Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Annber03]

I also remember all the descripitions of the Bush Jr. administration as the "compassionate conservatism" administration early on. Which...

1) really says something about the GOP's behavior in general up to that point, to where people acted like that was a big deal and a "sign of change" for the party or whatever.

2) was also clearly total bullshit from the get-go. 

[bluegirl147]

I remember thinking GWB was the worst the GOP had to offer.   Clearly I was wrong.

I remember reading in I think Nancy Pelosi's book at one of her final meetings with Bush he said to her I bet you are going to miss me when I'm gone and she coolly looked at him and said no.  Wonder if she wants to change her response now. 

Edited November 17 by bluegirl147

[partofme]

4 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I remember thinking GWB was the worst the GOP had to offer.   Clearly I was wrong.

I remember reading in I think Nancy Pelosi's book at one of her final meetings with Bush he said to her I bet you are going to miss me when I'm gone and she coolly looked at him and said no.  Wonder if she wants to change her response now. 

Can’t speak for her but I don’t miss Dubya.   He ignored all the warnings before 9/11 and then lied is into a war with Iraq.  

[Annber03]

And everything after Hurricane Katrina. "Heckuva job, Brownie" and all that. 

At least he didn't draw on a map with a Sharpie, though, which is a HELL of a low bar to clear. 

[Is Everyone Gone]

Dubya is a classic example of good man, bad president.

As for the Reagans, should have been a bit of a red flag that they were estranged from all their kids.

[Annber03]

5 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

As for the Reagans, should have been a bit of a red flag that they were estranged from all their kids.

Every so often, while watching Colbert on CBS, I'll see ads for Reagan's son Ron Jr. advocating for the Freedom from Religion Foundation. 

Edited November 17 by Annber03

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

 

As for the Reagans, should have been a bit of a red flag that they were estranged from all their kids.

Not to mention during his 1980 presidential campaign he gave a states rights speech from the same county in Mississippi that three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.

[Dimity]

34 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

Dubya is a classic example of good man, bad president.

I didn't agree with most of his policies but he had some class.  I always loved the little speech he made when his portrait was unveiled at the White House.

Quote

“When the British burned the White House ... in 1814, Dolly Madison famously saved this portrait of the first George W. Now Michelle, if anything happens, there's your man,” Bush joked. (During her speech, First Lady Michelle Obama promised she’d go straight for his portrait.)

And former President Bush didn’t spare the current president: “I am also pleased, Mr. President, that when you are wandering these halls as you wrestle with tough decisions, you will now be able to gaze at this portrait and ask: What would George do?"

 

[kittykat]

I give Dubya credit now for being able to laugh at himself for all his dumb gaffes but that does not exonerate his terrible presidency and acting as the puppet of Cheney and Rummy.  Cheney can pal around with Harris all he wants but he was always pushing for extended presidential power so he shouldn't be all "what happen!" When Trump and his cronies are trying to do the same.

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, kittykat said:

I give Dubya credit now for being able to laugh at himself for all his dumb gaffes but that does not exonerate his terrible presidency and acting as the puppet of Cheney and Rummy.  Cheney can pal around with Harris all he wants but he was always pushing for extended presidential power so he shouldn't be all "what happen!" When Trump and his cronies are trying to do the same.

Oh yeah let's not kid ourselves.  Bush and his cronies did things that helped lay the groundwork for Trump and his cronies.

The one good thing I can same about him is his wife was nice.

[Dimity]

9 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The one good thing I can same about him is his wife was nice.

I also liked hearing that his daughters left encouraging notes for Obama's daughters to welcome them to the White House.  Funny how back then this kind of behavior during the transition of power was remarked on but not considered remarkable.

[kittykat]

39 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I didn't agree with most of his policies but he had some class.  I always loved the little speech he made when his portrait was unveiled at the White House.

 

Hahahahaha! Now THAT'S how you leave the White House.

[Is Everyone Gone]

Laura Bush was an awesome lady. She was for gay marriage and LGBT rights and was pro-choice, and made no bones about it.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

The one good thing I can same about him is his wife was nice.

And he loves his daughters (you know, in the non-creepy way). 

If he'd just stayed on his Texas ranch clearing brush, instead of running for the presidency he regarded as his birthright and then ceding control to warmongers and the Christian right, I'd be a lot more interested in his humor.

[peacheslatour]

Wow. This cover was from October.

 

[Spartan Girl]

The one thing about Bush and Jr I can at least respect is that they accepted their SNL parodies with good humor and class. 

[Dimity]

In keeping with the thread title "the feels" I read a book today and ended up sobbing like a baby at the death of one of the characters.  Major flashback to reading Little Women and being inconsolable at Beth's death.  Anyway this kind of over the top reaction to a scene in a novel is unusual for me now and I am totally blaming the stress of the last week.   I am  feeling a little fragile and a lot stressed right now so for anyone out there going through this  please know you're not alone.

[RealHousewife]

3 hours ago, Bastet said:

And he loves his daughters (you know, in the non-creepy way). 

If he'd just stayed on his Texas ranch clearing brush, instead of running for the presidency he regarded as his birthright and then ceding control to warmongers and the Christian right, I'd be a lot more interested in his humor.

Same. I didn't want to have a beer with him back then, and that still stands. 

 

5 hours ago, partofme said:

Can’t speak for her but I don’t miss Dubya.   He ignored all the warnings before 9/11 and then lied is into a war with Iraq.  

Yeah, I appreciate decorum and a sense of humor as much as the next person, but neither absolves one of atrocities. I'm not for the rebranding of him as some sweet old man who paints just because 45/47 happened. 

 

[Lantern7]

Bush sucks. So does Chaney. The latter belongs on trial at the Hague. The only reason he supported Kamala was because the GOP went after his daughter. Turns out he had a heart. Probably not much of one, but still . . .

I'm curious, totally not throwing shade . . . have any of you ever run for public office? I used to go to Young Democrat meetings in my area, and I volunteered for a few Congressional campaigns. I'm curious how hard it would be to learn about local matters. How bad is my situation? There were two local offices on the ballot, and the Democrats didn't put anyone up. I live in a blue state, but I'm in an area where it's probably for the best we would be associated with fictional inept vampires, as opposed to Guidos.

[Palimelon]

Quote

I'm not for the rebranding of him as some sweet old man who paints just because 45/47 happened. 

Same. Trump's horribleness shouldn't excuse previous people being horrible.

Quote

Bush and his cronies did things that helped lay the groundwork for Trump and his cronies.

For some, the groundwork for that goes further, to Newt Gingrich in the early 90s.

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

Bush sucks. So does Chaney. The latter belongs on trial at the Hague. The only reason he supported Kamala was because the GOP went after his daughter. Turns out he had a heart. Probably not much of one, but still . . .

The Daily Show has issues, but one thing they always nail is describing Cheney as a war criminal any time he's referenced; his endorsement of Harris resulted in this:  "An unrepentant war criminal who needs the blood of Iraqi children to power the machine that keeps him alive and out of the flames of hell for one more day" 

[tearknee]

Papa Bush was no better (His response to AIDS deaths almost made Ronnie look like Harvey Milk).

 

[Ohiopirate02]

5 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

Bush sucks. So does Chaney. The latter belongs on trial at the Hague. The only reason he supported Kamala was because the GOP went after his daughter. Turns out he had a heart. Probably not much of one, but still . . .

I'm curious, totally not throwing shade . . . have any of you ever run for public office? I used to go to Young Democrat meetings in my area, and I volunteered for a few Congressional campaigns. I'm curious how hard it would be to learn about local matters. How bad is my situation? There were two local offices on the ballot, and the Democrats didn't put anyone up. I live in a blue state, but I'm in an area where it's probably for the best we would be associated with fictional inept vampires, as opposed to Guidos.

Didn't Dick Cheney have a literal change of heart? I know he had an organ transplant that was hella suspect.

My profession prevents me from running for local office because I work where I live. I also cannot volunteer for my county's Democratic party for the same reason. 

[PRgal]

Why aren’t we okay with people who learn?  Someone up thread mentioned Cheney and only changing his mind because of his daughter?  But wasn’t she out long before that?  And TBH, I thought same sex relationships were weird when I was younger.  I’m going to be very honest about that.  And I’m sure many of you did too.  I was also weirded out by drag queens and things that didn’t fit into my “norm.”  Heck, I didn’t figure out my “norm” wasn’t everyone’s norm until I went to university.  There, I met people who were, like me, CBC (Canadian born Chinese) but didn’t grow up in the suburbs like me or my peers.  They grew up above shops their parents ran in Chinatown.  Or in small towns.  I thought the latter was a relic of the past.  I also met people who didn’t come from high schools where everyone went to a four year school (just as they didn’t know that there were schools like mine!).  Just saying. 

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Why aren’t we okay with people who learn?  Someone up thread mentioned Cheney and only changing his mind because of his daughter?  But wasn’t she out long before that?  And TBH, I thought same sex relationships were weird when I was younger.  I’m going to be very honest about that.  And I’m sure many of you did too.  I was also weirded out by drag queens and things that didn’t fit into my “norm.”  Heck, I didn’t figure out my “norm” wasn’t everyone’s norm until I went to university.  There, I met people who were, like me, CBC (Canadian born Chinese) but didn’t grow up in the suburbs like me or my peers.  They grew up above shops their parents ran in Chinatown.  Or in small towns.  I thought the latter was a relic of the past.  I also met people who didn’t come from high schools where everyone went to a four year school (just as they didn’t know that there were schools like mine!).  Just saying. 

For me there is a difference between learning or perhaps evolving is a more accurate word and changing your mind because something affects you or someone you care about.   I am not going to give Dick Cheney the benefit of the doubt. 

And regarding same sex marriages I never understood why people were against it.  What difference did it make to them?  They would argue slippery slope and people wanting to marry a toaster.  They would argue it weakened their hetero marriage or some nonsense.  They would argue the Biblle.  But in the end more and more people evolved on the issue and it became legal.  But those opposing it want to take it away.  Why?  Because they haven't evolved.

[PRgal]

8 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

For me there is a difference between learning or perhaps evolving is a more accurate word and changing your mind because something affects you or someone you care about.   I am not going to give Dick Cheney the benefit of the doubt. 

And regarding same sex marriages I never understood why people were against it.  What difference did it make to them?  They would argue slippery slope and people wanting to marry a toaster.  They would argue it weakened their hetero marriage or some nonsense.  They would argue the Biblle.  But in the end more and more people evolved on the issue and it became legal.  But those opposing it want to take it away.  Why?  Because they haven't evolved.

My only reasoning that some people are against same-sex marriage is reproduction and some people are really big on genetics.  This is why adoption was hidden from children for generations, and I’m still hesitant to tell some family members that my son is from a donor embryo.  Heck, my dad told me not to even tell him!  And that I should only tell him about the surrogacy part (don’t worry, he knows.  Most of my friends know as well).  There’s a reason why I was told that finding an Asian egg donor would be tough.  We were lucky that our clinic had a lot of families that donated their embryos and several were Asian/White families.  Our first set of embryos were an exact ethnic match (Chinese and Ashkenazi) but they didn’t work out.  My son is half Chinese and half “east coast Canadian” (basically Irish/Scottish/French and possibly Indigenous). 

[andromeda331]

One thing I don't get with trickle down economics or people voting for Trump now. They always seem to think it's going to work and they are going to get a lot of money from the wealthy. But when has that ever happened? What have the wealthy ever done for the lower classes? They work to keep unions out of their businesses, they use their money and influence to vote down bills that would actually help the lower classes. They give politicans tons of money to help them. They happily get deals, contracts and etc from the government to make them richer. They vote for bills and deals that keep them from paying taxes. Trump didn't do anything to help the lower classes when he was president or before or since. He scammed them before and during his election and contiunes to do so with his stupid Bibles and others stuff that people buy. So the supposed billionaire gets more money. Did any of the lower classes get money or anything? Nope. But they still keep thinking it will happen.  

[Yeah No]

On 11/16/2024 at 7:27 AM, Enigma X said:

I also think nobody has the right to demand you hold space with them. I have ignored many people on this forum and in this thread. And I am sure the same has been done to me, and I am not upset about it. This is not cancel culture but owning your personal space and peace.  Before the concept of cancel culture became a thing that has always been true. Not everyone was invited to my house.

OK but this forum is not your house so the situation is different. If you find yourself at a party with people that don't agree with you and walk out I have no problem with that, but if you try to damage their public reputations by getting others to be against them and harass them for having opposing values and opinions that's another thing altogether and not one I would condone. Just imagine that being done at a party instead of online. That's kind of analogous. Like I said in a previous post, walking away is the way I handle those things. Cancel culture is not just about walking away it's about being vindictive and trying to ruin careers and make people disappear from public view just because we don't agree with them.

On 11/16/2024 at 9:15 AM, Eri said:

You are right, we can't argue with the way the Constitution was written, but keep in mind this was crafted from the perspective of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants holding a dominant role in the governance of the country for the foreseeable future (no women, no Catholics, no minorities, etc.).

I do keep that in mind and yet I still think what they wrote is relevant today if taken in the spirit it was written. I don't agree that just because they were WASPs their wisdom is somehow suspect and should be overthrown. I think about the ideas, not the people who hold them. Besides, most of the founding fathers were not even technically Christians. They were rationalists and Deists which is not about faith at all. Some of them were technically agnostics or even atheists. And I think they were thinking on a more universal level to protect all people. They were about concentrating on what makes us Americans not what divides us.

This country was founded on religious and other freedoms, meaning the right of everyone to practice as they wished without government telling them what they could and could not believe or practice. Just because they were WASPs doesn't mean they didn't have some very enlightened values and ideas. In fact they were more enlightened than most people from their era. That's why the documents they wrote resonate with people even today and people are still coming to this country to flee all sorts of oppression elsewhere. Because they were about protecting everyone's rights. We could get into an argument that they weren't about protecting Black people's rights or women's rights and had slaves, etc., but I prefer to interpret the spirit of their beliefs rather than the letter. If you really interpret where they were coming from it would not exclude other races and women and many people even over 100 years ago interpreted it that way. And we don't have to rewrite the Constitution to do it.

I was a big supporter of the ERA but now I kind of understand why it never got passed. It wasn't because of prejudice against women, it was because if you interpret the spirit of the Constitution it already holds that women are equal to men. I actually find it amazing that the founding fathers wrote something that actually protected everyone even if their own personal values might have been different. It speaks to a character I rarely see in people today. They were actually the radicals of their time. The fact that people have warped their enlightened, egalitarian vision to suit their own prejudices is not their fault. And just because they were WASPs doesn't mean they didn't have some very progressive views that are still valid today.

I think there's a tendency to see anything coming from WASPs as prejudiced but it might surprise some people that depending on where they were from and what their backgrounds were, their ideas have been very progressive and enlightened and were even back when this country was founded. When I learned the difference between the WASPs that settled the North and those that settled the South it explained everything for me. Those that settled the South were mostly business people, not idealogues, who came here to exploit this place purely for profit. They didn't give a crap about human rights or equality and used people to serve themselves. But those were not the principles upon which this country was founded and that's what ultimately lead to the Civil War.  Meanwhile, many of the WASPs that settled the North did so to escape religious persecution. While some of them became persecutors themselves, many of them believed in human rights and freedoms to worship as they wished and to respect other ethnic groups. Which is one reason slavery was abolished in the North earlier than down South. 

I learned a whole lot about this when I was studying my genealogy. As it turns out my father's mother's side goes back to the Revolution and the Mayflower, and not only that but I am related to a few signers of the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary war heroes, founders of towns, the city of Hartford, even Ethan Allen. (Note that my father is also half Jewish, and my mother was Sicilian.) So my WASP paternal grandmother was not prejudiced that's for sure. I never met her because she died before I was born, but my father always called her "The poor woman's Eleanor Roosevelt". She told him tales of our ancestors being part of the Underground Railroad. I haven't found anything to confirm that yet, but everything else she told my father turned out to be true. So at least on that side I come from some really amazing people that took freedom and equality very seriously, and not just for other WASPs. That all WASPs get lumped together is not fair in my view. Most upper class WASP women in the 19th century were college educated and many served in WWII working as spies and the like. I have one friend whose mom worked for the CIA even after the war. I also find it amazing that their husbands were OK with that. My father was very on-board with women's rights or he would never have married my mother, LOL.

So again, I'm not necessarily taking you to task on this but your post got me thinking about it. I just think painting all WASPs with the same brush is unfair. I allow for people to be products of the time they were from, which may not be as enlightened as now, but I have to give the founding fathers a lot of credit for being a hell of a lot more enlightened than a lot of people are even TODAY. 

[Yeah No]

21 hours ago, Bastet said:

If something is offensive, it's offensive whether or not a member of the marginalized group it targets is within earshot.  That's where those who aren't members of those groups need to step up their game.  If a man says something sexist in a group of men, it's still sexist even though there are no women around.  Men need to let their bros know it's not okay.  If a white person says something racist in a group of other white people, it's still racist even though there's no member of the targeted group (or other racial/ethnic minority) around.  White folks need to speak up and say it's not okay.

I'm going to quote national treasure Wanda Sykes again, talking about states banning books and drag shows but not assault rifles:  "Unless a drag queen marches into a school and beats eight kids to death with a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, you are focusing on the wrong shit."

If a tree falls in a forest and no one's around....LOL. I hear you but what I'm against is government having any power over what people say in their own homes. I may think what they say is wrong and offensive, but I still think it's none of my business or government's business, and they have a right to say those things at home whether or not I agree with them. Being overly concerned with what people think or say in private might lead to bugging their homes to "catch" them so that they can be publicly shamed, canceled and arrested for nothing more than being offensive, and I'm not on board with that. I still support the right of everyone to say things I find offensive without interference from government or harassment from other people. I still think people should not try to persecute people for disagreeing with them. Talking against their views is one thing but harassment is another. And I support that in my own practice too. If government allows it I'm not going to ask government to change because I find it offensive. It's one of those principles my ancestors fought and died for and I won't change on that. And so I fully agree with Wanda Sykes! Unless they do something wrong based on what they say I think it's focusing on the wrong shit!

20 hours ago, Dimity said:

I'm at a loss here.  How is this a concern for you?  If you are being offensive "behind closed doors" why would anyone know or care?  The fact that you are comfortable saying unkind things behind someone's back is not the topic under discussion here. 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think it's just a hop, skip and a jump between being overly concerned with what other people are thinking and saying in private and bugging their homes to "out" them on what they really think for the purposes of shaming and canceling them vindictively.

19 hours ago, Dimity said:

Same, a lot of things will make me stew inwardly but I will stay silent for the sake of keeping the peace.  But not everything.  For me, growing up in Montreal, I used to hear a fair number of antisemitic slurs bandied about because, I guess, being a blue eyed blond with an Irish last name meant I'd agree or find these remarks funny.  They soon found out how wrong they were.

I made a friend at work years ago and stayed in touch with her after we both left our company. I didn't find out until years after we met that she was antisemitic. She started insulting Jews thinking I was not of Jewish descent myself, but I had never told her that I was 25% Jewish on my father's side. It was a tough situation because her and her husband were also clients of my husband's limo. business at the time and he needed the work. So I kept my mouth shut and have kept her at an arm's length ever since. He doesn't have that business anymore so that's not an issue for me now but it's been tough for me to be that harsh to cancel her out of my life completely over that.

Look, I know enough people that would bash me for being half Sicilian, including some Northern Italians that think they're better than us. I once had a cousin of my husband's put down Sicilians in front of me (when he found out I was one) and he was half Neapolitan! And I have also had Jewish friends and acquaintances with that attitude, who I remember asking me if I had relatives in the Mafia. I had a Roman Catholic coworker that resented me and acted huffy when she found out I was part WASP. If I was that concerned with how people felt about my ethnic background and canceled all of them I would be alone in a room with no one to talk to for the rest of my life! And so I don't do that!

Edited November 17 by Yeah No

[RealHousewife]

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

For me there is a difference between learning or perhaps evolving is a more accurate word and changing your mind because something affects you or someone you care about.   I am not going to give Dick Cheney the benefit of the doubt. 

And regarding same sex marriages I never understood why people were against it.  What difference did it make to them?  They would argue slippery slope and people wanting to marry a toaster.  They would argue it weakened their hetero marriage or some nonsense.  They would argue the Biblle.  But in the end more and more people evolved on the issue and it became legal.  But those opposing it want to take it away.  Why?  Because they haven't evolved.

Exactly. I could see different sides of many issues, but I never could get people being against gay marriage. It hurts no one. 

8 hours ago, Bastet said:

The Daily Show has issues, but one thing they always nail is describing Cheney as a war criminal any time he's referenced; his endorsement of Harris resulted in this:  "An unrepentant war criminal who needs the blood of Iraqi children to power the machine that keeps him alive and out of the flames of hell for one more day" 

So true. A lot of people on this board adore Ana Navarro. She's a republican speaks out against Trump, and she can be funny. But she was the biggest Bush defender and could be really nasty defending him. I still remember how rude she was when Bush was called a war criminal on Politically Incorrect many years ago. It's like her attitude is Trump's racist rhetoric is the worst, but oopsie if hundreds of thousands of innocent brown kids die? 

And then Whoopi Goldberg was kissing Liz Cheney's butt recently and talking about how "moral" she is. I get why people can't stand Trump and so many people are terrified, but I can't with this attitude of we've had all these decent administrations until he came along. 

[Bookworm 1979]

3 hours ago, PRgal said:

3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

My only reasoning that some people are against same-sex marriage is reproduction and some people are really big on genetics.

This reasoning is so stupid (I'm not saying you're stupid, PRgal, just this reasoning in general). I'm straight, and I guess I should ditch my husband because we don't have kids (I don't want any, and now getting pregnant for me would end in a miscarriage anyway).

[Palimelon]

In some parts of the country, that miscarriage might even get a police investigation opened.

[bluegirl147]

I have never heard the reason people were against gay marriage was reproduction concerns.  Gay people can and do have biological children. Or was the fear they would have children and they would be gay?  Because that I do believe would be a fear for some people.  Same people who think drag queen story hour at libraries is just set up to groom children.

Edited November 17 by bluegirl147

[Palimelon]

Quote

I have never heard the reason people were against gay marriage was reproduction concerns.

I have.

[Enigma X]

6 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

I have.

I think they say that because they think those of us criticizing them would think that is a sound reason, and it really isn't.

[PRgal]

27 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I have never heard the reason people were against gay marriage was reproduction concerns.  Gay people can and do have biological children. Or was the fear they would have children and they would be gay?  Because that I do believe would be a fear for some people.  Same people who think drag queen story hour at libraries is just set up to groom children.

I’m guessing that they’re worried that the child is only related to one parent by genetics?  Donor conception is a problem for them?  I don’t know.  All guesses for me, based on what my family has said about donor conception (that it should be kept a secret/within the family only.  I mean, I could hide the fact that my son isn’t genetically related to my husband and myself but a same sex couple can’t.  It would be obvious that the child is genetically related to one parent). I blame culture and tradition for this.  

[Avaleigh]

13 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

If you find yourself at a party with people that don't agree with you and walk out I have no problem with that, but if you try to damage their public reputations by getting others to be against them and harass them for having opposing values and opinions that's another thing altogether and not one I would condone. Just imagine that being done at a party instead of online. That's kind of analogous. Like I said in a previous post, walking away is the way I handle those things. Cancel culture is not just about walking away it's about being vindictive and trying to ruin careers and make people disappear from public view just because we don't agree with them.

I'm also concerned about people not being willing to listen to each other. Yes, of course, there are some situations where you just have to switch off. There's no worthwhile conversation that can be had with, say, a white supremacist, a religious fanatic, a neo nazi, etc. It would be a waste of time. 

I do however think that we should be willing to have dialogue between people with different points of view. Those are opportunities for us to have thoughtful discussions. We can learn from each other, explain the reasons why we disagree with each other, or maybe just take the opportunity to politely correct a narrative that isn't factual. In college we're encouraged to get to know people from different backgrounds and respect different POVs even if we don't happen to agree with them. 

Unfortunately, the majority of people seem to prefer their respective echo chambers over having conversations with people who might disagree with them here or there, and I don't think that has necessarily been helpful to us as a society. Don't get me wrong, echo chambers can also be helpful for when you just want to sound off, express frustration, seek validation from people who share your POV, etc. I just don't think it's helpful to only have discourse within an echo chamber.

@Yeah No, I do take your point about people sometimes feeling pressured by group think to the point where they won't voice a contrary opinion over fear of OTT backlash. I remember an online discussion regarding edits and censorship of books from authors who are not alive to consent to changes being made to their work. The people who had the POV that books are a product of their time and people can either choose to read them or not were criticized in OTT fashion. The feeling was that if you didn't agree that offensive books should either be taken out of circulation or appropriately edited then all civililty pretty much went out of the window. 

Keep in mind too, this wasn't a discussion about out of date textbooks that contain offensive, inaccurate, or out of date content. That would have been perfectly understandable. People who think LGBT+ content has no place in school libraries need to get over it. I also think that non textbook books that have "offensive" content should not banned, edited, or taken out of circulation. This is an area where the market should ultimately decide. If people no longer want to read content that they feel is offensive then they don't have to buy or borrow said content. 

Ideally, we can have these sorts of discussions and still feel like we're in sync when it comes to the larger issues. These are the sorts of conversations and topics that come up, and there are sometimes people who make you feel like you aren't allowed to have your liberal card anymore. 

If I vote for the Democratic candidate, if I support and agree with all of the bread and butter issues--healthcare, freedom of choice, separation of church and state, social safety nets, equality for all--is it really that big of a deal if I'm okay with literature that is a product of its time? Does stuff like that have to be a deal breaker?

[Yeah No]

4 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

Ideally, we can have these sorts of discussions and still feel like we're in sync when it comes to the larger issues. These are the sorts of conversations and topics that come up, and there are sometimes people who make you feel like you aren't allowed to have your liberal card anymore. 

If I vote for the Democratic candidate, if I support and agree with all of the bread and butter issues--healthcare, freedom of choice, separation of church and state, social safety nets, equality for all--is it really that big of a deal if I'm okay with literature that is a product of its time? Does stuff like that have to be a deal breaker?

Yeah, that's a really good point and I would say it shouldn't be a deal breaker generally within reason. I know there have been people calling for canceling the founding fathers because they had slaves or that Dr. Seuss or at least some of his books should be canceled or edited to remove some racially offensive undertones and stereotypes, but I don't support that. First of all if it weren't for our founding fathers we'd have fewer freedoms and those we had would be more limited than I think a lot of people realize nor would they like. I think it would shock my parents' generation that there is even any question about this because they lived through WWII and know first hand what a threat to those freedoms looks like. My parents were both WWII veterans and didn't take their freedoms and rights for granted. My Sicilian relatives came here fleeing the mafia so this place was like heaven for them despite any hardships along the way. The freedom from oppression was worth it. Same is true for many immigrants coming here today. This whole place is a sanctuary for immigrants and if we get too far away from appreciating how our ancestors suffered without those freedoms we will forget how important those founding fathers were in giving us those freedoms and equal rights to pursue happiness. It saddens me that there may be threats to those freedoms coming from within our very own country. Trump and the far right scare me. But I also think there are those on the far left that want limits to freedom too or toss out the Constitution and rewrite it to suit themselves only and I don't condone that at all. Equal rights is for everyone, not just people that think they occupy the moral high ground. We all think we do, but that's not how equality works. People who disagree with me have to have the right to disagree. If they trample on my government guaranteed rights in the process, then they will be dealt with by the law.

Secondly, I don't think children should be sheltered from potentially offensive imagery or racist or other stereotypes and implications that are present in works of art from previous eras. By that logic "Gone with the Wind" or "Birth of a Nation" would be banned. If we don't allow kids to see those things they won't learn to be more resilient toward them. And we need to be more resilient because I think it's that lack of resilience that's leading to an atmosphere of intolerance to opposing points of view and calls to cancel them. I do think those works of art should be presented in their proper context, though. I don't have a problem with them being prefaced with an explanation first before children see them and in fact I think that's a good idea.

[PRgal]

Censorship is such a thing that some people might want to ban my books (yes, plural - #2 is coming out soon!!!) not just because the family is mixed ethnicity and mixed faith, but also might because they don't exactly follow customs of their respective cultures!!!  Goodness, the bastardization of...I dunno...dan dan mein!!!  Goodness, going to a revolving restaurant to celebrate Lunar New Year (this is a VERY REAL tradition with my family that I PURPOSELY used for the first book)!  GOODNESS, making MAPLE SYRUP cake for Rosh Hashanah to accommodate the vegan family member!!!  Or vegan "brisket."  

Note:  I have yet to hear this from people, but you never know.....

[Yeah No]

15 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Censorship is such a thing that some people might want to ban my books (yes, plural - #2 is coming out soon!!!) not just because the family is mixed ethnicity and mixed faith, but also might because they don't exactly follow customs of their respective cultures!!!  Goodness, the bastardization of...I dunno...dan dan mein!!!  Goodness, going to a revolving restaurant to celebrate Lunar New Year (this is a VERY REAL tradition with my family that I PURPOSELY used for the first book)!  GOODNESS, making MAPLE SYRUP cake for Rosh Hashanah to accommodate the vegan family member!!!  Or vegan "brisket."  

Note:  I have yet to hear this from people, but you never know.....

Sorry to hear that, I hope that doesn't happen to you! But you made me think it's also true that canceling can come from a type of prejudice. I think many of the people trying to cancel everything also think they occupy the moral high ground and that they are superior to everyone else. Of course THEIR views are RIGHT and PURE and everyone else's are flawed and should be squelched and overthrown. I think that sounds way too extreme to be consistent with democratic principles. I say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", or "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". One is from the Bible and the other is one we used to say a lot when I was young. The point is everyone lives in a glass house, so some people should  get over themselves and learn to be a little tolerant of what they think are other people's imperfections. You can't throw people away because of one or two things that offend you even if they are big things to you and especially if they are otherwise good people. If they are convicted felons that hurt people, well I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about everyday people that come down in judgment on my values and choices in life. We need to get back to a semblance of the "polite society" we used to have. You know, the one where politicians used to fight like hell in gov't. chambers but then would go out for a drink and were friends. And if someone continues to insult and offend us, again we can tune them out or find other ways to handle it short of descending to their level. I also remember another saying from when I was young that I think applies here, and that's "Two wrongs don't make a right". Folksy wisdom, but still relevant today.

Sorry I went on that tangent based on your post, it was something I wanted to say anyway, lol. 😉

[Avaleigh]

44 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I don't have a problem with them being prefaced with an explanation first before children see them and in fact I think that's a good idea.

I don't mind this either. Giving content proper context helps us learn, so I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

What I do wish I had control of though are trigger warnings. I understand why trigger warnings exist and think that content should have them so that people aren't needlessly exposed to something they would rather not view.

That being said, I personally would like to have the option of being able to either remove or show the trigger warning if I choose to do so. I sometimes find trigger warnings to be spoilery so I think it would be nice if those of us who don't necessarily want trigger warnings for certain shows or movies or whatever don't have to see them if we don't want to see them. I don't want to take them away from people who value them, but it would be nice to be allowed to have a choice with something like this. 

Regarding sheltering children from offensive content and imagery, it's ultimately a parental decision, I suppose, but I do think it's important for young people to have a well rounded sense of history. Not only is it important to learn from our history, but I think it's valuable to show young people how far we've come as a society. Contrary to the belief of some, we have achieved a lot in the way of social progress and it's important to remember that. We can always improve and do better, and there will likely always be new goals to reach, but we should also be proud of the progress we have made as a nation especially in comparison to some other parts of the world. 

[peacheslatour]

7 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

I don't mind this either. Giving content proper context helps us learn, so I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

What I do wish I had control of though are trigger warnings. I understand why trigger warnings exist and think that content should have them so that people aren't needlessly exposed to something they would rather not view.

That being said, I personally would like to have the option of being able to either remove or show the trigger warning if I choose to do so. I sometimes find trigger warnings to be spoilery so I think it would be nice if those of us who don't necessarily want trigger warnings for certain shows or movies or whatever don't have to see them if we don't want to see them. I don't want to take them away from people who value them, but it would be nice to be allowed to have a choice with something like this. 

Regarding sheltering children from offensive content and imagery, it's ultimately a parental decision, I suppose, but I do think it's important for young people to have a well rounded sense of history. Not only is it important to learn from our history, but I think it's valuable to show young people how far we've come as a society. Contrary to the belief of some, we have achieved a lot in the way of social progress and it's important to remember that. We can always improve and do better, and there will likely always be new goals to reach, but we should also be proud of the progress we have made as a nation especially in comparison to some other parts of the world. 

And how far we've regressed.

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I have never heard the reason people were against gay marriage was reproduction concerns.  Gay people can and do have biological children. Or was the fear they would have children and they would be gay?  Because that I do believe would be a fear for some people.  Same people who think drag queen story hour at libraries is just set up to groom children.

I definitely rememebr hearing the "biological kids" argument back in the day. Which, alongside the sheer stupidity of such an argument on its face, is also a complete slap in the face to straight couples who may have wanted children but could not have them because of infertility issues or things of  that sort. The idea that a marriage was only valid if it was straight people pumping out biological kids is offensive on so many levels, both to same-sex couples and to straight couples who either didn't want kids or couldn't have kids., and to those who adopted children as well. 

(And then some of them would be like, "Okay, they can do all the typical marriage stuff, but can't they call it something else?" As if straight people owned the word "marriage", or something. It was insane.) 

And yes, people were also worried that a kid raised by gay parents would "turn gay". Apparently they completely forgot about all the kids raised by straight couples who turned out to be LGBTQ+. 

In short, some people are monumentally stupid and truly don't seem to understand how being LGBTQ+ works. 

Edited November 17 by Annber03

[Palimelon]

Quote

Apparently they completely forgot about all the kids raised by straight couples who turned out to be LGBTQ+. 

And the kids who never met a drag queen and still turned out to be LGBTQ+. Also the ones who never saw any movies, TV shows, cartoons, books, songs, etc, featuring anything LGBTQ+ but still somehow turned out queer.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

In short, some people are monumentally stupid and truly don't seem to understand how being LGBTQ+ works. 

Or the rights the state confers upon married couples with a piece of paper. Which is why the SC had to rule the way they did with Ogerfell. Also why that case was filed the way it was. 

[bluegirl147]

16 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Or the rights the state confers upon married couples with a piece of paper. Which is why the SC had to rule the way they did with Ogerfell. Also why that case was filed the way it was. 

The stories we heard about same sex couples being together for decades without being married and not being able to see their partner in the hospital.  Or one of them dying without a will and not being allowed to inherit anything.  And there were people who were perfectly fine with that and wants us to go back to that.

[kittykat]

53 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I think many of the people trying to cancel everything also think they occupy the moral high ground and that they are superior to everyone else. Of course THEIR views are RIGHT and PURE and everyone else's are flawed and should be squelched and overthrown.

I agree with this.  As one example, it is my main issue with the Christian Right.  They'll push the bible or the Ten Commandments in public school then turn around and ban books that show any sexual content, particularly if it is LGBT+ related.  Then they accuse public schools of indoctrinating them with socialist or anti-religious rhetoric. And I think the Christian Right should exist.  If someone values the teachings of Christ or Sunday church enriches one's life or personal happiness then good for them.  But don't turn around and get the government involved in forcing school prayer or Bible study in public school.  Some of these people turn around and accuse secular groups of forcing their children to conform to their beliefs but they're really just upset that everyone isn't conforming to them.  And again, not ALL religious groups but the most vocal ones and ones that are posted to high levels of government and that concerns me.

I have religious friends and I'm happy to continue their acquaintance because they respect that I'm not religious and I respect their beliefs in return.

Also this is only one example.  It's also true that the far left can shut people out as well to the detriment of our side and it's something we all need to work on.  I don't want to shut people out that don't think like me.  It's good to keep people around that challenge you and make one think differently about any subject but it's also good to draw boundaries.  If my Republican friends do believe Trump can save the economy and that inflation can go down but are also protective of my rights and other at risk groups then of course we'll stay friends.  If they start sprouting racist, misogynistic and bigoted rhetoric then that's my line and I'm done.

[bluegirl147]

The Christian right are hypocrites.  Sure they want the Ten Commandments and bibles in public schools.  But if another religion wants to display something they will have a fit.   

[PRgal]

28 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

And the kids who never met a drag queen and still turned out to be LGBTQ+. Also the ones who never saw any movies, TV shows, cartoons, books, songs, etc, featuring anything LGBTQ+ but still somehow turned out queer.

I think I've seen a drag queen IRL maybe ONCE (outside of the Pride parade, and even then, it was from a distance because I have issues with crowds) and I'm 45!  Okay, and a kid at camp who attempted to do it (but wouldn't even make the cut to be on RuPaul's show today.  It was bad, even for summer camp in 1996.....) for the talent show.  See how I'm laughing looking back at those camp memories?  And it didn't ruin me at all.  I did feel badly for the kid because he was teased NONSTOP by the other boys in his cabin. :( 

4 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The Christian right are hypocrites.  Sure they want the Ten Commandments and bibles in public schools.  But if another religion wants to display something they will have a fit.   

This.

I know that some of the anti-LGBTQ+ marriage things come from non-Christians/non-westerners too.  And I don't think colonialism and European influence has anything to do with it.  It all has to do with carrying on the family name.  For some cultures, for guys, anyway (particularly the oldest male), it's marry a woman, have a male child but you can do whatever you want on the side (well, historically, anyway).  

[Browncoat]

28 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The Christian right are hypocrites.  Sure they want the Ten Commandments and bibles in public schools.  But if another religion wants to display something they will have a fit.   

And they say, "Well if the kids don't like or follow the Ten Commandments, they can just not look at them on the wall of the school." (I may have paraphrased a bit), but they will ban "questionable" books from the library.  Can the religious kids just not look at those books?  Don't both things just boil down to "if you don't like it, don't look at it?"

Note: I do not believe the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools, even if equal time and space is given to other religions.  Public schools are not the place for religious teachings -- that's what church/synagogue/mosque is for.  I also do not believe books should be banned.  If you don't want your kid reading something, fine, but don't tell me what my (hypothetical) kid can or can't read.