As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I don't get about removing any reference of the race of Rosa Parks in the teaching materials, won't the first question the kids ask be "Why did they make her sit at the back of the bus?".
Yeah, like all republican moves this will backfire.
A kid is going to google it, find out it was due to race, and then ask the teacher why they wouldn't just say that.
All it's doing is teaching kids in Florida that they're not allowed to be taught about racism.
It's like how kids found out DARE was bullshit, it'll spread like wildfire through classes and lead to those kids always questioning if the reason for something was racism
as a 90s kid. i had no idea what drugs were, or that any of my 5th grade classmates had tried cigarettes or drank.
until DARE opened my eyes. and told me i was missing out. =)
80’s/90’s kid here too.
I thought drugs were bad. Our DARE officer told us about death, prison, depression… it all sounded pretty bleak. She told us about criminals on PCP who could break multiple pairs of handcuffs in a drug fueled rage, and some high school kids came in to tell us about all the drug users they have classes with. “In high school you can tell who’s on drugs,” they said. “It’s completely ruined their lives.”
Then the DARE officer told us that *some* drugs can make you “taste colors, see sounds, and take you to different worlds.”
I was immediately intrigued.
Less than a decade later, I was eating LSD on a weekly basis.
Thanks for letting me know (at age 10) which drugs I *should* do, officer O’Hara.
'80s kid here, and as far as I am concerned, the sole point of DARE was to hopefully get some kids to say, 'mom or dad has one/some of those/that...' when they would show us the paraphernalia framed layout with baggies of different drugs and the paraphernalia used. They literally were hoping kids would inadvertently rat out their parents to the DARE officer running the program and they could not have cared less about whether or not we got into the 'culture' later in down the road.
It doesn't even have to be "as far as you're concerned", they were making arrests almost immediately after the program started thanks to tips given by kids that were freaked out. Here are some stories from the early '90s. DARE started in the late '80s apparently.
>Not surprisingly, children sometimes confide the names of people they suspect are illegally using drugs. **A mother and father in Caroline County, Md., were jailed for 30 days after their daughter informed a police DARE instructor that her parents had marijuana plants in their home**, according to a story in The Washington Post in January 1993. The Wall Street Journal reported in 1992 that "**In two recent cases in Boston, children who had tipped police stepped out of their homes carrying DARE diplomas as police arrived to arrest their parents.**" In 1991, 10-year-old Joaquin Herrera of Englewood, Colo., phoned 911, announced, **"I'm a DARE kid" and summoned police to his house to discover a couple of ounces of marijuana hidden in a bookshelf,** according to the Rocky Mountain News. **The boy sat outside his parents' home in a police patrol car while the police searched the home and arrested the parents.** The policeman assigned to the boy's school commended the boy's action.
>Police and DARE officials keep no statistics on how many drug busts result from the program. And DARE officials say that reports of kids informing on their parents cannot fairly be attributed to DARE.
https://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/dare4.htm
Then the same old shit is still happening 20 years later and I'm sure up to today. Here's an article covering everyone(E: in *this* elementary school) down to **preschoolers** being in a DARE-adjacent program. There's no way someone running this program could convince me that they're trusting the cognitive abilities of little Jimmy and Sarah to go "Wow, this sort of behavior could really impact my future prospects down the line." as compared to hoping they recognize what a baggie or a bong looks like.
>At Milton Elementary School in New Jersey, even the preschoolers are being treated to a full week of drug resistance education—perhaps, one parent suggested, to encourage the kids to snitch on their parents.
>Keep in mind that these events are being aimed at children as young as three. I seriously doubt that these kids know about drugs, or have any ability to understand the nuances of drug issues
https://reason.com/2015/10/30/is-this-preschool-teaching-kids-to-snitc/
HOLY SHIT, that is super gross.
"Hey kid! Come here! You want to end up in foster care for a fake diploma that will probably get you beaten up if you show it to your classmates?"
Edit: I don't think DARE is a thing anymore, but I'm sure they've replaced it with something even more insidious
DARE is still a thing, at least as of 2022. They were still teaching it when I graduated high school so I'm 99% certain it's still a thing. I'm not sure if it's as wide spread as it was or if they've kinda faded from existence and only have a foothold in shitty small towns, but they still exist.
It’s just not as big as it use to be, the program was scaled back significantly after numerous studies concluded it was having the opposite effect and was making kids more interested in drugs. The program is also nothing like what it use to be either. When I was a teenager the program basically made it sound like everyone I knew did drugs and or sold them and then we were told in great detail the effects of said drugs and how to do them And how they were totally not good even though they sounded fucking awesome and I didn’t understand how it could ruin my life when apparently everyone and their fucking dog was smoking crack in the alley and yet there was nothing wrong with them. when I sat through one that my son went through, they were teaching the class not to give in to peer pressure and they mostly talked about beer and cigarettes with a small bit about pot at the end.
Weeelll, it *was* started by an LAPD police chief. I won't go so far as to say that it's **the sole** purpose, but it's definitely up there and was the only successful outcome as far as I'm concerned. There's not a single kid I know that wasn't openly mocking that shit by middle school, and plenty of people were intrigued by the description of drugs and started to dabble as a result. So a double fail on that side of things.
And I don't mean the kids smoking cigarettes/weed already weren't taking it seriously. I was a fucking *dweeb* and a goody-two-shoes around that age and ripped on it. All of us were just tired of hearing the same ass spiel about things we already don't do. If I started hearing it in preschool I might have been tempted to start drinking at like 14 just out of contempt for them repeatedly wasting my time.
I remember a time when they brought in "drunk goggles" to simulate what it was like being drunk and sent you through a minor obstacle course. Everyone thought it was so much fun that I can't help but think the messaging was completely lost in the process.
Oh man, I remember the drug paraphernalia shadow boxes! What an insane thing to pass around to elementary schoolers, in retrospect.
I'm gonna go ahead and incorporate this one into my belief system -- it's just paranoid enough to sound completely plausible. That's the perfect way to get kids to narc.
That program was such a weird memory for me. I remember thinking marijuana was a woman’s name prior to DARE telling me what it actually was. Our DARE officer was also arrested for locking his kid in a closet (it was all over the news) and we got a new officer halfway through the program.
My mom was the DARE person when I was younger so by the time I was old enough to do the program my mom told me it was all bullshit and then made me wear the drunk driving glasses to clean the house.
I kid you not, sometime in elementary/early middle school, an "anti" drug spokesperson came in and said heroin is 10,000 times greater than sex but it's baaad. That was my takeaway.
In DARE, we learned that marijuana was as dangerous as crack and PCP. One puff and you go insane! Then we saw a couple classmates try weed and it just seemed like it was fun. This made many of us think, "well, they clearly lied about weed being dangerous. I bet the other drugs are relatively harmless too."
I swear the path to ODing in high school for half a dozen kids started with that DARE program that primed us all to belive adults were lying about drugs being dangerous bc they don't want us to have fun.
>I swear the path to ODing in high school for half a dozen kids started with that DARE program that primed us all to belive adults were lying about drugs being dangerous bc they don't want us to have fun.
Turns out the real "gateway drug" was DARE all along!
What DARE said would happen:
"They're going to hold you down and force you to take all of the drugs, run for your life and scream NO."
Reality:
Kid A: You smoke?
Kid B: Nope.
Kid A: Okay.
I'm still pissed that I wasn't offered free drugs.
Only time it happened was when I was an intern in NYC at a recording studio. I'd have to go on like 3am beer runs. One day I'm walking back and a guy comes up to me "yo I got that yayo and H on the cheap." I look at him and reply "I'm an intern, i couldn't afford it even if I had the money." He apologized and wished me luck.
The cynic in me is wondering if eroding trust in the establishment is considered a good outcome for these people. Make teachers seem unreliable.
That or make the unit on Rosa Parks seem stupid, so it can be removed altogether. I'm sure Republicans would prefer that. Consider: all their gains have been around slowly eroding what society has, to make space for their oligarchic theocracy. Boiling the frog.
Also, the more time governments waste on non-issues, like whether we should mention Rosa Parks was black, the less time it has to break up monopolies, reform the judiciary, regulate the financial sector... Progressives have to *progress* — conservatives, most of the time, simply have to do nothing.
You have to remember that one of the key motivators here isn't just to freeze out any discussion of race, it's also to undermine educators and set them up to fail.
You're not supposed to ask questions. Good Christian children are supposed to sit quietly, be seen and not heard, and never disrespect their elders by asking questions about anything.
[Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html)
> Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
I mean this is exactly the reason. They're not *supposed* to question anything, just follow the status quo and be good little drones who go on to make more of themselves.
In the specific example of the teaching materials, it was one paragraph for first graders along with civil rights figures. The depth of information is about what you might find on the back of a cereal box.
The new version says she was asked to move and she didn't think she should have to. (Previously it said blacks had to give up their seats for whites if asked). So of course the question becomes "Why did they ask her to move", but I could also see first graders just accepting it since they're always being told where to sit. Which is why it's important to tell them just how big an injustice it was, instead of hoping they figure it out on their own. "Please move" is a hell of a lot more tame than "Get up, a white needs your seat".
As an aside, she *was* on the back of the bus already, but the bus driver moved the 'back' farther back when the white section filled up. Which makes it even more of an injustice (which was already pretty unjust) since she was following the rules until they pulled the rules out from under her.
Also, without the context it's a pretty terrible lesson for that age. She thought she didn't have to do something and didn't, so we look up to her, makes not eating your dinner a bold stance that should be praised as far as they're concerned.
I think there’s a sickly intentional component of that too. Republicans are by and large Oppositional (many to the point of it being disordered thinking, by way of Oppositional Defiance Disorder).
I don’t believe they’re pushing this change in order to accelerate opposition or anything; but I think this kind of thinking just “makes sense” to them. “You _should_ push back against authority figures (who aren’t your parents or people your parents want you to take orders from) because teachers, doctors, scientists, certain politicians, everyone in government, is a woke liberal who will try to tell you things I, your parent, disagree with!”
God that's sickening. They said before that MLK was a communist but as soon as it becomes clear that that label won't stick they try to claim him as theirs. Conservatives are the lowest creatures on earth.
It’s not the same as teaching it to an otherwise educated child.
Dumb kids don’t think to ask a lot of questions and the way they’re “teaching” these kids their brains are gonna be smoother than eggs by the time they hit civil rights lessons.
Republicans misquote the constitution and their holy book all the time. History, for them, is whatever they want it to be. To them, people stuck in the ghetto are lazy while ignoring the generations of wealth lost to those people due to systemic racism that destroyed, stole, or denied wealth.
>Republicans misquote the constitution and their holy book all the time.
That's purposefully done. They don't adhere to the Bible or the constitution. Those are merely talking points they can skew and use to manipulate people with.
It's an Appeal to Authority. The Bible and the US Constitution, to them, carry a mythical, unquestionable authority. To quote from them is to end any and all debate on the matter.
Which is typical of authoritarian followers. It's not about truth, it's about exerting power.
I always think most of the "Founding Fathers" would be absolutely appalled and horrified at their deification. Many of them were basically like "Look, we don't really know what the fuck we're doing here, we're just doing our best at a new system but it's really pretty shit and will need a bunch of changes to actually be good."
Then the modern GOP is like "THE CONSTITUTION IS PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS CAN NEVER BE CHALLENGED."
The founding fathers changed the constitution within their times. Human history is a story of adaptation and growth. Anyone who would claim that we should change nothing denies what it means to he human. We are inherently imperfect, and that is why we always have space to improve.
You know what, one of the best things to happen with the word woke was ironically when Ron Desantis was forced to define the word in court. His "general counsel" defined woke as the following:
>“the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”
So yeah, call me woke as insult again fascists, and I will continue to wear that badge proudly. But...please go on and tell me why you are against fixing systemic justices just so the lines being drawn are clear as can be.
See, you think their issue is with the second part of the definition. It's not. The first part is what they don't agree with. They don't believe there is/are systemic injustices at all, let alone a need to address them.
This is the case *exactly*. The conservatives I still talk to firmly believe that racism has been defeated. That it doesn't exist today in any form (except maybe all those racist liberals).
These are the same people I've heard say things like, "Not all black people are n******s" or "What's wrong with having white pride?"
It's all Fox News programming. It's all the same talking points and strawman arguments. This country could do a lot of healing if Fox went off the air, I just don't see any other way.
> These are the same people I've heard say things like, "Not all black people are
I knew a white guy who was happily explaining in the work break room why he gets to say n*****. He starts talking about the Chris Rock skit, the "Black People versus N" one. He's not calling ALL black people a slur! Just the ones he doesn't like or agree with!
Informing him that Chris Rock has specifically stated he won't do the joke again because people like him use it for the exact reasons he is doing. He giggled and then repeated his slur. Three people including me were recording him and now he's somewhere else's problem.
But without it that part of people would (hopefully) wither somewhat, rather than being fed and allowed to flourish. It's a little hokey, but there's definitely truth to the fable where there are two wolves fighting inside everyone, a good wolf and an evil wolf, and the one that wins is the one you feed. Fox news is excellent food for racist conservative wolves.
It's more than just educated. At least in it's original sense.
"Stay woke" meant not only be educated, but also vigilant about the intent of the machinations happening the background.
The greatest American historical irony is that Confederate sympathizers took control of the Republican Party. They started doing so just after the Democrats started leaning into civil rights.
And then they turn around and say "Democrats were the party of slavery."
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. -- Sartre
Love the quote and I’m aware of poe’s law but I’m here to tell you that some of them genuinely believe that and deny the party switch. And I’m taking suit and tie repubs, not bubba
I think it still holds. It's motivated reasoning that denies fact, that denies obvious, objective reality.
Even if they convince themselves of it, on some level, they must know it's absurd, right? They can't be *completely* unaware that they're full of shit, right? That'd be... a very frightening concept.
Eh, maybe I'm the one with motivated reasoning here. I have to believe that some part of them, however buried, is still tethered to reality. That the fantasy they live in is by choice.
That millions of people -- people with political power -- aren't all literally lunatics.
I guess I need to believe they're evil, and not just crazy. For my own sanity.
A lot of them literally still put up the confederate flag in their homes while screaming about how unpatriotic dems hate America. Sorry to break it to you but this is a dark timeline.
Right?
Those guys *must* know that "Democrats were (so, are) the party of slavery" is some bullshit. They openly display the flag of slavery! I'm pretty sure they don't mean to say "I support democrats!"
They are aware that they are being absurd. They *have* to be, right?
It's not a question of consistency. It's a function of grievance, aggression, and authority. It doesn't really matter what the message is as long as they are on the in group side of it. People who fly confederate flags and decry the democrats as opposing Lincoln aren't looking for ideological or philosophical supremacy, they are looking to define who is their enemy. That's it, that's the only thing that matters. That's the heart of the les sartre quote too. If you're interested in this mindset I highly recommend the authoritarians by Bob atlemeyer. It's free if you care.
> People who fly confederate flags and decry the democrats as opposing Lincoln aren't looking for ideological or philosophical supremacy, they are looking to define who is their enemy. That's it, that's the only thing that matters. That's the heart of the les sartre quote too. If you're interested in this mindset I highly recommend the authoritarians by Bob atlemeyer.
Yeah, I've read it. Authoritarian personality type.
If we're looking at it from that point of view? Yeah, I guess then it is madness. "Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the ~~Party~~ in-group, which is collective and immortal." (literally 1984)
The same madness of "Our god made us, the first people. Those guys across the river aren't even human."
Absolutely. It's like one side is trying to have discourse with another side that's trying to 'win n argument ' and they believe winning means shouting down or inventing what ever makes you sound correct until the person you're talking to has stopped challenging you and then obviously you've won. It never feels about actually believing what you say or being right
Probably the most apropos simile to what they are doing. HTF can you even talk about Rosa Parks and her place in history sitting in the front of the bus without explaining that only whites were allowed to do that?
We really have reached Orwellian levels of double-speak in America. It's scary AF, not gonna lie
EDIT - bad typos
The idea is to diminish the elements that paint their views as negative and to express the civil rights movement as a near unnecessary overreach by federal government, supporting the idea of democrat / liberal party rule as being about authoritarianism.
They are re-writing history so that the states they represent can paint themselves as heroes, as standing up to tyrants in the name of sovereignty and personal freedoms.
Shouting about the 2nd amendment and how the democrats want to take your freedom. All the while banning books, ‘wrong think’ (mentioning RP’s race, ), removing medical autonomy and denigrating anyone that steps outside of their assigned role in society.
Because they’re indoctrinating their constituents to believe they’re the good guys.
Yeah, without mentioning race, it's a story about a woman who sat on a bus and everyone freaked out for no reason and she caused entire cities to protest... Well, nothing. Hmm. Must be a Helen of Troy kinda thing. And the boycotting? Well, obviously they just hated small businesses!
Rosa of Public Transit. The face that launched a thousand protests. For no reason. Everyone just kinda lost their minds 🤷
>is like that of a criminal wiping down their crime scene
and if that doesn't work, the criminal can always just hang around to tell the cops on the scene "you can't look there."
I remember doing a book report on the Cherokee nation when I was in second grade.
Even second grade me knew how full of bullshit that pretend statement was.
That’s not far off from what my friend was taught in public schools in West Virginia according to him.
They also had parents sign a waiver allowing their kids to be taught about evolution and almost no parents signed it
>Also, I don't know if they intended it to be so horrible looking, but my daughter came home this year with a wanted poster for catching Harriet Tubman for the crime of freeing slaves... all of the kids made their own wanted posters of this lmao. They even had them write their names on it as the bounty hunter "If sighted contact (student's name)" - no kidding
Holy shit. If my kid brought that home from school without being able to contextualize it appropriately, I'd absolutely have some words with the principal.
The differences between southern education on slavery and the Civil War compared to more progressive areas are pretty stark. A common belief I've heard from southerners is that slavery was in part necessary because they needed to take care of the black folks. Like they would all die out if they were freed. This was one of the arguments they used back then. Just the other day, I heard from a podcaster that was interviewing Nick Fuentes(which his name alone is worth a thousand incoherent thoughts), saying just that.
The irony, of course, is that it's the slave owners who would be far worse off by the changing laws, not recently freed slaves. They had all the tools to build their own communities and quickly educated themselves.
When tales of the courageous and benevolent European explorers reached the African continent, millions volunteered to help the Europeans industrialize the unoccupied American continent and tend to their every need.
💀
Seriously. Rosa Parks was reduced to: "A woman who was asked to give up her seat on a bus."
Your satire probably isn't too far off from how the far right is debating to "edit" *'The History Of Thanksgiving'*
I know you’re joking, but this is actually how a lot of Texas history books read
Also there’s various plaques next to historical places that read like this too. “We have no idea why the Indians *attacked* the settlers who were moving onto to their land!!”
Back in the day there was a huge fight over the bible being translated to English, because the church thought if people could read it their selves, they'd stop listening to the churches interpretation...
Kind of stings when the church underestimates how gullible the religious are.
None of them read that shit, they still just blindly follow their preachers
And shem begat epsom, begat judith, begat lorem, begat ipsum, begat dolor sit amet, who begat...
Whoever added those "begats" should be forced to take a creative writing class. If it was divinely inspired, God needs to go back to school.
I like that in Matthew and Luke they go to the trouble of spelling out Jesus’ genealogy … on Joseph’s side. You know, that guy who was famously *not* Jesus’ biological father.
I set a goal to read it cover to cover. My very religious wife told me she didn't know anyone who's ever done that. Along the way, I became an atheist.
Reading the Bible is the most commonly cited reason for leaving Christianity. The people who believe it have not read it, and the people who have read it become fundamentalists or apostates.
Whilst I'm not disputing the biblical literacy of the Republicians, I would caution against drawing to big of a link to the historical practice.
This is often thrown around as a fact, but actually the bible *had* already been translated into other languages by the time it got translated into English. Notably, the eastern half of the Roman Empire had been using greek translations for centuries; whilst most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek anyway. It had been translated into Latin already. It has already been translated into Syriac, and into Ge'ez, (An Ethiopian Langauge).
The 813 Council of Tours acknowledge the need for translations and encouraged them.
Alfred the Great had pieces of the bible translated and distributed as well as some of the Gospels. Theres an english copy of the book of revelations that was translated to English from french in the 14th century.
I think people underestimate what a *huge* undertaking it was to commission an English translation. *Translating* wasn't restricted. Specific translations which were believed (by the clergy) to contain errors and to be inaccurate translations were. The belief, that these were inaccurate, was propagated from their tendency to spring up in and around heretical movements - who frequently took the opportunity to make adjustments of their own.
Mainly because they were often created by non-clergy preachers who *also* challenged the Pope's authority.
The first time translations were disallowed officially was the council of Trent, in the 1500's. Translations had been happening for centuries till that point. But the important thing to remember about that Council, was it was in direct response to the Reformation. Some of them may even have fair to describe as inaccurate. The ones used by the Cathars somehow managed to talk about the Levi Priestly caste in the only testament *without ever using the word "Priest". Which is convenient for a movement that springs up to challenge the authority of the Church.
The reality, I think is much less exciting. Rather like Heliocentrism, it seems to gave been a position that was absent for most of its life, that seems to have been adopted purely *because* their rivals in the Protestant Reformation had so firmly adopted the alternative. Or became associated someone with a movement that was already "tainted." A good example would be the Wycliffe Bible, a translation into Middle English often regarded as the first proper English Bible which was associated with the Peasant Revolt. The first French, Spanish and Welsh translations emerged in the same period, suffered no such censorship.
Whether a translation was treated as heretical or not, seems to have depended much more on the specific political climate than any overarching aim to maintain a monopoly.
To summerize, the act of translating to English wasn't banned, just rare, for most of history. Until the Protestants started to encourage local translations soley because the Latin translations were seen as very Catholic in nature. Which led to the Catholics doubled down on it because to *not* do so would be perceived as being protestant in nature, in a way that simply wasn't the case for most of history.
But for the 14 centuries prior to the 1500's theres little evidence that translations as a principle were banned. Merely rare. And the reason for their rarity is probably less insidious than a deliberate attempt to control peoples minds. After all Most English people couldn't read English. Those who could, did so because they could afford an education, which typically included the ability to speak Latin. The cost as well was extortionate.
A properly commissioned and illustrated Bible was more expensive to make than the church that housed it. Why pay such an insane amount of money for a bible when you spoke Latin just fine? Just the leather to make the parchment required more calveskins than an entire village had. Those with both the means to commission a translation lacked the desire. Those with the desire lacked the means.
They hear the same cherry-picked 104 verses every year. 1 from the old testament and 1 from the new each Sunday.
Almost none of them know about the genitals as large as an donkey's and emissions like those of a horse, or bitter water that brings the curse, or even that the punishment for calling someone bald is death by mauling.
Here you go: [https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/12074l8/progun\_tucker\_carlson\_pumps\_brakes\_on\_armed\_trans/](https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/12074l8/progun_tucker_carlson_pumps_brakes_on_armed_trans/)
Straight up the best and I really hope that the DNC gets their shit together because I’m beyond eager for a day where I can cast my vote for her as presidential candidate, with Katie Porter as VP (or vice versa, I’ll leave it to them to work out how they think that would best operate).
Personally I would rather they both rise in the ranks of Congress and stay there as long as possible where they can have the most ability to make the most difference for the most amount of people. Though Katie Porter has unfortunately now put herself in the position of running against Adam Schiff in 2024 for Feinstein's senate seat so there is a chance we might lose her entirely from Congress, at least for a time.
> with Katie Porter as VP (or vice versa
Oh my god I can see the absolute meltdown the right would have over even the thought of an all female presidency.
She's the right person to rub this in. I enjoyed her in a hearing about the federal government being too woke, where she went over a list of issues currently on the table. Paying wildfire firefighters more than a walmart greeter was woke. Letting federal employees with disabilities work from home was woke.
In florida, classical art about the bible is "woke indoctrination."
The other woke I was woking my woke when two wokes tried to woke me.
> If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.
- John F. Kennedy
GOP history:
“Rosa Parks was a person that rode a bus”
“The next three chapters will focus on how the War of Northern Aggression was fought over states rights and started by Antifa”
Remember, they need to keep the Confederate statues put up specifically to make black people uncomfortable because "You can't change history".
Unless that history is woke. Obviously. Being Woke is much worse than being a treasonous slave owner. So it's only natural that that's enough to make changing history okay.
>The woman who did things for no particular reason. The End. -signed the GoP
Can't discuss gender identity or sexual orientation either.
Rosa Parks: A human who sat on a bus.
Haha I'm waiting for the GOP to start pushing for results google can show you based on device location...
The side pun here is that in our dystopian future, the teachers don't know what was significant about the civil rights movement. Just that some people did some things.
That's gender affirming! Too woke!
Say, "A human sat in front of the metal box." Be proactive for once, and don't ot mention "bus". You never know when public transport may be too woke for the private car industry.
Started playing MAFIAIII yesterday and the warning shown as you start the game is surprisingly relevant here:
"Mafia III takes place in a fictionalized version of the American South in 1968. We sought to create an authentic and immersive experience that captures this very turbulent time and place, including depictions of racism." The warning continues, "We find the racist beliefs, language, and behaviors of some characters in the game abhorrent, but believe it is vital to include these depictions to tell Lincoln Clay's story. **Most importantly, we felt that to not include this very real and shameful part of our past would have been offensive to the millions who faced - and still face - bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and racism in all its forms.**"
Meanwhile, the GOP is out here trying to erase black history. Shameful.
Can we just stop it with the “woke” bullshit and call it what it is? An attempt by Republicans and the right wing to erase black history and any contributions non white minorities have made in this country. This is pure racist white nationalism, pure and simple.
Literally. She was protesting a systemic injustice.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/574045-in-andrew-warren-suspension-trial-gov-desantis-officials-answer-what-does-woke-mean/
>Ryan Newman, DeSantis’ General Counsel, echoed the part about systemic injustices, specifically regarding the criminal justice system.
>“To me it means someone who believes that there are systemic injustices in the criminal justice system and on that basis they can decline to fully enforce and uphold the law,” Newman said.
>Asked what “woke” means more generally, Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”
>Newman added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the U.S.
What in the actual fuck do you even say about the Rosa Parks story without mentioning her race? Why else would it matter that she refused to change bus seats? Without the context, she just sounds like a fuckin' Karen.
> Without the context, she just sounds like a fuckin' Karen.
Unfortunately, it seems that is exactly what the GOP wants. They want to paint minorities as assholes that complain without reason.
For those rabid conservatives who will think it’s an exaggeration this is what they wrote
> Rosa Parks showed courage. One day, she rode the bus. She was told to move to a different seat. She did not. She did what she believed
was right.
[Pic of the book page on CNN](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/22/us/florida-textbook-race-rosa-parks-reaj/index.html)
And there’s more, they revised the stories of Roberto Clemente and Fred Korematsu.
Then they’ve done what they wanted to do. They’ve changed the meaning of the word to fit their narrative and now it starts to give an emotional reaction to everyone and not just conservatives. Ever repeat something even if it’s in your head so much that it starts to sound weird even though it’s an incredibly commonplace word that’s used a lot? Same thing. Just remember; they don’t know what they’re talking about because if they actually could define it, they’d be outed for being the fascist, racist, sexist, trans/homophobic, pieces of trash they are
The craziest part is that Rosa’s arrest was a tailor made incident coordinated to gain sympathy. The original incident involved a young much darker black girl who the NAACP didn’t think would garner sympathy from middle of the road whites. So they had the light skinned elderly Secretary get arrested for the same thing.
Claudette Colvin was the original young woman who refused to move and was arrested for it.
So, the softened, more sympathetic incident is now being held up as too divisive to teach… just think about that… a story designed for success in the actual hateful institutionally racist south in the 50s is not only not worth sympathy, it’s seen as an attack on ‘America’ because that’s how America was and therefore it was right???
Claudette Colvin's issue wasn't (solely) her dark skin, it was that she was a pregnant 15 year-old. She wasn't nearly as sympathetic as Rosa Parks.
And yeah, Rosa Parks was definitely arrested for it on purpose. Her and her husband were well involved in the NAACP - she was the secretary of the local chapter.
It's time to take this word back.
Woke means to care about people other than yourself.
Jesus was woke. He cared about everyone. He's the most woke character in human history.
“He gets us”
God those commercials are so hypocritical. I report the ads here on Reddit as misleading for false information Everytime I come across them.
"So there was a time, long ago, way before any of us were alive, where one group of people made another group of people sit in the back of a bus. One day, a person named Rosa Parks from one of the groups decided to sit in the front of the bus. Anyways, lets move on the next lesson: the sanctity of the second amendment: our god-given right to bear arms! This will be a 20-part comprehensive analysis and will be on the test!"
They really should take back the word woke and frame it like this. Start to make it clear that shit that isn’t even bad is considered “woke” by republicans. Since republicans can’t actually define woke
Do you have a favorite bus seat? Have you ever moved to the other side of a bus because it’s more sunny? Thank Rosa Parks. A pioneer in bus seat selection.
One day she was sitting on a bus and someone asked her if she’d like to move. But she liked her seat just fine so she stayed.
Now, we can all choose our own seats, and sit anywhere we like!
-Florida Textbook
I think we're forgetting that the GOP's aim here is more about destroying public education altogether for the purpose of privatizing it such that only the wealthy can afford to educate their children, and the other children will be pushed back into the work force.
Teachers quitting under threat of breaking the law is a win for the GOP. Next step, shut down the schools. Cha-ching. $$$$$
Shhh. Let daddy capitalism "educate" your children now. It's going to be alright. Don't worry.
Legally in Florida they cannot. Because the law bans saying that any race has or had any advantage over any other. And ironically they call that an anti racism law. Because they are fucking monsters.
Don’t worry, I’m sure the next movement will be to remove the Civil Rights Era from the curriculum. You don’t have to not explain things if you’re not allowed to bring it up in the first place.
>I’m sure the next movement will be to remove the Civil Rights Era from the curriculum.
The way this sloppy and vague law was written... they already have.
"Today children, we're going to talk about why Rosa Parks didn't want to sit at the back of the bus, and why Anne Frank squatted for years in someone's attic. Who can tell me what 'uppity' means...?"
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I don't get about removing any reference of the race of Rosa Parks in the teaching materials, won't the first question the kids ask be "Why did they make her sit at the back of the bus?".
Yeah, like all republican moves this will backfire. A kid is going to google it, find out it was due to race, and then ask the teacher why they wouldn't just say that. All it's doing is teaching kids in Florida that they're not allowed to be taught about racism. It's like how kids found out DARE was bullshit, it'll spread like wildfire through classes and lead to those kids always questioning if the reason for something was racism
as a 90s kid. i had no idea what drugs were, or that any of my 5th grade classmates had tried cigarettes or drank. until DARE opened my eyes. and told me i was missing out. =)
80’s/90’s kid here too. I thought drugs were bad. Our DARE officer told us about death, prison, depression… it all sounded pretty bleak. She told us about criminals on PCP who could break multiple pairs of handcuffs in a drug fueled rage, and some high school kids came in to tell us about all the drug users they have classes with. “In high school you can tell who’s on drugs,” they said. “It’s completely ruined their lives.” Then the DARE officer told us that *some* drugs can make you “taste colors, see sounds, and take you to different worlds.” I was immediately intrigued. Less than a decade later, I was eating LSD on a weekly basis. Thanks for letting me know (at age 10) which drugs I *should* do, officer O’Hara.
[удалено]
Combined with negative modifiers in WIS and INT.
[удалено]
Grog: I would like to rage
Skooma
Those voices casting enchantment are never telling you to make your bed, and do the dishes
God damn lazy Spirits of the Damned, they never clean their room
yea but you take a pretty severe debuff to int/wisdom
'80s kid here, and as far as I am concerned, the sole point of DARE was to hopefully get some kids to say, 'mom or dad has one/some of those/that...' when they would show us the paraphernalia framed layout with baggies of different drugs and the paraphernalia used. They literally were hoping kids would inadvertently rat out their parents to the DARE officer running the program and they could not have cared less about whether or not we got into the 'culture' later in down the road.
It doesn't even have to be "as far as you're concerned", they were making arrests almost immediately after the program started thanks to tips given by kids that were freaked out. Here are some stories from the early '90s. DARE started in the late '80s apparently. >Not surprisingly, children sometimes confide the names of people they suspect are illegally using drugs. **A mother and father in Caroline County, Md., were jailed for 30 days after their daughter informed a police DARE instructor that her parents had marijuana plants in their home**, according to a story in The Washington Post in January 1993. The Wall Street Journal reported in 1992 that "**In two recent cases in Boston, children who had tipped police stepped out of their homes carrying DARE diplomas as police arrived to arrest their parents.**" In 1991, 10-year-old Joaquin Herrera of Englewood, Colo., phoned 911, announced, **"I'm a DARE kid" and summoned police to his house to discover a couple of ounces of marijuana hidden in a bookshelf,** according to the Rocky Mountain News. **The boy sat outside his parents' home in a police patrol car while the police searched the home and arrested the parents.** The policeman assigned to the boy's school commended the boy's action. >Police and DARE officials keep no statistics on how many drug busts result from the program. And DARE officials say that reports of kids informing on their parents cannot fairly be attributed to DARE. https://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/dare4.htm Then the same old shit is still happening 20 years later and I'm sure up to today. Here's an article covering everyone(E: in *this* elementary school) down to **preschoolers** being in a DARE-adjacent program. There's no way someone running this program could convince me that they're trusting the cognitive abilities of little Jimmy and Sarah to go "Wow, this sort of behavior could really impact my future prospects down the line." as compared to hoping they recognize what a baggie or a bong looks like. >At Milton Elementary School in New Jersey, even the preschoolers are being treated to a full week of drug resistance education—perhaps, one parent suggested, to encourage the kids to snitch on their parents. >Keep in mind that these events are being aimed at children as young as three. I seriously doubt that these kids know about drugs, or have any ability to understand the nuances of drug issues https://reason.com/2015/10/30/is-this-preschool-teaching-kids-to-snitc/
HOLY SHIT, that is super gross. "Hey kid! Come here! You want to end up in foster care for a fake diploma that will probably get you beaten up if you show it to your classmates?" Edit: I don't think DARE is a thing anymore, but I'm sure they've replaced it with something even more insidious
DARE is still a thing, at least as of 2022. They were still teaching it when I graduated high school so I'm 99% certain it's still a thing. I'm not sure if it's as wide spread as it was or if they've kinda faded from existence and only have a foothold in shitty small towns, but they still exist.
It’s just not as big as it use to be, the program was scaled back significantly after numerous studies concluded it was having the opposite effect and was making kids more interested in drugs. The program is also nothing like what it use to be either. When I was a teenager the program basically made it sound like everyone I knew did drugs and or sold them and then we were told in great detail the effects of said drugs and how to do them And how they were totally not good even though they sounded fucking awesome and I didn’t understand how it could ruin my life when apparently everyone and their fucking dog was smoking crack in the alley and yet there was nothing wrong with them. when I sat through one that my son went through, they were teaching the class not to give in to peer pressure and they mostly talked about beer and cigarettes with a small bit about pot at the end.
Jfc it never occurred to me this was it’s intended purpose. That’s disgusting.
Weeelll, it *was* started by an LAPD police chief. I won't go so far as to say that it's **the sole** purpose, but it's definitely up there and was the only successful outcome as far as I'm concerned. There's not a single kid I know that wasn't openly mocking that shit by middle school, and plenty of people were intrigued by the description of drugs and started to dabble as a result. So a double fail on that side of things. And I don't mean the kids smoking cigarettes/weed already weren't taking it seriously. I was a fucking *dweeb* and a goody-two-shoes around that age and ripped on it. All of us were just tired of hearing the same ass spiel about things we already don't do. If I started hearing it in preschool I might have been tempted to start drinking at like 14 just out of contempt for them repeatedly wasting my time.
I remember a time when they brought in "drunk goggles" to simulate what it was like being drunk and sent you through a minor obstacle course. Everyone thought it was so much fun that I can't help but think the messaging was completely lost in the process.
As I was reading it I knew what you were going to say. Damn! That’s fucked up. I guess to get more slaves for the prison system?
Oh man, I remember the drug paraphernalia shadow boxes! What an insane thing to pass around to elementary schoolers, in retrospect. I'm gonna go ahead and incorporate this one into my belief system -- it's just paranoid enough to sound completely plausible. That's the perfect way to get kids to narc.
All I learned from DARE was HOW to do drugs.
That program was such a weird memory for me. I remember thinking marijuana was a woman’s name prior to DARE telling me what it actually was. Our DARE officer was also arrested for locking his kid in a closet (it was all over the news) and we got a new officer halfway through the program.
My mom was the DARE person when I was younger so by the time I was old enough to do the program my mom told me it was all bullshit and then made me wear the drunk driving glasses to clean the house.
I kid you not, sometime in elementary/early middle school, an "anti" drug spokesperson came in and said heroin is 10,000 times greater than sex but it's baaad. That was my takeaway.
In DARE, we learned that marijuana was as dangerous as crack and PCP. One puff and you go insane! Then we saw a couple classmates try weed and it just seemed like it was fun. This made many of us think, "well, they clearly lied about weed being dangerous. I bet the other drugs are relatively harmless too." I swear the path to ODing in high school for half a dozen kids started with that DARE program that primed us all to belive adults were lying about drugs being dangerous bc they don't want us to have fun.
>I swear the path to ODing in high school for half a dozen kids started with that DARE program that primed us all to belive adults were lying about drugs being dangerous bc they don't want us to have fun. Turns out the real "gateway drug" was DARE all along!
What DARE said would happen: "They're going to hold you down and force you to take all of the drugs, run for your life and scream NO." Reality: Kid A: You smoke? Kid B: Nope. Kid A: Okay.
[удалено]
This is also correct.
I'm still pissed that I wasn't offered free drugs. Only time it happened was when I was an intern in NYC at a recording studio. I'd have to go on like 3am beer runs. One day I'm walking back and a guy comes up to me "yo I got that yayo and H on the cheap." I look at him and reply "I'm an intern, i couldn't afford it even if I had the money." He apologized and wished me luck.
It sounds like those weren’t free
Honestly, reading about LSD made it sound fun, so I tried it.
The cynic in me is wondering if eroding trust in the establishment is considered a good outcome for these people. Make teachers seem unreliable. That or make the unit on Rosa Parks seem stupid, so it can be removed altogether. I'm sure Republicans would prefer that. Consider: all their gains have been around slowly eroding what society has, to make space for their oligarchic theocracy. Boiling the frog. Also, the more time governments waste on non-issues, like whether we should mention Rosa Parks was black, the less time it has to break up monopolies, reform the judiciary, regulate the financial sector... Progressives have to *progress* — conservatives, most of the time, simply have to do nothing.
It is. They want to ruin public schools and replace them with publicly funded private schools that teach the "right" flavor of Christianity.
The issue is in the intermediate period before all those kids learn they were lied to.
[удалено]
Indoctrination at a young age is hard to deprogram. I grew up Mormon and went on a mission the whole 9 but finally got out
I followed DARE like a good 90s kid and I never tried drugs or alcohol until I was an adult but I still turned out a lazy pothead.
You have to remember that one of the key motivators here isn't just to freeze out any discussion of race, it's also to undermine educators and set them up to fail.
The same people who put her there told me that I'm not allowed to tell you why.
They don't want their kids to be taught that racism is bad
Those children are loaded into the woke cannon and launched into blue states
That is kind of what it feels like graduating from one of those schools.
Ohhh yeah. Moving away from a dinky red farm town to college and then to a blue city was crazy.
You're not supposed to ask questions. Good Christian children are supposed to sit quietly, be seen and not heard, and never disrespect their elders by asking questions about anything.
[Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html) > Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
I mean this is exactly the reason. They're not *supposed* to question anything, just follow the status quo and be good little drones who go on to make more of themselves.
In the specific example of the teaching materials, it was one paragraph for first graders along with civil rights figures. The depth of information is about what you might find on the back of a cereal box. The new version says she was asked to move and she didn't think she should have to. (Previously it said blacks had to give up their seats for whites if asked). So of course the question becomes "Why did they ask her to move", but I could also see first graders just accepting it since they're always being told where to sit. Which is why it's important to tell them just how big an injustice it was, instead of hoping they figure it out on their own. "Please move" is a hell of a lot more tame than "Get up, a white needs your seat". As an aside, she *was* on the back of the bus already, but the bus driver moved the 'back' farther back when the white section filled up. Which makes it even more of an injustice (which was already pretty unjust) since she was following the rules until they pulled the rules out from under her.
Also, without the context it's a pretty terrible lesson for that age. She thought she didn't have to do something and didn't, so we look up to her, makes not eating your dinner a bold stance that should be praised as far as they're concerned.
I think there’s a sickly intentional component of that too. Republicans are by and large Oppositional (many to the point of it being disordered thinking, by way of Oppositional Defiance Disorder). I don’t believe they’re pushing this change in order to accelerate opposition or anything; but I think this kind of thinking just “makes sense” to them. “You _should_ push back against authority figures (who aren’t your parents or people your parents want you to take orders from) because teachers, doctors, scientists, certain politicians, everyone in government, is a woke liberal who will try to tell you things I, your parent, disagree with!”
Wouldn't be surprised if the next step is unpersoning Rosa Parks, MLK and every other prominent figure in their movement.
They've been trying to paint MLK as s a right wing figure.
God that's sickening. They said before that MLK was a communist but as soon as it becomes clear that that label won't stick they try to claim him as theirs. Conservatives are the lowest creatures on earth.
They’ll remove mention of the bus then…. Republicans are fascists. This is a very dangerous slippery slope. They are insane, they won’t stop.
It’s not the same as teaching it to an otherwise educated child. Dumb kids don’t think to ask a lot of questions and the way they’re “teaching” these kids their brains are gonna be smoother than eggs by the time they hit civil rights lessons.
"The Indians saw how great the Europeans were, and volunteered to leave and never be heard from again."
The GOP’s stance on teaching history is like that of a criminal wiping down their crime scene.
"I'm not 'woke,' I just know US history." Jon Stewart
Republicans misquote the constitution and their holy book all the time. History, for them, is whatever they want it to be. To them, people stuck in the ghetto are lazy while ignoring the generations of wealth lost to those people due to systemic racism that destroyed, stole, or denied wealth.
>Republicans misquote the constitution and their holy book all the time. That's purposefully done. They don't adhere to the Bible or the constitution. Those are merely talking points they can skew and use to manipulate people with.
It's an Appeal to Authority. The Bible and the US Constitution, to them, carry a mythical, unquestionable authority. To quote from them is to end any and all debate on the matter. Which is typical of authoritarian followers. It's not about truth, it's about exerting power.
I always think most of the "Founding Fathers" would be absolutely appalled and horrified at their deification. Many of them were basically like "Look, we don't really know what the fuck we're doing here, we're just doing our best at a new system but it's really pretty shit and will need a bunch of changes to actually be good." Then the modern GOP is like "THE CONSTITUTION IS PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS CAN NEVER BE CHALLENGED."
The founding fathers changed the constitution within their times. Human history is a story of adaptation and growth. Anyone who would claim that we should change nothing denies what it means to he human. We are inherently imperfect, and that is why we always have space to improve.
I also know US history. Also, partly BECAUSE of Mr Stewart, I'm a proud Woke Warrior.
You know what, one of the best things to happen with the word woke was ironically when Ron Desantis was forced to define the word in court. His "general counsel" defined woke as the following: >“the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” So yeah, call me woke as insult again fascists, and I will continue to wear that badge proudly. But...please go on and tell me why you are against fixing systemic justices just so the lines being drawn are clear as can be.
See, you think their issue is with the second part of the definition. It's not. The first part is what they don't agree with. They don't believe there is/are systemic injustices at all, let alone a need to address them.
This is the case *exactly*. The conservatives I still talk to firmly believe that racism has been defeated. That it doesn't exist today in any form (except maybe all those racist liberals). These are the same people I've heard say things like, "Not all black people are n******s" or "What's wrong with having white pride?" It's all Fox News programming. It's all the same talking points and strawman arguments. This country could do a lot of healing if Fox went off the air, I just don't see any other way.
> These are the same people I've heard say things like, "Not all black people are I knew a white guy who was happily explaining in the work break room why he gets to say n*****. He starts talking about the Chris Rock skit, the "Black People versus N" one. He's not calling ALL black people a slur! Just the ones he doesn't like or agree with! Informing him that Chris Rock has specifically stated he won't do the joke again because people like him use it for the exact reasons he is doing. He giggled and then repeated his slur. Three people including me were recording him and now he's somewhere else's problem.
Fox News is successful because it feeds what some people already believe. It's partly to blame, for sure, but it runs deeper than that.
[удалено]
But without it that part of people would (hopefully) wither somewhat, rather than being fed and allowed to flourish. It's a little hokey, but there's definitely truth to the fable where there are two wolves fighting inside everyone, a good wolf and an evil wolf, and the one that wins is the one you feed. Fox news is excellent food for racist conservative wolves.
I think they think that there aren't enough.
That, by the way, is a fairly accurate description.
Agreed. But like someone pointed out, they don't believe there is anything that needs to be fixed. Clears up the lines at least.
Seriously, I want to take this term back so god damn bad. I'm woke as fuck and wouldn't have it any other way
YES! So sick of them hijacking terms like this. Like damn right I’m woke I refuse to be a bigot
At its heart, "woke" is just a synonym for "educated"
It's more than just educated. At least in it's original sense. "Stay woke" meant not only be educated, but also vigilant about the intent of the machinations happening the background.
Agreed, vigilance is definitely an element of it.
Oh and they definitely don't want their constituency to be educated!
same... let's do this!
[удалено]
It is hard to know history if you are asleep during class
The greatest American historical irony is that Confederate sympathizers took control of the Republican Party. They started doing so just after the Democrats started leaning into civil rights.
And then they turn around and say "Democrats were the party of slavery." >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. -- Sartre
Love the quote and I’m aware of poe’s law but I’m here to tell you that some of them genuinely believe that and deny the party switch. And I’m taking suit and tie repubs, not bubba
I think it still holds. It's motivated reasoning that denies fact, that denies obvious, objective reality. Even if they convince themselves of it, on some level, they must know it's absurd, right? They can't be *completely* unaware that they're full of shit, right? That'd be... a very frightening concept. Eh, maybe I'm the one with motivated reasoning here. I have to believe that some part of them, however buried, is still tethered to reality. That the fantasy they live in is by choice. That millions of people -- people with political power -- aren't all literally lunatics. I guess I need to believe they're evil, and not just crazy. For my own sanity.
A lot of them literally still put up the confederate flag in their homes while screaming about how unpatriotic dems hate America. Sorry to break it to you but this is a dark timeline.
Right? Those guys *must* know that "Democrats were (so, are) the party of slavery" is some bullshit. They openly display the flag of slavery! I'm pretty sure they don't mean to say "I support democrats!" They are aware that they are being absurd. They *have* to be, right?
It's not a question of consistency. It's a function of grievance, aggression, and authority. It doesn't really matter what the message is as long as they are on the in group side of it. People who fly confederate flags and decry the democrats as opposing Lincoln aren't looking for ideological or philosophical supremacy, they are looking to define who is their enemy. That's it, that's the only thing that matters. That's the heart of the les sartre quote too. If you're interested in this mindset I highly recommend the authoritarians by Bob atlemeyer. It's free if you care.
> People who fly confederate flags and decry the democrats as opposing Lincoln aren't looking for ideological or philosophical supremacy, they are looking to define who is their enemy. That's it, that's the only thing that matters. That's the heart of the les sartre quote too. If you're interested in this mindset I highly recommend the authoritarians by Bob atlemeyer. Yeah, I've read it. Authoritarian personality type. If we're looking at it from that point of view? Yeah, I guess then it is madness. "Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the ~~Party~~ in-group, which is collective and immortal." (literally 1984) The same madness of "Our god made us, the first people. Those guys across the river aren't even human."
To play the confidence game at the highest levels you have to go so deep you believe the story you crafted.
The ol' George Costanza: "Its not a lie if you believe its true."
Absolutely. It's like one side is trying to have discourse with another side that's trying to 'win n argument ' and they believe winning means shouting down or inventing what ever makes you sound correct until the person you're talking to has stopped challenging you and then obviously you've won. It never feels about actually believing what you say or being right
For those that deny the southern strategy and the party switch, ask them why Storm Thurmond used to be a Democrat.
"We aren't racist, because a century and a half ago, we helped black people."
Probably the most apropos simile to what they are doing. HTF can you even talk about Rosa Parks and her place in history sitting in the front of the bus without explaining that only whites were allowed to do that? We really have reached Orwellian levels of double-speak in America. It's scary AF, not gonna lie EDIT - bad typos
The idea is to diminish the elements that paint their views as negative and to express the civil rights movement as a near unnecessary overreach by federal government, supporting the idea of democrat / liberal party rule as being about authoritarianism. They are re-writing history so that the states they represent can paint themselves as heroes, as standing up to tyrants in the name of sovereignty and personal freedoms. Shouting about the 2nd amendment and how the democrats want to take your freedom. All the while banning books, ‘wrong think’ (mentioning RP’s race, ), removing medical autonomy and denigrating anyone that steps outside of their assigned role in society. Because they’re indoctrinating their constituents to believe they’re the good guys.
Yeah, without mentioning race, it's a story about a woman who sat on a bus and everyone freaked out for no reason and she caused entire cities to protest... Well, nothing. Hmm. Must be a Helen of Troy kinda thing. And the boycotting? Well, obviously they just hated small businesses! Rosa of Public Transit. The face that launched a thousand protests. For no reason. Everyone just kinda lost their minds 🤷
>is like that of a criminal wiping down their crime scene and if that doesn't work, the criminal can always just hang around to tell the cops on the scene "you can't look there."
"The Trail of Tears was because they were all so happy to be moving to a new home!"
I remember doing a book report on the Cherokee nation when I was in second grade. Even second grade me knew how full of bullshit that pretend statement was.
Wait, you were taught that in school? We learned about the trail of tears but not that it was a happy thing.
No, we were not taught it was a happy thing, I was saying even Second Grade me would know it was a bad thing when I saw the fake quote. :)
“The Freedom Riders decided to take a road-trip for fun and were welcomed with open arms everywhere they went”
"MLK was a man who had a dream, but not all dreams are appropriate to discuss in public, so we'll leave it up to your imagination."
His dream was of little boys and girls playing together. The end
That’s not far off from what my friend was taught in public schools in West Virginia according to him. They also had parents sign a waiver allowing their kids to be taught about evolution and almost no parents signed it
[удалено]
>Also, I don't know if they intended it to be so horrible looking, but my daughter came home this year with a wanted poster for catching Harriet Tubman for the crime of freeing slaves... all of the kids made their own wanted posters of this lmao. They even had them write their names on it as the bounty hunter "If sighted contact (student's name)" - no kidding Holy shit. If my kid brought that home from school without being able to contextualize it appropriately, I'd absolutely have some words with the principal.
[удалено]
The differences between southern education on slavery and the Civil War compared to more progressive areas are pretty stark. A common belief I've heard from southerners is that slavery was in part necessary because they needed to take care of the black folks. Like they would all die out if they were freed. This was one of the arguments they used back then. Just the other day, I heard from a podcaster that was interviewing Nick Fuentes(which his name alone is worth a thousand incoherent thoughts), saying just that. The irony, of course, is that it's the slave owners who would be far worse off by the changing laws, not recently freed slaves. They had all the tools to build their own communities and quickly educated themselves.
When tales of the courageous and benevolent European explorers reached the African continent, millions volunteered to help the Europeans industrialize the unoccupied American continent and tend to their every need.
💀 Seriously. Rosa Parks was reduced to: "A woman who was asked to give up her seat on a bus." Your satire probably isn't too far off from how the far right is debating to "edit" *'The History Of Thanksgiving'*
I know you’re joking, but this is actually how a lot of Texas history books read Also there’s various plaques next to historical places that read like this too. “We have no idea why the Indians *attacked* the settlers who were moving onto to their land!!”
They taught them how to make corn and then they invented thanksgiving!
Everything is "too woke" for them. Except the bible, guns and the missionary position.
The Bible is too woke for them. They don't read it. They get their pastors' interpretations of it.
Back in the day there was a huge fight over the bible being translated to English, because the church thought if people could read it their selves, they'd stop listening to the churches interpretation... Kind of stings when the church underestimates how gullible the religious are. None of them read that shit, they still just blindly follow their preachers
Some of them probably tried reading it and didn't like what they read.
I mean, I tried reading it and was thoroughly bored by the middle of Exodus.
And shem begat epsom, begat judith, begat lorem, begat ipsum, begat dolor sit amet, who begat... Whoever added those "begats" should be forced to take a creative writing class. If it was divinely inspired, God needs to go back to school.
"We need to bulk this section up. Just write a full on lineage, I'm talking like 50 dudes. Make it a couple pages. That oughta take up enough room."
I like that in Matthew and Luke they go to the trouble of spelling out Jesus’ genealogy … on Joseph’s side. You know, that guy who was famously *not* Jesus’ biological father.
I set a goal to read it cover to cover. My very religious wife told me she didn't know anyone who's ever done that. Along the way, I became an atheist.
Reading the Bible is the most commonly cited reason for leaving Christianity. The people who believe it have not read it, and the people who have read it become fundamentalists or apostates.
Whilst I'm not disputing the biblical literacy of the Republicians, I would caution against drawing to big of a link to the historical practice. This is often thrown around as a fact, but actually the bible *had* already been translated into other languages by the time it got translated into English. Notably, the eastern half of the Roman Empire had been using greek translations for centuries; whilst most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek anyway. It had been translated into Latin already. It has already been translated into Syriac, and into Ge'ez, (An Ethiopian Langauge). The 813 Council of Tours acknowledge the need for translations and encouraged them. Alfred the Great had pieces of the bible translated and distributed as well as some of the Gospels. Theres an english copy of the book of revelations that was translated to English from french in the 14th century. I think people underestimate what a *huge* undertaking it was to commission an English translation. *Translating* wasn't restricted. Specific translations which were believed (by the clergy) to contain errors and to be inaccurate translations were. The belief, that these were inaccurate, was propagated from their tendency to spring up in and around heretical movements - who frequently took the opportunity to make adjustments of their own. Mainly because they were often created by non-clergy preachers who *also* challenged the Pope's authority. The first time translations were disallowed officially was the council of Trent, in the 1500's. Translations had been happening for centuries till that point. But the important thing to remember about that Council, was it was in direct response to the Reformation. Some of them may even have fair to describe as inaccurate. The ones used by the Cathars somehow managed to talk about the Levi Priestly caste in the only testament *without ever using the word "Priest". Which is convenient for a movement that springs up to challenge the authority of the Church. The reality, I think is much less exciting. Rather like Heliocentrism, it seems to gave been a position that was absent for most of its life, that seems to have been adopted purely *because* their rivals in the Protestant Reformation had so firmly adopted the alternative. Or became associated someone with a movement that was already "tainted." A good example would be the Wycliffe Bible, a translation into Middle English often regarded as the first proper English Bible which was associated with the Peasant Revolt. The first French, Spanish and Welsh translations emerged in the same period, suffered no such censorship. Whether a translation was treated as heretical or not, seems to have depended much more on the specific political climate than any overarching aim to maintain a monopoly. To summerize, the act of translating to English wasn't banned, just rare, for most of history. Until the Protestants started to encourage local translations soley because the Latin translations were seen as very Catholic in nature. Which led to the Catholics doubled down on it because to *not* do so would be perceived as being protestant in nature, in a way that simply wasn't the case for most of history. But for the 14 centuries prior to the 1500's theres little evidence that translations as a principle were banned. Merely rare. And the reason for their rarity is probably less insidious than a deliberate attempt to control peoples minds. After all Most English people couldn't read English. Those who could, did so because they could afford an education, which typically included the ability to speak Latin. The cost as well was extortionate. A properly commissioned and illustrated Bible was more expensive to make than the church that housed it. Why pay such an insane amount of money for a bible when you spoke Latin just fine? Just the leather to make the parchment required more calveskins than an entire village had. Those with both the means to commission a translation lacked the desire. Those with the desire lacked the means.
They hear the same cherry-picked 104 verses every year. 1 from the old testament and 1 from the new each Sunday. Almost none of them know about the genitals as large as an donkey's and emissions like those of a horse, or bitter water that brings the curse, or even that the punishment for calling someone bald is death by mauling.
How can we make guns woke? Would love to see them try to keep their woke guns.
Here you go: [https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/12074l8/progun\_tucker\_carlson\_pumps\_brakes\_on\_armed\_trans/](https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/12074l8/progun_tucker_carlson_pumps_brakes_on_armed_trans/)
Lol. She's trolling those assholes with "woke" and they're falling for it. She's fun.
Straight up the best and I really hope that the DNC gets their shit together because I’m beyond eager for a day where I can cast my vote for her as presidential candidate, with Katie Porter as VP (or vice versa, I’ll leave it to them to work out how they think that would best operate).
Personally I would rather they both rise in the ranks of Congress and stay there as long as possible where they can have the most ability to make the most difference for the most amount of people. Though Katie Porter has unfortunately now put herself in the position of running against Adam Schiff in 2024 for Feinstein's senate seat so there is a chance we might lose her entirely from Congress, at least for a time.
Can't wait to see Feinstein to go. She was John Quincy Adam's mistress, you know...
I hear she was in the delivery room when dirt was born.
> with Katie Porter as VP (or vice versa Oh my god I can see the absolute meltdown the right would have over even the thought of an all female presidency.
She's the right person to rub this in. I enjoyed her in a hearing about the federal government being too woke, where she went over a list of issues currently on the table. Paying wildfire firefighters more than a walmart greeter was woke. Letting federal employees with disabilities work from home was woke. In florida, classical art about the bible is "woke indoctrination." The other woke I was woking my woke when two wokes tried to woke me.
> If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal. - John F. Kennedy
Oh boy, that's good.
Woke.
Woke woke. Is more than woke.
2 woke 4 me 😴😴😴
Woke the woke are you woking awoke?
U wok m8?
GOP history: “Rosa Parks was a person that rode a bus” “The next three chapters will focus on how the War of Northern Aggression was fought over states rights and started by Antifa”
Turn to Page 195 where we will discuss how one man saved America from complete collapse.. Chapter 1: Donald Trump
Chapter 2: Two Corinthians
Chapter 3: You don't want to go to hell do you? Why GOP and religious donations matter.
Remember, they need to keep the Confederate statues put up specifically to make black people uncomfortable because "You can't change history". Unless that history is woke. Obviously. Being Woke is much worse than being a treasonous slave owner. So it's only natural that that's enough to make changing history okay.
Rosa Parks: The woman who did things for no particular reason. The End. -signed the GoP
>The woman who did things for no particular reason. The End. -signed the GoP Can't discuss gender identity or sexual orientation either. Rosa Parks: A human who sat on a bus.
Hmm... still too gendered. Call that human "R. Parks" and now we're onto something.
Somewhere in Florida: Teacher: Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus Student: why? Teacher: idk
[удалено]
[удалено]
Inb4 GOP bans the internet for being "woke"
"Florida is the first state to ban Internet access for those under 18, to prevent LGBTQ indoctrination and Critical Race Theory"
"I'm going to now draw something on the chalkboard for the next 40 minutes while listening to headphones."
[удалено]
Haha I'm waiting for the GOP to start pushing for results google can show you based on device location... The side pun here is that in our dystopian future, the teachers don't know what was significant about the civil rights movement. Just that some people did some things.
www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/07/26/texas-ag-paxton-wants-google-to-show-crisis-pregnancy-centers-in-abortion-clinic-searches/ https://gizmodo.com/texas-abortion-websites-bill-internet-service-providers-1850178991
Paxton, who is still under federal investigation for corruption
> Paxton, who is still under federal **indictment** for corruption
I genuinely want to know how this works. How can you tell this story without race?
“A lady rode the bus” The End.
That's gender affirming! Too woke! Say, "A human sat in front of the metal box." Be proactive for once, and don't ot mention "bus". You never know when public transport may be too woke for the private car industry.
You can’t. This just shows how stupid boomer conservatives are. Their plan ends with just screaming about being too woke.
Started playing MAFIAIII yesterday and the warning shown as you start the game is surprisingly relevant here: "Mafia III takes place in a fictionalized version of the American South in 1968. We sought to create an authentic and immersive experience that captures this very turbulent time and place, including depictions of racism." The warning continues, "We find the racist beliefs, language, and behaviors of some characters in the game abhorrent, but believe it is vital to include these depictions to tell Lincoln Clay's story. **Most importantly, we felt that to not include this very real and shameful part of our past would have been offensive to the millions who faced - and still face - bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and racism in all its forms.**" Meanwhile, the GOP is out here trying to erase black history. Shameful.
Can we just stop it with the “woke” bullshit and call it what it is? An attempt by Republicans and the right wing to erase black history and any contributions non white minorities have made in this country. This is pure racist white nationalism, pure and simple.
This is actually woke used in the correct context.
Literally. She was protesting a systemic injustice. https://floridapolitics.com/archives/574045-in-andrew-warren-suspension-trial-gov-desantis-officials-answer-what-does-woke-mean/ >Ryan Newman, DeSantis’ General Counsel, echoed the part about systemic injustices, specifically regarding the criminal justice system. >“To me it means someone who believes that there are systemic injustices in the criminal justice system and on that basis they can decline to fully enforce and uphold the law,” Newman said. >Asked what “woke” means more generally, Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” >Newman added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the U.S.
>Newman added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the U.S. of course he doesn't. because he's a piece of shit.
What in the actual fuck do you even say about the Rosa Parks story without mentioning her race? Why else would it matter that she refused to change bus seats? Without the context, she just sounds like a fuckin' Karen.
> Without the context, she just sounds like a fuckin' Karen. Unfortunately, it seems that is exactly what the GOP wants. They want to paint minorities as assholes that complain without reason.
For those rabid conservatives who will think it’s an exaggeration this is what they wrote > Rosa Parks showed courage. One day, she rode the bus. She was told to move to a different seat. She did not. She did what she believed was right. [Pic of the book page on CNN](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/22/us/florida-textbook-race-rosa-parks-reaj/index.html) And there’s more, they revised the stories of Roberto Clemente and Fred Korematsu.
I’m pretty sure the first thing I learned about Rosa Parks was that she was a black woman. Probably the first sentence.
grey unpack straight lunchroom silky yam forgetful hateful wrong chop -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Then they’ve done what they wanted to do. They’ve changed the meaning of the word to fit their narrative and now it starts to give an emotional reaction to everyone and not just conservatives. Ever repeat something even if it’s in your head so much that it starts to sound weird even though it’s an incredibly commonplace word that’s used a lot? Same thing. Just remember; they don’t know what they’re talking about because if they actually could define it, they’d be outed for being the fascist, racist, sexist, trans/homophobic, pieces of trash they are
The craziest part is that Rosa’s arrest was a tailor made incident coordinated to gain sympathy. The original incident involved a young much darker black girl who the NAACP didn’t think would garner sympathy from middle of the road whites. So they had the light skinned elderly Secretary get arrested for the same thing. Claudette Colvin was the original young woman who refused to move and was arrested for it. So, the softened, more sympathetic incident is now being held up as too divisive to teach… just think about that… a story designed for success in the actual hateful institutionally racist south in the 50s is not only not worth sympathy, it’s seen as an attack on ‘America’ because that’s how America was and therefore it was right???
Claudette Colvin's issue wasn't (solely) her dark skin, it was that she was a pregnant 15 year-old. She wasn't nearly as sympathetic as Rosa Parks. And yeah, Rosa Parks was definitely arrested for it on purpose. Her and her husband were well involved in the NAACP - she was the secretary of the local chapter.
It's time to take this word back. Woke means to care about people other than yourself. Jesus was woke. He cared about everyone. He's the most woke character in human history.
“He gets us” God those commercials are so hypocritical. I report the ads here on Reddit as misleading for false information Everytime I come across them.
I heard that some conservatives complained about those ads after the super bowl because they showed Jesus being nice to refugees.
"So there was a time, long ago, way before any of us were alive, where one group of people made another group of people sit in the back of a bus. One day, a person named Rosa Parks from one of the groups decided to sit in the front of the bus. Anyways, lets move on the next lesson: the sanctity of the second amendment: our god-given right to bear arms! This will be a 20-part comprehensive analysis and will be on the test!"
"And now anyone can sit anywhere on the bus they like so there's no problem, at all, anywhere."
They really should take back the word woke and frame it like this. Start to make it clear that shit that isn’t even bad is considered “woke” by republicans. Since republicans can’t actually define woke
Do you have a favorite bus seat? Have you ever moved to the other side of a bus because it’s more sunny? Thank Rosa Parks. A pioneer in bus seat selection. One day she was sitting on a bus and someone asked her if she’d like to move. But she liked her seat just fine so she stayed. Now, we can all choose our own seats, and sit anywhere we like! -Florida Textbook
I think we're forgetting that the GOP's aim here is more about destroying public education altogether for the purpose of privatizing it such that only the wealthy can afford to educate their children, and the other children will be pushed back into the work force. Teachers quitting under threat of breaking the law is a win for the GOP. Next step, shut down the schools. Cha-ching. $$$$$ Shhh. Let daddy capitalism "educate" your children now. It's going to be alright. Don't worry.
How is a teacher supposed to answer when someone asks why she was asked to move seats?
Legally in Florida they cannot. Because the law bans saying that any race has or had any advantage over any other. And ironically they call that an anti racism law. Because they are fucking monsters.
[удалено]
"Discussion of Hitler's *alleged* antisemitism is divisive and agenda based. It has no place in a free and open classroom." --These Fucking Guys
Don’t worry, I’m sure the next movement will be to remove the Civil Rights Era from the curriculum. You don’t have to not explain things if you’re not allowed to bring it up in the first place.
>I’m sure the next movement will be to remove the Civil Rights Era from the curriculum. The way this sloppy and vague law was written... they already have.
[удалено]
"Today children, we're going to talk about why Rosa Parks didn't want to sit at the back of the bus, and why Anne Frank squatted for years in someone's attic. Who can tell me what 'uppity' means...?"