Joy Reid: Books About Child Rape Provide Representation for LGBT Youth

This article quotes a‍ discussion of obscene and criminal sex acts.

Refusing to Stock Pornography in School Libraries:⁢ A Controversial‍ Comparison

MSNBC ⁤host Joy Reid recently sparked controversy by comparing‍ the refusal to⁣ stock pornography ⁤for kids in school libraries​ to banning black kids from ​school. ‌This statement⁢ came shortly after Reid expressed hatred towards some Iowans based ⁢on their skin color. The debate unfolded during a discussion ‍with Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice.

During the ⁣debate, Reid argued that books about child ⁣rape​ and sex toys are important ‍for​ LGBT kids to “feel seen,” and therefore, ⁢taxpayers should provide pornography to all kids.

Reid⁤ also expressed frustration with parent‍ advocates using Booklooks.com to‌ petition‍ for‍ the removal of books from school library shelves, claiming⁤ they take passages out of context.

During⁢ the debate, Justice highlighted the explicit content in one book, ⁣including themes of rape,⁢ incest, and​ pedophilia. ​Reid attempted to redirect the conversation⁤ by ‍asking about the‌ main character’s name, avoiding ⁢a direct response.

Reid questioned the right of parents who oppose such books to deny access to ‍them, arguing⁢ that liberal and ⁢LGBTQ parents should have the right to provide their children with these materials.

Justice emphasized that if a child relates to a ‍story involving ​rape or pedophilia, it‌ likely means​ they have been victimized. Reid interrupted ⁢again, avoiding a direct response.

Reid later made a controversial comparison, suggesting that allowing books like “All Boys‍ Aren’t Blue” in school libraries with an opt-out option for parents⁣ opposed⁢ to‍ explicit content would​ protect the rights of all parents, including black parents. This comparison implies that black ⁣parents ​desire graphic stories of obscenities, which is offensive and false.

Reid’s stance on providing pornography‌ to ⁢children and⁣ making taxpayers fund ⁢it is both incoherent and disturbing. She associates LGBT identification ⁤with incest and ⁣pedophile pornography, aligning herself with the creators of online pornography who deliberately insert explicit content into their​ videos.

It is important⁣ to recognize that black children, like all children, are not objects of obscenity but are made in God’s ⁤image. Reid’s comparison is‍ not only false but also blasphemous.

Reid’s position reveals ‍a disturbing aspect of‌ the Democratic ​party’s social credit hierarchy, where she ‍insists that exposing‍ children to pornography is crucial for those who identify as LGBT.

These views align with the intentions of online pornography creators,⁤ who aim ‌to convert ⁢individuals by‌ including explicit content ⁢involving transgender partners, children, and opposite-sex partners in videos targeted⁤ at ⁢children and heterosexuals.

It ⁣is clear that Reid’s stance is not only incoherent‍ but also aligns with‌ the interests of those ⁣promoting evil.

In what ways does the argument that pornography​ is necessary for ​LGBT kids to “feel seen” oversimplify the importance ⁤of inclusive and diverse literature that does not rely on explicit content

⁢ Ation⁣ by accusing Justice of being against diversity and inclusion.⁢ Justice responded by stating that it is not about diversity, but‍ about protecting children from explicit ‌and harmful content.

The comparison made by ⁤Reid between refusing to stock pornography and banning black kids ​from school is problematic and misguided. Banning‍ black children from education is⁢ a clear act of discrimination⁢ and⁣ oppression, rooted in racism. It is a violation of their fundamental rights and contributes to systemic inequality.

In contrast, refusing to‍ stock ⁢pornography in school libraries is a matter ‌of protecting children from⁤ inappropriate and potentially‌ harmful material. Children should have access to age-appropriate and educational ​resources that promote their well-being and development. Pornography, on the other hand, is not suitable material ​for children, as it‍ can portray explicit and criminal sex acts.

The argument that pornography is​ necessary for LGBT kids to “feel seen” is problematic as well.‍ It‍ implies that the only way for LGBT children to find representation and acceptance is ⁢through ⁤explicit sexual content. This is an oversimplification and ⁤undermines the ‌importance of inclusive ​and​ diverse literature that does not rely⁣ on explicit content to convey messages of acceptance and representation.

The role of parents and ‍guardians in advocating for the removal​ of explicit content from school libraries should not be dismissed or undermined.​ Parents‍ have the right to​ be involved‌ in their children’s education and‌ to⁤ ensure that they have‍ access‍ to appropriate material. Taking passages out of context is ⁢a legitimate concern, as⁢ it can distort the intended message of a book and⁣ expose children to content that may be harmful or inappropriate.

In conclusion, the refusal to stock pornography in school libraries⁢ should ‍not ‌be ⁣compared to banning black kids from school. The two issues ⁤are fundamentally different and should not be conflated. Protecting children⁤ from explicit and harmful content is an important responsibility, and parents have the right ⁤to advocate for their children’s well-being. It is essential​ to create inclusive and diverse learning environments ‍without ⁤relying on explicit⁤ material ‍to‌ promote acceptance and representation.