sure, if critical race theory were child abuse, and if the author were a Russian aristo who fled to the US when the commies won. I suppose any logic can be applied to anything if we ignore what’s actually being discussed.
It really isn’t puritan to dislike Lolita and I think if you think that connection you’ve made through you’ll see why.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called ‘controversial,’ is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I’m not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can’t emphasise this enough, you’re responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
No, I suppose I should have been more exact, I assumed it would be obvious - if somebody who is a teacher, writes a dry, detached, scientific & academic paper about child abuse for the purpose of education and safeguarding, because they’re a qualified expert in a related regulated field, they shouldn’t be barred from teaching.
If some aristo writes a fantasy about the subject, yes they should be banned from teaching.
‘Fantasy’ implies it was written as an erotic novel, rather than a critique of child abuse. The narrative makes it very clear that the protagonist is a monster and that everything he did was horrible. For the last time please read the book and educate yourself about it before passing judgement, because banning a book you haven’t read but you think is pornographic despite everyone telling you otherwise makes you indistinguishable from the GOP freaks who are banning every book from school libraries that so much as acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
Ah well I think fantasy can have several meanings, but the one I intended was that of ‘imaginary’ or from the imagination, which I think is accurate.
Lots of ‘racy’ stories were disguised in the past as ‘critiques’ or condemnations - priests especially were quite skilled at this, and tabloids today are similar, I don’t think it means much.
I really don’t think its a good idea to conflate child abuse material (even with ‘disclaimers’) with LGBTQ+ people. I know the right do that, but I think claiming that a condemnation of Lolita is “indistinguishable” from books that are accepting of LGBTQ+ people is harmful.
sure, if critical race theory were child abuse, and if the author were a Russian aristo who fled to the US when the commies won. I suppose any logic can be applied to anything if we ignore what’s actually being discussed.
It really isn’t puritan to dislike Lolita and I think if you think that connection you’ve made through you’ll see why.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called ‘controversial,’ is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I’m not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
I am absolutely fucking disgusted with this shit
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can’t emphasise this enough, you’re responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
So if someone says “child abuse is bad” they should be banned from teaching, because they said something about child abuse, do I have this right?
No, I suppose I should have been more exact, I assumed it would be obvious - if somebody who is a teacher, writes a dry, detached, scientific & academic paper about child abuse for the purpose of education and safeguarding, because they’re a qualified expert in a related regulated field, they shouldn’t be barred from teaching.
If some aristo writes a fantasy about the subject, yes they should be banned from teaching.
Once again, Lolita is not a fantasy about child abuse. Please read the book.
it isn’t fiction? perhaps, these kind of things are often really confessionals.
‘Fantasy’ implies it was written as an erotic novel, rather than a critique of child abuse. The narrative makes it very clear that the protagonist is a monster and that everything he did was horrible. For the last time please read the book and educate yourself about it before passing judgement, because banning a book you haven’t read but you think is pornographic despite everyone telling you otherwise makes you indistinguishable from the GOP freaks who are banning every book from school libraries that so much as acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
Ah well I think fantasy can have several meanings, but the one I intended was that of ‘imaginary’ or from the imagination, which I think is accurate.
Lots of ‘racy’ stories were disguised in the past as ‘critiques’ or condemnations - priests especially were quite skilled at this, and tabloids today are similar, I don’t think it means much.
I really don’t think its a good idea to conflate child abuse material (even with ‘disclaimers’) with LGBTQ+ people. I know the right do that, but I think claiming that a condemnation of Lolita is “indistinguishable” from books that are accepting of LGBTQ+ people is harmful.