LOCAL and Florida Politics

[prahaboheme]

29 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

Regarding the Angelou book:

The book is also a valuable resource for those studying psychology and human development. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings covers tough issues such as the effects of rape and the trauma resulting from abuse; sexual development and gender issues; identity; and the impact of relationships between family members, friends, teachers, and students.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/3924/i-know-why-the-caged-bird-sings-by-maya-angelou/9780812980028/teachers-guide/#:~:text=I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings covers tough issues,friends%2C teachers%2C and students.

Last I checked, Psychology 101 and Human Development/Behavior or similar are part of a COLLEGE curriculum.

And? Does rape and gender identities start at “COLLEGE.”

Edited May 18, 2023 by prahaboheme

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Keeping kids away from Charlottes Web and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is not a position. 

Even if those books got "caught in the net",  there are worse examples of what some people think it's OK to expose small children to, which need to be prohibited.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere otherwise the people who think anything should be OK, will just keep pushing the boundaries further and further. 

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Regarding the Angelou book:

The book is also a valuable resource for those studying psychology and human development. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings covers tough issues such as the effects of rape and the trauma resulting from abuse; sexual development and gender issues; identity; and the impact of relationships between family members, friends, teachers, and students.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/3924/i-know-why-the-caged-bird-sings-by-maya-angelou/9780812980028/teachers-guide/#:~:text=I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings covers tough issues,friends%2C teachers%2C and students.

Last I checked, Psychology 101 and Human Development/Behavior or similar are part of a COLLEGE curriculum.

Exactly.

Seems that some people don't understand the concept of "age appropriate". 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

And? Does rape and gender identities start at “COLLEGE.”

Small children shouldn't even be thinking about gender identity. 

They should be thinking about Big Bird and Mother Goose etc.

And they certainly shouldn't be thinking about rape. 

If... God forbid, it should happen to them, it will need to be dealt with by the authorities and trained trauma psychologists. But reading about it in school library books won't do them any good.

Let children be children before adulthood gets shoved in their faces. 

[prahaboheme]

6 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Even if those books got "caught in the net",  there are worse examples of what some people think it's OK to expose small children to, which need to be prohibited.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere otherwise the people who think anything should be OK, will just keep pushing the boundaries further and further. 

Exactly.

Seems that some people don't understand the concept of "age appropriate". 

Who are these “some people” you speak of? 

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

Who are these “some people” you speak of? 

Anyone who feels there's nothing wrong with exposing small children to subjects that are beyond their years or level of maturity.   

[JFW657]

Not you in particular.

[jack]

5 hours ago, jrs2 said:

do you mean 5 licenses or 5 total shops?

5 shops.

Here is a nice (awful) nugget from the article. 

"Nationwide, New York continues to have the greatest rate of cigarette smuggling, with smuggled cigarettes accounting for 53.5 percent of total cigarette consumption in the state," the Tax Foundation's Adam Hoffer reported in December 2022. "New York also has one of the highest state cigarette taxes ($4.35 per pack), not counting the additional local New York City cigarette tax ($1.50 per pack), yielding a combined rate of $5.85 per pack."

Eric Garner, let's not forget, was killed during an arrest by New York City cops on suspicion of selling loose cigarettes in violation of state tax laws.

 

4 hours ago, orange87 said:

I agree with DeSantis on some things too. I too hate "woke culture."

DeSantis might be the wokest person of them all. 

[jack]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Even if those books got "caught in the net",  there are worse examples of what some people think it's OK to expose small children to, which need to be prohibited.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere otherwise the people who think anything should be OK, will just keep pushing the boundaries further and further. 

Exactly.

Seems that some people don't understand the concept of "age appropriate". 

I have a hard time understanding why Angelou's book is not age appropriate for at least high school. All of the things listed above don't magically appear once you turn 18. 

[jack]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Small children shouldn't even be thinking about gender identity. 

They should be thinking about Big Bird and Mother Goose etc.

And they certainly shouldn't be thinking about rape. 

If... God forbid, it should happen to them, it will need to be dealt with by the authorities and trained trauma psychologists. But reading about it in school library books won't do them any good.

Let children be children before adulthood gets shoved in their faces. 

Wasn't the book about gender issues and not gender identity? Or are you referring to something else? 

[prahaboheme]

7 minutes ago, jack said:

Wasn't the book about gender issues and not gender identity? Or are you referring to something else? 

Just a hunch here but he might be referring to Beloved which was also recently banned in Florida classrooms.

Amazing to me that the majority of “banned” books come from American authors who have commentary relevant to American history. 

[JFW657]

17 minutes ago, jack said:

I have a hard time understanding why Angelou's book is not age appropriate for at least high school. All of the things listed above don't magically appear once you turn 18. 

I'm mainly talking about elementary and middle school aged kids. 

High school kids nowadays aren't fazed by anything.

I was a substitute teacher for OCPS back in the 00's, I once had a three day assignment for a remedial reading teacher at Winter Park High. It was mostly English as a Second Language kids. Their assignment all three days was to stand up and read aloud when I'd call on them at random, from a book called "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien. It was set in a front line perimeter Marine patrol camp in Vietnam. It was extremely graphic and realistic in its descriptions of all kinds of things and as you can imagine, made use of some very "salty", 'make a truckdriver blush' language. 

The oddity of young 15 and 16 year old girls (and boys too, but it was more odd with the girls) really struck me as they stood there reading some of the truly filthiest language imaginable, that these late 1960's combat hardened Marines were yelling at each other. Not to mention some of the descriptions of their experiences with the local "ladies". 

12 minutes ago, jack said:

Wasn't the book about gender issues and not gender identity? Or are you referring to something else? 

Again, I'm only concerned with small children who, IMO shouldn't be concerned with any of that. Besides, there's such a thin line separating the two, it would almost certainly be crossed constantly. 

[prahaboheme]

3 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Anyone who feels there's nothing wrong with exposing small children to subjects that are beyond their years or level of maturity.   

That’s a broad view that can encapsulate anyone or anything that doesn’t neatly fit into your world view. Or in this instance, the MAGA crazy train to autocracy.  

[jack]

9 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

That’s a broad view that can encapsulate anyone or anything that doesn’t neatly fit into your world view. Or in this instance, the MAGA crazy train to autocracy.  

This is the problem with social panics. I am still waiting for proof of the static cults from the 80's. 

11 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Again, I'm only concerned with small children who, IMO shouldn't be concerned with any of that. Besides, there's such a thin line separating the two, it would almost certainly be crossed constantly. 

Is there any proof of what you would say is objectionable targeting elementary school age kids? Not one offs. Wide spread. Or is everyone giving the same examples from some private school in the UES or DC metro area? 

[JFW657]

9 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

That’s a broad view that can encapsulate anyone or anything that doesn’t neatly fit into your world view. Or in this instance, the MAGA crazy train to autocracy.  

That ^^ sounds to me like a narrow view that rejects anyone or anything that doesn’t neatly fit into your world view. Or in this instance, the progressive crazy train to anomie.  

The crux of the problem today in my view, is each side trying to push the most extreme version of their social agenda to the limits. 

Indoctrinating very young children about gender issues, likely creating even more future gender dysphoria? Really?

Supporting a Governor who engages in retaliation against one of the state's largest employers and economic powers for expressing a contrary opinion on the subject? Really? 

Insisting that there's nothing wrong with taking young children into adult entertainment venues to watch men strut around in lingerie, fishnet stockings and spiked heels behaving in a sexually provocative manner? Really?

Insisting that there is no such thing as too many guns in society and that Americans have a "God given right" to own as many and with as high an ammo capacity as they please? Really?

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. 

We have and are continuing to become a self-interested, my-way-or-the-highway society.  

[JFW657]

8 minutes ago, jack said:

This is the problem with social panics. I am still waiting for proof of the static cults from the 80's. 

Is there any proof of what you would say is objectionable targeting elementary school age kids? Not one offs. Wide spread. Or is everyone giving the same examples from some private school in the UES or DC metro area? 

It's kind of careless to brush off every concern you wish to discredit as a "social panic".

I think it's up to the supporters of any questionable activities involving minors, to provide proof and a guarantee that a line will never be crossed without governing laws in place to make sure it isn't. Which is of course, impossible. 

[jrs2]

15 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

And? Does rape and gender identities start at “COLLEGE.”

are you talking about the act of rape?

 

[prahaboheme]

50 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

That ^^ sounds to me like a narrow view that rejects anyone or anything that doesn’t neatly fit into your world view. Or in this instance, the progressive crazy train to anomie.  

The crux of the problem today in my view, is each side trying to push the most extreme version of their social agenda to the limits. 

Indoctrinating very young children about gender issues, likely creating even more future gender dysphoria? Really?

Supporting a Governor who engages in retaliation against one of the state's largest employers and economic powers for expressing a contrary opinion on the subject? Really? 

Insisting that there's nothing wrong with taking young children into adult entertainment venues to watch men strut around in lingerie, fishnet stockings and spiked heels behaving in a sexually provocative manner? Really?

Insisting that there is no such thing as too many guns in society and that Americans have a "God given right" to own as many and with as high an ammo capacity as they please? Really?

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. 

We have and are continuing to become a self-interested, my-way-or-the-highway society.  

If allowing access to books is a progressive crazy train, I’ll proudly get aboard.

The rest of this rant by you, which was not the purpose of the initial discussion, reeks of veiled homophobia. 

[jack]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

It's kind of careless to brush off every concern you wish to discredit as a "social panic".

I think it's up to the supporters of any questionable activities involving minors, to provide proof and a guarantee that a line will never be crossed without governing laws in place to make sure it isn't. Which is of course, impossible. 

It is a social panic since no one has proved that it is widespread. It is imaginary. Besides, if it ever became an issue, local school boards can set the policy. Or use existing policy. 

[jrs2]

3 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

If allowing access to books is a progressive crazy train, I’ll proudly get aboard.

The rest of this rant by you, which was not the purpose of the initial discussion, reeks of veiled homophobia. 

Bruh, I think you are barking up the wrong tree with @JFW657.  If you actually read his post, he laid out positions on the left and on the right that we've seen recently to prove a point about inflexibility (on both sides) on their respective social agendas.  

...and you call him a homophobe as a result...really?

[JFW657]

3 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

If allowing access to books is a progressive crazy train, I’ll proudly get aboard.

The rest of this rant by you, which was not the purpose of the initial discussion, reeks of veiled homophobia. 

There has ALWAYS been restricted access for CHILDREN to certain books. Or had you not heard?

There have always been books that were considered too adult for school libraries. 

Yes, high school kids should be given more leeway and yes DeShameless is probably, as always, pushing things too far. But lurching to the other extreme is not much better.

When I was 12 & 13, my little buddies and I had to sneak around in the magazine section of the drug store to cop a peek at the latest issue of Playboy Magazine. Otherwise they would not let us. 

But I'm not surprised at the homophobia comment. Happens anytime anyone refuses to go along with that which reeks of pandering acceptance of the "squeaky wheels" for the sole purpose of not upsetting the apple cart and not becoming the target of hurled accusations or some convenient, demonizing "______phobe" or "______ist" label. 

And I'm sorry (not sorry) I didn't check with you first about the "purpose" of this discussion.

Nobody told me you were in charge of determining that. 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jack said:

It is a social panic since no one has proved that it is widespread. It is imaginary. Besides, if it ever became an issue, local school boards can set the policy. Or use existing policy. 

Says who? 

Where's the proof that it ISN'T widespread? Or won't become widespread given time?

People describe the idea of anthropomorphic climate change as a "social panic" because some scientists claim to have proof that it isn't real or they just choose to not believe it. 

Also, I believe a panic has to involve an actual widespread panic REACTION. 

AFAIK all this involves is some conservative politicians taking preemptive actions before it actually becomes widespread.

Something I am not 100% in disagreement with. 

I think the people who are pushing this pro-alphabet agenda have shown that they are willing to go as far as they're allowed to.  

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

Bruh, I think you are barking up the wrong tree with @JFW657.  If you actually read his post, he laid out positions on the left and on the right that we've seen recently to prove a point about inflexibility (on both sides) on their respective social agendas.  

...and you call him a homophobe as a result...really?

Thanks, btw. 

[jrs2]

9 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Thanks, btw. 

It is just amazing that you of all people have been more or less aligned with MAGA idealogues and labeled a homophobe.  I think I just "slid" into an alternate universe with Keri Wuher, Jeffrey O'Connell, and Sala from Raiders of the Lost Ark...

[orange87]

5 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

If allowing access to books is a progressive crazy train, I’ll proudly get aboard.

The rest of this rant by you, which was not the purpose of the initial discussion, reeks of veiled homophobia. 

Say hello to Mr. Strawman.

BTW, the LGBT community is rapidly losing public support even by people who were former allies like me because of borderline pedo-y behavior. And if we allow this to metastasize because we all crawled into a hole because we were afraid to be called "bigots" then I'm very certain there will eventually be a "P" added to that acronym. Mark my words. Don't say it won't happen because just 10 years ago people would have called you crazy if you told them a large segment of the population would actually believe that men can get pregnant. Now look where we are.

Edited May 19, 2023 by orange87

[JFW657]

32 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

It is just amazing that you of all people have been more or less aligned with MAGA idealogues and labeled a homophobe.  I think I just "slid" into an alternate universe with Keri Wuher, Jeffrey O'Connell, and Sala from Raiders of the Lost Ark...

Well, I would not say that I am 'aligned' with MAGA at all.

I would say that I don't think the right is always wrong and I don't think the left is always right.

If that is not too confusing.