being terrified that might be taught about sex (gay or straight) instead of how to shoot guns is (to the rest of the world) baffling.

Is giving knowledge about a penis or vagina so terrible? Is it worse than teaching them how to effectively use a gun? Something at a person that will kill them? That's the crazy thing about America: terrified about people having sex the 'wrong' way but fine flooding their society with easy ways to kill people.

smh

BTW: I'm a little drunk as i write this so forgive my overdramatising.

As I said, it's not prudishness.

Even in other places that aren't gun-friendly, there would still be some objections to this type of content.

And I'm sure those other places would likely make a distinction between "talking about anatomy"/"mentioning/teaching about sex" vs. "underage people in a tent playing a game where they all have to do something into a bottle, and the person who finishes the deed last has to drink it"

As I said before, I wouldn't have any objections to the former.

There's a contrast between "mentioning sex"/"depicting anatomy for education purposes", and content that borders on bizarre fetish material.


This is where one side of the debate is losing some voters (who would otherwise be anti-censorship) by failing to set an objective standard, and by appealing to abstracts rather than acknowledge the specific content.

When the response to this is either "what's so bad about sex, why are you afraid of body parts?" or "what really is 'bizarre' anyway?", it comes off as being extremely disingenuous.


To use a hypothetical example (since you used a comparison to guns),
Say you were bringing up concerns about the proliferation of guns and the potential issues with them.
If someone responded "Why are you so afraid of a piece of metal?" and "What are you so scared of the concept of someone defending themselves?"... it would be pretty apparent that the person was dodging your concerns by way of appealing to abstracts with the aims of making you seem like the one being unreasonable for having concerns.

 

[rjs330]

someone responded "Why are you so afraid of a piece of metal?" and "What are you so scared of the concept of someone defending themselves?"... it would be pretty apparent that the person was dodging your concerns by way of appealing to abstracts with the aims of making you seem like the one being unreasonable for having concerns.

This is very true and a tried and true tactic of the left. DQSH is another example. When we get concerned about it and bring up specific things that we feel are inappropriate we get "what's so bad about men playing dress up reading to kids?"

It's always taking it to the most minimizing place they can take it instead of addressing the real concerns. Happens all the time.

I love your well thought out and balanced approach. In a society that has this strong of divide we MUST learn to compromise on things. Otherwise what Florida is doing becomes inevitable. And sometimes compromise means one side gives a little more than the other for the good of all. An example is DQSH. A compromise could easily be that queen's are allowed to read non-ideological books to kids. Like Dr Seuss or Snow White etc. They can't read ideological books or teach kids suggestive dance or come up with queer drag names for themselves.

Books in schools as you point out is another. Can we have books with a queer character in them? Sure, I think we could put up with that as long as it isn't an overly sexual book like the ones you mentioned. And I would absolutely support removing books with the kind of material you mentioned no matter if the character was gay or straight.

But a continual defending and support of those kinds of books by the left will leads to what Florida is doing. Not knowing every book on the list I can't speak to them all. But I bet there are some of them that if we just sat across the table from each other we could say can be in the school despite the fact the character is LGBTQ because the content isn't explicit. It's just a good story with a LGBTQ character.

But a continual barrage and accusations and refusal to see the points leads to no dialogue and no way to come to some sort of relatively acceptable balance. We see this on this thread.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right, that’s what we fight about all of the time! “What’s going on in the schools!?”
That’s as American as it gets. If we wen’t fighting about the schools we might as well pack it in.
This is “normal”.

That's understandable, as public education plays a significant role in children's lives. Some understanding towards those who express concerns about their own children's education seems fitting in light of that.

As I said, it's not prudishness.

Even in other places that aren't gun-friendly, there would still be some objections to this type of content.

And I'm sure those other places would likely make a distinction between "talking about anatomy"/"mentioning/teaching about sex" vs. "underage people in a tent playing a game where they all have to do something into a bottle, and the person who finishes the deed last has to drink it"

As I said before, I wouldn't have any objections to the former.

There's a contrast between "mentioning sex"/"depicting anatomy for education purposes", and content that borders on bizarre fetish material.


This is where one side of the debate is losing some voters (who would otherwise be anti-censorship) by failing to set an objective standard, and by appealing to abstracts rather than acknowledge the specific content.

When the response to this is either "what's so bad about sex, why are you afraid of body parts?" or "what really is 'bizarre' anyway?", it comes off as being extremely disingenuous.


To use a hypothetical example (since you used a comparison to guns),
Say you were bringing up concerns about the proliferation of guns and the potential issues with them.
If someone responded "Why are you so afraid of a piece of metal?" and "What are you so scared of the concept of someone defending themselves?"... it would be pretty apparent that the person was dodging your concerns by way of appealing to abstracts with the aims of making you seem like the one being unreasonable for having concerns.

Exactly. This isn't about being a prude. This is about stuff that many Americans would recognize as inappropriate or harmful. Certain news outlets trying to spin it as an anti-LGBT agenda is just obfuscating the issue, or being willfully ignorant.

Sometimes I don't think news outlets like CNN, NYT, or Washington Post realize how out of touch and increasingly tribalistic they can be when it comes to certain coverage, and it's this kind of stuff that hurts reasonable politics in this country.

 

[PloverWing]

I love your well thought out and balanced approach. In a society that has this strong of divide we MUST learn to compromise on things. Otherwise what Florida is doing becomes inevitable.

You raise a good point. I'll add that what Florida is doing invites me to dig in and resist compromise as well. (I don't live in Florida, but I can imagine retiring to Florida. But then -- is it a safe state for someone like me to live in? Maybe I need to stay up north. So I pay attention to Florida.)

But, as I say, you raise a good point. If we take a breath, and put down our placards, and talk about what values are genuinely important to us, versus what's just a reaction to the meanies on the other side, maybe something constructive can result.

 

[Larniavc]

If someone responded "Why are you so afraid of a piece of metal?" and "What are you so scared of the concept of someone defending themselves?"... it would be pretty apparent that the person was dodging your concerns by way of appealing to abstracts with the aims of making you seem like the one being unreasonable for having concerns.

Guns kill people. Graphic novels don't. How can you compare excuses for the astonishing prevalence of guns in America with a graphic novel?

 

[Larniavc]

And if there was no intent to have more content like that, then why the backlash over the proposed restriction to prevent it from being added to certain school libraries?

My understanding is the freedom of expression is something of a thing in America.

 

[Larniavc]

But then -- is it a safe state for someone like me to live in?

This is an astonishing thing to see asked about a developed nation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My understanding is the freedom of expression is something of a thing in America.

Like any other right, it's not unlimited.

Not to mention, there's a distinction between expressing a viewpoint, and an actual act.

For instance, a person has the right to express the viewpoint that alcohol should be allowed for 10 year olds. They'll get some odd looks, but it's 100% their right to express that viewpoint. The moment they buy a case of beer and hand them out at a 10 year old's b-day party, they're in trouble.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Guns kill people. Graphic novels don't. How can you compare excuses for the astonishing prevalence of guns in America with a graphic novel?

People have different viewpoints on what's considered harmful.

Proliferation of guns creates greater risks that allowing teenagers to smoke weed as well...that doesn't mean that objections to the notion of legalizing weed for 15 year olds is unreasonable by default, it just means there's a valid rationale for more gun control.

Finding one bad thing that the other side is in favor of doesn't mean "nobody gets to talk about any other issue"

 

[FireDragon76]

Guns kill people. Graphic novels don't. How can you compare excuses for the astonishing prevalence of guns in America with a graphic novel?

Isn't this just whataboutism?

 

[rjs330]

Guns kill people. Graphic novels don't. How can you compare excuses for the astonishing prevalence of guns in America with a graphic novel?

There are regulations on gun ownership in America. Years ago kids go could down to their local hardware store and buy guns and ammo.

Movies are regulated as well. With books at this point straight up inappropriate content is regulated. But right now there are books that are slipping by and are NOT age appropriate for kids.

We've gotten music with parental advisory. Now it's time to do the same for books.

To take your arguments to their logical conclusion kids should have access to X rated movies, cause you know. They aren't guns.

 

[FireDragon76]

But, as I say, you raise a good point. If we take a breath, and put down our placards, and talk about what values are genuinely important to us, versus what's just a reaction to the meanies on the other side, maybe something constructive can result.

It's difficult to not be reactive, in a cultural and economic order that works so hard at fostering just that sort of response out of people, all to make a buck or score some cheap political points.

That's why I think mindfulness is so important in this day and age. The amount of manipulation and slick propaganda designed to frighten or scare people into action is only going to get worse. Psychologists have a term for something analogous called catastrophizing.

 

[disciple Clint]

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".

I believe it was not my post that was quick to attack the messenger.

 

[disciple Clint]

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

So evidence is a blog and a letter to the editor?

 

[Larniavc]

Isn't this just whataboutism?

It is, a bit. But I honestly think it’s somewhat valid here. No kid has died from going to one of of these shows, yet this is where the attention is.

But yes, I acknowledged I’m doing a bit of whataboutism.