Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Soban People have been advocating letting politicians who support inhumane and indefensible policies have it, not politicians who are "on the other side".
Edited by GoldenKaos on Mar 22nd 2019 at 3:55:04 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."![]()
![]()
It’s unnecessary and gross to spell out the n-word.
Huck Finn was popular in its day, yes. There are plenty of much better books from the same time period which weren’t as popular. Like, I dunno, various books by Black people.
Huck Finn isn’t deserving of being a sacred cow. I TAUGHT IT myself, as an English teacher, and the next year we switched to Their Eyes Were Watching God, and the sky didn’t fall, and my students didn’t suffer horribly because they missed out on Mark Twain.
Edited by wisewillow on Mar 22nd 2019 at 11:57:59 AM
Neither of the books are even that good.
If you struggle to find good historical novels that paint a realistic and necessary image of American culture from authors that were actually be affected by the oppression and victimization those other books pretend to understand, then maybe you don't deserve to learn about those things.
I'm a black writer.
Just like with the confederate stature conversation you guys had a while ago, this flagellation of "b-but it's history you HAVE to venerate it systemically in our museums and in our education system!" is one of the major issues with this country, and it's also incredibly lopsided and disingenuous.
There is so much history of this country that has been destroyed and forgotten or is in current constant THREAT of that happened, like, I don't know say, hundreds of communities and groups of people and their lives? I don't see anyone crying about their history being preserved.
Edited by Cream on Mar 22nd 2019 at 9:00:13 AM
Rawr.What it brings to the table does not justify the n-word usage. Fair for its time applies only to its time.
What? I'm saying the damn bill started with the wrong thing first.
Basically, rearrange the following order so you start with the last part: "This is racist, please stop using it, maybe consider these other books". Start with making the case for the replacements rather than "they're not racist".
Also, making white kids read books about/from the perspective of/by Black people is way more effective than “here’s a white person learning Black people are people.”
Like. Come on. That’s like saying we can only teach boys not to be sexist/misogynist by assigning books where a boy learns a girl is, shocker, human, versus assigning more books by and about women.
I love tone policing, it’s definitely the right thing to worry about here, how dare these politicians be so rude.
Edited by wisewillow on Mar 22nd 2019 at 12:00:41 PM
>People have been advocating letting politicians who support inhumane and indefensible policies have it, not politicians who are "on the other side".
Do you really think that the other side thinks that their policies are inhumane and indefensible? Do you really think that the other side thinks that your policies arn't inhumane and indefensible?
If the standard is "it's ok to harass politicians who support inhumane and indefensible policies" then both sides are going to harass each other.
>Is it because if we discuss their actual position, it'll stop being about tribalism?
No because tribalism is about the mindset, not the accuracy of the criticism.
Edited by Soban on Mar 22nd 2019 at 12:01:29 PM
Calm it down in here or the topic will be locked.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Soban
"Do you think the husband verbally abusing his wife every day thinks there is anything wrong with his behavior? From his perspective, he loves her and he's just doing what he believes is the right thing to do. So, it would be wrong for the wife to ever harass him back!"
Basically, no one's actions mean anything, except for the side that's actually correct, apparently.
Fuck republicans sorry not sorry lol. They should be shunned and shamed.
Edited by Cream on Mar 22nd 2019 at 9:04:10 AM
Rawr.....
...
...
Are you f***ing kidding me.
“Republicans think taking down confederate statues is evil and Democrats think locking children in camps is evil, so both sides.”
Terrible but unsurprising, Libertarians gonna Libertarian.
The ideology requires false equivalencies to sustain itself and its members are almost universally privileged, this kind of behavior is practically inevitable.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Mar 22nd 2019 at 9:10:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIf the standard is "it's ok to harass politicians who support inhumane and indefensible policies" then both sides are going to harass each other.
I'm sure they think that their policies are great. It doesn't mean they are, as substantiated by a sizable majority of scientists, economists, historians, and other experts. That's kind of the problem with your posts, you repeatedly push this "bothsides" narrative despite the fact that it has no place in our current political reality.
Like yes, no shit both sides are going to harrass each other.
That's what happens when you have two diametrically opposed incompatible views guiding large swaths of the country.
it's almost like IT'S INTEGRAL TO OUR HISTORICAL DNA OR SOMETHING. WEIRD.
Not fighting doesn't make the other side stop fighting. That's incredibly naive.
I'll never be shamed out of my vocal expression of how awful every republican is.
Rawr.@Soban: I'll be frank here. I'm not a regular member of this forum. I'm also not a Democrat or a Republican or even an American, but each time that I read your posts here, it's almost always weirdly about the same thing. I think you need a better argument than those criticisms come from Democrats or the left, so it don't count.
I'm not as witty as I think I am. It's a scientifically-proven fact.I'm sure all those white people who screamed and hurled death threats at Ruby Bridges to the point that President Eisenhower had to send in Federal Marshals to protect her and make sure her food wasn't poisoned didn't think they were rabid racists who were doing their utmost to trample the civil liberties of a little girl.
That doesn't change the fact that they were rabid racists hurling death threats at a little girl who were doing their utmost to trample her civil liberties.
Perception only goes so far.

I mean, however one feels about Huckleberry Finn in general, it is one of the most successful books in American Literature, and not just because someone decided it should be taught in school. In influenced a lot of writers and got translated in multiple languages. Though the best know moment of the two books (the painting scene) is in Tom Sawyer and no in Huckleberry Finn, it is hard to not argue that it had a cultural impact which resonates to this day.
On the other hand one could argue that exactly for this reason there might be less of a need to cover it and that it might be better to cover something which was also impactful but perhaps not that well-known. After all, my school never covered it (the closest we got to covering children literature at all was doing an essay round in which everyone introduced his favourite book) and I still know what it is about without even being American.
But whatever the angle, it shouldn't start with "this book is racist" especially since it is true that the far right tends to attack the very same book, too. I mean, there is a REASON why the discussion is always about Huckleberry Finn and not about Tom Sawyer (remember, those are technically two books, not one), despite the use of "nigger" being just as prominent in Tom Sawyer. But there Slavery doesn't really gets addressed. In Huckleberry Finn it does, and it is very clear that Slavery is in every form evil. Honestly, sometimes it reads a little bit like an apology for having written the world of Tom Sawyer as kind of wholesome.