‘A deranged ploy’: how Republicans are fueling the disinformation wars

[KansasTiger 3,261]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I  have never seen a library or met a librarian that promoted having graphic porn in schools.

Huh. Weird that Gender Queer, a book with graphic sexual acts in it, is in some school libraries across the country, then.

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

Misinformation, at its core, is the fault of the American public that is so eager to buy self affirming nonsense that many are so willing to sell.  That is different from opinion driven programming.  I have no issue with people looking at the same set of facts and concluding different paths as being the best way to proceed.  The danger comes about when some entity, like Fox, reports something like an election being stolen, although they knew that nothing of the sort had occurred.  That kind of purposeful misrepresentation is powerful enough to destroy everything.

I never said that misinformation didn't exist. But you skip over all the times something labeled as misinformation turned out to be true just to point at a case it wasn't. Point is, do you really trust our govt to be honest and only label true misinformation as such, regardless of who is in power, or abuse it to control the story and narrative?

So Trump wins in 2024, you want him to have the power to censor posts on social media as misinformation? Or is it just the current administration you're ok with?

[auburnatl1 6,182]

Anyone should appreciate why porn in the library for children is creepy and upsetting. And the counter concern of book banning and who plays referee. But 1) kids won’t see porn in a book - it’s online from 20 different device types. And even if you lock/parental control their access, one of their friends won’t  2) most school libraries have lost about 50% funding in the past 10 years, which is pathetic, so the argument will resolve itself in a decade

Edited July 10, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 12,245]

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

I'd caveat this. Book banning and selective access so kids can't see graphic porn in schools is two different things. Sell the books all you want for all I care. Don't put then in my kids' school library. That's not book banning.

Most - if not all - public libraries don't allow pornography.

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Most - if not all - public libraries don't allow pornography.

Their defining LGBT sexuality (not all sexuality) as porn. 

Also, that still doesn’t explain why race relations books are getting banned.

It’s pretty obvious that the conservative strategy is to fight these culture wars against things they’ve deemed woke (LGBT acceptance as a norm and the increased recognition of America’s rascist past in academia) and they are going to fight them using children as their reasoning. It’s a sound strategy. 

Anyone who takes the time to realize that children are no more affected by “grooming” today than they were during the Trump administration Is going to see right through it, though. That’s why meatball Ron is underperforming.

Edited July 10, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[AU9377 6,037]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

Huh. Weird that Gender Queer, a book with graphic sexual acts in it, is in some school libraries across the country, then.

I never said that misinformation didn't exist. But you skip over all the times something labeled as misinformation turned out to be true just to point at a case it wasn't. Point is, do you really trust our govt to be honest and only label true misinformation as such, regardless of who is in power, or abuse it to control the story and narrative?

So Trump wins in 2024, you want him to have the power to censor posts on social media as misinformation? Or is it just the current administration you're ok with?

I'm not in favor of censorship.  That doesn't mean that I don't recognize the need for some level of responsibility when it comes to some of the information people carelessly publish online.  If a company was doing this, they could be sued out of existence.  The internet has instead provided a platform for people with little knowledge of what they claim to profess their statements to be true.  In a perfect world, we would be smarter than to accept it without questioning.  We have shown in recent years that we aren't that smart.

I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I do know that it is a real problem and it is causing us to rott internally as a nation.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

8 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Their defining LGBT sexuality (not all sexuality) as porn. 

Also, that still doesn’t explain why race relations books are getting banned.

Yeah, thats not what I'm meaning. The book I cited shows oral sex and other pictures. And it's in many public school libraries. Though, less and less as more people become aware.

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

5 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

 In a perfect world, we would be smarter than to accept it without questioning.  We have shown in recent years that we aren't that smart.

I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I do know that it is a real problem and it is causing us to rott internally as a nation.

You hit the nail on the head and there isn’t a way back in a world where social media exists imo. Too many people are just mindless looking for their personal opinion to be validated and there is and endless supply of unregulated validation. 

[AU9377 6,037]

5 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Their defining LGBT sexuality (not all sexuality) as porn. 

Also, that still doesn’t explain why race relations books are getting banned.

A text book publisher went as far as to remove references to Rosa Parks that included her race so as not to conflict with Florida textbook policy.  There was no book ban involved, and the State of Florida, to my knowledge, didn't use the textbook.  All the same, for a publisher to feel the need to do that is an example of how wildly craze the entire information banning can become.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/race-deleted-rosa-parks-history-florida-textbooks-1234698582/

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

11 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Yeah, thats not what I'm meaning. The book I cited shows oral sex and other pictures. And it's in many public school libraries. Though, less and less as more people become aware.

Pediatricians recommend starting sex education at age 5 now (link below). Probably because of the internet age and how young kids are exposed to that stuff. The depiction of oral sex isn’t something a 5 year old should see, of course. But by middle school age most kids are already not only well aware of what sex looks like, but probably not going to be negatively affected by a book’s depiction of it. It really comes down to what we as a society decide is “porn”.

 

https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/parenting/when-to-start-talking-about-sexual-health-with-your-child-earlier-than-you-think/#:~:text=When to start talking about,recommend starting at age 5.

Edited July 10, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[KansasTiger 3,261]

Just now, AuCivilEng1 said:

Pediatricians recommend starting sex education at age 5 now (link below). Probably because of the internet age and how young kids are exposed to that stuff. The depiction of oral sex isn’t something a 5 year old should see, of course. But by middle school age most kids are already not only well aware of what sex looks like, but probably not going to be negatively affected by a book’s depiction of it. It really comes down to what we as a society decide is “porn”.

I'm not even going to argue on that. That makes me too sad. I just hope those pediatricians stay away from my kids. My kids also won't have their own internet capable smart phones until late high school. Society wants to strip the innocence away from kids. And I'm going to break myself trying to save my kids from it.

[AU9377 6,037]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm not even going to argue on that. That makes me too sad. I just hope those pediatricians stay away from my kids. My kids also won't have their own internet capable smart phones until late high school. Society wants to strip the innocence away from kids. And I'm going to break myself trying to save my kids from it.

All I can say is thank God we didn't have the internet when i was growing up.  We still found plenty of porn and talked about sex before any of our parents had a clue we were thinking along those lines.

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

14 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm not even going to argue on that. That makes me too sad. I just hope those pediatricians stay away from my kids. My kids also won't have their own internet capable smart phones until late high school. Society wants to strip the innocence away from kids. And I'm going to break myself trying to save my kids from it.

good on you, but outside of locking your kids in a bubble, I don’t know how to minimize it in the internet and social media age. The invention of the internet seems to have the reverse affect on society that one would hope

Edited July 10, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

3 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm not even going to argue on that. That makes me too sad. I just hope those pediatricians stay away from my kids. My kids also won't have their own internet capable smart phones until late high school. Society wants to strip the innocence away from kids. And I'm going to break myself trying to save my kids from it.

I’m glad my kids are grown, but I do have concern for my grandchildren.  Here’s a dad that has just had his kids confronted by a pediatrician during a visit for the kids annual physical for school.  Warning language:

 

One has to wonder if these doctors have turned in everything they learned about biology to kowtow to the Assistant Secretary of Health; Admiral Rachel Levine, a pediatrician.  Levine appears to want to validate her lifestyle in her new position and force on others.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

11 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

good on you, but outside of locking your kids in a bubble, I don’t know how to minimize it in the internet and social media age. The invention of the internet seems to have the reverse affect on society that one would hope

All I know is that my two five year olds want to watch shows about animals and play with their hot wheels cars. They're grasping the idea of math and reading for the first time. To start Sex Ed with them now would be close to child abuse in my book.

That's not a personal attack on you.

Edited July 10, 2023 by KansasTiger

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m glad my kids are grown, but I do have concern for my grandchildren.  Here’s a dad that has just had his kids confronted by a pediatrician during a visit for the kids annual physical for school.  Warning language:

 

One has to wonder if these doctors have turned in everything they learned about biology to kowtow to the Assistant Secretary of Health; Admiral Rachel Levine, a pediatrician.  Levine appears to want to validate her lifestyle in her new position and force on others.

This isn’t any different than 3 years ago. Trans people and gender ideology didn’t become a thing when Biden was inaugurated as convenient as it is to say for conservatives. It’s understandable how someone could be offput by all this stuff. I get it and I’m pretty progressively minded on most things. But this has more to do with the evolution the idea and less to do with one person decreeing it into existence. 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

6 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Great time to be a lawyer

Better call Saul.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

This isn’t any different than 3 years ago. Trans people and gender ideology didn’t become a thing when Biden was inaugurated as convenient as it is to say for conservatives. It’s understandable how someone could be offput by all this stuff. I get it and I’m pretty progressively minded on most things. But this has more to do with the evolution the idea and less to do with one person decreeing it into existence. 

BS, it has more to do with a social contagion that has been enhanced by EOs signed by Biden on his first day of his term and has repeatedly stated that he has trans kids back.  To try to convince a child that he or she would be better off as the opposite sex is deplorable.  It can’t happen.  All evolution of ideas are NOT always a good thing and this one is NOT a good thing for anybody.

[auburnatl1 6,182]

17 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

All I know is that my two five year olds want to watch shows about animals and play with their hot wheels cars. They're grasping the idea of math and reading for the first time. To start Sex Ed with them now would be close to child abuse in my book.

Mine are in college. Boys. Beginning of the gen z’s - which means they grew up with internet access in their hands (ps for those that think they can keep phones out of their hands until high school, or even middle school - good luck with that, every parent thinks that).  School sex  ed stuff started in 4th grade in atlanta.  Pediatrician did magic talks around 12 years old. Nothing weird and honestly most boys could care less until middle school or even later. Total yawner. But girls obviously mature much earlier so….  well I’ll just say this - thank God I just had boys. Times have changed. Yikes!

Edited July 10, 2023 by auburnatl1

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

13 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

All I know is that my two five year olds want to watch shows about animals and play with their hot wheels cars. They're grasping the idea of math and reading for the first time. To start Sex Ed with them now would be close to child abuse in my book.

That's not a personal attack on you.

I’d didn’t say I do it. Hell my kids are 3 and 1. And I won’t be teaching sex ed at 5 either. I’m just making the point that if pediatricians are recommending sex ed at 5, the depiction of oral sex in a novel to a middle schooler is probably not something that is going to scar them for life.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

2 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I’d didn’t say I do it. Hell my kids are 3 and 1. And I won’t be teaching sex ed at 5 either. I’m just making the point that if pediatricians are recommending sex ed at 5, the depiction of oral sex in a novel to a middle schooler is probably not something that is going to scar them for life.

I think we have different levels of trust in some of these pediatricians lol. 

[AUFAN78 4,156]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

what I see is one group making the practice mainstream. 

When you only see one group doing it, you are part of the problem.

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

BS, it has more to do with a social contagion that has been enhanced by EOs signed by Biden on his first day of his term and has repeatedly stated that he has trans kids back.  To try to convince a child that he or she would be better off as the opposite sex is deplorable.  It can’t happen.  All evolution of ideas are NOT always a good thing and this one is NOT a good thing for anybody.

I’m not arguing with you. And I never said this all was a good thing once. I’m trying to have an adult discussion about something serious. To blame Biden or Democratic lawmakers for the fact that kids think about gender roles differently than they did 40 years ago is ridiculous. It has EVERYTHING to do with social media and the exchange of ideas (good or bad). You’re wrong about it being a thing that Biden has started though. There were gender ideology ideas 3 years ago and you know it. You’re blaming the left because they aren’t willing to demonize and bully kids out of thinking like this.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Overly simplistic to the point of stupidity.

But obviously too deep for some to follow. 

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

24 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I think we have different levels of trust in some of these pediatricians lol. 

This is starting to feel like personal attacks and I’m over it. I never once said I trust any pediatrician other than the one that sees my kids. I never said all this stuff was good or bad. I’m just speaking about reality.

The reality is most kids, via the internet will be exposed to stuff that will make a graphic in a novel nothing more than that to them. But this isn’t about eliminating porn. It’s about eliminating books with topics that conservatives are uncomfortable with. And I think you know that. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[KansasTiger 3,261]

16 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

This is starting to feel like personal attacks and I’m over it. I never once said I trust any pediatrician other than the one that sees my kids. I never said all this stuff was good or bad. I’m just speaking about reality.

The reality is most kids, via the internet will be exposed to stuff that will make a graphic in a novel nothing more than that to them. But this isn’t about eliminating porn. It’s about eliminating books with topics that conservatives are uncomfortable with. And I think you know that. 

I'm not meaning it as a personal attack. So if that's how it came across, apologies. Just that because pediatricians say something doesn't mean I accept it as the reality for my kids. 

If I insinuated your meanings, that's my fault. But don't insinuate my arguments for really meaning I want all LGBT books barred from schools. I dont personally want my kids consuming it, but I'm not conflating that with the freedom of speech. Ive never made that argument once. I can always take my kids out of that environment as best I can by taking them to private catholic school or homeschool, which I do. As long as they don't force that material into private religious curriculums.

Edited July 10, 2023 by KansasTiger