408
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Right-wing activists using local school board races to push for greater control of public education didn’t make a dent in Tuesday’s election results.

One year away from the 2024 presidential election, voters largely rejected candidates backed by groups like Moms for Liberty that have aligned with GOP campaigns to undermine public education and restrict access to books, classroom materials and honest discussions of race, racism, LGBT+ people and gender and sexuality.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] grue@lemmy.world 166 points 11 months ago

the 'parental rights' agenda

We have really got to stop letting these dishonest fuckwads claim the nominative high-ground.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 73 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It doesn’t hold up the moment you scrutinise the name.

Parents rights to what? The answer is basically “ownership” of their children. Fully control their children.

Children aren’t possessions, they’re people.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago

Yeah I support youth liberation. They obviously need guidance and all that, but guidance is not what these people are doing. They want their children to have no say in their lives and no information about the world

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago
[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

From the state's perspective, ownership of children makes some sense. It benefits the state to have a wide range in how children are raised, and they certainly don't want to be in the middle of it. Child Protective Services barely functions for the most extreme cases.

But this extreme withholding of information is a bit different.

I don't disagree with you; I just don't like the argument.

[-] hansl@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

It’s not ownership. From the state perspective you don’t own your children. You can’t sell them, you can’t throw them in the garbage if they’re defective. It’s just insane. At best they’re dependents.

Shit from many “state perspectives” you don’t even own your fetus; you have less rights than it when it comes to health. Some states would rather see you die than the fetus. So much for state rights.

Also, and that’s an argument on your philosophy; even if it’s convenient on some aspect for a state to have a parent own their child, it’s not a winning strategy. States would spend more money and time that way than presuming children are people under the care of someone.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 23 points 11 months ago

Yeah, good luck with that. Americans fall for "X for Freedom/Liberty" all the time.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 18 points 11 months ago

Not that I put much stock in the latest poll that shows Biden trailing Trump in key states a whole year out, but it's an indicator that people are so fucking dumb, they can't remember how awful things were four years ago without being constantly reminded.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 16 points 11 months ago

Conservative media goes out of its way to blame Biden for his successes. Even during the debate, Ramaswamy said that like 3 or so tons of fentanyl had been caught at the border. Others mentioned that "encounters" were higher than they've ever been before. And then they went on to blame Biden for his failure to secure the border as they praised him for succeeding.

Conservatives are liars superior.

[-] ElleChaise@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

What? You didn't vote yes on the Free Patriots Saving Children from Terror and Kicking Out Gay Commies act? What are ya? I mean, yeah, the fine print lets priests finger kids at school and gives rocket launchers to police departments, but so what? You don't wanna look like a lib; do ya?

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Freedom to kneel for the anthem?

No not like that!!!!

[-] MTLion3@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago

Amen. They make their platform sound so moral until you look at their doctrine for more than a minute

[-] PigsInClover@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

This is why anything with “for liberty” or “right to” in the name immediately makes me suspicious.

I wish more people realized this. “Right to Farm” was just passed in Texas by voters by a wide margin - long term it just removes accountability from agricultural giants and even emboldens them to push out small farmers.

It was advertised as being for small farmers 🤦

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Like so many conservative groups, their stated goals are really the opposite of what their actions show their real goals to be. MoL claims to support parental rights. But if they really support parental rights then they should be supporting my right to let my child have access to any book I choose in the library. I want them to have access to books about different races, and cultures, and lifestyles. This group wants to remove all books from school libraries that they feel are inappropriate. In other words, they are trying to take away my parental rights to decide for my child and instead only allow my child to access books that support a conservative agenda.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Moms for "Liberty"

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
408 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3581 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS