politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's why they have an overly broad definition of what is prohibited. So they can pick and choose what they will allow.
In this case I think the district is doing this in protest. The legislators intended to pick and choose, but the district is applying it as written, so Dictionaries are out. They're highlighting how absurd the law is.
That was my impression, similar move to schools banning the Bible citing all the beastiality, rape and mass murder in there
Eh, I think this is going to play into the legislator's designs.
My thoughts as well. This leads to "only approved books allowed."
That's literally and explicitly the point.
From the end of the article:
I agree with both you and [email protected] but somehow interpreted that sentence differently. Thanks for helping see it! Not great either way I guess, tho 🙁
I didn't post to disagree with you, just to drive home how damn ridiculous this AG is. Sure, the law is effed, but this guy is right out of 1984.
Ya, very true. It's so bad.
Welcome to 1984
Which is the whole point of the law.
Perhaps, but...
Pretty bad way to protest by making your students dumber... If they want to protest, they could ban the Bible and I'm sure countless other Christian-themed books that happen to be just fine.
They did ban the Bible, that was one of the thousands of books they removed. Ultimately the school administrators have limited power in this case. They're state employees, they have to follow the law. They're providing the ones who have the actual power here, the voters, with as much ammo as they can which is bad optics. They're doing their best to make the politicians look like incompetent morons.
The politicians crafted this legislation to be super vague in order to let them pick and choose arbitrarily if a book violated it because they didn't want their actual opinions on record. They had wanted this to be applied to a couple dozen existing books and then to have veto power on any new book to be added. Instead the administrators are using malicious compliance to apply it to literally any book that even remotely matches the vague wording. This does two things, first it highlights how completely arbitrary this law is, and second it bogs the censorship board down by burying them in work.
They have already stated they want "their people" to be the deciders. It’s just textbook fascism.
Without the textbook.