Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 400: Pad Taiwan's Defense Budget

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean the question was is this Iowa law going to cause backlash like roe.

The answer is no

Apparently we can trust parents, as long as they don't try to help their trans-kids get gender affirming care. Instead, we have to send bomb threats to children's hospitals to try to prevent it.

everyone's well aware of the fact of how little the general population cares about minorities

masterplum posted...

I mean the question was is this Iowa law going to cause backlash like roe.

The answer is no

One of the biggest changes on the repeal of RvW was how a bunch of fence sitters suddenly moved towards "legal in all circumstances" which jumped from roughly 20% to 30-35%.

Basically once an issue stops feeling fringey and people are forced to pick a side on the issue, they tend to move left. Look no further than the backlash against North Carolina over the bathroom bill.

The issue is never how the public feels because if that was true, we would have way stricter gun laws than we do right now. It's that people are only reactionary. They'll have weak thoughts/opinions on something until a right is taken away and then suddenly they care.

TheRock1525 posted...

One of the biggest changes on the repeal of RvW was how a bunch of fence sitters suddenly moved towards "legal in all circumstances" which jumped from roughly 20% to 30-35%.

Basically once an issue stops feeling fringey and people are forced to pick a side on the issue, they tend to move left. Look no further than the backlash against North Carolina over the bathroom bill.

The issue is never how the public feels because if that was true, we would have way stricter gun laws than we do right now. It's that people are only reactionary. They'll have weak thoughts/opinions on something until a right is taken away and then suddenly they care.

They dont always move left, they just move. Vaccines were not a political issue until they were and then many people moved right on them

Their right to 'not protect society from greater harm through high vaccination rates" was taken away.

masterplum posted...

They dont always move left, they just move. Vaccines were not a political issue until they were and then many people moved right on them

Anti-vax people exist heavily on both sides.

TheRock1525 posted...

Anti-vax people exist heavily on both sides.

Correct, and then it became a political issue and anti vax became a conservative stance

masterplum posted...

I mean the question was is this Iowa law going to cause backlash like roe.

The answer is no

I really don't remember asking any questions in that post.

I said I wished it would matter but I knew it wouldn't and would just mean more people moving out of the state.

https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620757034080821248

yea

but the general public doesn't care about trans lives so we have to be quiet shhhhhh aribo

Dems suck, but anyone still saying the parties are the same at this point is just a transphobe.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dems suck, but anyone still saying the parties are the same at this point is just a transphobe.

Yup. Well transphobe/homophobe/misogynist/racist/likely a combo package of the above, but your point remains the same.

I think a lot of people see the political battle over social issues as a smokescreen designed to obscure and distract from a bipartisan consensus on capitalism. Which is not really unbelievable and if you only care about economic issues then it makes sense you'd see the parties as similar if not identical. But like, those social issues still affect hundreds of millions of Americans, so. Even if you think the parties are the same and that social issues are manufactured, you kinda have to reckon with the human cost at some point. Or become a tankie, I guess.

Kenri posted...

I think a lot of people see the political battle over social issues as a smokescreen designed to obscure and distract from a bipartisan consensus on capitalism.

Yeah this is undeniable, and if youre a person who considers themselves the master of their own destiny or whatever, seeing people say things like we should give certain groups more help seems offensive to them.

But likeRepublicans arent just saying we shouldnt help these people anymore, now theyre saying they shouldnt be allowed to exist.

AriaOfBolo posted...

https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620757034080821248

yea

Should probably start calling this out for what it is - attempted genocide. The only reason these efforts don't flag all the definitions of it by the UN is because they limited it to national/ethnic/racial/religious groups which scholars have pointed out is far too restrictive and should be expanded.

~~~

Also, the College Board wishes you a Happy Black History Month /s

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1620797957132980225

I looked into what was stripped in the course and it looked like they removed sections about homosexuality in the black population and the cultural impact of black panther. I also read that the course had very little about slavery because slavery made the people who took the course uncomfortable.

I think Florida is out of line trying to bully changes to the course, but it doesnt seem they balked at anything that would actually be considered undoubtably historical like the civil rights movement

They removed (obviously not limited to) Black Lives Matter, intersectionality, mass incarceration and the criminal justice system, the debates around reparations, black figures in the LGBTQ movement.

Like, it's a lot more than you're suggesting that was cut.

Thorn posted...

They removed (obviously not limited to) Black Lives Matter, intersectionality, mass incarceration and the criminal justice system, the debates around reparations, black figures in the LGBTQ movement.

Like, it's a lot more than you're suggesting that was cut.

Other than potentially black figures in the LGBT movement, None of those things are historical.

There is a reason some history boards limit topics to more than 20 years ago. Politics isnt history. No college US history class is going to spend any significant time discussing anything that happening in that recent time frame (unless as a reference to a prior event)

Where does it say this is a history course

Paratroopa1 posted...

Where does it say this is a history course

Have I been misreading it as a history course this entire time?

masterplum posted...

Have I been misreading it as a history course this entire time?

It's called African American Studies - it's interdiscplinary. History and contemporary issues are both part of it

masterplum posted...

Other than potentially black figures in the LGBT movement, None of those things are historical.

There is a reason some history boards limit topics to more than 20 years ago. Politics isnt history. No college US history class is going to spend any significant time discussing anything that happening in that recent time frame (unless as a reference to a prior event)

Literally all of those things that were mentioned existed before 2000. It's not like black people getting brutalized or murdered by the police at a disproportionate rate is a NEW phenomenon. The Rodney King Riots happened during the 90s, didn't they? Or was it even earlier?

1992 specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

not to mention that the discussion of "what is and is not historical" is hugely subjective anyway

masterplum posted...

There is a reason some history boards limit topics to more than 20 years ago. Politics isnt history. No college US history class is going to spend any significant time discussing anything that happening in that recent time frame (unless as a reference to a prior event)

Eh, it really depends on the class. While survey-level college history courses don't go as hard on recent stuff as high schools are apt to, in my experience they still touch on it, and you can find more specialized courses that might be entirely about, say, the 1990s.

We cant talk about it, its too recent

Why bother talking about it, it happened so long ago it doesnt even matter

Seanchan posted...

We cant talk about it, its too recent

Why bother talking about it, it happened so long ago it doesnt even matter

I never said that? I don't think anyone says that? Hard core conservatives love themselves some revolutionary war

I think the Rodney King riots in 1992 are totally appropriate btw

masterplum posted...

I think the Rodney King riots in 1992 are totally appropriate btw

So exactly how old do examples of police brutality against Black people need to be before it's okay to cover in school? Also, wouldn't actively avoiding modern examples imply that it's no longer an issue today?

Every upper level college history course that i took analyzed historical events, movements, and ideas in current contexts. There's no way to be an actual class worth its salt where you discuss the Rodney king riots but avoid blm.

masterplum posted...

I never said that? I don't think anyone says that? Hard core conservatives love themselves some revolutionary war

I think the Rodney King riots in 1992 are totally appropriate btw

Sorry, wasnt calling anyone out. Just making the hypothetical argument that some people might do that would allow them to talk out both sides of their mouth on issues. Similar to the thoughts and prayers nonsense after every shooting.

Xeybozn posted...

So exactly how old do examples of police brutality against Black people need to be before it's okay to cover in school? Also, wouldn't actively avoiding modern examples imply that it's no longer an issue today?

I think 20 years is a good number. You want all the facts to play out and to be able to see the effects of the event.

For example suppose you were doing a lesson about police brutality, what are you trying to teach? There are several interesting ways to spin it but almost all of them require you to be able to see what the results were. How did the Rodney King riots impact California?

The problem with the black lives matter movement is it is hard to tell what the historical impact of it actually is yet and we are already 9 years since the start of it.

By focusing only on events in the past it is easier to separate what created a lasting cultural impact and what just trended for a few years until it eventually was overshadowed or fizzled out

masterplum posted...

For example suppose you were doing a lesson about police brutality, what are you trying to teach?

that cops shouldn't murder the people they police, mostly

I feel like 20 years is not enough if you want to show how little people are learning from history.

masterplum posted...

For example suppose you were doing a lesson about police brutality, what are you trying to teach?

Four letters come to mind

If Rodney King counts and that happened in 1992, then in 2015 it should be okay to take that conversation into the topic of Walter Scott's murder when it happened.

We understand we can't look twenty years into the future, but we can use twenty-year-old events to look at how we got to today and recognize today for what it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/us/politics/ilhan-omar-house-committee-republicans.html

Not a surprise, but certainly upsetting to see

Pretty sure 9/11 was in my social studies textbooks by like 2004 at the latest. Now, we pretty much never got to it in any class because we would always run out of time before we got to recent stuff and by recent I basically mean post-WW2.

I don't even think AP US History was too different in that regard. Maybe we mentioned the Civil Rights Movement?

https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1621019274193276928

Again, not surprising but certainly upsetting to see

...So they support guns more than America? That seems like the easy takeaway, here. Gun pin WITH flag pin, sure. But gun pin INSTEAD of flag pin? There is like zero chance this doesn't get used against them.

And yes, it'll never shake the MAGA base, but, uh, the MAGA base is shrinking all the time. Did they not get the memo?

Who needs a base when you control the rules and the judges?

Eh, to be fair, I think certain judges are still concerned about their image. Kavanaugh, for instance, has balked at certain things in what seemed like clear attempts to present a certain "impartial" image. I think we're basically at a precipice where the next year or so will decide where things tilt, and right now Republicans seem to be fumbling the football.

It only took a complete shitshow of a caucus but Iowa has been banished to the shadow realm at long last

https://twitter.com/aaronlarnavarro/status/1621924125563314178

Balloon down; I repeat, balloon down

rip balloon boy