Not defending a book. Calling out shitty arguments. Couldn’t give two shits about scary clown book. Care a lot about people using shit arguments that can be weaponized by bad actors.
You’re literally in here calling people pedophiles for suggesting that there may be some literary context to something that makes people uncomfortable.
Sorry buddy, you can’t gaslight me. The people I called pedophiles were being such vile, open pedophiles that their comments got removed. Because they were being pedophiles.
I don’t think there is much of any kind of literary context that can defend writing multiple pages of children having sex in graphic detail, especially in a book where the sexual abuse of children is not a primary theme, nor anything regarding child sexuality being a major theme of the book. It literally just takes a turn from “children scared of scary clown” to “the 11 year olds all decide they Must pressure their friend into a gangbang so they won’t die virgins” and then moves on from it entirely as if it never happened. The context of the story is entirely unchanged if you remove the scene, as we can tell from EVERY adaptation of the book into film.
Can’t help you there, haven’t read it.
And nobody said anyone’s calling for bans- I’m saying I’m seeing people make the same arguments made by reactionaries to justify bans.
Why are you stepping in to defend a book you haven’t read from a strawman argument that people aren’t making?
Not defending a book. Calling out shitty arguments. Couldn’t give two shits about scary clown book. Care a lot about people using shit arguments that can be weaponized by bad actors.
Reading comprehension. Get some.
Which arguments?
You’re literally in here calling people pedophiles for suggesting that there may be some literary context to something that makes people uncomfortable.
Sorry buddy, you can’t gaslight me. The people I called pedophiles were being such vile, open pedophiles that their comments got removed. Because they were being pedophiles.
I don’t think there is much of any kind of literary context that can defend writing multiple pages of children having sex in graphic detail, especially in a book where the sexual abuse of children is not a primary theme, nor anything regarding child sexuality being a major theme of the book. It literally just takes a turn from “children scared of scary clown” to “the 11 year olds all decide they Must pressure their friend into a gangbang so they won’t die virgins” and then moves on from it entirely as if it never happened. The context of the story is entirely unchanged if you remove the scene, as we can tell from EVERY adaptation of the book into film.
Point to those arguments. Go on.