Forums / Discussion / General

231,071 total conversations in 7,736 threads

+ New Thread


Featured Featured
Politics General

Last posted May 29, 2023 at 06:32PM EDT. Added Jan 01, 2017 at 06:26PM EST
15637 posts from 261 users

Strangely enough, I'd say it's better so far than 2022 and 2020. No new wars or diseases, just us grappling with the after-effects.

In other news, New York's Mayor Eric Adams have planned a series of budget cuts for public libraries during the weekends, all the while upping the budget of the police.

The weekends, the time where the young and workers have the free-time to visit libraries, it would effectively cut off public libraries (and would probably increase delinquency). I loved having access to libraries as a place to be left alone when I was a teen, and it's monstrous to take that away, in what is supposed to be one of the richest areas on earth.

It's apparently been called off now, but what a counter-productive move that would have been.

Mr. Adams said in a statement that libraries are “vital centers of learning and enrichment” and that he wants to avoid cutting critical services.

Bullshit. If he truly believed that, he wouldn't have tried to cut it.

PEN America and other organizations, Students, supporters of education and Librarians fighting together is what works.

Last edited Apr 26, 2023 at 08:11AM EDT

Student groups are facing off against moral guardians such as "Moms for Liberty" (what a Bush-era name) in places such as Pennsylvania, and I think it's worthwhile to see learn more about these so-called champions of "parental rights".

Moms for Liberty has become the largest driver of the nationwide book banning crusade

Lobby group wants LGBTQ+ kids in separate classrooms ‘like children with autism, Down’s syndrome’

In June 2022, Cabot, Arkansas Police opened an investigation after a recording surfaced featuring one of the group's leaders, Melissa Bosch, fantasizing about shooting school librarians, saying "they would all be plowed down with a freaking gun" from Wikipedia

There's that Bush Era level of sociopathy.

This is the true face of the book-ban, who would still try to play down their malevolence?

Last edited Apr 26, 2023 at 08:10AM EDT

Gilan wrote:

Student groups are facing off against moral guardians such as "Moms for Liberty" (what a Bush-era name) in places such as Pennsylvania, and I think it's worthwhile to see learn more about these so-called champions of "parental rights".

Moms for Liberty has become the largest driver of the nationwide book banning crusade

Lobby group wants LGBTQ+ kids in separate classrooms ‘like children with autism, Down’s syndrome’

In June 2022, Cabot, Arkansas Police opened an investigation after a recording surfaced featuring one of the group's leaders, Melissa Bosch, fantasizing about shooting school librarians, saying "they would all be plowed down with a freaking gun" from Wikipedia

There's that Bush Era level of sociopathy.

This is the true face of the book-ban, who would still try to play down their malevolence?

Admitting their endgame a little early it seems

Gilan wrote:

Student groups are facing off against moral guardians such as "Moms for Liberty" (what a Bush-era name) in places such as Pennsylvania, and I think it's worthwhile to see learn more about these so-called champions of "parental rights".

Moms for Liberty has become the largest driver of the nationwide book banning crusade

Lobby group wants LGBTQ+ kids in separate classrooms ‘like children with autism, Down’s syndrome’

In June 2022, Cabot, Arkansas Police opened an investigation after a recording surfaced featuring one of the group's leaders, Melissa Bosch, fantasizing about shooting school librarians, saying "they would all be plowed down with a freaking gun" from Wikipedia

There's that Bush Era level of sociopathy.

This is the true face of the book-ban, who would still try to play down their malevolence?

I trust those two sources about as much as I'd trust the Daily Wire or Fox News. But reading through them, this is what I found.

The headline about the lobby group by Pink News is misleading because it says that one person they interviewed necessarily is the statement on behalf of the entire group. Essentially, it's clickbait because it ascribes the position of one wacky individual to the entire group.

The moms for liberty article is from September of 2022, so about 7 months ago. Now to give the devil his due, the books are only about what is to be banned from a school library and not preventing students from reading them wholesale or accessing them by other means. Ultimately this comes down to the books in question, but this article is far from unbiased on the matter or even solid reporting, especially because the only book mentioned is 13 Reasons Why. I'd need to see a list of books the organization as a whole wants gone to make a judgement.

AnonymousGuy wrote:

I trust those two sources about as much as I'd trust the Daily Wire or Fox News. But reading through them, this is what I found.

The headline about the lobby group by Pink News is misleading because it says that one person they interviewed necessarily is the statement on behalf of the entire group. Essentially, it's clickbait because it ascribes the position of one wacky individual to the entire group.

The moms for liberty article is from September of 2022, so about 7 months ago. Now to give the devil his due, the books are only about what is to be banned from a school library and not preventing students from reading them wholesale or accessing them by other means. Ultimately this comes down to the books in question, but this article is far from unbiased on the matter or even solid reporting, especially because the only book mentioned is 13 Reasons Why. I'd need to see a list of books the organization as a whole wants gone to make a judgement.

The latter is from MSNBC interview that this member had, would you contest the veracity of it, or the authority of this member? Remember that it's MSNBC, so those from that group sent to talk to them have the responsibility of being a spokesman.

It's not a "lone member" off the streets, after all later on the show Moms for Liberty Miami-Dade chapter chair Eulalia Jimenez said that kids are being “influenced to be gay.” It's actually worth discussing in detail, because I sense a certain deja-vu in terms of sophistry involved:

“The kids that do have their, you know, they’re confused, or they are gay or whatnot,” said Moms for Liberty Miami-Dade member Crystal Alonso, “that the way they’re trying to go about it is to make it an open conversation and an open thing in classrooms.”
“But like for example children with autism, Down Syndrome, they have to have special IP meetings with a counselor, they have to be put into separate classrooms. I understand, because it’s a different type of education for children with those disabilities, but I think that for children that identify differently, there should also be like a specialized… something for them, so that they feel that they’re important enough that they’re being counseled.”

No repudiation from her buddy next to her while she said that, have you noticed? It seems even in her attempted diplomatic language, it can't be hidden she's "wacky". If you don't think it's group policy, their actions have been to:

The group has offered a $500 bounty for information on teachers using critical race theory, they also demanded schools pull books about Ruby Bridges and Martin Luther King Jr., saying the depictions of racism were too disturbing for young children.

Offering bounties on people, that is a measure that some are trying to pretend is normal now.

As for the 7 month cutoff, you are using a very short timeline to invalidate an article, aren't you? Well, I am having flashbacks to arguments from one year ago about the book ban, I'm sorry to tell you that there's been progression since the "we're not really banning books" stance, what with the spate with public libraries the situation has progressed to since than.

Here's the current list of the books the organization wants gone

It's google drive, in their own words.

To quote them:

“When the opposition protests and holds signs proclaiming that you cannot love liberty and ban books remember; first, we are not banning books; but, because liberty has a moral foundation, you absolutely can demand that sexually explicit, corrupt text be removed or restricted because that is the RIGHT thing to do.”

Or in other words, "Oh we're not that extreme"

Well, than one of them talks about gunning down librarians, and the mask slips. That's what I wanted to highlight about the sophistry involved, and which you did gloss over. To be the devil's advocate, I don't think that she could be classified as simply wacky.

Oh yes, I had neglected to also mention that while they are for the removing of books, Moms for Liberty (whose structure means they curiously don't have to make their donors knowns) have partnered with multiple conservative organizations to distribute and "encourage" these books.

All the while they've been linked to other incidents of harassement. One got charged for it, after all . Not a leader of course, it wasn't a threat at all, she's just one individual.

And that's not even mentioning their blackshirt electoral strategy of some wacky individuals, in the group:

Moms for Liberty has targeted teachers, administrators, parents, and school board members, orchestrating harassment campaigns that have left people fearing for their safety--and in some cases, their lives.
One of those surprised by Moms for Liberty’s presence in the more liberal corners of America is Dianne Jones, who successfully ran for re-election to the Fremont School Board in Santa Clara last year against Moms for Liberty-backed candidate Jennifer Kavouniaris.
“I live in the Bay Area in California, one of the most progressive places in the country. If a candidate like this can gain traction here, I’m nervous for the rest of the country,” Jones told VICE News. “The process of running against this candidate was grueling and, at times, frightening,” Jones said. “During the campaign I was called a tyrant, an extremist, a Marxist, a ‘groomer,’ and a danger to children. My family had to take extra security precautions"
As well as attacking Jones publicly, Kavouniaris also sought to derail her opponent’s campaign privately, sending direct messages that called attention to the fact that Jones’ eldest son was transgender and had just qualified as a teacher. “There is a fine line between pride and grooming,” Kavouniaris wrote in one text message reviewed by VICE News, referencing a picture of Jones’ son in his classroom, which featured a trans flag.
When Kavouniaris lost, rather than conceding, she circulated voter fraud conspiracy theories and on her social media accounts continues to attempt to undermine social and emotional learning and sex ed curriculums in her local public schools--even though she has admitted her own daughter attends private school.

Curious, parental rights for a school her kid doesn't even go to. MFL really goes above and beyond.

Last edited Apr 26, 2023 at 03:49PM EDT

Gilan wrote:

The latter is from MSNBC interview that this member had, would you contest the veracity of it, or the authority of this member? Remember that it's MSNBC, so those from that group sent to talk to them have the responsibility of being a spokesman.

It's not a "lone member" off the streets, after all later on the show Moms for Liberty Miami-Dade chapter chair Eulalia Jimenez said that kids are being “influenced to be gay.” It's actually worth discussing in detail, because I sense a certain deja-vu in terms of sophistry involved:

“The kids that do have their, you know, they’re confused, or they are gay or whatnot,” said Moms for Liberty Miami-Dade member Crystal Alonso, “that the way they’re trying to go about it is to make it an open conversation and an open thing in classrooms.”
“But like for example children with autism, Down Syndrome, they have to have special IP meetings with a counselor, they have to be put into separate classrooms. I understand, because it’s a different type of education for children with those disabilities, but I think that for children that identify differently, there should also be like a specialized… something for them, so that they feel that they’re important enough that they’re being counseled.”

No repudiation from her buddy next to her while she said that, have you noticed? It seems even in her attempted diplomatic language, it can't be hidden she's "wacky". If you don't think it's group policy, their actions have been to:

The group has offered a $500 bounty for information on teachers using critical race theory, they also demanded schools pull books about Ruby Bridges and Martin Luther King Jr., saying the depictions of racism were too disturbing for young children.

Offering bounties on people, that is a measure that some are trying to pretend is normal now.

As for the 7 month cutoff, you are using a very short timeline to invalidate an article, aren't you? Well, I am having flashbacks to arguments from one year ago about the book ban, I'm sorry to tell you that there's been progression since the "we're not really banning books" stance, what with the spate with public libraries the situation has progressed to since than.

Here's the current list of the books the organization wants gone

It's google drive, in their own words.

To quote them:

“When the opposition protests and holds signs proclaiming that you cannot love liberty and ban books remember; first, we are not banning books; but, because liberty has a moral foundation, you absolutely can demand that sexually explicit, corrupt text be removed or restricted because that is the RIGHT thing to do.”

Or in other words, "Oh we're not that extreme"

Well, than one of them talks about gunning down librarians, and the mask slips. That's what I wanted to highlight about the sophistry involved, and which you did gloss over. To be the devil's advocate, I don't think that she could be classified as simply wacky.

So reading the list of books, most of these I'd argue all of these should be for college students. It's a question of literary merit, I feel, and books like 1984, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man have sexual components as part of their core themes but also are of such literary merit to the western canon that removing them is wrong. Kids can still access them by other means, but hosting them in a setting like a school where an authority figure has them read this and interpret it in particular ways (The "social construct" section seems expressly to come from a very particular political framework and not promoting the neutrality that public education should seek)

The exceptions I'd point towards are the Perks of Being a Wall Flower, The absolutely True Confessions of a Part Time Indian, and Assassination Classroom, but if only in middle schools. The rest have graphic depictions of sex, which is fair to call not age-appropriate. Students can-and likely are given my experience recently having graduated high school in 2020. However, there is a difference between kids being exposed to things outside of school and being exposed to things by an authority figure like an instructor, and human psychology tells us people in position of authority have great sway over student which is why there are standards for teaching people how to think and critical thinking skills over what specifically to think.

As for the other claims, nowhere can I find anything that says Crystal Alonso is anything but just a member, which was the person you were making the claim about wanting gay segregation, but then cite a different claim by Eulalia Jimenez to prove that the claim by Crystal Alonso was a position of the larger organization when Jimenez is just a chapter chair and wasn't the one who made the claim.

I looked into the Ruby Bridges/MLK claim and the issue was more with the violence depicted in the books than the actual message, but still the books passed the CRT law in Tennessee and so was dismissed because it did not promote any activism or CRT.

The 7 month thing was not a cutoff, it was a response to the implication it was a new or recent development. I did not claim it was a cutoff, just thought it was odd.

Not to be rude, but it seems to me you're gish-galloping and trying to shoot out as many claims as possible rather than directly addressing specific arguments. For instance, what does one rando talking about gunning down librarians have to do with the larger message? It seems to be cherry picking rather than focusing on the claim head on or representing the opposing argument. The central claim is if these books that you laid out should be in a public school and or not, which will vary book by book and require assessment thereof, especially in regards to curriculum.

This also ignores the argument that because these are parents with kids in the public school system, them having say over curriculum is a right they have as a member of the public who pays taxes and who has an interest in their child's education. Even if I were to disagree with their assessment, if the people of their counties agree that this material is inappropriate or should not be taught to their students, ultimately it is their decisions as the institution of public education is ultimately accountable to its electorate and has a duty to serve them before any other interest.

Gilan wrote:

Oh yes, I had neglected to also mention that while they are for the removing of books, Moms for Liberty (whose structure means they curiously don't have to make their donors knowns) have partnered with multiple conservative organizations to distribute and "encourage" these books.

All the while they've been linked to other incidents of harassement. One got charged for it, after all . Not a leader of course, it wasn't a threat at all, she's just one individual.

And that's not even mentioning their blackshirt electoral strategy of some wacky individuals, in the group:

Moms for Liberty has targeted teachers, administrators, parents, and school board members, orchestrating harassment campaigns that have left people fearing for their safety--and in some cases, their lives.
One of those surprised by Moms for Liberty’s presence in the more liberal corners of America is Dianne Jones, who successfully ran for re-election to the Fremont School Board in Santa Clara last year against Moms for Liberty-backed candidate Jennifer Kavouniaris.
“I live in the Bay Area in California, one of the most progressive places in the country. If a candidate like this can gain traction here, I’m nervous for the rest of the country,” Jones told VICE News. “The process of running against this candidate was grueling and, at times, frightening,” Jones said. “During the campaign I was called a tyrant, an extremist, a Marxist, a ‘groomer,’ and a danger to children. My family had to take extra security precautions"
As well as attacking Jones publicly, Kavouniaris also sought to derail her opponent’s campaign privately, sending direct messages that called attention to the fact that Jones’ eldest son was transgender and had just qualified as a teacher. “There is a fine line between pride and grooming,” Kavouniaris wrote in one text message reviewed by VICE News, referencing a picture of Jones’ son in his classroom, which featured a trans flag.
When Kavouniaris lost, rather than conceding, she circulated voter fraud conspiracy theories and on her social media accounts continues to attempt to undermine social and emotional learning and sex ed curriculums in her local public schools--even though she has admitted her own daughter attends private school.

Curious, parental rights for a school her kid doesn't even go to. MFL really goes above and beyond.

Out of curiosity, it seems you're citing very biased organization from the left consistently. Now I know this does not dismiss the argument out of hand, but it does seem that at the very least that indicates a lack of exposure to both sides of the isle, or trying to dig into the primary sources behind the story, rather than using intermediaries at the press. Vice, Media Matters, MSNBC, etc. should all be taken with a grain of salt-just as the Daily Wire, Fox News, and Breitbart should be taken with massive grains of salt.

However, if it is true they are distributing rightist material, I will condemn it but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their argument about inappropriate material in school and that should be addressed separately. All of this is ultimately irrelevant to that claim is the crux of the argument, for which it doesn't seem to me like you're addressing, and are instead throwing unrelated things like Jennifer Kavouniaris vs Dianne Jones which is not ultimately related to the truth of if this material is appropriate or not for public schools.

AnonymousGuy wrote:

So reading the list of books, most of these I'd argue all of these should be for college students. It's a question of literary merit, I feel, and books like 1984, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man have sexual components as part of their core themes but also are of such literary merit to the western canon that removing them is wrong. Kids can still access them by other means, but hosting them in a setting like a school where an authority figure has them read this and interpret it in particular ways (The "social construct" section seems expressly to come from a very particular political framework and not promoting the neutrality that public education should seek)

The exceptions I'd point towards are the Perks of Being a Wall Flower, The absolutely True Confessions of a Part Time Indian, and Assassination Classroom, but if only in middle schools. The rest have graphic depictions of sex, which is fair to call not age-appropriate. Students can-and likely are given my experience recently having graduated high school in 2020. However, there is a difference between kids being exposed to things outside of school and being exposed to things by an authority figure like an instructor, and human psychology tells us people in position of authority have great sway over student which is why there are standards for teaching people how to think and critical thinking skills over what specifically to think.

As for the other claims, nowhere can I find anything that says Crystal Alonso is anything but just a member, which was the person you were making the claim about wanting gay segregation, but then cite a different claim by Eulalia Jimenez to prove that the claim by Crystal Alonso was a position of the larger organization when Jimenez is just a chapter chair and wasn't the one who made the claim.

I looked into the Ruby Bridges/MLK claim and the issue was more with the violence depicted in the books than the actual message, but still the books passed the CRT law in Tennessee and so was dismissed because it did not promote any activism or CRT.

The 7 month thing was not a cutoff, it was a response to the implication it was a new or recent development. I did not claim it was a cutoff, just thought it was odd.

Not to be rude, but it seems to me you're gish-galloping and trying to shoot out as many claims as possible rather than directly addressing specific arguments. For instance, what does one rando talking about gunning down librarians have to do with the larger message? It seems to be cherry picking rather than focusing on the claim head on or representing the opposing argument. The central claim is if these books that you laid out should be in a public school and or not, which will vary book by book and require assessment thereof, especially in regards to curriculum.

This also ignores the argument that because these are parents with kids in the public school system, them having say over curriculum is a right they have as a member of the public who pays taxes and who has an interest in their child's education. Even if I were to disagree with their assessment, if the people of their counties agree that this material is inappropriate or should not be taught to their students, ultimately it is their decisions as the institution of public education is ultimately accountable to its electorate and has a duty to serve them before any other interest.

For your first and second paragraph, in the interest of brevity (and while I appreciate your view on the matter of appropriateness), I disagree and consider it irrelevant with the involved books whose contents you could not find a sufficiently strong objection against.

I have read 1984, Dracula and the Invisible Men in middle school, and much of the others are the sort of pearl-clutching nowadays which is unacceptable. I was even aware in CM2 (that's 5th grade) of the Illiad and the Hundred Year's War (and what happened to it's actors).
When ones makes an argument of moral sensibilities, don't forget that people hold different weight to it. Prior to the book ban I considered American education to be curiously stunted and low--performing, but that was just my opinion.

It's when moral guardians bring in the state to regulate however, that discussions and criticisms of lines start, especially when a group uses tactics which relies on hostile tactics.

Speaking of law & moral standards, I would also council you against being on this site, since I do not think it would be appropriate for your development. If you're of the US and are under 21, there may actually be laws broken for some content on this site, for some jurisdictions.

That you mention the quality of teachers is important, but it's debatable on the effectiveness of that considering the solution has been to ban books instead, since Florida is easing teaching requirements

As for the other claims, nowhere can I find anything that says Crystal Alonso is anything but just a member, which was the person you were making the claim about wanting gay segregation, but then cite a different claim by Eulalia Jimenez to prove that the claim by Crystal Alonso was a position of the larger organization when

You've made an error in reading, perhaps because I didn't make it clear enough. To order the events, you made the claim that she was irrelevant, just one member who is not representative of the group's policies.

She was part of an interview on behalf of a group, that engenders the role of a spokesman, and without the objection of the other member when she made those statements. That is a responsibility of any group which has it's members undergo interviews. I did not say she's anything but a member, and mentioned Eulalia Jimenez who's a person of actual authority is to show that the attitude is not an aberration.

I looked into the Ruby Bridges/MLK claim and the issue was more with the violence depicted in the books than the actual message, but still the books passed the CRT law in Tennessee and so was dismissed because it did not promote any activism or CRT.

Which means that Moms for Liberty as a group made a spurious claim of a book of MLK. To build upon my first argument, to attempt to ban a book is a morally neutral action. To fail and be proven that

I mentioned the 7 months, because I wondered what the purpose was of your argument, you seem to have a habit of shifting the importance of events. Especially for a group whose formation was in June 2021.

Not to be rude, but it seems to me you're gish-galloping and trying to shoot out as many claims as possible rather than directly addressing specific arguments.

Not at all, I'm willing to extend my arguments to address yours. I hope that I've been answering everything you brought up. The initial headlines are a consequence of this forum, some discussions have started on twitter screenshots.

Which is why I want to bring something up:

For instance, what does one rando talking about gunning down librarians have to do with the larger message?

Do you know why I mentioned sophistry a few times? It is the use of arguments in bad faith, of being fallacious. We can't read minds, but the specific tone and arguments by "Moms for Liberty" compared with their actual actions is an example of sophistry.

To continue, the full phrase which you didn't even need to go to a link to read was:

_ Police opened an investigation after a recording surfaced featuring one of the group's leaders, Melissa Bosch, fantasizing about shooting school librarians, saying "they would all be plowed down with a freaking gun"_

Setting aside different moral sensibilities (for example, I don't care about some descriptions in texts, but do care about actual violence), she is Melissa Bosch, an administrator of the Moms for Liberty Lonoke County.

That you characterize her as a "rando", well, not to be rude, but it made me wonder whether your argument is in good faith.

You are also dictating my argument to me, and it is not correct. This is not solely an argument on whether these books should be in public school, but whether those for book bans even have the right to do so, and an eye on their overall strategy.

>Even if I were to disagree with their assessment

Do you now?

>If the people of their counties agree that this material is inappropriate or should not be taught to their students, ultimately it is their decisions as the institution of public education is ultimately accountable to its electorate and has a duty to serve them before any other interest.

I disagree, you mistake public servants being employees of the general public, and it's institutions being solely molded by whims. Democracy is not two wolves agreeing to eat the sheep.

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 04:01PM EDT

AnonymousGuy wrote:

Out of curiosity, it seems you're citing very biased organization from the left consistently. Now I know this does not dismiss the argument out of hand, but it does seem that at the very least that indicates a lack of exposure to both sides of the isle, or trying to dig into the primary sources behind the story, rather than using intermediaries at the press. Vice, Media Matters, MSNBC, etc. should all be taken with a grain of salt-just as the Daily Wire, Fox News, and Breitbart should be taken with massive grains of salt.

However, if it is true they are distributing rightist material, I will condemn it but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their argument about inappropriate material in school and that should be addressed separately. All of this is ultimately irrelevant to that claim is the crux of the argument, for which it doesn't seem to me like you're addressing, and are instead throwing unrelated things like Jennifer Kavouniaris vs Dianne Jones which is not ultimately related to the truth of if this material is appropriate or not for public schools.

Vice News was founded by Gavin McInnes, why would you even say it's leftist?

As I asked about the extracts from MSNBC, do you have arguments, or is it simply a discomfort with sources? I've had to look over Fox News segments for an argument in this thread.

A primary source like Moms for Liberty's owns words for their list of banned books should have proven useful than. After all, while your first response did try to dismiss the second comment out of hand, I think the information is correct in this case.

Also, as I've said, you've decide the crux of this argument is the material. It is not for me, maybe it is for you. It is the methods and harassement involved and the extent of it by the pro-book ban groups. That is has transcended being a dry discussion on education for the past few months.

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 04:24PM EDT

I appreciate that the book ban discussions has spread away from this forum, frustrated as I was by the tendency of many here to downplay it and the theocratic policies over the past year.

Once it reached the general user-base, suddenly they were better able to explain a lot of things, as well as bring up new arguments.

by Timey16

If you look at the lists of banned books: most are books dealing with minorities, racism, the civil rights area, the slavery era as well as puberty.

You know the kind of things kids are supposed to learn in school about as well as books dealing with their questions and problems growing up.

They ban these books because they don't adhere to their hyper conservative "values", that's it. There is no objectivity behind it no real criteria on what is suitable or not. It's completely arbitrary and based entirely on "no we don't want kids to know about these things".

Short, not as long-winded as I tend to be, but it's more impactful for it, it goes for the jugular, the truth of the matter.

That 1984 was one of the named books which are now subject to debate shows the slippery slope in action, one year ago I was told that they're just banning perverted books, not something important like 1984. The initial excuse of appropriateness is a lie, it's a simple power-grab.

Yes, I like to post references from different "sides", I prefer to avoid partisanship as I'm frustrated by it. But when you're facing deliberate bad faith as the true goal is obfuscated, when a group calls themselves "Moms for Liberty" despite pressuring for book bans, all the while they try to paint themselves as simple concerned citizens.

Well, than there comes a time to realize being reasonable doesn't mean continually leaving an opening for a sucker-punch from a two-faced gambit.

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 04:34PM EDT

Gilan wrote:

Vice News was founded by Gavin McInnes, why would you even say it's leftist?

As I asked about the extracts from MSNBC, do you have arguments, or is it simply a discomfort with sources? I've had to look over Fox News segments for an argument in this thread.

A primary source like Moms for Liberty's owns words for their list of banned books should have proven useful than. After all, while your first response did try to dismiss the second comment out of hand, I think the information is correct in this case.

Also, as I've said, you've decide the crux of this argument is the material. It is not for me, maybe it is for you. It is the methods and harassement involved and the extent of it by the pro-book ban groups. That is has transcended being a dry discussion on education for the past few months.

Vice News was founded by Gavin McInnes, why would you even say it's leftist?

Because any assessment of their modern content, irrelevant to who founded the company and what their views are now, would clearly indicate a left wing bias if not an outright leftist one depending on who is the contributor. You can look at anything from transparencytube, allsides or anything that categorizes News organizations and pundits and see it's very clearly leftist. Look at any of its front page stories and you can see which side of the isle it's attacking and what it promotes.

I'm familiar with MSNBC because I've seen the stories from Rachael Madow, Joy Reid, etc. and being familiar with the stories they cover, it's clear they take the establishment left position just as Fox news takes the establishment right position. If you are looking for the truth of a situation, going to a news story rather than finding the original source or going through the media in general is not your best option. Not only are they known for deceptive editing and audience capture, but their primary goal is to make a profit and make things as incendiary sounding as possible.

I'm not a right-winger. Every political test, moral intuition test, or philosophy test has me score most consistency with liberalism. However, when I try to find the truth behind the matter, I must put my own bias aside and assess the claims as best faith as possible at their core.

There's an old joke about two fish going for a swim and one says to the other, "How's the water?" The other fish looking bewildered asks "Dude, what's water?" Culture works like that and if you only consume media and culture from one paradigm and never engage or remain ignorant of other paradigms, then you'll never be able to understand the truth or find where they go wrong.

If you're familiar with moral foundations theory as laid out by Johnathan Haidt, left-leaning individuals tend to be motivated more by care/harm as a moral foundation over other principles, such as purity/sanctity, loyalty/betrayal, liberty/oppression, etc. Conservatives tend to be motivated by a mixture of traits that the left isn't aware of so you have to put yourself cognitively into that headspace to understand their logic and framework to understand why they react the way they do.

It seems to me that, in an attempt not to be rude, you're a bit caught in an echochamber unaware of the other political philosophies or understandings people are operating under, and so are bewildered when I call something like Vice News decidedly left-wing because to you they seem normal because that's the "water" you swim in. If you keep swimming exclusively in those waters and never engage, the more alien other people not believing in that paradigm will seem and your ability to empathize and understand those people will be lost.

Gilan wrote:

For your first and second paragraph, in the interest of brevity (and while I appreciate your view on the matter of appropriateness), I disagree and consider it irrelevant with the involved books whose contents you could not find a sufficiently strong objection against.

I have read 1984, Dracula and the Invisible Men in middle school, and much of the others are the sort of pearl-clutching nowadays which is unacceptable. I was even aware in CM2 (that's 5th grade) of the Illiad and the Hundred Year's War (and what happened to it's actors).
When ones makes an argument of moral sensibilities, don't forget that people hold different weight to it. Prior to the book ban I considered American education to be curiously stunted and low--performing, but that was just my opinion.

It's when moral guardians bring in the state to regulate however, that discussions and criticisms of lines start, especially when a group uses tactics which relies on hostile tactics.

Speaking of law & moral standards, I would also council you against being on this site, since I do not think it would be appropriate for your development. If you're of the US and are under 21, there may actually be laws broken for some content on this site, for some jurisdictions.

That you mention the quality of teachers is important, but it's debatable on the effectiveness of that considering the solution has been to ban books instead, since Florida is easing teaching requirements

As for the other claims, nowhere can I find anything that says Crystal Alonso is anything but just a member, which was the person you were making the claim about wanting gay segregation, but then cite a different claim by Eulalia Jimenez to prove that the claim by Crystal Alonso was a position of the larger organization when

You've made an error in reading, perhaps because I didn't make it clear enough. To order the events, you made the claim that she was irrelevant, just one member who is not representative of the group's policies.

She was part of an interview on behalf of a group, that engenders the role of a spokesman, and without the objection of the other member when she made those statements. That is a responsibility of any group which has it's members undergo interviews. I did not say she's anything but a member, and mentioned Eulalia Jimenez who's a person of actual authority is to show that the attitude is not an aberration.

I looked into the Ruby Bridges/MLK claim and the issue was more with the violence depicted in the books than the actual message, but still the books passed the CRT law in Tennessee and so was dismissed because it did not promote any activism or CRT.

Which means that Moms for Liberty as a group made a spurious claim of a book of MLK. To build upon my first argument, to attempt to ban a book is a morally neutral action. To fail and be proven that

I mentioned the 7 months, because I wondered what the purpose was of your argument, you seem to have a habit of shifting the importance of events. Especially for a group whose formation was in June 2021.

Not to be rude, but it seems to me you're gish-galloping and trying to shoot out as many claims as possible rather than directly addressing specific arguments.

Not at all, I'm willing to extend my arguments to address yours. I hope that I've been answering everything you brought up. The initial headlines are a consequence of this forum, some discussions have started on twitter screenshots.

Which is why I want to bring something up:

For instance, what does one rando talking about gunning down librarians have to do with the larger message?

Do you know why I mentioned sophistry a few times? It is the use of arguments in bad faith, of being fallacious. We can't read minds, but the specific tone and arguments by "Moms for Liberty" compared with their actual actions is an example of sophistry.

To continue, the full phrase which you didn't even need to go to a link to read was:

_ Police opened an investigation after a recording surfaced featuring one of the group's leaders, Melissa Bosch, fantasizing about shooting school librarians, saying "they would all be plowed down with a freaking gun"_

Setting aside different moral sensibilities (for example, I don't care about some descriptions in texts, but do care about actual violence), she is Melissa Bosch, an administrator of the Moms for Liberty Lonoke County.

That you characterize her as a "rando", well, not to be rude, but it made me wonder whether your argument is in good faith.

You are also dictating my argument to me, and it is not correct. This is not solely an argument on whether these books should be in public school, but whether those for book bans even have the right to do so, and an eye on their overall strategy.

>Even if I were to disagree with their assessment

Do you now?

>If the people of their counties agree that this material is inappropriate or should not be taught to their students, ultimately it is their decisions as the institution of public education is ultimately accountable to its electorate and has a duty to serve them before any other interest.

I disagree, you mistake public servants being employees of the general public, and it's institutions being solely molded by whims. Democracy is not two wolves agreeing to eat the sheep.

The issue is none of the books in that list are 1984, Dracula, or Invisible Man. The books you provided detail graphic depictions of sex that is not done in an educational manner as you would see in an anatomy textbook. Seriously, go through the list. I read all 111 pages and of the books listed, only 3 I found to be stretches. The books in question are not of such literary merit where it becomes necessary. (I didn't make up literary merit and it is not my concept, nor is it my subjective standard. It's something determined intersubjectivity largely by a set of standards laid out by professors of literature about which stories are to endure the test of time, more or less or which contribute largely to literary canon.)

Additionally, there is a difference from a student proactively seeking out material-which I said I was fine with-and a teacher proctoring to their students and teaching them specifically material. For instance, if a student reads 50 shades of grey on their own time not disturbing anyone vs if a teacher tells the class to read it for a test: the former is a student of their own free will engaging with material and the other has the material forced upon them against their will by an authority figure. It is therefore important that when we select books to expose to our kids, the books in question are things that are not imposing our values on them but educating them properly how to think critically and engage with in terms of knowing what the author is trying to argue and being able to engage with it.

I do agree the public education system sucks, but the books cited in the list are not going to improve it. If you have not gone through it, I seriously suggest you do because it is very meticulous on what the issue is, where the parents think the school has crossed a line and which passages have the offending material. I'm not a prude and I'm relatively open to having most books taught in AP and High School classes, but there is a line where it becomes inappropriate-not because high schoolers are ignorant of this topic but because of the power differential between a student and teacher and the room for exploitation or indoctrination. For instance, a student can bring their bible to school, but a teacher can't tell students to read the bible for an assignment or try to indoctrinate from the bible. Likewise, books that explicitly tell a student what to think or have a heavily slanted philosophical framework and which are not taught impartially or which has the teacher insert their own beliefs into the education is not right.

Melissa Bosch being a random administrator for a county in a nation-wide organization saying something she was not charged for and was deemed not a credible threat by authorities is not relevant to the point of the argument. The core of the argument is about whether or not the books themselves contain offending material, and if they do, them trying to get them out of schools is justified. Individual members going too far with that message should be denounced, but if their grievance is accurate to reality, the existence of a lobbying group is their right, and I will criticize them for if individual members do something wrong or if they advocate for something which is wrong.

Also reread that line about "if I WERE TO disagree with their assessment." What I said was "under the hypothetical that I didn't agree with them," not that I "don't agree with their assessment."

>I disagree, you mistake public servants being employees of the general public, and it's institutions being solely molded by whims. Democracy is not two wolves agreeing to eat the sheep.

This is true in general, but not in regards to the role of a teacher who is directly accountable to the parents of their students because they are trusted by the parents to look after them and educate them on certain materials. If the parents do not want their kids to be taught something or think something is inappropriate then it is their responsibility to not teach it

The two wolves metaphor really doesn't work here because there is no sheep. Not teaching certain books in school does not directly result in the death of an individual, nor does it even prohibit a student from engaging in certain material on their own. It only means that because the parents do not consent to certain things being taught that they cannot be institutionalized or forced on the students, but the students can still seek them out in their own time, or a teacher can make clear a personal belief so long as they do not impose it on the class.

Mate, let's not dance around this, because I'm getting flashbacks over a decade old. I attributed my understanding of what you were attempting to do rhetorically as part of having to debate my brother who had a alt-right phase.

I didn't avoid being rude to you. I was actually being very rude, and it was done by repeating some words you use while being facetious about news like Vice News, since I wanted to ensure you had the same burden of proof. Truthfully? I also think you were very rude, and insincere. You seem to avoid the dirty and violent aspects of this news, preferring the theoretical discussion on books.

Less accusations of debates on the actual serious consequences of the position, which I find very common when books bans is mentioned. No stomach for the sausage being made, I guess. Which is normal, it's american politics on a meme website.

Yes, American media has a two party bias and issue with echo-chambers, the fallacy of the middle also exists. It should also be noted that while the US is considering the book bans a matter of debate, in France & Italy?

The American Right is mocked, or rather, have fallen back to the Bush Era in esteem. Both Le Monde and the Figaro talk of puritans. La Repubblica raised it's eyebrow about polemiques over Michelangelo's David.

Which is also, a very specific cultural sphere. From what I hear, Arab immigrants to the US love the book bans.

I'm not a right-winger. Every political test, moral intuition test, or philosophy test has me score most consistency with liberalism

And yet, we're speaking of banning books. That's strange liberalism.

I said elsewhere that anyone not on the authoritarian end of the political spectrum should not be okay with these bans, than Kenetic Krups, the one with the punished Seinfield Avatar, told me he's actually an authoritarian (but agreed with me).

Funny thing, political labels. "Yeed your haw" who's also a semi-regular is a leftist (but religious) and I think I have more acrimonious views with them than even the avowed right-winger and libertarian.

As for my label? For a while I thought that I wasn't even a leftist anymore and was sliding into mainstream centre (maybe even conservative). I was for the status quo of the EU and NATO, I hated the far-right and far-left and and was generally agreeing with stereotypical "BBQ in peace".

Than I learned that some conservatives are relaxing standards of child labour and are embracing fundamentalists, both things something even my conservative grandparents would have hated, being advocated for education all their life. Now, here we are.

Since I assume you're currently in education, why exactly do you think I mocked the sophistry of "Moms for Liberty"? That I mocked their insistence on what they're not?

Johnathan Haidt, left-leaning individuals tend to be motivated more by care/harm as a moral foundation over other principles, such as purity/sanctity, loyalty/betrayal, liberty/oppression,

That is of dubious actual veracity. and is debated. A right-winger I knew called that "leftie pseudo-science bullshit" to pretend that they're somehow inherently more caring individuals. Brain-mapping is inexact and it doesn't stop people from forming mobs.

Funny thing that popped my memory, since that book is mentioned a lot.

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 05:28PM EDT

Gilan wrote:

I appreciate that the book ban discussions has spread away from this forum, frustrated as I was by the tendency of many here to downplay it and the theocratic policies over the past year.

Once it reached the general user-base, suddenly they were better able to explain a lot of things, as well as bring up new arguments.

by Timey16

If you look at the lists of banned books: most are books dealing with minorities, racism, the civil rights area, the slavery era as well as puberty.

You know the kind of things kids are supposed to learn in school about as well as books dealing with their questions and problems growing up.

They ban these books because they don't adhere to their hyper conservative "values", that's it. There is no objectivity behind it no real criteria on what is suitable or not. It's completely arbitrary and based entirely on "no we don't want kids to know about these things".

Short, not as long-winded as I tend to be, but it's more impactful for it, it goes for the jugular, the truth of the matter.

That 1984 was one of the named books which are now subject to debate shows the slippery slope in action, one year ago I was told that they're just banning perverted books, not something important like 1984. The initial excuse of appropriateness is a lie, it's a simple power-grab.

Yes, I like to post references from different "sides", I prefer to avoid partisanship as I'm frustrated by it. But when you're facing deliberate bad faith as the true goal is obfuscated, when a group calls themselves "Moms for Liberty" despite pressuring for book bans, all the while they try to paint themselves as simple concerned citizens.

Well, than there comes a time to realize being reasonable doesn't mean continually leaving an opening for a sucker-punch from a two-faced gambit.

The books the organizations want gone are as follows:
The Haters – Jesse Andrews
Damsel – Elana K. Arnold
Red Hood – Elana K. Arnold
What Girls Are Made Of – Elana K. Arnold
The Handmaids Tale Graphic Novel – Atwood
Oryx and Crake – Atwood
Speak (Graphic Novel) – Anderson
My Friend Dahmer
Perks of Being a Wallflower – Chbosky
Lawn Boy – Evison
The Carnival at Bray – Foley
Life is Funny – Frank
Not that Bad – Dispatches from Rape Culture – Roxane Gay
Homegoing – Gyasi
Maybe Now – Hoover
Losing Hope – Hoover
Tricks – Hopkins
Triangles – Hopkins
A Sin Such as This – Hopkins
Crank – Hopkins
Identical – Hopkins
Perfect – Hopkins
People Who Kill – Hopkins
Tilt – Hoover
All Boys Aren’t Blue – Johnson
The Sun And Her Flowers – Kaur (illustrations)
Gender Queer – Kobabe (Graphic Novel)
Last Night at the Telegraph Club
Boy Toy – Lyga
A Court of Frost and Starlight – Maas
A Court of Mist and Fury – Maas
A Court of Silver Flames – Maas
A Court of Thorns and Roses – Maas
A Court of Wings and Ruins -Mass
Empire of Storms – Maas
The House of Earth and Blood – Mass
Kingdom of Ash – Mass
Wicked – The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West – Maguire
Sold – McCormick
The Female Species – McGinnis
Heroine – McGinnis
Red, White and Royal Blue – McQuiston
The Bluest Eye – Morrison
How Beautiful the Ordinary – Multiple Authors (Graphic Novel)
The Wind-up Bird Chronicle
Shine – Myracle
The Infinite Moment of Us – Myracle
YOLO – Myracle
L8r G8R – Myracle
Like A Love Story
Breathless – Niven
Out of Darkness
Nineteen Minutes – Picoult
The Nowhere Girls – Reed
Normal People – Rooney
Living Dead Girl – Scott
Lucky – Seabold
Jesus Land: A memoir
Push – Saphire
Slaughterhouse Five
This Book is Gay
Flamer – Curato (Graphic Novel)
The Hate U Give – Thomas
Assassination Classroom – Matsui
Speak – Anderson Graphic Novel
Beyond Magenta – Kuklin

Although I disagree with some of these one here (slaughterhouse five is of literary merit and importance to western canon), none of the ones cited are 1984, Dracula or Invisible Man.

I cited those as examples of books which have dark subject matters and which cover intense themes, not of books they want banned. They lay out all their reasons for why these are inappropriate for public curriculum and you are free to disagree with them-as I said I did with several.

Did you read the list of books they wanted banned before you sent it to me? I don't mean to sound accusatory, but it seems like an error on your end.

Kurt Vonnegut would probably be bemused by being described like that, I think. From what glimpses can be had of him from his books and "Man without a country".

You're debating 1984, I'm talking about you. You segued into a bit about teachers, the way "Moms for Liberty" are now going for personnel. One year ago in this forum, I think someone said that 1984 was not up for debate in any way, no if or buts.

You inadvertently proved that claim wrong. Not your fault, just something I wanted to note.

Also, you do sound accusatory mate. Own it, it is annoying to read a source the one who it sent to didn't even bother to read. To answer? Yes, a bit. It's how I knew that one of the problems the Moms had against Assassination Classroom is the blonde.

Which reminds me, I think this might be the fifth time I'm posting this, but it's worthwhile to go over the full extent of the book-ban (and this was only in 2022, I think the combined number may have hit the 5-digits).

Haven't posted it yet on the politics thread though.

PEN America

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 05:57PM EDT

Gilan wrote:

Mate, let's not dance around this, because I'm getting flashbacks over a decade old. I attributed my understanding of what you were attempting to do rhetorically as part of having to debate my brother who had a alt-right phase.

I didn't avoid being rude to you. I was actually being very rude, and it was done by repeating some words you use while being facetious about news like Vice News, since I wanted to ensure you had the same burden of proof. Truthfully? I also think you were very rude, and insincere. You seem to avoid the dirty and violent aspects of this news, preferring the theoretical discussion on books.

Less accusations of debates on the actual serious consequences of the position, which I find very common when books bans is mentioned. No stomach for the sausage being made, I guess. Which is normal, it's american politics on a meme website.

Yes, American media has a two party bias and issue with echo-chambers, the fallacy of the middle also exists. It should also be noted that while the US is considering the book bans a matter of debate, in France & Italy?

The American Right is mocked, or rather, have fallen back to the Bush Era in esteem. Both Le Monde and the Figaro talk of puritans. La Repubblica raised it's eyebrow about polemiques over Michelangelo's David.

Which is also, a very specific cultural sphere. From what I hear, Arab immigrants to the US love the book bans.

I'm not a right-winger. Every political test, moral intuition test, or philosophy test has me score most consistency with liberalism

And yet, we're speaking of banning books. That's strange liberalism.

I said elsewhere that anyone not on the authoritarian end of the political spectrum should not be okay with these bans, than Kenetic Krups, the one with the punished Seinfield Avatar, told me he's actually an authoritarian (but agreed with me).

Funny thing, political labels. "Yeed your haw" who's also a semi-regular is a leftist (but religious) and I think I have more acrimonious views with them than even the avowed right-winger and libertarian.

As for my label? For a while I thought that I wasn't even a leftist anymore and was sliding into mainstream centre (maybe even conservative). I was for the status quo of the EU and NATO, I hated the far-right and far-left and and was generally agreeing with stereotypical "BBQ in peace".

Than I learned that some conservatives are relaxing standards of child labour and are embracing fundamentalists, both things something even my conservative grandparents would have hated, being advocated for education all their life. Now, here we are.

Since I assume you're currently in education, why exactly do you think I mocked the sophistry of "Moms for Liberty"? That I mocked their insistence on what they're not?

Johnathan Haidt, left-leaning individuals tend to be motivated more by care/harm as a moral foundation over other principles, such as purity/sanctity, loyalty/betrayal, liberty/oppression,

That is of dubious actual veracity. and is debated. A right-winger I knew called that "leftie pseudo-science bullshit" to pretend that they're somehow inherently more caring individuals. Brain-mapping is inexact and it doesn't stop people from forming mobs.

Funny thing that popped my memory, since that book is mentioned a lot.

Mate, let's not dance around this, because I'm getting flashbacks over a decade old. I attributed my understanding of what you were attempting to do rhetorically as part of having to debate my brother who had a alt-right phase..

Well I'm not alt-right and it seems like you're projecting that bias onto me from your own personal experience rather than engaging with my points.

I didn't avoid being rude to you. I was actually being very rude, and it was done by repeating some words you use while being facetious about news like Vice News, since I wanted to ensure you had the same burden of proof. Truthfully? I also think you were very rude, and insincere. You seem to avoid the dirty and violent aspects of this news, preferring the theoretical discussion on books.

I'm trying to get to the root of the issue, and the core of the conflict-which is about if these books should be in schools or not. It's about the principle rather than whether or not I condone individual actors or think what they are doing is justified because if we cut through that bullshit, we can settle the core of the disagreement.

I'm trying my best to engage in good faith debate. I'm reading all of the links you post. It seems fundamentally unfair and nonreciprocal for you to just shit on me and act like that's bad faith. If I am incorrect about appearing rude, I'm sorry that you think that but it was not my intent.

Which is also, a very specific cultural sphere. From what I hear, Arab immigrants to the US love the book bans.

Okay? I don't really care.

I think this is meant to be a "gotcha" because right wingers don't like Islam but I'm not right wing and don't care if Arabs or other ethnic groups immigrate to America so long as they integrate into our liberal principles of equality under the law, secularism, universal rights, etc.

And yet, we're speaking of banning books. That's strange liberalism.

Never have I said that a book shouldn't be sold, shouldn't be in the public library or shouldn't be accessed by minors. I said that certain books are inappropriate to be taught but that if a student wants to seek them out that they can. No one disagrees with this. For example, if a teacher taught Mein Kampf as if it was correct about its claims, you and I would both say that would be wrong. Likewise, some books shouldn't be in school libraries. One of my favorite graphic novels is Habibi by Craig Thompson but I'm pretty sure any middle school with that would scar quite a few children.

It just seems like a gotcha rather than an actual engagement.

That is of dubious actual veracity. and is debated. A right-winger I knew called that "leftie pseudo-science bullshit" to pretend that they're somehow inherently more caring individuals. Brain-mapping is inexact and it doesn't stop people from forming mobs.

It's not brain-mapping though…? It has to do with cognition and reasoning, and with Haidt's sample sizes it's hard to dispute their accuracy. I also never claimed it did stop people from forming mobs, because humans have tendency to form mobs over any moral foundation that offends them. That does not mean that the theory is inaccurate.

The theory entirely revolves around how people rational moral choices and what reasoning they have to back it up, and what those rationale correlate to in terms of politics.

Gilan wrote:

Kurt Vonnegut would probably be bemused by being described like that, I think. From what glimpses can be had of him from his books and "Man without a country".

You're debating 1984, I'm talking about you. You segued into a bit about teachers, the way "Moms for Liberty" are now going for personnel. One year ago in this forum, I think someone said that 1984 was not up for debate in any way, no if or buts.

You inadvertently proved that claim wrong. Not your fault, just something I wanted to note.

Also, you do sound accusatory mate. Own it, it is annoying to read a source the one who it sent to didn't even bother to read. To answer? Yes, a bit. It's how I knew that one of the problems the Moms had against Assassination Classroom is the blonde.

Which reminds me, I think this might be the fifth time I'm posting this, but it's worthwhile to go over the full extent of the book-ban (and this was only in 2022, I think the combined number may have hit the 5-digits).

Haven't posted it yet on the politics thread though.

PEN America

My argument was that 1984 was sexually explicit but it was of such literary merit that it needed to be taught, because it's message was so sobering and the themes about the repression of sexuality in order to control and redirect that energy towards love of the party is needed as a warning of the threat of cult of personalities

AnonymousGuy wrote:

Mate, let's not dance around this, because I'm getting flashbacks over a decade old. I attributed my understanding of what you were attempting to do rhetorically as part of having to debate my brother who had a alt-right phase..

Well I'm not alt-right and it seems like you're projecting that bias onto me from your own personal experience rather than engaging with my points.

I didn't avoid being rude to you. I was actually being very rude, and it was done by repeating some words you use while being facetious about news like Vice News, since I wanted to ensure you had the same burden of proof. Truthfully? I also think you were very rude, and insincere. You seem to avoid the dirty and violent aspects of this news, preferring the theoretical discussion on books.

I'm trying to get to the root of the issue, and the core of the conflict-which is about if these books should be in schools or not. It's about the principle rather than whether or not I condone individual actors or think what they are doing is justified because if we cut through that bullshit, we can settle the core of the disagreement.

I'm trying my best to engage in good faith debate. I'm reading all of the links you post. It seems fundamentally unfair and nonreciprocal for you to just shit on me and act like that's bad faith. If I am incorrect about appearing rude, I'm sorry that you think that but it was not my intent.

Which is also, a very specific cultural sphere. From what I hear, Arab immigrants to the US love the book bans.

Okay? I don't really care.

I think this is meant to be a "gotcha" because right wingers don't like Islam but I'm not right wing and don't care if Arabs or other ethnic groups immigrate to America so long as they integrate into our liberal principles of equality under the law, secularism, universal rights, etc.

And yet, we're speaking of banning books. That's strange liberalism.

Never have I said that a book shouldn't be sold, shouldn't be in the public library or shouldn't be accessed by minors. I said that certain books are inappropriate to be taught but that if a student wants to seek them out that they can. No one disagrees with this. For example, if a teacher taught Mein Kampf as if it was correct about its claims, you and I would both say that would be wrong. Likewise, some books shouldn't be in school libraries. One of my favorite graphic novels is Habibi by Craig Thompson but I'm pretty sure any middle school with that would scar quite a few children.

It just seems like a gotcha rather than an actual engagement.

That is of dubious actual veracity. and is debated. A right-winger I knew called that "leftie pseudo-science bullshit" to pretend that they're somehow inherently more caring individuals. Brain-mapping is inexact and it doesn't stop people from forming mobs.

It's not brain-mapping though…? It has to do with cognition and reasoning, and with Haidt's sample sizes it's hard to dispute their accuracy. I also never claimed it did stop people from forming mobs, because humans have tendency to form mobs over any moral foundation that offends them. That does not mean that the theory is inaccurate.

The theory entirely revolves around how people rational moral choices and what reasoning they have to back it up, and what those rationale correlate to in terms of politics.

Well, for some reason I find the experience with my brother very useful and familiar. I am engaging with your points, and I am evaluating them on what I get from them, biased as I am.

I'll try to reciprocate now, by being very frank. The administrator threatening to shoot a librarian was a core part of the whole thing for me, unfortunately I don't think trying to ignore and downplay her will allow the discussion you want.

And if you're sincere on that, that is something I'm sorry about.

Okay? I don't really care.

I think this is meant to be a "gotcha" because right wingers don't like Islam but I'm not right wing and don't care if Arabs or other ethnic groups immigrate to America so long as they integrate into our liberal principles of equality under the law, secularism, universal rights, etc.

That's admirable (and I'm not being facetious in saying that).

'Course, it was an observation as much as a "gotcha", because another user doesn't like what immigrants have done to his country ,or rather, the criminal and extremist groups. That Islamists liked these bans seems to be an alarm bell, and worth noting. Because, I'd say they're not assimilating in principles of equality, law and secularism. Not at all.

More reminiscent of the murderers of Samuel Paty, than anyone else.

Found it on page 306 to quote me:

Conservative Muslims join forces with Christian right on Michigan book bans & Arab-Americans form alliance with GOP in bid to ban explicit LGBT books from Detroit school libraries

From the Daily Mail & Guardian, that way there's media "balance".

The next one isn't a gotcha either, I'm speaking in the context of "Moms against liberty" whom I've compared to Bush-era resurgence. You hit the nail on the head in a way when you said I was talking about things that were detracting from the main point, while I thought you were deliberately playing down the nastiness and actual violence involved.

We are effectively discussing two different topics, because I'm in the mentality of the battle-line "you have to beat back the book burners". Your focus on book appropriateness is removed about consequences that are not theoretical, which is the conversation I'm having. We are effectively having two different conversations.

The theory entirely revolves around how people rational moral choices and what reasoning they have to back it up, and what those rationale correlate to in terms of politics.

You know what? I'll go to sleep since it's rather late for me, but I'll reevaluate Johnathan Haidt to see if he's more than the pop-psychology I classified him as. That way there would have been an exchange of some sort and I actually learn something, despite me.

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 06:30PM EDT

I think it is important to draw a distinction between actual book bans, in which a government declares a text illegal, and shelf removal, where texts are removed from libraries. These are similar, but decidedly not the same, and conflating them is a trick of language to make a position look stronger than it is; this is a common tactic among ideologues, regardless of position. And it's this issue, this sleight of hand, that's why you two are having two different conversations.

Additionally, and I'm sure we've had this conversation before, I'm not sure if you're using the word "theocrat" correctly, so mind elaborating on what, exactly, you mean when you use it? Because it currently comes off as just a shorthand for "religious people who do things I don't like", which… isn't how it works.

Last edited Apr 27, 2023 at 07:25PM EDT

A question for y'all.
For those who identify themselves as on "the left":
I am legitimately curious.
Is there any leftist framework of looking at geopolitics that has evolved passed the post-colonial third worldism?
What would you consider the last major "international leftist" geopolitical win – something like ending Apartheid in South Africa?

I'm struggling to find much talk about a geopolitical framework that centers around the reality of not just the 21st century, but specifically, the reality of geopolitics of 2010s and now the 2020s. What I am seeing is an ever growing push towards increasingly right wing, even far right, hard nationalism and even ethnic nationalism all around the world – and a deep deep reaction to internationalist cosmopolitan policies, that have been, part and parcel of a "Liberal world order".

Chewybunny wrote:

A question for y'all.
For those who identify themselves as on "the left":
I am legitimately curious.
Is there any leftist framework of looking at geopolitics that has evolved passed the post-colonial third worldism?
What would you consider the last major "international leftist" geopolitical win – something like ending Apartheid in South Africa?

I'm struggling to find much talk about a geopolitical framework that centers around the reality of not just the 21st century, but specifically, the reality of geopolitics of 2010s and now the 2020s. What I am seeing is an ever growing push towards increasingly right wing, even far right, hard nationalism and even ethnic nationalism all around the world – and a deep deep reaction to internationalist cosmopolitan policies, that have been, part and parcel of a "Liberal world order".

I'm a liberal not a leftist. Geopolitics in general is a game where no one really wins as it's one big game. I prefer that liberalism spread as the ideal of universal rights, equality under the law, etc.

Ironically Russia not doing well against Ukraine probably does more in favor of liberal principles creating stronger societies than autocratic ones, but that's due to autocratic societies constantly cutting corners to line their own pockets and so things fall apart as soon as pressure is put on it

Spaghetto wrote:

I think it is important to draw a distinction between actual book bans, in which a government declares a text illegal, and shelf removal, where texts are removed from libraries. These are similar, but decidedly not the same, and conflating them is a trick of language to make a position look stronger than it is; this is a common tactic among ideologues, regardless of position. And it's this issue, this sleight of hand, that's why you two are having two different conversations.

Additionally, and I'm sure we've had this conversation before, I'm not sure if you're using the word "theocrat" correctly, so mind elaborating on what, exactly, you mean when you use it? Because it currently comes off as just a shorthand for "religious people who do things I don't like", which… isn't how it works.

Perhaps, but your distinction itself is also a rhetorical trick, a false dichotomy. The US government at different levels has been enlisted to declare book removal, so the point of private vs public action is moot.

However, assuming we're going to only talk about moral guardians groups, when you have groups harass librarians and other parents and officials, via mob intimidation, that is not democratic action. Excuse the methods and you excuse ideologue. There is a limit to naivete.

American media outright supported the idea that Samuel Paty be murdered for "offending feelings". That is how one can overstep.

A lot of people on the side of book bans try to play down bans as this thing that's no big deal, it's not a real "ban" which actually sabotages any notion that they're taking this responsibility seriously. It's Soviet Union level facetiousness about their own bans.

It's why I'm not going to let the actual harassement and tactics be ignored, too many have been taking a clinical view of the situation for too long.

Additionally, and I'm sure we've had this conversation before, I'm not sure if you're using the word "theocrat" correctly, so mind elaborating on what, exactly, you mean when you use it?

We did. I think both of us agreeing that Iran is a theocracy was one of the few times that happened. Instead of me typing up another wall of text, why do you think I'm using theocrat incorrectly?

What would say it means, in your own words?

Remember that people burning someone else at a stake is also "religious people who do things I don't like". All politics can be vulgarly summarized as "x people do things I don't like".

Last edited Apr 28, 2023 at 05:52AM EDT

Chewybunny wrote:

A question for y'all.
For those who identify themselves as on "the left":
I am legitimately curious.
Is there any leftist framework of looking at geopolitics that has evolved passed the post-colonial third worldism?
What would you consider the last major "international leftist" geopolitical win – something like ending Apartheid in South Africa?

I'm struggling to find much talk about a geopolitical framework that centers around the reality of not just the 21st century, but specifically, the reality of geopolitics of 2010s and now the 2020s. What I am seeing is an ever growing push towards increasingly right wing, even far right, hard nationalism and even ethnic nationalism all around the world – and a deep deep reaction to internationalist cosmopolitan policies, that have been, part and parcel of a "Liberal world order".

The last time there was this question, I answered:
1) The EU surviving despite all odds
2) Russia failing the invasion of Ukraine

I've had time to think more, and managed to summarize it:
Prevent the downfall of more democracies and hold the line.

In a very specific case, it means preventing theocratic groups from continuing and expanding their spree. If in my lifetime the situation doesn't degrade further, I'd be happy. We can't save the world if we can't save ourselves. Is this Left? Who knows.

You assume there's a replacement of "the internationale", when I'm not sure if a lot of local leftists groups are engaging in that anymore, at least in terms of "social democracy". The Right certainly hasn't either with the failure of the Bush Era's "New American Century", it's been a holding pattern ever since the war against terror, where the promise to create more democracies has backfired.

I guess there's still NATO and it's cosmopolitisme, of a sort.. It's not one country going alone as some people favored, even if it's a return to the Allies and Western Bloc of the 20th century.

I have one question about your last paragraph on the "Liberal World Order". Is the return of autarky and power-blocs something bad, for you? Do the libertarians, the Liberals, or free-trade conservatives consider that a victory? Free-trade seems to have failed as it fed China, a lot of consensus during the Trump Era was that we've been selling the rope they'll hang us with.

What do you think of the current state of affairs? The Texas Republicans invited Orban, but are you happy about the rise of "hybrid regimes" (glorified dictatorships?

Personally, I think the "true" far-left never gave a damn about the "Liberal World Order". Even those who aren't outright tankies complained about it, and a lot hated NATO that they outright were for letting Russia "having" Ukraine. A bunch of sad excuses for "anti-imperialists". Same for the "far-right".

I don't meet Far-left around here, so you'd be given the impression that I'm always fighting the right, but don't start to assume that people like me are a representation of all the "Left". Communist forums may give a different answer to this question. The failure of the "Liberal World Order" is a failure of a lot our current consensus politics.

I think it's an irony that a lot of Americans & American allies had come to despise something they heavily invested in, and only now are going to trying to fix it

Last edited Apr 28, 2023 at 06:33AM EDT

AnonymousGuy wrote:

I'm a liberal not a leftist. Geopolitics in general is a game where no one really wins as it's one big game. I prefer that liberalism spread as the ideal of universal rights, equality under the law, etc.

Ironically Russia not doing well against Ukraine probably does more in favor of liberal principles creating stronger societies than autocratic ones, but that's due to autocratic societies constantly cutting corners to line their own pockets and so things fall apart as soon as pressure is put on it

Would that we had all that many countries with strong liberal principles left to enjoy the fireworks from.

Last edited Apr 28, 2023 at 10:08AM EDT

Greyblades wrote:

Would that we had all that many countries with strong liberal principles left to enjoy the fireworks from.

I recommend dictator's handbook. It goes into why autocracies tend to produce really bad countries in a lot of depth and why democracies work, albeit are terribly imperfect.

Decidedly not the first time I've heard that title, I imagine have read it vicariously through about 3 dozen youtube videos and podcasts at this point, CGP Grey's rules for rulers, keys to power and all that.

Got my own theory on the reasons why our democracies are devolving into skinsuits for autocracies, but I am cashing in my "I have a cold and have been talking stupid for 2 days" cheque on that one.

Last edited Apr 28, 2023 at 04:53PM EDT

Greyblades wrote:

Decidedly not the first time I've heard that title, I imagine have read it vicariously through about 3 dozen youtube videos and podcasts at this point, CGP Grey's rules for rulers, keys to power and all that.

Got my own theory on the reasons why our democracies are devolving into skinsuits for autocracies, but I am cashing in my "I have a cold and have been talking stupid for 2 days" cheque on that one.

Democracy always does, it's been known since ancient times

@Gilan
Thanks for replying. I'll start with answering your questions:

>Is the return of autarky and power-blocs something bad, for you?

Yes, it is a bad thing to return to autarky and power blocs. However I do not think that the only alternative is to return to autarky and power blocs. I do however think that the unrelenting immigration creates deep, very deep, problems for a society that is unable to assimilate them.

>Do the libertarians, the Liberals, or free-trade conservatives consider that a victory?

I find myself in fact part of the above for mentioned crowd. The problem here lies with the fact that while liberal economic policy, and free trade has been an over all boon for much of the world it came with the expense of the local. And I am extremely sympathetic and empathetic to the expense of the local in the name of internationalism. Similarly, while I am 100% for progress, the inability for us to grasp with the expenses of the progress leads to far more problems.

>What do you think of the current state of affairs?
I am thankful, as a Jewish person, to live in the United States today than in any place in Europe. I am thankful that I am out of East Europe especially. I think the failures of many Western governments to tackle the growing demographic realities, and it's guilt-ridden historic consciousness, creeping economic stagnation, and general lack of any greater vision or purpose has created a perfect storm for petty tyrants to come in and promise a new revival. Whether that revival is leftist or rightist.

>The Texas Republicans invited Orban, but are you happy about the rise of "hybrid regimes" (glorified dictatorships?

The Republicans, specifically the MAGA crowd, like the Democrats before them, are playing a hyper cynical game. They calculate, correctly, that if Ukraine triumphs over Russia then it would be a massive win not just to the existing administration, but also a massive win for the perceived establishment. They are using every tool in the book to poison the well of this win as much as possible.

>I don't meet Far-left around here, so you'd be given the impression that I'm always fighting the right, but don't start to assume that people like me are a representation of all the "Left".

It's interesting you say that. I feel that the only people that are on the "right" is Greyblades, and myself being more on the Libertarian-right spectrum. Everyone else seems left-of-center to hard left.

>1) The EU surviving despite all odds
2) Russia failing the invasion of Ukraine

1) I am not sure if the EU is in fact a left project, but yes, I think that one is a good one.
2) I do not view this conflict as left. Or right. at least in the US. This is a conflict between anti-Americanism, and pro-Americanism.

AnonymousGuy wrote:

I recommend dictator's handbook. It goes into why autocracies tend to produce really bad countries in a lot of depth and why democracies work, albeit are terribly imperfect.

Unironically reading that book made me enjoy and play Crusader Kings better.

Learning to mod CK3 has kind of ruined my ability to play CK3, it's kind of sad but seeing the game mechanics being so laid bare makes it the illusion hard to rebuild…. albiet a lot of that might be more due to it being as deep as a puddle compared to it's predecessor.

The Republicans, specifically the MAGA crowd, like the Democrats before them, are playing a hyper cynical game. They calculate, correctly, that if Ukraine triumphs over Russia then it would be a massive win not just to the existing administration, but also a massive win for the perceived establishment. They are using every tool in the book to poison the well of this win as much as possible.

I wouldnt be suprised if there were a lot of MAGA tempted into acting on that reason, there have already been murmerings of using the weapon of the enemy against him in the field of ballot harvesting, if they're going to cheat either you cheat too or never win again. Tempting to believe that they will have the self control to abolish the practice after victory, but my use of Tolkien should tell you what I think of that notion.

That interpretation of MAGA sabotage is also being pushed hard by the establishment to preemptively cover ass should Ukraine fail to perform as hoped. The Democrats and the Establishment GOP are looking to turn Ukraine into a "heads I win tales you lose" for MAGA. Hyper cynicism is the name of the game all over.

Personally I pity the Ukrainians, either they lose and have to look forward to the horrors of russian occupation or they win and they have to look forward to a rebuilding effort by the same people whose latest track record is Haiti.

There's a reason noone turned up to the UN's conferance on Haiti.

Last edited Apr 28, 2023 at 09:19PM EDT

Chewybunny wrote:

Unironically reading that book made me enjoy and play Crusader Kings better.

It was a better explanation for me to understand Tywin Lannister than any long video essays on GOT.

Still prefer CK2 though, it's so much easier for realms to fall apart in that entry.

Chewybunny wrote:

@Gilan
Thanks for replying. I'll start with answering your questions:

>Is the return of autarky and power-blocs something bad, for you?

Yes, it is a bad thing to return to autarky and power blocs. However I do not think that the only alternative is to return to autarky and power blocs. I do however think that the unrelenting immigration creates deep, very deep, problems for a society that is unable to assimilate them.

>Do the libertarians, the Liberals, or free-trade conservatives consider that a victory?

I find myself in fact part of the above for mentioned crowd. The problem here lies with the fact that while liberal economic policy, and free trade has been an over all boon for much of the world it came with the expense of the local. And I am extremely sympathetic and empathetic to the expense of the local in the name of internationalism. Similarly, while I am 100% for progress, the inability for us to grasp with the expenses of the progress leads to far more problems.

>What do you think of the current state of affairs?
I am thankful, as a Jewish person, to live in the United States today than in any place in Europe. I am thankful that I am out of East Europe especially. I think the failures of many Western governments to tackle the growing demographic realities, and it's guilt-ridden historic consciousness, creeping economic stagnation, and general lack of any greater vision or purpose has created a perfect storm for petty tyrants to come in and promise a new revival. Whether that revival is leftist or rightist.

>The Texas Republicans invited Orban, but are you happy about the rise of "hybrid regimes" (glorified dictatorships?

The Republicans, specifically the MAGA crowd, like the Democrats before them, are playing a hyper cynical game. They calculate, correctly, that if Ukraine triumphs over Russia then it would be a massive win not just to the existing administration, but also a massive win for the perceived establishment. They are using every tool in the book to poison the well of this win as much as possible.

>I don't meet Far-left around here, so you'd be given the impression that I'm always fighting the right, but don't start to assume that people like me are a representation of all the "Left".

It's interesting you say that. I feel that the only people that are on the "right" is Greyblades, and myself being more on the Libertarian-right spectrum. Everyone else seems left-of-center to hard left.

>1) The EU surviving despite all odds
2) Russia failing the invasion of Ukraine

1) I am not sure if the EU is in fact a left project, but yes, I think that one is a good one.
2) I do not view this conflict as left. Or right. at least in the US. This is a conflict between anti-Americanism, and pro-Americanism.

Thank you for asking the question, I sort of wish more people would answer. Having a long-term global view is something that's missing nowadays.

>autarky

True, it's not either or.

However, I would like to mention something I'll call the "hybrid regime" fallacy. Named for the fact that hybrid regimes which are slowly becoming a mix of dictatorship and democracies are more dictatorship than democracy.

The assumption that politics is this game meter, and so you can just tweak where a society sits on that slider. It plays down fast social change can be, and the fact that if some principles don't continue to exist if they're continually bent.

>World order

I'm not going to die on the hill for the past "liberal world order", I had alot of criticisms for it.
The local environmental degradation and climate change, the exploitation of workers for the cheapest wages in sweatshops. The exploitation of third world countries, and the industrial rot of a lot of the first world. The lawlessness of corporations, to the point that some decisions have become a security issue (factories being concentrated in China).

I'm sure a whole career have been made discussing the issues with the LWO.

But, with everything wrong with it, it's still strange to see a strange situation where almost everyone hates it, and are trying to blame each other for still keeping it alive, with only muddled views on a possible replacement.

It's a whole way of viewing the world apart from this outright cold war blocs. It's been such a missed opportunity to build something different. Can't say I like petty dictators proliferating to rule over their petty fiefdoms to be a good alternative.

>immigration

Personally, I'd dispute your usage of immigration. Because forces in the US and UK which made that their electoral strategy currently seem to have moved on from the subject of immigration, (and I'm talking about the American Right and the Tories) to the culture war.

Also, in their time of power in the past few years, what have they fixed? At this point even the EU has a least created Frontex, the US has, what? Made a non-existent border wall? the UK even less? The only thing that seems to have accomplished is cause more acrimony.

As I said before, I'm still bitter that the Tories blamed EU immigrants, and once they disappeared it turns out they weren't the cause of all of these issues. Can't even complain either, the Tories have continually searched for new scapegoats to distract the public eye from their own misdeeds.

I also find it a bit of dark humour that I now seem to be the only one with a problem about Islamists moving to a country and liking the book bans. After ISIS, we still haven't resolved the issue that there's a cadre of society who's perfectly fine becoming a part of a slave owning, murderously destructive regime. Because, yeah, that is a huge problem.

… Or, it wasn't the differences in values which was the actual problem for those who complained of immigration

>Living in the US

Funny thing is, I'd say the same. I'm happy to live in France, even with all it's issues. I think you're being unfair to Eastern Europe, they've been doing a lot of progress compared to just a few years ago, they've been an engine of growth in comparison with the moribund state a lot of Southern Europe finds itself in.

Issues of stagnation, lack of accountability, high danger, robber police and insane politics are the same accusation I'd sling to other countries, including the US, including even the emergence of petty tyrants. The good news of that is that we're effectively happy where we are, although I wonder if that's part of deliberate propaganda.

>They are using every tool in the book to poison the well of this win as much as possible.

You know, nothing takes the wind out of my sails like acknowledging my accusations. I'd say it's a general pattern of petty interests drowning out national and international interests.

>It's interesting you say that. I feel that the only people that are on the "right" is Greyblades, and myself being more on the Libertarian-right spectrum. Everyone else seems left-of-center to hard left.

It is interesting. I haven't seen a tankie and anyone who unironically supports Russia in it's invasion tend to be unpopular. Than again, I guess it's all a matter of comparison.

I also amend my statement about the left no longer having the internationale. For some, the internationale never ended. The shiftlessness you see is the center to center left, which is why is one reason why they're dying.

1) I am not sure if the EU is in fact a left project, but yes, I think that one is a good one.

Which is why I put a question mark on whether that sentiment is left. Enough people including Russia really wanted it dead though, so I'd qualify it as a victory against someone, at least.

2) I do not view this conflict as left. Or right. at least in the US. This is a conflict between anti-Americanism, and pro-Americanism.

Yeah, and even more than that, a fight between democracies vs dictators. Ukraine may be one of the few remaining countries which sees West and sees something worth emulating.

Hopefully, we won't disappoint them.

Last edited Apr 29, 2023 at 06:22AM EDT

Gilan wrote:

It was a better explanation for me to understand Tywin Lannister than any long video essays on GOT.

Still prefer CK2 though, it's so much easier for realms to fall apart in that entry.

I prefer Crusader Kings 3.
I was an avid EU4 player (I accomplished all my alternative history roleplays, although I am going to try to do a greater Novgorodian Russian Republic) so I gave CK2 a go. Thing is, it's so god-awfully convoluted and poorly explained and I had no desire to really go through dozens of tutorials and spreadsheets. CK3 I felt was so much better explained and I enjoy the hell out of it.

Chewybunny wrote:

There is no single politician in the US that deserves more hate, vitriol, and nothing but utter contempt than Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's it. That's the comment.

Forgetting her favor-ability towards Russia and her "Christian Nationalist" nonsense, she mocked someone with adopted children as "not a real mother". Really hypocritical after the bush to restrict abortion.

Shouldn't be part of a PTA let alone a national government with how crass she is.

>CK2

That's fair, but one thing I like about CK2 is that it's way better than a lot of grand strategy games in making internal issues a threat, as well as breaking down blobs. Once EU4 nations get rolling they don't really stop.

I never could get into any of the Hearts of Iron games, though.

… Who here doesn't play some kind of paradox? There's probably a venn diagram of strategy game nerds and people who get way into politics.

Last edited Apr 30, 2023 at 05:16AM EDT

MTG is the inheritor of Trump's old position of "person lied about who probably doesn't need to be lied about and gains immunity through being lied about"

Take that "you're not a mother" soundbyte. Ooh, Ol' MTG is going after adoptees as not "real" as biologicals, how utterly backwards of her, ooh, hate her, hate her!

Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers and the woman she used it against, isn't a real mother, she's a woman who married a man whose kids were in thier mid 20s and produced none of her own.

No experience raising children or, most importantly, no experience dealing with the schooling system from the Parent's POV, in the parental authority dick swinging she has no third leg to stand on.

Her doctorate is in law and her last teaching gig was a highschool job 1991-97, her career has been of the more union organising bent. So when challenged on her part in the decision making that produced the catastrophic mistake of shutting down schools during to COVID she was wide open to the assessment “not a medical doctor, not a biological mother, and really not a teacher either."

Leading to the accusation: :"just a political activist, not a teacher, not a mother and not a medical doctor"

The urge to go for the most salacious interpretation credibility be damned still runs strong in American media. It works wonders with those with hair thin understanding of the circumstances and a safe insulation from anyone capable and willing to correct them.

Everyone else it just gives the target credit for being important enough to be lied about.

You do not need to lie about MTG, she has true faults a plenty, lying about her just makes her stronger.

Last edited Apr 30, 2023 at 09:10AM EDT

MTG is the inheritor of Trump in one thing, the 3D chess mental gymnastics to justify her bullshit.

You do realize that she said the same thing in 2022? One year ago?
Greene Calls Non-Biological Parents 'Fake' Amid Post-Roe Adoption Push

Oh, a fucking pattern of behavior right there! You know I could end this comment right here with something about you assuming and not doing your research!

But fine, let's stick with 3 days ago. What exactly spurred the attack? You seem to be under the impression that ad hominem attacks are justified if they can be stuck, that the only issue is the "lie", which it isn't.

If I started calling people fucking morons, I would be an asshole for it, correct or not ! I said she's crass, and that's what she is. Damn, Trump also mocked someone for being disabled and your problem would be that I called him an asshole for it, because the person is disabled.

Hey, here's some videos, since nothing gets me quite as angry as trying to justify someone's bullshit. Talking heads, but the direct clips are there so skip to them.

"Lying"? She's straight up stating this on video. What kind of gaslighting nonsense is this?

>You do not need to lie about MTG, she has true faults a plenty, lying about her just makes her stronger.

… Which ones? I'm curious, I remembered she was also played down the last few times she was mentioned here. Chewybunny is probably one of the first who outright condemned her with no qualifiers, and he was smarter in being general.

But some things are better not left unstated.

Last edited Apr 30, 2023 at 12:28PM EDT

"Hair thin understanding of the circumstances and a safe insulation from anyone capable and willing to correct them"

Newsweek, The Humanist report, David Packman, RawStory, LGBTQ nation and Huffington Post.

Insulation enough to survive an ice age.

It's like talking to myself circa 2012. You've thrown up left wing rag and punditry who themselves have pulled reference to other left wing rag and pundity and present it as if it was the words of Bob Woodward, it's not even Hunter S Thompson.

You just need to start quoting John Oliver with the reverance of the 1990s BBC and my full body cringe will be complete as I dissapear in a singularity of "oh god, how could I have been so young?"

All your and thier sources, all have one nugget of truth at a 30 second clip from a podcast cut out of all surrounding context by @patriottakes, a podcast that not one source in the mire I subjected myself to dig through provides link, podcast name, episode number or time stamp

I tried to find the damn podcast on my own and I cant find one pre Jul 16, 2022 with a cohost that looks like that guy.

Everything relies on one interpretation of what "fake mom and fake dad" means to Majorie Taylor Green, any indicator before and after that clip might as well be lost to time.

So we'll have to intepret ourselves what this woman means, you see dogwhistles to adoptees, gays or whatever else, I see reference to common conservative claim of "the state is trying to replace parents in the upbringing of children", to which MTG is a major banner holder.

Both of our intepretation have as much evidence behind them as the others': Zilch. All opinion, may as well make attempts at mind reading, though it is not a mind to which I particularly wish to read.

You can pull up from the mobius strip that is left wing sourcing as many of the left's pundits who agree with your opinion as you wish, but you know whose intepretation of the meaning of MTG is in the negatives in credibility on thier opinion?

Newsweek, The Humanist report, David Packman, RawStory, LGBTQ nation and the Huffington fucking Post.

Last edited Apr 30, 2023 at 02:07PM EDT
You can pull up from the mobius strip that is left wing sourcing as many of the left's pundits who agree with your opinion as you wish, but you know whose intepretation of the meaning of MTG is in the negatives in credibility on thier opinion?

Jesus, what a mouthful.

I might have lost my temper a tad there; the 30 minute edit period really was not enough to fix that one.

Good thing you didn't cite current-year-man else my crime against the english language would have graduated to Heresy.

Last edited Apr 30, 2023 at 02:46PM EDT

Chewybunny wrote:

There is no single politician in the US that deserves more hate, vitriol, and nothing but utter contempt than Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's it. That's the comment.

MTG is a wacko but she's not as bad as even the GOP from the Bush Era, and she can't really do anything too destructive because the media's on her ass 24/7. The truly destructive ones are going to be the ones we're ignorant of because the media isn't focusing on them and so they can do shady things behind the scenes because no one is watching.

@gilian
As for the question of MTG's faults, I had to think about it and the big one is the woman has the same habit as most people (including myself, sometimes): the need to comment immediately without verification.

She's a politician that likes to make political jabs over the backs of corpses, which is distasteful but typical of american politics across the isle; death draws american politicians as easily as flies.

Her instincts for it are fucking terrible however, "conservative finds out they just pontificated on top of the wrong corpse pile" stories near always see her in the middle of it. The woman might as well have a dent in her face for all the rakes she steps on.

Problem for me is the people here keep buying and spreading the stories about her that just stink of bullshit journalism and I cant resist, which means I end up spending half an hour digging through site after ugly, poorly formatted, incestuous site for the primary source and getting increasingly pissed at the shocking state of the industry.

Last edited Apr 30, 2023 at 08:12PM EDT

AnonymousGuy wrote:

MTG is a wacko but she's not as bad as even the GOP from the Bush Era, and she can't really do anything too destructive because the media's on her ass 24/7. The truly destructive ones are going to be the ones we're ignorant of because the media isn't focusing on them and so they can do shady things behind the scenes because no one is watching.

Perhaps it's a sign of my age, but I was in high school/college during the Bush Era (assuming you mean Bush Jr. here), and everything I recall then was that the media was obsessed with his policy every day. In fact, the few things that the GOP wanted to push then which was a definitive positive step in our society was opposed to in principle rather than merit. Not one, not one from that era would dare to say that a parent who adopts a child is not a real mother or father. Not one. I cannot think of a single "conservative" the media hasn't been obsessed about since I came to the US in 91'.

Gilan wrote:

MTG is the inheritor of Trump in one thing, the 3D chess mental gymnastics to justify her bullshit.

You do realize that she said the same thing in 2022? One year ago?
Greene Calls Non-Biological Parents 'Fake' Amid Post-Roe Adoption Push

Oh, a fucking pattern of behavior right there! You know I could end this comment right here with something about you assuming and not doing your research!

But fine, let's stick with 3 days ago. What exactly spurred the attack? You seem to be under the impression that ad hominem attacks are justified if they can be stuck, that the only issue is the "lie", which it isn't.

If I started calling people fucking morons, I would be an asshole for it, correct or not ! I said she's crass, and that's what she is. Damn, Trump also mocked someone for being disabled and your problem would be that I called him an asshole for it, because the person is disabled.

I am a believer that the family unit is the bedrock of a society. Of all the things that I think the "conservatives" from the US, or the West, have it right on is family values. I truly believe that the family is a sacred bond that transcends every other connection.
And since 2019 I've been struggling with my wife to conceive. And one of the hardest barriers for both of us has been a psychological hurdle of what exactly is a legitimate parent. It's still difficult for me to have to come to the idea that if I wanted a family I may have to adopt, and the difficulty for me is to trying to reconcile what exactly is a parent. Would I be a "father" to an adopted child? I struggle with this question constantly, as someone who genuinely believes in the base biological purpose of passing your genetics, who strongly believes in the idea that there is an unbroken chain that stretches countless billions of generations before me that I am beholden to. So yeah.

Having a politician from the direction of family values tell me that I would never be a real father, and my wife, never a real mother, if we choose to adopt because we want a family desperately is particularly painful and antithetical to the core principles of conservative ideas. Especially someone who has a history of cheating on her own husband.

Yeah. I took this one particularly personal. Far, far, far more than I did with the whole "Jewish Lasers" thing.

Like holy hell. At a certain point you're desperate attempt to own the libs comes at the cost of completely alienating anyone who had to struggle to create a family.

Last edited May 01, 2023 at 06:19AM EDT

@Chewybunny

>I am a believer that the family unit is the bedrock of a society.

Same, a measure of the health of a society is how the "average" family is doing. If they're doing badly, then any other statistics doesn't matter.

My condolences for your troubles, and I hope the best for the both of you no matter what decision you make.

If I'm not overstepping by saying this, my cousin and his wife decided to adopt and their little daughter is very attached to them. There's no promises that a father-child bond could be made with an adopted child, but I've also seen a family where the only tie between son and father was blood, no other.

Like holy hell. At a certain point you're desperate attempt to own the libs comes at the cost of completely alienating anyone who had to struggle to create a family.

Does marrying the parent after the children are all grown up and all the parenting is done make you as much of a parent as them? Does it give you the same weight and authority so as to be trusted to make decisions for the children of others?

No. One such as that lacks all experience intrinsic to child rearing, making the claim to such a hollow pretence. That was the point made and all this "she doesn't think adopters are real parents" is the desperate attempt to own the con.

The con tearing into why a union lawyer with little educational experience and an absence of medical or even parental experience was put into a position to contribute to the stunting of a generation of children.

Last edited May 01, 2023 at 07:30AM EDT

Yo Yo! You must login or signup first!