comment: >
  
  It felt awful to type Matt Walsh's beliefs
context: Classic start with goal and work backwards >
  
  
  "Reasonable people everywhere recognize these books as obscene . . . “
  
  Religious fundamentalists are not “reasonable people.” >
  
  Religious fundamentalism is a form of child abuse >
  
  Just in case anyone forgets, here's a list of over 600 verified Republican sex offending politicians.
  Just a reminder:
  Gaslight
  Obstruct
  Project <---this one >
  
  thanks for the list. it's now a bookmark. i'll be sharing this every chance i get >
  
  
  Republican Rep.-elect Jeanette Ward has introduced House Bill 87, which expands the definition of “child pornography” to mean “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, cartoon, drawing, computer or computer generated image or picture, whether or not made or produced by electronic, mechanical or other means, or any other form of depiction of explicit sexual conduct.” 
  Based on this definition, many books that provide sexual health information to youth would be banned, along with several books that help LGBTQ+ youth learn about their identities.  
  Ward also helped members of the anti-LGBTQ+ group Moms for Liberty get elected to the Natrona County school board. Moms for Liberty members have been running for school board positions across the country as part of the right-wing effort to shift schools toward a more conservative ideology.
  
  ​
  This sort of rigamarole is sexual repression in action.
  ​
  If you only think of LGBTQIA+ people as inherently sexual, you have an all-around weird fascination with sex. Their position is laughably stupid when considering the A is for asexual people like me.
  ​
  Sexual repression and prudery is still an obsession with sex. Purity culture is still an obsession with sex. It's just obsessed with declaring everyone and everything wicked because they refuse to understand or learn anything past what the Bible says.
  ​
  Republicans claim we are all sex-obsessed crazies, but I've found no one thinks more about sex than Republicans do. >
  
  Anytime white people claim Liberty, get ready for the fuckery >
  
  Now we both know they don't wanna talk about that >
  
  I know 😏 >
  
  Funny that but they don’t want to extend it to the age of Matt Gaetz or Andrew Tait victims. >
  
  Or with subjecting their kids to child breeding advocate Matt Walsh videos. >
  
  They're the same party that deemed "the left going too far" as the left teaching what is and isn't consent. >
  
  Meanwhile, you have Matt "I violate my children's consent all the time" Walsh. >
  
  Oh, Matt "It's not that underage pregnancy is a problem, it's that they aren't married" Walsh? >
  
  I just had to swallow back down a bit of puke. He’s disgusting. >
  
  It felt awful to type Matt Walsh's beliefs >
  
  So nothing to do with actual child pornography... >
  
  Nope none >
  
  Children's books with mommy and daddy = wholesome
  Children's books with mommy and mommy = child porn >
  
  Biology books with depiction of nudity = abnormal.
  Biology books with fairy tales and creationist lies = godly science… >
  
  I really wish we weren't so stupidly puritanical about the naked body in this country. It causes so many unnecessary problems. >
  
  I was at a spa in berlin today. I saw at least 20 dongs and 20 pairs of boobs. I go there twice a week and I barely realize that I’m surrounded by nudity anymore. It’s just normal people being normal people. 
  Making nudity taboo seems quite abnormal to me. >
  
  Yup - same happened to me. You just get over it. >
  
  Clearly republicans never learned the concept of "ban thingy make people want thingy more"
  Just a stupid act of bigotry all around >
  
  Yup. Republicans are the town from Footloose. >
  
  The town in Footloose is based on Elmore City, here in Oklahoma. It's just west of Wynnewood on Highway 29.
  Voted for Trump by a 74-point margin in 2020, naturally. >
  
  Yup. I know. They still have a sign bragging about it, as if it's something to brag about. >
  
  Wow, look behaving exactly like nazis. I’d say don’t they know nazis went after queer people and sent them to the camps during the holocaust but then I remembered Americans schools purposely erase queer history down to rewriting the holocaust and how it unfolded. 
  An ignorant country breeds hateful people >
  
  It’s almost like the Nazis ideas of eugenics were wildly popular here in the US to the point that Ivy League papers were written on its benefits including the possible benefits of gas chambers. >
  
  Books a child reads should be regulated by his or her parents/caregivers, not big government.  You'd think that be a conservative principle. >
  
  Conservatives are all about fascism here. They just want to dominate others into their Christian nationalist hate group. That's why almost all their bills are written by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom & Focus on the Family. They want to subjugate everyone to their Christian nationalism and eliminate all that oppose their demands. It's horrible. >
  
  Can we redefine money laundering to include his mortgage payments? >
  
  Republicans are so threatened by gays! They are insane >
  
  Protect the kids from books but not bullets. Got it. >
  
  fnord >
  
  Why is this a priority and not finding who were Epstein's clients? >
  
  Guaranteed, every one of them has a trove of CP on their devices. It's ALWAYs projection. >
  
  With all of the projection, I don't want to know what's in her search history. >
  
  Fucking scum
  Make no mistake, this is book burning, just with less smoke >
  
  Do Republicans even govern anymore? >
  
  They screamed about petrol prices and inflation for a year, then the first week in they immediately jump to trash virtue signaling for their culture war bullshit and their rubes will cheer them on. The right wing voters are incredibly easy to manipulate >
  
  She probably has a full library in her personal office. >
  
  Republicans also want to expand the ways of being completely backwards and totally insufferable >
  
  Isn't the current definition giving then enough trouble already? >
  
  Wouldn’t the Bible be right at the top of that list? >
  
  GOP obsessed with shit that has nothing to do with running a country >
  
  So does this mean they will be banning the bible as well? >
  
  How about the bible then? >
  
  47 years in and the Bible is still the most obscene book I've ever read. >
  
  So tell me again how they can claim with a straight face that they're not Nazis? >
  
  Republicans are about to piss off a concerning amount of republicans just to show their homophobia, instead of doing anything to prevent child abuse. >
  
  With all due respect to the publication, but this is an unfortunate headline. It would have come off better if "to expand definition of 'child pornography'" were left out. As it is it sounds at first as if it were a technicality, which softens the morally abysmal goal that is mentioned only after. Alternatively, "wants to make it easier to ban...." and then followed by "by expanding definition..." would also provide an imo better perspective on the matter at hand. >
  
  Of course the first thing that the Twitter profile of this pig says is “christian”. And then it continues to blabber on about anti-vaxx shit and the usual shit that attracts every single current POS that votes for republicans. >
  
  Christian, anti-vaxx, and Fahrenheit 451 Facism? It's a Venn Diagram that exists as a circle. >
  
  AR 15 gun sales increase after mass shootings when politicians discuss banning them. It fits what the original comment said: if we ban thingy, more people will want thingy >
  
  Notice.  No  hard core right side. Has comment on this >
  
  Watch it backfire and then we can start banning the Bible everywhere >
  
  I guess Romeo is in big trouble, so is St. Joseph. >
  
  Are people being forced to read books at gunpoint somewhere in the US? >
  
  I expect Matt Gaetz to stand with the Democrats in opposition to expanding the definition >
  
  It’s sucks that the priorities between the left and right have diverged so far apart. >
  
  Maybe they should get with Pornhub and fix the filter >
  
  Jesus christ do kids even read fkin books anymore? I was watching dudes get fucked to death by horses and cannibalism online at like age 12, they're just virtue signaling as always with no attempt to ecen solve the problem, perceived or otherwise. >
  
  This is part of the retaliation for all the pedophile priest investigations. No just here but around the world. Right wing Qatholics everywhere are fighting back. >
  
  I know Maia Kobabe. They said literally that the book isn't meant for anyone under 16. They literally state that every single time. They also stated that the parts of the book people keep bringing up like you did were about their experiences with agita from being asexual (which I am). The part about their first sexual experience is something many asexual people (like me) relate to, being pressured into a sexual experience that's unwanted. That's what they were talking about. I was pressured into a similar situation (thankfully nothing happened of it), but yeah. This is why it's important to read the book and understand the context and the backstory as to what transpired.
  ​
  People claiming that this is somehow obscene—well sexual trauma is tough to talk about but it needs to be talked about anyway. There are countless people dealing with sexual trauma like Maia went through, and we can't just close our eyes to it. >
  
  I mean this genuinely in the kindest way possible, but the backstory and context (sexual trauma or stress) doesn't change whether the imagery is appropriate in a school library.  Whether it's addressing trauma or showing a healthy relationship, straight or gay, a picture of a blowjob shouldn't be in schools.  Call me old fashioned, I guess.
  Now, the fact that it has a 16+ "rating" is very relevant.  I suspect that the GOP is pretending that schools want to read this to kindergarteners, which they're obviously not.  But, I'm pretty sure I see people online as defending that the book should be allowed even in grade school libraries, as a knee-jerk reaction against perceived LGBTQ+ censorship. >
  
  Wouldn't this ban porn? >
  
  Conservative logic is wild.   
  We must SERIOUSLY curtail free speech rights and the 1st amendment FOR THE CHILDREN.  
  But also  
  Even if people are using their 2nd amendment rights to blow away classrooms full of a elementary school students we cannot regulate anything about it because 2nd amendment rights. >
  
  Because those "logic" is just a cover to veil their desire for power. 
  The 2nd amendment is only valid as long as it's in the hand of the "desired" >
  
  I’m only going to buy my adopted kids LGBTQIA2+ friendly books. They deserve to make their own informed decisions on the hedonistic pleasures life has in store for them. Oh boy I hate cissys >
  
  Republicans have always weirdly connected LGBTQ to pornography and pedophiles.  The obsession is weird and creepy.  For a party that yells about their freedoms and freedom of speech, they sure know how to crush the freedom of others. >
  
  Classic start with goal and work backwards >
  
  
  Republican Rep.-elect Jeanette Ward has introduced House Bill 87, which expands the definition of “child pornography” to mean “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, cartoon, drawing, computer or computer generated image or picture, whether or not made or produced by electronic, mechanical or other means, or any other form of depiction of explicit sexual conduct.” 
  Based on this definition, many books that provide sexual health information to youth would be banned, along with several books that help LGBTQ+ youth learn about their identities.  
  Ward also helped members of the anti-LGBTQ+ group Moms for Liberty get elected to the Natrona County school board. Moms for Liberty members have been running for school board positions across the country as part of the right-wing effort to shift schools toward a more conservative ideology.
  
  ​
  This sort of rigamarole is sexual repression in action.
  ​
  If you only think of LGBTQIA+ people as inherently sexual, you have an all-around weird fascination with sex. Their position is laughably stupid when considering the A is for asexual people like me.
  ​
  Sexual repression and prudery is still an obsession with sex. Purity culture is still an obsession with sex. It's just obsessed with declaring everyone and everything wicked because they refuse to understand or learn anything past what the Bible says.
  ​
  Republicans claim we are all sex-obsessed crazies, but I've found no one thinks more about sex than Republicans do. >
  
  
  “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, cartoon, drawing, computer or computer generated image or picture, whether or not made or produced by electronic, mechanical or other means, or any other form of depiction of explicit sexual conduct.”
  
  That sounds like all pornography. So milfs and gilfs are now child porn? >
  
  because it's an empty threat, porn is covered by the 1st amendment, full stop, no getting around that, no matter how loud the right wing yells about it. >
  
  What is and isn't covered by anything in our constitution is the sole discretion of the Supreme Court of the United States, which right now leans very heavily Conservative/Republican. >
  
  
  "Reasonable people everywhere recognize these books as obscene . . . “
  
  Religious fundamentalists are not “reasonable people.” >
  
  Religious fundamentalism is a form of child abuse >
  
  Just in case anyone forgets, here's a list of over 600 verified Republican sex offending politicians.
  Just a reminder:
  Gaslight
  Obstruct
  Project <---this one >
  
  thanks for the list. it's now a bookmark. i'll be sharing this every chance i get >
  
  Funny that but they don’t want to extend it to the age of Matt Gaetz or Andrew Tait victims. >
  
  Or with subjecting their kids to child breeding advocate Matt Walsh videos. >
  
  They're the same party that deemed "the left going too far" as the left teaching what is and isn't consent. >
  
  Meanwhile, you have Matt "I violate my children's consent all the time" Walsh. >
  
  Oh, Matt "It's not that underage pregnancy is a problem, it's that they aren't married" Walsh? >
  
  I just had to swallow back down a bit of puke. He’s disgusting.