The use of such rhetoric, opponents of the new laws argue, underscores a nationwide push by conservatives to make education a political wedge issue by equating certain teaching materials and educators with Mediaography and even pedophilia. This latest trend is another volley in the country’s ongoing culture wars, during which conservative lawmakers also have opposed the teaching of “critical race theory” and proposed bills requiring schools to post all course materials online so parents can review them.
I think this is just another example of conservative Americans getting agitated by right wing rhetoric and propaganda.
Here's a video compilation and represention of how emotional and aggressive these agitated people are.
Here is a list of books under fire from conservatives. Does anyone know of any other compilation of those titles?
I didn't say anything about any of his facts. I was referring to his blatant bias and tendency to only see things in one way. The proof of that is his own words all over this site.
However I'm not comfortable talking about him without him being aware.
I think I will agree with you on this point. For the topic of banning books in school it does seem to be driven by conservative concerns. It's not a "both sides" phenomenon although both sides are showing up at meetings, and perhaps both sides are behaving badly there.
I completely agree. In this subject yes, it's the conservatives behaving worse. G, I got called immature. (Not by you).
I can say it. These parents are acting irrationally. This is why everyone sits and talks about it. Not call eachother names like homophobes and terrorists. We learned this in elementary school. Maybe that book was banned?
It doesn't make any difference what web site it's on. .
I agree, and I think the sources I've used in various post demonstrates that I visit a variety of sites, on all sides of the political aisle. However, my comment, which would be equally applicable if directed toward a right biased site, was that a heavily edited video to "prove" your point is useless.
I didn't say anything about any of his facts. I was referring to his blatant bias and tendency to only see things in one way. The proof of that is his own words all over this site.
However I'm not comfortable talking about him without him being aware.
What you are celling bias , I am calling factual citations. I'm asking you, not him. A fact is a fact so he has nothing really to do with this debate.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
34 minutes ago, chare said:
This was my original post:
Which brought this from you, with my responses:
And then this:
You don't have to make claims about bias, it's clearly obvious from your posts. Nor did I claim that the information in your posted video was false; I claimed that it was heavily edited to demonstrate the points that The Young Turks wanted.
I don't believe I suggested anything regarding the behavior of either side, nor that there was any equity in anyone's behavior. As I didn't "celebrate" the notion that "liberals somewhere were also engaging in agitated presentations to school boards requesting that books be restricted" I don't feel obligated to provide any evidence.
And, as far as evidence goes, I believe if I've made a claim, I've provided a source. I will apologize for this statement if you can show me where I have failed to do this.
Again, as I've not made any claims, I'm not obligated to provide anything "that gives credence to [my] beliefs about liberals disrupting school board meetings."
Once again I ask, rather than questioning a simple post and demanding I support and source anything you seem to think I've said, please explain how you came to any of these conclusion.
Perhaps you should heed the advice you gave another member here.
You get to interpret our interactions here as you prefer.
I come to conclusions the same way other thinkers come to conclusions.
No, you aren't obligated to answer questions or back up claims... you do you... I'm accustomed to conservative members here asking more questions than they are willing to answer with any specificity.
31 minutes ago, Weetywill said:
This isn't about Trump. There's an entire thread for that. Nobody referenced him at all and he has nothing to do with this........
You asked me to clarify with examples of you ignoring things. I said look up your own posts. There's the examples.
Where are the examples I asked about being a victim? I'm not a victim, I don't feel like one period. It's really strange you keep saying that.
The proof of your bias is above with this sentence,
"The video pretty clearly showed that not all of the participants were conservative so I'm not certain what you claim that I cherry picked....".
Yet all you have spoken about is conservatives behavior where you just acknowledged not all are and it's obvious. So there's your citation on your own words.
Yada yada... you have no examples just opinions...
You are awfully triggered by passing mention of Trump's lies and how they inspire (conservative) people to do ugly things. Unfortunately for you, Trump is a portion of American culture and conservative politics just now... his brand of dishonesty and corruption will continue to be mentioned in light of conservative public behavior and unfounded beliefs.
You seem troubled that I'm pointing out that it's conservatives who are angry and agitated in public meetings about books in schools. If you'd like to talk about innapropriate and angry public from liberals you will need to provide a reference... something beyond your feelings that there must be some kind of balance in that level of grievance.
Maybe you aren't aware that a citation is basically a quotation.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
40 minutes ago, Weetywill said:
I didn't make claims of liberals disrupting school board meeting either. Seems to be stuck on it.
Evidence of his bias is within his own words and post style. Why do we have to prove it? It's already there. I'm sure some will valiantly disagree but being new here, the blatant bias is obvious to me. And bias beyond what everyone naturally has.
You aren't obligated to prove anything and you can believe whatever you prefer. However, you've made claims and statements of belief that you cannot support with facts, evidence or quotations from me. That reflects badly on you, not me and not others... just you and your opinions.
Are you embarrassed to share your sources?
By the way @chare your link led me to a statement... not advice.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
33 minutes ago, Weetywill said:
I didn't say anything about any of his facts. I was referring to his blatant bias and tendency to only see things in one way. The proof of that is his own words all over this site.
However I'm not comfortable talking about him without him being aware.
The bias of various members isn't the topic... your bias, for instance, is not the subject here. Maybe you could offer some other articles or videos for discussion rather than just complaining about the comments and opinions of other members.
I'm almost afraid to ask why you believe that I wouldn't be aware that you are talking about your opinion of my posts in these threads. You can talk about me in private message if you don't want me to see, otherwise it's all publicly visible to members.
I agree, and I think the sources I've used in various post demonstrates that I visit a variety of sites, on all sides of the political aisle. However, my comment, which would be equally applicable if directed toward a right biased site, was that a heavily edited video to "prove" your point is useless.
As you wrote, res ipsa loquitor.
I'm not sure the video was "heavily edited". It focused on mostly two speakers and didn't seem to have a lot of editing while the two of them spoke. Obviously it was designed to show just one view and only included a few snippets of a couple of people that said they were not anti-LBGT.
I do think the video title "Book banning parents lose it after being exposed" is a bit dramatic and not true. I think the main speaker they focused on for most of the video starting with "let's face it, you hate gay people" is a bit too combative.
Weetywill
147 Posts
Would it matter it was on Fox website? Or on Tucker Carlson's show? I think you would say yes!