jross

They? Conservatives come in different shapes and size. When the gay marriage topic was discussed during the Obama years, every conservative I spoke with supported equal rights for gay and straight people. The government could have solved the 'gay marriage' debate with a simple act and proclamation. Recognizing that the term 'marriage' holds traditional religious significance, the USA governement is committed to a more inclusive and secular approach. From this point on, civil unions will be the verbiage used to denote legal partnerships. All unions, regardless of gender or orientation, will be equal under the law. No one* I spoke with was personally insulted by a trans person on the beer can. Everyone understood the inclusion intent and agreed: The brand does not know their customer (e.g., customer segment that believes T is a mental illness) The brand leadership should not have insulted its audience as 'frat guys' that need to evolve. (this was the 'insult') *I play baseball on a competitive senior men's team. This team has 24 construction workers, engineers, lawyers, politicians, business owners, etc. with more democrats than republicans that socializes in the parking lot after games. Most conservative acquaintances stopped drinking Bud Light. A few boycotted other AB beers as well. One construction business owner gladly filled his fridge up with free beer from everyone and bought it cheaply at the market. Nuance. I must remind myself of unique beliefs when debating very left democrats on a wrestling forum. To spell that out... one would generally assume that wrestlers (blue collar hard working sport) lean republican.

I am waiting for you to answer my question and justify your position on the book ban conversation. I've given you justifications that you do not agree with and say "no." I've already agreed with Bernie in general, my point is that he is generalizing and I'm giving him a hard time about it. Typically Bernie comments with nuance; he is not doing so here.

Each 'conservative' is likely to hold different beliefs. If we are going to generalize... Conservatives largely just want to be left alone. Other aggrieved people try to protect their fragility by raising taxes and using big government to redistribute conservative wealth to those with fragile needs.

What do American's mean when they say they are conservative? (see link for list). I share these views from that list: Yes: 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 14-21 No: 4, 6, 7, 11 Part: 3, 12, 13 As a conservative, I support that America is an exceptional nation but it has no rightful role as leader of the free world. I seek out the broader knowledge of America's past and have mentioned such with references to the book 'lies my teacher told me.' Further, I've been told that conservatives are assholes that have no emotion, so how could their central emotion be aggrievement?

Oh I'm sure they have all happened. Define conservative.

Bernie, we are delighted to have you on "It's always sunny in IntermatForums." Your last comments were as dumb and generalized as anyone's on the show.

Bob is a clever guy who writes better than the bot ever could...

Pushes... These parents provide feedback on sex ed, CRT, etc. at school. A study was commissioned on a nationally representative sample of 1,505 yet-or-recent high school graduates about CRT and Gender Identity topics. The majority of these students shared feedback that they were taught directly at school or told what to think by an adult at school on these topics. https://www.city-journal.org/article/yes-critical-race-theory-is-being-taught-in-schools

The objective, neutral, balanced arguments and well-organized structure are hallmarks of ChatGPT.

How do some black folks feel about white advantages and affirmative action?

This article is the speculation source for Michelle. http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license From the owner of https://twitter.com/ACPundit back in 2009. John D. Long... a nurse and democrat FWIW.

Perhaps your history books omitted details in the Barbary Wars, how the black-African Anthony Johnson won a Virginia court case in 1655 that he owned the white slave named John Casar for life, and the Atlantic slave trade. These seem to be recorded documented facts. None of this changes the horridness of slavery in America. It might be worth discussing slavery as it exists today in America and in other countries. Then look back at the horridness of the American slave trade. At least spend some time discussing, "Why did Africans capture and sell Africans as slaves (perhaps it was tribe A (us) or tribe B (them)) for the Euros, Why could non-euro citizens own euro citizens during the colonial period and why did this stop, and how was slavery during the Barbary Wars different than American slavery? This discussion can be had without downplaying what happened in America.

The book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" does a great job of making the case beyond time-based omission. It's where I learned that people like Washington Irving have defended this behavior since at least the early 1800s: "Care should be taken to vindicate great names from pernicious erudition." In 1925, the American Legion declaimed that the ideal textbook: must inspire children with patriotism must be careful to tell the truth optimistically must dwell on failure only for its value as a moral lesson; must speak chiefly of success must give each State and Section full space and value for the achievements of each And that is what textbooks do. The books might be better if they followed the recommendations of Shirley Engle and Anna Ochoa (1986) confront students with important questions and problems for which answers are not readily available be highly selective be organized around an important problem in society that is to be studied in depth utilize... data from a variety of sources such as history, the social sciences, literature, journalism, and from student's first-hand experience The future will be interesting on the topics of Covid, 2020 election, and J6. George Orwell's "Who controls the present controls the past" will dictate how history is written. Do you remember all the questions you were supposed to remember at the end of the History book chapters? There was more information that you could memorize answers for and understand. Rather than glossing over an infinite amount of small stories over 1000 pages, focusing on a dozen major issues with relevance to the present... would be better. I'm getting off point which is that omission is not just a conservative behavior, and omissions are not only due to time constraints.

A fun history teacher had us crumple papers and fight the Civil War. When he had our attention... he taught from history books that omitted and whitewashed information. We spent an unusual amount of time on how Helen Keller learned to read, write, and speak... we had assignments on this heroine... and never discussed that she was a radical socialist. Given the substantial amount of time spent on her 'overcomings,' we could have learned a little about her controversies or covered another topic in better detail. Those in power shape the narrative; this is a people problem, not just a conservative problem.

Ah but why omit?

Gina had a large following and was popular. She had a Star Wars spinoff coming for her. How many deplatforms and firings would it take to count as ‘many.’

The more I read history, the more I learn it is not just a conservative thing to omit information. I did not know that many white people were enslaved in Africa and that there were instances where black men owned white slaves in America. And that Africans caught and sold Africans as slaves as a steady supply to other countries. This doesn’t help the narrative…

Bernie- the ‘mass’ firing refers the cancel culture where strangers and acquaintances acted to get people fired because of their beliefs and comments. Often the comments were taken out of context and the mob was miss informed. Gina Carino is a popular example off the top of mind. Here are a few more examples https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ There are many examples. In the last few years, sharing thoughts with colleagues at work about the Covid policies or anything conservative on Facebook and Twitter was unthinkable for fear of cancel culture. The mob uses pitchforks before the facts are known.

I bet BB respects individuals' chosen pronouns and BB intentionally uses incorrect pronouns as a rhetorical device to illustrate the disagreement with those who do not. He would call them sir if they were Sue.

Unfortunately, many Americans DO NOT WANT TO KNOW, and the History books oblige. The chart represents Trump and Biden voters who support the statement. https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/VoV-Presentation-FINAL.pdf The survey is a real head-scratcher on the percent of people supporting specific topic positions. Note that 6% more of the 2008 people surveyed leaned Democratic over Republican.

15. Let's rehash. You laid out fighting words in the original topic post. confrontational tone assuming supporters are motivated by fear framing a simple view as if it is only a matter of having difficult conversations with children This bullshit-worded post came from a place much more profound, as you are just starting to explain (poor kids). Please explain why you are against book bans and what makes people 'weak' for supporting them. I am a parent who supports book bans as a concept, even when I disagree with parents (and educators) over what should be banned. I have uncomfortable and difficult conversations with my children. I am being confrontational. How many assumptions, accusations, and over-generalizations are made in your last statement? I agree that not everyone has easy access to a public library, parents that care, etc. I am likely ignorant for believing that kids in low socioeconomic situations can still access banned books... and perhaps a bigger ignorant for expecting the education system (absent banned books) to cover the content kids need to know. I don't understand the anti-book ban argument from a parent's perspective. In a different example concerning the risk of child harm, many schools have policies restricting where peanuts can be eaten or outright banning their presence. This is done to protect 1-2% of children at risk. My kids love peanut butter, and it sucks that they can't eat it for school lunch. It is no big deal that they can't eat PB because of the risk (to others). So when a group of parents says that a few books may harm their children (at their age), I support them as I assume most considerate parents would.

I was in a programming class taught by an instructor I did not like. He pulled me aside one day in the lab: "JROSS, you don't seem interested in this class. Stop thinking about how boring this assignment is and think about what you can do with the skill." He then described the Internet of Things before IOT existed. I worked harder on that assignment than any programming assignment before. The teacher came back and praised the quality of my work. TLDR; "Find the Why."

This was at a public university. I also had a philosophy instructor from a public community college say: "Show your hands if you believe in god. [two hands go up, including mine] By the end of this course, nobody will."

Please say more about this one. There is a story here.