The use of such rhetoric, opponents of the new laws argue, underscores a nationwide push by conservatives to make education a political wedge issue by equating certain teaching materials and educators with Mediaography and even pedophilia. This latest trend is another volley in the country’s ongoing culture wars, during which conservative lawmakers also have opposed the teaching of “critical race theory” and proposed bills requiring schools to post all course materials online so parents can review them.
I think this is just another example of conservative Americans getting agitated by right wing rhetoric and propaganda.
Here's a video compilation and represention of how emotional and aggressive these agitated people are.
Here is a list of books under fire from conservatives. Does anyone know of any other compilation of those titles?
Those excerpts have been discussed in one of these threads before.
That seems like a standard that is very lopsided. What age group were those books available to?... that makes a difference. Why not flag these books for librarian/parent discussion rather than remove them? Censorship isn't the answer, communication is the answer.
Apparently it caused a stir in Texas when a 4th grader brought it home from his/her school library and his/her mother went ballistic. It certainly wasn't intended for his age bracket according to the writer. But good on the mother for monitoring what her child was reading. I'm not sure what the answer is for such books, or other books with more mature content that isn't even sexual. But removing books for age-appropriate readers because someone finds it offensive and grooming isn't right either. They're removing choice for other parents who want their children access to certain books.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
21 minutes ago, Tweety said:
Apparently it caused a stir in Texas when a 4th grader brought it home from his/her school library and his/her mother went ballistic. It certainly wasn't intended for his age bracket according to the writer. But good on the mother for monitoring what her child was reading. I'm not sure what the answer is for such books, or other books with more mature content that isn't even sexual. But removing books for age-appropriate readers because someone finds it offensive and grooming isn't right either. They're removing choice for other parents who want their children access to certain books.
I agree. If age inappropriate literature finds its way into a child's hands the parent needs to take that up with the librarian and the child. It's really the parent's choice and authority that governs what books are read in their home. If there is further disagreement between librarian and parent there is a pathway for petition and resolution. The parents shouldn't get to dictate censorship outside of their homes, IMV. That's a slippery slope.
You could provide quotations which prove that I've used the term in a derogatory fashion... you know how that works right? You made the claim about derogatory use... you should try to prove that... or you could just keep saying it over and over as if it was true simply because it's your opinion.
The term "pedophile" is a medical term. Do you automatically associate any word containing the suffix -philia with that sexual disorder? That's odd, IMV... there are so many good words with that suffix... maybe you are unaware. There does seem to be a big fixation on pedophilia in some conservatives media. After an Arizona republican testified about election nonsense leading up to Jan 6 events, Trump and his followers labeled him a pedophile... do you remember? And there was that right wing "misunderstanding" about the pizza parlor pedophile ring a few years back, right? Is that just a coincidence or is there something going on in right wing media?
Is it just coincidence that pedophilia is associated with gays and also with another word that shares the suffix? Is it just a scare word for some conservatives? A trigger word?
What do you mean "what does banned mean"? This is the word used in the reporting. The word has a meaning. I don't understand what you don't understand.
This has nothing to do with Trump but you found a way to bring him into the conversation anyway. No I do not remember Trump calling anyone a pedophile. Perhaps it is more represented in the media you consume? Pizza parlor pedophiles? Really. That conspiracy theory gets mentioned more from democrats that is does the small ridiculous people who actually believe that. Who of course probably like Trup and are probably magaphiles.
You want me to quote you admitting that you use the term derogatory? I don't think I could ever find that no matter how far I read back. It's the way in which you speak that suggests it's derogatory and it's not limited to Magaphiles whatever that is. There is never seems to be a post that you do not bring up Trump, Magaphiles conservatives etc. It reads as condescending, derogatory and prejudice.
Are you suggesting there is a sexusl component to the phile in magaphile?
Okay, so if these conservatives that believe that gay is associated with pedophiles, than could they call them gayophiles? Then suggest it only means a fondness of gays? Most people do not associate guys (your word) with pedophilia and think those who do are ridiculous. There is pedophilia in all orientations not exclusive to gays or straight.
It's primary intent is derogatory. However I do not really care about made up words. I only discuss to point out the propagandic tactics the word is designed for. Especially to sway voters away from Trump and the republican party.
Banned as in removed from children's access, or banned like rounded up and burned? Or removed from all libraries and publishing?
The characters is 12 years old and its memoir coming of age novel, not a book about children having sex. When we've had this discussion before another member brought out those quotes. They sounds really Mediaographic and effective when read out of context of the whole novel.
What's interesting is the character describes having sex with a woman in the book in a longer scene than this one, but is that one quoted as being an example of "grooming" and offensive Mediaography. The woman would be committing pedophilia after all.
I'd still maintain that many cases LBGT books in question are okay.
The difference being that the woman was not a child. It is still not appropriate for children but the description on sex acts between 2 children and then an adult graphically remembering a sex act he had as a child with another child is the definitive difference. In my opinion anyway. Unless it was sex with a woman and a child. Then it's equally inappropriate. I think you said this?
However the descriptive sex with the woman still is not appropriate for children. Adults with developed minds that can negotiate the complexities of human sexuality fine, children no.
In my opinion and with the upmost respect for you, the Mediaographic descriptions do not need context. They are what they are. Heart ❤️
It's primary intent is derogatory. However I do not really care about made up words. I only discuss to point out the propagandic tactics the word is designed for. Especially to sway voters away from Trump and the republican party.
You sound surprised by this.
For me it's like, well duh. People trying to sway voters away from the opposite party is for good or bad what people do. This is why republicans say "Biden policies are destroying America", "Republicans are just like Nazi dictators". It gets pretty ugly with the mud slinging. I have a love-hate relationship with politics because of the mudslinging and rhetoric but understand it's politics as normal.
I agree. If age inappropriate literature finds its way into a child's hands the parent needs to take that up with the librarian and the child. It's really the parent's choice and authority that governs what books are read in their home. If there is further disagreement between librarian and parent there is a pathway for petition and resolution. The parents shouldn't get to dictate censorship outside of their homes, IMV. That's a slippery slope.
I agree with everything you just wrote. It is easy to find these books in libraries or in book stores. The consenting parents can allow their children to read the material that way.
Parents are not asking these books be removed from society completely, just not in schools where children are.
For me it's like, well duh. People trying to sway voters away from the opposite party is for good or bad what people do. This is why republicans say "Biden policies are destroying America", "Republicans are just like Nazi dictators". It gets pretty ugly with the mud slinging. I have a love-hate relationship with politics because of the mudslinging and rhetoric but understand it's politics as normal.
Yes I would agree. However I never seen it in a way it is now. To suggest that someone is associated with domestic terrorism, insurrection dismantling our democracy and all the other hyperbole based on who they vote for is especially abhorrent in today's political atmosphere. And it's not only democrats that do it. I'm not a hypocrite.
It's awful and sad. I call out conservatives for the samething.
The difference being that the woman was not a child. It is still not appropriate for children but the description on sex acts between 2 children and then an adult graphically remembering a sex act he had as a child with another child is the definitive difference. In my opinion anyway. Unless it was sex with a woman and a child. Then it's equally inappropriate. I think you said this?
However the descriptive sex with the woman still is not appropriate for children. Adults with developed minds that can negotiate the complexities of human sexuality fine, children no.
In my opinion and with the upmost respect for you, the Mediaographic descriptions do not need context. They are what they are. Heart ❤️
Thank you. I appreciate your right to have an opinion and express it. (Although when I say that I've been told I sound condescending but I mean it.)
I think I'm wrong about the sex scene and might be thinking of another book. Lawn Boy does have the grown protagonist describing oral sex he had at 10 years old, the opposite sexual experience was a flashback to when he was in high school. I suppose that's not as outrageous as his 10 year old flashback. As I've said above I concede and understand that this scene and the profanity might be a bit much for certain age brackets, but I still think perhaps a high schooler could handle it. But it does sound more Young Adult literature than Youth literature.
Yes I would agree. However I never seen it in a way it is now. To suggest that someone is associated with domestic terrorism, insurrection dismantling our democracy and all the other hyperbole based on who they vote for is especially abhorrent in today's political atmosphere. And it's not only democrats that do it. I'm not a hypocrite.
It's awful and sad. I call out conservatives for the same thing.
I agree. Although I think it was bad during the most of my lifetime, it seems particularly bad the last couple of election cycles starting when Obama was elected and the Tea Party immediately forming.
I didn't say anything about any of his facts. I was referring to his blatant bias and tendency to only see things in one way. The proof of that is his own words all over this site.
However I'm not comfortable talking about him without him being aware.
Ha haha! But you were comfortable talking about TMB with Chare. Make it make sense.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
9 hours ago, Weetywill said:
This has nothing to do with Trump but you found a way to bring him into the conversation anyway. No I do not remember Trump calling anyone a pedophile. Perhaps it is more represented in the media you consume? Pizza parlor pedophiles? Really. That conspiracy theory gets mentioned more from democrats that is does the small ridiculous people who actually believe that. Who of course probably like Trup and are probably magaphiles.
You want me to quote you admitting that you use the term derogatory? I don't think I could ever find that no matter how far I read back. It's the way in which you speak that suggests it's derogatory and it's not limited to Magaphiles whatever that is. There is never seems to be a post that you do not bring up Trump, Magaphiles conservatives etc. It reads as condescending, derogatory and prejudice.
Are you suggesting there is a sexusl component to the phile in magaphile?
Okay, so if these conservatives that believe that gay is associated with pedophiles, than could they call them gayophiles? Then suggest it only means a fondness of gays? Most people do not associate guys (your word) with pedophilia and think those who do are ridiculous. There is pedophilia in all orientations not exclusive to gays or straight.
It's primary intent is derogatory. However I do not really care about made up words. I only discuss to point out the propagandic tactics the word is designed for. Especially to sway voters away from Trump and the republican party.
Banned as in removed from children's access, or banned like rounded up and burned? Or removed from all libraries and publishing?
I can see that it's difficult for you to discuss this topic when you are struggling with some of the terminology. I'm not interested in continuing to argue with you about word meanings, that seems your primary point here. What is it that you want to say about propaganda after you dismiss the pedophile propaganda that gets so many right wing conservatives riled up?
It's not even a uniquely American propaganda, it's an example of the right wing extremism that American conservatives are flirting with.
Quote
Hungary’s authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán loves a good enemy. He has lashed out against Eurocrats in Brussels. He has cynically demonized immigrants to boost his political standing at home.
But now he may have gone too far with his attack on an unlikely (and universally unliked) group of people.
Pedophiles.
Last month, the Hungarian parliament passed legislation increasing the sentences for those convicted of sexually abusing minors. Ordinarily, such a move wouldn’t cause much if any backlash. But the Hungarian right wing has used its campaign against pedophilia to target homosexuals and the transgender community. The bill includes a ban on any depictions or promotion of homosexuality to anyone under the age of 18. It’s part of Orbán’s longstanding effort to turn Hungary into a bastion of Christian conservatism in the middle of Europe, which has included, among other things, a decree enshrined in the country’s constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
“Linking the LGBT community to pedophilia is a tactic that may score Mr. Orbán and his party points with conservative rural voters, many of whom, spurred on by a steady stream of government propaganda, see the government as a bulwark against the cosmopolitan liberalism symbolized by opposition political figures in the capital,” writes Benjamin Novak in The New York Times.
The European Union, of which Hungary is a member, is fighting back. The EU is a place “where you are free to be who you are and love whomever you want,” noted the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. “I will use all the powers of the commission to ensure that the rights of all EU citizens are guaranteed. Whoever they are and wherever they live within the European Union.”
Viktor Orbán is not alone in his obsession. Pedophilia features prominently in the diatribes of far-right politicians in a number of countries, the organizing campaigns of far-right NGOs, and the ravings of QAnon.
The trafficking of children is a serious global problem. Every year, thousands of children are sold for the purposes of sexual exploitation. But the far right is more interested in insane conspiracy theories—and enforcing its antiquated notions of gender and sexuality—than in dealing with this very real problem.
Instead of combatting real-existing pedophilia, the far right has waded into the deep end to battle Satanism and homosexuality, which they tend to equate. Going back a thousand years and more, the real issue has nothing to do with the Devil or sexuality. Rather, like so many other problems, it all boils down to money and power.
Do you think there's a connection between this right wing extremism and our local school board battles with conservative parents angry and worried about sexual grooming of children...primarily through mentions of homosexual sex? I do.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,367 Posts
Apparently it caused a stir in Texas when a 4th grader brought it home from his/her school library and his/her mother went ballistic. It certainly wasn't intended for his age bracket according to the writer. But good on the mother for monitoring what her child was reading. I'm not sure what the answer is for such books, or other books with more mature content that isn't even sexual. But removing books for age-appropriate readers because someone finds it offensive and grooming isn't right either. They're removing choice for other parents who want their children access to certain books.