Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I usually respect people's views on religion, and their personal choices not to let their kids read Harry Potter is their own, I guess, but it kinda breaks my heart to hear about it. It is such an imaginative series and was so delightful to read. I thought the days of believing in witches was over. Magic, on the other hand, is a whole different wonderful thing, no matter your age.Of mice and men.Bullshit.Nice sample limiting. Of course they would not be offended by the n word. They claim to be offended by crude language, by topics like
underage drinking, perceived homo-code talk. Precious snowflakes.
Give me some examples then, Twinkletoes.
Catcher in the rye
Harry potter, cuz witchcraft. Lol
Show me where Harry Potter was banned in a public library?
Conservatives Urge Ban on 'Harry Potter' Over Witchcraft, Homosexuality
The wildly popular Harry Potter books and their author, J.K. Rowling, have already been blasted by Christian conservatives for glamorizing witchcraft and the occult. The fantasy series is now charged with encouraging homosexuality following the author's announcement that one of the novels' main characters is gay.
Read more at Conservatives Urge Ban on 'Harry Potter' Over Witchcraft, Homosexuality
The books have been burning
United States, 2001
Harry Potter books were a "flashpoint" for book burners in the U.S. in 2001. One of those burnings was in the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Pennsylvania. "We got some people mad at us, but it's good to have publicity," said Rev. George Bender.
Besides the Potter series by J.K. Rowling, books by actress Shirley MacLaine and psychic Edgar Cayce were also torched.
There have been at least six book burnings involving Potter books in the U.S.
Yeah, you did it previously, when you ludicrously demanded an example of a conservative complaining about the n word, lol. Now you try to exclude the myriad of conservative demands for censorship by making up arbitrary limitations. If you were interested, you would know about these censorship attempts, successful or not, by conservatives. Focus on the family, hahaha.Crafted a sample small enough by including all of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodxy and the main stream Protestant Denominations?Yeah, you exclude arbitrarily as fuck, until you think you have crafted a small enough sample to have a stool to sit on, snowflake. Thx 4 playing.OK, what MAJOR DENOMINATION, and I am excluding idiot fringe Protestant denominations, WHAT MAJOR DENOMINATION of Christianity has demanded these books be banned in the last 50 years?Of mice and men.Bullshit.Nice sample limiting. Of course they would not be offended by the n word. They claim to be offended by crude language, by topics like
underage drinking, perceived homo-code talk. Precious snowflakes.
Give me some examples then, Twinkletoes.
Catcher in the rye
You have a weird view of what a 'small sample' is, Twinkle
The push to ban these and other books comes primarily from the right. There is a long tradition of Conservative attempts at censorship.
OldLady said that it was Christians in the US who were getting TKAMB banned, when the predominant reason for the ban was it's being characterized as 'racist' for using the N-Word.Yeah, you did it previously, when you ludicrously demanded an example of a conservative complaining about the n word, lol. Now you try to exclude the myriad of conservative demands for censorship by making up arbitrary limitations. If you were interested, you would know about these censorship attempts, successful or not, by conservatives. Focus on the family, hahaha.Crafted a sample small enough by including all of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodxy and the main stream Protestant Denominations?Yeah, you exclude arbitrarily as fuck, until you think you have crafted a small enough sample to have a stool to sit on, snowflake. Thx 4 playing.OK, what MAJOR DENOMINATION, and I am excluding idiot fringe Protestant denominations, WHAT MAJOR DENOMINATION of Christianity has demanded these books be banned in the last 50 years?Of mice and men.Bullshit.
Give me some examples then, Twinkletoes.
Catcher in the rye
You have a weird view of what a 'small sample' is, Twinkle
Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Mockingbird is a book about standing up against racism, doing the right thing regardless, but it wasn't in any way trying to give a "phony" black perspective. Anyone making that argument for the book didn't read it. (And sometimes the people bringing the complaint DON'T read the book--that happens more than you think. They just hear about it on their website or at their church group and they're off to the races.)
http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...raft-homosexuality-29889/#F8YCJWke2eQhuqge.99[
Conservatives Urge Ban on 'Harry Potter' Over Witchcraft, Homosexuality
The wildly popular Harry Potter books and their author, J.K. Rowling, have already been blasted by Christian conservatives for glamorizing witchcraft and the occult. The fantasy series is now charged with encouraging homosexuality following the author's announcement that one of the novels' main characters is gay.
Read more at Conservatives Urge Ban on 'Harry Potter' Over Witchcraft, Homosexuality
The books have been burning
United States, 2001
Harry Potter books were a "flashpoint" for book burners in the U.S. in 2001. One of those burnings was in the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Pennsylvania. "We got some people mad at us, but it's good to have publicity," said Rev. George Bender.
Besides the Potter series by J.K. Rowling, books by actress Shirley MacLaine and psychic Edgar Cayce were also torched.
There have been at least six book burnings involving Potter books in the U.S.
Appealing to their sense of reason just offends them more.Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Mockingbird is a book about standing up against racism, doing the right thing regardless, but it wasn't in any way trying to give a "phony" black perspective. Anyone making that argument for the book didn't read it. (And sometimes the people bringing the complaint DON'T read the book--that happens more than you think. They just hear about it on their website or at their church group and they're off to the races.)
Dear OldLady
A lot of the point I am making is what you are explaining. Thanks for elaborating,
though it merely preaches to the converted and doesn't help change minds that are already made up!
If all people do is assume any book written by a white author (and especially written from the
"Southern cultural perspective" at the time as both Huck Finn and Mockingbird depict),
is "promoting that racist culture" then nobody listens to and considers what you have stated.
Once they "have it in their minds it it biased"
then ALL the explanations you provide above
come across as 'trying to justify' and denying there is any problem with white cultural bias!
It falls on deaf ears because of that bias going into the discussion.
And the more you explain, it just makes it worse, "because you're
trying to justify it" instead of addressing their real point!
Do you know what I mean? haven't you seen this over and over?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Unfortunately it's like presenting
an entire banquet to guests who refuse the invitation
because they prefer to find fault with the cook!
No matter how delicious the meal is, they aren't going to eat.
It's more important to make a political statement, even if it
doesn't actually apply to that cook or their cuisine. Doesn't matter.
If that cook "symbolizes" what is wrong, then protesting that cook
is protesting that wrong thing. And refusing to eat their food publicizes this.
Appealing to their sense of reason just offends them more.
That is like attacking their judgment, and makes them cling
MORE defensively to their decision to boycott.
I think you know what I mean.
Especially if it doesn't apply to this book,
that shows even more that the reaction is based on "symbolism not substance."
[
I'm not dumb, but I'm not a democrat either. I know democrats who aren't dumb and who TEACH Mockingbird and Huck Finn and who FIGHT the banning of books. I keep telling ya, you're not living in reality.
Again, the push to ban these and other books comes from the left. Anecdotal stories notwithstanding.
The push to ban these and other books comes primarily from the right. There is a long tradition of Conservative attempts at censorship.
Appealing to their sense of reason just offends them more.Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Mockingbird is a book about standing up against racism, doing the right thing regardless, but it wasn't in any way trying to give a "phony" black perspective. Anyone making that argument for the book didn't read it. (And sometimes the people bringing the complaint DON'T read the book--that happens more than you think. They just hear about it on their website or at their church group and they're off to the races.)
Dear OldLady
A lot of the point I am making is what you are explaining. Thanks for elaborating,
though it merely preaches to the converted and doesn't help change minds that are already made up!
If all people do is assume any book written by a white author (and especially written from the
"Southern cultural perspective" at the time as both Huck Finn and Mockingbird depict),
is "promoting that racist culture" then nobody listens to and considers what you have stated.
Once they "have it in their minds it it biased"
then ALL the explanations you provide above
come across as 'trying to justify' and denying there is any problem with white cultural bias!
It falls on deaf ears because of that bias going into the discussion.
And the more you explain, it just makes it worse, "because you're
trying to justify it" instead of addressing their real point!
Do you know what I mean? haven't you seen this over and over?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Unfortunately it's like presenting
an entire banquet to guests who refuse the invitation
because they prefer to find fault with the cook!
No matter how delicious the meal is, they aren't going to eat.
It's more important to make a political statement, even if it
doesn't actually apply to that cook or their cuisine. Doesn't matter.
If that cook "symbolizes" what is wrong, then protesting that cook
is protesting that wrong thing. And refusing to eat their food publicizes this.
Appealing to their sense of reason just offends them more.
That is like attacking their judgment, and makes them cling
MORE defensively to their decision to boycott.
I think you know what I mean.
Especially if it doesn't apply to this book,
that shows even more that the reaction is based on "symbolism not substance."
That is like attacking their judgment, and makes them cling
MORE defensively to their decision to boycott.
Geez, Em, how do you refute it if not by explaining what the book was actually about? Are you saying I might as well just shut up and go home? Ignore threads bent on racial stereotyping and liberal-slamming? That's pretty hard.
And, kiddie books are being used in grammar schoolThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
But, but, but it has the N-WORD IN IT!The book is fine, and very easy to find, nice read.
It's a classic. I read it in Highschool.
Some folks need to get over it and understand the historical background of these great books.
roflmao
1. You wrote: "But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism,"
No...haven't
Please quote that which shows same.
Repeat:
Well until Identity Politics came to the fore and began launching attacks on white people like the following, there was no need for whites to have a 'race consciousness', but if we keep getting targeted by the left by racial set aside laws, racial quotas in private institutions and have the courts view of what is a reasonable perspective on events of a crime turned against whites using 'a reasonable minority perspective' then whites have to respond in the racial language that is used against them.
How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism
Abolish the White Race
RACE TRAITOR | Abolish the White Race
White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it
Activist: Exterminate White People
2."whites have to respond in the racial language that is used against them."
No they don't.
What they must do, if not a coward, is respond to every such statement and excoriate the talker.
I try to do that regularly.
And how has that gone for you without making reference to white people also having rights too?
How does one argue successfully for a roll back in anti-white legal codes without speaking of white rights?
Why are you afraid to assert your rights as a white person?
3. "So you have no problem with laws that target white people for discrimination?"
Please don't begin with "So..." as though I have actually agreed to that absurdity.
Aside from affirmative action...which I have posted in opposition to....can you name any such laws?
I am not arguing against Affirmative Action as a hole as it can be administered in a way which is based on economic indicators instead of race.
I am arguing against racial set asides in government contracts, and there are others as well, but lets deal with one thing at a time.
Are you in favor of continuing these racially discriminatory laws or not?
The push to ban these and other books comes primarily from the right. There is a long tradition of Conservative attempts at censorship.
That is as you know, a complete lie...
[
a. I haven't seen any of that.
The preoccupation with race seems to be a totally Leftwing, Liberal, Democrat thing.
b. Left refers to the values associated with the Western welfare state, secularism and the vast array of attitudes and positions identified as Left from Karl Marx to contemporary socialist democrat parties and today’s Democratic Party in the United States.
The Left-wing ‘trinity’= race, gender, class.
c. American is identified by the “American Trinity” of “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum.”
“E Pluribus Unum.” refers to a society based on neither ethnicity nor race.
Prager
The goal of George Soros, the name put to the cabal that runs the American left, is to create division.l.
[
The irony of you accusing anyone else of lying is very, very, very rich.
I have posted examples.
You lie and ignore them.
Because that is what you do- you lie to attack anyone who is one degree to the left of what you consider to be acceptable.
[
United States, 2001
Harry Potter books were a "flashpoint" for book burners in the U.S. in 2001. One of those burnings was in the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Pennsylvania. "We got some people}.
[
The irony of you accusing anyone else of lying is very, very, very rich.
I have posted examples.
You lie and ignore them.
Because that is what you do- you lie to attack anyone who is one degree to the left of what you consider to be acceptable.
I have no need to lie, Comrade..
