Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Prodromos]

You can't post nudity, gore or foul language on TWC either. Are the admins conspiring to keep us from learning about the Holocaust?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Surely it’s possible to learn about the Holocaust without exposing children to profane language and images?

That seems to work quite successfull in the US, if i think of adults naming the political opponent "libtard" or "cockservative"...

[Coughdrop addict]

Ah, he is mad at tyrant and enemy Trump before he was arrested and charged because he did not get a pardon for something that had not happened yet...

Or, it shows what I stated (anti-Trump, ACAB, anarchist) to be accurate, and your attempt at refutation ("Trump supporters") to be based on ignorance, particularly since the information was provided here in the general thread (by Podromos initially, a year and ca. 5 months ago) and elsewhere (IIRC).

And yes, you said "an informant" (i.e. 1, singular), though I had already stated "undercover FBI agents and informants" (i.e. multiple).

This is just cope to cover for your ignorance...

Ah, so one of them being just regular old violent and crazy somehow absolves the Trump supporters who were violent and crazy.

Please, you act like no one remembers Trump and his little fan club screaming about tyranny and oppression because wearing a mask or putting a little distance between people was the most difficult thing they had ever dealt with. Only one side of the aisle was doing this, with the direct blessing of their leader, and it wasn't the patriotic left.

And what is the point with the exact number of informants? It could have been one or two or one-hundred. It doesn't make these terrorists any less guilty. At any moment they could have decided "Wait a minute, this is wrong." They could have walked away. If they feared that their lives would be in danger from their fellow terrorists (a not unreasonable fear) they could have contacted the FBI.

As long as you had a clear way out, it's not entrapment.

You can't post nudity, gore or foul language on TWC either. Are the admins conspiring to keep us from learning about the Holocaust?

No, but if these same admins then demanded no one talk about The Diary of Anne Frank or The Handmaid's Tale or any "abolitionist works" I'd start to suspect they had an ulterior motive to prevent us from discussing ideas that went against an ultraconservative and alt-right viewpoint.

And yes, these are all things the right has demanded be removed from school libraries recently.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

No, but if these same admins then demanded no one talk about The Diary of Anne Frank or The Handmaid's Tale or any "abolitionist works" I'd start to suspect they had an ulterior motive to prevent us from discussing ideas that went against an ultraconservative and alt-right viewpoint.

And yes, these are all things the right has demanded be removed from school libraries recently.

Anne Frank too? Hypocritical facistic Alt Rights.

[Coughdrop addict]

In that case the excuse was because she mentions her period and they were all like "Ew icky girl stuff!"

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I see the US Alt Right is very creative to censure "foul" books aka such books, which are not fitting in their ideology.

[Infidel144]

Ah, so one of them being just regular old violent and crazy somehow absolves the Trump supporters who were violent and crazy.

Please, you act like no one remembers Trump and his little fan club screaming about tyranny and oppression because wearing a mask or putting a little distance between people was the most difficult thing they had ever dealt with. Only one side of the aisle was doing this, with the direct blessing of their leader, and it wasn't the patriotic left.

And what is the point with the exact number of informants? It could have been one or two or one-hundred. It doesn't make these terrorists any less guilty. At any moment they could have decided "Wait a minute, this is wrong." They could have walked away. If they feared that their lives would be in danger from their fellow terrorists (a not unreasonable fear) they could have contacted the FBI.

Me: Provides actual evidence.
You: Just make assertions.
Evidence > assertions.

And the point of the "exact number" was to continue to show your ignorance of the matter. Note, you are the one who introduced the "exact number" when you said "an informant", though I had already stated, correctly, "agents" and "informants" (without giving an "exact number").

So more salty cope...

As long as you had a clear way out, it's not entrapment.

Hmmm...Lets see:

Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.


Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").


Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...pment-elements

I am having some difficulty finding anything about a "clear way out" invalidating an entrapment defense there or in the following sections (I may have missed it). Having a "predisposition" would invalidate an entrapment claim.

As your mere assertions have been shown to be untrustworthy (whether unintentionally through ignorance or intentionally through deceit), perhaps you can provide some relevant statute that says "a clear way out" invalidates an entrapment claim.

[Coughdrop addict]

I see the US Alt Right is very creative to censure "foul" books aka such books, which are not fitting in their ideology.

I once heard someone say that the US right has no real agenda beyond the culture war. It's the only thing their voters care about. They could have total political control of the nation, but as long as there’s gays marrying or Blacks voting or mixed race families in movies or games with female protagonists, they won’t be happy.

Me: Provides actual evidence.
You: Just make assertions.
Evidence > assertions.

And the point of the "exact number" was to continue to show your ignorance of the matter. Note, you are the one who introduced the "exact number" when you said "an informant", though I had already stated, correctly, "agents" and "informants" (without giving an "exact number").

So more salty cope...


Hmmm...Lets see:


https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...pment-elements

I am having some difficulty finding anything about a "clear way out" invalidating an entrapment defense there or in the following sections (I may have missed it). Having a "predisposition" would invalidate an entrapment claim.

As your mere assertions have been shown to be untrustworthy (whether unintentionally through ignorance or intentionally through deceit), perhaps you can provide some relevant statute that says "a clear way out" invalidates an entrapment claim.

That these men are being punished for their actions sure has you seething huh? I mean, they just wanted to kidnap and murder someone who told them things they didn't want to hear. But the bad ol' FBI won't let them! So unfair!

[Infidel144]

That these men are being punished for their actions sure has you seething huh? I mean, they just wanted to kidnap and murder someone who told them things they didn't want to hear. But the bad ol' FBI won't let them! So unfair!

Uh... I've said something about, were it up to me, public hangings (upon being found guilty, of course).

So, even more salty cope.
But, if you want to continue with the projection, I have no doubt that were it some antifa group, you would be screaming entrapment, set-up, and it was justifiable...

I take it that you don't have a relevant statute to support your (at this point ignorant) assertion about "a clear way out".

[alhoon]

McMinn County School Board bans Pulitzer Price winning graphic novel "Maus", which is depicting the Holocaust in a more child appropiate way (Mice are representing the Jews, Cats the Grermans) from an eighth grade language arts curriculum , because 8 words like "b....", "goddammit" and the drawing of a naked womenn are used.
Stopping fool language and nudity is naturally more important than learning something about the worst part of the 20. century.

I can never understand the abhorrence towards nudity the USA populace shows while embracing egregious violence.
Sure, let's have a game for 9-years olds where you decapitate your enemies in a fountain of blood, but God forbid they see a nipple! That would traumatize them for eternity.

Not to mention: goddammit counts as a bad word? Couldn't they just censor the bad words like they do in Mickey Maus comics with $%@#$! instead?

You can't post nudity, gore or foul language on TWC either. Are the admins conspiring to keep us from learning about the Holocaust?

From the ToS:
"Nudity may be permitted for serious and non-titillating purposes, such as the exhibition of recognized art or historical models in modifications, at the discretion of the moderators."

No, but if these same admins then demanded no one talk about The Diary of Anne Frank or The Handmaid's Tale or any "abolitionist works" I'd start to suspect they had an ulterior motive to prevent us from discussing ideas that went against an ultraconservative and alt-right viewpoint.

And yes, these are all things the right has demanded be removed from school libraries recently.

You can't be serious... Source?
I do believe there are some people that would try that, but I will be disappointed to know that there were enough such people to actually pull this off.

In that case the excuse was because she mentions her period and they were all like "Ew icky girl stuff!"

Again, that's too far fetched to believe. Blocking that book because it mentions an important moment in the coming of age of a child is beyond ridiculous.
If you are right and this happened using the excuse you mentioned I will be surprised and disappointed. There can't be enough foolish people to let this stand.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Couldn't they just censor the bad words like they do in Mickey Maus comics with $%@#$! instead?

That was basically, what the school bureaucrat Mr. Parkison suggested:

“Considering copyright, we decided to redact it to get rid of the eight curse words and the picture of the
woman that was objected to,” Parkison said.

But the school board members went to the radical solution of complete prohibition, although a former history teacher said:

Julie Goodin- I can talk of the history, I was a history teacher and there is nothing pretty about the Holocaust and for me this was a great way to depict a horrific time in history. Mr. Spiegelman did his very best to depict his mother passing away and we are almost 80 years away. It’s hard for this generation, these kids don’t even know 9/11, they were not even born. For me this was his way to convey the message. Are the words objectionable? Yes, there is no one that thinks they aren’t but by taking away the first part, it’s not changing the meaning of what he is trying to portray and copyright.


If you want to read the whole board meeting:

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/d...es_1-10-22.pdf

[ggggtotalwarrior]

Using extremely fringe nutcase examples to prove a point about your political opposition is a poor way of making a point and can just as easily be used against you in the opposite manner. Using these very rare cases to paint the entirety of US conservatives rather than the bat crazy stuff a majority of them have embraced just dilutes your points and opens your entire political ideology up to the same scrutiny.

[EmperorBatman999]

McMinn County School Board bans Pulitzer Price winning graphic novel "Maus", which is depicting the Holocaust in a more child appropiate way (Mice are representing the Jews, Cats the Grermans) from an eighth grade language arts curriculum , because 8 words like "b....", "goddammit" and the drawing of a naked womenn are used.

Minutes from the Jan. 10 meeting of the McMinn School Board show that Director of School Lee Parkison opened the session by saying: “The values of the county are understood. There is some rough, objectionable language in this book and knowing that and hearing from many of you and discussing it, two or three of you came by my office to discuss that.”

Parkison said he had “consulted with our attorney” and as a result “we decided the best way to fix or handle the language in this book was to redact it.”
“Considering copyright, we decided to redact it to get rid of the eight curse words and the picture of the
woman that was objected to,” Parkison said.
But board members worried that might violate the book’s copyright, the minutes show.
One member, Tony Allman, was quoted in the minutes as saying, “Being in the schools, educators and stuff we don’t need to enable or somewhat promote this stuff.”
“It shows people hanging, it shows them killing kids, why does the educational system promote this kind of stuff, it is not wise or healthy,” Allman said, according to the minutes.
Julie Goodin, an assistant principal, replied to Allman, saying, “I can talk of the history, I was a history teacher and there is nothing pretty about the Holocaust and for me this was a great way to depict a horrific time in history.”
“Mr. Spiegelman did his very best to depict his mother passing away and we are almost 80 years away. It’s hard for this generation, these kids don’t even know 9/11, they were not even born,” Goodin said, according to the minutes. “For me this was his way to convey the message. Are the words objectionable? Yes, there is no one that thinks they aren’t, but by taking away the first part, it’s not changing the meaning of what he is trying to portray and copyright.


Allman then replied to Goodin, saying: “I understand that on TV and maybe at home these kids hear worse, but we are talking about things that if a student went down the hallway and said this, our disciplinary policy says they can be disciplined, and rightfully so. And we are teaching this and going against policy?”

The meeting ended with all 10 members of the board voting to remove “Maus” from the eighth grade curriculum.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/26/tenn...piegelman.html

Stopping fool language and nudity is naturally more important than learning something about the worst part of the 20. century.

This rings strongly with me as I prepare a proposal (in this very same state) for a course on the Holocaust, albeit at a private school.

To me, teaching the Holocaust must be unflinching, particularly when children are teenagers and nearing adulthood. They need to know the reality that this happened. It is the only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

[Basilius]

There's a pretty big difference between conservatives and ring-wing authoritarians, often conflated by left wing people, made worse by Monty Pythonesque distinctions between "right-wing" and "alt-right." As I am a liberal I may be considered biased in my characterization of either, but here are weaknesses of both groups:

Conservative

• Status Quo Bias: The virtues of incrementalism and preservation quickly give way to complacency and even stasis. Conservatives prefer the devil we know versus the devil we don't, and it comes at a great cost: the virtues of dynamism and creative-destruction. Not to mention being eternally one-step behind social progress.
• Philosophy of Fear and Limitation: The attitude conservatism instills is one of being constantly under-siege. They have trained their minds, not to see possibilities of improvement, but instead to guard off against potential backsliding. There is fortitude here, but not aspiration.
• "Letter" vs "Spirit" of the Law: Again, they take an admirable trait--faith in institutions--but end up prioritizing the structures themselves over the ways in which they benefit people. "All men are created equal", sorry says 'men', need a constitutional amendment to change that wording. Ignores how 'men' can be reinterpreted as 'mankind.'

Right-Wing Authoritarians

• Reactionary: RWA envision an idealized past which everything modern and new is tearing away at. They desire nothing more than to turn back the clock to this fictional world. (Utopic, but in the opposite sense of leftists, who see utopia in the future.)
• Susceptible to Brain-Washing: RWA place their trust in an authority figure and in-group culture over evidence and logic. This unifies them, but also leads to devastating folly.
• Homogeneous: Tribalistic to the max. One culture, one race, one gender, one mind.

That said, the left and right wing share many similar attributes, such as opposing the institutions of "truth" in modern liberal societies: mainstream newspapers, think tanks, and academics.

[Coughdrop addict]

Uh... I've said something about, were it up to me, public hangings (upon being found guilty, of course).

So, even more salty cope.
But, if you want to continue with the projection, I have no doubt that were it some antifa group, you would be screaming entrapment, set-up, and it was justifiable...

I take it that you don't have a relevant statute to support your (at this point ignorant) assertion about "a clear way out".

And yet it's only you who takes offense that they were caught because of informants. And it's only the right that has been caught planning political kidnappings and murders. You can "buhbuhbuh muh antifa!" all you like, it won't change the fact that your side is the only group doing this.

You can't be serious... Source?
I do believe there are some people that would try that, but I will be disappointed to know that there were enough such people to actually pull this off.

Believe it.

Anne Frank's changing body is too far for Republicans to handle. I think they worry it humanizes girls too much in addition to making the Nazi's seem like bad guys. So they try to ban her diary whenever they get the chance.

https://library.bentleyschool.net/c....6286&p=6989422

History of being banned or challenged

1982 - Virginia - Challenged in Wise County after several parents complained the book contains sexually offensive passages and undermined adult authority when Anne criticizes her mother.
1983 - Alabama - Four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee called for the book's rejection because it is "a real downer."
1998 - Texas - Removed for two months from Baker Middle School in Corpus Christi after two books called the book pornographic. Students waged a letter writing campaign and a review committee recommended the book returned.
2010 - Virginia - Challenged at the Culpeper County public schools after a parent asked her child not be required to read the book aloud. Initial reports stated a version of the book was stopped being assigned for sexual material and homosexual themes. The version, the 50th anniversary edition, would not be taught despite the school not following its own complaint policy. The Internet caught the story and it drew international attention. The book remained part of the curriculum, possibly at another grade level.
2013 - Michigan - Challenged but retained in the Northville middle schools despite anatomical descriptions in the book. Opponents to the challenge wrote that the book shown a positive light on the changing female body as Frank was hiding from Nazis.

The Handmaid's Tale is one of the most banned or challenged books in the US as the right really, really doesn't like the way it treats enslaving women and treating them as nothing more than baby-factories as a BAD thing. Of course they claim it's "pornographic".

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/...and-me/620938/

https://god.dailydot.com/kansas-bans-handmaids-tale/

And as for the banning of abolitionist work, yes that's unfortunately true:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ing-words-from

Wichgers, who represents Muskego in the legislature, attached an addendum to his legislation that included a list of “terms and concepts” that would violate the bill if it became law.

Among those words: “Woke,” “whiteness,” “White supremacy,” “structural bias,” “structural racism,” “systemic bias” and “systemic racism.” The bill would also bar “abolitionist teaching,” in a state that sent more than 91,000 soldiers to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War.

The list of barred words or concepts includes “equity,” “inclusivity education,” “multiculturalism” and “patriarchy,” as well as “social justice” and “cultural awareness.”

[Infidel144]

And yet it's only you who takes offense that they were caught because of informants.

Where did I take offence about them being caught by informants?
I know it is difficult to comprehend, but I passed no judgement on how they were caught. I informed Alhoon of facts, when he asked about Frau Gretchen in response to your post.
You then proceeded to demonstrate your ignorance of the matter. Which I corrected. And then you doubled down on it...
This claim of "offence" is yet more projection. Along with all the salty cope...

[EmperorBatman999]

The interesting thing about the American Right is that they fixate on the "evils" of government interference in the schools, championing things like school choice and trying to handicap the public education by introducing charter schools. Many pundits go on and on constantly that state mandates have been ruining the quality of American education. But, at the same time, conservative legislators want to tighten the collar on public school teachers by imposing ever stricter curricular directives which rob them of their creativity and insult their intelligence.

What we find is that all this makes the work of teachers ever more difficult, where they have to watch their teaching freedoms taken away day by day while also seeing the money drained from school budgets for the sake of independent or charter schools.

The state legislators have no idea what they're doing, or they might be Janus-Faced, only railing against state control of education when the other side is placing the demands. I'm not a fan of CRT and I think it is misguided and potentially damaging by justifying racial factionalism. There are ways to discuss racial injustice without getting into CRT: it has been in our curriculum now for at least a generation, particularly upper-level courses like Advanced Placement US History.

[alhoon]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ing-words-from

Banning words from schools? What on earth these people think "freedom of speech" amounts to?

However, I can't find it in anything other than left-wing sources.


Regardless, what I see here is concerning:
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/...books/classics
Both sides engage in Nazi book-burning. Progressives have tried ban Gone with the Wind or to Kill a Mocking bird.

[Cope]

Banning words from schools? What on earth these people think "freedom of speech" amounts to?

However, I can't find it in anything other than left-wing sources.

The 1A does not fully protect speech in public schools which attempts to interfere with the curriculum (determined at a local level). For instance, a teacher may lawfully espouse 9/11 conspiracies outside of school, but be prohibited from doing so in the classroom. Example from the Ali v. Woodbridge case:

Matters of public concern arise from speech that relates to “political, social, or other concerns to the community.” Id.(quoting Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188, 195 (3d Cir. 2001)). The Third Circuit has consistently held that there are “recognized limitations upon free speech” in the educational setting. Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 74 (3d Cir. 2001); see Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Penn., 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A] public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to decide what will be taught in the classroom.”). A teacher’s in-class conduct is not protected speech. Id.(delineating “in the classroom” conduct as that which falls into the category of “[t]he four essential freedoms that constitute academic freedom[, which] have been described as a university’s freedom to choose who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study”);Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172, 1176 (3d Cir. 1990)(citing Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972), in which the Seventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion upholding a school district’s decision to terminate a teacher whose biology classes contained too much discussion of sex).

In Plaintiff’s free speech claim, he alleges that he “engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment when he posted, on the school’s public portal, alternative views on the cause of the September 11, 2001 attacks.” Compl. ¶ 135. Plaintiff asserts identical allegations in support of his academic freedom claim. However, the District, not Plaintiff, has the ultimate right to decide what will be taught in the classroom. See Brown, 247 F.3d at 74; Edwards, 156 F.3d at 491 (finding no right to use certain educational materials in the classroom). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that posting the MEMRI links on the school-sponsored website constitutes protected speech.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...210/346734/32/

[alhoon]

The 1A does not fully protect speech in public schools which attempts to interfere with the curriculum (determined at a local level). For instance, a teacher may lawfully espouse 9/11 conspiracies outside of school, but be prohibited from doing so in the classroom. Example from the Ali v. Woodbridge case:

And how about a teacher espousing that racism exists? Or talking about slavery? Why is that prohibited in schools, that are supposed to teach history? What exactly are they going to tell the kids happened in the aftermath of the American Civil War? "And after the ACW ended, the black people were liberated from that condition we cannot mention."