Interesting perspective. It would be really mind-blowing to see the other side of the gender, even though I have no interest in being trans.
One thing I will add to this article is that men are also viewed as little more than bank machines after divorce. People always have the utmost sympathy for any mother who is separated from her children, even if only for a few days. Movie plots can revolve around mothers finding their lost children and being reunited. But for men? We’re only the providers, the ones who pay the child support.
I lost my kids (not legally, just boring old classic parental alienation) six years ago following the divorce. Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
The lack of emotional support for men mentioned in the article is another thing that really exacerbates divorces and leads to suicides. I do feel like if I were the type of person to contemplate suicide (I’m not), I would have definitely done it when my ex took my kids from me. And there would have been no male friends to pull me back from the edge. Those friendships are, to quote the author, superficial to a large degree, or even the ones that aren’t are men who are now focused heavily on their own families and wives.
I mean, it’s also true all the other stuff about the male privilege and feeling safe and the good things that come with being a man. But it’s nice to see the perspective of how we lack emotional support and we’re expected to grit our teeth and “walk it off.”
Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
That is the worst. So sorry you’re having to deal with that and not get support from the men in your life.
I’m sorry about the parental alienation you and your children have suffered, that’s terrible for everyone.
Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.”
I’m confused why you wouldn’t want him to see them. Isn’t in your best interest to have people who love you and think you’re a good dad in your kids’ lives? Somebody to counter the alienating narrative in whatever ways they can?
Not OP, but yes, obviously. It’s still different than being in their kids’ lives and even if the grandfather is supportive, it’s no replacement for direct interaction. I also think there is the question of weather the grandparent will be supportive of OP or protective of the relationship with the grandkids when faced with a difficult decision with regard to who they need to win favor with.
Oh I’m fine with him seeing his grandkids but he has no empathy for my situation, considering it a dispute between myself and my ex. He even shares details from his trips to see them, as though that wouldn’t hurt me to hear about it. His lack of empathy is the problem.
My mother, on the other hand, criticized my ex for the situation and was “cut off.” So, despite the fact I’m sad that my mother can’t see her grandkids because she, unlike my dad, did take sides, I feel like she had the empathy to stick up for her son and point out it the situation isn’t right.
I will also mention my brother was “cut off” because of his close associations with me.
In “theory” or “legally” I have 50-50 custody. In practice, it’s nearly impossible to enforce visitation with older children. My kids were 15 and 9 when we split. Immediately, the courts said enforcement on the 15-year-old was impossible. I spent a few years battling enforcement on the 9-year-old but she soon also became unenforceable. At a certain point you can’t win if the kids also don’t want to see you or make your visit a nightmare by passively resisting.
I was in the middle of one of these court battles when my daughter became anorexic and told the medical staff she didn’t want me to visit her in hospital. She was about 13 and that was the last I saw her.
Legally, I am a 50-50 parent but in reality the only thing I’m entitled to do is pay their mother $1,000 a month.
I am very low contract with my mother and sister because they kept my ex as a friend after all her bullshit through the divorce. I put on a show for my son to have sort of normal family times at holidays, etc. but I mostly do not connect with them outside of time with my son. We are NOT friends.
So, internet stranger. I understand the crazy bullshit that comes with divorce for a man.
And it is amazing how quickly and thoroughly men are discarded after a divorce. Disposable indeed.
In a perfect world I could have had an amicable divorce from my ex and everybody could have stayed in touch and been happy.
Instead I had a “Michael Bay” divorce where everything went really explosive and badly. It’s sad because I see a lot of example – such as our own prime minister – who have a great divorce where everybody is respectful and mature and life goes happily on.
I’ve tried to explain to my dad how screwed up it is that he maintains a relationship with my ex despite my zero contact with my kids but he doesn’t care. Actually, he went to my exes wedding with her new husband last month, which involved him flying to my city. He didn’t visit me, which is really the extra cherry on the shit sundae.
Yeah, divorce was similar for me. I was discussing and considering collaborative divorce with my lawyer until I was served the restraining order...which I got dismissed. That started about 2 years of legal theater propelled by stupid amounts of money.
You do find out just how selfish your family is when you go through a divorce, don't you? And how little they really care about you.
At a certain point I went "Bush" on family/friends: If you're not for me then you're against me. I still think it brought me back to some sort of sanity in dealing with people. And taking the trash people out of my life.
A story all too common. Someone I know mine got divorced a number of years ago. He’s a fun, charming, kind, decent looking fellow in good shape for his age, and I can’t imagine he did anything to deserve what happened. I don’t know all the details of their divorce, but I know all but one of his children was poisoned against him by his (now ex) wife, and it’s only because the one happened to be away long term at the time.
His ex has several advanced degrees and is more than capable of earning six figures. And yet, he was still ordered to pay her spousal support and a sizable chunk of his pension. The divorce and family court system is absolutely fucked for men and it’s a small wonder so many of them contemplate drastic measures when their lives are ripped away from them.
Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men and then conveniently “forgot” to balance out all of the exclusive rights women get just for being women.
Feminism gave women all of the same rights and privileges as men
Feminism hasn’t done that yet, we’re nowhere near equal rights and opportunities for women and if you don’t believe me, look at the gender balance in US government roles and who has the money and power.
Let’s focus on dismantling patriarchy and the harm it creates for men as well.
This is BS, currently feminism looks to only strive after the cozy office places and various places of power. I didnt seen feminism once to call for equal numbers of female rig workers, construction workers, Alaska fishing jobs and similar… Feminists are mysteriously somehow always just after the lucrative office jobs…
They can both be problems simultaneously, and it’s disingenuous to argue that there aren’t militant feminists pushing to keep all of the advantages from earlier eras.
This is a men’s lib forum, and men’s liberation is pro feminist (feel free to check the wiki or that nice bell hooks quote trending on this forum if you disagree).
By being a strong ally to women, men benefit too, and I choose to keep doing that.
You can have the last word if you like, I’m gonna peace out here.
I hope I’m not intruding on men’s spaces here as a transwoman,
But after my transition that was one of the biggest, most drastic contrasts between the two binary gender’s social dynamics. Men just don’t get to talk about their feelings- whether it stems from homophobia or misogyny, men are generally seen as an island to themselves and if you display otherwise, it is seen as a weakness worthy of admonition and disrespect. There is still a societal expectation that men are supposed to be stoic, stable providers while women are increasingly allowed liberation. Hard fought, and rightly so but what’s the point of “equality” if we don’t lift everyone up to the same standards?
I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman. This just isn’t fair or right, regardless of the other privelages men may have. Justice is for everyone, not just minorities.
Yet, it is up to men to decide this. Yes, women can and should support you, but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.
*An edit for an addendum: I hope nobody reads this feeling that I’m blaming men, or being accusational. I want to clarify that I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.
I have never felt more emotional support in my entire life than when I stepped into women’s spaces, seen as a woman.
As a women that, granted, had some serious questions about gender in my younger years this has always blown my mind because it’s so multi-faceted.
Women are more emotionally supportive, but it can quickly spiral into an almost gross-feeling and superficial reinforcement. Everything seems to be “valid” or demands an emotion-ridden hullabaloo, whereas the men in my life have always been more direct and straightforward, unafraid to call out my general jack-assery or quip “yeah, that sucks” when there’s not much else to be said about my general state of affairs.
The flip side of this is that women tend to be more sympathetic/vocal to general life events and encouraging to mild up or down days, whereas men tend to cock an eyebrow and ask what you’re so excited/upset about when you show up to work “having feelings” on a random Tuesday because your spouse threw a fit about leftover spaghetti that morning.
The dichotomy is fascinating to me, to watch unfold every day with every interaction. I find myself (not correctly or incorrectly) leaning towards men in times of crisis (muted response), and towards women in times of -life in general- (exacerbated response) because it gives me the mean/median output of (normal human response).
However, this doesn’t mean men only have “regular” mode or “crisis” mode, or that women only live in an amplified wave of “normal” and “slightly less normal”, and I think that’s where we find our faults. Our definition of the masculine and the feminine revolve around a dead sun that no longer serves us well. Men ARE emotionally supportive, and women ARE reserved/stoic, it’s just not always what you expect at the time so it gets glossed over and deleted, to the detriment of everyone.
Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men. It is the same here for emotional liberation.
First, this is a long comment, and I don’t want to come off as dissing it. I agree with you. Except for that concluding thought.
I used to think that that was true, women vs. men for voting rights. But about ten years ago, I wandered into the Berkeley Historical Society. They had a bunch of materials on display about the women’s suffrage movement, including just boxes of documents. One of the first ones that I pulled out was a poster for an anti-suffrage meeting. A meeting organized by women.
In fact, they had lots of documentation about anti-suffrage efforts by the society women of Berkeley. That completely shocked me, given Berkeley’s crunchy reputation. But I did more research later, and found that it was not at all unusual.
Up until the early years of the 20th century, most women were against it! Even when the 15th Amendment passed, a large minority of women still opposed it. As well, quite a lot of men supported it. (Obviously, they had, to since they were the ones voting to pass it.)
Anyway, the framing of the issue as women demanding the vote from men is oversimplified.
but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.
Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.
Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.
Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.
I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.
I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.
When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.
Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.
Rather than intruding, transitioned individuals ought to be seen as the strongest allies - on both sides of the fence. The lived experience you being to the table is tremendously valuable because it is so indisputably valid.
It’s not only a question of men. If you want a romantic relationship, you need to fit the society’s standards for the sex you are looking for. If women are looking for toxic virility, the sad truth is that men who embrace it will have an easier time finding a relationship.
This is not something you take from anyone. And this is the biggest problem many men have with the #metoo era: we acknowledge toxic masculinity is toxic and can even be deadly, but what is the alternative? There is none currently.
There is no model for modern men that is worthy of both modern men and women. This is why we have incels and other hardcore conservative going hard on hating women or even more toxic masculinity.
But I digress. The solution is not in a fight, it’s in acceptance from both men and women.
Thank you for sharing. I haven’t figured out the magic words to communicate this well. I worked at a company that proudly announced longer maternity care for newborns, an astounding (for the US) 6 months. Fathers got 2. I’m a dad and wasn’t going to have any more kids, but some of us spoke up and suggested that dads deserve time with their children as well. It was explained that mothers have special connections with children (nursing) and are genetically (yuck) more loving caretakers. Their brains are wired for empathy, so they deserve more time. Remember when we all agreed it was awful to say men are better at logic and reasoning? Me neither because it was so long ago. How is this okay? And we wonder why far more women drop out of the workforce to become full time parents.
There’s a theory that women quit to care for kids because they don’t have enough support, so let’s give them extra time off, extra health care benefits, recovery support, reinforcing stereotypes and gender roles. It’s the most ass backward approach to what should be the goal to encourage husbands to take larger roles in families. When a man speaks up, he’s part of the patriarchy, suppressing women’s voices. Women need to be heard and supported, not mansplained. If anyone can suggest how to change the conversation without being labeled a bully while simultaneously being bullied, I would love to learn.
On Monday he criticized the legislation, which would provide an additional $60 billion of military aid for Ukraine, claiming it is “silent on the most pressing issue facing our country” in reference to illegal immigration.
This cynical motherfucker. Says you can’t fund Ukraine until we work on the border. Dems agree. Dems drafts a bipartisan bill that puts hard caps on the border and shuts it down when capacity is reached.
Then this guy tanks the border bill because Trumps wants border chaos so he can run on fixing it. Then he says Congress needs to address the border, after he just tanked a border bill that Congress could’ve easily passed.
Corrupt and selfish people like him are why US government is broken.
I thought this was overblown at first glance but reading into it…
From Wikipedia:
Accountability software typically functions by continuously making screenshots of the user’s mobile phone or computer screen and monitoring their internet traffic. It checks both for keywords (such as “gay” or “porn”) and images associated with the behavior the software is intended to detect.
So like even if the Speaker is on a VPN securely viewing classified material, if it’s on his phone or laptop, Covenant Eyes now has screenshots of it. That is very much a breech of national security if that is happening.
Right, even if he had access to classified information in an unsecured space, the classified system would have its own encryption device and its own systems separate from the unclassified network.
If he is following proper protocols and procedures: Yes
If he were following proper protocol, he wouldn’t willingly install spyware in the first place.
And unless he is VERY strictly separating his work and his personal devices, there is inevitable leakage. Even something as simple as getting too close to the line on “So I need to fly out to Nevada to check out these weather balloon things and make sure everything is fine” and so forth.
But also? All of this is publicly available information. At a high level, there are two kinds of classified material. Stuff that is classified by specific rules and are generally based on science and technology. And the other is “national security” and is more or less anything a bureaucrat thinks is important.
So the POTUS liking two shots of soy milk in his coffee is not classified because soy milk and coffee are not classified. But if it is decided that “terrorists” might attack the soy milk supply chain? Suddenly there is an argument that that information is sensitive.
And there are a LOT of arguments to be made regarding the Speaker of the House’s personal ties and vulnerabilities becoming “sensitive”.
And then you have people like trump who just give zero shits and are likely to take a picture of a document so they can show it to other people later.
That’s only part of it though. Another component is that anyone having access to his personal devices --let alone his porn habits-- potentially has compromising information on him. Once he’s compromised, he’s a national security threat, full stop.
What if he’s having an affair and there’s evidence of it on his phone? What if he’s doing other shady shit that involves not having a bank account? You better believe the Russians and/or the CCP would love to have compromat on the Speaker.
Fun fact: Before starting his weird anti-porn spyware company the CEO of Covenant Eyes, Ronald DeHaas, worked as a geologist for Chevron in the 70s. In fact, he’s still helping to destroy the planet by working as a consultant for the petroleum industry. He never actually stopped. So he’s always been an unscrupulous P.O.S.
Holy balls, it costs almost as much as Netflix ($204/year) and all it does is spy on you?! I’m not an evil man but these idiots ask for this service. I wish I’d thought of it.
LMAO what?! My god, it could not be more obvious that every single anti-porn crusader out there has serious issues with self-control and project it onto the rest of society. And let’s not even get into the fact that they have a ridiculously unhealthy understanding of human sexuality.
Actually fetish porn is around because it's a billion dollar a year industry. You're not only not the only one enjoying it, you ARE in the majority of men who watch such things. And why not? It's there for that very purpose.
This, they have been indoctrinated into “original sin” where everything is bad (especially most all sexuality outside of a male and female in a government-issued wedlock) and must be controlled, even if purely natural given by their “God”.
Sure, but MDM software is easy enough to make into a product that does this service on autopilot. And it sounds like the people moderating the content are the users themselves. Genius!
Why always get the gays involved? I swear, these people are obsessed with penises and projecting at this point.
I mean I’m a straight woman, I watched one video just because I was curious about the practicality of things and was too embarrassed to harass a gay friend about it.
But when I want to get horny now, it doesn’t even cross my mind. Even though there was one scene with Nick Offerman that was really hot in The Last of Us.
Some Christian men talk about “SSA” (same sex attraction) and their struggle to “resist the temptation”. As a non-repressed straight man, this is not something I’ve ever dealt with. I feel bad that these people are so indoctrinated and intimidated by their weird-ass culture that they can’t just relax and go grab a dick.
It’s because Christianity (and by nature, offshoots of it) was, and still is, a means of control.
Let’s not forget the roots of Christianity was from when it was a literal cult; you were considered a part of the Christian Cult if you practiced Christianity before iirc either Theodosius or Constantine became the Roman Emperor and made it into the state religion. Christmas was also stolen from Sol Invictus as a means to help bridge the transition into Christianity.
Constantine. Allegedly had a vision/dream where he was told to put either a chi-rho or tau-rho symbol on his shields ahead of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, and after victory he converted, with the rest of the Roman Empire following his lead.
That's exactly what it is, a major projection of their own inner sexual turmoil. Whether they are closeted homosexuals or not, and really in the case of Mike Johnson I hope he isn't because I don't want him among us LGBTQ folks, they definitely are projecting some hugely enormous interest in the sex behaviors and genitalia of other dudes. As a gay man - I'm kind of in awe of their penchant for penis worship.
The thing is, being a closeted homosexual isn’t even a binary thing. Everyone’s sexuality is a little bit fluid. I seriously believe that most of these people are bothered by the fact that they don’t find the male form completely repulsive, or by the idea that they may even have romance-adjacent feelings about another man without necessarily wanting to bottom for them.
These people aren’t closeted, they are just repressed. It’s like living among a group of people who insist that the color orange doesn’t exist and shame anyone who says they can see it. Obviously everyone sees orange, and choosing to live with the cognitive dissonance of orangephobics is incredibly stressful.
I totally agree, everyone has the capacity for a spectrum of sexual feelings and/or behaviors, but some men never acknowledge that and keep their homo feelings way too oppressed. The concept of having to find men "completely repulsive" for example - what a terrible way to view humanity and have to go through life. They are definitely repressed by their own fears and the phobic society around them. But being gay I have found that it's so much easier and better than being in the closet, if others don't like it - that's their f#ckin problem.
All this monitoring and over monitoring of what people are looking at online. Honestly if people aren't trolling for underage sex hookups or trying to encourage gross behaviors online, who the hell cares what people look at. Covenant Eyes - that name just says it all about the hypocrisy of religious zealotry. You can be happy! You can be free! Just do what the hell we tell you and don't you DARE look at anything we don't approve of, you born sinner and miserable wretch!!! WE'RE WATCHING YOU!!!!! Because Jesus would want us to.
I was going to say, this looks like an event when people first enter and doesn’t mean much. Then I saw DeSantis down at the bottom actually speaking and laughed.
I had to do a triple check on that, my first thought was that this was probably taken before the event, but there he is, right below the American flag, with the white shirt.
i wish the media would stop pretending he’s a contender. he’s not and he never has been. someone noted he was unpopular everywhere, even in florida, and they noted it almost two years ago. anyone with knowledge on it knows this. and trump isn’t a contender either. the gop basically has no viable person to put up as potential president because the party is too degraded at this point. it’s not an actual party that wants to govern. it’s a bunch of oligarchs funding dipshits in order to rule.
Don’t worry, it’s not him. It’s those damn woke liberals from Iowa that are stopping people from getting to the event with all their… wokeness. (…wokness? ….wokenness? ….wokenism?)
What’s great about this is it isn’t a carefully taken image of one section of an auditorium that happened to be more empty, you can see almost the entire seating area.
And it wasn’t taken before or after because there he is, up front with a microphone in the white shirt saying his spiel. Lol
At first, I didn’t see why this was even newsworthy. “We need to extinguish the Left” just sounds like typical right-wing motivational crap to me. Then I actually read the article:
"The only thing that's good enough is completely and totally destroying the political left in this country. Destroy it," Sabatini said.
"I'm talking about defunding government agencies, defunding bureaucrats, defunding government schools and going 100 percent private school like Florida's making gestures at right now.”
So, he’s talking about gutting the country. This isn’t just some moron shooting his mouth off at the bar, either. That’s not great.
I’m libertarian and I (unfortunately) have to vote rep. Every election day and tbh, I say both parties need to go! They’re both shitholes full of shit people who just want money, just by provoking different audiences, and before you say “b-but mah lesser of to evils!” SHUT THE FUCK UP AND USE YOUR BRAIN! They don’t give a FUCK about what YOU WANT! only what they want! What they want is total power. “The left” wants “The right” gone and vice versa! Then we end up having a one party system and you know what that means coughs Hitler, Stalin coughs and again, there is no “lesser of two evils” just some ideas you agree with, and some ya don’t. As my father says, “We all bleed red, why can’t we all just get along?”
You value your own personal gain over the human rights of the majority of the country. No one makes you vote for them, you choose to because you’re selfish and greedy and don’t care about things that don’t effect you. Any other reason you give is a rationalization.
What motivation could one have for voting for a party that is desperately trying to institute christofascism that doesn’t imply a myopic, selfish worldview?
What does christofascism mean? And would you say all members of the GOP are trying to enforce it, such as: Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Thomas Massie?
Chris Christie, the politician famous for using his office to punish entire cities for not endorsing his re-election campaign? That one? The same one famous for being an advisor to former president Trump? The one who doesn’t support reproductive rights for women, a position famously inspired by Christian morality? Yeah, he’s a Christofascist.
Christofascism is a far right political ideology that seeks to install Christian fascism. They are famous for advocating political violence against minorities, using weasel words to mask their intentions, and more. Whether or not ALL GOP members are christofascist is irrelevant, as the party platform is christofascist. Meaning, regardless of what you claim to believe, by supporting the GOP you are supporting the rise of fascism in America.
Except voting for an individual candidate is not voting for the party- its voting for one candidate! That candidate may or may not vote with the majority of their party. And there are many prominent examples of congress members of all parties not voting with the majority of their party. Also, what is Christian fascism?
It’s not my fault that you failed civics in elementary school but you need to go pick up a civics book and read it, because it’s very clear that you haven’t got a clue how our government works.
How can you look at the GOP in congress voting lockstep with the party line and claim that you just vote for the individual?
Or are you just being deliberately obtuse in order to muddy the water for observers so people will be more receptive to your regressive arguments?
I actually did pretty well in my political related classes, I didn’t take civics but various other US history classes, human geography, etc.
How can you look at the GOP in congress voting lockstep with the party line and claim that you just vote for the individual?
Okay I just checked for the past 15 votes(as of July 14th at 15:34 CEST) here is my source
I tallied every vote dissenting from the majority for each party and I actually threw in a 16th because one was a repeat vote just with more members(even though it had a different result):
Except it is. The party sets the platform, not the individual. Individuals who go against the platform, on both GOP and Democratic sides do not receive funding from the party. 95% of Democratic votes and 99% of GOP votes are cast on party lines.
Christian fascism is well defined, I guess if you’ve had your head under a rock for the last 10 years you might not have heard of it, but it’s not a new term.
Christian fascism is a term which is used to describe a far-right political ideology that denotes an intersection between fascism and Christianity. It is sometimes referred to as “Christofascism”, a neologism which was coined in 1970 by the liberation theologian Dorothee Sölle.
The party sets the platform, not the individual. Individuals who go against the platform, on both GOP and Democratic sides do not receive funding from the party.
That is true and sucks, but there are some congress people who still get away with it, like Rand Paul at least used to- I haven’t checked for a while.
95% of Democratic votes and 99% of GOP votes are cast on party lines.
Is that actually a true statistic or just hyperbole? If its true I’d love to see the source.
Christian fascism is well defined, I guess if you’ve had your head under a rock for the last 10 years you might not have heard of it, but it’s not a new term.
I mean my questioning is just it seems like the definitions are circular- saying Christian fascism is a combination of Christianity and fascism, but I want to understand what that means in practice.
Aside, I wish people wouldn’t downvote you. You’ve not done anything worth downvoting you in my opinion, and I’ve gone through and upvoted all of your comments, but it doesn’t do much good. You’ve been respectful, reasonable, and polite.
In practice it looks 100% like the modern GOP. Constant advocation for political violence, demonization of minorities, use of office and power to force Christian morality on non-Christian’s, privatization of public infrastructure, direct cooperation with corporations to suppress labor rights…
Christofascism “disposed or allowed Christians, to impose themselves not only upon other religions but other cultures, and political parties which do not march under the banner of the final, normative, victorious Christ” – as Paul F. Knitter describes Sölle’s view.
Sound familiar?
Sölle saw three uniting themes in U.S. Christofascism at the end of the Cold War: 1) U.S. superiority; 2) the veneration of work and, in the inverse, cruelty toward those who depend on welfare or solidarity; and 3) the lionization of the patriarchal nuclear family and, in the inverse, the demonization of sexual and gender minorities.
That should sound extremely familiar to anyone who’s lived I the US at any point since the start of the 80s at the very least.
I don’t have access to the study, so I can’t check for myself- but I just tallied the last 15 congressional votes. There were 273 Republican votes dissenting from the majority of their party, there were 114 Democrat votes dissenting from the majority of their party.
Christofascism “disposed or allowed Christians, to impose themselves not only upon other religions but other cultures, and political parties which do not march under the banner of the final, normative, victorious Christ” – as Paul F. Knitter describes Sölle’s view.
I’d arguing that sounds closer to Christian authoritarianism or a theocracy. Fascism is fundamentally the belief that everything should be devoted to enforcing and strengthening the rule of the state over everyone. Incorporating them into the state while making sure they are subjects to it. It is the opposite of democracy- a fascist believes in people serving the state, not the state serving the people.
Sölle saw three uniting themes in U.S. Christofascism at the end of the Cold War: 1) U.S. superiority; 2) the veneration of work and, in the inverse, cruelty toward those who depend on welfare or solidarity; and 3) the lionization of the patriarchal nuclear family and, in the inverse, the demonization of sexual and gender minorities.
I’d argue this is more chauvinism and conservative nationalism than being inherently tied to Christianity. After all, that sounds like what Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager believe.
Idk where you heard that is what fascism is… The 14 tenets of ur-fascism:
The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning.
The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead.
No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous.
Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition.
Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger.
Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: 7.
Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”)
Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment.
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous.
Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled.
The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths.
Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality.
Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader.
Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning.
And yes, of course it sounds like Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager, becauses they’re fascists. By definition. They are fascists.
Idk where you heard that is what fascism is… 14 tenets of ur-fascism
It is my personal belief that the only possible way to interpret the ideology someone espouses is to look at what they actually say about it. If you want to define Marxism, look at how Marx defined it. If you want to define Monetarism, look at how Milton Friedman defined it. If you want to define Nazism, look at how the Nazis defined it. And, if you want to define Fascism look at how Mussolini defined it. Obviously, the Nazis, nor the Fascists actually followed entirely what they espoused but I’d still say you can only analyze the ideology based on what they actually advocated rather than what they did. If you want to analyze them as people, or as a successful state- look at what they did.
No I said you need to do the opposite. The fascist ideology is what they espouse. If they don’t follow what they espouse than they are acting against the ideology they espouse. Maybe they have some crypto-ideology.
You’re right, I misread. So, you think that fascists can only be fascist if they admit to it? So the Nazis weren’t fascists then, according to your definition. Only Mussolini was a fascist, by that standard. It’s a really bad standard if so, because you’d be literally the only person on the planet that doesn’t think the Nazis are fascists other than other Nazis. Hitler didn’t go up on stage and say “IM A FASCIST.” So, by your standards, he clearly cannot be a fascist. Maybe he’s a crypto fascist…
Your definition makes literally no sense whatsoever.
Either way, I don’t think you have a solid grasp on political theory or of ideology in general. Most people are unaware of their own ideology, that is how ideology works… ideology is the small lies you tell yourself that make the world go around. The lies you’ve taken as facts to make life easier. Even sentences like, “this chicken is worth $10” reflect internalized ideology. We all hold many ideologically driven positions, and unless you personally take the time to examine your own actions and thoughts, you’re likely to be unaware of them.
The tenets of ur-fascism were developed by studying the ACTIONS of the fascists. Exactly what you claim you need to do. If you do that, you see the Nazis fit all 14 of these, as do most modern American neo-conservatives.
Turning to the results, we see evidence of the public underestimating the degree to which their own senators toe the party line. Looking only at the control condition, the average actual party unity of the respondents’ senators is 94.7%.
The party Unity was determined by taking data from voteview.org
I don’t doubt their is high unity, I’m just questioning the claim that it’s higher amongst Republicans, who are generally a tiny bit from fractured in voting when I’ve looked at votes- and from my own comparison of 15 recent votes now. Also looking here the Republicans seem to have a slightly wider spread
I’m not saying this to defend Republicans, just questioning the claim that they’re more unitary in voting.
If you read the linked study, you’d see that you’re pretty typical in underestimating party Unity, the majority of people on both sides do. Your link doesn’t work at all though, so I can’t see what you’re trying to show me.
You realize there are hundreds of votes every session, right? Thousands every year. So you’re not even using 1% as your sample size. The study above used every vote across an entire year.
Listen, you asked for a source, I provided it. You didn’t know how to open it, so I provided it again in an open format. You didn’t read it, didn’t even look at it, and you think that somehow 16 votes is more representative than thousands. I’m done here, if you want to continue discussing on our fascism thread, I’ll continue there, but this line of discussion has clearly devolved to the point where there is no point in continuing it. The data is there, if you decide to read it.
Of course, also why I supplied the other source. But I am not certain Republicans are less united. I just haven’t seen any evidence that they’re more unitary.
I literally provided evidence. Thousands of votes, aggregated professionally and peer reviewed. You have seen evidence, you just refused to acknowledge it.
You did not, the only time you’ve directly referenced the provided source was to say that you could not access it. To which I responded with a publicly accessible link.
Where it says what, specifically? That they used data from a full year of votes?
Edit: Or that Republicans are more United?
It doesn’t matter who is more United, if that is seriously what you’re focusing on, you’re missing the forest for the trees. I don’t give a fuck how United democrats are, that wasn’t at any point the topic of this conversation, and it’s fitting that you’ve pushed the goalposts from “Republicans aren’t United” to “Republicans aren’t more United than Democrats”. Both parties are United, they vote in line with their party in a vast, vast, vast, majority of instances. The Republican party platform is literally, definitively, chrisofascist.
Why would you vote for a party trying to tell you how to raise kids and what you can do in your own bedroom and what medications you can have etc etc etc if you are actually libertarian lol
Exactly, why would you vote for a party that is telling you how to raise your kids and what you can do in your own bedroom, i.e. why vote for the GOP, who do exactly that?
If the GOP doesn’t outright restrict you, they let their corporate sponsors do it directly.
How? Please explain how me not choosing to vote for a few policies I don’t agree with is idiotic? OK from you’re perspective you. Can’t see how someone could have a differing option but that’s fine. I do dem on a few issues but only because they share my views but for the majority, its the reps. that hold the most of em. I would vote for the libertarian Party but it would be useless. Still I wanna hear why you think I’m an idiot? is it because you think I’m agians human rights? Or immigration, or abortion? Let’s talk!
You first preemptively chastise others for “mah lesser evil”. Then openly admit you don’t vote for your “party” because they wouldn’t win, and instead vote for the one of two likely winners based on “close enough”. That’s literally choosing the lesser of two evils.
I mean only one of the two main parties is pretty clearly against abortion and it definitely isn’t the dems. So like, yeah. I’d think by voting repliblican you’re probably against abortion. What opinions exactly do you share with republicans?
I mean only one of the two main parties is pretty clearly against abortion and it definitely isn’t the dems.
This is incorrect but an understandable interpretation because dems suck at messaging.
Dems really need to pivot to the mother’s health rather than choice. For starters, abortions are serious medical procedures and shouldn’t be taken lightly. As a result, part of the more health focused platform would be to reduce abortions as well as all the other issues facing pregnant women. They should avoid letting the argument be framed as if they “want” abortions. No one wants abortions. Dems just don’t want to restrict anyone with regards to their personal healthcare decisions.
Edit: some people need to accept that dems suck at messaging or work on their reading comprehension or both.
Oh neat, this is a divisive rhetorical device. Don’t actually constructively argue for a policy you prefer, just attack how people talk about it. It’s fascinating to notice bad faith republican techniques you’ve only read about.
@meco03211 is pretty squarely presenting the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" branding. No harm in pointing out that some debates aren't worth wasting energy on until they're properly framed.
This was entirely the point. So often I’ve seen those “debates” devolve into the righty arguing against murder and the lefty arguing in favor of choice and never address the other’s concerns. That’s convincing no one.
I feel like people see abortions as bitlrth control. You have unsafe sex and get pregnant? Well I can just have an abortions and not deal with the consequences! I also feel like abusive relationship will take a massive spike as guys no longer feel like they have to be careful, and can just fuck her as many times as he likes all the while thinking “I’m not gonna get in trouble for this, I’m not gonna have to worry about a kid cuz I can make her abort it!” Ik that sounds retarded but I kid you not when abortions are made legal (where I live anyway) we will see a huge wave of young kids coming to get them as a form of birth control. Now, if the mothers life is in jepordy, as well as the babies then why not abort it and save the mothers life? Well there is a thing called c section. What about rape? Silently putting the kid up for adoption is an option, no one has know and there are couples waiting to take kids in. Well what about women’s rights!? Well, what if I told you I don’t care. I only care about the babies right to life, if he/she wants to off themselves later on (which they shouldn’t and should seek help) then that’s their choice. We have systems in place to help these children after birth.
Lemme tell you a story: I was born at 24 weeks, a micro preemy. During my mothers pregnancy, her doctor told them that getting an abortion might be a good choice as I might not make it once I was delivered. They gave me a few weeks to live, a month at best and told me that I would prolly come out not breathing. Despite those horrible odds, my parents talked about it and decided to bring into this world, even if it was for a short while. When I was born however, I defied the expectations of the doctors, and came out screaming! Fist balled up like I was gonna punch em in the face! Of course it didnt get easier, my dad told me I was to small I fit into the palm of his had and he told that at that moment, he was so grateful he didnt kill me. They rushed me to the nicu, and hooked me up to all these monitors and tubes. I spent months in there and as a result I now have a paralyzed vocal cord and due to all the drugs, terrible tooth enamel. When they brought me home I had to stay on oxygen for a few weeks but I made it, I survived and now here I am, 24 years later healthy as I can be! Sure it hasn’t been easy, and I’ve lost my hearing and have had to wear glasses and my mouth is one big filling lol. But I did it and I’m grateful to be alive! THAT! my friends, is truly why I’m anti abortion. To other kids like me a chance, to give them a shot at life! Because only through pain and suffering do we grow stronger as people. So don’t give up on that tiny life, give it a shot and who knows? It might be the best thing you ever did!
Thank you.
I will delete this account in a few cuz apparently this isn’t the instance for me, I think I might make my own!
“I’m not gonna get in trouble for this, I’m not gonna have to worry about a kid cuz I can make her abort it!” Ik that sounds retarded but I kid you not when abortions are made legal (where I live anyway) we will see a huge wave of young kids coming to get them as a form of birth control.
This is a "trust me bro" argument. It doesn't contribute much to an online discussion because it's speculation that cannot be affirmed or denied based on the information you have presented.
What about rape? Silently putting the kid up for adoption is an option, no one has know and there are couples waiting to take kids in. Well what about women’s rights!? Well, what if I told you I don’t care. I only care about the babies right to life, if he/she wants to off themselves later on (which they shouldn’t and should seek help) then that’s their choice.
This, on the other hand, is useful to the rest of us. It regretfully informs us that you are very poorly informed on the subject of mental health, and aren't likely to be persuaded to invest the effort that would be needed to change your mind. You have already chosen the life of a potential child at all costs and the mother is an acceptable casualty of circumstance, because she gets a "choice" in what she does with the trauma from being forced to bear a child against her will, and the fetus having no agency precludes all further discussion.
The fact that you will likely read that italicized text and think that is a checkmate argument in your favor is the crux of the issue. I apologize for not being willing to invest the energy in convincing you otherwise, but I also thank you for being honest with it. Way too much time gets wasted when people pretend that isn't the core pillar of their anti-abortion argument.
Now, if the mothers life is in jepordy, as well as the babies then why not abort it and save the mothers life? Well there is a thing called c section.
There is also something called non-viable pregnancies. They tend to be conveniently ignored by policy makers and half-researched attempts to steelman a pro-choice PoV. (aka, what is happening here)
If medical practitioners are placed in a position where they can't provide preventative care without risking a lawsuit, then the mother gets traumatized by being forced to carry a corpse to term, and at worst both die pointlessly. The baby will never develop agency to begin with, and the mother isn't given any agency either because she's an acceptable casualty. This has happened several times in recent news already: one woman nearly bleeding out on the floor of a salon, and another being forced to bear a baby without a head.
By all means, let's allow politicians to make these decisions for us in advance of pregnancies instead of medical practitioners. Politicians are equipped with an infallible combination of medical experience and psychic powers that allow them to anticipate all medical scenarios ahead of time and prescribe the correct dosage of lawsuits to their constituents.
Lemme tell you a story:
Appeals to the fear of non-existence are not uncommon, and sympathetic to a degree. Non-existence is the shit that keeps a lot of us up at night. Fear of non-existence and ignorance of mental health unfortunately don't make for good policy making.
I will delete this account in a few cuz apparently this isn’t the instance for me, I think I might make my own!
Not gonna actually help anything, that's not how ActivityPub works. You're participating on lemmy.world from your account on lemmy.fmhy.ml. It does however suggest that you are in search of an echo chamber, in which case...best of luck.
Quite the contrary, I care a lot about people. Although you might not see it that way. Due to your own world views you see me as a pos monster set on destroying wemons lives right?
It was moreso meant for people prior to getting pregnant. No one is sitting there trying to get pregnant just to have an abortion. No one is longing for that. But yes in other words no one is doing it for fun.
Edit: Jesus some of you salty fucks are worse than the usuals on reddit. Clearly not reading and comprehending the comment. Just downvotes.
This is a myth. In the first trimester an abortion is the medical equivalent of repairing a dent in a car with a suction cup. It takes anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes and the side effects are the same as a miscarriage (e.g. cramping and bleeding).
Science VS made an excellent podcast about the science behind abortion and talked extensively about the various procedures, fetal states of development, etc: gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/n8h7aag
You can just read the transcript if you don’t want to listen to it. Search for this string: “Lisa explained the process to reporter Heather Rogers”
Perhaps that statement was a bit broad. There are serious abortion procedures depending on many factors even if not all abortions would be called serious. The point I was making is that even the least serious options are not some desired thing. So continuing as “pro abortion” opens dems up to the idiots on the right that think normal people are relying on them as birth control. Just pivot to mother’s health as the framing and then you can point to the statistics of how contraceptive access and sex ed improve all aspects of the mother’s health including fewer abortions. Then point to red states and their higher abortion rates.
normal people are relying on them as birth control
If a woman wants to go through the expense (and pain) of using abortion as a form of birth control why would we stop her? It’s her body. That’s her prerogative.
People get stupid tattoos all the time but we don’t have laws against that. It’s not like a fetus can think or feel anything.
That doesn’t stop the idiots from making that argument. The point is to show how rarely that’s the case and to help people choose better options through sex ed.
There definitely is a lesser of two evils lol. One party takes corporate funding and shit but actually makes and passes legislation for stuff like drug decriminalization andgreen energy. The other party is just blatantly taking away people’s rights and blaming everything on “wokeness.”
Also if you think they’re equally bad why are you even voting republican at all.
Have you ever noticed that the people who say that both sides are the same split into two groups: the liberal side that doesn’t vote, and the conservative side that always votes Republican?
And jews, don’t forget us. Their rhetoric is identical to the early nazi party right now, that “LGBTism” is being “forced” on America by a nebulous “them.” And funded by George Soros.
Just wait, when they finish with their anti trans panic and start arresting trans people for existing in public the gloves will come off and the nebulous “them” will become “the jews.”
We desperately need to properly teach how the Nazis came to power. They didn’t start out at “kill the jews” they started at “we need to protect children from this dangerous Jewish ideology of homozexuality being taught in schools” and “cultural bolsheviks want to brai wash their kids into their globalist agenda” and “women are too promiscuous and it’s destroying children in out country.”
This is why I'm constantly getting involved in politics, local and national...We need to counter this shit before it becomes a reality forced upon all Americans. We need to bring back consequences for saying such out of pocket shit.
Yup. I used to vote for people based on their opinions regarding the issues, regardless of party. I’m afraid to do that anymore. I’m not willing to further the career of some spineless, unprincipled tool who will ignore their own judgment and just vote along party lines. I still pay attention to people’s opinions, but if they’ve got an R next to their name, I can’t risk voting for them.
It’s not the way the system is supposed to work, and it frustrates me, but I don’t feel like I have any other ethical choice.
I feel the same way. I’m very left leaning to the point that I’m probably Progressive, but I recognize the need for an opposition party - as long as that party operates in good faith. I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad. Maybe we’d see a lot of progress in the short term, but corruption would intensify and it would end really badly.
However, the key part of this is “operates in good faith.” I don’t think the Republicans do this anymore. They prioritize attacking people living their lives and culture war stuff over everything. With every issue, they don’t ask “how can we help people.” Instead they ask “how can I turn this into a culture war/battle against woke in order to get more political power?” They’ll shatter every norm and rule to gain slightly more power and it’s tearing the foundations of this country apart.
At this point, a great Republican with sane positions could emerge (don’t ask me from where or why they’d still be in the Republican party) and I wouldn’t vote for them.
I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad.
I agree with the spirit of where you're coming from, but I don't think this is a realistic risk. More than two major political ideologies effectively exist already, but their coalitions are the parties themselves due to the limitations inherent in the US voting system.
The Democrat party already encompasses a broad spectrum of political philosophies, and they're not in the same party because they want to be. They are a de facto coalition of whatever the Republican party isn't. This is because the US leans to the right on the Overton window, and the two-party government of the US forces the role of the leftist party into being the kitchen sink coalition. This regretfully gets wallpapered over by the "radical left" narrative talking point that Republican media chestbeats over relentlessly, to the point where the average American never makes this connection.
If I were to wave my magic wand and enact voting reform that doesn't empower a two-party system, we have at least four parties worth of politicians in play:
establishment liberals, neoliberals, etc.
everyone in the democrat party who is to the left of them (who would realistically form more than just one party)
non-MAGA conservatives (Republicans who jumped ship to Democrat already/are too indoctrinated to consider it, conservative politicians who don't agree with party leadership but maintain status quo for their careers)
Far-right Freedom Caucus types. McCarthy would already backstab these guys in a heartbeat if his speakership was politically viable without them. The fact that Republican leadership cares more about ego than principles is what put them into this predicament. (largely a consequence of what safe primaries have done to political strategies, but that's another rant)
You can split this up even further by pointing out libertarians (ones that aren't really just conservatives who don't want to be Republicans anymore) and others, but it's enough to make the point. Let the Republican party collapse. Something else will immediately take its place, and as long as their replacement recognizes that the Freedom Caucus is what sank them, maybe they can steal enough of the right leaning Democrats to where they no longer need the far right crazies to be politically viable. A system that accommodates more than two parties would be better still, but congress critters are never going to vote in favor of something that weakens their own power. Voting reform will have to happen at the state level.
So I’m going to take issue with a few things here. Progressive is not left. Socialist is left capitalist is right. It’s very frustrating to hear people keep making this claim. But it’s absolutely understandable considering the propaganda and indoctrination many of us in the United States go through. Now as far as progressive goes. The better term to describe it is pro-social democracy. Social democracy is inclusive. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are loosely pro-social democracy and Republicans are authoritarian or anti-social democracy. Though they are both solidly right-wing.
If Republicans disappeared tomorrow we would not have to worry about finding an opposition party. The lot of us pro-social democracy socialists would instantly split off and form a party that represents us. And between the two of us. Both pro social democracy parties. We could stand to fix a lot of the problems capitalists have made. Not mistakes, problems. They did this shit on purpose. Just some food for thought and perhaps something you had not thought about or been aware of before.
I’m very left leaning but I don’t think we as a society are necessarily ready for the optimal societal structure, and I know I don’t know what the best path to getting us there is.
I’m not against opposition parties, I think that we ideally need a bunch of distinct viewpoints at the table, but all of those distinct viewpoints should meet some minimum bar of human decency and respect.
Right now I think some of the stuff the GOP fights for is demonstrably below that bar, and I am not referring to the quiet and unheard constituents, I’m referring to the people with the loudspeaker.
Some examples of viewpoints that don’t get a seat at the table are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-sexual abuse, pro-fake medicine, pro-corporate ownership, etc. An opposition party is not a party that supports these things, an opposition party would be one that says “hey rather than letting X company corner the market and have a de facto monopoly, we break them up so they have less control”, or “hey instead of invading another country militarily, we offer humanitarian aid instead”, or “hey if we’re going to rework the economy to have more freedom and respect for the consumer, instead of socializing production of resources we adopt more competition-oriented free-market regulations”. The thing is, this isn’t what any opposition party is doing.
(I’ll also admit that I was a fool for thinking that big tech hate by the right was ever going to lead stronger regulation of the big tech corporate empires, it’s just hollow and blind hatred, all bark and literally no useful bite.)
but I don’t think we as a society are necessarily ready
So, I’ve two thoughts on this. The first is that yeah, a good chunk of people have been propaganda-ized into thinking things that will help them are magically bad because the “other team” wants them. And I agree that there’s a hell of a fight that has to happen to get through this brokenness in the system.
The second thought is that “waiting for the most opportune time” because you’re afraid of how rough the fight/struggle will be is how you sit idly by and LET the rot continue to spread.
I wanted to call the second bit out because it’s pretty common for people to see a battle is going to be hard, and think it’s better to wait for a “better” time.
It’s kind of a form of tone policing, almost? Like–“If you’re weren’t SO ANGRY about these things THEN I’d support you?” Except in slightly a different context, a slightly different form. So instead it’s, “If it wouldn’t be SO HARD to do right now, THEN I’d help you do it–but things better calm down first before I’m willing to lift a finger!”
Same energy as tone-policing…basically, other things being emotional/hard to deal with makes someone opt-out of trying, and makes them say they want to wait until a “better” time, even if it’s unlikely that better time will ever come.
tl;dr: I don’t think we can shift to an optimal societal structure overnight, but there are already concrete steps to take along that path that we could and should have already taken yesterday. None of my judgements are based on “is it too hard?” just “will it work, and if it won’t work yet what can we do to get to a situation where it will be possible?” Under no circumstances do I think sitting around doing nothing and waiting is the correct decision.
I was sort of masking my thoughts so they may have come out unclear, so I will be more clear:
I think that the future of humanity requires us to become space-faring. Our current ownership model is fundamentally incompatible with us being space-faring and successful at it. We can’t transition all of society to a space-compatible structure overnight, it would end in failure since it would cause immediate mass revolt.
I don’t think we should wait to make changes to society though. I just think we need a transition and I’m willing to work with anyone who has good-faith proposals on steps we can take now to eventually get there.
From my point of view there’s never going to be a time where we can shift overnight because we can’t handle that extreme of a shift.
One concession of a space-compatible society unfortunately is the “complete” freedom we have today and the concept of ownership. In a space-compatible society every person must play their part. Only after essentials are covered would people have freedom and ownership, but even still both would be restricted and it would be semi-meritocratic. Security would also become paramount.
Things like single-payer health care and education are relatively basic and realistically speaking should be inoffensive short-term steps that we take. The best time for those steps was yesterday, the second best time is now. Things like UBI would be the step after that, and role-optimization would come after even UBI because that’s when we begin to lose some freedom. I think role-optimization is something we can’t even implement yet but would cause riots and it would take a generation or two with the previously mentioned things before it could be applied society-wide (it’s already something that will be required for early space colonization).
The ethical choice is to vote Democrat. The alternatives are Republican, which is not gonna happen for most of us here, and Independent, which in a 2 party system means you’re wasting your vote. The metaphorical choice is “do you want COVID or do you want cancer?” I think I know which one I want.
If we go private schools I will fully be unable to afford to live with my family in this country. If I start seeing this pushed for I am burning down private schools in the dead of night. They want us broke and dead and to have no choice. Society is supposed to help people live easier. This is absolute bullshit and nefarious.
Private in this context means charter, which is still state funded. Furthermore with more market share there would be enough demand for affordable private schools, as seen in India where government schools are infamous.
I mean, there have been examples of government funded vouchers ending up going to scam charter schools because Republicans are also deregulating private schools. There are lots of horror stories about charter schools.
I’m sure there are, personally I prefer decentralized schooling and ending mandatory schooling. My experience in public school was terrible for me, by far the worst experiences of my life.
May I ask, Did all your teachers do this, or one in specific? Did your teachers refuse to teach you to read and the burden of literacy was solely on your parents?
May I ask, Did all your teachers do this, or one in specific?
In elementary school it was roughly half or more of them. There were a couple good(from my perspective obviously) teachers at that school, but it might have been below average.
Did your teachers refuse to teach you to read and the burden of literacy was solely on your parents?
I imagine they would have, but most people in my classes learned from their parents.
Stop strawmanning what I said, it’s not a discussion or argument- it’s just insulting. And, no, saying people shouldn’t be forced to do unpaid labor for 13 years of their lives forced to sit in desks when their body is built to move and learning things that honestly are not, and will not be useful for the vast majority of them. If it were about basic knowledge there would just be one test and when you pass it you don’t have to go to school anymore. But it’s not.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the choice, I do support the choice. I just don’t support false imprisonment
I was going to give you a real answer but I took a little trip through your history and I think I understand what you’re saying now, this conversation is over.
Well I am slightly of two minds about it. Looking in their post history it looks like they posted a selfie and appeared to be quite young. I think kids are allowed to be ignorant and wrong for a little while. Oftentimes they’re little more than blank slates parroting what their parents or relatives indoctrinated them into. Only actually learning what things really are once they start becoming more independent and experiencing for themselves. I have some hope that this one with some experience and maturity might come to learn. But I definitely don’t blame people for not watching to be free life coaches to the unwilling. But yes when they’re over 30 and still acting like that usually then there’s little hope for them.
And that’s still a child. And your overall attitude really shows it. If you were 30 years old that would be an insult. But you’re still at the age where it’s somewhat understandable.
You’re not wrong that public education failed you. But you are wrong the charter schools etc would do better. Everywhere else in the world even in the places that do better than us, they use public schools. Because they work. The problem with our public schools. Is that a number of groups. Judging from your opinions many of whom you would side with have worked hard to sabotage our schools over the last half century or more. Make a commitment to never stop learning. And to never stop questioning what you think you know. As someone well over double your age it is some of the best life advice I could give to anyone.
How could I act that’s not childish? What specifically must I change to not act like a child?
But you are wrong the charter schools etc would do better.
I think it’s possible that some would. I agree it’s hard to nail down the incentives for charter schools but I do think there is room for competition and choice in the space.
Everywhere else in the world even in the places that do better than us, they use public schools. Because they work. The problem with our public schools. Is that a number of groups. Judging from your opinions many of whom you would side with have worked hard to sabotage our schools over the last half century or more.
I live outside the US. The public schools here are not good, nor are the private. They are effective for some students, but they are not empathetic. Also, public schools do not work in many places, such as the most populace country.
Make a commitment to never stop learning.
I’m not opposed to learning. After all, if you’ve seen my profile I posted a ton of microbiology resources I’ve been reading/watching lately. I want to learn what is valuable to me, in a way effective for me. The internet provides a much better vehicle for that than mandatory schooling for me- and I’m sure many others.
I’m sure you do. But the problem is it’s not about thinking. It’s about knowing. I’m sure there are some who would benefit from having unlimited budget and personal attention. But at what cost to everyone else? There’s one question which instantly dismantles charter advocates arguments. That they cannot and will never be able to answer. Charter schools get to choose their students. Public schools cannot. Therefore the data from both will never be directly comparable. How do you normalize the data to be able to have any meaningful informative comparison? The greatest minds out there still haven’t been able to do it to date. Also it’s important to note that many other countries with better educational outcomes also have public school systems. Which strongly points to public schools not being the problem directly. More likely the curriculum and cuts that have been forced upon them.
I’m not opposed to learning. After all, if you’ve seen my profile I posted a ton of microbiology resources I’ve been reading/watching lately.
That’s great. But I also remember seeing a hot take on the Microsoft FTC events as well. And let me just say, as someone who’s been a Blizzard customer for 30 years and a gamer for almost 40. These acquisitions and consolidations have always been a bad thing long term.
The ultimate key to education and wisdom. Is to learn how little you actually know. Then building up the critical thinking skills to identify who the experts are, and where to find the information should you need it. And that is unfortunately something that’s never been harder these days. All our media is incomplete coverage if not outright indoctrination and propaganda.
The PBS videos on YouTube are pretty decent though. Journey to the Microcosmos, Eons, Space Time, Monstrum, Storied, and Other Words are all great. And are actually a really good argument not only for public education, but expanding it as well.
well I’m glad some people still try. either way, I just discovered this kid mods this community, so i’m out. I didn’t leave reddit to go to another politics community run by people who support traitors.
Cool, have fun trying to compete economically with China and Europe with optional education in math and science. Your idea sounds nice in theory, but it’s completely divorced from reality.
You’re personal life aside, cause I understand middle/high school is the worst, what do you mean by “decentralized schooling” and what does that mean in your view? Is it curriculum or who “runs” the building?
I think there should not be a centralized curriculum and instead schools can choose to teach different things and students choose what schools they go to(which is partially how it worked in my city). Also, it would be great if students could choose to enroll in classes that they thought were interesting and useful to them- and not enroll in others. But, the most fundamental thing, if you think schooling is about basic education than you should just be able to test out of it. My mom and grandma are both public school teachers, and both have agreed with me that the top performing academically in 9th grade know more of the curriculum than the bottom 20% of 12th grade graduates.
Also, the worst for me was actually elementary school.
My mom and grandma are both public school teachers. I had a few good public school teachers throughout my education. One of my good friends is a public school teacher. I never said people working in public schools were evil. I said it is immoral to trap students there against their will.
Charter schools are hell for educators and students don’t benefit. The reason why conservatives push for charter schools is because then they don’t have to worry about the separation of church and state. Basically they want public schools, but with Christian nationalism. This means they’d strip schools of scientific rigor, tell us Teachers to teach that God made the heavens and earth a couple thousand years ago, people rode dinosaurs like cowboys, and we’re all either going to heaven or hell. I have parents who push for this already. Their agenda is more of the same, anti intellectual, Christian nationalism.
Charter schools are hell for educators and students don’t benefit.
Charter schools are not a monolithic entity, I’m sure some are terrible- but I’ve also seen some that seem to be good, obviously I’ve never been enrolled in one but at least in the public school district I went to it was terrible for a lot of teachers- and harmful to my education and mental health.
The reason why conservatives push for charter schools is because then they don’t have to worry about the separation of church and state.
There are a lot of non-religious charter schools, I am not a fan of religious schools- but it is not my place to impose my beliefs on other people’s children.
This means they’d strip schools of scientific rigor, tell us Teachers to teach that God made the heavens and earth a couple thousand years ago, people rode dinosaurs like cowboys, and we’re all either going to heaven or hell.
Do you think people should be able to homeschool or pay for their children to go to a private school?
Charter schools are not a monolithic entity, I’m sure some are terrible- but I’ve also seen some that seem to be good, obviously I’ve never been enrolled in one but at least in the public school district I went to it was terrible for a lot of teachers- and harmful to my education and mental health.
No reason to speculate. Charter schools have been studied extensively:
It makes no fucking difference if the school is charter or not unless you’re a Black or Latino kid in a big city. At least from the perspective of test scores.
This suggests that there’s really no advantage to charter schools unless you’re using them as a means to limit class sizes in big cities (which is where that measured effect of improved scores for Black and Latino students comes from). In other words, 30+ years of studying charter schools has once again proved that the biggest factor in improving test scores is smaller class sizes. Every other factor from curriculum to “good teachers VS bad teachers” to teaching styles to how many hours kids spend in classrooms is all nothing in comparison.
Having said that, charter schools have some major statistical advantages over regular (funded via socialism) schools:
They don’t have to take all students. In any given year a regular school has to adjust the number of teachers and classes based on enrollment. If there was a single-year baby boom (e.g. a big storm came through ~6 years ago) they’ll have to hire teachers and somehow “find room” for kids they weren’t sized to handle. This makes the logistics of a charter school much simpler than a regular one and has an enormous impact on measurements of “efficiency”.
It’s far too easy for charter schools to force out kids they don’t like (e.g. underperforming or special needs).
Charter schools don’t have to follow the same curriculum as regular schools. This means they can “teach to the test” far more than regular schools can. This gives them a huge statistical advantage over regular schools that have to give kids a more well-rounded education.
…but forget all that for a moment: The fact that even after 30+ years of evolution charter schools still aren’t outperforming regular schools indicates that they’re a waste of time. If we actually wanted to improve education in this country there’s a few simple changes we can make that would have vastly more impact than charter schools:
Reduce class sizes. The fewer students per teacher the better they do!
Start school later for older children. High school kids should not be waking up at 5AM to go to school! Study after study has shown this has a great big negative impact on academics!
That’s it! Do those two things and the science says our kids will be better educated. Everything else is just shifting the deck chairs around or just wishful thinking (“let’s make all teachers great teachers!”).
BTW: If we want teaching (as a profession) to improve over time we should probably start by paying them more and making it a more stable career. You know, to keep them around instead of having them get so dissatisfied that the majority leave the profession after a few years. Other things like not passing idiotic “Don’t say Gay” laws would also help in this regards.
If you went to a charter school they’re just gonna let you go wandering around willy nilly?
I’ve been a teacher in various countries around the world. Some, mainly third world countries, do just let kids go do whatever if they don’t want to learn. These kids usually end up pumping gas, working a cash register, or some other low skill low wage job.
If you went to a charter school they’re just gonna let you go wandering around willy nilly?
No of course not. I think both public and charter schools should allow it however.
These kids usually end up pumping gas, working a cash register, or some other low skill low wage job.
It’s not my place or your place to tell other people what’s best for them. They should have the right to choose to do what they want. There is nothing demeaning about working in a low skill or low wage job obviously it is a bad situation if the wage is too low- but it isn’t always. One of the jobs I’ve had that I enjoyed the most was delivery, my other jobs have been “skilled”.
They should have the right to choose to do what they want.
Wait you are telling me that, at the age of 7 you were ready to make decisions that affect your entire life? If sitting at a desk for 10 years and learning basic life skills for free is abuse and gave you PTSD… As you said… Just how would you feel sitting at a gas station for 40 years, inhaling carcinogen fumes, and living at a very basic level as a result of the decisions you made as a young child? You basically had a bad experience, and I understand. I hated school as well. It’s actually why I became a teacher. I don’t want to be an abusive dick like my teachers were. But what you are saying is that a young child, who has no basic life skills, should just be able to leave school because it sucks. But the repercussions are that the rest of their life might suck and they’re not gonna blame themselves. They’re going to blame circumstances. In all honesty, aquiring an education is a privilege, and it is a recent development in society that we universally get a basic education. If it seemed like a horrible experience, well it’s behind you. All I am saying is you should have a bit of gratitude for the education you received. If not that, gratitude for the education your mother received, so that she could teach you to read. You seem very intelligent, but you’d not be able to use your intelligence if you didn’t have basic literacy… And consider if your mother, herself, was illiterate and couldn’t teach you. Wouldn’t school be such a gift?
Wait you are telling me that, at the age of 7 you were ready to make decisions that affect your entire life?
I think anyone at any age should be able to enroll in basic education. I think the basics of what is taught in schools and truly necessary could be taught to most people in under 4 years.
gave you PTSD
I didn’t say PTSD.
learning basic life skills
That is a tiny fraction of what public education is.
Just how would you feel sitting at a gas station for 40 years
You mean getting paid and providing a service of value? I’d much prefer it.
You basically had a bad experience
I personally would’ve been much better off not engaging in schooling at all. Everything that has been useful to me I either was taught by my parents, or the internet, or easily could have been in the 13 years I wasted in school.
But what you are saying is that a young child, who has no basic life skills, should just be able to leave school because it sucks.
Yes.
But the repercussions are that the rest of their life might suck and they’re not gonna blame themselves.
You don’t know. It is easy to point out harms to changing the current system while overlooking the harms in the current system and the missed opportunities. Maybe they would more aptly teach themselves- as I did. Or, maybe they would learn from an apprenticeship. Or, maybe they wanted to be a hair stylist, they learn to be a hair stylist, they become a hair stylist- and they are happy. A lot of the advocacy for mandatory education comes from projecting what you want, or what might be best for you, onto others- imo.
aquiring an education is a privilege
It is a privilege if it is voluntary, its an obligation if its forced.
If it seemed like a horrible experience, well it’s behind you.
But it still harms millions of others.
If not that, gratitude for the education your mother received, so that she could teach you to read.
My parents were also taught to read by their parents.
All I am saying is you should have a bit of gratitude for the education you received.
The only thing of any value I gained throughout schooling was the diploma.
I think the basics of what is taught in schools and truly necessary could be taught to most people in under 4 years.
Okay. If you have a kid, pull them out of school at 4th grade. They are ready for the world in your eyes.
13 years I wasted in school.
That’s your own fault. Drop out and get your GED at 16.
You mean getting paid and providing a service of value? I’d much prefer it.
Cool. Go to work. Nobody stopping you.
You want to change the system? You need more education. Substantiate your assertions that kids should drop out at 4th grade and go to work with quantitative research after you get your masters or PHD in early education pedagogy. Otherwise you’re just blowing hot air about the way the world ‘should be’
Okay. If you have a kid, pull them out of school at 4th grade. They are ready for the world in your eyes.
Most people includes adults who would learn it more easily. But I’d say yeah for the top 20% or so of students they’d learn more with free choice. They’d obviously still be minors so still have protections. But, I think an easier way to determine it than age is just letting people test out.
That’s your own fault. Drop out and get your GED at 16.
Illegal in the state I lived in, you had to be 18 to be out of any form of schooling. Furthermore at around that point COVID had started and online school largely amounted to nothing. And again furthermore, 2/13 isn’t that good of a recovery rate.
Cool. Go to work. Nobody stopping you.
I did work starting when I was 14, I would’ve been able to devote more and learn more from it if I weren’t in school.
You need more education.
You can learn outside of formal education. That is the only way I am able to learn anecdotally.
You want to change the system?
Many have already tried see John Taylor Gatto, one of the most decorated public school teachers ever. Or, Ivan Illich, who was more of a idealogue but still proposed good alternatives, some of which have partially been created. Or John Holt, or in some ways Caleb Gattegno. Bertrand Stern, and many more. And, I’m probably not the one best suited to take any of their places, but I can still advocate for change.
It sounds like you are passionate about education reform. It’d be a shame if your passion went to waste. I strongly disagree with the dismantling of public education and replacing it with charter schools. The idea is mostly advanced by people with ulterior motives. You, from what you said, truly suffer from traditional education. I get that. As I said, I hated school also. I learn in a very nontraditional way as well. But, public education is for everyone. It’s not simply a work training facility. Many of my students love school. Quite a few depend on school for daily nutrition. These are a few, among many services provided by our public school system.
Neither of us are going to be able to make fundamental changes. But I am personally providing my students with the best education that I can. Maybe your mom, not your tracher taught you to read. But I’ve personally taught dozens of illiterate kids to read. Not only how to read, but to understand why they read and to even love doing it.
People learn. It’s what we do. I feel like I am just a facilitator in their independent education.
Actually, you’d probably be a great teacher yourself. You understand what a lot of teachers don’t.
I think anyone at any age should be able to enroll in basic education. I think the basics of what is taught in schools and truly necessary could be taught to most people in under 4 years.
So… You think Kindergarten through 4th Grade is all that’s necessary in life?
I don’t know how to tell you this but… if you only got an education up to 4th grade you wouldn’t have the necessary communication skills to write that comment. You also probably wouldn’t have the necessary math skills to pay your bills or understand how interest works (so forget banking) which means you wouldn’t have a cell phone or Internet plan.
It’s not my place or your place to tell other people what’s best for them.
Actually, it is! It is our place to tell people what’s best for them because some things are objectively better and we can back up our positions with science. If you want to disagree with me that’s totally fine. Just know that by taking the opposite position here you’re arguing that it’s not our “place” to tell people things like:
Wash your hands after using the restroom.
Install smoke detectors in your home and replace the batteries when they beep (don’t just disable them).
Mixing chlorine and bleach can kill you.
Don’t drive like a maniac.
Get a science-backed education or you’re going to be useless/a drain on society.
Society has a duty to tell people things like this. Especially children! We have to teach them “what’s best for them” because that’s how society works (“we live in a society”).
When you say things like, “it’s not your place to tell other people what’s best for them” you’re basically making an argument that’s pro-disease at the very least and pro-death at worst.
When a cop pulls you over for driving like a maniac are you going to argue with them, “it’s not your place to tell me how to drive!”?
Progress marches on as we learn more about ourselves and the world. As our collective knowledge grows domains of knowledge become more specialized. So when a body of such specialists agree on something it is then their duty to tell us all “what’s best”.
And charter schools (at least by me) means “a business running the school for profit.” Yes, they get public funds, but they then pocket as much of those funds as possible in profits and give the students as little as possible.
They also will turn away special needs kids because those kids tend to require more dollars per student and thus aren’t as profitable to educate.
So the public schools are left with less money and more special needs kids per capita to take care of. The public schools fail more leading to more charter schools. Which leads to more public schools failing. Repeat as businesses profit and kids suffer.
A lot of charter schools are non-profit. But yeah there are plenty that are also for-profit.
They also will turn away special needs kids because those kids tend to require more dollars per student and thus aren’t as profitable to educate.
I saw a lot of accusations of that, but at least for the one most accused of that in New York- they base admissions on a lottery. Although, some students really can’t be in a normal school safely or effectively.
So the public schools are left with less money and more special needs kids per capita to take care of. The public schools fail more leading to more charter schools. Which leads to more public schools failing. Repeat as businesses profit and kids suffer.
The thing is public schools have had increasing funds, I went to public schools with a good amount of funds and it didn’t really in my experience change anything for the better. But, I think the best way to save money is allowing students to opt-out if they don’t want to take certain classes- or go to school at all.
I saw a lot of accusations of that, but at least for the one most accused of that in New York- they base admissions on a lottery. Although, some students really can’t be in a normal school safely or effectively.
Whether you know schools that do it or not, the fact is that they have the right to not allow special needs kids to go to their school. And that would be true if all schools were private. You would just have to hope your area had a school that would take your child if they have special needs or move to somewhere that does. That’s not right.
There are a lot of things you have claimed about your district which doesn’t fit any other district I’ve heard of. Maybe the problem is not public schools, maybe the problem is the way people run them where you live.
I have never heard of a public school that doesn’t have special education.
Okay, we aren’t talking about “severely mentally ill students” (which, as far as I know, public schools are still required to take), we’re talking about any and all special needs students, which charter schools can turn away.
And I haven’t told any anecdotes about charter schools. I am talking about what all charter schools have the right to do, but, as far as I have ever heard with the apparent exception of your district, public schools have to take all children regardless of their level of educational aptitude.
Originally passed in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) — frequently referred to as Public Law 94-142 — requires that all public schools accepting federal funds must provide equal access to education for children with physical and/or mental disabilities.
…
Public schools are required to create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student who is found to be eligible for special education services. IEPs must be designed to meet the unique educational needs of that child in the least restrictive environment appropriate.
Equal access doesn’t mean not segregating. My mom and one of my friends work in different districts(in different states) at specifically special needs schools. Because the district thinks it is better to segregate special needs students
Who said anything about segregating? Of course they get segregated to special needs classes. This is about whether or not schools have the legal obligation to accept students at all. By law, all public schools must accept special needs students, so the district is violating the law.
No, segrated by schools, not classes. And again, this issue could be resolved by simply passing a law requiring charter schools accept any students that apply randomly(which is not what schools in my district did- but regardless) would you then support them?
No, but for other reasons. Namely that I do not think education should be a for-profit enterprise. I do not believe that everything in our world should be a business or run like a business. Certainly not schools or prisons. We owe children more than that.
I certainly cannot agree with you that children who don’t want to learn should be allowed to avoid it. Children’s brains are not fully developed. They do not know what is best for them or how to make the best rational choices. This is why we don’t allow children to consent to sex, something I hope you would agree with.
I am assuming from your age that you are not a parent, but even if you are, your child is unlikely to be of school age. I have a 13-year-old. Sometimes she doesn’t want to learn. I still make her learn because she also sometimes doesn’t want to shower or eat properly and I make her do those things for the same reason. I want a child that can do whatever they want in life, not live some short, unhappy life because they made bad choices as a child.
Namely that I do not think education should be a for-profit enterprise.
That’s an understandable position, I don’t agree but I understand your position on that.
They do not know what is best for them or how to make the best rational choices.
The problem is nobody can know what’s best for someone else.
This is why we don’t allow children to consent to sex, something I hope you would agree with.
The difference is opting into something vs opting out of something, it is much easier to make the decision of opting out rather than opting in- as well as significantly less harmful. Furthermore, in the case of sex the child is being exploited- it is disgusting to compare this.
Sometimes she doesn’t want to learn.
Do you think you are ever at points pushing her into the life you want for her rather than what she might want? Furthermore, do you think its fair to generalize the experiences of other people’s children to force your child to go somewhere for 13 years of her life? I think its important in an individualist society to recognize whats good for some, or even for the majority, shouldn’t be forced on everyone. I think exercise is good for the vast majority of people- its not my place to dictate that decision for others though.
I want a child that can do whatever they want in life, not live some short, unhappy life because they made bad choices as a child.
Except for the first 18 years of it. I believe that most children want to learn if they can be convinced it is useful and interesting- same as adults. Public schooling doesn’t offer that.
Do you think you are ever at points pushing her into the life you want for her rather than what she might want?
She might not want to shower. She’s still going to learn that showering is necessary because she will not succeed in life if she smells bad. No, she is not free to smell bad. Her brain is not developed enough for her to understand why.
Have you ever tried explaining the reasoning to her and discussing it with her? And, do you remind her how she smells? Did you empathize with her response?
Of course, but at some point you have to tell a child to do something. Because, again, their brains aren’t fully developed. This is a neurological fact.
When spending that time is the difference between success and poverty, I don’t see it as extreme at all.
Not for the education, for the diploma.
You seem to feel they should have full agency, so should they be allowed to consent to sex?
It seems like you want me to say that- I already I explained my reasoning for not. I also don’t think they should be allowed to buy hard drugs or alcohol.
I don’t see the functional difference between not being allowed to consent to refuse to go to school and not being allowed to consent to have sex if this is about freedom of choice.
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">This is why we don’t allow children to consent to sex, something I hope you would agree with.
</span>
The difference is opting into something vs opting out of something, it is much easier to make the decision of opting out rather than opting in- as well as significantly less harmful. Furthermore, in the case of sex the child is being exploited- it is disgusting to compare this.
Only the amount of time spent is different. So why not? Both are choosing to opt out of something. Are you saying children should only be allowed to opt out of things that take a certain length of time?
Just like my idea that its wrong to kill someone based on an inherent trait of them is black and white. Some issues do have clear answers in my opinion. But, generally I’d like to see some reform- since I don’t think totally voluntary schooling is likely to pass. One thing I’d like is the ability for a student to test out of mandatory schooling as early as they want.
Now being able to test out of schooling I would agree with. You probably would be surprised at the perspective I have- I dropped out of high school and got a GED and there was nothing on that GED I didn’t already know by the time I started high school. But I don’t think I should have been allowed to opt out of high school entirely because I also learned valuable social skills that I definitely would not have if I hadn’t gone.
Meanwhile, schools now make really good accommodations for children with special needs. My daughter has special needs (but is not in special ed) and the school has a lot of things they have to do legally to make it so that it isn’t such an unnecessary challenge for her. It’s something they have to do by law and I think it’s a good thing. Let’s say my daughter could test out of high school at her age- she can’t, but let’s say she could. Despite our prompting her to do activities, she has decided to spend most of her summer vacation at home in her room and because of that, she is desperate for any and all human contact even though she isn’t aware of it. So because of that, we have four-hour conversations when I get off of work. I let her do it, but that is what she would spend her days doing if she tested out of school this early. She wouldn’t be doing anything productive with her life because she doesn’t know how to be productive yet. And very, very few 13-year-olds would either. That’s why we generally do not allow them in the workforce.
Yeah, I appreciate it too for the most part- although a few people have just been insulting me, honestly though I was able to have good discussions on Reddit- just not many.
Hahahaha. You won’t be going to private schools silly. That’s for the gilded children of the neonobility. No. You won’t go to school. It’s only a life as a poorly paided overworked labourer for you. You’ll start when you’re 5 years old. Gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Better title is Republicans are working to kill democracy by using corrupt right wing Supreme Court.
I agree Biden should pack the court to get average citizens to respect the Supreme Court again. Because the rulings the current court are making are not what the majority of us want.
Don't vote for Republicans, they don't care about our democracy.
In this climate I don’t see how Biden could pack the court. It would never clear the senate. Even though on paper Democrats are in control it is only on paper and not real life.
The rulings the court makes should be based on law not opinion, even if it is popular opinion. That being said accepting bribes from people that you are ruling on their cases and making rulings on made up stuff doesn’t really smell lawful. Those bribes would get anyone fired in corporate America but seems AOK for this banana court.
This court will go down in the history books (in some states, I’m sure FL won’t allow it) as the worst court session yet. Roberts will be known for an enabler of the illegitimacy of this court. Roberts response instead of leading is don’t say bad things about us you might hurt our feelings. He seems concerned about the image but isn’t doing a thing about it.
The best thing I can think of is vote out the party of hate, greed and power and see what we can do after the elections.
Biden was asked in the 2020 Primary about packing the court and he said "no". Unless I'm remembering this wrong and I don't think I am. And it looks like Biden will be our choice again for the election, so I don't see this changing, unless he says he NOW would pack the court.
I'm for packing the court. Only other way is impeachment.
I would assume that Biden said that because he knows it is not practical and would be a waste of his limited time and political power.
Obama made a similar compromise in not pushing for single payer but instead focusing on the compromise that became the ACA. He used basically all of his first term to get that passed, and while it may not have gone far enough for a lot of progressives--including myself--I sure am glad we have that instead of nothing!
And it has to clear the house as well which definitely won't happen before 2025. I wish people understood the current limitations of the presidency and paying laws in general.
Because the rulings the current court are making are not what the majority of us want.
The job of SCOTUS is not to rule based on what the “majority” of people want. It’s to check the constitutionality of the policies and laws passed by the other 2 branches.
They aren't doing that either. Just last week they released back to back completely contradictory rulings, one of them allowing businesses to use intrinsic characteristics to decide that they don't have to make a cake for you, but somehow, that's not ok when another business (colleges) does it.
They've decided that the pure fantasy of a religion is the most important characteristic a US citizen can possess.
Fuck impeachment, they are frauds & half of them should be incarcerated for taking bribes.
To start, your confusing the cake case with the one from last week that had to do with a website for gay marriage (cake happened years ago). In both, they ruled that the 1st amendment rights of free expression and freedom of religion supersedes state nondiscriminatory laws.
For the record, I’m completely opposed to the rulings. But what you claim to be “pure fantasy of religion” is not something a large portion of the population would not agree with as they believe is some sort of faith, and the right to believe that faith is something that is protected by our 1st amendment whether you like it or not. I mean, it’s something that makes our country great is it not?
In regards to affirmative action, it was bound to be overturned due to its own discriminatory nature. Are there massive discrepancies in access to quality education, funding, wealth, and opportunities on a socio-economic and racial basis that is widespread all throughout society? Of course! But affirmative action is NOT the answer or solution to this, again due to its own discriminatory nature (and therefore, unconstitutional).
The whole bribery thing with Roberts and Thomas is a separate issue, and there needs to be severe consequences for such actions. Does SCOTUS have massive problems currently? Yes! But the faster we realize that it was meant to be a non-partisan institution with the sole purpose of interpreting the constitution and not ruling based on what the majority of people want, the faster we’ll realize that the institution is currently broken and we need to be very careful with what solutions are implemented (and no, packing the court is not a solution. It’ll make the whole situation exponentially worse)
I think the debate is nuanced so I’m not trying to say it’s absolutely equatable, I’m more trying to feel out your actual position.
If a woman was being abused by her husband, stood up to him and killed him in self defense…if domestic abuse/survivor groups invited her to speak, would it be also repulsive?
Or say that woman armed herself as a child(17 yr old) and walked into a tense situation of strangers untrained and ready to shoot someone… and then ends up shooting someone. Might be a better comparison.
Perfect example. She shoots him with a gun she bought and then brought back home. To the people who think he’s a victim, you’re the one saying “well, she should have left him and certainly not brought the gun into the house!”
But I understand that the question will be avoided at all costs, because that’s the only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
I’ll answer it by pointing out that you’re building a straw man. I would call you a goat fellating syphilis factory but I’m pretty sure that both goats and syphilis would hate to be inside you.
There is a clear difference between putting yourself in a situation by crossing state lines over some shit that has nothing to do with you and having to live with an abuser. She has to go home to a person. He could have stayed his ass home knowing what was happening and would have been just fucking fine. He was looking to kill, she’s trying to live. If she’s making a living on it, it’s making a living on surviving, not going to look for trouble. But you can’t see that, you slimy donkey fucking inbred.
I get that people like you argue in bad faith. I really don’t care and this response isn’t for you. In fact I’m blocking you after I make this because I have no interest in listening to a sniveling shit pile try to lawyer his way into making crossing state lines hoping to kill someone ok. I’m writing this so anyone confused about what kind of person you are can read and see that you’re looking to find a way to kill.
Go fuck yourself instead of forcing yourself on your sister-cousin again. I hope that last brain cell you’re clinging to falls out and knocks out that last tooth that’s holding on by a thread on its way out.
I love how you claim you are going to answer the question, and then simply insult me while not answering the question… And the telling me you’re blocking me.
I feel bad for people who think that popularity is the same as correctness. You are basically doing the equivalent of “wow, this influencer has a lots of followers. They can’t be wrong!” Lol
plenty of others already did, which you are conveniently ignoring. your analogy is garbage and reveals how poorly conceived and deluded your position is. as such, you aren’t worth anyone’s effort.
It’s actually a pretty terrible example. A person has a right to be safe in their own home. Kyle had no reason to cross state lines with an illegally acquired rifle.
Cool, no one had any reason to be there. That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
The gun that his friend bought for him because he couldn’t buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
That doesn’t make it ok for some dipshit to shoot them.
Yes it does, it was either let him be attacked by rosenbaum or the crowd (which the crowd actually began hitting him anyway lol) or defend yourself.
This isn’t even a stand your ground case because rittenhouse tried to flee in every case lol.
The gun that his friend night for him because he couldn’t legally buy it himself, and he never had it at his own house? There’s so much convoluted bullshit wrapped around trying to justify his ownership of that gun…
You said that he crossed state lines with the rifle.
Then just move on if you don’t see the point. The fact that everyone who has responded has blatantly misrepresented my point or asked a question back without answering mine tells me a lot about how the avoidance isn’t because it supposedly has nothing to do with the topic.
If you take a shit on someone’s dinner plate and call it chocolate cake, we’re not obliged to eat it, and in fact may be very upset and tell you to GTFO.
You’re right, you’re not. Which is why I said you were free to move on. But just because you don’t like what I’m saying doesn’t mean you can’t misrepresent it.
Hang on - in your analogy, the 17 year old kid is the battered wife and the black strangers - miles away and across state lines - are his abusers? Suggesting the kid was somehow a victim here? Like he spent his whole life being tortured by his abusive spouse (black strangers)?
I’m feeling out the position. These people think he legitimately acted in self defense. Just like we might all believe she acted in self defense. My position isn’t about equating these two things, I even explicitly said so. It’s about whether its “repulsive” to invite someone because they acted in self defense.
Not OP but then yeah, it’d be repulsive to invite her to events as a hero. Maybe if it were an abuse awareness thing or a support group it’d be different. But if it were in the same way Rittenhouse was/is celebrated, that’d be fucked.
You’re avoiding the question. Would it be repulsive for abuse survivors to invite her to talk?
Because it’s transparently obvious that you want folks to go “of course that wouldn’t be repulsive” so you can go “AH HA!” when in reality this tortured attempt to equate the two has no value aside from disingenuous rhetorical plays as you are attempting.
Remember this all comes from someone saying that even if you don’t think he’s guilty of murder, it should still be repulsive that he’s being invited to and going to talks, because he killed some people.
I’m trying to get people to realize that if you think he’s innocent, you wouldn’t find this repulsive. there is nothing disingenuous about that.
What is disingenuous is misrepresenting my position in an attempt to avoid facing this contradiction, which is what you are accusing them all of doing.
No they aren’t laws, but you should follow them if you want to stay in the community. You’re free to disagree with me all you like, but just insulting any user is forbidden
You seem to be JAQing off here, but your straw man is pretty weak.
Let's say instead the abused woman is safely away from her husband and he can't harm her any more. Then she illegally obtains a firearm, drives 2 hours to the husband's place of work, starts a fight with him, and when he starts to get violent with her she the shoots him.
Do you think this woman is justified in the shooting?
Why would I answer your unrelated question if you are unwilling to answer mine? Whether I think anyone is justified is not really the point of the analogy.
With Rittenhouse it’s more like a woman was being abused by her husband, she tried to hit him back him in self defense, but then he killed her and then made a career out of giving talks about how brave he was for defending himself.
I can’t help but think if he ever was offered a job even if it was back end not front of shop that they would ask him to not tell anyone that he worked there.
Who the fuck would listen to him? He’s got all the charisma you’d expect a snot-nosed faux-crying-at-trial murderous teenager would have. Playing the “victim” of the “woke leftist mob” only gets you 15 minutes- just ask that dipshit AR-wielding ambulance chaser and his mustard-covered wife in Missouri how famous they are these days.
To be a fox news anchor, you have to have a personality. I mean, it can be one where you scream and yell, but you can’t walk off the stage—because the show must go on. He’s annoying, even to his own, and a liability.
I’ll have a go! He may well be racist but he killed white people, and was legally found to have acted in self-defence. So all we can really say is he’s a killer. I’m not planning on being friends with the guy, but I do like a little precision in my speech.
TPUSA is running the show, not Rittenhouse. They recruited him like an intelligence asset by showering him with praise and “favors” in a time where he was (deservedly) receiving national ire.
People need to understand that the American right has a pervasive violent ideation. His actions are repulsive to you, but they are normal, necessary, and a sign of strength to the gun-owning right. Many, many Americans love what he did.
In November 2022, McCormick noticed a news report detailing an "unauthorized and unlicensed cannabis farm, located on unincorporated land," that was raided by members of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. McCormick then met with members of the sheriff's office to provide paperwork showing the legality of his cannabis farm.
At around 4:30 a.m. local time on December 7, McCormick was woken up by members of the sheriff's office as they began their raid.
Fuck! He proactively went to show his legal status and all that did was put himself on their radar.
However, the sheriff's office was informed by members of the tribe that they were not authorized to conduct the raid on their land. In turn, members of the sheriff's office said the tribal members "didn't know what they were talking about," the lawsuit said.
Much of McCormick's property and cannabis plants were destroyed during the raid and officers confiscated $300,000 from the tribe's safe.
Outright theft. They had no jurisdiction and didn't care that they didn't.
Additionally, the lawsuit said that on January 8, 2023, McCormick's "family home 'mysteriously' caught fire, after the sheriff's office ordered power and water to his property to be turned off, resulting in the home "being completely burned down," along with much of his personal belongings.
Why would the water be shut off?! Goddamnit. Every part of this article is infuriating, nothing about this was law enforcement, just armed thugs raiding locals for fun and profit.
Oh Jesus christ they didn’t even put the worst parts anywhere near the title. They didn’t just have a pizza party, they celebrated the destruction of a man’s property on land they weren’t allowed to police on, LEFT THE BOXES, and then engaged in a little bit of freelance arsonry (or aided arsonry). Fuck me
To the cops involved, it was probably their annual work party. Bastards stole his money and burnt his shit down for morale and their mutual holiday cheer.
I’m a white, cis, heterosexual American male. I’m supposed to be privileged in every way, feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.
I wouldn’t know how to express my feelings the way the author has. I’d feel like a misogynistic neckbeard, callous racist, or ungrateful whiner. If, somehow, I didn’t feel these things, someone would quickly, loudly, and condescendingly remind me that I should. They’d then be applauded for putting me in my place.
I can’t thank the author enough for writing this article.
I didn’t feel these things, someone would quickly, loudly, and condescendingly remind me that I should. They’d then be applauded for putting me in my place.
Those people are racist, sexists. If they didn’t have you to target, they’d find another group. Don’t give them the time of day.
I’m supposed to be privileged in every way, feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.
Why are you supposed to e.g. “feel endlessly guilty over things you cannot control”?
"Check your privilege" has only ever meant that people want others to understand how situations and histories might be different. White guilt is a thing white people made up to make it about them.
It's generally just people not being able to accept being wrong about something. They take it as a personal insult and hit to their pride rather than just going oh? Verify? Oh shit, neat.
Instead it's I must be a piece of shit. Other people must not like me now. They must be talking about me...
Mother fucker nobody paying attention to you but MAYBE yourself and MAYBE your closest loved ones lol.
If you walk around in life with a chip on your back, everything becomes an insult though. It's the literal republican modus operandi primed mostly through religion via guilt.
Fortunately, it’s not anger in my case. It’s “just” poor self esteem and a tendency to feel guilt for things that I know (rationally, at least) aren’t my fault.
Yeah it's definitely a hard habit to break. Largely depending on how you were raised with a bit of natural tendencies here and there.
It absolutely is a mindset though. One which you can get out of given enough challenge, time, patience, and professional help if you're not good with executive function.
People who share some of my characteristics have historically done, and are currently doing, absolutely horrible things. Empathy with the victims isn’t enough for some. I’m part of the problem simply by being born, until I prove otherwise.
I can’t blame people who feel some suspicion and resentment, either. It’s justified.
But that doesn't mean you have to feel guilty. That's, usually at least, not what people are asking for either. Guilt isn't helpful.
Being aware of the social systems we live under, the power structures those systems create, and the blind spots we might have. That's what's being asked for.
No, it isn’t helpful. Part of that guilt comes from not being able to do enough. Yeah, I try to learn as much as possible, but that only goes so far. I’m not rich. I’m not powerful. There’s so much injustice that I want to change, but can’t.
I know logically that guilt is useless, but the feeling persists.
I’m part of the problem simply by being born, until I prove otherwise.
Again: who is saying that? I’m sure there are some people who do, but in my experience that’s a really tiny minority. And the majority of texts I read about e.g. (male) privilege explicitly state that being privileged does not mean you’re guilty or a bad person.
I can’t blame people who feel some suspicion and resentment, either. It’s justified.
I mean yeah, I can understand why a women might prefer to walk on the other side of the street from me at night. It hurts of course, but I understand it. That doesn’t mean I need to feel guilty about it though.
Honest question, what’re your thoughts on the racial reparations discussion? I was surprised to hear that it exists tbh, mostly cause of how impossible it seems as a target. But my understanding is that there are people getting some real attention saying that white people should give enough money that they can’t pay their bills to make up for their privilege.
I haven’t heard of it. In Germany there is some discussion about reparations for societies colonized by Germany, the genocides against the Herero and Namaqa and every once about further reparations for the Nazi crimes - all of which make a lot of sense to me, especially the former two as they haven’t received any significant reparations that I know of.
I’m not American but the minister for Family/Sexual Violence in my country publicly said that “it is white, cis men” who “cause[s] violence in the world”. Was pretty gutted to find out that my ex (cis woman) treating me like shit is entirely my own fault according to the MP who is supposed to represent all victims of family, sexual, and relationship violence.
feel endlessly guilty over things I cannot control and try not to perpetuate, and never, ever dare suggest any kind of dissatisfaction with my situation.
Because of things our ancestors did long ago that has nothing to do with us right now as people.
“Charlie Kirk has said a lot of racist things,” said a student addressing Rittenhouse from the audience.
“What racist things has Charlie Kirk said?” Rittenhouse challenged. “We’re gonna have a little bit of a dialogue of what racist things that Charlie Kirk said.”
The student responded of Kirk: “He says that we shouldn’t celebrate Juneteenth, we shouldn’t celebrate Martin Luther King day—we should be working those days—he called Ketanji Brown Jackson an affirmative action hire, he said all this nonsense about George Floyd, and he said he’d be scared if a Black pilot was on a plane. Does that not seem racist?”
“I don’t know anything about that,” Rittenhouse said from the stage, prompting jeers among the audience.
“Does that seem racist is a yes or no question, Kyle,” yelled one attendee.
“Well, after all the things I just told you, would you consider that hate speech,” the student asked Rittenhouse, who had a dog with him onstage.
“I’m not gonna comment on that,” Rittenhouse said, sparking more noise from the crowd.
Seconds later, Rittenhouse abruptly exited the stage to cheers from the crowd. The attendees were then promptly ordered to depart the venue.
You know at work when I can’t give a firm answer to a question I will just say so and promise to find out. Turns out when you are not a murderer people cut you slack
It’s a good point. On one context he was quite willing to take human life but he definitely doesn’t want to get misquoted so he takes the time and energy to get it right.
“I haven’t heard those quotes before. Presented without context, they sound pretty bad but I will reserve judgement until I’ve had a chance to do more research.”
That’s easy to say in retrospect but a lot of people can’t think of something to say when asked something unexpected on the spot. Even if they know the answer.
This seems to be the canned response to all “uncomfortable” topics.
It seems that right-wing “debates” are not about arguing a point or another, but bringing up the “right” talking points, and backing out the wrong ones.
Please don’t normalizing hating on people for not knowing something. If you think he actually knows kirk said these things, then please provide the proof. But if you are simply attacking him for admitting he doesn’t know something, then you’re part of the problem.
There’s a very simple way to answer this sort of question that was posed — by condemning the blatant racism of the statements themselves while acknowledging he didn’t know if Kirk had said them — and he decided not to do that.
I think you have a point. However, you’re referring to later in the exchange. The poster imt responding to is attacking him for claiming he didn’t know whether Kirk had said those things. But if multiple people were shouting at him at that point, I can see why he reverted back to “no comment.”
The issue is he couldn’t know at that moment if what the students said or their portrayal of it is accurate. Furthermore, people can’t just instantly reach informed conclusions about things, a lot of people need, yk time to think. If I try to think about something on the spot I’ll just stutter and not make any sense
Rittenhouse isn’t some random dipshit that got cornered (ironically, a favourite of the likes of Crowder and Shapiro until they realised even students embarrass them) - he’s the Daily Wire’s spokesperson for crossing state lines to manufacture a situation to murder your political opponents. He chose to speak in front of that crowd, chose to field questions, and chose to run (presumably because he didn’t have a gun to kill those he disagrees with).
Do you consistently defend people that you admit are unqualified for their job and incapable of doing it - even when it’s as essential as bragging about crossing state lines to procure a gun and manufacture a flimsy legal pretext to kill your political opponents, or is this an outlier for you?
Everyone does that - unlike you, most people are also capable of progressing to conclusions from straightforward situations or answering simple questions.
This has strong neo-Nazi-style “just asking questions” energy. If you’re capable of drawing conclusions, own them. If you’re not, you’ve got nothing to contribute here.
Edit: Most of this is way off topic in response to an entirely different dipshit.
Do you mean baseless assumptions?
No - I mean obvious conclusions - you know, like seeing HD footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians and concluding they’re drone striking obvious unarmed civilians. Never mind the rhetoric of their government or the IDF, or the track record of either. Baseless is pretending it’s plausible they’re Hamas.
This is your reaction to me saying it’s not surprising that a young adult is awkward and doesn’t handle unexpected confrontation well.
Nope - this is in response to you seeing clear, entirely unambiguous evidence of warcrimes and saying we can’t possibly know what’s happening. I know how old I am, and some genocide denying dipshit telling me otherwise isn’t going to change that.
Just to drive the point home, I’ll ask the question we know you can’t answer one final time - where’s your evidence these civilians are Hamas?
My mistake - I’ll return to the question you haven’t answered.
Do you consistently defend people that are clearly unqualified and incapable of doing their job as they fail woefully, or is this an edge case for you? I suppose that unlike most, the likes of Rittenhouse and Kirk aren’t doing anything of value - it’s not as though they’re performing surgery, driving a bus, or flipping burgers.
Do you consistently defend people that are clearly unqualified and incapable of doing their job as they fail woefully, or is this an edge case for you?
I’ll repeat what I said, I empathize with people. They are not just their utility. He is not famous for his speaking skills, but TPUSA are clearly trying to capitalize on them, whatever not my problem. Anyone who paid to see him knew what they were getting
I empathize with people. (…) Anyone who paid to see him knew what they were getting.
You’re empathising with the same thing the audience went to see - the extreme right’s posterchild for killing your political opponents. The analysis is super-straightforward and backed by studies - this is simply ignorant hate, fear, and disgust stoked by the likes of TPUSA. The fact that you can’t progress to synthesising straightforward conclusions is a massive red flag.
You’re very empathetic - that’s entirely unremarkable. One can empathise with Hitler - but only a mentally deficient or monstrous person would stop at empathy and be incapable of synthesising conclusions like he was a bad guy that did bad things. It’s like reading without comprehending.
Why can’t you advance past the insistence you empathise with Rittenhouse toward an opinion? Are you deficient or dodging?
What is there to have an opinion on? He’s socially awkward? I said that. What more is there to draw from this? Also remember insults and uncivil behavior are not allowed
Travelling interstate to put yourself in a position to shoot 3 people, killing two of them is incredibly stupid at best. Proceeding from that to a job for a transparently dishonest media org that has hired you primarily to celebrate your killings demonstrates a total lack of remorse, and incites similar politically motivated killings in what amounts to pretty clear-cut stochastic terrorism. If we take him at his word, he’s done no research into the media company that hired him, and has been on stage at events where openly racist nonsense has been celebrated without him noticing - if this is true, he’s deficient enough that he should be in assisted living. The reasonable conclusion is that he’s some degree of comfortable with the racism.
So we have a remorseless killer, stochastic terrorist, propagandist (or useful idiot) that doesn’t care about or actively embraces racism.
Proceeding from that to a job for a transparently dishonest media org that has hired you primarily to celebrate your killings demonstrates a total lack of remorse,
It has been several years, and he did cry a lot when it happened, but I’m not sure remorse is necessary if it was in self-defense. I’m also not sure what other opportunities he has.
If we take him at his word, he’s done no research into the media company that hired him
Nobody tries to find problems with the hand that feeds them. Honestly, with everything said about people like Dennis Prager and TPUSA, from his perspective he can just think “leftists hate and lie about them like they hated and lied about me”.
It has been several years, and he did cry a lot when it happened
He’s not new to the circuit, and he cried when it looked like he might wind up in prison. None of this is remorse.
I’m not sure remorse is necessary if it was in self-defense.
True - though I’d say it seems common. Either way, crossing state lines to procure a firearm to take to that protest to create the pretext to shoot people was not self-defence. That’s premeditated.
I’m also not sure what other opportunities he has.
I won’t be losing any sleep over someone having some extra difficulty finding employment after getting away with what he did. There’s no shortage of people that support him - finding a job that doesn’t involve bragging about killing 2 people isn’t a big ask.
Nobody tries to find problems with the hand that feeds them.
This simply isn’t true. I’ve turned down lucrative job offers (e.g. 70%+ more than what I was on at the time plus significant chunks of equity and benefits) because I had concerns about the ethics of the prospective employers. I’ve also spoken out about issues with my employers that have cost me multiple jobs (and chasing me out rather than listening buried at least one of those businesses). I don’t hold others to standards I don’t uphold myself.
Honestly, with everything said about people like Dennis Prager and TPUSA, from his perspective he can just think “leftists hate and lie about them like they hated and lied about me”.
I’m not going to make excuses for him dismissing the endless, quantified criticism of a transparently dishonest, racist propaganda outfit and the parade of absolute scumbags he chose to work alongside.
Asking whether those things are hate speech is a yes/no question. Pretending to not know Kirk is a racist sack of shit was obvious deflection. Good on the students for calling out this bs.
You’re telling me that the guy who showed up to counter protest with a gun, who provoked protestors while holding a gun, is actually a coward who’s too afraid to comment on the racist remarks of his shitty friend.
They haven’t yet taught him how to deflect the truth. Teach him that what he believes is bullshit, but profitable. Teach him how to understand and ignore the truth. Teach him how to just be louder than opposition. Have him memorize talking points and teach him to always retreat to them (especially when not appropriate). Give him 15 years of practice doing that, then he’ll be great at owning college libs, preferably on camera.
newsweek.com
Hot