Please show me where in Christ's teachings in the four books of the Gospels any of that is so. Christ's discussions of marriage as a woman cleaving to man don't exclude other forms, when rendered in their full context, and Christ is surprisingly silent on sex.
And as a matter of secular law, gay marriage is quite practical, much less possible.
“I don’t expect many people to follow my lead and only vote down-ticket”. I am saying, in other words, that I didn’t vote for a presidential candidate but did vote for non-presidential candidates, but I don’t expect a lot of people to do the same.
Is not the same thing as
I don’t expect many people to do what I did and only vote down-ticket.
Some of the words are the same, and one can lead to the other, but they are not in fact the same statement.
Cause I'm the only person here who looks at a thing, and says 75% o fthe words are good enough to capture the flavor and if people are interested they can take in the other 25%? And because that's a bad thing?
Wow - I LOVE being held to a standard others aren't.
Kazzy, I have not seen the acknowledgment that there are issues with, say, the Dr. Seuss situation. It’s mostly seen as some variant of “There is nothing wrong with getting rid of a book that uses slurs.”
That's because there is nothing wrong with a publisher, who owns the rights, withdrawing a book voluntarily from circulation because it uses racial slurs and tropes. The book's contents are offensive to a great many people, its sales had tanked, and it stopped publishing it.
Why do you keep flogging the dead horse that the publisher should be required to keep publishing a book that is offensive?
I'm saying that extricating racism (skin tones based bigotry and discrimination) from culture is a convenient way to avoid dealing with the former. I also find it fascinating that you and Dark seem to believe that white nationalists in the US are ok with African immigrants because their culture is alleged to be different, but not ok with Black Americans for the same reason. Last I check overt racists and white nationalists make no such distinction.
My father is a historian who taught at university. The how of teaching history both fed me (literally) as a kid and was indeed dinner table conversation. I number among my mentors and role models dozens of women and men whose professional work spanned broad swaths of that profession, as well as archeology and anthropology. My mother was an public elementary 5th grade teacher. And again I number among my mentors and role models similar men and women, many of whom had to "teach history" as part of their classroom pedagogy. So when I refer to "teaching history" i am referring to the delivery of historical fact couched in some form of context in a formal educational setting.
You are also correct that I am primarily focused - in this thread - on American history, though my lens personally goes much further back then the formal founding of the nation by its revolution against the British.
Where you start veering off my path is the notion that I want or desire said teaching to create or elicit a certain emotional, political, or other response. I don't. I have a whole series of life experiences, however, that tell me that well formed historical instruction will elicit emotional responses, which may later translate into political actions. The fear of some politicians of this outcome not keeping them in power has driven them to subscribe to, and advance, legislation at the state level which seeks to alter the factual pedagogy in such a way as to prevent those natural human responses. I believe those laws are wrong, and not only will prevent the teaching of demonstrable facts, but will render yet another generation ill equipped emotionally to deal with the world it finds itself in. That is a huge educational disservice, especially if it is conducted by the use of local, state and federal tax dollars.
Which is why I endorse your last paragraph whole heartedly.
Venus, who declined to give her last name to CNN for fear of online hatred, pinpointed Newsom's order shutting down schools and businesses in March 2020 as the slap in the face she needed to pay attention to the local county board. Venus was angry about the impact on her job and then on her children. As California reopened, children returned to schools wearing masks and state workers were ordered to get vaccines. Venus said she believed the vaccines would give her children seizures, despite evidence that Covid vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective.
Venus, who counts Joe Rogan's podcast as a key source of her news
Notice she believes he's providing news - facts - upon which she bases decisions. And notice too that she believes that politicians - even local ones - aren't listening to her because they don't do what she wants. That's the complaint that drove so many to Trump in the first place - they are no longer listened to by politicians in their own party. And as the CNN story illustrates, they intend to take their country back no matter what.
Rogan fuels that. Rogan profits off that. Rogan refuses to help educate his audience that the genies they want back in the bottle can't be recaptured, much less bottled. That's the crux of the problem.
Publishers are bound to the same anti-discrimination laws that the cake baker is bound to. Deciding not to publish a book full of racial slurs, for any reason, isn't discrimination. No matter how much you and jaybird want it to be.
The researchers report that only 4% of those registered voters said they plan to vote a split ticket — a ballot cast for a mix of candidates from both parties — when they go to the polls ahead of the 2020 election. That’s about as many as had said the same thing in advance of the 2016 election.
Straight-ticket voting reached a record level of 67.49 percent of ballots cast for the U.S. Senate candidates during the November 2018 general election, a more than six percentage point (pp) increase compared to the 2014 election.
Well until Congress get's it sh!t together an ever stronger president will occur because someone has to do something, or all the previous statutes and Constitutional articles and amendments say. Shredding the Constitution to cram down presidential power under the current dynamic doesn't change Congresses approach - in fact it probably makes it worse.
One is stuff like “once a book is officially no longer published, it enters the public domain”.
After March 1, 1989, all works (published and unpublished) are protected for 70 years from the date the author dies. So, for example, the unpublished works of an author who died in 1943 are in the public domain as of January 1, 2014.
My issue is with the mindset that says “your reading material is under my jurisdiction and I will police it”.
And now, how many months in, do we finally get to the issue? This is precisely what I mean by saying you are never clear until, essentially, cornered.
What you object to is a copyright holder exercising those rights. You object to a podcast license holder exercising their rights. Which means you inherently object to private property rights and the protection of private property rights (which is funny from a libertarian).
You object to people using their free speech rights to hold other accountable for the impact of their words. And as Chip notes elsewhere, you object to society iterating and changing its mores as the driver for that.
Which - sure - be the guy standing athwart history and yelling STOP! Just understand that you will inevitably get run over.
1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Seems Merriam Webster disagrees with you about what Racism is and isn't.
I think the concern though is that the executive has, for a combination of reasons, become an unchecked and maybe uncheck-able policy making branch in ways that are both constitutionally murky and tough to check.
Hardly. Take immigration - Presidents form Bush the Elder to Trump have said they want immigration reform. The Senate ahs steadfastly refused to take up the cause. The House has introduced and passed immigration reform in nearly every Congress during that period. But because it always dies in the Senate, the President has to make policy because he has been told to do by the Constitution. He has no option to NOT act. You can't change that situation by watering down the President's authorities because as soon as you do, he will be back in the political hotseat for failing to act.
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
Its alright - my answer won't satisfy him anyway because it contains informed nuance.
"
Please show me where in Christ's teachings in the four books of the Gospels any of that is so. Christ's discussions of marriage as a woman cleaving to man don't exclude other forms, when rendered in their full context, and Christ is surprisingly silent on sex.
And as a matter of secular law, gay marriage is quite practical, much less possible.
On “Suspicious Persons, Fed Ex drivers and White Entitlement”
Is not the same thing as
Some of the words are the same, and one can lead to the other, but they are not in fact the same statement.
"
That's because what you wrote and what you intended were not the same until the very end. I was refuting what you wrote.
"
Cause I'm the only person here who looks at a thing, and says 75% o fthe words are good enough to capture the flavor and if people are interested they can take in the other 25%? And because that's a bad thing?
Wow - I LOVE being held to a standard others aren't.
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
Gay marriage is not sin. Being gay is not sin.
"
That's because there is nothing wrong with a publisher, who owns the rights, withdrawing a book voluntarily from circulation because it uses racial slurs and tropes. The book's contents are offensive to a great many people, its sales had tanked, and it stopped publishing it.
Why do you keep flogging the dead horse that the publisher should be required to keep publishing a book that is offensive?
On “Suspicious Persons, Fed Ex drivers and White Entitlement”
not really, since beliefs that underpin a thing and that thing are not normally severable.
"
I'm saying that extricating racism (skin tones based bigotry and discrimination) from culture is a convenient way to avoid dealing with the former. I also find it fascinating that you and Dark seem to believe that white nationalists in the US are ok with African immigrants because their culture is alleged to be different, but not ok with Black Americans for the same reason. Last I check overt racists and white nationalists make no such distinction.
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
Several clarifying points -
My father is a historian who taught at university. The how of teaching history both fed me (literally) as a kid and was indeed dinner table conversation. I number among my mentors and role models dozens of women and men whose professional work spanned broad swaths of that profession, as well as archeology and anthropology. My mother was an public elementary 5th grade teacher. And again I number among my mentors and role models similar men and women, many of whom had to "teach history" as part of their classroom pedagogy. So when I refer to "teaching history" i am referring to the delivery of historical fact couched in some form of context in a formal educational setting.
You are also correct that I am primarily focused - in this thread - on American history, though my lens personally goes much further back then the formal founding of the nation by its revolution against the British.
Where you start veering off my path is the notion that I want or desire said teaching to create or elicit a certain emotional, political, or other response. I don't. I have a whole series of life experiences, however, that tell me that well formed historical instruction will elicit emotional responses, which may later translate into political actions. The fear of some politicians of this outcome not keeping them in power has driven them to subscribe to, and advance, legislation at the state level which seeks to alter the factual pedagogy in such a way as to prevent those natural human responses. I believe those laws are wrong, and not only will prevent the teaching of demonstrable facts, but will render yet another generation ill equipped emotionally to deal with the world it finds itself in. That is a huge educational disservice, especially if it is conducted by the use of local, state and federal tax dollars.
Which is why I endorse your last paragraph whole heartedly.
On “Suspicious Persons, Fed Ex drivers and White Entitlement”
why do you separate skin color and culture?
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
This is what Joe Rogan's listeners believe:
Notice she believes he's providing news - facts - upon which she bases decisions. And notice too that she believes that politicians - even local ones - aren't listening to her because they don't do what she wants. That's the complaint that drove so many to Trump in the first place - they are no longer listened to by politicians in their own party. And as the CNN story illustrates, they intend to take their country back no matter what.
Rogan fuels that. Rogan profits off that. Rogan refuses to help educate his audience that the genies they want back in the bottle can't be recaptured, much less bottled. That's the crux of the problem.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics/california-shasta-county-recall/index.html
On “Accounting Firm Mazars Cuts Ties With Trump Organization: Read It For Yourself”
True.
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
Of course it is because Jaybird is impacted personally. Or believes he is. Or thinks he should be.
"
Publishers are bound to the same anti-discrimination laws that the cake baker is bound to. Deciding not to publish a book full of racial slurs, for any reason, isn't discrimination. No matter how much you and jaybird want it to be.
On “Suspicious Persons, Fed Ex drivers and White Entitlement”
It would seem statistically you are wrong in that expectation. Care to explain why you continue to hold it?
"
Its not the only one:
https://www.courthousenews.com/most-registered-voters-to-vote-straight-ticket-poll-shows/
https://www.austincc.edu/news/2019/02/acc-study-reveals-record-levels-straight-ticket-voting
On “A Proposal for the 28th Amendment”
Well until Congress get's it sh!t together an ever stronger president will occur because someone has to do something, or all the previous statutes and Constitutional articles and amendments say. Shredding the Constitution to cram down presidential power under the current dynamic doesn't change Congresses approach - in fact it probably makes it worse.
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
https://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/use/public-domain.html
So the Suess book becomes public domain on September 24, 2061.
"
And now, how many months in, do we finally get to the issue? This is precisely what I mean by saying you are never clear until, essentially, cornered.
What you object to is a copyright holder exercising those rights. You object to a podcast license holder exercising their rights. Which means you inherently object to private property rights and the protection of private property rights (which is funny from a libertarian).
You object to people using their free speech rights to hold other accountable for the impact of their words. And as Chip notes elsewhere, you object to society iterating and changing its mores as the driver for that.
Which - sure - be the guy standing athwart history and yelling STOP! Just understand that you will inevitably get run over.
On “Suspicious Persons, Fed Ex drivers and White Entitlement”
Seems Merriam Webster disagrees with you about what Racism is and isn't.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
"
You'd be wrong about that:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-wasnt-that-much-split-ticket-voting-in-2020/
On “A Proposal for the 28th Amendment”
Hardly. Take immigration - Presidents form Bush the Elder to Trump have said they want immigration reform. The Senate ahs steadfastly refused to take up the cause. The House has introduced and passed immigration reform in nearly every Congress during that period. But because it always dies in the Senate, the President has to make policy because he has been told to do by the Constitution. He has no option to NOT act. You can't change that situation by watering down the President's authorities because as soon as you do, he will be back in the political hotseat for failing to act.
On “Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On”
We may never know.
On “A Proposal for the 28th Amendment”
I could get on board with this.