• sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, we’re too busy furiously masturbating to the second amendment. After all, that’s the only one that counts!

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No you see it wasn’t religious because it didn’t require teaching anything else, just not teaching evolution. Also since some church folk support evolution and other church folk don’t it can’t be religious for that either.

      Seriously though, for anyone unfamiliar with Christian dogma, according to them humans were divinely made in God’s image. The state supreme court wasn’t even trying to be impartial.

  • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    could you imagine having so much time on your hands that you debase the entire intellectual potential of your tribe, town, city, what have you, just by being a self righteous prick about pieces of paper with words printed on them?

    i was just in another thread. and for some reason. people take HUGE offense to being knowledgeable. like if you try to climb out of the ignorant bucket but you almost can’t because the other crabs pull us back down.

    you could rape a mans wife, flay his children before his eyes and he wouldn’t lift a finger to object, but say you have a book? and this book teaches you stuff? oh, that’s greater than any sin imaginable (the best part is i didn’t mention what book, but id love to hear everyone’s ‘self righteous’ projections about which one)

    • TheActualDevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I heard this guy talking about the right’s reaction to the pandemic say “This whole new idea of what’s liberty, and liberty for whom can kill. Especially when it replaces the idea of liberty as that which has to be shared in some kind of common good.”

      It’s obvious though that it’s not actually a new idea, but I think this cuts to the heart of it. It’s an inherently selfish mindset that is so prevalent on the right. They use the idea of “liberty” as a bludgeon to get what they want by redefining it. Freedom has stopped meaning a group concept and become purely a personal one. Their own wants are the most important thing in all cases. And I want to emphasize want. These aren’t beliefs. They are projecting their desires of the way they would prefer the world and calling them beliefs.

      It’s fairly universal, I think, but exemplified in American culture. I could go one about some of the “founding” ideas of the country that have had effects that last to today but I’m talking about freedom today. It was always a selfish idea here (bunch of business men didn’t want to pay taxes) and the end result is before us.

      People see a book that makes them uncomfortable - for whatever reason - and just want it removed, regardless of any wider ramifications. They get scared about their own impending doom when a pandemic hits so they seek to remove the fear by the most direct path. Actually solving it is hard, but removing the fear is quick, so they demand that everyone just stop being afraid and stop reminding them of the things they fear. It seems to be a pretty standard through-line for their ethos.

  • havokdj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine imprisoning the people who are responsible for bringing new, functional adults to our society for the inane crime of teaching.

  • Spzi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The comment section confuses me. Is this picture just a reminder how things were in 1925? Or is teaching evolution now banned in Florida?

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is an event from the past which is being echoed in the present.

      It’s strange, I know… sometimes people look at the past to better assess how to handle the present or to better know what to expect from the future.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alright, thanks for the answer. I found the snarky addition pretty unecessary. What’s up with people here? So much hostility around.

        I tried to understand the image and asked for help. Got it, thanked. Where’s the need for downvotes or sarcasm in that?

        Maybe that is living “A Boring Dystopia”, but I think we can and should do better.

        • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s because you were mistaken for a concern troll, “just asking questions” but intended to not people down.

          From your first response, it wasn’t possible to tell if you genuinely wanted more information, or were gearing up for some bad faith arguments.

          • Spzi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hate to put so much thought and disclaimers into simple questions but I understand where this is coming from. It’s alright.

        • YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean at first glance I see a title for an article, a short description of the scope of the article and a picture from a past article that echoes the same concept.

          This article (I haven’t seen it linked) is likely about books being banned.

          What’s with the snarky replies? Well, you seem to be asking in bad faith and are being treated as such. I’m sorry if that’s in error. If you’re genuinely asking these questions it’s a safe assumption having it explained clearly might help you. If you can sense the “snark” you can certainly parse the topic of this article from the screenshot.

          • Spzi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you seem to be asking in bad faith and are being treated as such. I’m sorry if that’s in error.

            Yes, it was a genuine question. I hope this community isn’t always that way.

            • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Don’t worry, I understood you had a question and wasn’t sure why you were downvoted. Seriously just don’t worry about the downvotes, it’s 2023 there’s going to be snark on the internet

  • JasSmith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Teachers were giving kids actual pornography. Sorry, as a parent, I have a right to demand my children not be taught how to give gay blowjobs with graphic illustrations. You went too far, and now you have to stop. Cry all you want. Most people are not okay with your degeneracy.

    Edit: one of the “children’s” books is called “Gender Queer,” and includes graphic illustrations of sex.