Agreed!
... But also, does every community need to just be righteously indignant screenshots of tweets? Like... Can't a community called USA be something.. else?
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
488 points (94.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7321 readers
121 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Ragebait is an easy dopamine hit which is why it will garner so many upvotes.
No. When half the politicians in a world superpower are losing their goddamn minds it affects us all. Uncomfortable world events are not going to be nearly contained where anyone can choose to – or accidentally – ignore them.
Oh, I thought the USA news and politics community might be about news and politics in the USA, but it's good that it's the same sort of snappy tweet screenshots that are in the hundred other meme communities that come up with the "Everything" filter on. What a relief.
Question, is it OK to post Calvin and Hobbes and "yiff" porn here too? It just feels like those are too uncomfortable and important to contain in several other Lemmy communities too.
TIL that Florida is not part of the USA, and that indoctrinating children in the "virtues" of slavery is not politics.
One wouldn't know, because this is the same low effort Jeff Tiedrich style clapback tweet that is posted constantly regardless of context.
That is to say, I would love it if there was actual content posted here that informed me of what I now have a vague awareness of, and then I can jerk off to the imaginary conversations people are having with Republicans in, again, every other community.
The second highest polling Republican candidate, who is also governor of the third largest state has been defending the “black people benefitted from slavery” decision that the people he installed made. If you don’t feel like it’s important to Americans that people hear that Ron DeSantis actually supports this batshit inanity, I’m not sure what you are looking for. Should we just ignore the “clapbacks” because it makes the center right uncomfortable that their candidate is openly racist? I fucking think not.
Do you genuinely think furry bullshit and polotical news events are equally impactful in the world?
No, of course not! That was a joke.
...Nor do I think self-amused tweets count as political news.
Exactly why I blocked the majority of Reddit. Can't wait for Sync for Lemmy to release so I can get my content filters back.
Conservatism in the US is just a white supremacy movement these days. People need to realize that.
I disagree, there are plenty of POC among conservatives. Some very vocal minorities within the larger conservative camp are essentially a white supremacy movement though.
What helps identify them to me is whether they're more focused on social or fiscal issues. This doesn't work for politicians since politicians rarely care about either, they care about whatever they think will get them the votes they want to get elected, but it works pretty well for average voters.
For example, if someone wants immigration control, figure out the root of it and attack that. If they think brown people are taking our jobs, show them that immigration is generally beneficial because it means companies can expand the "good" jobs if they have sufficient labor pool to fill the less desirable jobs (there are plenty of statistics to back this up). If they think women shouldn't get abortions, show how long it takes women who have been attacked to report to the police (if they ever do). And so on. Take their concerns seriously and show them how an alternative perspective improves things without regressing on their concerns.
The same goes for people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Figure out what their concerns are and show how the policy you'd like to support doesn't make this concerns worse, or how the policy could be amended to address their concerns.
Some people can't be reasoned with because their root concern is unreasonable (e.g. block immigration because they hate foreigners), but that's a very small subset of the population. Realize that most people have been lied to and aren't basing their policy preferences on hate.
There were Jewish Nazis too. Specifically Hitler's personal driver was Jewish. So no, a minority In a group does not make that group not against similar minorities. For all the log cabin Republicans or female Republicans that should therefore mean that the Republican party could never be anti-gay or anti-woman. Yet that is one of the only consistent things they are.
I'm just saying the white supremacists make up a small part of the overall conservative movement in the US.
The majority are against expansion of gay rights. That one makes no sense to me because the main premise at least used to be reducing government involvement in our lives, and gay people getting married has zero impact on anyone else's life, so it should be allowed.
I wouldn't classify conservatives as anti-woman though, they're just in favor of protecting the rights of the unborn. If you believed that fetuses had human rights, you'd hold a similar position on abortion. So being anti-abortion doesn't make you anti-woman. It's a similar thing as being anti-assisted suicide.
We should be calling out actual white supremacists and fascists, not just using labels as a political tool.
Only the open ones. But the rest are okay with them being there. So they're not hardly better. Which is worse. Horrible bigoted people or enabling them to be worse. When Republicans stop accusing Democrats of being child abusing adrenochrome vampires. (an actual thing among their brainwashed base) And start actively calling out the bigots racists and the racially disparate policies in place. (Another thing they can't do because that would be CRT) then we can talk about some of them perhaps being good people. But until they reach that very low bar none of them are. At least not worth making a distinction to separate them out.
The left wing has their fair share of conspiracy theories, and you don't have to go any further than RFK Jr. to see it in action in today's politics. I don't hold RFK's views on lies about vaccination data against Democrats, nor do I hold weird QAnon views against Republicans.
The average Republican doesn't believe in QAnon nonsense or think they should be associated with the GOP. The average Democrat doesn't believe in anti-vax nonsense or think they should be associated with the Democratic party. Don't base your opinion on the majority by the views of the vocal minority. Republicans rejecting Trump's reelection bid should show you that the voter base isn't in lockstep with their elected officials.
Our elected officials like to sling mud, and I refuse to be part of it. I think both parties suck in a lot of ways, and I agree with both parties on a number of issues.
The accusation wasn't that because they have conspiracy theories that this is a problem. It's about the content of the conspiracy theories in particular. Adrenochrome is not a thing. Vampires are not a thing etc etc etc. Even on your own source. Many of the conspiracies that it talks about the left believing in are often underpinned by actual events and experiences. Whether or not they are true. They are generally not as coked up whacked out reality detached fantasies as the extremely brainwashed Republicans. Regardless the subject of that article are all center right anyhow.
And here's the thing if the Republicans don't believe in those conspiracies they should have the courage of their convictions to call out the people pushing them and to push back on their friends that believe in it. They don't. And this is the problem. Even for all the so-called left-wing conspiracies they are extremely fringe and are regularly cold out by many in the center right liberal establishment.
And if you think RFK is representative of the center right liberal politics of America in any way shape or form. I'm sorry you're being dishonest or quite out of touch.
Well yeah, the QAnon people are crazy, I don't think anyone that matters disputes that. I'm confident that most "followers" do it as a sort of meme, like the majority of flat earthers (we even got a flat earth poster for our office and tried to convince others to join).
Why should anyone seriously address it? It's a meme that got out of control, and fighting it just makes you seem out of touch.
And no, I'm not saying RFK is representative of the Democratic Party (I guess we'll see how the votes come out), just that he's a very public figure getting a fairly large amount of media attention while pushing ideas that could be considered a conspiracy theory. Pushing the narrative that the polio vaccine causes polio today is just ridiculous, yet a relatively large chunk of people on both sides of the aisle buy it (I have at least one anti-vax neighbor, and I'm pretty sure there are many more in my very conservative area). It doesn't mean the Democratic Party opposes vaccines, but the Democratic Party also hasn't gone on a campaign to oust him. The Democratic Party not bothering with RFK Jr. is similar to the GOP not bothering with QAnon, it's just not worth their time and would distract from other things the party is trying to achieve.
My point is that just because a party has weird fringe groups working under their brand and they don't actively oust them doesn't mean they agree or support them, it's most likely not worth their time and is a massive distraction from other goals. So I'm not surprised major political parties don't go on a crusade to oust every weird fringe group from their fold. The problem isn't with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but that we have a two party system at all. If there were multiple major parties, each party would need to be more careful if its image so it doesn't lose its base, but when there are only two options, it doesn't matter as much.
So if you hate stupid fringe groups like QAnon or anti-vaxxers, you should campaign for election reform to end FPTP and promote third parties. I'm registered to a third party to hopefully boost their numbers (but I rarely actually vote for them), and even my little party has weird fringe groups. If we get more parties with actual seats in Congress, I think we'll see a bit more pushback against these fringe groups, who will then need to form a small, obscure party and we'll get a better idea of their actual numbers.
I disagree, there are plenty of POC among conservatives. Some very vocal minorities within the larger conservative camp are essentially a white supremacy movement though.
They got a state education curriculum to whitewash slavery. That's a big enough minority to be downright afraid for the future.
I read through the curriculum, and from what I could tell, there was one statement out of over a hundred pages of black history that people took issue with.
That statement had nothing to do with white-washing, it was pretty much the "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade" analogy. Former slaves were dealt a terrible hand, yet many of them were able to build a decent life for themselves despite the racism they definitely experienced after emancipation.
It's amazing to me that less than 100 years after the Civil Rights movement, we had a black US President, and 100 years before the Civil Rights movement we were finally freeing slaves. We went from black people being legally considered less than a person, to being second class citizens, to running the country. We still have a ways to go, but we've made huge strides.
And colonialism did not benefit Indigenous people.
"But we gave them technology!" No. You killed them and destroyed their culture. The few survivors learned your technology as a way to survive your reign, technology which you tried very hard to withhold from them as a means of dominating them. Indigenous people (and POC in general) were banned from attending university in the US and Canada until relatively recently for example. Stop acting like you gifted them technology out of the goodness of your heart.
The 'useful' comments from Gut-whatever were in line with a common Republican point they want to hammer into people, which is that everyone must be useful by providing labor. Consistency of ideology and manipulation about it is common across conservative messaging, and not by accident. The theme here is that everyone, whether someone is a 12 year old kid, elderly, disabled, if they are not providing labor for the ruling class and/or receive more physical/monetary resources than they create, to the wealthy they are useless and might as well be dead.
Didn't know Medias was on Mastodon, nice.
Does it really? This is largely a meme AFAIK, most conservatives don't believe in that nonsense, at least not in the way the poster is making it out to be. Essentially, this is a strawman-type argument to get attention.
Instead of this, how about we discuss actual policy proposals and reveal any latent racism?
Bro the "blacks benefitted from slavery" thing is literally being made into the new standard for teaching in Florida by the board of education, something that was made possible by Desantis's stupid "stop woke act", you know, actual policy and legislation. This clearly isn't just a meme to conservatives, and it's not a strawman if it's based on real things people are saying and teaching and putting into law. Idk about the holocaust thing since I haven't heard about whatever that's referencing yet, but the "black people benefiting from slavery thing" is very much a real issue born from actual policies, and not just a meme.
Do you have a link to the proposed changes? I'd like something a bit less sensationalized than a SM post.
These aren't proposed changes, these are already enacted changes. Do you have a preferred source? Nvm, I'll just provide several for you to choose from.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/20/us/florida-black-history-education-standards-reaj/index.html
https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article277539723.html
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna95358
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna95418
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/20/florida-black-history-teaching-standards-00107067
That last one is a copy of the standards from the Florida department of education itself. You can check page 6 to verify it yourself.
Hope that provides enough info.
Thanks! Those articles were quite informative! I didn't read all of them And it seems to me that it's a bit of an overreaction, here are some relevant parts of various links you posted:
Politifact:
The controversial part is in this "benchmark clarification" about slave labor: "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."
The rest of the document includes specific standards about slavery, including the development of slavery and the conditions for Africans as they were brought to America. It also covers how slave codes resulted in enslaved people becoming property without rights, abolitionist movements, state and federal laws, revolts by slaves, and the Civil War.
CBS News:
"The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted. This is factual and well documented," said Dr. William Allen and Dr. Frances Presley Rice, members of the group, before listing examples like Crispus Attucks and Booker T. Washington. "Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history. Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants."
And from the last link (the actual curriculum, on page 71:
SS.68.AA.2.4
Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.
So that's like 65 pages of non-offensive content, and one sentence that people have issue with. And given the quotes above, I honestly don't see a problem with it.
The curriculum makes it absolutely clear that slavery is completely unacceptable and really hurt entire groups of people. It goes through the terrible conditions Africans went through, and the unfair treatment leading up to and including emancipation. The curriculum in no way takes the tone of a slave owner apologist, it merely states that many former slaves were able to use skills they learned (by force) to make a life for themselves after achieving freedom. It's not in any way implying that slavery was a good thing, but that some former slaves were able to use the skills they acquired to support themselves after gaining freedom.
It's kind of like saying a soldier conscripted to fight in Vietnam who was injured due to fighting in the war was able to use skills after coming home to find gainful employment (e.g. maybe they use flight skills to become a pilot, or survival skills to teach survival classes). The conscription was still a terrible thing, but they were able to make something somewhat positive out of it.
At least that's how I understand the curriculum and the commentary about it. If I'm missing something, please correct me.
You are focusing way to much on the fact that "oh well the rest isn't too bad, it's just one bad part." and you don't seem to understand the issues with the bad part.
It doesn't matter if the rest is inoffensive. None of it was offensive before. You think they're going to start with this one change? Do you really not see how this is just their foot in the door? They're rubbing their hands together salivating over people like you because you're the stepping stone they're looking for to gain leverage for future changes. You're the hot water they want to use to slowly boil all the frogs in the pot.
And the slaves DID NOT BENEFIT FROM SLAVERY. Even the implication is disgusting. I don't understand how anyone could honestly believe that. Think about it, for one goddamn moment. They did not learn these skills BECAUSE of slavery. Did white people need to be slaves to learn the same skills? Obviously not. Imagine how many black people could have learned and applied these skills, like blacksmithing and so on, if they'd been given the freedom to CHOOSE to do so on their own terms for their OWN sake, not for the sake of the people with bloody whips in their hands. My god dude, actually think about what the fuck you're saying.
You're twisting it again. Nobody is arguing that slavery was a good thing for the slaves, the argument is that freed slaves were able to use the skills they gained to make a life for themselves. Given that there's ~65 pages before this detailing the terrible conditions slaves lived in, it's absolutely ridiculous to see this as anything other than a transition to reconstruction-era US.
The message kids should and will likely take from this isn't that slavery was somehow good, but quite the opposite. It was a terrible atrocity, and the people enslaved were just like you and me. But these weren't unskilled people, when freed, they were able to jump in and engage in the economy. The success here was limited, not because of their lack of skill, but because of intolerance.
And it's not the final chapter in the discussion on slavery either, there are more references to it later, such as on pages 125-136, give or take. So the point of mentioning the skills slaves gained isn't to somehow justify it, but to set the stage for future discussion on issues black people experienced afterward, and why the Civil Rights movement needed to happen.
I think it's important to discuss as many aspects of an issue as possible. Just look at discussion of US foreign intervention in US schools, we almost never mention the negatives associated with it, and instead the US is painted as a savior in most cases, but we ignore things like crimes committed by US soldiers. Schools shouldn't be a place to push an agenda, but to educate in a way that teaches kids to see that each issue has multiple sides.
If you genuinely don't see the issue with what's happening here then I'm not going to waste any more energy arguing with you. What they're doing here is dangerous, even if you're too blind to see it.
I'll wait to see how it ends up being implemented.
What I see here is certain groups wanting a specific agenda pushed (I'm guessing the group that wants reparations), and Florida is resisting that. And if they stick to keeping the narrative as neutral as possible, I'm on board. I'll keep an eye on the news for this coming school year and see if there's anything to truly worry about.
But what I see is teaching a broad curriculum covering a variety of aspects of the African slave era, celebrating accomplishments and detailing atrocities. I guess we'll see if teachers maintain that tone.
It absolutely does. Florida is currently implementing curriculum from the (non-educationally certified) PragerU YouTube channel that explicitly teaches exactly these 2 things. If we just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it then those kids are going to grow up indoctrinated.
"X supports Y which has component Z" and "X is part of group A" does not mean "A supports Z" and it doesn't necessarily mean "X supports Z."
I understand attacking Ron DeSantis over the PragerU position, but even then, there's still a lot of nuance being missed (i.e. does the proposed curriculum in question include that content, or are they selecting other parts of the content from PragerU?).
I'm all for bashing conservatives, especially DeSantis in particular, but this is so much of a stretch that it seems more like an ad hominem than an actual criticism.
It is explicitly laid out in the accepted curriculum. This isn’t some niche thing, or some fringe school. This is the curriculum of the entire state of Florida that’s already been agreed on.
When all (and yes, I mean all) of group A shows that they regularly engage in racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist rhetoric it’s safe to assume that X supports Z.
Then I guess I'll have to familiarize myself with the proposed curriculum. I don't live there, but I do have family there. If you have a resource for what specific changes they're making, I'm interested in reading it.
That said, I live in a very conservative part of the US and that kind of BS would never fly here. So either someone is making mountains out of mole hills, or Florida is going completely nuts. The first seems more likely.
most conservatives don't believe in that nonsense
Yeah it's mostly just Florida's Rob Desantis going off the deep end for whatever reason, but it's not a meme.
If enough conservatives believe it to change the curriculum of a state that's TOO MANY conservatives.
Agreed. No clue where this came from.
Oh, maybe these? IDK.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/us/florida-black-history-education-standards-reaj/index.html
https://news.yahoo.com/other-place-career-over-fox-160425273.html
I reviewed this document, which seems to be the curriculum for the coming year. In it I saw 65 pages about slavery before I came to a quote that many seem to have issue with (the one about former slaves using skills they learned in slavery once freed), and there were at least 10 pages of other discussion on black history afterward.
History is messy, and I think it's important to show history that's not one-sided. We should teach Malcolm X alongside MLK Jr. We should show atrocities Americans committed in WW2 alongside the heroics of D-Day. We should show how close we were to nuclear winter during the cold war due to mistakes made by politicians, as well as successes of diplomacy in the same era.
The curriculum here seems to unambiguously communicate that slavery was absolutely atrocious and that the road to gaining civil rights was messy and hard fought, and I think there's enough background for students to understand why the black community continues to push for equality. I still see racism today, so we're obviously not done.
But to completely ignore any other valid narrative shortchanges our kids. They need to understand how each party in such a pivotal time saw things, and how the weaker party was able to succeed in the face of immense obstacles.
That said, the second link is absolutely atrocious. The only way Jewish people were able to rebuild was because of their ability to network after the war, not because they were forced to labor while malnutritioned. The Florida curriculum change is quite different, it doesn't attempt to downplay anything, it merely provides additional context to help students understand the success stories after emancipation.
view more: next ›