You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
First of all, I didn't say Lolita is indistinguishable from novels with LGBTQ+ themes, I said that you are indistinguishable from GOP book banners.
child abuse material
Oh my god shut the fuck up already. You have been told multiple times, in no uncertain terms, that Lolita is not a pornographic novel. Until you read the book, nothing you say matters, because you have made it perfectly clear you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, and despite every attempt by other people in this thread who have tried to politely correct you on this misunderstanding, you continue to repeat the same ignorant takes on this novel over and over again. You are, again, indistinguishable from a reactionary who makes up their mind on something and refuses to budge despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
@SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml told you in another part of this thread that "the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn't be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms" so I'll even share that passage with you:
I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conducive to attractiveness. He is ponderously capricious. Many of his casual opinions on the people and scenery of this country are ludicrous. A desperate honesty that throbs through his confession does not absolve him from sins of diabolical cunning. He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!
Shut the fuck up and read the fucking book. Seriously, I don't want to read another comment from you about this book until you have read it, because you have made it entirely clear you have zero clue what the actual novel is about.
Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. Best of luck, hope you learn something today.
I can't be indistinguishable from GOP book banners unless the books I want banned are the same, just going by the meaning of the word indistinguishable. Maybe you mean that my desire to ban a book is not distinguishable, but thats not the same as being indistinguishable from GOP 'freaks'. And of course, some books are eminently bannable - its very much a content issue.
I don't really pay much attention to what people who consume fantasies (fictions, if you prefer) involving child abuse tell me about the material they want me to read or view - its a danagerous thing to do, you can end up viewing child abuse material. I also don't pay much attention to disclaimers that authors might place in their works - I don't take fiction at face value, and I don't uncritically trust what authors write (I think that would be very naive), especially about topics they know will be subject to censorship.
Please don't try to share such material with me, thanks.
I don't take fiction at face value, and I don't uncritically trust what authors write (I think that would be very naive), especially about topics they know will be subject to censorship.
No no, of course not you would never do that! Instead you just don't read the things you complain about while making assumptions and refusing to shut the fuck up and check to see if you were even right first!
Get the fuck off our website