Under His Eye.Originally Posted by bae
Under His Eye.
No shady deep state motivation here, personally speaking. I agree that I am not as concerned about discouraging words/ideas that are mean, hurtful, and aimed to cause dissention and bigotry, as I am about discouraging words/ideas that are inclusive and aimed to further acceptance of people who are/have been marginalized. Yep, that's me, I don't get upset that the N word isn't bandied about with glee, and that women AREN'T commonly referred to as Cs, etc. Nope, not unhappy about that. I AM unhappy that we can't discuss, especially in education, race/religion/patriarchy/misogyny and the subjugation of anyone other than white men. I do see a difference. While I agree that it SHOULD NOT MATTER, in the context of free speech, it does, to me. I'm all for super social stigma and shaming, "guidance", etc. and I think employers should be able to curtail what is said in business matters. I think colleges should be more, not less, open to the free exchange of ideas, but that the students and faculty should retain their right to object, PEACEFULLY, to ideas being presented by outside speakers and groups, regardless of their social/moral/political beliefs. I am NOT for any LEGAL, GOVERNMENTAL actions pertaining to curtailing the speaking of horrible ideas. Up to that "clear and imminent danger" thing. But that's just me. And the crickets. No big conspiracy or hidden motivation.You have to wonder about the motivation behind this newfound championing of free speech.
Last edited by early morning; 3-10-25 at 2:54pm.
I promise I will come back and read this, and possibly comment. I just haven’t Had time to move the URL to a Pay wall remover.
I have never until this past couple of weeks felt that I had to watch what I said in a classroom or a curriculum to avoid being reported on a DOE website, so that the government would withhold funds from my college because I make historically accurate statements about discrimination against women in academics, and I have been teaching since 1981.
The Democrats seem to me to be completely useless as a political party at present.
Somehow they managed to lose the Presidency in this last election, even though it should have been trivial to win. And, seemingly surprised by that loss, they appear completely disorganized and inept at formulating any effective response to the chaos that has resulted from that loss.
It will take them a while to rebuild, if they ever manage to do so. I do not see any candidates amongst the current herd that stand a chance against Trump when he runs for his 3rd term :-)
My local congresscritters seem to think that asking for more funds for their next campaign is the lead message in their communications and town hall meetings. Not a good look.
I think the democrats could significantly improve their image by giving Schumer and Adam Schiff the hook as representing them in common media. They look like they are bored and reading from a teleprompter script half of the time. They should get some nice attractive energetic media hosts and good looking young women with a lot of make up to improve their image. Well, maybe a little overdone, but they do have some image and age issues even with Biden and Pelosi gone.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
I think you’re right about that. Look at that recent congressional address. Trump spent an hour and a half spouting a morally inverted foreign policy and economic plans to gut punch the economy faster than you can say “Smoot-Hawley”, but the Democrats still managed to make him look like the adult in the room.The Democrats seem to me to be completely useless as a political party at present.
Somehow they managed to lose the Presidency in this last election, even though it should have been trivial to win. And, seemingly surprised by that loss, they appear completely disorganized and inept at formulating any effective response to the chaos that has resulted from that loss.
It will take them a while to rebuild, if they ever manage to do so. I do not see any candidates amongst the current herd that stand a chance against Trump when he runs for his 3rd term :-)
My local congresscritters seem to think that asking for more funds for their next campaign is the lead message in their communications and town hall meetings. Not a good look.
I skipped the linked article here because it’s by MSN and it’s just a summary of the New York Times article. I found the New York Times article and read it through a paywall remover.
There is a very long list of words that the New York Times says have been flagged as problematic in federal government directives by bureaucrats attempting to follow Trump’s wishes. They are reacting to Trump executive orders that are broadly written, so no one really knows what “words are safe. “
I agree that’s a chilling environment in which to work and people shouldn’t be afraid of the censorial nature of their government although the New York Times article does admit that administrations change the language they use to promote their Points of view.
for example
I’ve been watching social media reporting of how erasure of the word “trans” and all of the words like it (transgender, transsexual) are affecting them. I knew about the removal of trans persons in the write up on Stonewall Riots. According to some gay men, the trans woman named by the National Parks Service was incorrectly given credit for leading the Stonewall riots, and that wrong has been unintentionally righted by a Trump directive. There’s lots of fear and concern about the elimination of “X “as a sex choice in passport applications. These are things the Biden administration put into place, it’s not as though they had existed for a long time and they carried out Biden priorities.
I read today that they scrubbed photos of the Enola Gay off of the DOD website because of the name.
That’s crazy!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote