|
PT6A posted:The question from my perspective is: how do you get other people who aren't already in agreement, to care about it and fight it? Some people are arguing that referring to this policy as a ban is more effective, but it's my personal opinion that simply describing what's going on precisely is better, because it allows these assholes to play fewer rhetorical games about what they're doing. The thing that distinguishes the Florida laws from those in most states, I think, is that while there is obviously material that’s inappropriate for elementary school libraries, it is usually left to the (highly credentialed) school librarians to decide what books should be carried, and it’s unusual to have specific books legislated to be disallowed. (If I’m wrong about that, let me know, but I think generally speaking states don’t have any laws about what books can be carried, but do have laws about the credentialing of school librarians.) So opposition to these policies argues to respect the professional decisions of qualified people, who are hired by local districts. We’re not arguing that “children should be able to read literally anything in a school library” which is the right’s strawman framing of our position. If you say “this book is banned” and DeSantis says “no it isn’t, read the statute, these laws are to prevent children from seeing harmful material” - well, he’s right, zero Pinocchios, that is what the laws are for. The problem is that the definition of “harmful” is both arbitrary and bigoted as gently caress, and it’s handed down from on high rather than letting actual childhood education experts handle it. I would endorse calling them “school book bans,” which carries pretty much the full rhetorical impact of “book ban” but is less prone to charges of dishonesty or hyperbole. (And I know Republicans will say the attacks are dishonest and hyperbolic in any case -that doesn’t mean those arguments will always be equally effective; they can absolutely be undercut by skillful Democratic messaging.) In trying to persuade fence-sitters or the ignorant that these laws were bad, I wouldn’t focus on the content of the books - which the right can easily reframe in a way that makes majority of the population uncomfortable - I would focus on the fact that these laws are authoritarian and decisions are being taken out of the hands of librarians and local school districts (e: and PTAs!) Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:36 on May 25, 2023 |
#
?
May 25, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Okay I've got a lot of words to say, unfortunately. And it looks like I've been beaten to the punch in a way, but I spent too long on this to trash it. I think the point of "they're not technically book bans" is one that should be kept in mind for strategic reasons, but not really focused on as a prime point. The semantic game is a trick the right loves to use a lot to turn a discussion into a debate over nothing. That is, I think a pretty classic move of at least modern reactionary and/or extreme right wing movements is to downplay the seriousness of their plans by playing off the perceived hysteria of their political enemies: if the "libs" are saying something that demonstrates they don't actually have intimate familiarity with the verbiage and publicly stated desires of a reactionary movement, it can be very easy to publicly discredit the criticism within the ingroup, and, even worse, in such a way that may discredit that criticism with outside observers. "Jeeze, look at all these triggered libs! They're just being ridiculous, they don't get it at all!" This isn't always their defense, but I feel like it comes up way more than actual attempts at explaining and defending their goals to the outgroup. Now, this is really stupid, and I really hate it. Reactionaries have managed to essentially mainstream a massive amount of their desires and policies, not by defending them, but by basically pulling an Onion: "No. It'll be fine. You're overthinking this. I feel like I have a good sense for this stuff and I don't see any problems." Part of why this sort of abdication of public explanation (especially using whataboutism to gum everything up further) is so dangerous and insidious is that Sartre's anti-Semite, here used as a stand-in for these kinds of bigots generally, is able to take part in this sort of non-defense without, to borrow the dumb 4chan phrase, "revealing their power level." (Think Stephen Crowder before the repeal of Roe in his Vox Populi segment trying to make all these reasonable-sounding, somewhat calmly made rationalizations about how, oh no, it's not a problem, don't worry about it! He often didn't try to defend repealing Roe as the right thing to do, rather he usually tried to introduce doubts into people's minds or to turn the debate away from why abortion is an important medical procedure to instead a debate on what the federal government can do) This doesn't actually necessitate any statement of political realities, consequences of policy, or engaging with all the awful poo poo these kinds of policies have led to in the past and are enabling today. And it gets those people a foot in the door with the passive observers who don't have a background that alerts them to these things. And that lets in the spore of bigotry that metastasizes and grows out of control. Part of what makes this so dangerous is that, yes, the anti-Semites are the ones who know the language is a smoke screen. But, the anti-Semites are not the only ones involved. As previously stated, being able to deflect without engaging any actual criticism can make it appear as if the position is very strong or is "more correct" if one isn't paying close enough attention. This is how they draw in so many patsies they convert, and especially bigots in the slightly more subtle "I just don't want them near me" sense: political dog whistles work not only because the dogs can hear them, but because some people very specifically cannot, yet. Not only that, a great portion of the modern anti-Semite's strategy is, as I said before, to use a hullabaloo as a smoke screen: they redirect controversy from being about the issue to being about the people discussing the issue, or the language used to discuss it, or even the propriety of the discussion itself, and the more obvious the critic's lack of "knowledge" (often this means them not using the correct shibboleths) the easier it becomes to downplay them to their audiences as just negative nancies and implicitly "delegitimize" the arguments they employ, no matter how well reasoned they are. It's often incredibly obvious, and incredibly sloppy, but as long as you preach to the choir and reinforce the idea that they're smarter or more rational, people eat it up. We [idiots] all like to be the Smart Rational one. What I'm kind of getting at here is: I think you should call them book bans, because, de facto, that is what they are. The right, especially in Florida, are passing laws and establishing standards preventing people from reading or checking out books (especially ones involving actively persecuted minorities!) in plenty of everyday contexts. That is a ban, at least in the colloquial if not legal sense. But be prepared to back up that assertion in plain language and not allow yourself to get pulled away from that original point. Or better yet, don't even fall into that semantic trap. Keep in mind that, very often, the person who you respond to or engage with is usually not someone you can convince presently; instead I've started to view these "discussions" as more an attempt to get your own foot in the door for the passive observers. Yes, you're going to get a lot of assholes and idiots pushing back on technicalities and semantics, and I wish you good luck on dealing with them. But I would say they're not really the people you're trying to speak to. You're trying to reach those passive observers yourself and plant your own seed in their minds, that'll grow over time and hopefully blossom into a realization. If you want to publicly debate or combat these things, as I believe we should, it's worth trying to focus first on showing people how this stuff hurts us, hurts all of us. The anti-Semite will attempt to snap back, but I believe their lack of seriousness when it comes to words may be used against them here. Already this stuff is hurting us! Kids are being taken from their loving parents because those parents accept them; entire minority groups are being demonized, hurt, and permanently damaged due to irrational fears, using the same exact strategies and fallacious rhetoric we've seen a thousand times before; teachers don't feel safe doing their jobs because they know that either they'll face criminal prosecution, or extralegal persecution if they teach the Wrong lesson. These policies are introducing fear and pain into society, needlessly and cruelly, and it's important that people realize that these aren't just pictures in a newspaper or memes on Twitter, they're your neighbors, cousins, friends, co-workers. And that just because you might feel safe doesn't mean these things can't ever be used against you. Our ultimate goal should be this: Get the observer to identify with those marginalized. Very often, the observer has a lot more in common with the marginalized than the anti-Semite. It's not always easy, but at least it's a first step. And please don't feel as though I'm telling you to be nicer to people who want you dead. I don't expect anyone to do that. These are my thoughts when it comes to attempting to respond, but this isn't the only way to do so. CARRIERHASARRIVED fucked around with this message at 16:02 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
as an idiot speaking to other idiots in my life, im going to just keep calling ut a ban
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:You might want to take a look around at the last ten or twenty years of Republican actions. This is what fascists DO. You aren't going to stop them from doing exactly this. Ever. At all. Attempting to get fascists to stop toying with language is the absolute pinnacle of tilting at windmills. I don't think he is suggesting that the fash will change their minds or their methods or that it is worth even trying to get them to do that. He's suggesting that being crystal clear about what Desantis is doing is more likely to get the great unwashed mass of politically ignorant voters to become angry about it, and it makes the fascist rhetoric trap of squabbling about "what a 'ban' really is" less likely to be successful in obscuring the issue for those great unwashed masses. predicto fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
This feels like that dumb bellcurve meme with "technically it isn't a ban" in the middle and "cute penguin book got banned because governor hates gay people" on either end. Idk, I'm just gonna beat my "it's stupid that And Tango Makes Three got pulled from school shelves" drum because that's just a cute book about a real thing observed with two penguins in a zoo, and l, in my dumb brain, think nothing highlights the plain malice of fascists quite like banning something that's both cute and factual. Edit: slightly more seriously, I think concrete examples of impact help a lot. People are dipshits, can't think in the abstract, and are ginned up on decades of paranoid propaganda, so they envision sweeping, worst-case patterns based on little to no data. They get told about Gender Queer and Lawn Boy and that's it; school is 8 hours of a blue haired lesbian showing 4 year olds how to perform oral sex even though the reality was the book was just gathering dust on a high school shelf. I doubt cute gay penguin book is gonna change a dyed in the wool fascists mind, but it might soften up your dipshit relatives. Decon fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
...! posted:Yuengling is the only good domestic beer. This is Narragansett erasure.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
predicto posted:
I disagree. I think if you preemptively concede to DeSantis' framing of the issue, consider only each individual policy in isolation, don't challenge his stated intentions, let him to pretend that he's not stopping anybody from reading whatever books they want as long as he isn't bragging about doing just that right this second, and call your allies hysterical and hyperbolic, then the "great unwashed masses" who hear you will be more inclined to think he's the reasonable one coming from a place of genuine concern rather than hatred. Casting your opponent as reasonable and your allies as crazy is not a good persuasion strategy! You might notice that Republicans never give in to this kind of rules lawyering themselves. No right-winger would let you get away with telling them the assault weapons ban wasn't really a ban if people were still allowed to own the 'banned' weapons. They would corner you on the technical definition and get you to admit you're banning something (manufacture and sale of new assault weapons), mock you for it "you're just banning making and selling them, banning it isn't a ban, liberal logic", call you a liar if you tried to say a ban on owning assault rifles wasn't your goal and hit you with quotes of Democrats saying exactly that ("turn them in, Mr and Mrs America!") No Republican in the world is going to say "gosh you can still own them, why you're right that's not a gun ban", let you frame the issue, attack his own side as hysterical and crazy, demand it not be called a ban, agree to only debate the AWB in isolation, and insist you can't call a Democrat a gun grabber if they aren't saying they want to grab the guns in this exact instant. They know you want to ban assault rifles, you know you want to ban assault rifles, they aren't going to help you pretend otherwise in front of the "great unwashed masses" because that only helps you and hurts them. But they know a lot of liberals are very susceptible to this attack and they exploit it whenever they can. Hey let's all be reasonable, you love a good semantic argument right, if you look at it our way banning books isn't really banning books, now go on, show off how smart you are, show the masses that you are the reasonable one, if you attack the angry left you'll get our respect in front of everyone. Or if you want another example there's a reason the poem doesn't go "first they came for the communists and I listened very attentively to their stated goals and discovered that yes it's bad but not as bad as people think, and I asked everyone to stop making hyperbolic predictions about them coming for the socialists and trade unionists next because they clearly said communist and Webster's defines a communist as" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:15 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
Decon posted:I doubt cute gay penguin book is gonna change a dyed in the wool fascists mind, but it might soften up your dipshit relatives. wait do we allow emptyquotes in d&d now. look i just wrote this big, long effortpost give me this one.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I disagree. I think if you preemptively concede to DeSantis' framing of the issue, consider only each individual policy in isolation, don't challenge his stated intentions, let him to pretend that he's not stopping anybody from reading whatever books they want as long as he isn't bragging about doing just that right this second, and call your allies hysterical and hyperbolic, then the "great unwashed masses" who hear you will be more inclined to think he's the reasonable one coming from a place of genuine concern rather than hatred. Casting your opponent as reasonable and your allies as crazy is not a good persuasion strategy! That's an illustrative point though. That whole back and forth goes thickest with the shittiest, most useless gun laws like AWBs where the goal is much less about saving lives and more about calming people who are scared by a distorting lens of media, so rather than targeting the ways actual gun violence happens they attack problems as they exist in crime shows and video games. That makes it a very similar game to right-wing culture war laws. It's certainly less harmful than the Republican equivalent of pleasing scared bigots by going after vulnerable populations as "groomers" while ignoring the preachers and cops actually molesting kids, but it lends itself to the same rhetorical strategies: "I'm not touching you! *snicker*," fiery claims of dire dangers from the enemy followed by writing laws with weird boundaries that fight the culture war but not the stated material problems. And finally tossing red meat to your base about how you're totally winning and the children are now safer under your watch. In both of those cases, disinformation, gaslighting, and and legal technicalities aren't meant to fool the opposition or make them back down: if anything, enraging them is a sweet, sweet bonus. The goal is a fig leaf that gets people who don't feel much personal stake in the issue otherwise to think the law targets a legitimate concern and that even if it inconveniences some people and technically is a ban, there's enough "technically" that if it has net positive outcomes it's a reasonable compromise. You don't attack that by arguing whether it's a ban, you attack it by tearing into outcomes. With gun laws that's not a super hard sell since it's hard to make a case as to why it's super important someone is materially hurt by not having that specific toy even if it's used in (rounding error) crimes. Few people earnestly believe "Shall not be infringed" is an absolute statement, even the ones who say it for FYGM reasons. It's also hard for gun nuts to propose laws that really would reduce gun crime since they'd still be restrictions on gun sales/ownership or at least involve public spending on things conservatives hate. It's much easier to make a case of good people being materially harmed by things like the anti-trans laws, calling out restrictions of basic human rights like using the restroom safely or stocking perfectly normal books in public libraries, ways the targeted groups get smeared by bigots, and things like cis women arrested for peeing with short hair. And counterproposals targeting actual dangers to children are no threat to the left as is. Personally I'm for calling a ban a ban and saying "we both know what you're doing", but it doesn't seem to be as much a key to fighting laws like DeSantis's so much as just a show of disdain for dishonest games.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I disagree. I think if you preemptively concede to DeSantis' framing of the issue One thing that I definitely think nobody here is endorsing is, in mixed company (i.e. not on the website where we bullshit about political strategy), responding to an allegation that DeSantis is banning books by getting all  about it. (And somebody who is describing his actions that way is probably decidedly anti-DeSantis already.) This discussion is more about where to start a conversation than where to lead it.
Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 23:33 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:One thing that I definitely think nobody here is endorsing is, in mixed company (i.e. not on the website where we bullshit about political strategy), responding to an allegation that DeSantis is banning books by getting all Yeah, I'm totally with that. I'm not going to argue with friends that call them book bans on Facebook or whatever and I'm not going to shy from saying that's what's effectively going on. But I'm sure not going to pick that as a load bearing argument in front of anyone that's likely pro-ban since it's falsifiable enough for someone who knows the talking points to muddy the waters and actually bring the discussion into their framing. With the right-wingers I know the closest I'd come is "Hey, remember how you spread all the fake stories about Dr. Seuss being banned last year before NuJeb pulled this?" because then they squirm having to square that being a ban with this not being one rather than me being on the defensive.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Nothing that anybody has said is an endorsement of "preemptively conced[ing] to "DeSantis's framing". The argument being made (which you can take or leave) is that using an overly general description of his actions gives him an opening to frame things the way he wants, and that starting in a different position can make it harder for him to steer a conversation in that direction. (Haven't you ever been in a debate and thought to yourself, "I hope he says [x], so that I can respond [y]"?) Agreeing that it is not a ban is conceding to his frame and allowing him to pettifog about his intent. Whether you can still get a 'banned' item under certain conditions has never been the definition of a ban for obvious reasons. If you doubt me, go try and tell a Republican that making it illegal to manufacture and sell new AR-15s is not a gun ban because people will still be allowed to own those guns.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
A de facto ban is still a ban. When you cede ground by saying "well, they're correct in saying that it's technically not a ban, but..." then you're undermining your own argument before you've even made it. Controlling the language is an important part of controlling the entire narrative. Regressives are well aware of this and have become very very good at it. Ceding ground on language is why the regressive position on abortion rights is more commonly called "pro-life" rather than "anti-choice." By getting everyone to use the verbiage "life" and "baby/child" and "mother" they've successfully managed to frame the debate around the "rights" of the fetus rather than the rights of the woman. What they're doing is a book ban. It just is. Their motive is extremely clear and they need to be called out for it. It's not a good idea to get bogged down in the specifics of language. By doing so you are, in fact, rules lawyering for the fascists. You're clearly not doing it intentionally, but you are doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Has anyone ever been banned on SA Forums. They can still post elsewhere on the internet so how can they be banned. This whole discussion is mentally-banned. (USER WAS CHALLENGED FOR THIS POST.) Agents are GO! fucked around with this message at 00:08 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
We just went through this with the trans healthcare stuff. First they passed Don't Say Gay laws and this wasn't censorship or an attack on LGBT students oh no my lands no, his stated goal is simply to keep authority figures from indoctrinating kids into being queer, now don't get all hysterical about it, it's just about protecting kids from indoctrination, who can be against that, even the smart liberals at the New York Times agree that nobody is being censored because you can still say gay at home! Then they banned medication for trans kids but this isn't a ban either, nobody is being told they can't transition they just have to wait until they're 18 to make important medical decisions. So don't say they're taking away rights because they will prove that everyone gets rights once they're old enough and won't you look stupid then, nobody is talking about taking away rights for adults! Then they just banned transition care for adults too with barely a peep, and why would there be, thanks to the very smart liberal thought leaders at the New York Times everyone "knows" that nobody wants to take away the rights of adults right?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
They also expanded the 'Don't Say Gay' rules for teachers originally from K-5th grade or whatever to now all grade levels after previously promising that it was just intended for younger children. They're always lying and if you don't push back at all they are going to roll over everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
Decon posted:I doubt cute gay penguin book is gonna change a dyed in the wool fascists mind, but it might soften up your dipshit relatives. Unfortunately this venn diagram is a circle.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He wants to frame what he's doing as "not a ban" because bans are unpopular and everyone knows what the intent behind bans and censorship are. Sure, but arguing over the terms just sounds like the strawman lib I keep hearing about who thinks you can shame Republicans into reforming by calling them out as hypocrites, only it's weaker, Both since it's harder to turn it into cutting public mockery instead of tearful "How dare you!" and because the flabby-minded middle are going to care even less about whether a restriction is ayyyshually a "ban" than they do about whether the right actually believes the principles they proclaim. In all cases the actual target of the audience is third parties rather than Republicans, and the right word for the bans is way less important than showing that their results are lovely by intent. If you want to talk about "Republican book bans" to get the rhetoric to frame it as a shorthand that's fine and no one's really complained about that part. It's just a stinker of an actual argument compared to pointing out the many ways it's bad at its claimed purpose of protecting kids but real good at hurting both intentional and unintentional targets of bigots. If you're saying "book ban" as more than topic identification you're wasting breath.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's because I figured it was not a question asked in good faith. No, you cannot put the book in the library. It is banned specifically from being in libraries or schools, and we agree, I believe, that this is a bad situation. These are libraries. You know. Places that provide books for people to read. A better analogy, along the lines of your example, would be a specific type of alcohol being banned from liquor stores
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Private ownership of alcohol was not illegal during prohibition so could you really call it a ban? In general I agree with the dilemma between finding good slogans that can reach the masses and using precise language. There are definitely people who hear something like Dont Say Gay and think "that sounds terrible" but after some right wing pundit goes through the details come away feeling like the left was being hyperbolic and then starts buying into the right wing narrative. Of course if they are listening to right wing pundits they are probably a lost cause to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
https://deadspin.com/baseball-pride-night-greg-kelly-newsmax-nhl-tkachuk-1850474146 Newsmax's Greg Kelly claims there's 'nothing gay' about baseball, which he clearly doesn’t watch Right-wing anchorman throws temper tantrum about PRIDE celebrations in America's pastime https://twitter.com/i/status/1661344097670426628
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 12:06
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:https://deadspin.com/baseball-pride-night-greg-kelly-newsmax-nhl-tkachuk-1850474146 The LA Dodgers are honouring The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a Catholic-themed drag queen organization with chapters throughout America and Europe. They've been around since 1979, doing community education and charity events. Of course when the Dodgers announced they were honouring them, Marco Rubio and a bunch of other Catholic conservative worms immediately started flailing. The Dodgers initially rescinded the invitation. That led to backlash from local groups and politicians, and four days later they were invited again.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 12:15
|
|
|
Absolutely NOTHING gay about watching absolute specimens swing hard wood at balls
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
I think part of the efficacy of book bans was the use of hyperbole in their arguments and digging up contradictions and lies from their detractors. So they'll prop up the most egregious examples as shock value-I've lost count as to how many times I've seen the same two pages of Gender Queer, the bit where the person fantasized about having a penis by "packing" and getting a blow job using a strap on. Then another page sometimes shown where the character's sister asks if she ever masturbated and tasted her own vag juice. The focus is always on the most extreme examples they can find. If you argue the book is not in elementary schools they'll dig up some article about a parent that found the book in their 5th graders school library. They'll show examples of concerned parents getting their mic cut off when reading the content of the books in school board and PTA meetings. It's kind of similar to posting it here- if I were to post the images in question here would I get forced to hide it behind a nsfw spoiler tag? Would I eat a probe for simply showing it? If showing it in places like a school board meeting or a dead gay forum is verboten then it makes it easy to argue that it is unreasonable to let kids have access to it in their school libraries. Then the second prong of this strategy is to attack their detractors. They put the focus on how obscene this content is. Important to note they are focusing on imagery primarily, not prose or context. That makes it so that people arguing with them come off as "pro groomer" to their audience by asking questions like "why do you want a 5th grader to see pornography so badly?" They pull the same rhetorical stunt with drag queen Story hour. They never have to justify Banning it, because they can just drown out the discourse with bad faith questions like "why are drag queens so obsessed with being around young children?" and "apparently the left thinks it's Nazi of me to not want groomers to molest my child". Panfilo fucked around with this message at 12:40 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 12:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08UGlR999g4 I'm not watching any more of that than I have to because once all the way through is enough in my life, but if I got the video right, they just straight-up use homosexual as a synonym for pedophile. From 1961, same playbook.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 12:55
|
|
|
This conversation is odd to me because calling book bans what they are is on the side of technical correctness and precise wording. They are book bans (in fact the goalposts in here shifted almost immediately from saying they aren't banning books to saying even if they are it's better strategy to concede the point anyway) Which is interesting to me, that people who lecture their own side so much on technical correctness, concede instantly when a conservative challenges them on it. What's the point of spending all this energy policing our words for perfect precision if we're just going to surrender to conservatives' sloppy inconsistent definitions anyway (and have you noticed that conservatives see how you do this and exploit it like they are now? ) Conservatives don't seem to care much for technical correctness themselves. When they wanted to ban closed shop agreements they coined a technically incorrect name for it: "Right To Work". Why do you think they did this when it can be so easily shown that their slogan has nothing to do with guaranteeing a right to employment? Do you guys think they're making a foolish mistake here?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which is interesting to me, that people who lecture their own side so much on technical correctness, concede instantly when a conservative challenges them on it. What's the point of spending all this energy policing our words for perfect precision if we're just going to surrender to conservatives' sloppy inconsistent definitions anyway (and have you noticed that conservatives see how you do this and exploit it like they are now? ) VitalSigns posted:Conservatives don't seem to care much for technical correctness themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Do you have an example of this? I don't quite understand the situation you're describing. I don't understand what you're asking me or what it is you don't get about what I said. Mellow Seas posted:Yeah - and they're loving terrible. That is one of the many reasons why. It is baffling to me when people present "emulate conservatives" as a self-evident strategy. Should the Allies not have copied German tank tactics because that would be emulating Nazis? E: and aren't people in here doing this right now? Calling book bans book bans is technically correct yet it seems to me it's being argued that we should ignore that and accept that they aren't for (supposed) strategic reasons VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:Private ownership of alcohol was not illegal during prohibition so could you really call it a ban? Yeah you can compare this to Right To Work. If someone listens to a left wing pundit to learn what is all about they'll come away knowing it's bad for workers and feeling the right was being dishonest, but that's not who the messaging is for. Calling it Right To Work instead of a Closed Shop Ban is for the people who don't listen to any pundits, but just hear the slogan and think more rights sound good and bans sound bad.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This situation right now? quote:Which is interesting to me, that people who lecture their own side so much on technical correctness, concede instantly when a conservative challenges them on it." VitalSigns posted:Bad people can use effective strategies to achieve bad goals yes, but discarding an effective strategy because bad people use it too doesn't make much sense to me. VitalSigns posted:E: and aren't people in here doing this right now? Calling book bans book bans is technically correct yet it seems to me it's being argued that we should ignore that and accept that they aren't for (supposed) strategic reasons I said that, to me, calling them "school book bans" is adequately precise. And if somebody says "book bans" in a context that is not about intellectual masturbation but has anything to do with actual persuasion, of course you shouldn't "correct" them. Which I said. Mellow Seas posted:One thing that I definitely think nobody here is endorsing is, in mixed company (i.e. not on the website where we bullshit about political strategy), responding to an allegation that DeSantis is banning books by getting all If anybody disagrees with that, then I disagree with them. I just haven't seen any evidence that anybody disagrees with that. VitalSigns posted:Right To Work Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:50 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
I wasn't talking to you though. I was talking about, for example, this: predicto posted:I don't think he is suggesting that the fash will change their minds or their methods or that it is worth even trying to get them to do that. and this PT6A posted:It's because I figured it was not a question asked in good faith. No, you cannot put the book in the library. It is banned specifically from being in libraries or schools, and we agree, I believe, that this is a bad situation. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Junior getting ridiculed because he's so hosed up he says Trump has the charisma of a mortician instead of Desantis. https://twitter.com/LePapillonBlu2/status/1662148800109068308 Also CNN doing a new town hall with Pence. https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1661739410696847360
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Thing I've wondered is: who's enforcing it? Do they have a bunch of Seinfeld library cops in the budget to go aorund and audit the bookshelves? PT6A posted:No, you cannot put the book in the library. It is banned specifically from being in libraries or schools, You have a noun, turned verb, but you don't think the noun is descriptive of the verbified noun? I can't possible have this correct.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
One of these talk radio RWM robots was railing about taxes today. Said he pays 45% of his income on taxes, which I don't believe for a second, but even if he is, I'm sure he's doing fine shilling right wing propaganda and selling his soul if he's in that bracket. Thing that stuck out to me though is he was all "and what do we get out of it?" I immediately thought of how much these hosts and their listeners are always on about supporting the military, cops and (to a lesser extent) the fire department and howl at the moon if a Democrat cuts the defense budget by 2% or some poo poo. Last I checked, military spending in the USA was about 1/3 of our national budget, depending on the source, but the dude was blowing on and on about how "everything the government touches, it destroys" and managed to mention healthcare as an example as well when the real problem with healthcare is the for profit model. Same with our energy policy where it's obviously the government ruining everything and we need to simply drill everywhere. Why do people think we pay SO MUCH for gas and why do they think we don't drill the poo poo out of this country? Why do so man people a for profit/free market model is the solution for all of our problems? I got to talking about it with a coworker who actually said that solving all this poo poo is "real simple". And by that he meant Drill Baby Drill. I mentioned that Nestle makes money privatizing water supplies by, in part, poisoning water sources in other countries and he'd never heard of that. I'm not concerned though. I'm sure this radio host's listeners soaked in this hypocritical discrepancy and applied a measure of logical thought to it instead of absorbing it unfiltered and taking it as a matter of fact. I'm equally certain that this person I worked with took my rebuttal to heart when I softly asserted that things probably aren't as simple as he thinks and that capitalism can't solve all of our problems. Yep
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:
He's saying that in order for something to be an adjectived thing it has to be verbed everywhere. If you ban a book from schools it's not a banned book if it's still available in bookstores. Presumably removing it from bookstores wouldn't be enough either since you could order it online. If they removed it from everyone's houses you could drive to Georgia and read it there I guess. Not sure any book has ever been banned, even in the Soviet Union if you wanted to read something bad enough you could find a way across the Finnish border.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
Marjorie Tyler Greene told a reporter how there's some city in Georgia where it's "mandatory" for homeowners to own a gun, and since this law was passed there were ZERO murders. The fact that she didn't mention the city by name or contrast the change in crime makes it sound like she's pulling the whole thing out of her rear end. This is similar to the "Democrat controlled cities have more crime" claim they make, which I was ranting to my mom about today. Where is this republican Shangri La town where everyone is strapped and crime is nonexistent? Next time some chud brings up the democrats crime blerg blerg talking point I'm gonna ask them to name a republican mayor of a city with a population of over a million. Ok now let's compare it to a Democrat city of over a million with similar race, age, and economic demographics. Surely by this metric they'd be able to demonstrate the republican city has less crime, right? A recent argument for gun ownership as a deterrent to crime I saw on Twitter was, "If the penalty for speeding was to be permanently banned from using roads for life, nobody would speed. It's the same way with using Lethal force to protect your property".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Today the fill in for Dennis Prager explained how because we let gay marriage happen, polygamy is on the rise and also we let sm/furies at pride so that 1) there can be assigned human at birth dogs because we let trans people exist 2) that's just going to let us do beastiality 3) just before pedophilia is legal because the pc police make you say map. He finished it with "stop yelling at the radio, you know I'm right". He kept saying how they warned us this would happen but we didn't take them seriously and now it is happening were shutting them up by calling them bigots and whatever phobes Then this evening Matt Walsh was going on another anti transtirade. Depressing night
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Last I checked, military spending in the USA was about 1/3 of our national budget, depending on the source, but the dude was blowing on and on about how "everything the government touches, it destroys"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 04:52
|
|
cowboy
|
Panfilo posted:A recent argument for gun ownership as a deterrent to crime I saw on Twitter was, "If the penalty for speeding was to be permanently banned from using roads for life, nobody would speed. It's the same way with using Lethal force to protect your property".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Panfilo posted:Marjorie Tyler Greene told a reporter how there's some city in Georgia where it's "mandatory" for homeowners to own a gun, and since this law was passed there were ZERO murders. The fact that she didn't mention the city by name or contrast the change in crime makes it sound like she's pulling the whole thing out of her rear end. It blows my mind how these people are truly convinced that “the city” is in violent anarchy. My cracker gringo rear end got on just fine in a barrio in the Bronx, it gets on just fine here in the crime ridden hell of New Orleans Now I did get queer and jew bashed where I grew up in bumfuck rural Texas. It’s almost as if some projection is happening
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2023 10:59
|
|