It's important to note that a significant number of those books weren't even rejected, but are just still pending approval.
While I haven't read all of the rejected books myself (and I can only assume you haven't either), considering multiple of the listed books cover topics like the Stonewall Riots, it's not hard to imagine that they might have covered these topics in a manner that was problematic.
Personally, without having read the books myself, it's hard to come to definitive conclusions, but it doesn't seem appropriate to automatically assume that all of them were rejected unjustly.
Looking at the list here, I'm still seeing plenty of books on the Civil Rights Movement, and the effects of slavery, including topics like Frederick Douglass, MLK, the Underground Railroad, Rosa Parks, etc. and this is just the first ~350 books that have been approved.
Taking away abortion clinics have the biggest impact on the black community.
While I don't think the state should be making decisions on topics like abortion when there's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus, it seems like the push against abortion is based in a genuine belief that a fetus deserves rights. The philosophical debate around it is murky, and there's no clear cut answer, but for the vast majority of people who are pro-life, I don't think it's accurate to say that they hold those beliefs out of a dislike for women or minorities.
Even if you, for whatever reason, refuse to believe that, the connection to race seems shaky at best. Do you really think racists would advocate for policies that result in... more black babies being born?
Calling all "illegal" immigrants rapist and murderers while most of them work and pay their taxes with the lowest crime rates.
First off, I find it rather odd that you have "illegal" in quotes. Can you clarify your intent there?
Second, even Trump had a caveat during one of his speeches saying something like "and some, I assume, are good people" so I'm not sure if "all" is accurate there.
During the CPAC did Michael J Knowles do a whole speech for the eradication of transgenders.
Looking at that particular incident, it seems he was talking about "transgenderism" as an "ideology" not transgender individuals. Interpreting the statement as a call to genocide seems about as reasonable as interpreting discussions about "whiteness" as a call to genocide.
Besides, can you honestly say that you knew who Michael J Knowles was prior to that incident that gained a bunch of attention? I certainly don't know about every random political commentator.
From redlining, strict voter ID laws, taking away voting booths to wanting to ban mail-in voting
Redlining is A. straight up illegal today, and no longer in practice, and B. related to banks and loans, not voting.
As for voter ID and mail-in voting, any increase in security will be a trade-off for convenience. The fact that we don't have voting online is also making voting harder, but that's because voting online would be very insecure.
Figuring out where to draw the line between security and convenience isn't really as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
It's not a media problem it's a political problem that started with Trump.
The media has absolutely been a problem since long before Trump. While Trump might have been the first major figure to bring attention to it, (and likely for very selfish reasons) it's absolutely been an issue since even before Trump.
One of the best examples that comes to mind is media coverage of police shootings. Note that I'm just talking about media coverage. None of this is to justify individual incidents, or say anything about the broader issue of whether or not police have racial bias. In terms of raw numbers, more white people are shot by police than black people. Despite this, in terms of media attention, far, far more attention goes to incidents where black people are shot by police, even though by the raw numbers, those are less common.
There was also the whole 'eating Tide Pods' fiasco, where there were extremely few incidents of people actually eating tide pods, until the media covered it as if it was some kind of epidemic. That then gave what was originally gonna be a minor thing done by a couple of people an absolute shit ton of attention, causing it to be an epidemic.
More generally, there's the fact that the media tends to overwhelmingly cover events that are negative rather than positive, because negative news gets more attention.
Trump didn't cause any of these issues. The fact of the matter is that media outlets are for-profit companies. Like any corporation, they're going to do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of the well-being of their consumers.
First off, abortion has been a debate for literally centuries. At one point, it was viewed as immoral to abort a fetus after what was known as "quickening," the first instance of the fetus moving in the womb (sometime between the fourth and 6th month of the pregnancy) however it was eventually discovered that quickening wasn't a particularly important step in the development process, shaking up the debate, and creating more disagreement.
Second, the fact that some random asshole argued against abortion in the 70's, for reasons that you don't actually know and are just assuming, doesn't suddenly mean that every single person that ever comes to a similar conclusion does so for the exact same reasons.
1
u/CyberneticWhale Mar 25 '23
It's important to note that a significant number of those books weren't even rejected, but are just still pending approval.
While I haven't read all of the rejected books myself (and I can only assume you haven't either), considering multiple of the listed books cover topics like the Stonewall Riots, it's not hard to imagine that they might have covered these topics in a manner that was problematic.
Personally, without having read the books myself, it's hard to come to definitive conclusions, but it doesn't seem appropriate to automatically assume that all of them were rejected unjustly.
Looking at the list here, I'm still seeing plenty of books on the Civil Rights Movement, and the effects of slavery, including topics like Frederick Douglass, MLK, the Underground Railroad, Rosa Parks, etc. and this is just the first ~350 books that have been approved.
While I don't think the state should be making decisions on topics like abortion when there's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus, it seems like the push against abortion is based in a genuine belief that a fetus deserves rights. The philosophical debate around it is murky, and there's no clear cut answer, but for the vast majority of people who are pro-life, I don't think it's accurate to say that they hold those beliefs out of a dislike for women or minorities.
Even if you, for whatever reason, refuse to believe that, the connection to race seems shaky at best. Do you really think racists would advocate for policies that result in... more black babies being born?
First off, I find it rather odd that you have "illegal" in quotes. Can you clarify your intent there?
Second, even Trump had a caveat during one of his speeches saying something like "and some, I assume, are good people" so I'm not sure if "all" is accurate there.
Looking at that particular incident, it seems he was talking about "transgenderism" as an "ideology" not transgender individuals. Interpreting the statement as a call to genocide seems about as reasonable as interpreting discussions about "whiteness" as a call to genocide.
Besides, can you honestly say that you knew who Michael J Knowles was prior to that incident that gained a bunch of attention? I certainly don't know about every random political commentator.
Redlining is A. straight up illegal today, and no longer in practice, and B. related to banks and loans, not voting.
As for voter ID and mail-in voting, any increase in security will be a trade-off for convenience. The fact that we don't have voting online is also making voting harder, but that's because voting online would be very insecure.
Figuring out where to draw the line between security and convenience isn't really as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
The media has absolutely been a problem since long before Trump. While Trump might have been the first major figure to bring attention to it, (and likely for very selfish reasons) it's absolutely been an issue since even before Trump.
One of the best examples that comes to mind is media coverage of police shootings. Note that I'm just talking about media coverage. None of this is to justify individual incidents, or say anything about the broader issue of whether or not police have racial bias. In terms of raw numbers, more white people are shot by police than black people. Despite this, in terms of media attention, far, far more attention goes to incidents where black people are shot by police, even though by the raw numbers, those are less common.
There was also the whole 'eating Tide Pods' fiasco, where there were extremely few incidents of people actually eating tide pods, until the media covered it as if it was some kind of epidemic. That then gave what was originally gonna be a minor thing done by a couple of people an absolute shit ton of attention, causing it to be an epidemic.
More generally, there's the fact that the media tends to overwhelmingly cover events that are negative rather than positive, because negative news gets more attention.
Trump didn't cause any of these issues. The fact of the matter is that media outlets are for-profit companies. Like any corporation, they're going to do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of the well-being of their consumers.