this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
271 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4341 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
271
Moms for Liberty had a chance to explain themselves. It didn't go well. (www.motherjones.com)
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When confronted with basic questions on “60 Minutes,” the group appeared ill-prepared and stumped and alleged their critics were trying to “marginalize us.”

Since its founding in 2021, the conservative organization Moms for Liberty has billed itself as a champion for “parents’ rights,” pushing campaigns across the country to ban books and the use of pronouns in schools. Their crusade, as my colleague Kiera Butler has reported, often alleges that educators, specifically in public education, are out to “groom” and “indoctrinate” kids.

But what, exactly, does that mean? It doesn’t appear as though Moms for Liberty knows either.

In an interview with 60 Minutes host Scott Pelley that aired on Sunday night, the group’s two co-founders repeatedly struggled to explain their platform beyond empty talking points that have fueled the culture war in schools. They also failed to present facts to back up various claims.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 94 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Good on the interviewer for exposing these two as ignorant clowns. If they demand to be taken seriously they should have to provide serious evidence. As it stands they have trouble even articulating exactly what they're angry about. If this group is serious about wanting to stop grooming, they should start protesting churches, not libraries. "In the average American congregation of 400 persons, with women representing, on average, 60% of the congregation, there are, on average of 7 women who have experienced clergy sexual misconduct." And that's from a Christian watchdog group.

The outrage about indoctrinating children coming from within the echo chambers of homeschooling, religiously affiliated schools/camps, and and other child/youth groups is tragically ironic. I know, I grew up inside that system.

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I think they can precisely articulate exactly what they're angry about if you let them, but they know if they do that in public it'll show just how crazy, hateful, ignorant, and bigoted they are. What they're struggling with is how to articulate what they're angry about in a way that doesn't immediately expose them as a modern-day KKK for LGBT+ folk.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

Can't spew hate towards black people. That's racist. But hating an "urban youth" or "thug" is totes devoid of any racial bias.

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

As best I've been able to suss out, living as I do in a very red state, "grooming" has simply been expanded out to encompass any activity that makes a kid feel like they don't have to be a cis-het Christian to be a good person.

[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"Woke" is 100% just shorthand for "anything I don't like or don't understand". The people are angry because society is progressing past their antiquated beliefs and fears. It's not even that they want to maintain the world they were born in - they want to "return" to a mythologically perfect past that never existed.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Neither party will go after churches, because theyre consistantvoters who vote how their religious leader tells them to vote.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 69 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This seems to be the same failing those backing "anti-woke" efforts. When challenged, they can't actually define what they mean by "woke".

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

That's because the right wing has moved far beyond reality, evidence, logic, reason, semantics—only ever casually familiar to them to begin with.

They are now only about feelings.

They are trained, ala Pavlov, to react to the sounds of certain words, not their meaning: woke, liberal, groomer, trans ideology, gay agenda, immigrant, and the like. The right wing pundits could just have easily used different bells and sound clips to evoke the same reactions.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, they certainly can define “woke”, but they probably know they can’t fully say the quiet part out loud.

To them, the existence of gay and trans people is “woke”. Teaching about inequality or systemic racism is “woke”. Heck, I’m sure women’s rights and related healthcare is also “woke” to them.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, they certainly can define “woke”, but they probably know they can’t fully say the quiet part out loud.

They apparently can't say any part out loud then because they give no solid consistent definition at all.

To them, the existence of gay and trans people is “woke”.

The crazy part is, while that's likely the answer for some of them, but I don't think it is for all of them. So until they can give a definition they can actually agree on, passing "anti-woke" laws or standing on an "anti-woke" agenda is specious because they can't even say what that is.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

But that vagueness is the entire point to ruffle the feathers of their base and to get them angry at something/anything.

This is just another boogeyman for the GOP leadership to distract their base from any real issues.

Heck, do you hear anything about CRT anymore? Like a school of fish, the entire talking point shifted to “woke” and anti-trans.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

i think you would find karlyn borysenko is actually pretty knowledgable. i watch her stuff instead of advocating my friends conduct real pol-ed. it's honestly very good, she picks great topics, with a lot of queer theory but she never loses sight of the context of anticapitalist struggle. i'd say maybe she's a bit **too** focused on it in the sort of "no war but classwar"-bros kind of way, but honestly she is very good but not at all leftist.

edit:

also, she has been dunking on MFL basically the entire time

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious why is this so downvoted? I know nothing about karlyn.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 5 points 8 months ago

she's definitely not a lefty. she had a pretty good grift being the "liberal who went to a trump rally and found out they werent all monsters" or something. did a media circuit and fell into relative obscurity.

she stirs a lot of drama now. i can't say that all or even most of her content is worth watching, but she does watch actual leftist seminars and then does her shitty commentary. by shitty i just mean "i disagree". i'd say usually,she's knowledgable about the topics.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago

Fascists look like idiots when interviewed until they get violent. They have no definitions or reasonable arguments for their position because bigotry isn't a reasonable position and to them anyone who challenges them is an other, an outsider who deserves to be dehumanized. As long as they can convince people to be scared and angry they are safe to exploit hate. The more people collaborate, work together towards shared values, participate in local school and city board meetings, the less power these idiots can steal.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 34 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“Let’s just say, children in America cannot read,” co-founder Tina Descovich responded, referencing the group’s effort to sharpen its focus on literacy issues, before Pelley’s voiceover narration interrupted to note that the co-founders “often dodged questions with talking points.”

“You’re being evasive,” Pelley shot back.

GREEEEEAT

Now do people in power the same way pls

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They're focusing on literary issues by forcing books out of the library?

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In their culture, it is considered extremely disrespectful to challenge someone on their viewpoint or ask probing questions. Like "fighting words" level, or relationship-ending with that person and maybe several others in their same circle.

This one time on national prime-time TV may genuinely be the first time someone's sat them down and asked them serious and challenging questions about what the hell they're even talking about, where they can't choose to just end the conversation in some fashion or other.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I'd love to ask these people when they think childrens' rights trump parents' rights. I'm betting their answer is "never".

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

Well first they'd have to be convinced that children are allowed to have rights.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

"Children have no rights! they are just my property and should do as I say, when I say it!" - These kinds of parents, usually.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 4 points 8 months ago

Before birth, obviously.

[–] shadowSprite@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I've said this before, but my abusive mother once told me that I wasn't a human and had no rights beyond what she allowed me until I became an adult and moved out of her house. They truly don't consider their children people. They also consider themselves wonderful parents who are victims when those children grow up and cut all contact with them.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yep. Parent’s rights means having the right to a abuse or neglect their own children and the right to tell everyone what is appropriate for all children.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 21 points 8 months ago

Moms for Liberty was already on the way to dying out. Wait a year or two, though, and another org like them will pop up. Conservatives need to keep repackaging the same bad ideas because they think the messaging was the problem, not that the idea is bad.

Back in the 70s, Anita Bryant was saying:

What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. ... I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before.

All the same "grooming children" lies as Moms for Liberty today. They have no new playbook, and they'll keep using it under a new name.

Fortunately, they've also been getting less effective with each iteration. Moms for Liberty basically imploded after a few electoral successes.

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is great and all, but I hate the fact that they are even being legitimized to the point of getting on a platform such as 60 minutes.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How did this legitimize them? They look like idiots to everyone who watched it. This was an opportunity for the public at large to get a view into what these people are like—it didn’t go well for them.

[–] Decoy321@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The person you're replying to wasn't saying, in any way, that this interview legitimized them. They were commenting on how the group had already been legitimized by others enough to be worth screentime on 60 minutes in the first place.

[–] Physnrd@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

At least the Beaufort school board decided to review properly. This district, not so much. https://www.aclusc.org/en/press-releases/dorchester-2-schools-face-biggest-book-purge-yet-school-board-should-fight-back

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Nice.