I think you’re confused what is happening, do you think when the Nazis banned books they still sold them in shops and carried them in public libraries? Do you think banning books was the sole extent of the bad things they did? I don’t know why you’d assume I’d think they did nothing wrong when I’m simply arguing that there’s a very clear reality not all books are suitable for children or a school environment.
Do you not think that there should be rules for schools? You think that the process by which books are banned is wrong but i bet if you suggested a system it’d involve public accountability and etc which would lead to you coming up with something very similar to the actual system in place.
What you mean is you think the people democratically elected to control school boards and educational departments are the wrong people for the job, and of course in many cases I very much agree.
That doesn’t mean I think every ‘banned book’ should be taught to children as a matter of principle.
Yes as I was trying to say when you understand the reality beyond the slogan it’s a very sensible thing, which is why presenting it in a way 99% of the population disagree with is so weird
I know what it’s trying to say but it’s not saying that - this is defund the police all over again, why is it so hard to say fund better alternatives rather than relying on police in situations they’re not suitable…
Like this is a very simple logic on the comic, banned book list becomes reading list - a commonly held foolish notion it seems. This isn’t what anyone wants to happen, everyone here minus a few wingnuts is saying that it should be a process based on merit - one person even said it should be tasked to people with masters degrees in determining suitability of literature for children.
What’s the next one ‘kick puppies’ where we say everyone should kick puppies,’ by which we mean of course stroke them gently and cuddle with them.
I don’t understand why supporting sensible thungs that might actually convince people is anathema to the left. You don’t need to just say the dumbest thing and hope people assume you mean something totally different and sensible.
I think the comic is the one that is pushing sillyness about lesson planning, it’s saying not to do to that and instead just assume the banned books have value simply because they’re banned.
Why don’t we just agree that there are plenty of books on the list that genuinely don’t belong in schools and that if we have a problem with the legislatory system we should propose sensible ways of screening books rather than pretending every banned book is Ray Bradbury and acting like every time a book isn’t passed for inclusion in the curriculum it’s literally nazi 1984.
Plus they often feel like they’re placed to catch people who drift upto 35 on the downhill section of a road that looks like it should be national speed limit anyway.
If they didn’t feel like a way for them to make money people would accept them easier.
Personally I’m a rare sunday driver so they don’t really affect me but I absolutely see how people can be annoyed by them
I hate kneejerk bullshit, so this teacher is going to teach some real shit books because the author included enough hate speech and perversion that it’s clearly not suitable for school age kids?
You think the media teacher has the same attitude ‘they said I couldn’t show you this in class but screw them! get ready for hard core porn…’
There have been good books banned but also we need to be reasonable and live in reality, not all books are suitable for children. The conversation should be about criteria for banning books in school or the process, etc. it’s incredibly dumb just saying ‘i don’t care if it’s three hundred pages of glorified rape and racism if you try to stop me teaching it to children you’re the baddie’
And yes I know ‘but we actually mean something different to the meme we’re upvoting…’ it’s ok upvote this post because I do too, right, that’s how it works?
Six year old, easy choice - do something mildly special for a kid that age and get on TV then when they ask you a question the answer is ‘well it was a dream i had, there was a pale horse riding towards us snd the horses name was Tod, it was going to run over everyone but an angel told me to call out to the faithful and save them…’
Kid can’t even read and from an atheist family then starts quoting bible and making up complex visions and messages no child could ever create - plus very clear predictions that come perfectly true, knowledge of science before it’s discovered… Admit it, you’d get sucked into my cult.
Could have a huge portion of the world believing, teach them the need for luxury gay space communism then when we’re all living in utopia be like ‘oh btw it was just a time travel prank lol’
So your original claim? You’ve forgotten about that and your not going to respond to anything I’ve said but will continue to throw out emotive but meaningless statements?
You’ve purposely tried to redirect the topic to avoid the very clear fact that the conspiracy theory claim you made is based on them doing things that you think they should be doing.
You just spoke about the current conflict as worse than what was happening previously, the article you used up back up your conspiracy theory that Israel created Hamas is based on the argument they should have had a similar reaction sooner and that it should be more extreme.
You say genocide which I presume you count as starting before this current conflict and is based on the flimsy arguement they don’t let enough aid though, etc but you also want to use the flimsy arguement that they’re letting too much aid through which is propping up a terrorist organisation.
The reality that you don’t rely know or care about what you’re talking about is very clear, you’re throwing around buzzwords and meme talking points you haven’t even thought about and have no idea of how they relate to the wider situation. You’ve decided your team thinks Israel is bad and you’re on a quest to amplify that because you feel it will make you look like a passionate and intellectual person - unfortunately these hamfisted and empty arguments you’re making just make you look like a gullible blowhard.
Ok so you’re against Israel providing work permits to Palestinians?
Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
From one of your articles, they’re literally complaining that Israel allows Palestinians to have jobs in Israel and saying that this practice of not totally starving out Palestine is proping up Hamas.
Since Netanyahu returned to power in January 2023, the number of work permits has soared to nearly 20,000.
The article is angry at him for something you almost certainly use the opposite of as a reason to call it an apartheid state or open air prison or whatever, this is something you surely think should happen right? Palestinians should be able to work in Israel, right?
They go on to talk about how he shouldn’t be letting aid money into Gaza, etc
And do you agree with this from the article?
One thing is clear: The concept of indirectly strengthening Hamas — while tolerating sporadic attacks and minor military operations every few years — went up in smoke Saturday.
They argue that anything less than total military destruction of Hamas is equivalent to support, they want a boodier and more brutal war which is why they’re saying the claim in the headline - surely you don’t agree with that? Surely you don’t think that Israel shouldn’t let aid into Gaza and should attack more violently? Therefore surely you don’t agree with the claim in the title.
You’re parroting headlines without reading the article, probably because you’ve heard the claim repeated by so many people who also didn’t bother to read the article and just assumed it validated their existing view.
That’s such a nonsense question even before the reality that both sides are killing innocent children, the most over used meme on the internet is the trolly problem but you’re still trying to act like you’ve never heard of it. Yes, if inaction results in a worse outcome then action is permissible from a moral stand point.
I really have to agree that it’s posts like this that made me give up on left wing politics, in certainly not right wing but I see no hope for the left until fundermental problems are fixed which I don’t believe politics or media is capable of addressing.
Further I am absolutely convinced a large portion of the loudest voices on climate change are so obsessed because they desperately want it to be the big doom that fucks up all the impressive things other people are achieving.
I’m not convinced, I need glasses and hate wearing them plus contacts are horrible but hugely popular because people think glasses are worse.
I think there are plenty of uses for HUD but they’re being greedy by trying to corner a consumer market that doesn’t exist when they should be trying to solve their way into niche markets which can popularise the tech and develop uses for it.
There’s almost nothing that I use a smart phone for which glasses would be better, I don’t need object labelling because I rarely come across an object I don’t recognise, I don’t need instant notification of messages or alerts. Maybe gen alpha will like having subway surfer playing at all times but I don’t really think so.
I think AI voice control and natural language though text input will remove even more of the need for it and taskable automation will help reduce that even more by removing jobs that need labelling assistance.
Wearing body cameras will likely become standard though whether we like it or not, which I assume most people won’t but will go along with for reasons of personal protection against slander and duplicitous editing.