2022 Fundraising Started - $2265 / $2200 CDN for the year, June/July Renewal. Paypal Donation Link US dollars

Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 18949
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Octavious »

I love this belief that the tiny amounts of money people were given apparently have kept them afloat for years now. I got the max from almost every handout and if I wasn't working it would have last a couple of months...
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 17324
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

So the political mastermind's plan is to HOPE that people currently flush with money (from where?), run out soon? I have to say, as a plan, that sucks.

I'm no labor economist, but I'm not sure what can be done, politically, under our current system, to alleviate a labor shortage given the multiple and varied causes.

Or is that the twitterer putting words into poor Mitch's mealy mouth? (not the quote, the idea that this is some kind of plan, vs just a quote).
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 50077
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:32 pm Or is that the twitterer putting words into poor Mitch's mealy mouth? (not the quote, the idea that this is some kind of plan, vs just a quote).
Read an article (with same quote) here:
McConnell opposed President Joe Biden's stimulus law, which passed with only Democratic votes in March 2021 after two previous rescue packages approved by the Trump administration. Republicans have long blamed that $1,400 direct payment to Americans for worsening inflation and helping keep people out of the workforce.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 18949
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Octavious »

I want to hire the person that can live years on 1400 to do my budget.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 36704
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Blackhawk »

He is probably referring to the stimulus as another minor rallying cry, but as someone on disability (and with an adult child on disability), I'm reminded that one of the right's darlings is cutting off a significant portion of disabled people (they like to use the term 'able bodied', by which they mean 'mental disability') to force them back to work to pay, rather than consume, taxes.

I can't help but feel like his comment is also a subtle warning of future plans.
________________________________________
Nothin'. I got nothin'.

Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zarathud »

Mitch wants to blame poor people and Biden for the economy. If he can make suffering poor people turn on Biden, that’s just win-win.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53531
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 75532
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

Image
Women's rights are human rights.

Omnia facilia sunt si male facere velis
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 17324
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:48 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:32 pm Or is that the twitterer putting words into poor Mitch's mealy mouth? (not the quote, the idea that this is some kind of plan, vs just a quote).
Read an article (with same quote) here:
McConnell opposed President Joe Biden's stimulus law, which passed with only Democratic votes in March 2021 after two previous rescue packages approved by the Trump administration. Republicans have long blamed that $1,400 direct payment to Americans for worsening inflation and helping keep people out of the workforce.
Sorry, I worded that poorly. I meant is the author of the original thing you posted merely suggesting that this is Mitch's plan, or did Mitch say anthing close to "here's what we're going to do..."?

I'm not doubting that the quote from garbage Mitch is accurate.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 40493
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken »

The Atlantic ran a book excerpt on the most pathetic men in America: trump sycophants.
Trump said and did obviously awful and dangerous things—racist and cruel and achingly dumb and downright evil things. But on top of that, he is a uniquely tiresome individual, easily the sorest loser, the most prodigious liar, and the most interminable victim ever to occupy the White House. He is, quite possibly, the biggest crybaby ever to toddle across history’s stage, from his inaugural-crowd hemorrhage on day one right down to his bitter, ketchup-flinging end. Seriously, what public figure in the history of the world comes close? I’m genuinely asking.

Bottom line, Trump is an extremely tedious dude to have had in our face for seven years and running. My former New York Times colleague David Brooks wrote it best: “We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar.”

Better objects of our scrutiny—and far more compelling to me—are the slavishly devoted Republicans whom Trump drew to his side. It’s been said before, but can never be emphasized enough: Without the complicity of the Republican Party, Donald Trump would be just a glorified geriatric Fox-watching golfer.
Specifically,
the doormat duo—McCarthy and Graham. I’ve known both men for years, at least in the weird sense that political reporters and pols “know” each other. They are a classically Washington type: fun to be around, starstruck, and desperate to keep their jobs or get better ones—to maximize their place in the all-important mix. On various occasions I have asked them, in so many words, how they could sidle up to Trump like they have. The answer, basically, is that they did it because it was the savviest course; because it was best for them. If Trump had one well-developed intuition, it was his ability to sniff out weakness in people—and, I suppose, in major political parties. Nearly all elected Republicans in Washington needed Trump’s blessing, and voters, to remain there. People like McCarthy and Graham benefited a great deal from making it work with Trump, or “managing the relationship,” as they say.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 20089
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Republicans - “It was a legitimate protest”:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 50077
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »


This is a friendly reminder that Ohio House Republicans are advancing a bill to teach BOTH SIDES OF THE HOLOCAUST.
News article:
"There's no baseline of even education there that six million Jews were systematically murdered and millions of others," Pasch said. "I can't think of a more important need or call out for the need of increased education about what happened."

There's very few things that would be worse than distorting the history of the Holocaust, Pasch added.

"Maybe you're listening to it from the perspective of a Jewish person that has gone through the tragedies that took place," Fowler Arthur continued. "And maybe you listen to it from the perspective of a German soldier."

Pasch and Fisher took a second to breathe after hearing her comment.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 28560
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

I really hate how distorted some of these OMG RED SIREN tweets are.

Yes, the bill sucks, but it's not specifically designed to teach both sides of the Holocaust. All that comes from one lawmaker's comment that she ultimately walked back.

I'm not defending her comments, as they are reprehensible and I have no doubt she'd probably love for this bill to advance her fucked up views. But I feel like this kind of sensationalism only throws fuel on the fire. (Note this is not directed at Smoove, but towards the Tweet author).
Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ Ally
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 50077
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

Right, it's not specifically about the Holocaust, that just happens to be the example. I think the OMG style associated with the articles is pointing out the potential issue with a law like this. But yes, I get what you're saying.

I think the issue is that all over the U.S. the GOP is slipping these seemingly specific laws into circulation ("Oh, they'd never do that." "That's now what we want to happen.") and then when it balloons out into other things, they smirk.

For example, going back to what's happening in FL with the "Don't Say Gay" legislation signed by DeSantis:
Legislators who support the measure — which Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed in March — have repeatedly stressed that it will apply only to children in kindergarten through third grade and that it is about giving parents more jurisdiction over their young children’s education. They have also contended that it will not prohibit teachers and students from talking about their LGBTQ families or bar classroom discussions about LGBTQ history, including events like the 2016 attack at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando.
But what else is happening?
Representatives of the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association accused school officials Monday of verbally warning educators not to wear rainbow articles of clothing and to remove pictures of their same-sex spouses from their desks and LGBTQ safe space stickers from classroom doors. The district’s legal department confirmed in a statement provided to the teachers’ association, which covers the Orlando area, that staff members who come into contact with students in kindergarten through third grade were cautioned about LGBTQ issues.
Totally an unintentional impact. :roll:
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 27099
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:44 pm I really hate how distorted some of these OMG RED SIREN tweets are.

Yes, the bill sucks, but it's not specifically designed to teach both sides of the Holocaust. All that comes from one lawmaker's comment that she ultimately walked back.

I'm not defending her comments, as they are reprehensible and I have no doubt she'd probably love for this bill to advance her fucked up views. But I feel like this kind of sensationalism only throws fuel on the fire. (Note this is not directed at Smoove, but towards the Tweet author).
I agree with your main point, but what's scary is that few topics outside the Holocaust (so far) are immune to the "both sides" Trojan Horse.

The purge of "Critical Race Theory" is intended to chill any teaching on any topic that contradicts right-wing narratives of American history. Likewise the "Don't Say Gay" bills, library book bans, etc etc.

EDIT: Smoove types faster.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 28560
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

Right, but I guess I'd rather just hear the straight facts then some alarmist misrepresentation. It just smacks too much to me of what the other side does, and is designed specifically to provoke knee-jerk emotions. I want to be better than that, but maybe that way of thinking is incredibly old-fashioned and I need to get used to getting my news from ALL CAPS TWEETS!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!
Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ Ally
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 16010
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Jaymann »

That kind of garbage is illegal in Germany.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Combustible Lemur »


YellowKing wrote:Right, but I guess I'd rather just hear the straight facts then some alarmist misrepresentation. It just smacks too much to me of what the other side does, and is designed specifically to provoke knee-jerk emotions. I want to be better than that, but maybe that way of thinking is incredibly old-fashioned and I need to get used to getting my news from ALL CAPS TWEETS!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!
It is old fashioned. The people designing and structuring the right's arguments and legal challenges are doing in such a way to maximize boomer, gen-x, and ex republican reticence at recognizing active fascism.

They want you to be Comey and Garland. If you can convince people to make everyone else, but not the elite, to play by the rules they will exploit your conservatism.

That being said, I hate when the ALL CAPS warnings are factually wrong. I have no problem with strategic warnings. But they need to be supportable. Smart people have been warning us for years. Stupid people have been making us not want to listen.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 50077
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

Speaking of Red Alarms, what did PA state Senators (GOP) do last night?


Last night, the PA Senate waived their rule about voting after 11pm. What they did next is outrageous and you may find it hard to believe.

Anti-abortion politicians had been pushing SB956, a bill that would put to voters a ballot question about banning the right to an abortion and state funding for an abortion in the state Constitution.

But last night, SB956 was amended into SB106. SB106 would still ask Pennsylvanians to vote on banning abortion in the commonwealth as a Constitutional amendment. But there’s more. A lot more.

SB106 would also:
❌ Institute voter ID
❌ Centralize election oversight to a single state official
❌ Weaken the power of the governor and shift that power to the legislature
❌ Make the Lt. Gov an appointed, not elected, position

SB106 is an unprecedented attempt to fundamentally amend the PA Constitution, literally at the 11th hour. It’s undemocratic and it’s dangerous.
It's been pointed out that every single PA House Republican voted for the Constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Every one - even the moderate ones.

It's pretty clear to me where this is all headed and when all members of the party fall in line, it's hard to argue you can enter into an honest debate with any of them.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 21770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

Holman wrote:
YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:44 pm I really hate how distorted some of these OMG RED SIREN tweets are.

Yes, the bill sucks, but it's not specifically designed to teach both sides of the Holocaust. All that comes from one lawmaker's comment that she ultimately walked back.

I'm not defending her comments, as they are reprehensible and I have no doubt she'd probably love for this bill to advance her fucked up views. But I feel like this kind of sensationalism only throws fuel on the fire. (Note this is not directed at Smoove, but towards the Tweet author).
I agree with your main point, but what's scary is that few topics outside the Holocaust (so far) are immune to the "both sides" Trojan Horse.

The purge of "Critical Race Theory" is intended to chill any teaching on any topic that contradicts right-wing narratives of American history. Likewise the "Don't Say Gay" bills, library book bans, etc etc.

EDIT: Smoove types faster.
E. G. Texas don't say slavery bill.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 20089
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Too many hits to the head:

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

Combustible Lemur wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:51 am
YellowKing wrote:Right, but I guess I'd rather just hear the straight facts then some alarmist misrepresentation. It just smacks too much to me of what the other side does, and is designed specifically to provoke knee-jerk emotions. I want to be better than that, but maybe that way of thinking is incredibly old-fashioned and I need to get used to getting my news from ALL CAPS TWEETS!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!!
It is old fashioned. The people designing and structuring the right's arguments and legal challenges are doing in such a way to maximize boomer, gen-x, and ex republican reticence at recognizing active fascism.

They want you to be Comey and Garland. If you can convince people to make everyone else, but not the elite, to play by the rules they will exploit your conservatism.

That being said, I hate when the ALL CAPS warnings are factually wrong. I have no problem with strategic warnings. But they need to be supportable. Smart people have been warning us for years. Stupid people have been making us not want to listen.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
The problem isn't that the alarmist, sensational tweet is factually wrong: It's just very misleading.

That OH state rep idiot said a lot of stupid things, but if you listen to the unedited interview, she's clearly not arguing that schools need to teach "both sides" of the Holocaust. I'm certain she has lots of fucked up views, but that doesn't appear to be one of them.

When I listened to the unedited interview, it appeared she only brought up the Holocaust to make the point that teaching about the Holocaust would absolutely remain part of curriculums even if the OH bill targeting the teaching of "divisive concepts" was passed. She went sideways when she tried to argue that the bill would enhance that teaching by teaching about the Holocaust from different perspectives, but she wasn't saying that one of those perspectives should be that the Final Solution was a good idea or that it never happened. Her examples were teaching about the Holocaust through the experiences and perspectives of Jews in Germany and victims in Poland and German soldiers. Listening to it on the whole, a reasonable inference is not that she had in mind perspectives of German soldiers who were carrying out the Holocaust and thought it was a great idea.

This is a political hit, and it bothers me, not because I feel particularly sorry for this OH state rep idiot (she is clearly that), but because it degrades credibility. And it does so in connection with a topic where credibility is really, really important.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24522
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by noxiousdog »

Pyperkub wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:06 pm
Holman wrote:
YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:44 pm I really hate how distorted some of these OMG RED SIREN tweets are.

Yes, the bill sucks, but it's not specifically designed to teach both sides of the Holocaust. All that comes from one lawmaker's comment that she ultimately walked back.

I'm not defending her comments, as they are reprehensible and I have no doubt she'd probably love for this bill to advance her fucked up views. But I feel like this kind of sensationalism only throws fuel on the fire. (Note this is not directed at Smoove, but towards the Tweet author).
I agree with your main point, but what's scary is that few topics outside the Holocaust (so far) are immune to the "both sides" Trojan Horse.

The purge of "Critical Race Theory" is intended to chill any teaching on any topic that contradicts right-wing narratives of American history. Likewise the "Don't Say Gay" bills, library book bans, etc etc.

EDIT: Smoove types faster.
E. G. Texas don't say slavery bill.
That's not a thing (unless you're using hyperbole).
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 50077
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

Kurth wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:11 pm This is a political hit, and it bothers me, not because I feel particularly sorry for this OH state rep idiot (she is clearly that), but because it degrades credibility. And it does so in connection with a topic where credibility is really, really important.
Maybe? This what I mentioned upstream - this is all part of the GOP's agenda (seemingly). They pass laws that have elements that are open to interpretation to a level that invites exploitation. As was the case for the "Don't Say Gay" nonsense in Florida, there's now additional impacts that were (allegedly) unseen unfolding ahead of the 2022 school year.

If we didn't just spend the last 8+ years hearing that people were overreacting to the potential of Roe V. Wade being overturned ("It'll never happen; It's been settled.") perhaps I'd agree that we need to dial back alarmist attitudes.

Regardless, I no long believe the GOP is operating in good faith on anything. Everything they do seems to be designed to chip away at established norms and rules or to unwind progress that has been made - especially on social, cultural and environmental issues.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 21770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:13 pm
Pyperkub wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:06 pm
Holman wrote:
YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:44 pm I really hate how distorted some of these OMG RED SIREN tweets are.

Yes, the bill sucks, but it's not specifically designed to teach both sides of the Holocaust. All that comes from one lawmaker's comment that she ultimately walked back.

I'm not defending her comments, as they are reprehensible and I have no doubt she'd probably love for this bill to advance her fucked up views. But I feel like this kind of sensationalism only throws fuel on the fire. (Note this is not directed at Smoove, but towards the Tweet author).
I agree with your main point, but what's scary is that few topics outside the Holocaust (so far) are immune to the "both sides" Trojan Horse.

The purge of "Critical Race Theory" is intended to chill any teaching on any topic that contradicts right-wing narratives of American history. Likewise the "Don't Say Gay" bills, library book bans, etc etc.

EDIT: Smoove types faster.
E. G. Texas don't say slavery bill.
That's not a thing (unless you're using hyperbole).
Ok, not a Bill, per se... for now.
Public schools in Texas would describe slavery to second graders as “involuntary relocation” under new social studies standards proposed to the state's education board.

A group of nine educators submitted the idea to the State Board of Education as part of Texas' efforts to develop new social studies curriculum, according to the Texas Tribune. The once-a-decade process updates what children learn in the state's nearly 8,900 public schools.

The board is considering curriculum changes one year after Texas passed a law to eliminate topics from schools that make students “feel discomfort.”
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24522
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by noxiousdog »

A group of 9 can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean it gets any traction.

It was plausible enough that I looked into it, but it's far, far from a bill. It also would likely never need a bill. The TEA would just enact it.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:43 pm
Kurth wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:11 pm This is a political hit, and it bothers me, not because I feel particularly sorry for this OH state rep idiot (she is clearly that), but because it degrades credibility. And it does so in connection with a topic where credibility is really, really important.
Maybe? This what I mentioned upstream - this is all part of the GOP's agenda (seemingly). They pass laws that have elements that are open to interpretation to a level that invites exploitation. As was the case for the "Don't Say Gay" nonsense in Florida, there's now additional impacts that were (allegedly) unseen unfolding ahead of the 2022 school year.

If we didn't just spend the last 8+ years hearing that people were overreacting to the potential of Roe V. Wade being overturned ("It'll never happen; It's been settled.") perhaps I'd agree that we need to dial back alarmist attitudes.

Regardless, I no long believe the GOP is operating in good faith on anything. Everything they do seems to be designed to chip away at established norms and rules or to unwind progress that has been made - especially on social, cultural and environmental issues.
Anyone operating under the assumption that the GOP is operating in good faith is complicit, deluded or willfully blind.

And I've got not problem being alarmed at stuff the GOP is doing, but that alarm should be limited to stuff they are actually doing, not stuff that's more or less made up, which was the case with the tweet claiming the OH GOP is trying to teach "both sides" of the Holocaust. That just wasn't a thing that was happening.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 46726
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

I remember not being too worried when folks started warning everyone that the GOP was installing judges that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. I thought they were just being alarmists. I mean, the majority of the nation wants legal abortion. It’s been established law for a generation.

I’ve learned that sometimes being an alarmist isn’t necessarily a bad thing these days. :(
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kurth »

hepcat wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:12 pm I remember not being too worried when folks started warning everyone that the GOP was installing judges that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. I thought they were just being alarmists. I mean, the majority of the nation wants legal abortion. It’s been established law for a generation.

I’ve learned that sometimes being an alarmist isn’t necessarily a bad thing these days. :(
Again, nothing wrong with sounding an alarm. But credibility matters. It's simple: Don't Make Shit Up.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 46726
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

I was actually responding to your line
And I've got not problem being alarmed at stuff the GOP is doing
I should have quoted that though when I did.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 50077
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

I guess we're just going to have to wait and see if this new legislation in OHIO somehow means that school teachers aren't going to be able to talk about the Holocaust anymore because the GOP is pushing back against changes proposed (and ultimately passed) in (late) 2020.

I mean, it's not like they're saying anything problematic. From March of 2022:
Fowler Arthur also mischaracterized how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust and why they were murdered in her remarks, originally made to News 5 Cleveland in early March but not publicized by the station until Tuesday

...

Fowler Arthur’s comments, which she said were informed by “some audiobooks on the Holocaust” she had been listening to, are the latest in a series of comments that have implicated Holocaust education in a wave of Republican-led legislation aimed at dictating how race is taught in public schools. An educator in Texas and an Indiana lawmaker have apologized in recent months after suggesting that teachers should remain “impartial” or offer multiple perspectives while teaching about the Holocaust.
So going back to the original comment:
Her bill as written would prohibit state teachers from teaching “divisive concepts,” such as that “one nationality, color, ethnicity, race, or sex is inherently superior to another nationality, color, ethnicity, race, or sex,” in nearly identical wording to other state bills seeking to ban “critical race theory” — an academic and legal concept that has become a rallying cry for Republicans across the country.
Is she saying they need to teach "both sides". No. She's apparently part of a party that is sponsoring a bill that is trying to backdoor wording that would allow teachers to be prohibited from teaching topics like The Holocaust because it's a "divisive concept" and they'd be unable to give instructional time to all perspectives. Again, they're getting craftier with their language so try and sneak through the legislature. Pointing out how this could be abused is fair. Using an alarmist tone is questionable (I get it), but I also think we should be all hands on deck at this point as the GOP is slow-rolling their cultural/social takeover.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 27099
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

The GOP is trying to establish a baseline standard that prevents any teaching that might make white Christian students (or their parents) feel uncomfortable about what white Christians have done in the past.

Crusades, pogroms, conquests, witch hunts, colonialism, slavery, imperialism, World Wars, etc--all of that is off the table because it makes little Johnny and little Jane and their church Fellowship feel bad about what happened in the past.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 28560
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

I'm on Team Kurth here, and his point is the point I was trying to make.

I'm fine with alarmism to wake people up. I know that GOP bills are designed to look innocuous while having an underlying malicious intent.

However, if we're going to misrepresent/exaggerate things, then we're no better than the other side. And it also leads to being called out on it and losing credibility, which only harms the goal.

I'm not yet at the point that I want the left to be Bizarro Fox News.
Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ Ally
malchior
Posts: 20614
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

I mostly agree but I also think we have to consider the scale here. This is a state level rep slightly misleading to some level about the words of another state level rep. This isn't even in the universe of the Fox News/Breitbart/OANN level of misinformation. This is a 'sorta false' claim in an ocean of 'pants on fire' misinformation.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 21770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub »

YellowKing wrote:I'm on Team Kurth here, and his point is the point I was trying to make.

I'm fine with alarmism to wake people up. I know that GOP bills are designed to look innocuous while having an underlying malicious intent.

However, if we're going to misrepresent/exaggerate things, then we're no better than the other side. And it also leads to being called out on it and losing credibility, which only harms the goal.

I'm not yet at the point that I want the left to be Bizarro Fox News.
Agreed. This is why Texas is worse than Ohio, due to the textbook power they have. As we are seeing with a lot of the don't say gay laws, fear of Johnny Law is creating a situation where overcompensation to avoid any possibility of prosecution is the rule, not the exception.

All it takes are a few teachers and administrators being fired for mentioning their same sex spouse...

Fear will keep the locals in line, fear of this Battlestation...
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior
Posts: 20614
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

It's not just text books. This is the problem we face trying to tell the story of all the radical distortions we are seeing play out in rapid succession. For example, the case talked about earlier about the discrimination against Jewish foster parents. The law involved was passed by the GOP and the prevailing fear was it enabled discrimination against LGBTQ+ folks.

However, the law of intended consequences played out and the appellate court followed the lead of the Supreme Court with regards to religious nationalism radicalization. They flipped the script up on over a century of state/church separation law that said you couldn't use state funds to discriminate religiously. Now they're saying the state even when it kicks in the money doesn't have the right to tell institutions how to behave as it steps on their beliefs. That's a huge change that will fly over the heads of many and it requires nuanced messaging. It is just a really hard change to communicate.

Worse it's hard to communicate how radical the changes happening are without being labeled an 'alarmist' by the very serious people. Even though we should absolutely be alarmed. It is the rationale that could outlaw contraception, health care, marriage equality, etc. That's why Roe was such a shock. It was something tangible and predicted. And it was something many of the very serious people got 100% wrong for once.
(Edit: Though I'll note that Hillary talked about it clearly in 2016 FWIW).

Making the situation even more difficult there is an entire segment willing to turn every misstatement into something bigger than it was to lend false equivalence that 'bothsides' are misinforming. It is part of the propaganda campaign. They are keyed up to distort push back on their activities.

That's why I agree you shouldn't exaggerate. The truth is bad enough on its own. However, I also don't buy we're seeing anything approaching the right-wing propaganda machine in scope or effectiveness which is what I was getting at above. I'm starting to see more and more complaints about the tone from alarms from the left and it strikes me as some of the same overcorrection to the center and tone policing we've seen that have blinded people to the situation we face.
malchior
Posts: 20614
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

FWIW another topic but this popped into my feed. It is the sort tweet thread that I can't help but believe shows how the culture war plays out in a way that the GOP constantly wins at. Hawley lays out an obvious trap and the speaker walked right into it. He gets all the sounds bites of him responding to a 'woke' attack. The other side thinks Hawley was 'dunked' on. The reality is most people align with Hawley - fair or not. Americans aren't even close to this position yet nor are they good at decoding nuanced positions like this.

Edit: Not sure this is the right place but I think this is a good example of the usual GOP playbook.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 46726
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

Damn, she would not let that asshat get his way, would she? You go!
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 28560
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

The thing is the GOP is "winning" the propaganda war by deceit, aggression, repeating falsehoods until they become the reality, etc. If the left wants to combat that by engaging in the same dirty practices, then where does that leave us? Maybe the only winning strategy is to get down in the mud with the pigs, but I just mentally can't go there. I don't agree with it.
Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ Ally
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 6997
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Alefroth »

Count me as one who thought she dunked on him. What was the purpose of the questioning?
Post Reply