> After all, my library could be run by Scientologists attempting to propagandize children, or Soviet-era

I admitted it was a leap and you're absolutely free to clarify what you meant instead of pointing out some ridiculous edge cases without explaining yourself.

> Regardless of what material it is, yes, anyone who propagandizes children really is "dangerous", and not in the fake patronizing way that the the author of the article means it either.

I don't see how having books with queer characters is propaganda but having books with straight characters isn't. I'm queer and I don't go around insisting that people ban Christian books from the children's section even though I think those values aren't great.

But why did you make that particular leap with your utterly baseless accusation? And why are you saying that anyone else propagandizing children would be "ridiculous edge cases"? I urge you to work out your priors.