"...you are as bad as the bad history crowd I condemn."
And versa vice, my friend. We all have prejudices after all, and it is useful to us to note our own (and, yes, I'm aware I have reversed vice versa. It's a joke my father made, and I would lighten the tone of our discussion if I can), as being aware of biases can enable us to reason despite our preferences. I am all for parents themselves teaching their children, but I do not have any reason to believe that abandoning the mores and traditions that successful civilizations have maintained for millennia is preferable, or even tolerable.
If you advocate parents teaching kindergarten children how to have anal sex, or to view non-reproductive sexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual monogamy, or deny that inserting homosexual propaganda into 'the background' is consequential, we are going to disagree, and if you start flinging ad hominems at me for asking about your views, it is you that is disagreeable.
I do not follow you because you are incapable of reason nor overcoming bias, but the opposite, and we do not have to agree to be reasonable. If you cannot be civil nor reasonable when disagreeing that is a you problem, and suggests cognitive dissonance you are not only unable to overcome, but to even acknowledge.
Hold up. Hold right up.
Where did that come from? What does that have to do with anything I wrote? Why are you moving the goalpost instead of addressing the issue at hand? I have addressed this before. Maybe you should follow me, because you obviously have no idea what I am actually trying to articulate here, or the context and nuance you could glean from reading my posts.
See also:
The Reference Librarian is Confused
Why Is It A Thing, Though?
Banned Books and the Streisand Effect
If you enter a library looking for excuses to get upset, you will succeed. However, if you let go of the sensationalism people are pushing to justify their agendas for censorship, you will find the facts do not match your apparent assumptions. When someone tells you a book should be banned, you should read it for yourself before accepting their claims about it, verify where it is shelved, and inquire whether anyone else might have a different perspective. What you should not do is assume one who dissents from your view wants kindergartners to be taught about anal sex.
I have been following you for years. Your outraged rant in response to my question led me to specify things I think are terrible influences on children, so you would understand the things I object to, and quit falsely implying I objected to breast feeding instructions for young mothers and erroneously condemning me with 'you are as bad as the bad history crowd I condemn.'
I set the goalposts firmly where I will defend them. This lets you know your unfounded accusations are baseless, and your outrage at people disinformed about history by their government indoctrinations is improperly directed at me. I think my comparison of the historically misinformed with the groomed children was apt, since we both lament the disinformation the victims suffer, giving us ground for agreement on our unhappiness about people being psychologically manipulated.
I asked about your passive aggressive condemnation of people objecting to subconsciously grooming children into homosexual behaviours. I didn't ask that looking for an excuse, but an explanation.
"However, if you let go of the sensationalism people are pushing to justify their agendas for censorship, you will find the facts do not match your apparent assumptions."
Your statement I inquired about is clearly passive aggressive condemnation. I pointed out the 'gay person in the background' isn't the extent of the grooming pushed on children, and that the different materials have a common purpose, with some being subtle, and some blatant. When you defend one it isn't unreasonable to assume you defend it all, but I didn't want to assume anything, so directly inquired. I clarified the issue so you would not misunderstand what it was, or what I was asking about. I added that context because there is sensational harm done children by such material. A year or so ago in Canada, the Federal Administrator of Curricula for Canadian Elementary Schools (whatever his title actually was), who had been pushing exactly the most harmful such material on Canadian children, was convicted of attempting to rape children. The harms aren't sensationalism. They're truly sensational because of their horrific nature. I wasn't inquiring about anything anyone else said or implied about you, but about your statement you made.
"When someone tells you a book should be banned, you should read it for yourself before accepting their claims about it, verify where it is shelved, and inquire whether anyone else might have a different perspective. What you should not do is assume one who dissents from your view wants kindergartners to be taught about anal sex."
I never advocated banning anything, however implied in my disagreement that children should not be exposed to the things I named. I didn't mention a majority of literature, but too many that have terrible sociopolitical impacts, and worse personal consequences for children. I didn't assume anything, which is why I asked.
I pointed out there is plenty of room for us to disagree without becoming uncivil or dismissive, but to instead discuss matters rationally. You began the OP with a passive aggressive condemnation of people that do not want innocent children psychologically manipulated and groomed by pedophiles into homosexual abuse, and I inquired why you did, because it isn't your usual content.
I think I've thoroughly explained why I said what I said, and return to my original question, which you have managed to avoid with pearl clutching, false implications, and silly ad hominems.
But I am not doing that. You are reading into my post something which is not there, consciously or subconsciously. I admit I missed a line following your "I do not follow you" comment due to midnight blog reading, but you have no excuse here. I have been dealing with these empty accusations for a long time online and off, and I am tired of it. You assert there is nasty content in our libraries. You assert people are grooming kids. You assert the library is full of smut intended to groom kids. You draw on unrelated news to bolster these empty assertions. You seem to be relying on the yellow journalism that pervades this topic. And yes, I am on edge because the last several months have made my job hell and frayed my nerves.
First, [citation needed], and second, is this really an accurate description of most books people are complaining about? I'm sure there are some books out there fitting this description, but are they actually in your local library, and are they actually being promoted to children?
Do you think library books are the way people learn about gay marriage these days? Are libraries really spearheading a movement to gay up the kids? No. The background is already there. We're in a fallen world. And the hand-wringing of concerned parents isn't addressing any root problems and often results in mindless attacks on books based on nothing but paranoid rumors. Even if there is an explicitly gay character, it's usually a passing mention, not a core subject. And as for the teen books, no one would be paying attention without these constant complaints, and they would fade away on their own.
Consider this: no one has borrowed our copy of 50 Shades of Grey in months. I'm sure the district will keep a copy or two around, but not every library will need it eating up scarce shelf space. Same for fad teen lit if folks would just let the hype die down on its own.
You assert there is grooming. That is absolutely a loaded accusation. You want to talk about passive-aggressive? Labeling something with a loaded term is disgusting manipulation.
Now I'm going to try to get some sleep before once again setting out into the hellscape of working for a community suddenly convinced I'm a secret predator because of online bullshit.
Perhaps you should consider that the accusations aren't empty, that your own words are what lies behind the identical responses from otherwise unrelated people, responding, as am I, to what you have said. Wherever you go, there you are. If you continually face the same opposition, you continually inspire it.
Your denial that your statement is what it is is exemplary of the above. I doubt any of your 'accusers' did other than note your words. Denying you meant what you said is indicative of lack of courage to state things outright, knowing your intention was not good or beneficial and explaining your passive aggressiveness.
Quote me. You're fabricating red herrings, straw men to do battle with that have nothing whatsoever to do with me or anything I've said. Above all, you simply deny you said what you said, and by this means simply refuse to answer for the sly insinuation and passive aggressive condemnation of people that care about the good character and success in life of their children.
There being no other potential benefit to be gained from continuing this conversation, since you simply cravenly deny your actual statements, craft whatever words you want to put in my mouth, and veer off into tangents comprised wholly of your own fantastic hallucinations, I am done here, and with you.
You accuse me of veering into tangents after you commented on my post with an implication I support teaching kindergarteners about anal sex and then play victim when I say that is uncool?
I have followed up on a lot of the books people are complaining about. Most of the complaints are spurious. Some complaints are subjective, and often based on deliberate mischaracterization of a book for young adults based on out-of-context passages presented as if it is alongside Dr Seuss. Very few have any real merit, and these are hardly being pushed on kids at most libraries. These critics are taking every single complaint they can make and labeling everything as "obscene," muddying the waters and destroying any real chance of constructive dialogue.
Don't try to gaslight me while I am struggling with burnout and insomnia.