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?
And, I haven't seen any real evidence that " Media" is being stocked in libraries accessed by grade and intermediate school students, only innuendo.
Why don't you just answer the question?
So you do not believe illustrations of ejaculated and urination into a person's mouth is Mediaographic?
Do you think a man reminiscing about a sexial experience he had as a child with another child and provided a description of his "little salamander swelling up with blood in between my finger", Law Boy....
No. Nothing inappropriate there? Both books were found in school libraries.
And, I haven't seen any real evidence that " Media" is being stocked in libraries accessed by grade and intermediate school students, only innuendo.
I think different people at the town halls are describing it differently. If it has sex it's Mediaographic. If it doesn't have sex but has queer people it's grooming.
So you do not believe illustrations of ejaculated and urination into a person's mouth is Mediaographic?
Do you think a man reminiscing about a sexial experience he had as a child with another child and provided a description of his "little salamander swelling up with blood in between my finger", Law Boy....
No. Nothing inappropriate there? Both books were found in school libraries.
For me it would be in the context of the novel and story. I read books with graphic sex scenes all the time but don't think I'm reading Mediaography. I don't think Lawn Boy as Mediaography or even "inappropriate".
I do understand completely that someone would think ejaculate in a graphic novel in a school library wouldn't be appropriate. I allow people to have their opinion on what they want available for their children to read.
My parents let me read such books in high school and would like to have other parents have that choice. By high school age, I knew about sex, ejaculate and homosexuals. I handled it when I read about it. I remember reading "The Lord Won't Mind" in high school which was pretty graphic but also was a gay romance with a happy ending, instead of some tragic around homosexual characters. My issues really didn't have anything to do with what I read but with bullying, drugs, and homophobia both outward and internalized. In fact reading opened my mind to the world outside my bubble and outside TV.
If I had mature kids over the age of perhaps 16 when they can drive, when they've been through puberty, when they are two years from being registered for the draft, I would allow them to read pretty much what they chose to.
Your examples here is one meeting in Dearborn, (supported by a heavily edited video produced by TYK), one guy who got in a heated discussion in the parking lot, and a list supplied by a special interest group of a few dozen books that a few school districts are or were reviewing.
Any evidence that these "angry parents" are a widespread phenomenon? Or, that they are only conservative? Much like voter fraud isn't really a concern because it's not widespread, this seems like a similar problem.
Taking the "Blankets" book as an example, I know my Trump-hating, liberal parents would have a huge problem with that book being in the school library.
I have yet to see examples of these excerpts. At least the ones where it seems unreasonable that children shouldn't have access to in school.
Do you have any actual examples? Or, is it just something you're parroting from, well, who knows where?
I think different people at the town halls are describing it differently. If it has sex it's Mediaographic. If it doesn't have sex but has queer people it's grooming.
For me it would be in the context of the novel and story. I read books with graphic sex scenes all the time but don't think I'm reading Mediaography. I don't think Lawn Boy as Mediaography or even "inappropriate".
I do understand completely that someone would think ejaculate in a graphic novel in a school library wouldn't be appropriate. I allow people to have their opinion on what they want available for their children to read.
My parents let me read such books in high school and would like to have other parents have that choice. By high school age, I knew about sex, ejaculate and homosexuals. I handled it when I read about it. I remember reading "The Lord Won't Mind" which was pretty graphic. I did okay and if I had mature kids over the age of perhaps 16 when they can drive, when they've been through puberty, when they are two years from being registered for the draft, I would allow them to read pretty much what they chose to.
Of course. I agree with everything you say!
I think high school students can handle allot more than some give credit for. If there is context and a function with a meaning involving sex acts. No problem.
I think especially for myself, the school should be there place where they do not have to be exposed or have access to sexually illicit material. We know they can be exposed everywhere else. Can't school be the one place?
Also in this political environment, there is a disconnect of word definitions and meanings. Mediaographhy may be to some but not others. No agreed definition.
I think a good way is to explain the context then read the questionable material out loud in the committee meeting or otherwise. If the adults in the room are uncomfortable or are prevented from reading the excerpt (as we have seen), then that a good starting point.
No evidence that those against LGBT content in books (others definition of Mediaography aside, I'm talking about sexually benign) but my most educated guess is they are conservative in their political leanings.
That said there are LGBT republicans. We've talked about them before.
Also there's a whole bunch of people that don't vote, have no religious affiliation and are homophobes. Met a few of then in North Carolina.
It's never fair to broadly paint a group with a brush and I don't know the makeup of people at these meetings, but republicans, conservative Christians have earned their stripes. No a knee-jerk reaction would be expected, at least from me.
Quote
A few recent examples:
On his Fox News program, Tucker Carlson claimed that California teachers are trying to "indoctrinate schoolchildren" about sexual and gender identity. "They're grooming 7-year-olds and talking to 7-year-olds about their sex lives," he said.
On her Fox News show, Laura Ingraham accused the Walt Disney Co. of "pushing a sexual agenda" on children. "This isn't programming. This is propaganda for grooming," she said.
And U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance of Ohio defended the term on Fox News, saying, "If you don't want to be called a groomer, don't try to sexualize 6-, 7-year-old children."
No. This is a place where they have to learn how to protect themselves from a mass shooter. Where they have to pass through a metal detector to get to class. Where an armed guard protects them.
There is no more innocence, there is no sheltering them from the realities of the world.
No. This is a place where they have to learn how to protect themselves from a mass shooter. Where they have to pass through a metal detector to get to class. Where an armed guard protects them.
There is no more innocence, there is no sheltering them from the realities of the world.
Yes. However they do not need to see Mediaograohic material or illicit sexual or violent material either. Especially when they need to consider what you mentioned above.
I'm not talking about everything that involves sex or the reality of violence. Just the inappropriate material. Like what I mentioned in Lawn Boy and the book referencing the ejaculation.
Yes. However they do not need to see Mediaograohic material or illicit sexual or violent material either. Especially when they need to consider what you mentioned above.
I'm not talking about everything that involves sex or the reality of violence. Just the inappropriate material. Like what I mentioned in Lawn Boy and the book referencing the ejaculation.
If they are so sensitive that reading is that traumatizing to them on top of the gun drills then I agree their parents should step in and stop it for them but allow other parents to allow their children some choice to escape into. As I said reading about such things did not traumatize me.
I'll drop it though. Broken record routine at this point.
If they are so sensitive that reading is that traumatizing to them on top of the gun drills then I agree their parents should step in and stop it for them but allow other parents to allow their children some choice to escape into. As I said reading about such things did not traumatize me.
I'll drop it though. Broken record routine at this point.
Good point! Fair enough! I enjoy your comments as always.
Weetywill
147 Posts
So you do not believe illustrations of ejaculated and urination into a person's mouth is Mediaographic?
Do you think a man reminiscing about a sexial experience he had as a child with another child and provided a description of his "little salamander swelling up with blood in between my finger", Law Boy....
No. Nothing inappropriate there? Both books were found in school libraries.