Qanon Followers are running for School Board around USA.

[Specialka]

I have kids and you are an idiot if you think you can keep your children away from things like that. All you are doing is leaving them open to their peers or god forbid the internet to teach them.

Never said I would keep them from that, I just judge that 8-9 years old is too soon for that, and they would be bettre suited for all that at 13-17
.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure I asked you to support your argument and you're doing everything in your power to avoid it.

No hun, I'm not doing your homework for you. Put up or shut up, Mister Hooke.

So that way you will be able to pick the information more favorable to your argument, no need to thank me.

[Elegiac]

I have kids and you are an idiot if you think you can keep your children away from things like that. All you are doing is leaving them open to their peers or god forbid the internet to teach them.

Millennial culture is watching tubgirl before having your first kiss.

[Draco-Onis]

Never said I would keep them from that, I just judge that 8-9 years old is too soon for that, and they would be bettre suited for all that at 13-17
.

- - - Updated - - -



So that way you will be able to pick the information more favorable to your argument, no need to thank me.

Unless your kids are babies now they know how to use the internet better than you did by 1st grade. There are bad parents letting their kids be raised by the internet. You may think they are too young but their friends aren't going to wait for you.

[Draco-Onis]

Millennial culture is watching tubgirl before having your first kiss.

Some parents seem to think it's the same as when they were kids.

[Elegiac]

Unless your kids are babies now they know how to use the internet better than you did by 1st grade. There are bad parents letting their kids be raised by the internet. You may think they are too young but their friends aren't going to wait for you.

People that let their ipads raise their children really be out here trying to insist they know how to be good parents. You hate to see it.

- - - Updated - - -

/facepalm how are people still arguing that a representative democracy isn’t democratic?

Because the US isn't a representative democracy (see: the Senate, House apportionment, the electoral college). It is a plutocratic oligarchy with some democratic institutions.

[Elegiac]

Sorry, but the US is most assuredly still a representative democracy.

Uh huh.

[downnola]

Sorry, but the US is most assuredly still a representative democracy. I get what you’re attempting to claim, but it’s just inaccurate.

If it was a representative democracy then Wyoming wouldn't have the same political power in the Senate that California does and Trump would have lost in 2016.

[Shadowferal]

That is why I said "and all that" because there are so many more things about that subject, but I still find that kid of 8-9 years old are too young for that subject.

I actually agree.
The subject at hand should be a gradual process linked with growth and maturity.
Let children be children. Time enough when they hit the teens.

[JohnBrown1917]

/facepalm how are people still arguing that a representative democracy isn’t democratic?

Very democratic when living in a small state gives you way more voting power.

[Draco-Onis]

I never said it was a perfect democracy, but it is a form of it.

I get what you are saying but by definition Russia is also a form of democracy. If you think about it we are closer to that than an actual democracy, leaders can pick who vote for them and now they can throw out votes of people they don't like.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well it's the smartest way to raise their political profile, I do hate these people but it's this kind of work is what it takes. My Guess is Trump will eventually be a third party.

[downnola]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repr...tive_democracy

Yes, I'm well aware that it's classified as a representative democracy. However, it's function is not that of a representative democracy but closer to oligarchy. Which isn't surprising when the founders made it very clear how much they didn't like democracy, thus the placing of anti-democratic institutions into the framework of government as checks of power on the population. If it makes you feel better to view our government as democratic then have at it, but it's not a very accurate description when viewed beyond the surface.

[D3thray]

Yes, I'm well aware that it's classified as a representative democracy. However, it's function is not that of a representative democracy but closer to oligarchy. Which isn't surprising when the founders made it very clear how much they didn't like democracy, thus the placing of anti-democratic institutions into the framework of government as checks of power on the population. If it makes you feel better to view our government as democratic then have at it, but it's not a very accurate description when viewed beyond the surface.

This sounds very much how I felt when I was younger. I came to realize there is a lot more nuance to the topic and while it still tends to be the case that the rich are in power, many come to be rich simply by attaining office. And yet the idea of a pure direct democracy is foolhardy as well because you only have to convince the barest majority of the rightness of your idea even though it may be objectively horrible. I’ve come to be a constitutionalist and small ‘l’ libertarian simply because I’ve come to see it as the best however flawed way to practically protect the freedom of individuals against the tyranny of the majority and oligarchs without radical destabilizing change.

[downnola]

This sounds very much how I felt when I was younger. I came to realize there is a lot more nuance to the topic and while it still tends to be the case that the rich are in power, many come to be rich simply by attaining office. And yet the idea of a pure direct democracy is foolhardy as well because you only have to convince the barest majority of the rightness of your idea even though it may be objectively horrible. I’ve come to be a constitutionalist and small ‘l’ libertarian simply because I’ve come to see it as the best however flawed way to practically protect the freedom of individuals against the tyranny of the majority and oligarchs without radical destabilizing change.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the "best way to protect the freedom of individuals against tyranny" is for more civic engagement in government, aka more democracy. The biggest threats against freedoms have always come from anti-democratic and oligarchic societies. American slavery was not an institution imposed on the nation by the populace. Apartheid in South Africa was not put to a vote and self-imposed by the majority. The Reichstag Fire Decree was not the result of law passed by popular vote. Objectively horrible governments are almost always minority-rule, totalitarian regimes.

Meanwhile, America is moving towards a single party minority rule with no desire from minority party politicians to pursue popular policy, exhibits extreme income and wealth inequality, has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and all with historically low approval rates for all forms of government and sub-par election participation. In other words, your argument doesn't add up.

In my experience, small government, small l libertarians are naïve, engage in wishful thinking, and have massive blind spots to the social forces and dynamics that make up the United States. It's the sort of ideology people follow when they're slightly aware of politics and still believe in the myth that America is a meritocracy. I would know, I used to be one until I grew up and opened a book.

[Endus]

This sounds very much how I felt when I was younger. I came to realize there is a lot more nuance to the topic and while it still tends to be the case that the rich are in power, many come to be rich simply by attaining office. And yet the idea of a pure direct democracy is foolhardy as well because you only have to convince the barest majority of the rightness of your idea even though it may be objectively horrible. I’ve come to be a constitutionalist and small ‘l’ libertarian simply because I’ve come to see it as the best however flawed way to practically protect the freedom of individuals against the tyranny of the majority and oligarchs without radical destabilizing change.

The "tyranny of the majority" is just a slanderous description of democracy. And there are no better alternatives. The only alternatives are "tyrannies of some minority". There are not "non-tyranny" options, other than outright anarchy, and such anarchy is only an interstitial moment before the emergence of a new tyranny; such anarchy cannot be sustained and cannot prevent tyranny from emerging.

I'll take arguments for conscientious oligarchy over irrational and unreasonable libertarian claims of some anarchic fantasyland where everyone just acts properly forever.

Also, right-libertarianism isn't actually interested in individual rights and freedoms, other than the freedom to become an exploiter of others. Capitalism itself is, fundamentally and irrevocably, a system of exploitation by the capitalists, of the workers. Any system of exploitation necessarily has to limit the rights and freedoms of the exploited. That's what "exploitation" is. You cannot possibly ever create a capitalist system that maximizes individual personal freedoms. It's antithetical to capitalism itself.

[Frolk]

Ill let anyone run for office/school board if it stops Critical Race Theory and its insane racism.

[Edge-]

Ill let anyone run for office/school board if it stops Critical Race Theory and its insane racism.

Perhaps you could define CRT for us then to show how it's racist?

[PC2]

Perhaps you could define CRT for us then to show how it's racist?

If CRT is about generalizing white people in a negative way then yeah it's racism just as it is for all other skin colors. If they don't generalize then CRT is fine.

[Edge-]

If CRT is about generalizing white people in a negative way then yeah it's racism just as it is for all other skin colors. If they don't generalize then CRT is fine.

Literally not what CRT is, but thanks for being an example of how the backlash to CRT doesn't understand what CRT actually is.

[uuuhname]

If CRT is about generalizing white people in a negative way then yeah it's racism just as it is for all other skin colors. If they don't generalize then CRT is fine.

if you think teaching people the extent to which the US government went to commit genocide against the Native American's living here as "generalizing" white people then hoooooooo boy do I have some bad news for you.