Forums / Discussion / General

I had a longer response, I think the forum ate it. Well, whatever.

In short the problem is that everyone is out for their own pet goal and it can get nebulous. Especially when you have people with different opinions on the "tracks" of progressive activism (men and women, race, education, equality, sexuality, sex in general etc…).

Our prior exchange on religion and/or immigration can also show the differences there. I don't like Islamists and consider them dangerous with what happened with people joining ISIS, but I'm not going to accept the undercurrent (or in same cases) blatant racist reasons given. Is anti-theism progressive? There is a religious left who's pro-life.

In the original I also gave some other examples of debate, including possible future examples of AI and cloning. Society can "regress" or "advance" for whichever definition of the word you want, but it always changes.

I don't know what was the stop you would have wanted for things to stop at, but I'd wager it'd be difficult to get everyone to agree. That's the issue, nostalgia also has a way to warp what we consider an ideal time.

When judging historical people by modern standards like that child actor of the wizard of oz who did black face is important to remember that morality didnt really exist back then (I am partially joking)

edit: you can downvote me to oblivion but the evidence speaks for itself

Modern moral standards didn't exist back then, by virtue of having only developed over the past couple decades. Morality has always existed, and it's always existed in a permanent state of change.

In a century, people will scoff at some of the "backwards" things we do today. It's impossible to concretely guess what will be considered barbaric, but looking to historical trends can give us some insight.

1. Medical treatments that rely on incorrect or incomplete knowledge often get seen negatively once we start to know better. Something will be our lobotomy, our "just do cocaine about it", our four humors theory. Some candidates for this have already been proposed… but they're obviously very controversial.

2. Legal practices that are currently normalized, but are clearly destined for severe controversy. Executions are much less common than they used to be for this reason, but criticism of them has resurged. These criticisms are both of the method (lethal injections are very expensive and probably not as good as we thought they were) and of the concept in general.
Similarly, indefinite detainment without even a formal charge (particularly the "Gitmo-like conditions") is liable to come under increasing fire in time, especially as governments seem to be using them more. Their appeal seems to drop rapidly as their use becomes further distanced from the post-9/11 terror scare…

3. Trends in popular media that are so normal that we may hardly even notice them, but that might prove controversial in time. Think like how we see blackface now, but with something from now, in the future.

And as an aside, I have to wonder when and why "reactionary" changed from meaning "opposes the/a revolution" to "opposes progressivism". It seems somewhat new in the past few decades, and it raises some questions.

Times are always changing. That's probably the reason why moral guardians are also/were opposed to rap, metal, disco, the internet and video games. They're new so it's frightening. It's why you have to be careful about any political platform which can boil down to "old man shaking their fist at the young'uns", that's when you know you've become old.

Trying to stem social change is like trying to build a sandcastle, but on the other hand, trying to stay on top is like trying to balance on that sandcastle.It means that everyone has to admit to themselves that one day they'll be at odds with society, one way or another.

As for the term reactionary, I'm sorry to disappoint you that the origin for me isn't such a hot take, my reference is that was the term in Victoria II

(yes, a video game)

Apart from how it's a loaded term, you can't call what was described in the last page conservatism, and "reactionary" as a term means to me someone's who's more agressive about reversing a change. An example would be the Samurai to the Meiji Era reforms. It's not a desire for the status quo, but a want to revert.

I personally like being at odds with society so I personally aint worried about that at least.

I am edgy so I would be at my element, besides society always sucks, when is society truly all that great and happy? Never, things are always and will always be pretty shit lol

I had something insightful but accidentally refreshed the page and lost it, so I'll summarize.

"Reactionary" is loaded with negative connotations, but there's also not much in the way of good alternative terms; the best I can think of is "traditionalist", which is less hostile but also not a perfect fit.

Ultimately the thing to recognize is that the words we use to describe politics are inherently incomplete and inaccurate; there is no strict delineation between what makes someone a "conservative", a "reactionary", a "progressive", or anything else, only sets of common traits that aren't mutually exclusive. This isn't exclusive to these broad terms, but with them it is the most evident.

Despite "reactionary" and "progressive" being antonyms, the people generally categorized under those broad tents have a peculiar tendency to believe similar things for different reasons; the two simplest examples are how they both oppose equality and support racial segregation.

I have a bad feeling about the future, I think things are going to be going seriously downwards somewhere around the USA election cycle

@Spaghetto

I had something insightful but accidentally refreshed the page and lost it, so I'll summarize.

I hate when that happens. I've started writing in paragraphs to avoid having everything I've been writing disappear.

"Reactionary" is loaded with negative connotations, but there's also not much in the way of good alternative terms; the best I can think of is "traditionalist", which is less hostile but also not a perfect fit.

The problem for me is that a "traditionalist" is someone who likes their food or drinks a certain way, it doesn't even mean anything political. At the furthest stretching of the term, it might mean a hobbyiste.

"Traditionalist" in a political sense somehow means even less than "Reactionary". Still, it might be better than "conservative" since that word has become overstretched from overuse.

Ultimately the thing to recognize is that the words we use to describe politics are inherently incomplete and inaccurate; there is no strict delineation between what makes someone a "conservative", a "reactionary", a "progressive", or anything else, only sets of common traits that aren't mutually exclusive. This isn't exclusive to these broad terms, but with them it is the most evident.

This paragraph saves me some time in having to write this for myself. That's not even getting into the issue of political tribalism, where someone supports a policy they wouldn't otherwise, because their party or "tribe" is doing it.

Despite "reactionary" and "progressive" being antonyms, the people generally categorized under those broad tents have a peculiar tendency to believe similar things for different reasons; the two simplest examples are how they both oppose equality and support racial segregation.

Funny thing is, neither of those terms should necessarily have to have anything to do with supremacist movements. To simplify they're supposed to mean "going forward" and "going back", right? It's the same sentiment that the present is bad. To use examples of things that were mentioned here:

1) When I worry about theocracies, is that progressive or reactionary in the pure sense of the terms (I'm reacting to the action of the religious, I didn't care as much about them before that)? I would like to continue to have republics which strive to be secular, that's normally considered progressive, I guess.

2) Your concern for boys in school could be reactionary or progressive, it depends on whether you blame an unjust system that needs to change, or a group forcing a change that worsens things. Or do either of those things even have anything to do with it?

To give examples of the past:

1) The Roman Empire after Caracella was an empire which opened citizenship to everyone it ruled over, a concept that nations had trouble implementing for over a thousand years later. It's one reason Greeks, Germans, Turks, Russians, French, Spanish and even Italians would be claiming to be Rome's successor for centuries later (The Greeks had the better claim, and Fascist Italy had one of the worst despite having Rome). Yet, it was also a state that enslaved many. That's not counting the other ways Rome was both more advanced socially than their medieval counterparts, but also more backwards. The past is complex.

2) The dark side of this is take ISIS, they wanted a past caliphate, but even Medieval Era Muslims had multiple more virtues than them. An accusation against "reactionaries" is that their idealized past is a bastardize piece of imagination, the same way that people who idealize Knights and Samurais forget that King Arthur is a myth and that Samurais loved guns.

The issue is what exactly do is meant by past or future? I already have examples of the past, but visions of a golden tomorrow tends to attract utopistes and megalomaniacs of all stripes. Still, we consider a society more "advanced" if it doesn't engage in chattel slavery, murder indiscriminately, destroy cultural artifacts, commit genocide or repress their women, consider the US and ISIS.

I don't think anyone will disagree with me on this, that these states are not equal to each other? I hope people prefer the US or any other "Western Democracy" over ISIS? There's at least a baseline, even if it's arbitrary.

I mean, people have been saying that for years now. To the point that I find apathy and/or nihilism, doomerism,black-pilling to be tiresome (no offense, this is just me). Tired of being tired.

Sure, we're in for tough times with climate change going as it is, and the worldwide political situation is already pretty bad, but well, you live with the present you have.

Personally for the US elections, I'm just happy that at least De Santis seems to be sinking. With all this quibbling over political definitions, whatever group that former torture lawyer represented meant nothing good, and I didn't relish the idea of them having the biggest podium on the planet.

I guess I'm a hypocrite, I'm also engaging in a bit of pessimism there.

In unsuprising news a woman was murdered in cali for having a pride flag flying at her shop

Funny thing is, neither of those terms should necessarily have to have anything to do with supremacist movements. To simplify they're supposed to mean "going forward" and "going back", right?

That's the idea, yeah. Though I do contend that "progress" isn't anywhere near as linear as those descriptions suggest; too much faith in a linear arrow of societal development is how you get cringe shit like "the end of history" or "the right side of history".

1) When I worry about theocracies, is that progressive or reactionary in the pure sense of the terms (I'm reacting to the action of the religious, I didn't care as much about them before that)? I would like to continue to have republics which strive to be secular, that's normally considered progressive, I guess.

2) Your concern for boys in school could be reactionary or progressive, it depends on whether you blame an unjust system that needs to change, or a group forcing a change that worsens things. Or do either of those things even have anything to do with it?

This is a good point, really. Something being "reactionary" or "progressive" is generally a matter of how it's framed; usually, the ones establishing these roles are the ones framing themselves as "progressive", regardless of what they're actually advocating for.

Personally for the US elections, I'm just happy that at least De Santis seems to be sinking.

It does seem like he's put the final nail in his campaign's coffin. Insulting the voters has a poor record of success as a political tactic, after all.

That's the idea, yeah. Though I do contend that "progress" isn't anywhere near as linear as those descriptions suggest; too much faith in a linear arrow of societal development is how you get cringe shit like "the end of history" or "the right side of history".

It's a general issue of hubris, best illustrated by Ozymandia's "Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair".

This is a good point, really. Something being "reactionary" or "progressive" is generally a matter of how it's framed; usually, the ones establishing these roles are the ones framing themselves as "progressive", regardless of what they're actually advocating for.

Arbitrary labels are arbitrary. "Progressives' getting close to equal to "liberal" in being overuses and arbitrary. That being said twisted meanings and the muddying of definitions isn't good.

To back away from the conclusion of "all these labels are meaningless", the specific intent behind these words do have meaning. Take for example secularism or education. When we say a society has a medieval level of either of those, the warning should be understandable for most.

It does seem like he's put the final nail in his campaign's coffin. Insulting the voters has a poor record of success as a political tactic, after all.

I wonder, what would you call De Santis? It's obvious that the big tent Republicans isn't adequate for the different candidates and groups within, so what is he? He isn't aligned with Trump, nor with the mainstream GOP.

In the end, the best indicator for someone being "reactionary" or "progressive" is quite literally them themselves making phrases about the past or the future (or describing themselves as such).

I wonder, what would you call De Santis? It's obvious that the big tent Republicans isn't adequate for the different candidates and groups within, so what is he? He isn't aligned with Trump, nor with the mainstream GOP.

I think he's his own category altogether within the paradigm of US politics, which might be part of why his initial rise didn't last. He has some traits of both the establishment and of MAGA; like the establishment, he has a fierce dedication to upholding common decorum in regards to how politicians are "supposed" to act, and he's also that same type of idiot. But like MAGA, he seems interested in actually doing things sometimes, which runs directly contrary to the long-standing tradition of the establishment GOP. Which is to only do things in extreme circumstances.
Or in other words, he has some of what draws people to Donald Trump and the MAGA wing, and some of what's driving people away from the establishment.

In other news, this stupid meme refuses to die. The only smart move here for the United Kingdom is to just ignore it completely; if it fails to generate money or reactions, it'll start to go away.

Fascism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and rape accusations, investigations, impeachments and now indictments.

I wonder what avenue of political attack will be next to have thier impact devalued by cynical and shortsighted misuse.

@Spaghetto

"His own category" probably works, I just wish I had a name for it.

Anyway, I'd caution against having a dichotomy between "people who do things" and "people who do nothing", and worshiping action for it's own sake. There is such a thing as people who work hard in wasting time

Because actions do speak louder than words, and De Santis is a perfect example of someone who has both done a lot and overextended himself for it, and hasn't done his job at all. He's certainly pissed off a lot of people with his culture war and book nonsense (me included), and has succeeded in getting libraries shut down and events cancelled (especially in education) for fear of prosecution as collateral damage, all the while being hypocritical about "non-partisan education". If it was to energize his base, it hasn't worked.

All the while the actual governing? Below benign neglect, the book ban thread about him had complaints that he was coasting off a federal tax-break, and had otherwise shirked his actual job, so set on the prize of the President's seat. Most of Florida's cash cow industries are going down. He signed a law to allow himself to campaign while holding his post, and beyond the power-grab aspect, there was a pragmatic administrative reason why that rule was there.

It's like Kurt Von Hammerstein categories of four different officers: smart and stupid, and lazy and diligent.

Smart and diligent officers are very useful and should be appointed to the general staff to help the whole system work, the Smart and Lazy officers are put in high command where there's tough decisions that need a lof of thought, the Stupid and Lazy are given the simple tasks and the Stupid and Diligent need to be rid of immediately.

There's a certain brand of person with too much energy and not enough brains who creates more work for others. That's not just an issue in politics, but for everyday life.

In other news, this stupid meme refuses to die. The only smart move here for the United Kingdom is to just ignore it completely; if it fails to generate money or reactions, it'll start to go away.

Remember when the US & UK decided to revive the anti-German rhetoric between 2016-2019? To dredge up the past? Yeah, how does that feel?

Grudges aside, the UK isn't the US, I'd like to point out. The "ignore it" strategy may not work out as well for them (or anyone else, except the US and maybe China). From what I heard, some countries around the world are even threatening to make a payment like that a requirement for any trade deals from the UK, who's supposed to be negotiating a bunch of new ones after all (remember Brexit).

If the UK wants to make deals with any of the involved countries, they're going to have to deal with this. 'Course, so far there's been few new trade deals and it explains why after all the loud Brexit talks, the trade profile of all involved parties haven't changed all that much.

It's not as if France as a country can lecture others, right or wrong they've been pummeled hard by their involvement in Western Africa. Even Mali which was at the request of the then President, and which had Russians outright try to frame the French for a massacre, and the failure of Wagner to contain the Islamists, even with all that, the French still caught flak for it.

Which is fair, I guess, France as a former imperial state (some argue still is) in Africa means dealing with a lot of negative historical baggage.
________________________________________

In terms of the article itself, it's funny that Rishi Sunak "refuses to apologise for UK slave trade or to pledge reparations". Why would he?

"It is required by history". There we have an example of an appeal to the future, although I'd caution that from a judge on the international court, this is a relatively high position. It's not just a post from tumblr.

If we could talk about the other Republican candidates, they had a debate a short while ago which shouldn't be over-shadowed.

Can't say particularly favoured any of them, but to my surprise more than half of them were for continued support of the Ukrainians against Russia (my standards were very low, and those who weren't, like Ramaswamy were particularly unpalatable). I liked that Christie called De Santis a "modern-day Chamberlain".

There isn't even an excuse of pacifism, those who were against aiding Ukraine talked about "military offensives" in Mexico.

Also to no one's great surprise, De Santis and Ramaswamy among others want to get rid of the Department of Education, among other things.

Its quite ironic that leftist circles are herarchical, then again, everything is unfortunately.

Twitter and leftist reddit can be a survival of the fittest competition of wether you get banned or not and its much harder than it looks its a tough competition of survival, though rightwing twitter circles are the exact fucking same too.

@Gilan I have like an essay I want to respond to you with but…uhh…I've been playing Baldur's Gate 3 non stop so it's all over the place.

@Everyone I have a question and I'd like to hear your thoughts on the idea.

For the sake of public transparency. The IRS knows what everyone's stock losses and gains are each year, and if ever it needed to be audited it can go stock option by stock option if need be. So. I propose the following:

The IRS makes everyone's stock accounts public information. Not just public figures or politicians (because that's hard to determine what constitutes what), but everyone. This information is updated only once a year based on what's reported to the IRS. So -day by day, or short term trade strategies will not get exposed, however, long term, and previous investments would be exposed.

I propose this as a way to gain trust in institutions and people in those institutions. If a prominent doctor endorses a particular drug in say, June of 2024, by the following year we will know if said doctor had stock conncetions to the company that produced the drug. While we won't know in real time, we would know within a year.

What's y'all thoughts on that proposal?

Also to no one's great surprise, De Santis and Ramaswamy among others want to get rid of the Department of Education, among other things.

Imagine unironically being against education

Imagine unironically believing American education didn't exist before 1980.

Imagine unironically defending the utter embarrassment it's become under the department.

Imagine unironically believing it could ever crawl it's way out of the hole it is in with all the incentives of the political class pointing towards ensuring the next generation of electorate is ignorant and propagandised.

The government could set up the department of ass wipeing and in a year people would be incapable of believing that anyone ever wiped thier own ass without government oversight or could ever again.

@Chewybunny

Honestly, BG3 is probably a better way to invest your time than internet arguments.
I've been going through Elden Ring when free to get ready for the first DLC. Besides, there's a couple of things the essay could be about at this point.

Now for the proposal; I agree and think this kind of transparency is important. However in the interest of being the devil's advocate I'll try to think of an issue.

I think the issue is privacy. The same way that winners of the Lottery should remain anonymous, being known as someone quite wealthy makes you a target for grifters and criminals. On the opposite side, while having no stocks may not make not make you poor, it may hurt someway (still trying to figure out how).

Maybe it'll make dating more difficult? Imagine ever potential partner filtering esch on income? Than again, it could reduce some lies and confusion involved? I don't know, but the idea that you could immediately tell someone's wealth (proximate) could be double-edged.

@Greyblades

The department of education is a standard setting institution.
It was the capstone against segregation. Yeah, through experience I've come to learn what the "state rights" neo-confederates of the American Right have done with their theocratic nonsense. They want oversight removed for their power-grabs.

Seeing how dipshits like De Santis have propagandaized his education, any accusation that the DoE is doing it is projection. Especially since, getting rid of it would actually worsen the issue you're talking about.

You think that politicized education will get better without oversight? Think damn it, instead of tearing everything down, think on what happens in the ashes. This lack of foresight is the exact reason for a lot of recent policy failures.

"standard setting institution". Pity the standard is shit and will always be shit.

Education literally cannot get worse in an absence of oversight for the simple nature of centralization raises the game of deprivation to dizzying heights.

A government department is a focal point from which the smallest number of people can corrupt the most amount of schools and use the infinite well of tax dollars to insulate thier insanity from competition or simply reality.

The capacity for preventing insanity infecting the institution is non existant because the responsability falls to fucking politicians.

Common Core, No Child Left Behind, Every Student Succeds, I wonder if there has ever been a move by the government since the foundation of the DoE that hasnt been a complete downgrade from what came before.

Harangue over your tired fears of confederate revivalism, or whatever, as you will, but there is nothing that could be done in a decentralized system that can rival the sheer scale of damage regularly done by institutions.

wait the British DoE was founded in 2010

Yes and yet there are people now treating it with the same slavish reverance as the NHS, "cant imagine how we ever did it before" even as they all lived through it.

Considering how the examples of policies you used run along the political aisle, your prior claim of a one way conspiracy is unfounded. You don't have a syllogism about this. You don't have an A → B, just frustration → bring it down → (?).

"Tired confederate revivalism", yeah, yeah, you mentioned the halcyon days of pre-1980, I wanted to remind you exactly a bit from history on a reason why the department of education was formed. With the whole book banning, theocratic issues and inserting their own propaganda issue that's been brought up for the past year, I don't particularly give any credence to this self-serving outrage.

Don't kid me with that little screed against centralization either, there was no compunction against using federal powers when the people you supported were in power.

Especially with the horrors of the American Right pushing for Child Labour.

>NHS

Now that's another institution on the firing line due to textbook "deligitmatize and replace".

With the track record going on with the American Right and education, to say "we need to end oversight, and we won't bother even promising this won't be abused" is really shameless. How transparent can one get, the slippery slope has gone down exactly like predicted.

There's not even a pretense that this is just limited to some teachers anymore.

I also don't want the Republican candidates position on the Ukraine War to be forgotten either in this noise. Education is "just" a particular topic important to me.

There isn't even an excuse of pacifism, those who were against aiding Ukraine talked about "military offensives" in Mexico.

Both are corrupt failing states. The reasoning, I presume, is that if we're in the business of spending money on them, we might as well spend our money on unfucking the one that's our neighbor, instead of propping up one on the other side of the world.

As for the DoEd, I need to look into matters more, but Greyblades is right that Common Core and the NCLB family of acts have been… less than successful, let's say.

I don't have personal experience with Common Core, because I had the grace of being taught basic math under the previous system. You know, "columnar addition/subtraction" and long multiplication and division, which is fairly straightforward. The current standard for basic math seems to involve lots of extra steps and sometimes flowcharts for some reason? For example, instead of columnar addition, one of the new methods involves spelling out every step implied by columnar addition, in a process called "decomposition". I've heard that all this extra busywork just serves to confuse a lot of students, though without direct experience I can't say for certain. There's also the phenomenon of "anti-racist math", which is probably even worse.

NCLB and its successor Every Student Succeeds carry different problems. By pinning the jobs of faculty to the results of standardized tests, it heavily incentivizes "teaching to the test", where education is largely limited to what's being tested for and no more. And while it motivates dredging every child up to some bare minimum standard, it carries no incentivization for helping kids excel; or in other words, it leaves children behind. This isn't to mention how a lack of success from a student isn't necessarily an issue on the teaching end. Some kids just really don't want to be there, and thus, actively refuse to learn.

Axing these two things and streamlining some bureaucracy would remove most of the problems with the DoEd, so I don't think it needs to be dissolved entirely.

Both are corrupt failing states. The reasoning, I presume, is that if we're in the business of spending money on them, we might as well spend our money on unfucking the one that's our neighbor, instead of propping up one on the other side of the world.

You could start by stopping the flow of weapons and ammunition from the US towards organized crime in Latin America and actually stopping the drugs from crossing the border into the much more lucrative US market, but selling military-grade hardware to the cartels and getting illegal substances for cheap when the demand is high is much more profitable, the elites in your country need their nose powder after all. Better suggest more military interventions across the border like it's 1846 all over again.

"Oh no, the parents paid attention to what thier kids were reading for the first time in decades and are now demanding the limited shelf space in school libraries not be given over to the propaganda pieces of my favoured pundit platform's ideologiy. This is an equivalent to the nazis wiping every copy off the face of the earth and putting a bullet in the back of the author's head!"

Inane, all of it. As if every K12 library is a national archive and every book written has a right of place in it's inventory lest they be lost forever; they dont and wont.

Why would the corruption of the institution being bipartism in any way invalidate anything I said? The institution is a giant target for cooption by everyone, right, left, up and down.

The depevation of the Nation's youth's education is an existential threat > Noone can be trusted to keep a consolidated nexus of propagandistic power over the children of the nation from being corrupted > a nexus should not exist.

I have never had the people I support in power, I've had people who I thought were the people I supported in power but they immediately turned coat upon gaining power.

Every. Fucking. Time.

The closest I got was vicariously through trump and he was drowned by turncoats.

Last guy to try impeding the border trade is currently being lawfared to death.

I am starting to wonder if I am failing trans people in this website, hopefully I havent spread transphobia or anything like that

@DoE

And yes the department of education has issues, I've been given examples. What I bristled against is the simplistic and knee-jerk "bring it down" response of so many politicians.

You know the candidates I mentioned who were for getting rid of it? The two had to take a minute to remember which departments he wanted gone. What kind of incompetent administrator can't even figure that out beforehand?

It's as if they take an arbitrary number and pick the department at random (that's probably what they're doing), and that has been a persistent and tiresome tendency for years now.

In fact, I should be focusing on the actual serious candidates, instead of giving attention to the clowns.

@Spaghetto

As a short response to the Mexico & Ukraine bit, the fundamental difference is one means being on the defense, the other on offense. In general, Ukrainians want aid to fight-off Russia, while Mexicans don't want the American boots in their country.

If one thing can be learned about the failure of Russia's own "special military operation" and the War against Terror (or any War in the 21rst century) it's about the fundamental importance of popular resistance and morale.

Ok I need to say this

I would prefer for children to be able to think for themselves a little instead of everyone trying to predatorily indoctrinate them into minions for the culture war.

Conservative homophobic cristians especially love creating little conservative homophobic christians and dont like it, but I am ABSOLUTELY directing this to both sides.

This is why I dont want children here, I myself dont want to be influencing weak still developing minds and make them more similar to me unconciously, it feels gross to do so.

What I said sounds quite stupud cause obviously you have to teach children morality, you have to shelter from bad influences and push them away from bad political ideologies or else bad things happen.

BUT I feel we have gotten so low we aint even seeing children as people nowadays, but just as future investments and minions in an unending war I dont like it. Everyone is seen as just a tool nowadays.

The fact that noone you support is in power is a good thing, you've gone way down the far right rabbithole

This might have hurt if I hadn't just spent several years finding out what "far right" and "a good thing" means to you.

Sure, I think kids need to be able to think for themselves, to truly become their own person. Which is also why I'm for their access to libraries, that's how I learned and got my own beliefs. I didn't get a lot of them from my parents after all.

That being said, there are two points I want to emphasize. I think 1) isn't as biased:

1) We do have civics courses, we do teach republican and democratic ideals (not the American parties, the actual values). Just knowing that "voting is important".

2) Individual development is important, which is why I was initially muted at reports of teachers trying to strong-arm their own beliefs, and why I'm pissed at news of "To kill a mockingbird" is banned or Roald Dahl's books being changed.

It's also why I'm so disgusted at the American Right right now. In their hypocrisy they deliberately sabotage public libraries and are now shameless enough to show that their plan was to impose their own belief systems all-along. Because right now, with due time given for judgement, the American Right gleefully took up the moral guardian role and any accusations they've made are shown as projection.

I like to think it as less left vs right, but more pro vs anti-censorship and indoctrination.

As for the final bit? I completely agree with kids shouldn't be here (I mean, why even stick around in the politics thread of a meme site, other sites or even the rest of this place should be more fun).

However if you don't mind me saying so, you need to have more self-confidence in yourself. At least having the capacity to wonder if you're a good role model is a better sign than someone who has never asked that about themselves.

Oh no, some of the books have matters such as death, religious fanaticism (Persepolis, Maus), eve the slightest depiction of human relations or anything that threatens my stunted sensibilities

My response to this post is going to take a bit of effort. Before I spend a few hours on this; maus is referring to the tenessee ban last year and the persopolis was 2013 chicago, right?

In latest unsuprising news full on nazis were parading around orlando recently

Yes to the former, and no for the latter. Persepolis is also still being challenged in 2022 in Pennsylvania.

This is a well-tread topic, so I'll also like to stave off different points that we have already discussed here or elsewhere. Specifically for the Ron DeSantis Florida Book Ban entry there are two points I want to adresse based on things said then, before you argue them:

A) I've listed two specific books, because I liked them, but the PEN America list of banned books has only increased since than, and that was books in the quadruple digits. Florida's example has effectively removed all but a few hundred from the curriculum (and to an update this was last discussed here, that meant bible stories were confirmed, but not other religions).

In fact, I also want to bring up two other strategies of moral guardians, the first of which is a particularly devious strategy of making many challenges on books in order to overwhelm libraries. The second one is Iowa's "parental rights bills" ( I hate the Bushisms this new moral hysteria uses) has had the issue of the the state’s Department of Education giving no guidance to school districts, but holds individual teachers and librarians responsible for enforcement, and responsible for penalties in case of breach.

I think the above ties in nicely to my criticism of both the centralism argument, but also the dangers of vague policy-making, with very grave penalties.

B) If you're going to try to make this a "left and right" thing, this is called having a value outside of the party dichotomy. You yourself used an image posted by a Leftists in the De Santis Book ban thread. The 2013 Persepolis challenge with Chicago? Banned for "Islamophobia".

Idiotic and congratulations, the American Right have now doing close to the same thing times several orders of magnitude. Far-Right certainly confirmed their reputation. In any future arguments about censorship, this needs to be kept in consideration.

A yes or a no would have sufficed.

I have just reread maus and persopolis as well as the 20 pages of school meeting minutes. My tolerance for walls of text trading is finite, responding to a request for clarification by doubling what I am expected to respond to only edges me closer to not thinking it worth the effort.

Dont make it three before I am done, you will be wasting your effort.

After all, it's all in the name of such great and attentive parents who are raising a generation of kids hopelessly addicted to the internet who can't do basic schoolwork. Books are the real issue".

You know what doesn’t help the parents who don't screw up the development of their children by letting the internet raise them? The schools taking it upon themselves to screw their kids up for them.

Maus and Persepolis are adult works that earn their adult status very convincingly. Maus through harrowing and mostly unredacted depictions of the deprivation, violence and death in the holocaust. Persepolis through depiction, implication or discussion of sex, rape, drug use, depression and suicide, as well as the violence of war and oppressive regime.

Fair enough for a sixth form, edging it a bit with the last year of schooling.

Maus and Persepolis were on the eighth and ninth grade curriculums, 13-14 and 14-15 years old respectively. Persepolis at 14 is bad enough but It is mind blowing to think they were giving Maus to 13 year olds.

"death, religious fanaticism even the slightest depiction of human relations or anything that threatens my stunted sensibilities" Spare me the intellectual oppressed by the plebs routine, it's the age, it's always the age. The lackwit and revolutionary larpers in the education system got it into their heads that it is a great idea to expose adult or political material to younger and younger kids and now we are seeing the reaction.

I am willing to bet behind nigh every one of that 4-figure count is a story just like that; pity for those activists all that free time during the lockdown meant the parents were paying more attention to what their kids were learning, and now because they were caught all those wannabe Gramscis can do is cry theocratic oppression to the credulous left, yearning for the 00s when they were still had rebel cred.

And the weird bit is that upon reading the minutes of the board meeting that removed Maus from the curriculum you find it was the 8 swear words and the one naked woman that did it. They started the meeting only wanting to go over the words with a white marker but fair use laws got in the way, asking the author for redacted versions would have taken too long so they nixed the course.

Didn't really have much to say about the depictions, be it the Jews screaming as they were being burned alive in a mass grave or the main character stricken with typhus having to walk on the decaying bodies of the unburied dead to reach a toilet. Apparently, that’s A-OK for any 13 year old.

Americans man.

Now my criticism is its issue at each stage is that a hysterical premises can only lead to hysterical conclusions. And that your conclusion ignores that the breaking up of oversight creates local monopolies and local controls over content, and small barons can be so much worse as tyrants than emperors.

A bad baron hurts only his barony, a bad emperor hurts the entire empire, the consolidation in the position makes corrupting the whole economical.

The first 200 years of US history proves you don’t need an Emperor and the last 40 proves you shouldn't want one.

You know why revolutionaries who promise the sky often turn out to be crooks, or worse? Why people like the Tories who made great and panicked proclamations turned tail and ran when actual governing became an issue? Or worse?

Because if you start with panicked premises and then give people the power to do whatever they want to solve it, it's ripe for abuse. That is exactly what the British gave to the Tories, a vague mandate with no limit to pick how to govern. Even bringing something down gives people power.

Which is another reason why I don't believe your "centralism" argument. It's also why even in dire situations you make sure to have offices delineate power.

This would probably hold some weight if the "revolutionaries" as you call them used their new power, vague mandate and no limit to go off into a new dark path full of new abuses instead of going down the same dark path the pre "revolution" establishment was heading in full of old abuses, except faster.

@Greyblades

"A yes or a no would have sufficed."

Perhaps, but I did answer on the very first line.

I wanted to clarify so we didn't re-tread old ground on this old topic, and thankfully, for this response we haven't for 2 (mostly). The precious time left can be done for one's due diligence and research.

You know what doesn’t help the parents who don't screw up the development of their children by letting the internet raise them? The schools taking it upon themselves to screw their kids up for them. Maus and Persepolis are adult works that earn their adult status very convincingly

I'll be honest with you that I've read both of them at 15, slightly before the UK's sixth form. It was in a school library, because my classes would never assign them (not because of the content, but because graphic novels aren't considering acceptable material). Probably a cultural or developmental difference.

Issue is it's moved beyond just classes to libraries and access altogether. We have to move the argument beyond the initial moves of the American Right, to what they're doing now. Most of the other users who supported (or at least didn't decry it) here said the same things you did about teachers. Notice that it's gone on to the opposite extreme, any initial assurances of self-control and using the power of banning responsibly were completely false.

Most people when I was in tertiary education were expected to have already read something like that. 15-17 is the age where most of my classmates read stuff like that. I wouldn't know, but I've never really had the same issues of content you mentioned in your studies as I did in mine

Spare me the intellectual oppressed by the plebs routine

Than spare me the moral guardian shtick. This was my response to your own sarcasm, and I think that the above shows that there's been a climb down from your initial claims to something about appropriate ages.

Than you ramped back up your own narrative of vitcimization by "the made-up accusations of leftists", when truth is it's reaction to the American Right's allies own actions and their inability to know when to stop until they crash into a wall.

cry theocratic oppression

I say that because of the self-named Christian Nationalist and their nonsense with abortion, as well as the more worrying bits of rhetoric. I'd like to point out that the following bits you cropped:

12 year old girl is enough to give birth and be a mother, or work on the killing floor

All of that have been issues recently, and they're all more substantial than the initial book-hysteria. You want to compare developmental damage of what you mentioned with the above?

00s when they were still had rebel cred.

No they didn't, American Left and New Labour were an establishment, they supported the Iraq War. Of Chirac & Schröder, one was on center-right and the other was center-left.

That any notion that a mass-book ban is a cause for concern is somewhat far-left shows how much of a joke these labels are. You know, reading from afar even my non-left family relations are outraged by the Christians in the US. You do realize that those theocrats are less kin to actual "Conservatives", but to the Islamists?

And the weird bit is that upon reading the minutes of the board meeting that removed Maus from the curriculum you find it was the 8 swear words and the one naked woman that did it…. Americans man.

Bizarre.

Some of the books ban justifications are so bizarre that I'd take your bet about the claim that every single one the 4-figure count is justified, because the number is absurd and how would you know? The Values involved are difficult to discern, and the American Right have let these groups run wild.

One either disavows loonies, or one can claim that they control those involved enough so they don't lose their head, but you can't have both. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Continuing on what is a different topic.

A bad baron hurts only his barony, a bad emperor hurts the entire empire, the consolidation in the position makes corrupting the whole economical.

A bad baron like all other tin-pot dictators (the Idi Amin's and Kim Jong Un's of the world) operates on such a small base of support that they have very little checks and balances. A bad baron hurts only a barony, an emperor hurts the whole empire.

Bad Barons often die in their sleep, a bad emperor rarely does. To take your example of the US, since I mentioned the confederacy do recall that the US existed with a massive cut named slavery from it's founding. Being capable of definitely getting rid of that (even in a civil war) is one reason why the US is a superpower.

Didn't stop John Wilkes Booth from assassinating Lincoln and having the temerity of crying "Sic Semper Tyrannis". Centralism or de-centralism of a state is not synonymous with liberty I think, what with how slavers used it.

This would probably hold some weight if the "revolutionaries" as you call them used their new power, vague mandate and no limit to go off into a new dark path full of new abuses instead of going down the same dark path the pre "revolution" establishment was heading in full of old abuses, except faster.

That's called a full-circle revolution. Those do exist.

The current Tories themselves used this "revolution" rhetoric to describe themselves, so I'm not conjuring that comparison out of thin air.

It's gonna be 50 years tomorrow since the coup d'etat in Chile, and it seems like the fun times have already started.