Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


ck4829's Journal
ck4829's Journal
April 28, 2022

Remembering when "indoctrination of students" was them just not wanting to be shot in school

Before panics about critical race theory, transgender people existing, or pronouns; we witnessed...

While many leaders didn’t acknowledge the students’ demonstrations, some weren’t hesitant to express opposition.

“It appears that these schoolchildren, innocent schoolchildren, are being used as a tool by (this) left-wing group to further their own agenda,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, told public television network ETV.

Stoneman Douglas student David Hogg, who has been one of the highest profile advocates for gun control, tweeted that McMaster shouldn’t doubt students’ sincerity and that he “can’t wait to see what the history textbooks our generation writes will have to say about people like you.”

Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, said he was “totally against” the walkouts and that any school administrator who participated “will be disciplined to the strongest (degree), with every ounce of the law they will be disciplined,” The Colby Echo, the student-run newspaper of Colby College, reported.


On Saturday night, (Minnesota state Rep. Mary) Franson shared a Facebook post that referred to Hogg as “Supreme Leader.” She then shared a quote, via the conservative site the Daily Wire, from the March for Our Lives speech by Delaney Tarr, a 17-year-old Parkland survivor, who said, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile!” Franson’s commentary above that quote was “And there you have it friends … the anti gunners, the high school students who speak for all, aren’t interested in an ‘inch’. They want the mile. They want your guns. Gone.”

The kicker, though, came about 15 minutes later when she posted a link from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum website titled, “Shaping the Future: Indoctrinating Youth.” Above, she quoted Hitler talking about indoctrination. Later, as she faced criticism over linking Parkland survivors to Nazi youths, she argued that the indoctrination post was unrelated to her earlier posts and denounced the media for making the connection.

If more proof was needed that insults and conspiracy theories have mainstream power, Donald Trump Jr. liked two tweets attacking Hogg. In one, conservative TV host Graham Ledger linked an article from Gateway Pundit and suggested Hogg, whose father is a former FBI agent, was “running cover” for his father because the FBI “botched” tracking down the shooter. Trump Jr. liked another tweet peddling the same conspiracy with a post from a far-right website about the “Outspoken Trump-Hating School Shooting Survivor” that doubted Hogg was an actual victim and blamed the “Deep State media” for giving him a platform.

Given that the Parkland student-activists are still working to encourage more town hall events and more demonstrations, it seems likely these teenagers will face evermore vile personal and public attacks in the months to come. Although we cannot expect any personal responsibility from internet trolls, Americans should expect better from public officials, who have the power to lend legitimacy to the more disgraceful arguments circling around social media. But in the instances above, the public responded by rejecting the hateful arguments, and proved we have the power to hold these politicians to account.


Never forget this dark and disgusting chapter of American conservatism.
April 21, 2022

The biggest mistake of the "culture wars" is that conservatives get to pretend they are the defense

That amidst all the scary pronouns, different subcultures popping up, immigrants, sexual orientations, etc. they are the force holding back the tide of all these changes, that they are the ones saying "not so fast."

That it is the Democrats, left, or liberals that is this frightening presence forcing all these changes onto the American people and conservatives are merely responding to all these changes.

But how true is it really?

And is this creating a bias that is giving conservatives an unfair advantage? That they get to benefit from things like status quo bias, system justification, and cognitive inertia.

Here are a couple of points...

What exactly are conservatives defending?

And I mean *what* exactly. When conservatives want to keep the clock from going forward or want to turn it back, what does that mean?

Imagine this discussion instead:
"You painted my house blue, I liked it red!"
"Nuh uh, it was never red!"

The person can then present a photo of the red house and have it turned back red. Conservatives want to turn our country's clocks back to an era that never existed. When they say some previous era, like the 50's or the 80's, they don't mean those eras, they mean how they thought that era existed... they thought we had peace and harmony in the 50's or the 80's, and no we didn't.

Case in point:
Fox News panelist claims we have a crime explosion that we wouldn't have had 30 years ago because of all the morals and values that supposedly existed back then - despite crime being higher 30 years ago. This is the past they are defending, not a real thing, but something that only exists in their minds, in their perceptions.

The things they claim to be responding to aren't all that new

If you believe conservatives when they say they are merely responding to the societal changes forced upon them, you might as well believe...

"You wake up one day and BOOM! People have strange pronouns! BOOM! Suddenly you have Muslim neighbors! BOOM! Kids are getting vaccinated! BOOM! People are turning transgender! BOOM! Abortion on demand! Oh my, NOOO!"

But this isn't true.

Gender-neutral pronouns - Wikipedia page on it from 2002

There were Muslims in the US before it was even founded - So there's no Secret Muslim invasion.

The first vaccine - Before 1800

Here's Christine Jorgensen - She transitioned in... 1952! She was celebrated for it, it was considered an achievement by many in the country. There was no massive other side that demanded to be heard that was saying she was some sort of evil wizard who only did it so she could see women changing in locker rooms.

Critical Race Theory - page on it from 2005

Rank-and-file conservatives aren't being agitated into action as a response against liberal activism, no they aren't, they are goaded into action because conservative elites tell them that liberal or leftwing activism is going on and it is somehow hurting them... when that thing or issue was actually going on for years and they didn't notice it until conservative elites told them to notice it.

Defense doesn't automatically mean 'good'

Go back to the 1950's and 1960's and take the definition of "culture war" with you and if you could talk to the people of that time, what would a "culture war" be? Abortion? No. Gay rights? No. It would be the civil rights struggle.

You couldn't really call MLK and other civil rights activists the defense since they were making a change - The defense would be the segregationists hitting people with fire hoses, it would be the KKK bombing churches.

Go back a hundred years from there, and the "culture war" issue of the day would be slavery. Abolitionists would be the renegades and ruffians, the slavers would be the ones "getting their property stolen"

Not necessarily good to be on the "defense", indeed.


We need to call out conservatives, politicians, media, and others that act like this is the case... they don't necessarily have morality or even reality on their side.

Not the defense, just another side.

April 20, 2022

If you can't spot the "deep state" or the "swamp" in another country, how can you do it for the US?

Putin and his United Russia party is the deep state, it is the swamp in Russia.

There is no getting around that.

Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 0/4 (No.)

President Putin’s 2018 reelection campaign benefited from advantages including preferential media treatment, numerous abuses of incumbency, and procedural irregularities during the vote count. His most influential rival, Aleksey Navalny, was disqualified before the campaign began due to a politically motivated criminal conviction, creating what the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) called “a lack of genuine competition.” The funding sources for Putin’s campaign were also notably opaque.

Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies? 0/4 (No.)

Russia’s electoral system is designed to maintain the dominance of United Russia. The authorities make frequent changes to electoral laws and the timing of elections in order to secure advantages for their preferred candidates. Opposition candidates have little chance of success in appealing these decisions, or in securing a level playing field. In 2020, Putin signed a law permitting the use of electronic voting across Russia, raising concerns about the security and secrecy of ballots in the 2021 Duma polls and other future elections. Also that year, the president signed a law allowing a three-day voting period in future elections; critics argued that the expanded timeframe increased officials’ ability to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections? 0/4 (No.)

Russia has never experienced a democratic transfer of power between rival groups. Putin, then the prime minister, initially received the presidency on an acting basis from the retiring Boris Yeltsin at the end of 1999. He served two four-year presidential terms from 2000 to 2008, then remained the de facto paramount leader while working as prime minister until he returned to the presidency in 2012, violating the spirit if not the letter of the constitution’s two-term limit. A 2008 constitutional amendment extended presidential terms to six years, and a 2020 amendment allowed Putin to run for an additional two terms, meaning he could remain in office until 2036.


How can you look at these things and NOT say "I dunno. Sounds pretty deep state-y to me"?

And yet...

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 10:37 AM
Number of posts: 34,679

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»ck4829's Journal