Defunding of women’s health programs such as planned parenthood started long before the actual ban

The biggest differences are that the interest rate is so jacked up, there’s no actual end date for the loan, and there’s little regard to the person’s ability to pay the loan back when getting it.

They’re more akin to sub prime mortgages than regular mortgages or auto loans in that last respect which were insanely predatory

Most of these loans are interest paying first. Which means the principle (which the interest is being calculated from) doesn’t go down. No other major loan is this fucked.

You get a car loan or mortgage, it’s set up so that you pay it off in X number years.

Good luck finding a student loan that you could do that with, especially when 75+% of your income goes to rent.

And entirely on brand

If he does, great. He can’t interrupt or defend any questions. Let the back and forth go through as normal with emphasis on the quiet that would be Trump’s responses

Damn, I knew I was forgetting one. Lol

Again when is that book appropriate? Restricting a book when they can easily get a copy online or find worse fanfiction is just silly to me.

If they want to read something I don’t want them to for whatever reason, making it forbidden is a good way to make sure they read it, especially for teenagers.

Back to the main point of this thread, book banning is not doing the kids any favors and only serves to restrict thinking and learning. Even bad twilight fanfiction can serve as an example of what shouldn’t happen.

It’s not even very good softcore porn. Tell me, at what age is reading about people having sex where one of the two uses their power and money to trick the other into thinking that they’re loved and not just some playboys breathing sex doll appropriate?

Edit: monitor? Yes. Actively discuss about? If they want to. If fifty shades interests them even after talking over what it’s about, that’s fine. They’re allowed to make mistakes to learn from. Our jobs as parents are to teach them and to help them figure out who they are, not hide them away from society and keep them in ignorance as long as possible.

If they bring home fifty shades, I’ll treat it just as if they brought in Dean Koontz or a copy of Grendel. I’d have a frank discussion about how not all books and writers are good. They can read it as examples of either what not to do or as warning signs to look out for, either in literature in general or in people’s actions. I’d also recommend better stories that they’ll enjoy more. If they bring home books I do enjoy but have either problematic contents or authors, I’ll treat it just the same. I love Asimov but the way he wrote women was gratuitously sexist. Lovecraft was xenophobic. Rowling is a terf and her house elves and goblins are definitely not good. Etc etc etc

And advise that they may get in trouble if they read it in front of some people because they have this weird hangup about preventing children from recognizing toxic relationships or the realities of the world.

If they’re old enough to understand the words and concepts in the book, it doesn’t do them any good to pretend like they don’t exist.

Again, withholding knowledge and understanding because people think the children must be protected reduces their own agency and tools to understand the world.

I’m in the anti-ban camp because restricting access to knowledge due to arbitrary lines like age is the opposite of learning. It is up to the reader and their mentors to guide their reading depending on ability and maturity as needed. No two people will have the same levels at the same age so books appropriate for one may not be appropriate for another.

That said, to nitpick a tad: pointing to the Internet when on a discussion of book banning or restrictions is more “red herring” or “false equivalence” than strawman.

‘Appropriate for children’ is what I have an issue with.

Withholding knowledge because of an arbitrary line is the antithesis of learning. Who gets to determine what is appropriate and for whom?

If my kid wants to read something with content that’s more mature, I’m ok with that. If I’ve read it, I’ll warn them of the more shaky bits that they’ll come across and what is and isn’t ok especially relative to their age and mentality.

If they bring home fifty shades, I’ll have a discussion about it with them and the concepts of consent as well as body autonomy and let them know that what happens in that book are not that.

I chose notoriously difficult books to get through. I’d have the same opinion for ‘the joy of sects’ and ‘the joy of sex’

I’m on the other end of the fence on this one. Knowledge shouldn’t be withheld due to arbitrary lines. If the parents aren’t tuned into what their children are reading or if the kid feels they must hide away what they’re reading, it’s indicative of more serious issues than books.

I say this with a kid who’s just starting to learn their letters and not at a point of reading on their own yet. If they want to pick up Ulysses or the silmarillion, I’m not stopping them. I will warn them they’ve chosen books that are very advanced and they will have more questions than answers while reading.

I always read it more acting as a final severing of their childhood to protect against It as it preferred to eat children. Not to mention as a more substantial blood pact as part of the ritual of chud to become metaphorically one being in the cosmic fight

The real turning point in the non cocaine years is Dreamcatcher. And that was morphine.

Which really explains Dreamcatcher.

I turned out mostly ok and was reading King well before 12. There were quite a few things I didn’t understand yet but it didn’t make me want to go out and assault people or something

Did you forget about the shit weasels in Dreamcatcher, the various instances of SA in Hearts in Atlantis, the forced abortion in the Gunslinger, insomnia, and so forth

Apparently not if Republican officials do it. See: Abbott and the migrants he sent to Martha’s vineyard.

Universal basic income, return to FDR era tax rates but factoring in current inflation and closing the loopholes, strong antitrust laws with teeth, tying c suite pay structure to a percentage over the lowest paid worker, and any bonus to top levels based on profit must be equally shared with everyone in the company.

Let’s throw in any fines are calculated based on a person’s income for good measure

You mean the three last remaining pieces of Ma Bell after the children mostly combined back together?