Why do you say that? I am not asking for evidence just some justification for your opinionConservatives rhetoric pays pretty solid lip-service to the constitution, but in practice, conservatives are just as guilty as anybody of cherry-picking the parts of the constitution they choose to enforce. They talk pretty good games about amendments 2, 9, 10, and parts of 1, but have zero trouble ignoring or fighting to work around amendments 4, 6, 7, 8, 14 (section 1), 15, 16, and 24.
Possibly another reason this officer was removed was because this organization that he spoke at, first sponsored Trump. It is very pro-Republican which nowadays means anti-constitution driven.
The 1619 Project was a mixed bag that raised some worthwhile issues while taking liberties with (or just getting wrong) some underlying facts. It's unfortunate because it was a good project that didn't need those stretches in order to make the bulk of its case, and those errors gave ammo to people who would deny any of their points.
OTOH, it's been my experience that many of the folks who complain loudly about the 1619 Project are the same ones who'd promote the latest offerings from Dinesh D'souza, Trump's myriad lies, or his administration's "1776 Report."
I haven't read it in full...but what I have read fits the story that it was written by a non-historian.
Well...a bunch of historians got together and pointed out multiple problems with it. I don't know their political affiliations...but I've no reason to believe their character is the issue here.
History should be about facts.
Why do you say that? I am not asking for evidence just some justification for your opinion
Are you just done making points and just attacking character now?
No, not everybody who criticized it was disingenuous. Some of the criticism was perfectly legitimate and, as I pointed out earlier, not even necessary to make the point.
Sorry? I didn't see your earlier post. What number?
Post 45, the one you quoted:
"it was a good project that didn't need those stretches in order to make the bulk of its case"
Though I just realized that I messed up post 64. When I wrote:
"Some of the criticism was perfectly legitimate and, as I pointed out earlier, not even necessary to make the point."
...what I meant to write was something to the effect of:
"Some of the criticism was perfectly legitimate and, as I pointed out earlier, the errors that were the subject of that legitimate criticism were not even necessary to make the 1619 Project's point."
It's a mix - sometimes character is the appropriate thing to criticize. It's become clearer to me that a large segment of the right isn't swayed by arguments and is, instead, guided by some mixture of dishonesty, ignorance, hatred of the left, identity-based paranoia, and the "spiritual delusion" that @RDKirk described. In these sorts of discussions, where it makes sense to make points, I make points. Where it's clear that the other side isn't operating in good faith or in a logical manner, I don't.
With respect to this specific example, a person can't be well-informed and acting in good faith and complain about the historicity of the 1619 Project while also pushing
Dinesh D'Souza,
the 1176 Report,
or The Big (election) Lie.
IME, the folks pushing that specific set of ideas are either propagandists, usually profiting from their propaganda (e.g. the Hannities, Limbaughs, D'Souzas, Trumps of the world), or members of an audience that's already been propagandized. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to point out that propagandizing.
He wrote a book about cultural marxism and its influence on the US military, with a description that hits nearly every cultural/political hot button of the last decade, but didn't intend to engage in partisan politics? If he's being sincere, then he's too clueless to be in command. If he's not sincere, then he's too disingenuous to be in command. Either way, removing him was the right response.
In the case of leadership, "merit" would, I think, include the ability to navigate potentially sensitive political, cultural, and interpersonal dynamics of one's subordinates and the institution at large. Like, even though I agree with the gist of the BLM platform, I'm not so clueless as to think that writing a treatise espousing the movement's most extreme arguments wouldn't kick up a partisan political storm. If my job is to be a leader to a wide range of people, then my job includes knowing how be thoughtful and act in public in a manner that treats them and their concerns with a degree of deference and respect. And even absent the additional requirements of leadership positions, any job I've ever had has prohibited me from arguing against company policy in the press.
Even if you give this guy the benefit of the doubt and treat him as entirely well-meaning and sincere, addressing a concern that he sees as totally legitimate - if he can't see that what he wrote is both over the top and likely to offend a considerable number of people under his command, then he's pretty thick and probably ought not be in command.
Alternately, he could know very well what he's doing and be using this controversy as a way of ginning up book sales.
I wouldn’t say that that passage, on its own, rises to the level of being offensive. But yes, it’s a pretty over-the-top, arguably hysterical, reading of marxism, the threat marxism imposes, the influence marxism has, and the culture war more broadly.
He's right you know. Marxism is a danger to this country.
I would not see things quite as you do but that should be expected. No bail causes criminals to be released who continue to be a danger to the public. There are changes that Trump made in the justice system that improve it and he released several who he felt were victims of the system. What do you see that is incorrect in the 1776 project?No, not everybody who criticized it was disingenuous. Some of the criticism was perfectly legitimate and, as I pointed out earlier, not even necessary to make the point. I believe the baseball fans refer to this as an unforced error.
Because that's what they do.
Amendment 4: Unreasonable search & seizure.
Amendment 6: Speedy trial
Amendment 7: Trial by jury
Amendment 8: Excessive bail
These amendments are all related to an efficient, fair judicial process. While libs are hardly perfect on these subjects, they're generally the ones pushing to: reform the criminal justice system, improve access to defense counsel, reduce excessive bail, reduce excessive sentencing, reform policing, reform prosecution, etc. Some of these issues have gotten some traction with conservatives, particularly those who lean more libertarian, but by and large, conservatives tend to resist most of these issues even though, for example, the combination of bad policing, bail requirements, inadequate counsel, and plea bargains winds up punishing a lot of innocent people; and the application of the death penalty is obviously uneven, unfair, and unacceptably inaccurate.
Amendment 14 sec 1: Conferring of citizenship upon birth in the US
I don't know how much traction this idea got, but Trump was putting it out there:
Trump Wants to Abolish Birthright Citizenship. Can He Do That? (Published 2019)
Amendment 15: Voting eligibility can't be based on race.
Yet, because blacks tend to vote for Democrats, Republicans have tried to find ways to make it harder to vote that would disproportionately affect blacks and, thus, move the needle in favor of Republicans.
Amendment 16: Congress can levy income taxes
IME, this is more of a kooky fringe thing, but there exists a segment of libertarian-minded conservatives who think Congress isn't allowed to do this.
Amendment 24: Voting eligibility can't be restricted by poll taxes
Florida voters tried to restore voting rights to felons who'd completed their sentences. Florida Republicans then went and changed the definition of "completed sentence" to include all fees and fines, which are often poorly documented and hard to discover.
Judges: Florida felons can't vote until they pay fines, fees
It's a mix - sometimes character is the appropriate thing to criticize. It's become clearer to me that a large segment of the right isn't swayed by arguments and is, instead, guided by some mixture of dishonesty, ignorance, hatred of the left, identity-based paranoia, and the "spiritual delusion" that @RDKirk described. In these sorts of discussions, where it makes sense to make points, I make points. Where it's clear that the other side isn't operating in good faith or in a logical manner, I don't.
With respect to this specific example, a person can't be well-informed and acting in good faith and complain about the historicity of the 1619 Project while also pushing Dinesh D'Souza, the 1176 Report, or The Big (election) Lie. IME, the folks pushing that specific set of ideas are either propagandists, usually profiting from their propaganda (e.g. the Hannities, Limbaughs, D'Souzas, Trumps of the world), or members of an audience that's already been propagandized. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to point out that propagandizing.
He's right you know. Marxism is a danger to this country.
The entire military is engaging in partisan politics. The current crop of whomever is advising and commanding all of this Marxist, woke, racist nonsense in our military are too clueless to be in command.
Yeah, imagine how terrible it would be if a large group was living entirely off government money. Not just their job, but housing, food, medical, government run stores, and so on. And if those people continued to get government welfare after leaving that group. And if the government just outright paid privately owned capitalist businesses to make stuff for this group to use as part of their day to day job - clothing, transportation, etc. I mean, that's beyond socialism.He's right you know. Marxism is a danger to this country.
Imagine if those people worked over 100 hours a week every week sometimes over 24 hours without sleep in dangerous conditions, doing things that other people would be afraid to do, and getting paid far less than they could be making at a much easier job. Imagine if you got to see your family once or twice a year for just a few days. I think we should show a lot of gratitude to that group of people but there is always a few self centered people who do not appreciate anything that is done for them.Yeah, imagine how terrible it would be if a large group was living entirely off government money. Not just their job, but housing, food, medical, government run stores, and so on. And if those people continued to get government welfare after leaving that group. And if the government just outright paid privately owned capitalist businesses to make stuff for this group to use as part of their day to day job - clothing, transportation, etc. I mean, that's beyond socialism.
Nobody is advocating Marxism in the military. Just because he calls it Marxism does not make it so.
So, for the military to insist on a policy that Staff Sergeant A must be given equal consideration as Staff Sergeant B, if they meet military requirements equally, is "partisan politics?"
Because that's all the military is actually doing: Insisting that everyone in uniform must be considered on an equal basis.
Now, it's up to civilian leadership to determine who gets to wear the uniform. That's what Congress does.
But once in uniform...everyone is uniform, as far as the military is concerned. And if soldiers don't realize that on their own, the military will indoctrinate them to that point. "We're all green here."
Yeah, imagine how terrible it would be if a large group was living entirely off government money. Not just their job, but housing, food, medical, government run stores, and so on. And if those people continued to get government welfare after leaving that group. And if the government just outright paid privately owned capitalist businesses to make stuff for this group to use as part of their day to day job - clothing, transportation, etc. I mean, that's beyond socialism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?