You couldn’t read it at your current age, Bob, so what are you afraid of?

More maggot lies. Those idiots will buy anything.

This isn’t a thing, and is thoroughly debunked, just like everything idiot bob posts.
Maggots have been doing this for years. Lying about what’s in libraries to excuse their total censorship of anything they find distasteful, but it’s not about the sex or violence ever because every single book banner and burner supports teaching the Bible in schools with its graphic sex, rapes, murders, torture, support for slavery, capricious god, constant repeating incest at its core, baby killings galore, etc.

Books similar to this are sometimes (rarely) found in a special area for upper class men at high schools in advanced creative writing classes, or colleges.
This has been debunked repeatedly. You maggots are constant liars. If he “found” it “at the entry door” in the middle school library, it’s because he or his dad brought it there just for this performance. Who honestly believes a middle school librarian gave a pillow book (look it up Bob) to an 11 year old and asked if he would like the graphic novel version (something that’s not a thing btw, written pornography isn’t released in multiple versions).
I don’t think he’s ever been in a library, because people who use libraries know you check out books, you don’t rent them out. They also know English better than these …people.
This ridiculous video itself is years old…he’s talking about masks too.

I would point out that this kid almost certainly has a cell phone, so he has total unfettered access to real pornography of much more deviant and graphic varieties than a slightly titillating story. Except for the Amish, no parent in America has a leg to stand on when it comes to providing pornography to their children, they give them porn access devices at under 7 now.

And another idiot covid denier, shocker. Somebody shoot this terrorist idiot and the rest. Hatriots are not patriots.
Just like every bob post, it’s more prejudice wrapped in hypocritical lies smothered in ignorance. His favorite meal.

Ben Franklin would have banned gay or porn also.

First book order:
In 1732, the Company's first book order was sent to London. James Logan, secretary to William Penn, assisted in picking the books. He was considered "the best Judge of Books in these Parts." In addition to having the largest personal library in Pennsylvania, the learned Logan knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Many of the earliest books in the Library's collection were either religious or educational tomes. But not all. As can be seen from other books donated by the Company's first members, there was an interest in politics, philosophy and business. Benjamin Franklin and others donated a number of works including A Collection of Several Pieces by John Locke and Plutarch's Morals. Franklin also donated his copy of Merchants Mappe of Commerce to the company. The books were kept in the librarian's lodgings.

I'd have zero qualm calling Theron's Aeon #3 pre-MMFR's Furiosa. But it's Theron, man... she can make a librarian look bad ass.

I don't think my wife & I have missed any movies with her as lead since Monster. Theron's just the creme de la creme in our book.

Ever try to trick a dog w/the fake stick toss? Even they stop and scan to find evidence. (ours learned the ruse quickly)

spins my gourd that folks are SO EASILY misled by these fairy tales of teachers indoctrinating kids (yet, they can't get them to sit still, stop talking, or return materials on time); fears of giving citizens PSTD with known history (but explaining why 'person. woman. man. camera. tv' is NOT unsettling); or libraries can't be trusted to be run by librarians but the by the government (what were Ben Franklin and Andrew Carnegie thinking?)

look, boy! go get the stick! (no wonder all the anger. can't find it. but it has to be here!)

BTW: Roy and Silo thing is nuts. (not mentioned but peripheral involved) rather listen to John Oliver analyze "Air Bud". a lot less loopy.

Librarians still make serious money in these days. The degree is still relevant and candidates are in demand.

Astonished @bobknight33 posted a video about Trump using more stolen data to further manipulate voters. Kudos.

This whole debacle is a prime example of why I won't ever join Facebook or other similar social media. It's been clear from day one they are not going to keep your data safe. Posting your life there is like writing everything you do and think in your diary that you then leave open in the public library every day, assuming the librarian is going to keep it private. Getting your information there is like wading into a mob of angry people and believing what you overhear them scream at each other. I just do not see the appeal, but I am pretty anti-social.

Fight me. Or experiment on me with psychedelic drugs -- PLEASE. Why does the government never do any of the cool experiments on its citizenry anymore? Such a let down. All they do now is jack off to the porn on my cellphone. CIA stands for "Creepy Introverts And?" *monotonous Ben Stein voice* Aaaannnddd?? Anyone? Anyone? *Bewitched nose crinkle and librarian voice* Mmmmm... could it beeeeeee -- Satan?!

You are gonna hate me now, but I grew up reading Dean Koontz and Stephen King years before the librarian at my middle suggested Lovecraft, so 12? My first Stephen King was Night Shift, with the eye in the middle of a mummified hand; Jerusalem's Lot ruined my ability to sleep. For some strange reason Lovecraft comforted me but King disturbed me lol -- My first Lovecraft reading was The Festival.

Anyway, it's my mom's fault, i jus read whatever she had lying around the house, which also included Mary Higgins Clark, Robert Ludlum, Danielle Steel, Michael Crichton, and who even knows what else.

Totally agree in having absorbed the material rather than fully understood. I mean shit, how does a 4th grader even under The Rising Sun? It's just shocking and strange. Like d3coding a new language.

I also read a lot of young adult thriller suspense books, notably Alfred Hitchcock's young readers books and short story collections. Ray Bradbury collections, random Asimov Foundation books, and old copies of Analog, that my dad would buy from local library sales. (Thas how poor people shop for books hahaha) He was the old school scifi guy, but not at all into horror.

I suppose I don't mind hacks. Reading the letters of Oscar Wilde changed my opinions on EVERYTHING. If Wilde belongs to the criminal class or what Danny Devito's character Frank terms the "Fringe" class, there must be some saving grace even in the intellectual crime of the hack writer.

Blonde walks into a library, approaches the reference desk and begins to place her order; "I'd like a double cheeseburger, an order of fries, and a large strawberry soda." Dumbfounded red-headed librarian rolls her eyes and proclaims, "Miss....this is a library."

Blonde lowers her voice to a whisper and begins again, "I'd like a double cheeseburger, an order of fries, and a large strawberry soda."

Yay! I'm marrying a librarian.

You could also blame books and homing pigeons -- Encyclopedia sets? Libraries? I spent many hours of my time as a child reading in these original information databases. I feel like the internet just brought a bunch of base fucks into a spectrum of reality that has always existed. Fucks that normally wouldn't spend their time consuming information in a database. Fucks that would market the shit out of every aspect of it. The perception of this video is a direct result of our internet being ground into dust.

At its mid-range potential, the internet is not much different than a library. I recall a lot of book-learned facts which are plain WRONG, including false and biased information, and unlabeled, incorrectly scaled maps being fairly constant. Yay Christopher Columbus! Yay happy natives! Yay dropping nuclear bombs on people! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyy

The internet brings ourselves closer and closer to instant, multi-perspective, peer-reviewed information, because we no longer need to thumb through catalogs, shelves, and pages, and everyone can contribute in a trusted, merit-based environment. Identify the fuckers of the internet. They pollute us with their bullshit. (I posit that I am not a fucker, I am merely disgruntled.)

One of my best friends is a librarian and the major difference he sees between Wikipedia and published books is that published books require new editions to replace outdated and incorrect information, potentially screwing over human memory for as long as that book isn't burned. (Sorry, rofl, I thought it was a funny way to phrase that. Plz don't burn books.)

The key is to avoid nonstop popular culture and focus on the vast educational potential of the internet.

And don't use social media.

And keep your mobile device's sound and vibration OFF. I love technology but don't let it reverse your human potential, let it augment. Focus on augmentation and factual checks & balances of the information you take in.

No to the conclusions from this video. No. No. NO! The net doesn't make us more superficial, we do and we always have.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

>> ^PlayhousePals:

The librarian sez: SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


Make me!

*wheels