• Juniper (she/her) 🫐@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    5 months ago

    You believe the Brooklyn Public Library’s UnBanned Books project is about grooming children for pedophiles? And not just unrestricted access to books in the same way that kids have unrestricted access to the internet?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      You believe the Brooklyn Public Library’s UnBanned Books project is about grooming children for pedophiles?

      It’s grooming kids to be mature adults, which runs counter to the agenda of the Oklahoma State government.

      • VARXBLE@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is some disgusting, slithery, agenda pushing smut. I can not believe this was posted where kids could see it. You should be ashamed.

      • Bibliotectress@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re so fucking stupid. Maybe you should read any of those books you claim are being pulled as “pornography.”

        Source: me, high school librarian

          • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It really says something about your worldview that you automatically assume any librarian is a groomer

                  • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I ask you to look up what books are in this books unbanned project and point to the pornography. Or do you truly believe books about mental health, LGBTQ and diversity awareness are pornography?

                  • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I want to assume you’re a good person so I’m going to let you know: limiting a teenager’s access to books that discuss sex in a healthy way isn’t corrupting them. Educators that want them to have access to this aren’t groomers.

                    Sex/sexuality are part of human nature, and every teen is developing a sense of self that will include these aspects. If they don’t have curated materials to learn from, they’ll seek these out themselves–through the internet. Porn is an awful and unhealthy way to learn about this stuff.

                    Outrage media will try to tell you that first grade teachers are giving instructions for sex acts, and that’s just demonstrably untrue.

          • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            5 months ago

            Being able to read opens access to the written pornographic material. Being able to write enables accidentally writing pornographic sentences. Please unlearn reading and writing as the first thing you do tomorrow.

              • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                If you think that having an option to learn about life and know something about it before being exposed to the dangers going blind into an experience is bad and grooming, I have news for you. You have been groomed into being a breeder-only type of human being with all these anti sex-education (even optional for only those who seek it) showing it.

                Go breed like rabbits and shut up about people learning how to safely engage in sex and how to turn it into an enjoyable experience rather than a sneaky risky fleeting act that can put on them lifelong unwanted responsibilities.

                  • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    How is letting someone know about the facets of a topic is preparing them to use abused in that topic? Especially without an agent meddling in between. What, will the books themselves have sex?

                    I’m aware that enough knowledge about sex and reproduction alone does not warrant a valid consent for sex just by itself and there are many more matters that should be taken into account, including enough experience in regular life matters to understand the scope of agreement for it, which a child or teen would not have, but at least enabling access to the material by which they can learn about it on their own volition is a good start to construct personal identity.

                    Ask the fucking priests that touched you in places and called it something bullshit like putting god in you if they support anyone learning and constructing their own sexual identity through intermediary-free inanimate objects is safe and sound, you’ll get probably get more touching as they teach you what they think.

              • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Do you truly think everyone constantly telling you you’re wrong and disagreeing with you vehemently makes you more correct?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        pornographic material

        Real Fahrenheit 451 Hours. Excited to hear which books you’re objecting to, specifically. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The Diary of Anne Frank? To Kill a Mockingbird? The Catcher in the Rye?

        books that apparently are for an audience as young as 13 years old.

        Wait till you find out what these kids are looking at on Netflix.

          • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            All this proved is that you believe books on LGBTQ rights are pornography, somehow. Children of the age specified in this program (13+) are at the age where they will begin to question their sexuality, by denying them any outlet or healthy way to understand this concept is to essentially stunt their emotional development. The reason these books are labelled as pornography is to make people like you scared of them so they can ban them and so children can grow up scared and confused by their own feelings and emotions, therefore making them more easily manipulated. This is likely what has happened to you, you have been groomed to think this way.