• Carguacountii [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      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?

            • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              ‘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.

                • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  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.