Calling All Grifters: On Hawking The Freedom Phone

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

85 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    I’m just gonna put this here, and then laugh when the next Capital Protest rolls around.Report

  2. Michael Cain says:

    Some of the biggest names hawking the Freedom Phone, like Candace Owens, are doing it from…their iPhones.

    The web site is pretty clear that the Freedom Phone won’t be shipping until August.Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    The question often arises, why the American right wing is so uniquely susceptible to grift stretching back to Richard Viguerie and the mail order empire.

    IMO this is the outcome of becoming an insurgency force, which sees itself as outlaws, operating in opposition to the System.

    The normal alarm bells and warning lights don’t operate because no source of information can be trusted, other than the guy who is giving you his opinions, and also hawking boner pills/ gold coins/ herbal tonics.

    Long long ago I used to see this with hippie types, where some guy would rail on and on about the evils of capitalist medicines and how all the FDA studies had overlooked how dangerous they were; Then he might pause, complain of a headache, and someone would helpfully take out some herbal pill made by natives in the Amazon, and the dude would swallow it eagerly, having no information whatsoever about it.

    Except of course, a complete credulous faith in the person offering it.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Affinity scams are a thing the world over. I can’t tell whether they are more prevalent in the American right-wing or not but they certainly seem to be.

      “IMO this is the outcome of becoming an insurgency force, which sees itself as outlaws, operating in opposition to the System.”

      I might agree in part but I am not sure it is the full thing.Report

    • JS in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      “in the name of trying to argue Jaybird down, you’ve gone to bat for pedophiles and celebrated the suicide of a man who’d admitted to his sins and was genuinely doing the work to be a better person”

      Training. Just years and years of training. They’re trained to fall for the con, and their grifters trained to pitch it to them.

      This? This is televangelism. This is sending money so God doesn’t murder Oral Roberts live on TV. This is decades of beating the drums to rile up conservatives, to make them afraid of everything — change, black people, taxes, regulation, liberals, black people, Democrats, gays, Satanists, black people….

      Because if you scare them enough, they’ll give you money to fix it so the fear goes away. Same with rage, except you pay to feel like you’re DOING something with that rage.

      it’s a good grift. Fear and rage turn them out to the polls, fear and rage gets them to open their wallets to the grifting echo-system.

      As to why conservatives — don’t know. perhaps just because they’re more monolithic. Easier to come up with simple lines of attack. harder with a big tent party like Dems right now — it gets contradictory real fast. But also, you know, black people are heavily Democratic these days.

      And all those pitches — inner city hellholes, welfare moms, Cadillac queens, thugs coming to rape your wife so buy the new Freedom Gun now — lots of dark hued faceless threats there, yeah?Report

      • North in reply to JS says:

        I agree that it’s more of the monolithic element on the right. Not only does the right have fewer subgroups but they’ve been trained by decades of fusionism to somewhat uncritically accept cross pollination from their allied subgroups. Also the right is especially elderly and the elderly are an especially rich vein to mine if you’re looking for money. They have more of it and they have a greater tendency to be isolated/estranged from the world and inclined to open their wallet to address those issues.Report

    • Reformed Republican in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      The right is not uniquely susceptible to grifting, unless you think the majority of people buying $66 jade vagina eggs from Gwyneth Paltrow are the same people wearing MAGA hats.

      Himalyan salt lamps? Healing crystals? Detoxing drinks? Cleanses to get rid of intestinal parasites? All big money grifts, and I suspect their customers lean more to the left than the right (though they cross the aisle).Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    I also think the grift happens because the media is horrible at calling out on shit: https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1409918720319893505?s=20Report

  5. Of course it’s an Android phone. Does anyone think developers are hard at work building “FreedonOS” versions of their apps?Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      Why not Temple OS?Report

      • RIP Terry in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Eh. People tend to get upset when they can’t listen to music.
        I know one of the few glowies that Terry would work with — after he went crazy.

        The Brave browser is around for all Phones, and you too can earn money through watching ads.
        (And then help out the brave, nearly-deplatformed archivists…
        “What do you mean I can’t donate via Visa… or Mastercard?… or paypal?”)Report

  6. Pinky says:

    Did that Turning Point USA pron star thing really happen? I’m reading that she attended the event, not that she was invited.

    Also has the right ever called for censorship of CRT? They’ve called out companies who require it, and they’ve protested against it being taught in public schools.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Pinky says:

      They are pursuing legislation to outlaw it in schools. Would that qualify as censorship?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

        There are a number of Supreme Court cases that have established that the various rights of students are not the same as the rights of adults. They’re a lot more limited due to the whole “in loco parentis” thing.

        (Unless you’re asking about censorship in the more general sense in which case we get to start playing “whatabout” and we can play whackamole with the extent to which local school boards have had jurisdiction over curriculum and say stuff like “sure, they did something superficially similar but it’s different when you’re in the right”.)Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

          As I understand the situation, certain state legislatures are trying to make it illegal for teachers to discuss certain things in certain ways.

          Would that meet the definition of censorship?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

            Um, maybe? Probably?

            I don’t see how that’s a particular gotcha, though.

            I mean, is the left going to argue that academia ought to be a place where different ideas, no matter what they are, ought to be able to be discussed safely without fear of reprisal?

            I mean, that might be a good move!

            But only crazy people think stuff like that.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

              The question was: “ Also has the right ever called for censorship of CRT? They’ve called out companies who require it, and they’ve protested against it being taught in public schools.”

              They did more than protest it.

              In certain states, they’ve sought to make it illegal for teachers to teach it.

              I’m a teacher. If I was told, “It’s against the law for you to discuss that in your classroom,” I’d feel pretty damn censored… for any value of “it”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Hey, I think you should write an essay about how you talk about race with the kids in your class.

                What ways are you talking about race now that would get you fired in Florida? What do you tell your black students about your white students? What do you tell your white students about your black students? AAPI kids. Latinx kids. How do you talk to them about the other ones?

                (As for “censorship”, I still put it in the same category as Young Earth Creationism. Maybe CRT would make a fine elective for a senior. Teaching it to children? Well, from what I understand, it’s an obscure legal theory. It just wouldn’t be appropriate to teach it to them in the first place and so, therefore, no problem.)Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Saying, “That isn’t developmentally appropriate,” doesn’t have the chilling effect that “That’s illegal” does.

                If I want to talk about race with my kids in a developmentally appropriate way, I consult texts on child development and such.

                If I want to talk about race without violating the law, now I need to read the legalese of the legislation and hope I understand it and hope no child goes home and misrepresents it and hope no parent twists that and hope I don’t end up violating a law in actuality or in perception.

                Can you see how and why those are different?

                I would welcome state standards on discussing race/gender/etc and then would advocate those be as high quality as possible.

                Having what I can and can’t say in the classroom be deemed illegal by the legislature? I can’t think of anything else currently that is treated as such (again, outside things that would be illegal in all circumstances, such as sexually propositioning a child).

                We don’t make teaching long division illegal. We develop standards and curriculums requiring other methods be taught.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Can you see how and why those are different?

                Oh yeah! I sure as heck do!

                Those kids coming home and misrepresenting what they’re being taught are probably really dangerous to teachers. (I’ve heard some argue that classrooms need cameras to help protect teachers against the most egregious charges. I see upsides for reasons similar to that bodycams protect the good cops but not the bad ones.)

                We don’t make teaching long division illegal. We develop standards and curriculums requiring other methods be taught.

                Hey, I have friends who work in the school system and, contrary to rumors, it is *REAL* easy for a teacher to get fired despite union protection. All you have to do is deviate from the curriculum enough that it shows up in testing.

                Holy crap, those teachers don’t last a year.

                You’d think that something like that would suffice.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Firing is not the same as being held in violation of the law.

                Again, the question was did conservatives try to censor CRT.

                I don’t think it is controversial to say that making it illegal to teach in schools is a form of censorship.

                I’m not weighing in on whether or not CRT should be taught in schools.

                But I am saying that, as a teacher, outlawing certain topics is a really really chilling step to take.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                I don’t think it is controversial to say that making it illegal to teach in schools is a form of censorship.

                Fair enough. I’m not sure that declaring it “censorship” will do anything but get Pinky to say “okay, that sentence was wrong… the main point stands!” and then get back to arguing the main point.

                But I am saying that, as a teacher, outlawing certain topics is a really really chilling step to take.

                You see a precedent.

                I don’t. Not really. I see the same crap that has been going on for a long while.

                I’m guessing this ends up with cameras in classrooms.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                A question was asked. I answered.

                Here we are, how many dozens of comments later, and for what?

                Never give an inch.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Well, I wish you the best of luck when Engaged Parents want to know more about exactly how their children are being taught to be anti-racist.

                I suspect that you may have to give an inch or two.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                See, here I thought we were discussing whether or not conservaties ever tried to censor CRT — what with the following question posed: “Also has the right ever called for censorship of CRT?”

                I did not realize what we were REALLY debating was what I was teaching in my classroom.

                How silly of me.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t see it as “censoring” but “protecting students from harmful incorrect history” or something.

                I mean, surely that’s different from *CENSORSHIP*.

                And so on.

                Anyway, from what you’ve said about your school, you’ve got a lot of parents who are actively invested in their kiddos’ educations.

                I would *LOVE* to hear about official statements made by the school in response to inquiries from some of these politically active parents.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                From Wiki:
                “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient.”[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”

                Sure, they can frame it differently. That doesn’t mean it actually isn’t what it is.

                We are a private school so we are situated very differently within these conversations. As of yet, we haven’t received any pushback that I’m aware of and in fact many of our parents are asking for more conversations about race, gender, equity, etc.

                My girlfriend’s school (also private) has received push back and some such folks were basically told they are free to enroll their children elsewhere.

                They then accused the school of censoring them.

                Funny how that works.

                Straight up, you’re talking out of your ass. This would be a REALLY good time for you — someone without kids, who hasn’t worked in schools, and has basically no understanding of or interaction with schools or education policy — to shut up and listen.

                I hear you saying you want to do that and yet you keep jabbering on about how I should feel about laws that threaten my profession.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Sure, they can frame it differently. That doesn’t mean it actually isn’t what it is.

                It is what it has been framed.

                That’s one of the reasons the pro-bad DEI people want the bad DEI taught in the first place.

                As of yet, we haven’t received any pushback that I’m aware of and in fact many of our parents are asking for more conversations about race, gender, equity, etc.

                My girlfriend’s school (also private) has received push back and some such folks were basically told they are free to enroll their children elsewhere.

                “You are free to enroll your kids elsewhere”

                Now *THAT* is one heck of an official statement.

                I’d be curious as to the numbers of her school versus the numbers at the public one. How much of a threat is public school?

                This would be a REALLY good time for you — someone without kids, who hasn’t worked in schools, and has basically no understanding of or interaction with schools or education policy — to shut up and listen.

                Believe it or not, the Republicans have recently pulled the whole “childless” thing as a criticism up.

                I think that you’ll be surprised at the pushback it’s getting and the criticisms being made of the people who use “childless” pejoratively.

                In any case, I am going to wave that particular criticism away. It wasn’t *THAT* long ago that there were arguments over how awful the childless people who were complaining about paying taxes for public schools were. “You benefit from educating your neighbors!” was one of the arguments made.

                I’m sure you remember.

                In any case, *I* remember.

                And my expectation is that this ends with cameras in the classroom. Well, the good classrooms. The arguments against will sound awful similar to the arguments against police bodycams.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.Report

          • InMD in reply to Kazzy says:

            I don’t agree with these laws but I think there’s a real begging of the question going on here, in the classical sense. Like is this incorporation of university inspired DEI stuff into K-12 education, even in some limited way effective pedagogy? And that’s without getting into the merits of the ‘scholarship’ itself which seems pretty profoundly unserious.

            I ask this in context of a situation like Baltimore where you have schools that at times no joke report 0% proficiency rates in literacy and math. Is that helped by bringing in ideas of people who say ‘your lot in life is pre-determined by race, the situation hasn’t changed since the 19th (or is it 17th now?) century, and short a complete abandonment of historic American principles, there is no hope for change’? Oh and by the way buy my book!

            And look, I’m not an idiot. Conservative media and politicians are in a furor because they smell blood in the water. But what are taxpayers really supposed to think? ‘Billy said they took a break from his normal English class today to learn he is an oppressor. And Janie will never have a real shot at the good life because of her race and sex. Then they broke up into groups of their own race to talk about their status in this crooked system of ours. But I’m sure it’s totally fine since it was only 2 hours out of the 1000 or whatever they spend in the class room per year.’

            So again, not a fan of the laws, but what are people supposed to do?Report

            • InMD in reply to InMD says:

              Then add in: ‘By the way honey, did you hear they’re sunsetting the advanced math program next year because it reinforces racial and social inequities? Makes perfect sense to me!’Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

              How do you know any of this is true?
              These sound like strawman caricatures that get spouted on Fox News.

              Especially since you are framing it as “Since the hated outgroup is so malevolent, we have NO CHOICE but to accept the Strong Man On Horseback to restore the rightful order of things.”

              We’ve talked about this before, where people think that public schools are all hellscapes of despair and dysfunction, but in reality most of them are pretty good. And the ones that are bad are bad for reasons entirely unrelated to any political agenda.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Any of this”

                If you want to read about Racial Affinity Groups, there’s a lovely little “pro-” site there. It even has a section dedicated to examples of this going horribly wrong.

                So if you say “but that’s an example of what we *SHOULD* be doing!”, let me redirect you to the “2 STORIES OF RACIAL EQUITY WORK GOING WRONG” section.

                If you are, instead, referring to the problematic schools in Baltimore, here’s something from, yes, Fox News:

                A Project Baltimore investigation has found five Baltimore City high schools and one middle school do not have a single student proficient in the state tested subjects of math and English.

                If your response is to say “Well, that’s Fox News! I will only trust this information if it comes from the Baltimore Sun!”, then well, here’s the Baltimore Sun:

                In a recent front page article, The Sun reported that Baltimore school students scored near the bottom in reading and math compared to children in other cities and large urban areas on an important national assessment given in 2017 (“Baltimore students trail in key U.S. assessment,” April 10). In fourth and eighth grade reading, only 13 percent of city students are considered proficient. In fourth grade math, only 14 percent were proficient, and in eighth grade math only 11 percent were proficient, putting Baltimore ahead of only Detroit and Cleveland.

                Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Does any of this refute my statements?

                For any school you find that is doing poorly, we can find another that does very well.
                Generally speaking, a school’s performance tracks to parental involvement and socioeconomic level.
                So why does Baltimore get picked as the example of “schools”?

                And more to the point, where are these liberal indoctrination factories we keep hearing about?

                This claim has been repeated since before you and I were born, yet amazingly, the cadres of socialist youth never manage to arrive.

                Why is that?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Does any of this refute my statements?

                I wasn’t trying to refute any statements as much as address the whole things that sounded like strawmen.

                Well, there you go.

                They were, instead, men men.

                For any school you find that is doing poorly, we can find another that does very well.

                The ones in my part of town are pretty good, I guess. 64% proficient at reading, 50% proficient at math.

                Those numbers actually strike me as really low, but, you know, compared to Baltimore, we’re doing very well.

                They’re only doing better than Detroit and Cleveland.

                Generally speaking, a school’s performance tracks to parental involvement and socioeconomic level.

                Someone else can jump on that hand grenade. I will point out that the article I linked to discussed spending per student and how it ranked compared to other schools.

                So why does Baltimore get picked as the example of “schools”?

                Because it’s an example of a school that probably could use emphasis on places other than DEI.

                And more to the point, where are these liberal indoctrination factories we keep hearing about?

                Colleges, mostly. I’d probably also point to pop culture. But there’s a point at which it’s a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox and you’ve got white women screaming about how other people need to read Robin DiAngelo and educate themselves thereby.

                This claim has been repeated since before you and I were born, yet amazingly, the cadres of socialist youth never manage to arrive.

                Why is that?

                Because “liberal indoctrination” and “socialism” are incompatible.

                The point of luxury beliefs is not to *ACT* upon them. Good lord, that would drive down property values.

                You merely communicate them. Loudly.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                So given your commentary, it sounds like you also are refuting InMD’s point.

                For example his statement:
                Like is this incorporation of university inspired DEI stuff into K-12 education, even in some limited way effective pedagogy?

                You and I are both saying that there isn’t really any university inspired DEI stuff into K-12 education so yeah, this is a strawman.

                And what is the logical connection between DEI/ CRT and school performance?

                It’s weird how its a conservative cliche that white affluent liberals send little Maddie and Connor to Pointy Head Marxist Academy to learn Wokism and the Gay Agenda;

                Yet somehow these liberal white affluent parents’ children ALSO manage to get high SAT scores and admission to selective schools where they;

                Learn Medieval Poetry and Womyn’s Herstory and Dum Circles and then:

                Graduate to assume executive track positions with Big Tech and become the pampered elite of America where they look down and sneer at Flyover America.

                What InMD is doing is exactly what Chris Rufo was hoping he would do, is associate anything bad (Poor test scores!!) with CRT and assume that getting rid of CRT would somehow make Baltimore’s schools better.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                You and I are both saying that there isn’t really any university inspired DEI stuff into K-12 education so yeah, this is a strawman.

                If I have communicated that I think that there isn’t really any university inspired DEI stuff floating into K-12 education, allow me to say that I have miscommunciated.

                And what is the logical connection between DEI/ CRT and school performance?

                I’d more say that if someone was putting a great deal of effort into teaching DEI/CRT in a school that had reading proficiency numbers in the teens, that they were probably grifting. They found a good way to yell “LOOK OVER THEIR!” (sic).

                It’s weird how its a conservative cliche that white affluent liberals send little Maddie and Connor to Pointy Head Marxist Academy to learn Wokism and the Gay Agenda;

                My own personal cliché is that white affluent liberals send little Maddie and Connor to Pointy Head Marxist Academy to learn how to best deflect against charges of racism/sexism/etc and maintain their privilege thereby.

                Yet somehow these liberal white affluent parents’ children ALSO manage to get high SAT scores and admission to selective schools where they;

                Huh. Funny that.

                Learn Medieval Poetry and Womyn’s Herstory and Dum Circles and then:

                Graduate to assume executive track positions with Big Tech and become the pampered elite of America where they look down and sneer at Flyover America.

                Golly. How could that possibly happen?!?

                What InMD is doing is exactly what Chris Rufo was hoping he would do, is associate anything bad (Poor test scores!!) with CRT and assume that getting rid of CRT would somehow make Baltimore’s schools better.

                I don’t think that getting rid of CRT would make Baltimore’s schools better.

                But I do think that something adjacent to getting rid of CRT is a pre-req to improving outcomes.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                The logic failure can be seen by inverting your statement:

                I’d more say that if someone was putting a great deal of effort into teaching Patriotism in a school that had reading proficiency numbers in the teens, that they were probably grifting. They found a good way to yell “LOOK OVER THEIR!” (sic).

                So clearly, what are parents to do? I’m not against Patriotism, but when the schools have such poor performance, I say we need to stop all this Patriotism crap and go back to teaching the basics, like a deep examination of how the desire to keep slaves instigated both the Revolution and the creation of Texas.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                How are the schools doing in the school districts that had the parents that called their congressmen?

                If I had to guess, I’d say that those schools are doing fairly well. In the neighborhood of Colorado Springs, anyway. Why?

                Well:

                Generally speaking, a school’s performance tracks to parental involvement and socioeconomic level.

                Those parents are involved.

                Best of luck telling them to look over their. (sic)Report

            • Kazzy in reply to InMD says:

              Well, if that was really happening in schools, sure… show up to the BOE meeting and make your voice heard.

              But that isn’t what’s being taught.

              Conservatives claim they’re using slingshots against an elephant when really they’re using bazookas against a mouse.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to InMD says:

              @InMD

              I don’t think I gave your comment here a fair shake, in large part because this conversation (probably unsurprisingly) veered in a totally different direction.

              There are several questions that need to be examined.

              1.) Is Critical Race Theory being taught in public schools?
              From everything I’ve seen and from what I do understand about CRT (which isn’t a ton)… by and large, no. Maybe some elements of CRT have worked themselves into broader thinking such that discussion of certain topics has moved from heretothere

              2.) Should CRT be taught in schools? No, probably not, at least for K-8 kids. There is probably a way to explore certain elements of it with high school students but beyond that, I wouldn’t teach CRT in schools.

              3.) Should we discuss race, racism, etc. in schools? My opinion is that, yes, absolutely.

              4.) Should we be doing any of this by outlawing certain topics? No. No no no no no.

              A fairly common curriculum for young children involves making self portraits. Often times, conversations of skin color and, subsequently, race emerge. I’ve had students use various shades of brown to mix and then name their own skin color to include in their portrait. This is usually accompanied by a book called “The Colors of Us” where a young girl walks through her neighborhood and notices all the different skin tones she sees.

              We then might have a conversation where we compare and contrast these colors… “What do you notice?”

              We then MIGHT talk about how — despite what the kids named their skin colors — sometimes words like “Black” or “white” are used to describe people’s skin colors and how our nation has a history of treating certain people differently based on their skin tone and how important it is to not do this and to resist this. The kids will often note how absurd this seems because, sure, Harry’s skin is really dark and Sally’s skin is really light but Harry isn’t black and Sally isn’t white and they both really like playing tag so why should it matter what their skin color is?

              If I lived in a state that had these laws, I probably would just abandon that project. Not because I think there is anything wrong with it but because I could end up actually or at least being accused of breaking the law.

              Do you think that would be a good outcome? Would you consider such a project to be “teaching CRT”?Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy says:

        Censorship is probably the wrong word.

        What they are doing is demanding that schools teach a Soviet version of history, that is, a history driven by a consensus of politicians rather an one driven by the consensus of scholars, which is arguably worse.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          I find the current history debates between the idealistic right, the idealistic left, and the realistic/cynical left to be really fascinating. The idealistic right wants the American mythos to remain in tack because this is what they believe to be true and because they see anything else as an intrusion into what they see as the American ideology of small government and personal freedom, etc. The idealistic left believes that through teaching what they see as the true history and aggressive truth telling we can achieve justice.

          The realistic/cynical left has the same goals as the idealistic left but believes you need a national mythology like the idealistic right to form common bonds as a society. Aggressive truth telling won’t work because most realistic/cynical liberals believe that most humans understand history through pre-packaged national myths. The important thing is to ensure that the national myths lead people in a liberal democratic direction rather than an illiberal anti-democratic one. The idealistic left and realistic/cynical left do not like each other very much.Report

          • InMD in reply to LeeEsq says:

            We could also, just, you know, teach history, triumphs, warts and all of it, in age appropriate ways. But I know that’s crazy talk.Report

            • LeeEsq in reply to InMD says:

              One group’s triumph is another group’s wart tends to be the problem with this though. See Israel/Palestine as a really big non American example of this.Report

              • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq says:

                I disagree. Hardly anyone disputes what are the good and bad moments of American history; the question is whether these moments tell a net story of reaching for a ideal or of systemic oppression.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                We have people praising Stonewall Jackson and flying the flag of an army that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of slavery.

                Yes, they definitely dispute what the good and bad moments of America are.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Look deeper.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                I keep hearing this.

                “Oh, the Civil War wasn’t actually about some Americans wanting to establish a hierarchy where they are better than other Americans. Look deeper, and you will see it’s complicated, oh so very complicated!”

                Looking deeper, I see that some American did, and still do very badly want to establish a hierarchy where they are better than other Americans.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No, that’s not what I said. Actually, I said practically nothing, so that’s on me. But look deeper at what these people revere. Why is it that a bunch of them also fly American flags, and are more likely to stand for the National Anthem than most? Ask them if they support slavery. If they say no, either they’re lying or they do agree about the good and bad of American history. But in a more general sense, I just think you should look deeper. Your analysis on this subject seems completely surface-level.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Yes, I am taking them at their word.
                When they wave the Confederate flag, I believe they support the Confederacy.

                The fact that they call themselves patriots only means that they are saying that the Confederacy better represents their vision of America than the stars and stripes.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

                At how many call Lincoln a tyrant and think he was asking for it?Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Pinky says:

                Seconding Chip on this one. We have lot of Americans who celebrate the Slaver’s Rebellion or still hold to a rather romantic version of westward expansion that doesn’t necessarily confirm to the facts. Same with a lot of our interventions against Communists or perceived Communists during the Cold War.Report

              • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq says:

                Well, the good news is you’re completely misreading it.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

                Texas’s secession from Mexico was a slaveholder revolt. I bet Texas doesn’t teach that.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Public schools always teach what the politicians approve. I don’t see any sign that the anti-CRT people oppose the teaching of any particular fact, just an interpretation. I didn’t learn anything wrong in school (+/- the usual textbook errors) and got a good quality and quantity of history. In retrospect, I think they under-emphasized the dark side of Manifest Destiny, but taught us about slavery and Native American relations pretty fairly. So I don’t know what problem CRT is supposed to fix.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Pinky says:

            Mom and dad were both teachers. One thing that I heard them say over and over again was something to the effect of “it’s never the parents that you need to come to the Parent/Teacher conference that show up.”

            I think that part of the problem is that CRT has passed the tipping point of showing up in the households with parents that show up to Parent/Teacher conferences.

            And it’s one thing to fiddle with the kids of the parents who don’t make it…Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

            I don’t see any sign that the CRT people are teaching anything other than facts, just an interpretation which makes some people uncomfortable.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not saying that conventional history or the CRT version tell any lies. I’m saying that CRT at the highest academic levels is a Theory, and to the extent that that theory drives an agenda at the elementary and secondary levels it should be blocked.

              I think there are two debates taking place nationally, about whether traditional education was providing the students with correct and well-balanced facts, and whether CRT is providing students with an unnecessary or harmful framework. Maybe those aren’t so much debates as two groups talking past each other. Can we agree that CRT-inspired programs are teaching both facts and a framework, that CRT is a Theory which relies on a set of supporting data?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Is Critical Race Theory a theory?
                Experts say yes.

                What I’m witnessing at ground level is the Anti-CRT forces are suppressing curricula such as the book by Ruby Bridges about her experiences as the first black person to integrate a school.

                Anti-CRT really just appears to me to be a smokescreen to mandate an interpretation of history that makes certain white people feel comforted.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chris Rufo Theory?Report

      • Pinky in reply to Kazzy says:

        Chip addressed this further down. I don’t think of the regulation of curricula in public schools as censorship. Teachers are state agents. They’re naturally going to have some latitude in the classroom, but the body of material they’re expected to teach is set by administration, school boards, et cetera. State censorship would apply to private entities.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Pinky says:

          “Here is the curriculum” is different from “It’s illegal to discuss this.”

          I accept the former. I reject the latter.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Kazzy says:

            I don’t know that the latter should be called censorship in the case of government agents. But also, aren’t there lots of things a teacher can’t talk to students about? I bet you could name a dozen off the top of your head. Some factual, some opinion-based.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Pinky says:

              “Illegal” is the operative word.

              I’m not sure there is anything illegal I could say in the classroom outside of sexually propositioning a child, which is not unique to classrooms/teachers.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy says:

                What they are doing is exemplified by Josh Hawley’s new bill demanding a specific interpretation of history, outlawing any interpretation that racism was a part of America’s founding.

                Instead of a school curriculum being set by scholars in the field, the curriculum is set by government apparatchiks implementing approved party doctrine.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Politically correct history.Report

  7. Jaybird says:

    Part of the problem, I think, is Capitalism.

    Huh. That *WAS* fun to type!

    More seriously, I think that part of the problem is *CONSUMERISM*. By tying “identity” to “products purchased”, you can get a lot of mileage out of selling to markets that didn’t exist five minutes before the product was created.

    Are you a Coke Person or a Pepsi Person?
    Are you a Clearly Canadian Person or a Hi-C Ecto Cooler Person?
    Are you a Raiders Person or a Broncos Person?
    Are you a PS5 Person or an XBox Person? (Are you a “make a ‘PC Master Race’ joke here” Person?)

    And so now you have been given a choice between the Progressive Phone and the Freedom Phone.

    What kind of person are you?Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird says:

      Is there a progressive phone?Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

        Yes, but it the talk time/data plan is very limited, and overages increase by a small amount for every 5 mins/10 MB over you go.

        But all that extra is donated to progressive causes.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

        Consider the Pinephone. Linux OS (and nakedly so, not just under the hood like Android), open source user interfaces, the only closed source pieces are in separate hardware with a physical disconnect switch (also a physical disconnect switch for the microphone). Write your own apps if you like. Progressive?Report

        • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

          Well I can see the Freedom Phone, it’s the subject of this post, it’s being marketed in explicitly right wing media as the Freedom Phone. I’m inquiring if there’s a left wing equivalent. I dunno, a Woke Phone that bleeps out microagression words automatically and then identifies you on twitter as a bad-thoughter to be dragged or a Commie Phone that’s part of a non-profit coop that reroutes your paycheck to the DSA or something?Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

            We have three categories here. A Freedom Phone, about which several falsehoods are pushed. Your assertions, much more specific than any made about the Freedom Phone, but no Woke Phone that claims to satisfy them. And the Pinephone, with the true claim that all the tools are available to meet either the Freedom Phone claims or your Woke Phone claims, if only someone were to put in the time.Report

            • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

              Well heck, I don’t know a lot about computers but even I know that Linux is the superior operating system*. Is it progressive in the same way that the Freedom Phone is MAGA conservative? It doesn’t seem to me that it is. For one thing the PInephone, if you have the skills to use it, would likely be an excellent phone and would not rip you off and enrich right wing Trumpian grifters. The Freedom phone… not so much. I don’t know if there’s a Progressive Phone, I haven’t seen one, which is why I’m asking.

              *So long as you are intimately comfortable with computers and coding and Linux and have no problem going under the hood to make it do what you want.Report

        • Rob Clive in reply to Michael Cain says:

          From my understanding, Pinephone is still in the geek knowledge needed stage. I’m personally curious about https://calyxos.org/.

          Of course, that requires you to purchase a phone that works with the OS and then install the OS, so that may be too much geek knowledge needed as well.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North says:

        I have been chewing on this question for a couple of days now.

        There wasn’t. Not really. There isn’t… not really.

        But there are *FASHIONABLE* phones.

        One thing that the Freedom Phone will be, in addition to a virus magnet, is an anti-fashionable phone. Remember Brother Jason’s essay about Donald Trump’s hair?

        Only problem is, his signals aren’t aimed at you. They’re about you. But they’re directed elsewhere.

        So, too, with the phone.Report

  8. veronica d says:

    Which would be more cringe, if the phones sold well or if they sold poorly?Report