Why Don't Pedophiles Just 'Identify' As Librarians?
At least one estimate suggests that there are 158,464,880 unique books in the world. At least one million are available online. How many of these are banned or censored by your public school library?
I'm using the groomer's definition. A book can be accessible in print or electronically, delivered to a device or your door within minutes or days, but because someone does not want it on a school library shelf or accessible through a school-sponsored reading app, they call it book banning.
I'm going to guess that the average "school library" in my state bans (remember, their definition) at least 157 million titles, give or take. It's probably a lot more than that.
They also ban thousands of periodicals, audio, video, maybe hundreds of thousands in total or of each. That makes your average "public library" the most fascistic book banner in your town, city, or county - again, using their definition. And that's the rub. The liars parading around your state and mine screaming about not banning books are - as I have argued previously - and, by their definition, the worst book banners in human history.
They have "banned" more books than any religion or monarch, and Hitler’s got nothing on them.
This is, of course, absurd, just like their obsession with calling parents who don't want their kids subjected to age-inappropriate material book banners. We're discussing material you can’t show or read out loud at a public meeting or on television. Does that mean the town council and local "news" affiliates have banned these books? It must otherwise they'd be sharing their content with the world, which they refuse to do.
Bigots.
All of which brings us to the actual matter at hand. Priorities. Given the 158,464,880 or so choices a school or public library could make available, why shun more mainstream titles to make room on the shelf for books about cutting, adult-child sex, drug and alcohol use, suicide, or anything of a sexually explicit nature, as text or in drawings, cartoon, or other images.
Why are librarians exempt from the charge of groomer for allowing - even encouraging - access to sexually explicit material for minors? Have any pedophiles considered calling themselves librarians? It seems no less far-fetched than a 220-pound bearded sexual predator claiming to be a woman to gain access to the ladies’ room.
Identify as a librarian, and the proglodytes will not only praise you for grooming children but accuse anyone who tries to stop you, arrest or prosecute you as a bigot, and a book banner.
Self-identify a librarian, and maybe they’ll even insist you be removed from the sex offender registry.
That's a clever rhetorical trick, but if a library doesn't carry a book that it doesn't even know about, that's not remotely the same as deliberately choosing not to carry a book that it does know about -- especially if it is known because it was requested by some patrons, or recommended by library professionals, or even offered to the library for free (such as the books, written by me, that one patron offered to the library in Londonderry).
As usual everything comes back to funding. If you're using your own money to stock and operate a library, then you can put whatever materials you want in it. It's an expression of your thoughts about what's worth reading, and what's not.
But as soon as you're taking tax money (which is the case for all the libraries I know about, and which is absolutely the case for school libraries), then you have to take their thoughts into account as well. You can't use tax money to run an indoctrination center, any more than you can take tax money to run a church.
And if the problem is funding, one solution is to stop funding libraries with taxes. Another is to give every taxpayer veto power over what goes into a library that is using his taxes. I think the latter would lead to some interesting situations: Some taxpayers would veto *Gender Queer*, while others would veto the King James Bible. Personally, I'd be curious to see what would remain in a collection curated this way. It might have no materials at all... which would mean no funding would be required. :^D
Librarians are Socialists. They use their position to push their own ideology. The last ALA president admitted it. She was fired and schools dropped their membership.