Some racist parents and journalists might think it was done poorly in this book. But for the record for the most part it has received favorable reviews.
Some racist parents and journalists might think it was done poorly in this book. But for the record for the most part it has received favorable reviews.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
If I'm not mistaken, there has also been a push the past few years to teach children about bigotry on episodes of Sesame Street.
Some folks whose names rhyme with F***er Carlson were also broadcasting their impotent white rage about that on Fox News.
When, again, it's plainly the right lesson to teach, and something that has been done on children's programming on PBS since 1969.
There should be no controversy about this.
X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.
Pull List: Barbaric,DC Black Label,Dept. of Truth,Fire Power,Hellboy,Saga,Something is Killing the Children,Terryverse,Usagi Yojimbo.
Seriously, just %$% that guy.SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota—South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg is claiming the man he ran over and killed—allegedly while scrolling through his phone on highway at night—wanted to die.
In court documents filed Friday, the state’s top lawman claimed victim Joe Boever was depressed and suicidal and may have thrown himself in front of his car as he drove home from a Republican function on Sept. 12.
Ravnsborg’s lawyer, Timothy J. Rensch, is seeking a court order that would force health-care providers to release Boever’s psychiatric or psychological records “for exculpatory information concerning his suicidal ideation.”
The filing quotes Boever’s cousin Barnabas Nemec as saying Boever “was an admitted alcoholic with a brooding depressive streak unparalleled by anyone else I have ever known.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-dak...020954452.html
Followup to that crazy CPAC list
Remember that if Donald Trump were ever made House Speaker (legally possible without his being elected to House of Representatives), he would be next in line of succession to the sitting President and Vice President of the United States.
Can An Outsider Be Speaker of the House? - Oct. 9, 2015
But does the speaker have to be a member of the House?
The Constitution is silent on that question, saying simply, "The House of Representatives shall chuse (sic) their Speaker and other Officers."
The Clerk of the House agrees with the office of the House Historian, which says the speaker "has always been (but is not required to be) a House Member."
Most historians and legal experts who've looked at this issue conclude the founders simply assumed the speaker would be drawn from among elected members.
"It would have been unthinkable for the most populous house not to have its leader be part of the representatives who were elected by the people," says David Forte, a constitutional scholar at Cleveland State University.
"Nothing fits that would make the speaker anything other than a member of the house," except for the Constitution's silence on the issue, Forte says, noting that the Articles of Confederation said members of Congress shall have authority "to appoint one of their members to preside."
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
Seems like a pedo ring that's being busted up contained a GQP staffer/strategist: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ld-porn-498937
But it's only the libs who are a danger to our children, they'll continue to bleet.
MAGNETO was right,TONY was right, VARYS was right.
Proud member of House Ravenclaw and loyal bannerman to House Baratheon
"I am an optimist even though I am told everything I do is negative and cynical" --Armando Iannucci
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
I don't question your reading comprehension. However, your description of my post was contradicted by what was in the post. This is a largely objective point. You did edit out the portion of the post where I noted the specific way in which your description of the comment did not match it, which suggests you're not willing to defend your initial take.
As a sidenote, if it's not kosher to even say that someone is misreading a post, that is open to all sorts of abuse. Someone in bad faith could make up stuff, and then claim that it's inappropriate to point that out. Likewise, it kinda rewards people for being careless if an error can't be noted.
I do think your comments were personal. It's a terrible thing to promote white supremacy. You're going after motives, instead of the specifics. This is an argument we've had before, where it seems you think it's important to be on the right side, and that criticism of someone who means well is suspect.
Well-meaning people can still make mistakes. Rational people should be able to discuss that. Just as it's terrible to promote white supremacy, it's terrible to accuse someone of it and be wrong.
It helps the Tucker Carlsons of the world if people on the left take extreme stands and then double down on it.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Something can be well-reviewed and still troubling.
I think you're responding to an argument I haven't made if you think I'm trying to be an arbiter for what other people can read, or control what others do in a free society.
That was not the context in which the book came up in the discussion, and is not the context of anyone's comments about it here. I'll note that the point I was responding was that it's hard to take anyone seriously who is bothered by the book.
I can think that it's a bad idea for a book to encourage toddlers to confess racist ideas, but that's not the same as claiming that the book should be illegal.
I do wonder how far you'd go in the principles of parents to buy material for their children. What if it's antisemitic? What if it tells children that trans people are all mentally ill, or that homosexuality is a choice? What if it suggests that some races are inferior to others?
On the question of books in a public school context, that gets messy. As long as we have public schools funded by taxpayers, voters and legislators will have a say about the material. Most people here wouldn't trust the idea that police or the military should be allowed to do whatever they want without civilian oversight, and the same logic applies to teachers and school administrators.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Yesterday, I got into a bit of an argument with a co-worker regarding the new "woke" Captain America book that Marvel is putting out. He agreed with Dean Cain's position on it, so I reminded this co-worker, whom I'm usually friendly with, that Captain America was the original Antifa, as he was depicted on the cover of his very first issue in 1941, punching out Adolf Hitler, the most infamous fascist in history. He countered by saying that they did it the right way back then. I said that the only difference is that the 1941 version was Cap fighting a fascist we've all been taught was the worst person of the 20th century while the fascists Cap is fighting today have been praised by some questionable news sources. After I said this, my co-worker didn't admit that he was wrong, but he did quickly change the subject.
I present this as a service to anyone who is having trouble with a conservative co-worker, if you need any advice on how to handle it when they bring up topics like this.
Watching television is not an activity.
1. The book was brought up in a Politics Thread, so naturally it is going to be viewed and discussed through the lens of politics and society instead of through the lens of book reviews or literature.
2. No offense, but you often start out your responses with some variation of "an argument I haven't made"
3. "I can think that it's a bad idea for a book to encourage toddlers to confess racist ideas, but that's not the same as claiming that the book should be illegal." Yes, as I said you are entitled to your opinion, your review of the book. Others have expressed a different view. In the end, it is not up to any of us to decide if it is a bad idea or not, it is up to the parents of the children to decide. They can take what we say into consideration if they wish, but the decision is theirs to make.
4. "I do wonder how far you'd go" Here we run into a problem when you ask about how far I'd go, not how far anyone would go. That is making this discussion a bit too personal. If you would like to learn more about Librarian's views on these issues, I can refer you to the ALA and other similar places.
5. "What if it's antisemitic? What if it tells children that trans people are all mentally ill, or that homosexuality is a choice? What if it suggests that some races are inferior to others?" Then we run headlong into the issue of Book Banning and censorship. Forcing parents to choose one type of book over another is just as bad if done by Liberals as it would be if done by Conservatives. We may not like the way they choose to raise their children, but it's not healthy for a society to control it on the intimate level of the Family. All we, as educators and related professionals, can do is to create an educational system that teaches children in a non-biased, factual, and constructive way. As the child grows and learns, the child will become an adult that can decide for themselves. At least, that is what we should hope for.
6. "On the question of books in a public school context, that gets messy. As long as we have public schools funded by taxpayers, voters and legislators will have a say about the material. Most people here wouldn't trust the idea that police or the military should be allowed to do whatever they want without civilian oversight, and the same logic applies to teachers and school administrators" Public Schools are funded by taxpayers, just as most public institutions. Many Communities are not homogeneous, some perhaps not many. There will be School Board battles over issues related to teaching, and the majority will win out. That is not always in the best interest of the students. IMO, I'm more in favor of an educational system that is run by professionals with limited interference by the public. Most Public Colleges and Universities are like that more so than K-12. Professionals can create some sense of structure and standardization that would insure most students get the best education possible. I also, personally, believe that textbooks should be standardized or in some other way certified to make sure that they are current, accurate, and factual.
Oh, and for the most part the Military is run by Professionals, though it is overseen by the government. People like you and me rarely have any say in how the Military is run, unless something really egregious happens, then the protests start.
Oh, and before this gets brought up, I do believe that Parents should have a say in what their children learn in school. But it should be handled in the right way, with either sit down parent-teacher discussions, or public discussions at Educational Board Meetings. But it should be a two sided discussion, so that teachers, educators, can explain why a class is taught the way it is. If an accommodation is needed, then something can be worked out, but it shouldn't be allowed to negatively affect the education of the entire school. Of course, sometimes public input can be a positive thing and lead to a better education system.
Last edited by Tami; 07-10-2021 at 10:58 AM.
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
1. I completely understand the book's going to be viewed through the lens of politics. Whether something in the book is wise fits this kind of discussion. The initial argument was also whether the book is so obviously unobjectionable that it's hard to take someone seriously for opposing the author.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5624039
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5624051
2. No offense taken. I think the issue is mainly that I come at things from a different frame of reference, so there isn't the shared understanding that comes from someone presenting a traditional left-wing argument.
It's also possible I'm not doing a great job communicating, although that can be demonstrated by someone pointing out where I've made an argument that I deny making.
3. I think it's perfectly fine for people to express their opinions about whether a book is a good idea, or presents the idea effectively. This doesn't contradict the idea that parents will make their own decision about the book.
4. I'm interested in other people's ideas, beliefs and preferred policies. When I ask about your opinion, I also welcome anyone else to share their understanding. This is the main purpose of this thread, to discuss current events and ideas.
It is entirely possible that on a given topic, a person isn't familiar enough with the specifics to give a definitive answer.
5. Honestly, on this question I'm figuring things out for myself. I certainly don't think the AntiRacist Baby crosses those kinds of lines, but there are some lines. This is more about extremes than left and right.
6. I think the public has a right to interfere, just as they do with the military and the police. We can vote for elected officials who have a say in how the military operates.
There is an argument that advocacy for controversial ideas is more appropriate in university settings than in public schools, so that there likely need to be different policies for the different settings.
I certainly agree that discussions about education policy shouldn't be one-sided. Parents and other stakeholders should have a voice, but so should the teachers.
I agree on the textbook certification, and some level of national standardization. Parents should be comfortable moving, and colleges should accept a baseline of knowledge from all American high school graduates.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets