All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

What have I said that you disagree with regarding this book, much less what have I said about the book that merits this kind of response?

[Tami]

What have I said that you disagree with regarding this book, much less what have I said about the book that merits this kind of response?

That you are apparently (and I may be mistaking) advocating the policing of libraries and schools by a minority of parents to the detriment of all of the students and all of the residents of a community. You mention one book, an it's fine on a personal level to say that you may not agree with that book being made available to students. But when a minority of people take control, under whatever banner they use currently, to restrict access of information to the people who actually do want to and need to access it, then a line has been crossed.

One parent should have the right to make decisions about THEIR child/children. One parent, or a small group of parents, should not dictate what EVERY CHILD has access to.

Plus, these restrictions undermine the jobs of professionals, Librarians and teachers, who are trained to handle and manage collections and information and are trained to know what is age appropriate and what isn't.

[Tendrin]

And I'm gonna say it: teens should have access to books like Genderqueer. They should also read books their parents don't want them to and have the means to do that.

[Mister Mets]

That you are apparently (and I may be mistaking) advocating the policing of libraries and schools by a minority of parents to the detriment of all of the students and all of the residents of a community. You mention one book, an it's fine on a personal level to say that you may not agree with that book being made available to students. But when a minority of people take control, under whatever banner they use currently, to restrict access of information to the people who actually do want to and need to access it, then a line has been crossed.

One parent should have the right to make decisions about THEIR child/children. One parent, or a small group of parents, should not dictate what EVERY CHILD has access to.

Plus, these restrictions undermine the jobs of professionals, Librarians and teachers, who are trained to handle and manage collections and information and are trained to know what is age appropriate and what isn't.

I'm not advocating that.

I'm sure you understand that very few people advocate for school policies under the impression that it is to the detriment of the students and the community. Pretty much everyone believes what they're doing is best, even if it's calling for bannings of books much more mainstream than Gender Queer.

One claim that was made a few times is that voters wouldn't care about these types of issues if not for Republican messaging. I brought up the book as an example of something that would have likely always pissed off plenty of parents.

I don't think decisions about what schools should do with taxpayer money should be left exclusively to teachers and librarians, just as decisions about police policy shouldn't be left exclusively to cops. Parents and voters have a say.

This discussion shouldn't be a proxy for the artistic merit of the book, or for whether another book "deserves" to be removed from school libraries.

And I'm gonna say it: teens should have access to books like Genderqueer. They should also read books their parents don't want them to and have the means to do that.

That's a fair view. But parents and the broader community are going to respond when we're talking about uses of public funding.

[SquirrelMan]

I'm not advocating that.

I'm sure you understand that very few people advocate for school policies under the impression that it is to the detriment of the students and the community. Pretty much everyone believes what they're doing is best, even if it's calling for bannings of books much more mainstream than Gender Queer.

One claim that was made a few times is that voters wouldn't care about these types of issues if not for Republican messaging. I brought up the book as an example of something that would have likely always pissed off plenty of parents.

I don't think decisions about what schools should do with taxpayer money should be left exclusively to teachers and librarians, just as decisions about police policy shouldn't be left exclusively to cops. Parents and voters have a say.

This discussion shouldn't be a proxy for the artistic merit of the book, or for whether another book "deserves" to be removed from school libraries.


That's a fair view. But parents and the broader community are going to respond when we're talking about uses of public funding.

Well, I think climate change will kill us all and I have major issues with government funding still going towards more highways etc. You don't see me making death threats against construction workers. Because one of us is not part of a radical extremist party.

[Tami]

I'm not advocating that.

I'm sure you understand that very few people advocate for school policies under the impression that it is to the detriment of the students and the community. Pretty much everyone believes what they're doing is best, even if it's calling for bannings of books much more mainstream than Gender Queer.

One claim that was made a few times is that voters wouldn't care about these types of issues if not for Republican messaging. I brought up the book as an example of something that would have likely always pissed off plenty of parents.

I don't think decisions about what schools should do with taxpayer money should be left exclusively to teachers and librarians, just as decisions about police policy shouldn't be left exclusively to cops. Parents and voters have a say.

This discussion shouldn't be a proxy for the artistic merit of the book, or for whether another book "deserves" to be removed from school libraries.


That's a fair view. But parents and the broader community are going to respond when we're talking about uses of public funding.

very few people advocate for school policies under the impression that it is to the detriment of the students and the community.

That is naive. Yes, actually, very few people DO advocate for school policies that are to the detriment of the students and the community.

I could write an entire Op-Ed on this subject, but I will try and keep it simple.

1. Take away from or limit education to the poor, from minorities, from other groups you don't approve of and it makes them less of a threat as adults.
2. Control education and you insure that children grow up to be Conservatives with limited knowledge of history, science, and any other 'Progressive' or 'Woke' ideas.
3. Use Education as a tool for Propaganda, the first step into creating an Authoritarian Society of obedient, servile citizens.

Throughout history, whenever a country goes Authoritarian, it starts with attacks on Education and knowledge.

Right now, the attacks on Education, on Books, Knowledge, is a National Security Issue that the country isn't taking seriously enough.

[Kirby101]

Mets says he is a fiscal conservative, not an ideological one (though he does spend a lot of time defending extreme right ideology) But by ANY metric, the economy does better under Democrats and they have been more fiscally responsible for decades. Is it just the economically unsound policy of tax cuts for the wealthy he supports, or does he think the income and wealth gap, as well as large deficits is fiscally sound?

[Vakanai]

Mets has made it obvious he will never defend LGBTQ+ rights, literature, or community at large, but will go out of his way to defend those who target LGBTQ+ rights, literature, and communities. This is all we really need to know. For him, voting for politicians who make it a defining pillar of their political agenda to deny trans people access to medical care is a "moderate" action. He sees articles like the one Tendrin linked to about how DeSantis would spend money to rename a fort after a slave owning Confederate general but continuously vetoes spending for black celebrations and festivals, and instead of criticizing DeSantis would rather go back to discussing about how kids shouldn't have books about queer people. He has shown his priorities time and time again, and there's no discussion or debate to be had to change him from this. He's gone out and admitted that he never had a problem with Trumps policies, only his decorum - someone like DeSantis who shares Trump's policies and even goes further right than him but doesn't act in the insane manner Trump does is his "guy". Doesn't matter how much evidence is provided that DeSantis is a fascist, and it doesn't matter how much harm he's caused to LGBTQ people in Florida, because none of that matters to Mets - he's happy to overlook fascism and open bigotry if it gets the results he wants, and this extremist view he'll claim is a perfectly moderate view.

And the fact is, he's probably right - in today's Republican party the members who are only happy to "ignore" the bigotry instead of "committing" the bigotry are the moderates. Those conservatives who have a problem with the bigotry checked out of the party long ago.

[Tami]

‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags

In 2015, many liberal residents in Hamtramck, Michigan, celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council.

They viewed the power shift and diversity as a symbolic but meaningful rebuke of the Islamophobic rhetoric that was a central theme of then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign.

This week many of those same residents watched in dismay as a now fully Muslim and socially conservative city council passed legislation banning Pride flags from being flown on city property that had – like many others being flown around the country – been intended to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community.

While Hamtramck is still viewed as a bastion of multiculturalism, the difficulties of local governance and living among neighbors with different cultural values quickly set in following the 2015 election. Some leaders and residents are now bitter political enemies engaged in a series of often vicious battles over the city’s direction, and the Pride flag controversy represents a crescendo in tension.

“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”

[Spike-X]

I think we need to define some all new, outrageous leftist positions to redefine what the center is.

Like, all CEOs of major corporations need to go through forced castration, only women are eligible for elected offices etc.

If you just start actually doing what the right wing idiots constantly accuse you of doing, that should be more than enough. Completely open borders, force all kids to be LGBT, ban Christianity, all that rhythm.

[Spike-X]

The idea of blaming Republican officials for a lack of progress doesn't seem very productive.

You're right, it's definitely not the fault of the people fighting tooth and nail against progress that no progress is being made.

I thought you'd at least be happy with the implied compliment that Republicans are very good at doing the thing they do best.

A subtext is the certainty that on contentious political issues one side is clearly right, and that no one can come to different views legitimately on the most controversial stuff, which is not going to lead to any cooperation.

The side whose views are supported by facts and evidence is the right side. It's just never the Right side. A view derived from being fed lies, fake evidence, 'alternative facts', etc, while sticking one's fingers in one's ears and refusing to listen to actual facts and evidence, is not a legitimate view. It's not just that Republicans constantly lie about trans people and issues (and everything else), it's that so many people are so eager to believe those lies.

It's also no going to help anyone win elections, or get their preferred outcomes.

Calling out lies and instead pointing out the truth isn't going to get the result we want? What do you think will, then? Coddling the bigoted and ignorant, and giving in to at least some of the demands from the screeching howler monkey side of politics? While Democrats have been unfortunately all to willing to do that in the past, based on...well, everything happening currrently, that doesn't seem to be a particularly effective strategy, either for winning, or for building a decent society in general. All you tend to get are louder monkeys and worse bigotry. Because what happens when you encourage these people is, they get encouraged.

An implied strategy of calling on the other side to change things is just not how competition works. I get that politics is more important than games, but if the Red Sox want to win the World Series, they shouldn't focus on changing the Yankees.

You're right, the Democrats could be doing a lot more to fight the vicious bigotry and constant stream of lies from the Republicans. Something they're finally starting to do, thankfully. Which is I guess why you seem so determined to tell us it's not a winning strategy - because it's starting to be.

What about minors?

People's medical decisions should be between themselves, their families where appropriate, and their doctors. That's what Republicans used to say they believed, back in the dim, dark past of a few years ago when they were being threatened with the unspeakable horror of not having to go bankrupt to pay medical bills. By and large, minors aren't getting gender-affirming surgery, and when they are it's not done lightly, so why does that need to be my, your, or anyone else's business?

What should health insurance cover? What should taxpayers support?

Whatever is considered necessary medical treatment by the relevant treating pyhysician(s). Which, in the case of the currrent for-profit health care system that your country seems determined to cling to, would be a radical departure from the status quo. And if that means taxpayers need to start paying for trans folks to have procedures so they don't end up suicidal, then the taxpayers can damn well suck it up and pay for those procedures. I can think of a lot worse things to spend public money on than something that has been proven to be beneficial to people's wellbeing.

Under what circumstances should people not be allowed to wear a shirt that says "there are two genders"?

Really? That's what you decide to close with? And you were doing so well.

[Spike-X]

So is your view that there are no moderate Republicans? Or that any moderate Republicans should vote for a typical Democrat over a typical Republican?

There is nothing moderate about the current Republican Party. The only reason I can see for anyone calling themselves a moderate to vote for any Republican candidate is if that candidate is standing on a platform of making the Republican Party a lot more sane, reasonable and evidence-based, and a whole lot less fascist, than they are determined to be at this time.

An ad with clips from the book was deemed too explicit for TV.

So was two seconds of Janet Jackson's accidentally-exposed nipple. Big deal.

The claims that the book promotes pedophilia stem from an image of two naked young men on an ancient Greek vase depicting Plato’s Symposium—the source of one of the narrator’s elaborate fantasies.

Once again the smooth-brained confuse 'depiction' with 'promotion'. There can be, and usually is, a large difference between the two.

At what point would the majority of Americans be okay with a graphic novels with the sexually explicit imagery of Gender Queer: A Memoir in school libraries?

I don't think anyone here is going to die on the hill of this one particular book being made available in school libraries, when the actual issue is that books of all kinds that depict any kind of 'controversial' views, such as racism exists and is bad, or LGBT people deserve to be treated like human beings, are being taken out of libraries en masse because the people doing so don't want their kids being taught love and acceptance before they can teach them hate and bigotry.

I further believe, in general, that kids (especially older teens, which are the very youngest people who are considered the target audience for this particular book) should not be limited to reading only those books that their parents are fully comfortable with them reading. I also believe that the kids whose parents are the most angrily and vocally opposed to their kids reading anything they don't approve of are the ones who most need to.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

That is naive. Yes, actually, very few people DO advocate for school policies that are to the detriment of the students and the community.

I could write an entire Op-Ed on this subject, but I will try and keep it simple.

1. Take away from or limit education to the poor, from minorities, from other groups you don't approve of and it makes them less of a threat as adults.
2. Control education and you insure that children grow up to be Conservatives with limited knowledge of history, science, and any other 'Progressive' or 'Woke' ideas.
3. Use Education as a tool for Propaganda, the first step into creating an Authoritarian Society of obedient, servile citizens.

Throughout history, whenever a country goes Authoritarian, it starts with attacks on Education and knowledge.

Right now, the attacks on Education, on Books, Knowledge, is a National Security Issue that the country isn't taking seriously enough.

1. I would say that would make adults MORE of a threat as poor, disenfranchised and uneducated people often turn to crime in order to survive, or get back at the system that abused them

2. And that’s just what Qpublicans want, to keep the populace good and stupid, because educated and informed citizens would turn against the GQP and it’s policies which only favor the wealthy

3. It’s ironic, and hypocritical how conservatives, most of whom are college graduates themselves use education as propaganda, saying it’s bad for people to be intelligent

[Malvolio]

Mets seems to be asking why anyone would make an argument which they know to be wrong. Well, of course no one would do that, unless they're training for a debate by arguing the other side. But when someone shows you clear evidence to refute your argument, and you still say that your argument is correct, you are either stubborn or stupid. Maybe both.

[scourge]

1. I would say that would make adults MORE of a threat as poor, disenfranchised and uneducated people often turn to crime in order to survive, or get back at the system that abused them

2. And that’s just what Qpublicans want, to keep the populace good and stupid, because educated and informed citizens would turn against the GQP and it’s policies which only favor the wealthy

3. It’s ironic, and hypocritical how conservatives, most of whom are college graduates themselves use education as propaganda, saying it’s bad for people to be intelligent

To be fair...how many of them are actually educated and how many just "passed" because of donations or stupid things like "legacy"?