Efforts To Ban Books Jumped an 'Unprecedented' Four-Fold In 2021 (npr.org) 142
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Book banning is not new -- in the U.S. alone the practice goes back to Puritan times, when Thomas Morton's book New English Caanan and others opposing this way of life were tossed from Massachusetts. But the American Library Association said Monday that this year there have been more challenges to books than they have seen since they started tracking it in 2000.
The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom counted 729 challenges to library, school, and university materials in 2021. It's a significant jump: Last year the group noted 156 challenges -- and in 2019, there were 377. Although the 2020 number was impacted by the pandemic, which forced schools and libraries to shut down, the ALA said they don't usually get more than 500 book challenges in any given year. And sometimes, those challenges contain more than one book title. The number of individual books challenged in 2021 totaled 1,597. In a press release, ALA President Patricia Wong said: "We support individual parents' choices concerning their child's reading and believe that parents should not have those choices dictated by others. Young people need to have access to a variety of books from which they can learn about different perspectives."
The organization is launching a nationwide initiative meant to empower readers to fight censorship.
The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom counted 729 challenges to library, school, and university materials in 2021. It's a significant jump: Last year the group noted 156 challenges -- and in 2019, there were 377. Although the 2020 number was impacted by the pandemic, which forced schools and libraries to shut down, the ALA said they don't usually get more than 500 book challenges in any given year. And sometimes, those challenges contain more than one book title. The number of individual books challenged in 2021 totaled 1,597. In a press release, ALA President Patricia Wong said: "We support individual parents' choices concerning their child's reading and believe that parents should not have those choices dictated by others. Young people need to have access to a variety of books from which they can learn about different perspectives."
The organization is launching a nationwide initiative meant to empower readers to fight censorship.
The price of freedom . . . (Score:5, Funny)
There are still boneheads arguing about The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird. Come to think of it, there are still boneheads arguing about Creationism vs. Evolution (and renaming it Intelligent Design was the dumbest thing I ever heard).
Just a warning - come for my copy of [REDACTED] and it's on. . .
Re:The price of freedom . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many Karens having kids? It's highly highly political though, it's all part of the mythical culture wars, no one trusts public schools anymore. So parents show up demand that their kids AND yours can't read certain books that are about minorities, no books with any hint of sex in them, no books with any hint of someone being gay. And that's without getting into the Harry Potter witchcraft training manuals scare. If they don't want their kids to read those books, then just tell the kids to not read those books! Sure, some of the kids will disobey, but that should be an issue between parent and child, not between parent and the school board.
This is also a big increase of helicopter parenting - oversheltering the children, make sure they never see anything unusual or different, and no alternative viewpoints that might cause thought, not even in college. So a whole lot of people are going to be entering the real world with a huge shock when they found out that it doesn't work anything like the Hardy Boys (no Nancy Drew, they weren't allowed to read about that hussy).
Parents need to relax, let the kids get some scraped knees, a few sniffles, and learn that people are different from each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, my kids are all grown up. Now, I really want my grandkids to end up smarter than my kids.
Re: The price of freedom . . . (Score:2)
So your point is we should an be exposed to more information and make our own decisions?
Re: (Score:2)
..and then these same parents give their kid a smartphone with unfiltered internet access and suddenly all their sheltering of little Timmy ends up being for naught.
But let's be realistic, kids do a fine enough job corrupting each other. I still remember one of my classmates in 7th grade saying something along the lines of "Damn she's fine, I'm gonna stick it so far up her she'll have 10 babies."
I feel really bad for anyone who has to teach middle schoolers.
Re: The price of freedom . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't want their kids to read those books, then just tell the kids to not read those books!
You seem to be missing the coercion involved. If your child doesn't read the book, their grades suffer. Sometimes entire quarters are committed to absolute crap like The Catcher In The Rye where so much social evolution has happened that these books are no longer relevant. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any moral objection to that book, it's just poorly written and badly paced. It seems to be riding this reputation for being edgy, but what was edgy in 1945 is mundane today. "Hur Dur dey stars it with a fi
Re: (Score:3)
Most of these books are in libraries, and not part of a curriculum. They're optional. Sometimes a banned book is on a curriculum, like Huckleberry Finn, but then there's a teacher to guide through it (the racist parts and the anti-racist parts, the latter seems to have offended many in post-war South, it was too "edgy").
Re: (Score:2)
here I am Millennial, also nicknamed the "Columbine Generation" who watched the opioid crisis being born in our restrooms,
It was born more in hospitals, but anyway
who as early as my sophomore year was hearing about how kids I shared gym classes died in Iraq,
And the military created the meth crisis. My dad could not stop bringing up how much he loved the speed they gave him in Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many Karens having kids?
In a way, yes. Idiocracy opens with this, but recall that 68% of the population is within the first standard deviation of intelligence. And then, moving toward extreme lack of intelligence, those people can - and do - still breed. So, not just "too many Karens," but too many stupid fucking people who fear things they don't understand - and they don't understand much - and are easily swayed by charismatic leaders who tell them what to hate.
Re: (Score:3)
Too many Karens having kids? It's highly highly political though, it's all part of the mythical culture wars, no one trusts public schools anymore. So parents show up demand that their kids AND yours can't read certain books that are about minorities, no books with any hint of sex in them, no books with any hint of someone being gay.
I live one county from ground zero where this happened and I've heard of the books in question. They're porn. Graphic depictions of sexual intercourse. Apply all the woke labels you want, the books are pornography and have no place in an elementary school library. Anyone who feels otherwise needs their head examined.
Re: (Score:2)
huh? this is a nation wide story about the most banned books, it doesn't talk about any specific cases.
Virginia's Fairfax County Public Schools have been at the top of the headlines regarding this over the last year or so. And it became a key issue in the 2021 race for VA governor when frontrunner and former Hillary Clinton running-mate Terry McAuliffe declared that "Parent's shouldn't have a say in their children's education" and subsequently lost the election over that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many Karens having kids?
It would stand to reason that the religious busybodies are the ones planning to have children, and also presumably more likely to choose not to abort the ones they didn't plan. They're being told that making babies is their purpose, and that God wants them to multiply.
Re: (Score:2)
"Planning" to have babies? I thought they were opposed to family planning. :-)
This is not just anti-abortion, there is still avery strong anti-birth-control feeling out there, and it's not just catholics. Because birth control leads to promiscuity and sex, and removing birth control means that all those teenage girls and boys will decide to abstain instead. Legal for married couples for 57 years, legal for unmarried people for 50 years. And yet it's still controversial; Trump administration had a ruling
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple flavors of things being challenged. Most center around what is called 'critical race theory'
Which states that racism is real, institutionalized, and still affecting people, three facts.
and post-modernist philosophy common to the idea of supporting the fake history, critical race theory, and notions of gender fluidity.
Nazis always cry about the Lugenpresse.
Re: (Score:3)
You’re correct. The Bible is full of filth and violence.
Green Eggs and Ham should be banned (Score:2)
Not because of its obviously racist tones against Greens but because Sam I Am taught my daughter a terrible lesson. Namely that if you nag, and nag, and nag you will eventually get what you want.
Just imagine what a sweet girl she would have been if she had not read that book...
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that your daughter's behavior was solely influenced by a single book, I have bad news for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The price of freedom . . . (Score:3)
I understand your concern ... (Score:2)
But won't somebody please think of the children!
Re: Literacy first (Score:3)
Newsome self-own (Score:1, Troll)
"California dictator Gov. Gavin Newsom is either blissfully unaware of left-wing attempts at banning books or knows and still decided to play the fool in a tweet he posted Wednesday where he tried to “own” conservatives by stating he was reading books that were supposedly banned by red state political leaders so he could see “what these states are so afraid of”:
"But, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was on his supposed reading list. As it turns out, some school districts in Calif
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Those books have been commonly banned since they were first published. By liberals AND conservatives. Surprised you only knew about this recently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Liberals don't like To Kill a Mockingbird because the black characters are shallow, one-dimensional stage props for their heroic white savior to act upon.
It is a criticism of racism, but many see it as a very racist book for its depiction of blacks.
I had to read it in school. I didn't care for it. If we want students to learn about racism, then teach about stuff that actually happened, like the Scottsboro Boys [wikipedia.org], rather than unrealistic fiction.
Re: Newsome self-own (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh dear God I read something from Red State (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those books have been commonly banned since they were first published. By liberals AND conservatives. Surprised you only knew about this recently.
Nothing in my post would have given any reasonable person a reason to believe that I "only knew about this recently".
Re: Newsome self-own (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a fuzzy line here that's difficult to nail down. I have a very open mind and you'd be hard pressed to get me to speak out against a book just because the protagonist or accessory characters are LGBTQi+. That said, having read it, I do think it's reasonable to ask if the book Genderqueer (#1 on the list) should be in school libraries. The content is questionable for pre-teens and younger readers. Strap-on fucking is fun and all, but I don't want a parent to have to explain that to their 5th grader
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an issue with it being in libraries for kids as young as you say (5th grade which would be elementary school most places)? The few times I've heard of this book it's been in the context of high school bans which is just ridiculous. Pretty much every teenager by that point has seen far more graphic on the internet. I'd think the same for Jr. High really.
Re:Newsome self-own (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you on about? You link redstate (because of course you did, but we'll argue the merits anyway)
Thanks for doing that, these types are always dismissing citations because they come from a liberal outlet and this is exactly the kind of example we need to set, not because they will change but because we can point to comments like these and explain that until they meet this bar, they can stuff it.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading does corrupt the fragile mind, but liberals donâ(TM)t tend to ban books. The Bible and Noahâ(TM)s ark promotes genocide but most liberals are ok with reading it. When I was in middle school my best friend gave me Little Pilgrims Progress and one of the
About equal stupid by morons on each side (Score:2)
The fine article mentions removing books is opposed by most people in both major parties, and by independents.
TFA links to these figures:
(71%) oppose efforts to have books removed from their local public libraries, including a majority of Democrats (75%), independents (58%), and Republicans (70%).
Removing books from libraries is opposed by EVERY "side".
Each side also has their wack jobs. Liberal wack jobs, the same ones who got some Disney movies banned, want books banned for the same reasons. For example o
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, is that poll about public libraries as you state or school libraries? As I understand it a lot of the controversy right now is about banning books at school but those are not public libraries as they are not open to the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The fear of mind control (Score:3)
As long as mankind has had government, people with power want to stop others from communicating ideas they disagree with. For centuries there was not even a theory that stopped them. Then a free press was invented and they had to come up with an idea.
So they came up with corruption of the young. We must stop this evil thing from corrupting our youth!
The thing is we know how to corrupt the youth, and it is not art. Not pictures, written words, movies, songs, comics, games, etc.
You want to know what corrupt people, turning them to crime? Three things I know of, but even these are not 100%. Many people survive them without corruption. But some are susceptible. The three are: 1) Drugs. The percentage of poor soles addicted to drugs is higher than those not. 2) Cults. Whether they be religious or political (Q-Anon). 3) Extreme, sudden wealth. Sometimes it is the temptation of wealth, other times it is the sudden capability of doing whatever they desire.
Those are the things we have seen corrupt people. Good people get involved with drugs, cults, or huge amounts of money and suddenly they turn evil.
We have tried outlawing drugs, doesn't work very well. Same with cults. But the funny thing is, I have never see anyone attempt to outlaw being wealthy. Despite the many, many examples of wealth destroying people's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Exposure to violence and abuse in early childhood is a much more consistently corrupting influence than any of those things. If dad beats up the family, unsurprisingly it frequently fucks everyone in the family up. And there's a huge number of people out there who do this, the vast majority of whom are men.
Re: The fear of mind control (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I believe your understanding of what breaks a family and ruins a child forever is limited to physical events."
You believe wrongly. I used the phrase "violence and abuse" on purpose, as the latter is much broader. I gave a single example bc life is too short to give lots. Coercive control, gaslighting, etc -- all are horrific abuse, just as violent abuse is horrific.
Kids growing into teenagers and beating up an abusive dad is largely a movie trope -- see, for example, Once Were Warriors. It's attractive as
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. I should have said 4.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Always great to see constructive and civil exchanges on Slashdot -- thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as mankind has had government, people with power want to stop others from communicating ideas they disagree with. For centuries there was not even a theory that stopped them. Then a free press was invented and they had to come up with an idea.
So they came up with corruption of the young. We must stop this evil thing from corrupting our youth!
Ha, they've been using "corruption of the young" for a lot longer than there's been a printing press. It's the reason Socrates was given the death sentence for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The same group who whines about their religion being "oppressed" and cancel culture is doing their best to oppress and cancel others [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And repeating it up here. Wish I'd read your post again before I hit send - my brain suffered a parse error. Wish I could 'delete' that one. My apologies.
Eh, don't worry about it. I've done similar things because I either misread what the person wrote or my brain decided to turn off. No biggy.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I'm becoming intolerant of religious types. IMHO, ~80% just mouth the words because they perceive that they can gain money, or power, or safety, if they just go along with the rest of the crowd. The other ~20% are either brain damaged (by drugs, accident, etc.), congenitally damaged, or just plain too stupid to be let out in public, at least without a keeper.
Re: (Score:2)
"Accountability" implies a proportionate response. E.g. Me burning down your house because you looked at my wife funny is not proportionate, nor accountability.
Getting fired from your job because of because you argued against "Defund the Police" is not proportionate, nor accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the latter ever happens -- as stated, mind you, with no bigotry slipped in -- do let us know with an actual source and we can join you in protesting it.
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All terribly fascinating, but you're not the OP and your example isn't the same as the OP's: "Getting fired from your job because of because you argued against "Defund the Police" "
Re: (Score:2)
Matthew Yglesias was literally ousted from his own publication (Vox) because he argued against defund the police.
Re: (Score:2)
That's literally not how Yglesias himself characterises what happened to him. He doesn't say he was ousted (and he's obviously at liberty to say that if that were what had happened) and he doesn't say his leaving was solely in relation to his discussions of defund the police. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that he's an opinion writer who worked for a publishing house. By the very nature of the job, opinion writers' career success at a publishing house depends on the view that the publishing house tak
Re: (Score:2)
He said he could no longer speak his mind without riling his colleagues. [theatlantic.com] That's pretty damning for an industry that used to pride itself on free speech.
We also have Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, James Bennet... all gone from their publications shortly after publishing luke-warm commentary but offensive to Woke sensibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
What, are his colleagues supposed to suppress their opinions in deference to his and *not* be riled by what he said? You want them to silence themselves? Why is his speech privileged over theirs?
There's a huge difference between "my colleagues are pissy with me about something I wrote" and "my employer has sacked me for something I wrote". Can't you see this? The former is literally the same prescription we so often hear given as an alternative to cancel culture: "all ideas should be heard, the bad ones sho
Re: (Score:2)
He was not receiving civil disagreement as you would expect from the industry. Just because "riled" speech it legal does not imply it's good, especially in journalism. And threats can be just as chilling as the actual thing. I think that journalists and commentators should be able to have civil disagreements without receiving threats or emotionally heated debate.
And I'm only going on about journalists. There's plenty more in other industries, regular citizens and celebrities alike. Gina Carano can't say tha
Re: (Score:2)
You really are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You want to say that speech should be free, but you also want to say that some people should voluntarily restrict their own speech if it is of a type that you consider insufficiently "civil". I think you need to think your position through a lot more.
Again, Gina Carano is not a police officer, teacher, etc. And she isn't an example of "getting fired from your job because of because you argued against "Defund the Police" ". She said many, many things th
Re: (Score:2)
You want to say that speech should be free
some people should voluntarily restrict their own speech
The hell you talking about?
not a police officer, teacher
Only police officers and teachers have to be civil? Journalists don't have to? The fuck? I expect journalism and academia to be tolerant of diverse viewpoints. Why is that such a high bar? It might be legal to treat your coworkers like shit but that doesn't make it good, fuck you.
you consider insufficiently "civil"
Yes, I generally expect my workplace to be civil. If coworkers shout obscenities at me, I complain then quit. You shouldn't shout down your coworkers. Why is this so difficult for you to admit?
And your characterisation
So what
Re: (Score:2)
You have now descended into full-on hilarity. You complain about lack of civility while saying "fuck you". You switch between complaining about employees saying bad things and saying Gina Carano was fine to say things that were bad because you think they're just a little off-colour. You didn't even read what I wrote carefully enough to understand why I mentioned police officers and teachers, and bizarrely concluded I had implied something about their need to be civil or not.
If I were you, I'd take a step ba
Not even the worse. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Not even the worse. (Score:2)
The favorite pastime of witch-hunters. (Score:2)
Ban or remove from library / school (Score:2)
Most of the "bans" being talked about now are things like libraries and schools removing works. All libraries have to pick and choose what material to carry. Its perfectly OK for words to change meaning (they do it all the time ) but people need to keep in mi
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the "bans" being talked about now are things like libraries and schools removing works. All libraries have to pick and choose what material to carry.
False. These are republican lawmakers having books removed from schools by legal action, not just school librarians choosing to remove books.
Heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Librarians are the heroes we need, but do not deserve. Fortunately, they don't give a damn about how deserving we aren't, and are still our heroes.
It's a curricular debate, not censorship (Score:2)
You can easily buy these books, that's not in question. Rather, what is the curriculum of taxpayer-funded schools? That's always an issue, and it's sleazy to frame it as censorship Clearly traditional religious education is out. But then why not too this progressive religion too? And they're quite open about their goal of reprogramming kids according to their dictates.
Kids can't even do the three R's anymore. They need less doctrine, more fundamentals, logic, critical thinking, etc.
The paradox of tolerance (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Karl Popper, father of the modern scientific method, came up with another idea called the paradox of tolerance. Essentially, if we're tolerant of intolerance, we end up living in an intolerant society.
I much prefer Jefferson's formulation which gets to the heart of the problem.
Intentionally formulating something as a paradox when such language is easily avoided is the only reason KP is referenced so often. Everyone gets to exploit the confusion to lend credence to their perspective.
There's a reason why many countries, including the USA, restrict speech to some degree - so that the small minority of assholes can't spoil it for the rest of us.
The USA basically does not restrict pure speech
https://billofrightsinstitute.... [billofrigh...titute.org]
What has been restricted was pursuit of objectives rather than simply communicating thoughts and ideas. Planning and executing a robbery by spea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So only hypothetical speech is protected?
I've never heard of the term "hypothetical speech" before. What does it mean and how is it different from the concept of pure speech?
I don't think it is correct to say only x is protected. It is more accurate to say multiple things can be occurring at once not just speech even if one is only physically speaking.
For example in my previous example of bank robbing speaking and conspiring to rob a bank are separate. You can communicate whatever opinions or ideas you want yet you are not allowed to do whatev
Re: (Score:2)
Then again (Score:2)
...I would point to a rather unprecedented level of effort to bring sexuality (or any flavor) to very young children including exposing them to sexual behavior in school library books.
I mean, look at the backlash against the Florida law banning the discussion of sexuality with very young children in schools. The law says NOTHING about homosexuality, just that 6 year olds are a little young to be discussing sexuality...but it's certainly being flogged in the media as a "don't say gay" homophobic legislation
Fresh minds (Score:2)
Heaven forbid your kids have fresh take an unbiased perspective on a subject and become independent thinkers. This are the same parents who can't talk to their kids about sexuality and let the schools do it.
Not enough data to support real discussion (Score:2)
It would have been nice to have some actual statistics. It's a shame that such a shallow and deliberately vague article is even posted so slashdot.
I mean, sure, the number of books challenged rose, but the article itself says that last year the number was unusually low, so the title is obvious clickbait. Then the article says that the number of books challenged was 1,597, but doesn't compare it to any previous year. We can't compare this to the number of books in a year when with 500 book challenges, which
ban books on "climate change" (Score:2)
We need to ban these books on climate change so that future generations can't blame us for causing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Once the biosphere has collapsed and the survivors living underground and eating mushrooms, and extracts of yeast grown on mushrooms, we can ban "critical climate theory" — any work which discusses the idea that the people who shat where we eat for the purpose of getting more shiny trinkets are responsible for the fall of man.
Re: (Score:2)
Good! The important thing is I don't want anyone spitting or dancing on my grave. I gotta think of my legacy, even if it's just a sham.
Definition? (Score:2)
Define "book banning." The left defines book banning as not using a particular book they like in a curriculum. By this definition, a lot of old calculus books have been banned. No wonder book banning is on the rise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have the GOP doubling down on transphobia and homophobia to rile up the base, it's not surprising.
It's interesting that you equate the curbing opportunities for pedophiles to groom small children (the objective reading of the recent Florida bill) to some kind of homophobia or transphobia.
So either you don't understand the bill or you think all gay or transgender people are pedophiles.
Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. The "Don't Say Gay" bill has nothing to do with protecting kids from grooming. It has to do with keeping information away from them, pretending LGBT people don't exist, and throwing red meat to the base.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. The "Don't Say Gay" bill has nothing to do with protecting kids from grooming. It has to do with keeping information away from them, pretending LGBT people don't exist, and throwing red meat to the base.
From https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-ou... [nbcnews.com]
The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
So we are talking about kids 8 years old and under. Which part of this is objectionable to you as a parent of young children?
Re:Don't say gay (Score:4, Insightful)
As a parent, I find it objectionable that a teacher who is gay cannot mention their spouse to the class. I find it objectionable that if a trans kid shows up at school, the teacher's not allowed to explain what that is all about to other kids. I find it objectionable that a teacher won't be able to answer a grade 2 kid who says "How come Timmy has two mommies?"
I'm a parent of three adult kids, and they received age-appropriate education about sex and LGBT people very early on. Certainly didn't harm them and I'm sure it did them a lot of good. And where I live, where sex ed is completely uncontroversial, we have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than in Florida, because our kids are armed with good information.
The Florida law is puritanism, homophobia, transphobia and hatred wrapped up in a veneer of "think of the children!"
Re: Don't say gay (Score:4, Insightful)
Wanna hear something that blew my mind? In Pennsylvania, a child is ten times more likely to be sexually abused by a public school teacher than a Catholic priest. I think if public schools want to rebuild the public trust, they need to get their house in order and focus on making schools safe and students successful, and leave off with the sexual politics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It could be the case that there are many parents of all sexual persuasions that believe children under a certain age do not need any sexualization of their curriculum.
The problem with the bill is that it defers the 4th through 12th grade requirements to a set of state curriculum standards, to be defined at a later date. Nobody would be making a stink about "don't say gay" if it truly only applied to K through 3rd. Furthermore, there's a video of the representative who sponsored the damn bill explaining he created it specifically because he believes woke education is churning out gay kids who see themselves as celebrities. You can't make this shit up.
I went to school b
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, when I was growing up, nobody would self-report as homosexual or transsexual, not even obviously gay people.
Also, according to your link "Bisexual was the most common identifier among LGBT respondents."
So, I think it's not a change in the number of people being LGBT, but rather that Gen Z is more accepting of the LGBT.
Re: Don't say gay (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with a lot of these laws is that they can be very easily interpreted as forbidding all talk of sexuality to kids of young ages so things like "Why does Billy have two dads and no mom?" or "Why does Mrs. Smith have a wife and not a husband?" (which are all very sensible questions kids are going to have) could very well be off limits under many of these laws.
I mean here's a passage from the Florida bill that passed recently
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
That first part tells me that talking about Billy's two dads isnt allowed anymore in that age range even if it's just a perfectly appropriate G rated conversation like "there are some men who fall in love with other men and some women that fall in love with other women just like your mommy's and daddy's did. This is just who they are and it's normal". This is stuff young children are not only going to want to know about but is also important to their developing understanding of the world they will be living in.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that sure is a mind-fucking-blower. Pennsylvania has about 5x as many public school teachers [ed.gov] are there are Catholic priests [georgetown.edu] in the entire country! Even someone with a second-rate public school education (like myself) can tell you that your point just backfired.
Re: Don't say gay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, again, since you still have provided n
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not that wild of a claim, you're just suffering under Dunning-Kruger; you have heard a lot in the news about Catholic priests abusing children, so it must still be a huge problem, right? Actually, various groups estimate the amount of abuse in 2010 and beyond to be around 10 children total per year, with 40,000 priests. https://www.investors.com/poli... [investors.com]
Re: Don't say gay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which party wants that to happen, do you think? Since, main-stream media is owned by rich white men, they ensure the ugly side of political bribery, I mean lobbying, is well hidden.
The Republican party talked greatly about Trump's tax-rates for poor people and many people admired the Republican party. That discount is about to expire and no-one's mentioning the Republicans designed it like that. We know who right-wing politicians will blame for the discount ending.
The Democrats are the party of comprom
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, who would ever read that wall of text you posted? Formatting is your friend.