Kontney is the board’s newest member, having been elected in April on a platform that included, “CRITICAL THINKING NOT CRITICAL RACE THEORY.”

Zielke also says she was told, in conversations with school board president Chris Buckmaster and board member Terri Boyer, who serves on the Educational Service Committee, that using the book would created a problem with “balance,” in part because the accelerated English class curriculum already includes a 10-page excerpt from a nonfiction book about the internment camps.

“So their claim is that having two texts in this class from what they’re terming is one perspective — meaning it’s the perspective of the Japanese who were interned — creates a balance issue,” Zielke says in an interview. The feeling was that “we need to have more perspective from the American government about why they did this.”

Buckmaster, she says, explained to her that the kind of balance he has in mind would include discussion of the Rape of Nanjing, the mass killing of Chinese civilians committed by the Japanese that began on Dec. 13, 1937 and continued for six weeks. “So what he’s saying is, what you would need in this class is some sort of historical context of how horrible the Japanese were during World War II in order to understand the viewpoint of the American government in interning the Japanese.”

Zielke, for her part, sees “no need for this type of false balance or both-sides-ism in telling the story of Japanese internment. The American government was wrong and has apologized for the racism that led to Japanese internment.”

David Inoue, executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League, a national nonprofit with offices in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., agrees.

“The call for a ‘balanced’ viewpoint in the context of the incarceration of Japanese Americans is deeply problematic, and racist, and plays into the same fallacies the United States Army used to justify the incarceration,” he wrote in a letter to the Muskego-Norway School Board. “We urge you to reconsider your position on the book’s use, understanding that while not every book and story can be told, to deny the use of one such as this under the pretenses you’ve given is wrong.”

Zielke says both Buckmaster and Boyer, in their conversations with her, said the district’s Curriculum Planning Committee may have been given a directive — it’s not clear from whom — to select a book by a non-white author. According to Zielke, “the board is saying that that somehow negates the process, because that is akin to some type of discrimination.”

After the June 13 committee meeting, Buckmaster got into a heated exchange with Hapeman, who works for the district as an educational assistant. She says he told her, regarding the board’s action, “This is why they were elected. This is what they ran on.” Emily Sorensen, a community member who was sitting nearby, says she heard him make this comment.

Buckmaster, Boyer, Kontney, and Tracy Blair, the third board member who serves on the Educational Resources Committee, did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did Kelly Thompson, the district superintendent.

Across the country, the MAGA crowd has gone on a rampage against educational materials deemed inappropriate for young minds.

PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for freedom of expression, tracked 1,585 instances of books being banned from schools between July 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, involving 1,145 unique titles.

“When the Emperor Was Divine” is not among them.

In a letter to the Muskego-Norway board, Jordan Pavlin, editor-in-chief at Alfred A. Knopf and Otsuka’s editor at the publishing house, noted that “When the Emperor Was Divine” “has been course adopted in hundreds of schools throughout the country, where it has become a staple of high school English classes.”

She added that historical fiction “has the power not only to edify but to transform and deepen our perspectives; it enables us to look outward, beyond the confines of our circumscribed lives, with greater sympathy and understanding.”

In the 2020 presidential election, the city of Muskego, which makes up the majority of the Muskego-Norway School District, voted for Donald Trump over Joe Biden by a margin of two to one. That’s even higher than the margin that voted for Trump in all of deep red Waukesha County, in which Muskego resides.

Yet all of the objections to “When the Emperor Was Divine” have come from school board members, not the community at large.

“I am not aware of any opposition to the use of the Otsuka book from any parents, students, teachers, or community members,” Hapeman says. “The only opposition to the book I am aware of is from school board members.”

Indeed, in advance of the June 13 meetings, more than 130 parents and community members, many of them alumni of the Muskego-Norway School District, signed a petition supporting the book’s selection. Written by Lawrence Hapeman, Allison’s son and a 2021 graduate of district schools, the 1800-word petition takes issue with the various objections to “When the Emperor Was Divine.”

These included a claim, purportedly made by more than one school board member, that the book is “too sad.” The petition calls this argument “fundamentally nonsensical,” noting that other books approved for classroom use in the district include Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” and Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried,” “in which most characters die by the end of the novel in often brutal and graphic ways.”

“Many of these resignations come from teachers who have cited a lack of respect and acceptance from their school board as primary causes for their departure,” states the petition. It anonymously quotes two district teachers about a perceived lack of support.

“I’ve never felt so under attack for just doing my job or doing my duty to teach kids about others and their world,” one teacher says. “I feel like I have to defend every book that has a person of color in it.” Another teacher says, “The anti-diversity and lack of pushback against that from district leaders has left me actively seeking other positions in districts that support diversity.”

As for the argument that “this book should not be approved because the selection committee was non-negotiably set on picking a work by an author who is a woman of color,” the petition links to a district directive, issued in 2020, to seek ways “to support understanding of the history of marginalization and the positive impact we can have on a daily basis when we use an equity focused mindset that addresses disparities.”

The petition states: “As residents of the world and heirs of its history, we must be given the opportunity to reflect on the past and point out the pain and suffering caused in the past. This reflection is meant to prepare ourselves to create a stronger country and world by rejecting outright the mistakes of the past.”

Or, as Inoue put it in his letter to the school board, “The story of what happened to the Japanese American community is an American story, one that balances the challenges of injustice, but also the patriotic stories of service and resistance. If anything, these are stories that need to be told more in our schools.”

Nice CRT is for fucking Nazis telling little kids that they are monsters for something they didn't do and to feel bad about the hard work their parents do cause it gives them a leg up. Fuck democrats they only teach others that they are victims and depend on it to get votes. As a black man I know racism and critical race theory is racist.

>it's a wedge election issue
>it's a school board election
>"Won't someone think of the children??"
This is the front line in every election season culture war.

>>1061365
At long least, some action is taken against the teaching of hate, prejudice and racism.

I hope anti-CRT ideologues control all the curricula in all the schools

>>1061365
I don't get why they call it "banning" books when they're literally just deciding which few books to add to the assigned reading list.
I didn't get assigned to read Harry Potter in class, but it was still in the library. Did my school "ban" Harry Potter?
I didn't get assigned to read Anne Frank's Diary in class, did my school "ban" that?

>>1061405
democrats want to groom children and for that they must lie constantly

>>1061410
absolutely based, I'm going to call myself a democrat starting now

>>1061405
>why they call it "banning" books when they're literally just deciding which few books to add to the assigned reading list.
Because Democrats literally have no platform besides racism and orange man bad, and we are in a mid term election cycle

>>1061410
>>1061457
Based

>>1061368
>select a book by a non-white author.
Ah here we go. It was selected by racists using a racist process
>the board is saying that that somehow negates the process
"somehow"
> because that is akin to some type of discrimination.
>some type of discrimination
Yes bigot it's called racism

>>1061410
>>1061457
You understand kids don't look for these books on their own right? And by taking it off the curriculum, you're more or less removing it because now they don't even know it exists?

Not to mention it'll probably get silently removed from their library in a few years because "oh, no kids read it anymore."

>>1061561
>kids aren’t interested in reading
>this is just like banning books

NOT MY CHILD!!!

>>1061565
>Don't know book exists

Also, their reasons for banning it is pretty transparently racist.
>lacked “balance” regarding the internment of Japanese Americans
Apparently they really want a viewpoint justifying one of the worst actions America has taken in the last 100 years.

>>1061570
>blatant goalpost
Concession accepted.

>>1061405
Fucking this, it's like these people have no idea how schools work. Every pubic school chooses certain books to teach in class and to stock in their libraries and it's dumb to say they "banned" every other book that they didn't choose.
>>1061365
The problem isn't this one book it's that leftists are trying to turn English class into nothing but this. English class is all about racism and the Holocaust and LGBT rights etc. It wouldn't be a big deal if leftists were just slipping in one of these books every now and then but they want the entire curriculum to be these books now

>>1061572
Again anon, if a kid doesn't know the book fucking exists, they're not going to seek it out. The whole point of putting them on curriculum is to give them awareness of the topic. They're removing that.

>>1061561
So why doesn't this logic apply to every other book that isn't being taught in English classes?

>>1061581
See >>1061565

Nothing stops a kid from googling “books about [topic].”

>>1061365
>CRT doesn't exist
>stop banning it!

>>1061588
What's going to get them interested in that topic in the first place? A quick lesson that might also get removed because it "lacks a "balanced" viewpoint"?

>>1061603
>Call literally anything opposing your views CRT
>People get mad when you start censoring history

>>1061604
>kids aren’t interested in [topic]
>this is JUST LIKE banning books!

>>1061607
>Kids don't know about [topic]
>This is because you removed all books and lessons teaching it from the curriculum.

>>1061610
Right, and this is why books regarding mating rituals of the wedge-tailed shearwater are “banned”. There is no lesson about it in school and there are no books covering the subject in the school library.

>>1061389
We'll conveniently ignore that banning books and having government-controlled information is also for fucking Nazis.

>>1061621
You usually do

>>1061405
>I don't get why they call it "banning" books
Because they are using the pretext of MUH CHILDREN in classrooms to also ban the books in the school and local libraries.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/26/1094807686/texas-library-book-ban-lawsuit#:~:text=Press-,Texas%20residents%20sue%20county%20officials%20for%20removing%20books%20from%20public,the%20library%20patrons'%20lawsuit%20says.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-school-district-pulls-400-books-library-shelves-review-lawmakers-rcna7891
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/17/librarians-texas-book-bans/

>>1061622
>you usually do
>you
I'm not a democrat, sorry to bust your easy presumption-bubble.
And, ironically, the people doing the ignoring right now are you and your ilk, but we don't have to talk about that, either. The people acting like the Nazis right now aren't the people trying to stop books from getting banned. I only point that out because it's obvious you can't extrapolate from partial information.

I'm also calling you stupid. I know that went over your head. I want to be clear with you.

>>1061624
>first link
>books removed due to containing “pornography”
>people claim “pornography” doesn’t exist in any of the books
>first example book
>”a character appears nude in one scene”

lmao, these fake news articles are getting more and more absurd

>>1061629
Nudity is not automatically pornography, dumbass. There's no pornography in "It's Perfectly Normal" unless you also consider the nude drawings in a health/biology book "pornography", which no reasonable person arguing from a point of good faith would ever do.
You can just admit you're reaching for straws because you have nothing but politics in your brain.

>>1061629
>>1061634
Scroll down and take a look at what you're saying is "pornography", you fucking weirdo.
https://tygertale.com/2014/05/14/up-and-up-and-up/

>>1061624
>I don't get why they call it "banning" books
>Because they are using the pretext of MUH CHILDREN in classrooms to also ban the books in the school and local libraries.
Your a fucking retard, you answered the question "why is it called banning books" with the answer "because they are using it as a pretext to ban books"
They are not including it in a curriculum.
Stop your "current thing" NPC bullshit spewing, anon

>>1061628
>And, ironically, the people doing the ignoring right now are you and your ilk
>I'm also calling you stupid. I know that went over your head.
Your whole post is ironic and pretty stupid

>>1061636
They're not just removing them from school curriculums. The political pressure is literally having them also removed from libraries. Learn to read, idiot.

>>1061637
I'll take your inability to do anything but try petty clapback quips like a black teen girl on Twitter to mean you're either a bot or a particularly stupid person.

>>1061635
>>1061634
The “source” blatantly pretends there is no reason to think anything is pornographic and then admits the book features naked people. That is why it is a fake news article.

Pornography vs nudity is a matter of subjective taste. True or not?

>>1061640
>Learn to read, idiot.
Ironic, for someone depending on goalpost moving and trying to link things that just aren’t linked.

>>1061640
Of course you would
And you will continue to not have self awareness?

>>1061635
Do we really need our schools to have childrens books that show children's weiners while they say "cock a doodle Doo?"

>>1061641
Nudity is not automatically pornography.
>True or not?
They fail every obscenity test we've got on the books. The only people who would label this pornography are schizo-fundies and commie shitholes like China.

>>1061642
I don't think you know what "moving the goal post" means. I'm not moving the goalposts - the political pressure to start removing books by attaching the label CRT to anything the politicians find offensive started in Texas. It quickly moved from "we don't want to ban the books, just get them out of school curriculum" to literally removing the books from not just the school but also local libraries. The end goal is this is to use "curriculum adjustments" as a pretext to ban the books. You're just sticking you head in the sand.
Which isn't really surprising.

>>1061643
Bud you can keep responding but I wrote you off as room-temp IQ already.

>>1061645
Do we need to pretend like a cartoon picture of a nude child that was completely acceptable before the GOP started attacking CRT (and anything they could remotely relate to it) is now unacceptable just because it's an easy talking-point to rile up conservative voters with?

>>1061646
Looks like you didn’t answer the question. One last chance, or I’ll just accept you’ve given up.

Pornography vs nudity is a matter of subjective taste. True or not?

>>1061648
>Looks like you didn’t answer the question.
If you had any reading comprehension at all, or even knew what an obscenity test was, you'd understand that I already answered your question by telling you they don't fail obscenity tests.

Let me spell it out - it is subjective, but we have a legal structure to handle that subjectivity (obscenity tests, established by a conservative Supreme Court). These books do not fail the obscenity test (which is why they were allowed to be published in the first place), so they do not constitute pornography or other obscene material.
You could also surmise that I recognize the subjectivity of the matter by highlighting that some people would find it obscene, such as schizo-fundies and communist China. If you had any reading comprehension ability at all, you could easily put the 2 above and this 2 here together to get the 4 you're looking for.

Go ahead and claim you somehow still have a point or a valid line of argument that isn't just parroting whatever conservative-media gave you to say. I'm writing you off as room-temp IQ, too.

>>1061652
>it is subjective
GG

>>1061653
>he did literally what I expected him to do
Bravo, you're not distinguishable from an NPC.

>>1061654
Anon, your three paragraphs of seething over a question that requires a one word answer and your salivating fantasy over a strawman of me is laughable.

Brevity is the soul of wit. They must’ve forgot to program that into you. Good day, and know that I know you will be angry about this for the next few hours.

>>1061657
>writing is hard!!!!
You sound like the lazy inner-city kids I teach math to.
>brevity is the soul of wit
Says the witless retard. If it helps you feel better, you can imagine me as mad as you need to. I'm literally laughing at you, but since I know you need the self-esteem boost, you can have whatever image of me you need. It's my privilege to give that to you.

>>1061412
Ok groomer

>>1061658
>strawman quote by someone who thinks adding unnecessary words to a simple argument helps make him look more intelligent
Maybe those inner city kids could help you with your reading comprehension in exchange, witless retard. I look forward to your next seething reply.

>>1061660
>unnecessary words
You're just ticking every single "I'm offended by the appearance of intelligence because I am, myself, an idiot" box, including the "too many words, more than three syllables? I don't know what you said, but I'm mad about it!".
You're a walking stereotype.
>I look forward to your next seething reply.
Oh, of course, bud. I take a lot of pride in helping those less fortunate than me. Here's your ego boost. Stick around, I'll keep giving them all day. I just want to help you.

>>1061659
*grooms you harder*

>>1061636
Using Jewish pretexts to advance agendas has always been a thing. It isn't a current thing in and of itself but with the high rates of schizophrenia Jews have they'll figure something out to entertain the masses pretty easily

>>1061640
Racist

>>1061664
Yes, and? I don't fear Power Word: Turn White Guy.

>>1061646
>They fail every obscenity test we've got on the books
Moves the goalpost

>>1061665
So why are you racist? Are you going to answer that question?

>>1061666
>an obscenity test is moving the goalposts when asked about the subjectivity of nudity as pornography
Straw Status: Grasped
>those digits
Get thee behind me, Satan.

>>1061668
I was raised by racists in a racist culture. I can't help myself sometimes. I'm trying not to be that way, but it's hard to undo the first 20 years of your life even with concentrated ever in the next 10.
Regardless, I'm not going to pretend I'm something I'm not or hide from what I've said.

>>1061669
They were talking about whether it was pornography not whether it was obscenity no matter how much you try to conflate them like some lunatic GOP member

>>1061646
At least china isn't collapsing a hellish out break you groveling amerimutt freak. You're done for

>>1061669
Goalpost status: moved

>>1061670
>whether it was pornography not whether it was obscenity
The legal definition of the difference between nudity and pornography is graded by a measure of obscenity. That's also the subjective measure, as well (e.g. a photo a grandma took of a naked baby in a bath is not pornography because it is not obscene).
There's nothing about this you could describe as "lunatic". This is the measure any reasonable person uses to differentiate between simple nudity and pornography, which is why the Supreme Court adopted it.

>>1061671
I'm very concerned, Richard. Or Zack. Or whatever your diaspora name is.

>>1061673
This man doesn't know what a goal, a post, a goalpost, or moving one is.

>>1061661
>another episode of “midwit anon thinks inflating his word count makes his argument more intelligent”
Many such cases. No wonder they sent you to teach the only group on your intellectual level.

>>1061680
No one brought up intelligence but you, bud. Also, the inner city kids are generally smarter than the country ones (I've also taught them). The difference is that city kids are lazy and have been programmed by short-format media like Tweets and TikTok to think anything long is scary.
What programmed you?

>>1061674
>The legal definition of the difference between nudity and pornography is graded by a measure of obscenity.
I think you're confused abouty the law
That's the difference between nudity and obscenity, not nudity vs pornography.
Pornography is not always obscenity, and the subjective metrics for what constitutes such things is lunacy.

And conservatives wonder why they're called authoritarians.
Don't forget they already openly talked about bringing back book burnings, because they forgot that was a Nazi thing since they're banning all the history books
https://www.axios.com/2022/04/28/gop-tennessee-burn-banned-books

Oh wait, the Republicans are praising Nazis.
https://www.businessinsider.com/carl-paladino-running-again-stefanik-endorsement-hitler-leadership-quote-radio-2022-6

>>1061621
>government-controlled information
Wtf do you think a public school is?

>>1061645
This

>>1061692
Government-controlled information. Do you think that information is more or less controlled when a single political party starts banning books on the pretext of "political indoctrination" in children versus when the government allows children to be exposed to every imaginable book?
Have no doubt that I also strongly disagree with school boards and democrats deciding children shouldn't read "problematic" literature, especially with their vague and demonstrably self-serving definitions of "problematic". I oppose all forms of censorship.

>>1061640
There are literally millions of books that are not available at the public school library. Do you consider all of them "banned" as well?

>>1061695
Should every school have a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook and the Turner Diaries?

>>1061696 you’ll notice no one addressed
>>1061613

>>1061696
If any of those books were intentionally put on a list by politicians to be removed from the curriculum or libraries, then yes - they have been banned.
Stop conflating things. Not stocking every single book is not the same thing as literally creating a list of books to be removed.

>>1061697
Yes. Why should they not be?

>>1061699
>a book not being in a school curriculum means it has been banned

Yeah, I think we’re done here. You’re just a retard.

>>1061695
>Information should be controlled by the government, but only anti-democracy leftist government
Kek. At least Republicans want voters to decide what information the government feeds children

>>1061699
Don't ask me why, I'm not pro censorship but many schools have banned those books and might call the police if a student even possessed a personal copy

>>1061699
>The government choosing not to stock books that I don't care about is not the same as the government choosing not to stock books that I want them to stock
you're just salty that democracy isn't giving the results that you want and your solution is to abolish democracy. Typical wokist

>>1061700
>politicians removing specific books from the curriculum with an explicitly political intent they themselves have stated is not banning
>why not?
>YOURE RETARDED IF YOU DONT GET IT
Outstanding.

>>1061704
>say I oppose all forms of censorship, including leftoids
>SO YOURE JUST A LEFTY LOVE HUH?
Are you a bot? No one is actually this stupid, right?

>>1061705
It's not the government's job to tell us what is allowable knowledge to have or not. It's not society's job to do that, either. The First Amendment exists to protect our ability to decide for ourselves what we think and express from governmental and social forces that would restrict us.
I don't give half a shit what's in a school library, and it's not for me to decide because I respect the liberty of each other American to make that decision for themselves.

>>1061706
Ahh, yes - when democracy loses you the presidency it was "stolen" and a conspiracy, but when democracy abuses Constitutional rights, it's totally okay because dysgenic political rhetoric is the only thing the GOP can produce.

>>1061708
>whatabout january 6

>>1061710
What about it? Only you brought it up.

>>1061711
>Ahh, yes - when democracy loses you the presidency it was "stolen" and a conspiracy, but when democracy abuses Constitutional rights, it's totally okay because dysgenic political rhetoric is the only thing the GOP can produce.

>>1061712
What does the running rhetoric about the election - a clear indication that the GOP of its supporters are no more interested in the spirit of democracy than you are, since you only invoked it in bad-faith to try to win an argument - have to do with events of January 6?
Again, only you brought it up.

>>1061708
>It's unconstitutional if the government doesn't stock literally every single book in existence in their library
God you are so stupid it hurts

>>1061713
NTA, but are you genuinely this dumb? You literally brought that shit up in your post.

>>1061708
No, removing a book from a school library is not banning a book, no matter how much you pretend it is.

>>1061714
>a group of politicians creating a list of specific books to be removed from libraries is the same thing as simply "not stocking them"
I want to see how more disingenuous you can get.

>>1061715
I literally did not. There is extensive rhetoric surrounding the 2020 election that has absolutely nothing to do with the nothingburger that was the January 6 "insurrection".

>>1061716
A group of politicians using political power to remove specific books with an explicit, outspoken political intent behind their reasoning is banning books, no matter how much you argue in bad-faith or ignorance that it isn't.

>>1061717
>the government choosing not to stock a book in the library is the same as the government choosing not to stock a book in the library
Anon.... Who do you think decides what books go in the library? And what books go in the school curriculum? It's the government. It's always been the government. Every single book that is not included in the curriculum is a book that the government decided not to include in the curriculum

>>1061717
>A group of politicians who answer to voters in a democracy is not the same as a government employee (such as a school librarian) who does not answer to voters
Yes you're right, so see the earlier post about you and other leftists just hating democracy. You think the government should decide what books go in the library you just don't like it when it's democratically elected politicians making that decision

>>1061718
Anon.... there is a fundamental difference between simply "choosing to not stock" and "intentionally removing based on political intent".

I'm going to assume you're not just arguing in bad-faith here, so let me give you an example using a boycott:
When I go to the store and don't buy Kraft Mac n Cheeze because I don't like it, I'm not boycotting Kraft. If I refuse to buy Kraft Mac n Cheeze because I find out they donate money to a cause I don't believe in, that's a boycott.

In the first case, I simply don't care for the product. In the other case, I have intentionally taken political action to not purchase the product.

Similarly, a book not being stocked is fundamentally different than politicians making intentional political effort to remove books which were already stocked. These are not the same thing. In one case, it is simply "not stocking". In the latter case, it is literally the definition of book banning.

>>1061719
>literally say im not a leftist, repudiate leftist behavior in the very threat
>"LEFTIST AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" - a very confused man
Again - when democracy loses you the presidency, it's a conspiracy, but when politicians abuse the spirit of democracy to violate Constitutional rights, that's a-okay.
You can just admit you have nothing in your head but red vs blue politics and are not arguing in good faith whatsoever.

Don't care, still voting for DiSantis in 2024

>>1061635
>Oh no, evil Republicans don't want a book showing drawing of a kid with his dick out while saying 'cock'
Kek that's your argument, groomer?
Your book 'banning' is a good thing in this case. I'm glad it was considered too exploit for grade school children

>>1061720
>there is a fundamental difference between simply "choosing to not stock" and "intentionally choosing not to stock "
No

>I'm not a leftist even though I believe that unelected leftists should control public schools and should "ban" (ie choose not to stock) conservative books while promoting left-wing propoganda
No

>>1061723
Why do schizo-fundies feel the need to sexualize children in every context while accusing others of being groomers?

>>1061724
Yes and yes. I literally already said that leftoids banning books based on their vague and self-serving concept of "problematic" is horseshit and I strongly oppose it. I have, in fact, voted against it in the past and actively advocate against it at the school I teach and have taught at.
You have no concept of political discourse besides red vs blue bullshit.

>>1061725
The book is named "up and up and up", has dozens of dicks drawn in it and a little kid saying things like 'cock' showing while flashing his Weiner.
I don't feel like I'm being unreasonable about my description of this book

>>1061726
You're not, that's an accurate description, but it forces me to ask you what about a naked child saying things little boys say is immediately sexual to you?

>>1061726
>>1061728
Running around naked, yelling about the dicks, flailing them about, is something virtually all little kids do. Parents laugh at it. Families take video of it all the time, and share it with their family and friends. This has probably been happening in some capacity or another, with no one blinking an eye, for all of human history.
What exactly is immediately sexual about this to you?

>>1061728
>Hey here's this book about some kid running around with his dick out.
>This is how you should behave, 2nd grader
Why ban this book from schools?
People that don't realize how incredibly stupid children are should stay out of the argument.
That means most of you childless, tranny, incel fucks should just rope.

>>1061728
Have you ever watched one of those Disney movies where there's stupid jokes In them that children understand, and more disturbing jokes that parents understand?
It's kinda like that only instead of jokes were talking about words like 'cock' and references to cocks going 'up' with drawings of naked children.

Yeah, I don't have kids, I don't want any, and if I did have kids this is def on my short list of books I would not want them to read as little children, in your words "banned"

>>1061728
>t. John William Money

>>1061733
Not everyone's second grader is a stupid (or unraised, whatever combination happened) as yours and will run around naked because they saw a picture book of a toddler doing that. Weird how my kids never seemed to have a problem distinguishing between reality and fiction. Maybe yours are autistic or something.

>>1061737
Up and Up and Up is the name of the blog. The name of the book you're talking about is "Into the Kitchen" about a little boy having a dream. He says "cock a doodle do" because he's pretending to a rooster, in a dream.
Have you ever read the definition of "projecting"?

>>1061739
>Weird how my kids never seemed to have a problem distinguishing between reality and fiction.
You have no children.
Every second grader is stupid.
That's why fags want to teach homosexuality as early as possible.

>>1061742
I've got two, thanks, and helped raised a lot more. Again, maybe your kids are that stupid, but my second graders never had a problem distinguishing fiction from reality to the point they'd run around naked because a character did it on TV. When they were toddlers, sure. At 7 or 8? No.

>>1061739
>Up and Up and Up is the name of the blog
Sorry, I guess I didn't study this blog about naked children as closely as you did.
My mistake, your right, I concede the argument on this point

>>1061746
Literally the pictures of the book you're talking about have a different title on them. You can just admit you didn't even look at it and jumped to conclusions.

>>1061748
>Literally the pictures of the book you're talking about have a different title on them
Once again, I admit that I am again incorrect and you have indeed studied this blog of illustrated naked children images more than I have.
I read the title "up and up and up" and scrolled thru the images and saw several illustrations of a naked child dressed as a cock with his benis exposed on pretty much every one of them.
Your correct, I did not read the blog about these naked child illustrations, while you did take the time to take a deep dive into this blog about naked child illustrations.

I am still of the personal opinion though that were I to have children this is definitely on the short list of children's books I would choose not to read to them during story time, probably a long with "the antiracist baby".
To each their own.
I'm actually more partial to learning Mandarin and reading them children's books about astronauts, space travel, and science in the native language of a country that's likely going to economically surpass the US by the time they are an adult.

>>1061728
Kek holy shit we got a live one boys

>>1061739
How many books filled with dick drawings do you show your children? No wonder you get so touchy when you’re called a groomer.

fascists have always been the biggest book banners

>>1061580
>The problem isn't this one book it's that leftists are trying to turn English class into nothing but this. English class is all about racism and the Holocaust and LGBT rights etc. It wouldn't be a big deal if leftists were just slipping in one of these books every now and then but they want the entire curriculum to be these books now
What else are they supposed to read about for nonfiction and why is it even issue that they're reading books on these topics in the first place? If you have other reasons for objecting to these books, then I'll hear it out, but complaining about nonfiction books on historical topics because they already read nonfiction books on historical topics is dumb.

>>1061581
I remember being a kid anon, and I hated pretty much every single book the schools forced us to read. There might have been 1-2 exceptions, but most of it sucked. That doesn't mean I don't pleasure read either, cause I do.

Forcing them to read LGBTBBQ stuff will just make them hate it or ignore it later in life. It makes the LGBTBBQ the "man", some stiff puritanical asshole that enjoys the stick up their ass.

Also, history class covered the internment shit just fine. No need to go in depth about how it sucked.

>>1061886
>I remember being a kid anon, and I hated pretty much every single book the schools forced us to read. There might have been 1-2 exceptions, but most of it sucked. That doesn't mean I don't pleasure read either, cause I do.
NTA but I hated a lot of shit I had to do in school too, doesn't mean there isn't some value in it. As long as the books cover those topics in an interesting way, I don't really think most kids will have any more of a problem with it than they do most other things they have to do. For me personally, I pretty much always enjoyed leaning about history so I can't relate.
>Forcing them to read LGBTBBQ stuff will just make them hate it or ignore it later in life.
As opposed to not learning about it at all? You could make this same argument for literally anything in the curriculum.
>Also, history class covered the internment shit just fine. No need to go in depth about how it sucked.
There's no "need" for kids to learn a lot of shit, doesn't mean there isn't still value in it. If it gives them more insight into what they're larning about in history class, then I fail to see how it hurts them in anyway.

These are pretty weak excuses, anon.

>>1061800
>the only nonfiction is white people bad and non-whites are victims and all men are oppressive rapists and women are oppressed
OP isn't even nonfiction it's historical fiction.
>>1061891
>some value in it
there is more value in learning that racism is bad and hating men is bad. But leftists won't allow any of that in school.
You also never learned about history because you still think wokeness is a good thing.
>>1061405
because they are tyrants who have no logic.
>>1061624
>>1061690
>>1061640
my local school library doesn't carry books regarding mating rituals of the wedge-tailed shearwater. Do you think it's wrong for those books to be """banned"""?

Every time the topic of book "bans" come up, it reminds me of the time Levar Burton, star of Paramount's Star Trek, went on Paramount's The Late Show with Stephen Colbert to urge viewers to buy books that failed to win a government contract from a publisher owned by Paramount.
I do love these book ban topics. We obviously need better government contracts for big publishers.
Everyone get out on the street and fight for the billionaires who own these publishers. They won't be able to eat without better government contracts.

>>1061906
My favorite part, is just like Florida, when a book doesn't meet education standards in a red state they call it a 'book ban' but books that don't need education standards in blue states are treated like they don't even fucking exist

>>1061906
It gets even dicier from there. The story then "blew up" on Twitter. Then he went on ABC's The View and did the same thing.
Why is that crazy?
The Vanguard group are some of the biggest shareholders in Disney, Paramount, and Twitter.
It might be time to do something about these investment firms that control trillions in wealth.
The right largely doesn't care, and the left is focused on individual billionaires.
Neither cares that the retirement funds of Americans are being fed to these groups which are essentially creating massive monopolies.

>>1061909
I have all my 401k and roth with vanguard and they're a shitty company that need to be broken up. Index funds should be illegal. They push ESG really hard, which is not in the best interest of the fund owners.

Apple is ESG complaint, even though all of their products are put together by slaves in third world countries with suicide nets around the building and all of their e-waste is dumped in garbage dump in Africa by the Chinese. Nestle and a ton of other examples are ESG complaint too, even though they don't even pretend that they're dumping toxic waste in third world countries and destroying ecosystems.

>>1061901
Interesting, but what does that have to do with the fact that Republicans want to bring back book burning and praised Hitler?

>>1061800
There's more to history than "white men bad" but I can't blame you for thinking that's all history is since that's apparently what your school taught you

>>1061800
you are a dumb person who is not informed on history

>>1061955
I don't think anything of value was lost in those book burnings, thus the reason they were burned.

>>1061652
Groomers know all about the Miller Test, not surprising. Can probably name the age of consent by state, too.