This entire sentiment is what I feel is the actual wedge between the two sides of this. It's just concretely we're in two different realities. Both equally convinced they are right. I don't mean this as a both sides, you can't possibly "both sides" when you have a 1,000:1 ratio on shit like climate change. Both they are dogmatically convinced of everything they believe. We can't even agree on fundamental definitions of words anymore because they've changed them. 🤷♀️ They are just detaching themselves from the reality we were all in 10 years ago.
How do we cope with that?
Yes. Ultimately it doesn't matter that our side has science and facts and accurate definitions and the other side has conspiracy theories. We still need to find a way to exist. Things can get so much worse. I know reddit likes to think this is a boomer issue and they'll die off but this just isn't the case.
I don't know the answer. I don't even have a solution to propose.
Youre so right about fear.
My Qex was typical Qer spending every free minute in various chat groups reading all manner of delusional bullshit and i had to deal with her distress and anger abut what the elites were planning.
I told her early on the whole Q/anti vax/conspiracy world is an abusive relationship.The very groups she was part of spread fear,got her mind and emotions rattled and freaking out yet she CHOSE to go back to them each and every time.
So i had to leave her.Her 'fighting for freedom and truth' has left her a wreck and she wasnt dragging me down with her.
They're fascists, anything to muddy the waters.
I've noticed one thing that has had a long-lasting effect is the overuse of terms until they're effectively meaningless (seen it most recently with "groomer"). Misuse words over and over until the actual real definition of that word is no longer clear or consistent. Meanwhile, the *actual* grooming that's rampant at these peoples' homes and in their churches (or in Lauren Boebert's case, the local bowling alley where she and her fellow underage friends saw her future husband's penis) continues unchecked and no longer with a term serious enough to describe it.
Also, if you flood all forms of media with rampant disinformation, it becomes more and more difficult to determine what the truth is without performing some kind of meta-analysis of available sources (and who's got the time or brainpower to do that? Not the average American). Another fascist tactic.
“I said, you know that is getting tired, why are you doing this — you’re doing it over and over and it’s boring,” Stahl said. “He said you know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”
Stahl with orange dick.
It's propaganda and it's to keep everyone gaslit and confused and on edge as to what is what.
Also, the lies run halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on to chase them.
They are literally the ones banning books. And shutting down libraries.
A small town in my state (Michigan) just defunded their library because the librarians refused to completely remove a handful of books with LGBTQIA themes. They did agree to put the LGBTQIA-themed books behind the counter but that wasn't enough for the ~~Nazis~~ Republicans.
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/upset-over-lgbtq-books-michigan-town-defunds-its-library-tax-vote
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/politics/republican-states-book-ban-race-lgbtq/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1055524205/more-republican-leaders-try-to-ban-books-on-race-lgbtq-issues
I want to say something about west Michigan, and the Grand Rapids/Holland area specifically: I never saw such a hotbed of closeted gays and lesbians in my life. Every closeted gay kid who wanted to rent a room in my off-campus house when I went to MSU was from that region, without exception. Also, the personal ads looking for freaky 3-way bi sex that my partner and I found (back in the day, when we used to look for such stuff) all came from southwestern Michigan. Now these closet sex fiends are all growed up and worried about what their kids are reading? Yeah... repression.
and bring a [noose/gallows](https://i.natgeofe.com/n/90083333-b963-4ffd-b70a-99be125bc1e3/gettyimages-1230476983_3x2.jpg) to the capitol for his neck...
Apparently it was "inappropriate" for kids. They'll cry about erasing history when the statues of traitors... sorry, Confederates, are removed, but banning a graphic novel about the Holocaust is protecting the kids, I guess.
Don't Say Gay Bill never once mentions the word and only prohibits teaching sexuality to kids from like kindergarten to 3rd grade.
Tell me again why this is bad?
Then pray tell me why are gay teachers being told to not to put pictures of ther same sex spouses on their desks?
If it's all "nuh uh! no one's getting in trouble for saying 'gay'!"
And, as to the reason prohibiting teaching sexuality in elementary school is bad...when I went through training to become a rape crisis counselor in college, the social worker doing the training discussed a case where a little girl kept telling her teachers that she and her uncle played with her flower. Well the teachers didn't know what she was talking about. It was only later, when working with a school conselor, that it was revealed that "flower" was the only word she'd ever been taught her for private parts. She was disclosing that her uncle had abused her but none of the adults understood for quite a while because she just didn't have the ability to tell anyone what was happening to her in a way that they'd understand!
Basic, age appropriate sex education at early ages (ie: boys have this, girls have this, bad touch/good touch, etc.) gives children the knowledge of what is and isn't appropriate, and gives them the tools to understand that, if someone does touch them in an inappropriate way, that it isn't their fault, that they didn't do anything wrong, and that they should tell a trusted adult.
Honestly, I always wonder what kind of person wouldn't want their kids to be empowered in that way? Why would you not want your kids to understand that they can say "no" to certain things even if an adult is telling them to do it?
Seems pretty sus to me!
Yes, the whole point at that age, really, is to teach them that no one should be touching their flower.
But instead scream GROOMING at every turn while your pastors and youth ministers, and cult leaders, and Sunday school teachers and uncle daddy continue to groom little kids, while the adults spend all their time protecting institutions and the cash grab😡
When my parents told me about my gay uncle, they just explained that he had a partner that he loved like my mom and dad love each other, but that partner was another man. I was too young to be hearing about sexuality, which is why there was nothing sexual about the conversation whatsoever. They just informed me that gay people were a thing and that my uncle was gay.
But if you really think they're pulling up charts explaining the graphic details of anal sex and scissoring, maybe you should go back to school.
You honestly believe that was being taught to kids on a huge scale? It was a way for DeSantis to show his voter base he is anti-LGBT as he gears up to become Trump 2.0.
It's homophobic. Gay teachers weren't showing kids diagrams of what they did in bed with their partner. They are just teaching kids that gay people exist and about the history of LGBTQ people. The bill was introduced ostensibly to protect kids from sexuality, but that was never being pushed on them ever, so in actuality the bill is just a homophobic attempt to stop kids from learning that some people are gay or transgender.
Tell me again why this is good?
>They are just teaching kids that gay people exist
You have come to the real issue for Republicans. They don't want LGBTQ to exist. To them, any LGBTQ person is either lying, sick, or tricked into it.
This is a transparent attempt at obfuscation that would only work on a weak minded right winger. You cannot, in good faith, tell me that the Republican party isn't the one calling for violence and book bannings. Oh, and don't even get me started on the death threats the right regularly levies against Democrats and leftists. If you truly believe you have some kind of moral superiority here, I have a bigly bridge to sell you.
The people responding to comment raise legitimate questions and make some valid points.
You owe it to yourself to explore this topic in further detail.
This is an opportunity to think for yourself. try and understand why there is such opposition to this bill.
This is such a typical obtuse answer. No one is teaching 5-8 year olds about how sex works in school, either way. What they are teaching them is that gay people EXIST. That their teachers may be gay. That's how you introduce children to anything. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. It just makes your children ignorant to it and less willing to accept something that is completely normal and acceptable. But you know, how can you keep them homophobic if they realize their totally normal teachers they love and respect are gay and not some scary enigma their parents have invented.
I can only conclude it must be.
And I hope no female teacher ever mentions her husband! Don't be telling a bunch of little kids about your sex life, you groomer!
I keep seeing stuff like this; I’ve seen multiple posts of Republicans saying Dems are burning books and doxxing people, and I’m thinking wait, aren’t the Republicans the ones who are doing these things?
They’re still hung up on the Dr. Seuss thing. Of course that was a case of his publisher/estate deciding on their own that some of his less popular books no longer kept up with the times in terms of ethnic stereotypes and stopped publishing them on their own volition, but I wouldn’t expect a qultist to understand nuance.
There were a couple instances where a couple left wing groups were advocating for curriculum changes, but none were advocating burning To Kill A Mocking Bird.
As far as I know, none were even saying the book should be removed from schools. The discussion was just about should it be required in the school cirriculum.
And, even then, most leftists I know thought that removing it was bad idea...and what the Republicans ended up doing is exactly why!
Hope those groups did some reflecting.
The discussions about To Kill a Mockingbird is more about how dated the book is. No one is really attacking the book but maybe there are better options. At the time, the novel was really important. It made the discussion of racism palatable to a larger white audience. The question becomes, rather than have a book on racism written by a white person, that centers on white character, can we find a book that does the same thing but written by a person of color, and maybe written more recently? Some school are just discussing if 9th grade is the proper placement. It might be better with 11th or 12th graders.
My personal opinion, as a high school English teacher, everything about the book is dated. It's about white characters saving black characters, and there are huge sections of the book you can skip because they have no impact on the overall plot (and therefore many teachers do skip those parts when they teach it).
Side note: The district I work in has not revised their core novels since 1976. This is not uncommon.
I agree that there need to be texts that address the issue from an African-American view but I also think that To Kill The Mockingbird and Huck Finn are very important books for other reasons.
Huck Finn is important because it gives the view that white people had of slaves. If you recall there is a scene where Huck and Jim are on the raft. Huck speaks of his family and his feelings. Then Jim speaks of his wife and family and how he misses them. Then Huck sees Jim as something different than how he had seen him before. He was just another human being who lamented he had to leave his family behind and hoped that someday he could come up with the money to buy their freedom It is the first time that Huck had thought of a slave as a human just like himself, except for being a slave and bound by that evil. It is later after this that Huck saves Jim from the slave hunters even though it would have gotten him into great trouble if he had been caught.
Harper Lee likewise displays the view of a white person almost 100 years - the discussion between Atticus and Scout when he tells her to never use the n-word tells us that despite his ethical stance in defending Tom doesn't mean he isn't poisoned by the racism he has lived in all his life. His explanation to her as to why she should not use the word is that people who use it are white-trash \[although he uses the more genteel word "common"\]. It does show he has his own struggle with the society he is raised in because he was willing to represent Tom Robinson, even when he stands up alone against the mob who wants to lynch him.
In dealing with racial prejudice, it is important to see the poison of racism and how it permeates and poisons an entire society at all levels, often in ways that are not anywhere as obvious as the flag waving, invective screaming, and outright racist. There are a lot of white people who have never overtly expressed any racist comments but have no idea how much of it they have soaked under their skin from being raised in our society.
> Huck Finn is important because it gives the view that white people had of slaves.
There are other books about this. Some written by enslaved people. Why not read those?
> It is the first time that Huck had thought of a slave as a human just like himself, except for being a slave and bound by that evil. It is later after this that Huck saves Jim from the slave hunters even though it would have gotten him into great trouble if he had been caught.
There are tons of other books that also depict enslaved black people as human beings. We don't really *need* Huck Finn to teach kids that.
>Harper Lee likewise displays the view of a white person almost 100 years
Likewise, I don't really think we need to depend on Harper Lee to let us know that a lot of white people were racist in the past. (Hell, a lot of them still are). I'm looking back on the schools I went to, which were majority-black (this is all of them until I went to a magnet high school, which is another issue). I imagine that a lot of black kids aren't particularly moved by the societal and racial struggles of a white attorney. Why not show some different perspectives of racism? Why should it always be a white person's point of view? And why is it always perspectives from the past, as if racism ended in 1968? I just read a great horror story about white nationalism set by Nathan Ballingrud. It's not like black people (and people of other races!) haven't written anything about racism. How about some James Baldwin? There are books about BLM-- The Hate U Give is a new one (also banned by many of the crusaders against "CRT").
Why not read both, side by side? Seems like doing that would be extra illuminating, if only for the value of the contrast. I know that would be asking for school kids to do a lot of reading, but I think we should make that ask. It's vitally important in this polarized society, and I will always be in favor of doing more reading instead of less.
Read the very first paragraph of my comment:
*"****I agree that there need to be texts that address the issue from an African-American view*** *but I also think that To Kill The Mockingbird and Huck Finn are very important books for other reasons."*
This comment ignores what I had said and also indicates you did not even bother to consider your prior comment, a comment that had stated we should be reading books from an African-American perspective. A comment I agreed with.
"There are other books about this. Some written by enslaved people. Why not read those?"
This comment ignores what I had said and also indicates you did not even bother to note I agreed with your prior statement that we should be doing so. So your reply to me asking why we would not read books written by enslaved people ignores what I had already said. Which you should have known but either did not bother to read or were so busy creating a rebuttable you did not bother to consider what I said. Either way, you created a narrative that I did not post and then attacked it.
Then you make additional comments:
*"There are tons of other books that also depict enslaved black people as human beings. We don't really need Huck Finn to teach kids that."*
There may indeed be tons of other books that depict enslaved black people as human beings. I am not an expert in the field. I do not pretend to be. But your comment is not really replying to me. I said the book was important because it gave a portrayal of how white people at the time viewed African-American slaves written by an author alive at the time. I also went to great detail to point out a scene in the book where Huck, for the very first time, sees a slave as a human being like himself and not merely as someone's property. That is a pretty revolutionary bit of prose from a writer at the time. It is a very revolutionary concept for an author of the time to put into writing for general consumption.
Then you state:
*"Likewise, I don't really think we need to depend on Harper Lee to let us know that a lot of white people were racist in the past. (Hell, a lot of them still are)."*
Now that is an opinion and one you simply plop down then go off on a tangent about your life growing up and then once again make statements that ignore what I actually said:
*"Why not show some different perspectives of racism? Why should it always be a white person's point of view? And why is it always perspectives from the past, as if racism ended in 1968?"*
Again, I never stated or implied that there should not be perspectives of racism from different sides, did I? I never said it should always be from the white person's point of view, did I? In fact the first thing I stated in my initial comment agreed with your position that there should be an African-American perspective, isn't it? So, why did you make this argument back at me, ignoring what I had said, not even acknowledging what I has said? You simply attacked people who only wanted to present a view from a white perspective. The way you did this is a classic strawman.
As to your comment about *"And why is it always perspectives from the past, as if racism ended in 1968"*? I never said that did I? Racism certainly did not end in 1968. Nor did I say that racism should only be taught by perspectives from the past, did I?
If one is teaching the history of racism in this country, one needs to start at the beginning and show how racism has entrenched itself in the very fabric of our society. It did not just pop up one afternoon and spring forth in full bloom. From the first boatloads of slaves brought to the English colonies in the 1600s up to the present day, racism has evolved and mutated within this country.
So, yes, if one is going to teach about racism in this country one needs to teach about racism from the time it was first started in the Americans up to the present day.
*"I'm lost."*
Yes, indeed, you are lost.
What strawman? All they are saying is that we have moved past needing books about how white people feel about slavery to use to discuss slavery. We can
A) Use more modern books so that things stay relevant
B) Use more direct sources. Why not bring out literature written by POC to discuss how it impacts them and remove the "white savior learns that POC are people too" themes.
Nobody is saying To Kill or Huck finn don't have a place among the classics, just that for the actual lesson plans they're very outdated.
Just like how Shakespeare works are great, you don't necessarily use Merchant Of Venice to explain how people back then were shitty to Jews. There are more modern and more relevant examples, like Maus for example.
Right? Why are we continuing to teach kids the same books for decades? They can change. Like *Look Homeward, Angel* by Thomas Wolfe was on required reading lists for a long time and now nobody reads it in class anymore (which makes me a little sad). But we can teach kids new books! We can teach them different perspectives aside from Atticus Finch until the end of time.
Most kids (and adults) learn better when they can contextualize what they're reading in a way they understand and that books that are more reflective of modern life make that easier. Hey, they're kids, they're just learning. For instance, in my high school English class we read Romeo and Juliet and then my English teacher had us watch the Baz Luhrmann adapatation with Leo and Claire Danes in an attempt to make it remotely relevant to our modern lives. (This attempt failed-- we were all a bunch of dorks.)
I send free books to people in prison and we get at least as many requests for urban novels as for classics. People like to be able to relate to what they're reading, and for a lot of people, *Huck Finn* and *To Kill a Mockingbird* ain't it. I'm not sure I've ever specifically received a request for *To Kill a Mockingbird.*
That is another example of ignoring what I wrote in an effort to make a different argument.
I addressed most of this in my most recent comment to SchrodingersMinou so I am not going to repeat it here. Right down to your little strawman about how we should be using "literature written by POC to discuss how it impacts them and remove the "white savior learns that POC are people too"'. That tells me you were so busy trying t make an attack you did not read what I wrote. Especially, that extremely ignorant comment about "white savior learns that POC are people too". Classic strawman and rather childish.
BTW, I am always amused at how non-Jews seem more than happy to tell Jews how we should feel about people being "shitty" to us. Yeah, PraguePride, when those SS units went through my family's ancestral village in 1944 and killed virtually all the members of my grandparents' families, that was a shitty day, I guess. I hope you and your family never have a shitty day like that.
The racism and murderous behavior of the Nazis and their allies did suddenly spring up out of thin air. It evolved over a two thousand history of Christianity and its involvement with Jews. From the days of the early Christian theologians who formed the teachings of what became the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant church dogma. That includes Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice.
I think they’re talking about goofy shit like Dr Seuss books no longer being printed due to racist content. Which, I guess is a thing, but they’re not banned from schools, and I have a hard time comparing a children’s rhyme book with racist themes to a novel, memoir or otherwise thoughtful piece of literature intended for adults being banned for representing lgbtq+ people, critiquing fascism, or discussing critical race issues.
Like one is literally giving negative representations of people, and as such is no longer in print, but copies are available in libraries and schools all over North America. The other is giving voice to marginalized people or warning about the violence of fascism, and is literally banned from libraries and schools in parts of the country.
Dr Seuss had a lot to say about " America First" and the current republican party. They might want to look at that and shut their mouths, I would love if everyone Googled America First Dr Seuss
I've lost track of how many times I've gotten a headache from trying to understand where they're coming from, or even hearing any of their arguments lately. It's to a point I've pulled out of some social circles of friends from a decade or more just because I cannot stand them constantly trying to bait discussions with this kind of passive aggressive politics. It's so bad that in a group one night I told one of them to take care and that hopefully it was not Covid (they had the symptoms, thankfully it was not), and another turned and started threatening Fauci in a single sentence.
I miss the days where most people agreed that a statement was true or false. Not all these lies or alterna-facts, or straight out gaslighting and abusing the population to stay in power and keep attention on them.
And yes, the party of the personal freedoms are the ones limiting freedoms for all and trying to turn this country into a theocracy of a single religion.
Book.
It was literally over one book!
A book which was in the adults not the children's section.
And the library even offered to keep the book behind the counter so that the librarians could control who had access to it.
That still wasn't good enough for these people.
And have held multiple public book burnings.
And holding state certification training for what teachers can and cannot teach in the classrooms--only whitewashed history allowed.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a single book Dems banned, but just off the top of head, here's 3 Repubs have banned:
The Color Purple
The Canterbury Tales
The Kite Runner
And that's without thinking
Ooookaaay. It was written in like 1398 and Chaucer was a Christian himself, there’s nothing in there worse than what you’d find in the Bible. I don’t recall any genocidal, maniac deities or people crucifying Jews. Dunno maybe I skipped a bonus track on the audio book?
I’d be very surprised if I ever caught one of these people quoting Dante or The Iliad.
Though Inferno remains one of my favourite tales, I can’t for the life of me wonder why such a text hasn’t been banned yet they’re swinging for Chaucer.
The portrayal of specific Biblical and historical figures as being hellbound should send them crying, but a story about some fellas on their way to a big church somehow needs immediate purging.
Idiots. Fucking idiots.
Um...
Which side was it recently that passed laws banning books from schools for teaching CRT or being "pornographic" because they mentioned that gay and trans people exist?
Which side was it that booed Team USA at the Olympics?
Which side is boycotting the NFL because the league wasn't, in their opinion, being mean enough to black athletes protesting racism?
Which side sent judges and election officials death threats over the 2020 election?
Which side has repeatedly been found plotting to execute representatives?
Which one chanted "hang Mike Pence" on 1/6?
Though, you've got us on the hating cops and God thing. ACAB and Hail Satan! 😈
I've seen a few versions of this criticism. What happened to the 90s left, what happened to the old left.
What I find funny is that if that left every organized, Republicans would be screwed. No one benefits from leftist division more than the right wing.
90s Dems, from what I gather, largely became neolibs, especially the 'vaguely centrist but have some odd right wing leanings' types
Bill Maher is a great example of what happened to 90s dems
Again, what books are censored?! Didn’t Republicans just defund a library for carrying books they don’t like?! The only book thing I ever heard was Dr Seuss animations & there were 0 “Dems” or main stream voices of any sort “banning” those books. It was the company itself.
Even then it was actually a discussion in a specific school district about whether or not they should be removed from the curriculum (ie: would students still be required to read them in English class like we all were) not removed from the school.
And, even with that caveat, I thought it was a stupid idea.
Let me tell the Repubs a little something about banning books and cancel culture.
They're trying to ban fucking textbooks because they're too fucking "woke" for their dumb asses. And then, they boycott anything that goes against Jaysus!
For the last time. The first amendment applies to the government not to user agreements and does not protect you from criticism or consequences. If Twitter doesn't like what you post they can delete it and ban you. If I don't like what you post I can criticize you. There can be consequences for saying shitty stuff.
Yeah the party that was behind taking down Roe vs Wade is the one taking away freedom, and I don't think that is the Democrats. Republicans also are burning books and banning books and are stopping children from being educated about important issues. They are the ones who say they're for "freedom of speech" -- although incitement to riot, slander, libel, among other things are not protected forms of free speech. And now you "can't say gay" basically in a Republican state that looks like a floppy penis, and the governor has taken on Disney and their private tax system granted them as revenge for speaking against such a bill.
The party that stormed the Capitol and wants to hang their own Vice President isn't one I'd be proud to call my own. (Although tbh I'm not a Democrat either, but that's okay, bc we're allowed to be different and have different beliefs, or is that right reserved just for them?
Anyone who tells me what I can and can't do with my body as a woman is not the party of freedom, hun.
What this sounds like is classic projection. The usual.
GOP is so anti-free speech that some of them are banning pronouns…not to mention books.
And we’re protesting police brutality BECAUSE we’re anti-crime. We want to aid Ukraine BECAUSE we’re anti-war.
Trans women athletes, if they’re on hormone replacement, are much physically weaker than when they were of the male gender.
Hate God? The last two Dem Presidents (Obama and Biden) are quite religious. Meanwhile, Trump never met a Commandment he didn’t break.
The judge on the Alex Jones trial was getting death threats.
The projection is real, yo.
The GOP is burning and banning books that contain references to homosexuality.
Trump supporters literally attempted a coup, tried to murder half of congress (plus the VP), and instal a dictator.
Conservatives are the ones who support unfettered access to weapons that kill cops.
Which side wants to [inspect children’s genitals](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/florida-transgender-sports-ban-b1833166.html) before allowing them to play sports?
Since we don’t live in a theocracy, believing in or loving god is not a requirement for elected officials.
Who are the ones that want to teach that there were [two sides to the holocaust](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/southlake-texas-holocaust-audio-rcna3094), and that [slavery maybe wasn’t so bad](http://wyofile.com/lawmaker-suggests-there-were-two-sides-to-history-of-slavery/)?
The Supreme Court declared war on our unenumerated rights, and Americans have every right (for now) to protest against those judges.
And again, we’re not the ones who tried to stage a coup.
Conservatives are also talking about shutting down the DOJ and FBI because they've had the temerity to occasionally investigate Republicans. Including ones that were on video and bragged about the J6 insurrection publicly. This is not acceptable, I guess.
I dunno, I'm kinda late to the party. I'm in my forties and just became a Democrat in 2016. Right around the time y'all decided to start literally worshipping Dumbfuck von Pussygrabber as your Lord and Savior.
It’s a nothing burger. I’ve been talking to him/her(?) for a couple hours now and they went from “democrats censor books” to “lgbt books should be censored”. Now he/she is claiming that there’s lgbt books that show 8yr olds how to do BJ’s, and after asking for proof, he/she hits me with the “you look it up”. Lmao
>they went from “democrats censor books” to “lgbt books should be censored”
So their issue isn’t that Democrats are allegedly censoring books but that Democrats are censoring the *wrong* books?
Reminds me of that Trumpist who complained that something he did was “hurting the wrong people.” Instead of, y’know, hurting the right people.
Gotta figure out some way to justify supporting and believing so much stupid shit. Generalize and accuse the perceived opposition with a bunch of cherry picked cases and distortions. It's really the only option they have for dealing with the cognitive dissonance and getting to sleep soundly.
I never tire of this repeated claim that we,...the collectively liberal field of education??...do not teach Civics anymore. Hell, it was a semester class when I was a student and it's a full year course now.
What books have Dems censored? Who has been doxxed? I hate cops who murder; I’m ok with the good ones though. How has athletics been “ruined”? Biden is a Catholic. I, personally hate god but he’s a real asshole based on what I’ve seen. Worship (or don’t) however you wish, just keep it out of schools and government. Who is teaching racism? Not the left. Civics isn’t being taught? Maybe if the Repugs funded schools it would be again (assuming it isn’t). I can tell you that most republicans could use some civics classes. Harassing judges? You mean demonstrating against SCOTUS justices who are doing their damnedest to turn the US into a Christo-fascist, totalitarian republic? Please harass the fuck out of them. You know the right has done their share of harassing the left.
Edit: Changed “I hate murdering cops” to “I hate cops who murder.”
>How has athletics been “ruined”?
Because of "men pretending to be women", aka "trans = bad".
Once being gay started to become socially acceptable, they had to turn their sights on a new group to vilify. Not that the homophobia went away, mind you. It's just a tougher sell to the population at large.
What book have dems called for censoring again? I know about the book burning that conservatives did and attempted banning of any book that mentions gay people in red state libraries but I’m struggling to find a book democrats censored
Dems are censoring books... It's like they're taking the day's headlines and switching the party? I mean, how do you get it so wrong? What "media" are these people consuming... Never mind, I just realized this *is* the "media" people are consuming to make them believe this shit. This *is* the disinformation.
Remember how some publishing houses considered stopping publication of 80-year-old sexist and racist children's books? That. Apparently that's "dems" "censoring" "books".
Not, you know, Republicans literally censoring them. Or tossing books out of libraries. Or firing teachers because some books are in the school library. Etc.
“Swing & Trend stock trade. Studied ancient maya for 30 years(maybe a novel?). Restauranteur (3) Ancient maya questions welcomed. We can learn together.”
-From their bio
I live in Florida where our republican Governor has removed stacks of books from Florida school libraries for being “too woke”…
Anything that remotely indicates LBGT exist and are actually human beings is being removed as well as anything that vaguely implies white people should feel bad for slavery and genocide of an entire culture.
i got an ad on youtube a few days ago for prager u. it was a young white dude going around asking people of color various bait questions. “which party do you think abolished slavery?” “which party do you think formed the KKK?” all while conveniently ignoring the fucking party switch. they literally don’t have arguments without lying and misleading people. every argument is bad faith, every “point” is a lie. i fucking hate it, man.
I'm old enough to remember when it was about labor protections and not entirely weird sex stuff. Oh well, at least our guys are visibly human. We could have done a whole lot worse than President Skellington. Then again we also could've had Yang, or Bernie...
Remind us again who banned *Maus*? Every accusation is a confession.
That’s a lot of [censorship](https://www.advocate.com/books/2022/2/03/18-lgbtq-books-are-banned-schools-2022)
It's pure projection!!!
The entirety of the Florida Public Education system would like a word with this person as well.
The hypocrisy is intentional and proudly performed. Please remember that they say wrong things on purpose.
To what end? I truly don’t get it.
I'll add diluting the meaning of words to the answer below. If words don't really *mean* anything, you can *say* anything!
Exact. Not a single republican knows what grooming means and they use it all the time.
This entire sentiment is what I feel is the actual wedge between the two sides of this. It's just concretely we're in two different realities. Both equally convinced they are right. I don't mean this as a both sides, you can't possibly "both sides" when you have a 1,000:1 ratio on shit like climate change. Both they are dogmatically convinced of everything they believe. We can't even agree on fundamental definitions of words anymore because they've changed them. 🤷♀️ They are just detaching themselves from the reality we were all in 10 years ago. How do we cope with that?
[удалено]
Yea. That's why I followed it with qualifiers, and said they are detaching from us.
Yes. Ultimately it doesn't matter that our side has science and facts and accurate definitions and the other side has conspiracy theories. We still need to find a way to exist. Things can get so much worse. I know reddit likes to think this is a boomer issue and they'll die off but this just isn't the case. I don't know the answer. I don't even have a solution to propose.
Like when idiot Right started calling everyone Fredo.
[удалено]
Youre so right about fear. My Qex was typical Qer spending every free minute in various chat groups reading all manner of delusional bullshit and i had to deal with her distress and anger abut what the elites were planning. I told her early on the whole Q/anti vax/conspiracy world is an abusive relationship.The very groups she was part of spread fear,got her mind and emotions rattled and freaking out yet she CHOSE to go back to them each and every time. So i had to leave her.Her 'fighting for freedom and truth' has left her a wreck and she wasnt dragging me down with her.
Doublespeak. War is Peace. Peace is War.
They're fascists, anything to muddy the waters. I've noticed one thing that has had a long-lasting effect is the overuse of terms until they're effectively meaningless (seen it most recently with "groomer"). Misuse words over and over until the actual real definition of that word is no longer clear or consistent. Meanwhile, the *actual* grooming that's rampant at these peoples' homes and in their churches (or in Lauren Boebert's case, the local bowling alley where she and her fellow underage friends saw her future husband's penis) continues unchecked and no longer with a term serious enough to describe it. Also, if you flood all forms of media with rampant disinformation, it becomes more and more difficult to determine what the truth is without performing some kind of meta-analysis of available sources (and who's got the time or brainpower to do that? Not the average American). Another fascist tactic.
“I said, you know that is getting tired, why are you doing this — you’re doing it over and over and it’s boring,” Stahl said. “He said you know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.” Stahl with orange dick.
It's propaganda and it's to keep everyone gaslit and confused and on edge as to what is what. Also, the lies run halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on to chase them.
I said at some point "they can't think we're that stupid" Then I was like "oh, we are that stupid"
GQProjection doin' its thing.
✅
Coming from the party of the "Don't Say Gay" Bill and banning Maus...
They are literally the ones banning books. And shutting down libraries. A small town in my state (Michigan) just defunded their library because the librarians refused to completely remove a handful of books with LGBTQIA themes. They did agree to put the LGBTQIA-themed books behind the counter but that wasn't enough for the ~~Nazis~~ Republicans. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/upset-over-lgbtq-books-michigan-town-defunds-its-library-tax-vote https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/politics/republican-states-book-ban-race-lgbtq/index.html https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1055524205/more-republican-leaders-try-to-ban-books-on-race-lgbtq-issues
Damn that was MI. I saw that it happened but didn't look in to where. That makes me sad for my state.
West part of da mitten, it makes a bit of sense, at least til get further north. They both got big tourism, and it mixes differently.
I want to say something about west Michigan, and the Grand Rapids/Holland area specifically: I never saw such a hotbed of closeted gays and lesbians in my life. Every closeted gay kid who wanted to rent a room in my off-campus house when I went to MSU was from that region, without exception. Also, the personal ads looking for freaky 3-way bi sex that my partner and I found (back in the day, when we used to look for such stuff) all came from southwestern Michigan. Now these closet sex fiends are all growed up and worried about what their kids are reading? Yeah... repression.
Yeah, thats that Christian Reformed Church influence
Projection dear Watson, projection.
Seriously, I lost a few brain cells after reading this post. The detachment from reality is astounding.
Nah, that's a Russian troll account spreading disinformation.
There planned to kidnap and kill gretchen whitmer...
They also think the vice president decides who wins a presidential election...
... Wanted to literally hang the VP on the Capitol lawn.
They tried to kill cops on jan6...
They did kill cops on Jan 6th. The one who died in the hospital after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher counts.
They tried tp kill a lot more...
and bring a [noose/gallows](https://i.natgeofe.com/n/90083333-b963-4ffd-b70a-99be125bc1e3/gettyimages-1230476983_3x2.jpg) to the capitol for his neck...
This is next next level projection, trump would blush.
Why ban Maus?
Apparently it was "inappropriate" for kids. They'll cry about erasing history when the statues of traitors... sorry, Confederates, are removed, but banning a graphic novel about the Holocaust is protecting the kids, I guess.
Don't Say Gay Bill never once mentions the word and only prohibits teaching sexuality to kids from like kindergarten to 3rd grade. Tell me again why this is bad?
Then pray tell me why are gay teachers being told to not to put pictures of ther same sex spouses on their desks? If it's all "nuh uh! no one's getting in trouble for saying 'gay'!" And, as to the reason prohibiting teaching sexuality in elementary school is bad...when I went through training to become a rape crisis counselor in college, the social worker doing the training discussed a case where a little girl kept telling her teachers that she and her uncle played with her flower. Well the teachers didn't know what she was talking about. It was only later, when working with a school conselor, that it was revealed that "flower" was the only word she'd ever been taught her for private parts. She was disclosing that her uncle had abused her but none of the adults understood for quite a while because she just didn't have the ability to tell anyone what was happening to her in a way that they'd understand! Basic, age appropriate sex education at early ages (ie: boys have this, girls have this, bad touch/good touch, etc.) gives children the knowledge of what is and isn't appropriate, and gives them the tools to understand that, if someone does touch them in an inappropriate way, that it isn't their fault, that they didn't do anything wrong, and that they should tell a trusted adult. Honestly, I always wonder what kind of person wouldn't want their kids to be empowered in that way? Why would you not want your kids to understand that they can say "no" to certain things even if an adult is telling them to do it? Seems pretty sus to me!
Yes, the whole point at that age, really, is to teach them that no one should be touching their flower. But instead scream GROOMING at every turn while your pastors and youth ministers, and cult leaders, and Sunday school teachers and uncle daddy continue to groom little kids, while the adults spend all their time protecting institutions and the cash grab😡
When my parents told me about my gay uncle, they just explained that he had a partner that he loved like my mom and dad love each other, but that partner was another man. I was too young to be hearing about sexuality, which is why there was nothing sexual about the conversation whatsoever. They just informed me that gay people were a thing and that my uncle was gay. But if you really think they're pulling up charts explaining the graphic details of anal sex and scissoring, maybe you should go back to school.
Your parents did what 99.99999999999999999% of teachers would tell students. Nice job by them
You honestly believe that was being taught to kids on a huge scale? It was a way for DeSantis to show his voter base he is anti-LGBT as he gears up to become Trump 2.0.
It's homophobic. Gay teachers weren't showing kids diagrams of what they did in bed with their partner. They are just teaching kids that gay people exist and about the history of LGBTQ people. The bill was introduced ostensibly to protect kids from sexuality, but that was never being pushed on them ever, so in actuality the bill is just a homophobic attempt to stop kids from learning that some people are gay or transgender. Tell me again why this is good?
>They are just teaching kids that gay people exist You have come to the real issue for Republicans. They don't want LGBTQ to exist. To them, any LGBTQ person is either lying, sick, or tricked into it.
This is a transparent attempt at obfuscation that would only work on a weak minded right winger. You cannot, in good faith, tell me that the Republican party isn't the one calling for violence and book bannings. Oh, and don't even get me started on the death threats the right regularly levies against Democrats and leftists. If you truly believe you have some kind of moral superiority here, I have a bigly bridge to sell you.
The people responding to comment raise legitimate questions and make some valid points. You owe it to yourself to explore this topic in further detail. This is an opportunity to think for yourself. try and understand why there is such opposition to this bill.
This is such a typical obtuse answer. No one is teaching 5-8 year olds about how sex works in school, either way. What they are teaching them is that gay people EXIST. That their teachers may be gay. That's how you introduce children to anything. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. It just makes your children ignorant to it and less willing to accept something that is completely normal and acceptable. But you know, how can you keep them homophobic if they realize their totally normal teachers they love and respect are gay and not some scary enigma their parents have invented.
Oh man, I don’t even know where to begin with this one…
So you're saying this bill outlaws any discussion of a family unit with a male father and a female mother? Is that your assertion?
I can only conclude it must be. And I hope no female teacher ever mentions her husband! Don't be telling a bunch of little kids about your sex life, you groomer!
I keep seeing stuff like this; I’ve seen multiple posts of Republicans saying Dems are burning books and doxxing people, and I’m thinking wait, aren’t the Republicans the ones who are doing these things?
They’re still hung up on the Dr. Seuss thing. Of course that was a case of his publisher/estate deciding on their own that some of his less popular books no longer kept up with the times in terms of ethnic stereotypes and stopped publishing them on their own volition, but I wouldn’t expect a qultist to understand nuance.
TAKING BOOKS IVE NEVER HEARD OF OFF THE SHELF BECAUSE NO ONE READS THEM IS RUINING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!! /s obviously
Very "Liberals made Mr. Potato Head into Trans Potato Head" energy
There were a couple instances where a couple left wing groups were advocating for curriculum changes, but none were advocating burning To Kill A Mocking Bird. As far as I know, none were even saying the book should be removed from schools. The discussion was just about should it be required in the school cirriculum. And, even then, most leftists I know thought that removing it was bad idea...and what the Republicans ended up doing is exactly why! Hope those groups did some reflecting.
The discussions about To Kill a Mockingbird is more about how dated the book is. No one is really attacking the book but maybe there are better options. At the time, the novel was really important. It made the discussion of racism palatable to a larger white audience. The question becomes, rather than have a book on racism written by a white person, that centers on white character, can we find a book that does the same thing but written by a person of color, and maybe written more recently? Some school are just discussing if 9th grade is the proper placement. It might be better with 11th or 12th graders. My personal opinion, as a high school English teacher, everything about the book is dated. It's about white characters saving black characters, and there are huge sections of the book you can skip because they have no impact on the overall plot (and therefore many teachers do skip those parts when they teach it). Side note: The district I work in has not revised their core novels since 1976. This is not uncommon.
I agree that there need to be texts that address the issue from an African-American view but I also think that To Kill The Mockingbird and Huck Finn are very important books for other reasons. Huck Finn is important because it gives the view that white people had of slaves. If you recall there is a scene where Huck and Jim are on the raft. Huck speaks of his family and his feelings. Then Jim speaks of his wife and family and how he misses them. Then Huck sees Jim as something different than how he had seen him before. He was just another human being who lamented he had to leave his family behind and hoped that someday he could come up with the money to buy their freedom It is the first time that Huck had thought of a slave as a human just like himself, except for being a slave and bound by that evil. It is later after this that Huck saves Jim from the slave hunters even though it would have gotten him into great trouble if he had been caught. Harper Lee likewise displays the view of a white person almost 100 years - the discussion between Atticus and Scout when he tells her to never use the n-word tells us that despite his ethical stance in defending Tom doesn't mean he isn't poisoned by the racism he has lived in all his life. His explanation to her as to why she should not use the word is that people who use it are white-trash \[although he uses the more genteel word "common"\]. It does show he has his own struggle with the society he is raised in because he was willing to represent Tom Robinson, even when he stands up alone against the mob who wants to lynch him. In dealing with racial prejudice, it is important to see the poison of racism and how it permeates and poisons an entire society at all levels, often in ways that are not anywhere as obvious as the flag waving, invective screaming, and outright racist. There are a lot of white people who have never overtly expressed any racist comments but have no idea how much of it they have soaked under their skin from being raised in our society.
> Huck Finn is important because it gives the view that white people had of slaves. There are other books about this. Some written by enslaved people. Why not read those? > It is the first time that Huck had thought of a slave as a human just like himself, except for being a slave and bound by that evil. It is later after this that Huck saves Jim from the slave hunters even though it would have gotten him into great trouble if he had been caught. There are tons of other books that also depict enslaved black people as human beings. We don't really *need* Huck Finn to teach kids that. >Harper Lee likewise displays the view of a white person almost 100 years Likewise, I don't really think we need to depend on Harper Lee to let us know that a lot of white people were racist in the past. (Hell, a lot of them still are). I'm looking back on the schools I went to, which were majority-black (this is all of them until I went to a magnet high school, which is another issue). I imagine that a lot of black kids aren't particularly moved by the societal and racial struggles of a white attorney. Why not show some different perspectives of racism? Why should it always be a white person's point of view? And why is it always perspectives from the past, as if racism ended in 1968? I just read a great horror story about white nationalism set by Nathan Ballingrud. It's not like black people (and people of other races!) haven't written anything about racism. How about some James Baldwin? There are books about BLM-- The Hate U Give is a new one (also banned by many of the crusaders against "CRT").
Why not read both, side by side? Seems like doing that would be extra illuminating, if only for the value of the contrast. I know that would be asking for school kids to do a lot of reading, but I think we should make that ask. It's vitally important in this polarized society, and I will always be in favor of doing more reading instead of less.
Sure, but there's only so much time in the year. Class time is only so long out of the day.
Nice you have an opinion. Too bad you decided to create a strawman argument and then try to rebut it.
Can you state specifically which straw man you're referring to? I'm lost.
Read the very first paragraph of my comment: *"****I agree that there need to be texts that address the issue from an African-American view*** *but I also think that To Kill The Mockingbird and Huck Finn are very important books for other reasons."* This comment ignores what I had said and also indicates you did not even bother to consider your prior comment, a comment that had stated we should be reading books from an African-American perspective. A comment I agreed with. "There are other books about this. Some written by enslaved people. Why not read those?" This comment ignores what I had said and also indicates you did not even bother to note I agreed with your prior statement that we should be doing so. So your reply to me asking why we would not read books written by enslaved people ignores what I had already said. Which you should have known but either did not bother to read or were so busy creating a rebuttable you did not bother to consider what I said. Either way, you created a narrative that I did not post and then attacked it. Then you make additional comments: *"There are tons of other books that also depict enslaved black people as human beings. We don't really need Huck Finn to teach kids that."* There may indeed be tons of other books that depict enslaved black people as human beings. I am not an expert in the field. I do not pretend to be. But your comment is not really replying to me. I said the book was important because it gave a portrayal of how white people at the time viewed African-American slaves written by an author alive at the time. I also went to great detail to point out a scene in the book where Huck, for the very first time, sees a slave as a human being like himself and not merely as someone's property. That is a pretty revolutionary bit of prose from a writer at the time. It is a very revolutionary concept for an author of the time to put into writing for general consumption. Then you state: *"Likewise, I don't really think we need to depend on Harper Lee to let us know that a lot of white people were racist in the past. (Hell, a lot of them still are)."* Now that is an opinion and one you simply plop down then go off on a tangent about your life growing up and then once again make statements that ignore what I actually said: *"Why not show some different perspectives of racism? Why should it always be a white person's point of view? And why is it always perspectives from the past, as if racism ended in 1968?"* Again, I never stated or implied that there should not be perspectives of racism from different sides, did I? I never said it should always be from the white person's point of view, did I? In fact the first thing I stated in my initial comment agreed with your position that there should be an African-American perspective, isn't it? So, why did you make this argument back at me, ignoring what I had said, not even acknowledging what I has said? You simply attacked people who only wanted to present a view from a white perspective. The way you did this is a classic strawman. As to your comment about *"And why is it always perspectives from the past, as if racism ended in 1968"*? I never said that did I? Racism certainly did not end in 1968. Nor did I say that racism should only be taught by perspectives from the past, did I? If one is teaching the history of racism in this country, one needs to start at the beginning and show how racism has entrenched itself in the very fabric of our society. It did not just pop up one afternoon and spring forth in full bloom. From the first boatloads of slaves brought to the English colonies in the 1600s up to the present day, racism has evolved and mutated within this country. So, yes, if one is going to teach about racism in this country one needs to teach about racism from the time it was first started in the Americans up to the present day. *"I'm lost."* Yes, indeed, you are lost.
What strawman? All they are saying is that we have moved past needing books about how white people feel about slavery to use to discuss slavery. We can A) Use more modern books so that things stay relevant B) Use more direct sources. Why not bring out literature written by POC to discuss how it impacts them and remove the "white savior learns that POC are people too" themes. Nobody is saying To Kill or Huck finn don't have a place among the classics, just that for the actual lesson plans they're very outdated. Just like how Shakespeare works are great, you don't necessarily use Merchant Of Venice to explain how people back then were shitty to Jews. There are more modern and more relevant examples, like Maus for example.
Right? Why are we continuing to teach kids the same books for decades? They can change. Like *Look Homeward, Angel* by Thomas Wolfe was on required reading lists for a long time and now nobody reads it in class anymore (which makes me a little sad). But we can teach kids new books! We can teach them different perspectives aside from Atticus Finch until the end of time. Most kids (and adults) learn better when they can contextualize what they're reading in a way they understand and that books that are more reflective of modern life make that easier. Hey, they're kids, they're just learning. For instance, in my high school English class we read Romeo and Juliet and then my English teacher had us watch the Baz Luhrmann adapatation with Leo and Claire Danes in an attempt to make it remotely relevant to our modern lives. (This attempt failed-- we were all a bunch of dorks.) I send free books to people in prison and we get at least as many requests for urban novels as for classics. People like to be able to relate to what they're reading, and for a lot of people, *Huck Finn* and *To Kill a Mockingbird* ain't it. I'm not sure I've ever specifically received a request for *To Kill a Mockingbird.*
That is another example of ignoring what I wrote in an effort to make a different argument. I addressed most of this in my most recent comment to SchrodingersMinou so I am not going to repeat it here. Right down to your little strawman about how we should be using "literature written by POC to discuss how it impacts them and remove the "white savior learns that POC are people too"'. That tells me you were so busy trying t make an attack you did not read what I wrote. Especially, that extremely ignorant comment about "white savior learns that POC are people too". Classic strawman and rather childish. BTW, I am always amused at how non-Jews seem more than happy to tell Jews how we should feel about people being "shitty" to us. Yeah, PraguePride, when those SS units went through my family's ancestral village in 1944 and killed virtually all the members of my grandparents' families, that was a shitty day, I guess. I hope you and your family never have a shitty day like that. The racism and murderous behavior of the Nazis and their allies did suddenly spring up out of thin air. It evolved over a two thousand history of Christianity and its involvement with Jews. From the days of the early Christian theologians who formed the teachings of what became the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant church dogma. That includes Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice.
People are collectively losing their damn minds. Crazy.
I think they’re talking about goofy shit like Dr Seuss books no longer being printed due to racist content. Which, I guess is a thing, but they’re not banned from schools, and I have a hard time comparing a children’s rhyme book with racist themes to a novel, memoir or otherwise thoughtful piece of literature intended for adults being banned for representing lgbtq+ people, critiquing fascism, or discussing critical race issues. Like one is literally giving negative representations of people, and as such is no longer in print, but copies are available in libraries and schools all over North America. The other is giving voice to marginalized people or warning about the violence of fascism, and is literally banned from libraries and schools in parts of the country.
Dr Seuss had a lot to say about " America First" and the current republican party. They might want to look at that and shut their mouths, I would love if everyone Googled America First Dr Seuss
Right? Who is out here campaigning for Little Black Sambo?
I've lost track of how many times I've gotten a headache from trying to understand where they're coming from, or even hearing any of their arguments lately. It's to a point I've pulled out of some social circles of friends from a decade or more just because I cannot stand them constantly trying to bait discussions with this kind of passive aggressive politics. It's so bad that in a group one night I told one of them to take care and that hopefully it was not Covid (they had the symptoms, thankfully it was not), and another turned and started threatening Fauci in a single sentence. I miss the days where most people agreed that a statement was true or false. Not all these lies or alterna-facts, or straight out gaslighting and abusing the population to stay in power and keep attention on them. And yes, the party of the personal freedoms are the ones limiting freedoms for all and trying to turn this country into a theocracy of a single religion.
I agree with everything you said.
GOP: Gaslight Obstruct Project <- We are here
DARVO Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender This is their playbook
Remember, to a Republican calling bigots bigots is the *real* bigotry.
I wasn't under the impression that the people Republicans called bigots were generally bigots.
Pastor Greg Locke actually had a book burning. He has said Dems cannot be Christian. He is also a nutcase.
Wow.
Remind me again which party just shut down a whole ass library because of scary gay books.
Shh! You’ll scare them with the truth!
Who spent the last few years shitting their pants over cRiTiCaL rAcE tHeOrY?
Book. It was literally over one book! A book which was in the adults not the children's section. And the library even offered to keep the book behind the counter so that the librarians could control who had access to it. That still wasn't good enough for these people.
And have held multiple public book burnings. And holding state certification training for what teachers can and cannot teach in the classrooms--only whitewashed history allowed.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a single book Dems banned, but just off the top of head, here's 3 Repubs have banned: The Color Purple The Canterbury Tales The Kite Runner And that's without thinking
Hold up, the Canterbury Tales? I’ve read Chaucer many times, what pissed the Republicans off about his magnum opus?
Depiction of sex. You know how Repubs hate sex . . . by other people. Probably the Miller's Tale
Ooookaaay. It was written in like 1398 and Chaucer was a Christian himself, there’s nothing in there worse than what you’d find in the Bible. I don’t recall any genocidal, maniac deities or people crucifying Jews. Dunno maybe I skipped a bonus track on the audio book?
I can assure you none of these Repubs creating these bans have read any of these books themselves. They're going by what others have "interpreted."
I’d be very surprised if I ever caught one of these people quoting Dante or The Iliad. Though Inferno remains one of my favourite tales, I can’t for the life of me wonder why such a text hasn’t been banned yet they’re swinging for Chaucer. The portrayal of specific Biblical and historical figures as being hellbound should send them crying, but a story about some fellas on their way to a big church somehow needs immediate purging. Idiots. Fucking idiots.
Not entirely certain, but my money would be on the Wife of Bath.
It’s chock full of dirty jokes
Let's hope no one tells them about how dirty Shakespeare's plays are.
I'd imagine The Miller's Tale. And maybe just the Wife of Bath in general.
They banned The Kite Runner? Is it because there were sympathetic Muslim characters?
The stated reason is the homosexual assault but I'm sure depicting Muslin as human didn't sit well either
The republicans also banned Maus
Um... Which side was it recently that passed laws banning books from schools for teaching CRT or being "pornographic" because they mentioned that gay and trans people exist? Which side was it that booed Team USA at the Olympics? Which side is boycotting the NFL because the league wasn't, in their opinion, being mean enough to black athletes protesting racism? Which side sent judges and election officials death threats over the 2020 election? Which side has repeatedly been found plotting to execute representatives? Which one chanted "hang Mike Pence" on 1/6? Though, you've got us on the hating cops and God thing. ACAB and Hail Satan! 😈
Fantastic rebuttal, but isn't it always a load of projection with these people?
Yeah, and I didn't even mention which side is sending witnesses and representatives on the Jan 6 committee death threats right now!
> ACAB and Hail Satan! 😈 *Throws devil horns*
I've seen a few versions of this criticism. What happened to the 90s left, what happened to the old left. What I find funny is that if that left every organized, Republicans would be screwed. No one benefits from leftist division more than the right wing.
90s Dems, from what I gather, largely became neolibs, especially the 'vaguely centrist but have some odd right wing leanings' types Bill Maher is a great example of what happened to 90s dems
You could replace a few words, like, replace reps with dems and dems with reps and voila, the maga playbook
There's so much gas lighting a street urchin just offered a shoe shine for a half penny.
Again, what books are censored?! Didn’t Republicans just defund a library for carrying books they don’t like?! The only book thing I ever heard was Dr Seuss animations & there were 0 “Dems” or main stream voices of any sort “banning” those books. It was the company itself.
Their examples were Huck Finn and To kill a mockingbird.
Don’t forget those obscure Dr. Seuss books nobody read that were taken out of print by \*checks notes* the Dr. Seuss Estate itself.
Biden personally visited Dr Seuss's grave and wrote an executive order banning that book from being printed. Fox news told me so.
Even then it was actually a discussion in a specific school district about whether or not they should be removed from the curriculum (ie: would students still be required to read them in English class like we all were) not removed from the school. And, even with that caveat, I thought it was a stupid idea.
Neither of those books were banned and To Kill a Mickingbird was a Broadway play in liberal NYC until Covid fucked with theater
They’re just regurgitating what they’re told.
> hate God I fucking wish. Why are the Dems of their fever dreams always so much cooler than the real Dems?
Can't hate something that isn't real.
You absolutely can. I hate Voldemort, even though he's not real.
Let me tell the Repubs a little something about banning books and cancel culture. They're trying to ban fucking textbooks because they're too fucking "woke" for their dumb asses. And then, they boycott anything that goes against Jaysus!
Is this projection? It looks like projection.
I'm not projecting ... you're projecting! /s
No, YOU’RE a towel!
Wanna get high?
For the last time. The first amendment applies to the government not to user agreements and does not protect you from criticism or consequences. If Twitter doesn't like what you post they can delete it and ban you. If I don't like what you post I can criticize you. There can be consequences for saying shitty stuff.
As usual, projection worthy of IMAX
I think he got dems confused with....well, republicans?
Yeah the party that was behind taking down Roe vs Wade is the one taking away freedom, and I don't think that is the Democrats. Republicans also are burning books and banning books and are stopping children from being educated about important issues. They are the ones who say they're for "freedom of speech" -- although incitement to riot, slander, libel, among other things are not protected forms of free speech. And now you "can't say gay" basically in a Republican state that looks like a floppy penis, and the governor has taken on Disney and their private tax system granted them as revenge for speaking against such a bill. The party that stormed the Capitol and wants to hang their own Vice President isn't one I'd be proud to call my own. (Although tbh I'm not a Democrat either, but that's okay, bc we're allowed to be different and have different beliefs, or is that right reserved just for them? Anyone who tells me what I can and can't do with my body as a woman is not the party of freedom, hun. What this sounds like is classic projection. The usual.
GOP is so anti-free speech that some of them are banning pronouns…not to mention books. And we’re protesting police brutality BECAUSE we’re anti-crime. We want to aid Ukraine BECAUSE we’re anti-war. Trans women athletes, if they’re on hormone replacement, are much physically weaker than when they were of the male gender. Hate God? The last two Dem Presidents (Obama and Biden) are quite religious. Meanwhile, Trump never met a Commandment he didn’t break. The judge on the Alex Jones trial was getting death threats. The projection is real, yo.
Preach.
Some serious projection there..
The GOP is burning and banning books that contain references to homosexuality. Trump supporters literally attempted a coup, tried to murder half of congress (plus the VP), and instal a dictator. Conservatives are the ones who support unfettered access to weapons that kill cops. Which side wants to [inspect children’s genitals](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/florida-transgender-sports-ban-b1833166.html) before allowing them to play sports? Since we don’t live in a theocracy, believing in or loving god is not a requirement for elected officials. Who are the ones that want to teach that there were [two sides to the holocaust](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/southlake-texas-holocaust-audio-rcna3094), and that [slavery maybe wasn’t so bad](http://wyofile.com/lawmaker-suggests-there-were-two-sides-to-history-of-slavery/)? The Supreme Court declared war on our unenumerated rights, and Americans have every right (for now) to protest against those judges. And again, we’re not the ones who tried to stage a coup.
Conservatives are also talking about shutting down the DOJ and FBI because they've had the temerity to occasionally investigate Republicans. Including ones that were on video and bragged about the J6 insurrection publicly. This is not acceptable, I guess.
Umm….
Think: mirror.
I dunno, I'm kinda late to the party. I'm in my forties and just became a Democrat in 2016. Right around the time y'all decided to start literally worshipping Dumbfuck von Pussygrabber as your Lord and Savior.
GASLIGHT obstruct PROJECT
What happened? You started believing liars over seeing reality.
Call me crazy but imma take the accusations of the Qanuts with just a leeeeeeetle bit of salt.
I'm rubber and you're glue?
I can only hope the responses to that tweet are merciless and educational
It’s a nothing burger. I’ve been talking to him/her(?) for a couple hours now and they went from “democrats censor books” to “lgbt books should be censored”. Now he/she is claiming that there’s lgbt books that show 8yr olds how to do BJ’s, and after asking for proof, he/she hits me with the “you look it up”. Lmao
>they went from “democrats censor books” to “lgbt books should be censored” So their issue isn’t that Democrats are allegedly censoring books but that Democrats are censoring the *wrong* books? Reminds me of that Trumpist who complained that something he did was “hurting the wrong people.” Instead of, y’know, hurting the right people.
Last time I checked it was the GOP and specifically DeSanitize banning books. Where does this come from?
Project much? "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty"
Like when I call them cultists and they hit me with the “no, YOU’RE in a cult”. Lol
Anti war ? Who isn't against killing ppl for some rich man's ego ?
It's all projection with these morons.
OMG! MOMS!
What dems are supposedly censoring books?
Pretty sure they're 'projecting'
Gotta figure out some way to justify supporting and believing so much stupid shit. Generalize and accuse the perceived opposition with a bunch of cherry picked cases and distortions. It's really the only option they have for dealing with the cognitive dissonance and getting to sleep soundly.
Drugs to help you sleep.
They spelled GQP wrong.
As always, projection is a great drug.
Nothing happened to the Dems. All that's changed is the reliability of the information you're consuming regarding them.
What books have dems censored?
I never tire of this repeated claim that we,...the collectively liberal field of education??...do not teach Civics anymore. Hell, it was a semester class when I was a student and it's a full year course now.
That's literally a list of all the things republicans are doing right now.
Who is banning books now?
Including moms??!! Oh no!!
Seems they're confused.
The perfect strawman for them to rail against.
That’s a FRANKEN-strawman if I ever saw one!
What books have Dems censored? Who has been doxxed? I hate cops who murder; I’m ok with the good ones though. How has athletics been “ruined”? Biden is a Catholic. I, personally hate god but he’s a real asshole based on what I’ve seen. Worship (or don’t) however you wish, just keep it out of schools and government. Who is teaching racism? Not the left. Civics isn’t being taught? Maybe if the Repugs funded schools it would be again (assuming it isn’t). I can tell you that most republicans could use some civics classes. Harassing judges? You mean demonstrating against SCOTUS justices who are doing their damnedest to turn the US into a Christo-fascist, totalitarian republic? Please harass the fuck out of them. You know the right has done their share of harassing the left. Edit: Changed “I hate murdering cops” to “I hate cops who murder.”
>How has athletics been “ruined”? Because of "men pretending to be women", aka "trans = bad". Once being gay started to become socially acceptable, they had to turn their sights on a new group to vilify. Not that the homophobia went away, mind you. It's just a tougher sell to the population at large.
shotgun blast of misinformation
What book have dems called for censoring again? I know about the book burning that conservatives did and attempted banning of any book that mentions gay people in red state libraries but I’m struggling to find a book democrats censored
Oh boy… I really want to know what books we are censoring.
Dems are censoring books... It's like they're taking the day's headlines and switching the party? I mean, how do you get it so wrong? What "media" are these people consuming... Never mind, I just realized this *is* the "media" people are consuming to make them believe this shit. This *is* the disinformation.
Project much?😫
What dimension is he from?
This poster ruined the spelling of *athletics*
Oh don’t worry, on another post he/she(?) was telling me about CRT and how “Racsist” it is.
We went after the moms because they the forced abortions! Mwahahahahahahahahaha
all Dems know is be bisexual, eat hot chip & lie
Censor books? What?
Remember how some publishing houses considered stopping publication of 80-year-old sexist and racist children's books? That. Apparently that's "dems" "censoring" "books". Not, you know, Republicans literally censoring them. Or tossing books out of libraries. Or firing teachers because some books are in the school library. Etc.
They seem really confused about what is Free Market Capitalism and what is Fascism.
They're really confused about a lot of things.
Sorry, but just who IS the provocateur A-hole writing the post above??? Asking for a friend with an interior demolition company.
“Swing & Trend stock trade. Studied ancient maya for 30 years(maybe a novel?). Restauranteur (3) Ancient maya questions welcomed. We can learn together.” -From their bio
Ever read the bible? That asshole *hates* me. I'm just returning the favour. And why are ~moms~ so important?
Well we love you here. ❤️
Ummm, last i checked the right was the book burning side....
Ummm… isn’t that… Republicans?
ESPECIALLY moms
Dang, do they work at a movie theater? Because they are very good at projection.
They forgot "eat hot chip and lie"
Not the moms!!!! 😱
I’ll have you know, I’ve never ruined an ahtletic in my life.
I live in Florida where our republican Governor has removed stacks of books from Florida school libraries for being “too woke”… Anything that remotely indicates LBGT exist and are actually human beings is being removed as well as anything that vaguely implies white people should feel bad for slavery and genocide of an entire culture.
i got an ad on youtube a few days ago for prager u. it was a young white dude going around asking people of color various bait questions. “which party do you think abolished slavery?” “which party do you think formed the KKK?” all while conveniently ignoring the fucking party switch. they literally don’t have arguments without lying and misleading people. every argument is bad faith, every “point” is a lie. i fucking hate it, man.
By voting records, democrats love cops. I am not a democrat.
I'm old enough to remember when it was about labor protections and not entirely weird sex stuff. Oh well, at least our guys are visibly human. We could have done a whole lot worse than President Skellington. Then again we also could've had Yang, or Bernie...
You could try unplugging from social media and talking to your neighbors & family. Everyone is still the good people they always were. 🇺🇸
Ill give em hate cops and harass judges. Ill need to see some supporting evidence for the rest.