> they don't typically choose to live the precepts the adherents wants

A bit reductionist, but critically, and because you asked for clarity, Dominionists want to force others to stop doing what they don't like even though it has no impact on their life.

Easily understood if you look at the standard of medical care for many miscarriages. They are abortions.

Today in the US, abortion is mostly illegal in many states, and people have died due to liability and uncertainty that would otherwise not have died should the standard of care been followed. This is before you consider the harassment of women after receiving care.

Yet, Dominionists want it banned because their theology changed with political winds conveniently in the 1970s and they now feel strongly, even more so than your feelings-based opinion that the factual claim of non correctness is unjustified despite clear justification, that life is absolutely defined as a zygote. This is before we consider that they are also equally unwilling to help children post-birth or to adopt sound economic policies to encourage household and family formation.

Tell me, what polity or power is forcing Dominionists to receive abortions unwillingly?

Or is it that they forget that their rights end at my nose?

---------------------------------------

> I'll also note that your response of "no these two things are obviously different and one is not okay while the other is" is shared by the opposition. When you agree with the behaviors being imposed and the justifications for doing so it becomes difficult to understand why anyone would object.

You know, I hear conservatives say this all the time, but me being an old school minarchist Libertarian, I just want people to leave each other alone.

I'll note that now several times in this discussion you implicitly assert that anyone contrary to Dominionism is "progressive" (strawman designation by rightwing propaganda for outgroup, or actual political group, hard to say), and that if a specific behavior is called out, well, there must be some behavior the other party feels should be imposed on them.

No one cares about someone worshiping at their house of worship and engaging in their rituals. Not a bit. But come in and force someone else to hold their particular social club in high regard in order to engage in commerce, education, or careers? That's what Dominionists want. And it's an egregious violation of everything the US stands for to everyone outside the Dominionist camp.

------

Now, please specify what progressive philosophy or policy planks that you think Dominionists find so unappealing that they'd be willing to sacrifice the freedoms so many US service members have died for, and how that is _imposed_ on said Dominionists?

>No, I don't. Not when the other side just openly uses lies (that they know to be lies) like "post-birth abortion" to argue their cause.

Absolutely. Although I'd point out that in many states that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, those on the "other side" (you know, our fellow Americans), often by large majorities, rejected abortion bans in their states after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

So it's not really as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Yes, there are absolutely those who despise the idea of the agency of women, and there are absolutely those who exploit that for monetary and political gain.

But a majority of Americans don't and even many of those who aren't on board could be persuaded to a live and let live position.

Politics is, after all, "the art of the possible." If we just demonize and "other" anyone who doesn't specifically agree with us, then nothing is possible -- only dysfunction and hate. That's not a world I want to live in.

> Authoritarianism, whether Nazism, Soviet Communism, or French Revolutionary Governmentr any

or any monarchy, or any theocracy, or any oligarchy.

I understand why you cite Nazism, or Soviet communism (or Mao Communism), but the French Revolutionary Government lasted less than 3 years, was at war with half of europe because their King decided to declare war for no reason, and had to find who fed intel to half their enemies (and even when the King's letters to his brother in law describing eastern troops movement were discovered, 10% of the parliament voted against his destitution and 40% against killing him for treachery). I'd say that they stopped the violence and decided to free all slaves once the war ended should be a point in their favor.

With all due respect, this is gibberish. Refusing to engage a nazi in conversation is hardly suppressing them in any way, shape, or form. Nor is it refusing any kind of "democratic process." It's also preferable you don't yell fire in a crowded theater or bomb on an airplane.

You seem to be confusing empathy with acceptance or tolerance.

It is rare for that message to be delivered to either side, for the simple reason that the reaction to it tends to be bad. It comes as no surprise that you would have never seen such messages delivered to conservatives if you don't spend a lot of time in places where this might happen.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJX28l54YxE for an hour-long interview between a well-known conservative Christian and a liberal atheist exactly on the topic of the importance of having conservative Christians treating those they disagree with with empathy.

[dead]

>> you need to understand the root causes for the desires of your opponents. That's empathy.

> Um, what we used to call that in the Marines, was "intel". Not "empathy". And that designation of the information you outlined made us surprisingly effective at combating opponents.

This is the important part. Understanding "the root causes for the desires of your opponents" is not empathy. It's understanding something.

Empathy is a relating to anothers plight. If you only understand it then there is nothing to cause pause before using that understanding to your advantage. It's a core part manipulation and deception. If the only thing that happened with that understanding is seeing what you can get from it or that there is nothing you want there or have use for, then that doesn't really help bring two sides together.

Having the ability to relate to this understanding of another is when empathy happens. It's the empathy that gives one pause long enough to see there are other options that are not zero-sum.

> No need to have empathy for anyone who doesn't have empathy for others.

Disagree. Just because someone else can not relate -- now -- does not mean they can not later. I personally don't care for tit-for-tat games, thats simply a race to the bottom. Boundaries are the things missing here; one can have empathy for another that does not have it for them, that doesn't mean you also have to have a bleeding heart for them and let them walk all over you.

The sort of understanding the GP is promoting doesn't have to be used empathetically.

It can also be used on bad faith actors by giving you better avenues of winning over the audience - which is the only real point of continuing a conversation with one.

Correct: but giving them a thousand timeouts doesn't help, if you still need to give the thousand-and-first. It mitigates the immediate problem, but it also ties up your resources. Eliminating the problem at its root, if that's possible, is a more effective strategy: if we can take away the ability for the real bad actors to get loyal followers, by learning how to change those followers' minds, they won't have anywhere near as much power.

We live in a democracy. In a democracy, you don't get to deny people the vote simply because you view them as children. And, sadly, these "children" have around half the votes.

If you are personally not capable of attempting empathy, that's fair. As I said, it is frustrating and hard. But a political culture where nobody attempts empathy is what has allowed grifters playing up the resulting culture war to gain political power, and put themselves in a position to aim for a dictatorship. If everyone keeps doing the same old, same old, the totalitarian outcome is guaranteed.

I'll make this concrete. Right now, many in Trump's base are dissatisfied with the handling of the Epstein affair. As much as you may disagree with a random Republican, the odds are that your differences are not as important right now than winding up united against the idea of an authoritarian pedophile running the country. But if the only emotion that they get is anger about all of the areas where there is disagreement, they won't have anywhere to go but back to Trump.

Is that outcome really what you think is best?

No, I've identified the enemy perfectly well.

The actual enemy only has power because useful fools are willing to follow them. Treating those useful fools as enemies is a key part of the dynamic that grants the actual enemy power.

I am advocating learning how to talk with those useful fools, and assist them in finding paths away from being the power base for the actual enemy.

This argument strikes me as fairly textbook "whataboutism."

TFA shows a clear and present case of a particular action taken by one political faction. Your argument, that the opposing faction is equivalent to a greater or lesser degree and would follow the same course of action, rests entirely on a hypothetical; it isn't supported by any concrete evidence or cited examples.

I'm certainly not asserting that any one faction/party holds a monopoly on moral high-ground, just highlighting that this kind of argument is frequently used as a tactic to deflect discussion away from ground truth considerations and shift the debate towards (artificially) neutral conditions.

What is far left in US? From what you are saying i got impression there is only far right and far left in US to vote. I am not from US but that doesn't seem right.

> I don't doubt for a second that the far left would create such laws if they could.

I mean, they could as much as the fringe actors this article is about. I'm not sure what you think is stopping them from going for it in the same fashion.

It's not indicative of a "broken world view" at all. There are already laws against defamation, running afoul of those would lead to your speech being censored to help the victim of defamation, for example. This logic can be extended with care.

That apparent problem goes away once you recognize that you’re using the word “censor” incorrectly in one case to draw a false equivalency. In the case of the right-wing behaviour discussed here, “censor” is the correct word because the term refers to an official use of power to prevent something considered politically incorrect or obscene from being available even though the publisher, librarians, and reader all thought they should be accessible.

In the case of the Dahl revisions, there is no official power being used to suppress individual preference. The publisher decided they wanted better sales for an older item, realized that things like anti-Semitism were unappealing to modern audiences, and created a new edition of their own property. Every part of that process was entirely voluntary and nobody’s purchased property is affected in any way – quite unlike the right-wing telling libraries to remove books with significant literary value which their patrons want to read.

So “I would take your politics seriously if it aligned with mine”? I am afraid that whole point of politics is finding compromise with people who you don't agree.

It's objectively true.

Republicans pass tax cuts which increase the burden on the poor and the middle class for the benefits of the ultrarich (not the majority of their voters).

They destroy government programs that benefit the majority of the population - health care, antitrust enforcement, free tax filing, environmental protections, tax audits of rich tax cheats.

They oppose any programs which provide benefits to the public - broadband standards, net neutrality, social services, cybersecurity, weather satellites, libraries, public schools, so many more.

The vast majority of their voters are hurt by these policies and are quite literally voting against their interests.

ASOF now, your comment is no longer flagged, and I just upvoted it, so maybe it will recover.

I wouldn't underestimate the role of bots, or bot assisted socks, rather than the HN community. You last sentence just sounds like sour grapes in this context.

FYI, this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44901875

"Yes, conservative Latin American men like the male supremacy aspect of it"

is currently flagged. There is indeed a difference of opinion on HN, but also, sadly, rampant abuse of the flagging system.

I don’t think it’s fair to equate private action with state action. The latter is much more dangerous to freedom

> [90s] didn’t talk about the race

“April 26 1992. There was a riot in the streets tell me where were you”

How does banning the handmaid's tail fix any of these problems exactly?

It's not an ideal situation for sure. Some want their heritage to be their identity. Some do not. Academia tries to accommodate both. Meanwhile we are slowly trying to fix the lingering effects of centuries of injustice where solidarity is one of the few tools to fight people in power who want to return to unjust times.

I'm not sure the best option is to vote for the country club guy whose public statements strongly indicate reports of his private statements on race are accurate. The guy who has kept Stephen Miller around for a decade and talked the proud boys into being the armed second wave of Jan 6. Then pardoned them.

Speaking for myself, even if Trump is somehow the shining light of a post-discrimination society (after failing to do so in his first term), it can't possibly offset the damage he wants to do the economy, consumer protection, and national security.

> My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid).

> This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity.

Beverly Bond, who holds the trademark, was an influencer avant la lettre. She wanted to make a brand—looks line like a clothing line, followed by a TV show, then a podcast.

I get that it’s tempting to blame everything on radical leftist academics or whatever but that’s not what happened here. This is simply capitalism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Girl_Magic

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Bond

> The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t.

Well, um, yeah. That's because white people just aren't oppressed.

Its the same way I don't identify with feminist literature. I can read it, understand it, enjoy it - but I can never fully relate, because I'm not a woman and the way I experience the patriachy will always be different.

Of course black people identify with or relate more to something like the color purple. That doesn't mean the color purple is racist.

I truly cannot fathom how anybody can listen to Trump talk for more than 5 minutes and read more than one of his moronic truth social posts and his constant lies and then still be a supporter.

Is your example here a bit oblique to the point? I see this more of a failing of the people to properly appreciate and discuss/process the contents of the book, and as well as, in my opinion, socially overcompensating for the diversity in the room?

I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But I see this more of a lack of proper cultural empathy/education -- go figure, Dunning-Kruger is everywhere all the time. But as you said,

> This law is about what books are in public libraries.

So why would we ban the books, rather than encourage reading them and having the more meaningful discussions focusing on heritage rather than identity?

As a slightly more abstract aside, identity anything to me is a slippery slope because it will always automatically encourage one to make assumptions; it's a mental shortcut to say Person A == Person B iff PersonA.identity == PersonB.identity. Given that education is hard, learning is hard, and life is hard, I think we need to at least emphathize and appreciate that teachers and the the education system in general need to often fall back on these sorts of mental shortcuts. But that's we need to really invoke our right, privilege, and duty of grassroots participation. Why not walk into that book club that's overcompensating and help them learn what is making you uncomfortable? You might be surprised at how ignorant they were of their own mistakes and that they're willing to learn from your perspective.

I hear what you're saying, and agree with large parts of it. Ethnic background shouldn't override individual autonomy. But...

> The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.”

... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women).

It'd be nice if the reasonable people from both parties could ignore their extremist wings, get to together, and realize they have more in common than different.

To your first point, I'll just say this isn't the first time in history various groups of people (however you want to group them) have by a wide margin voted for a politician who is actually antagonistic towards them. This behavior seems to rhyme all throughout history.

Weird to have to define dehumanization but OK. Dehumanization is to deprive people of their positive human qualities. We're about to get political so this is likely way off topic at this point.

A common, recurring theme in Republican "culture war" rhetoric and policy is to carve out and target various groups (however they/we want to define that group), ignore those groups' positive qualities, amplify their negative qualities, and portray those groups as "lesser humans than us," ultimately for the purpose of depriving them of rights/freedoms/wealth/livelihoods/etc. Evidence of this target -> dehumanize -> disenfranchise cycle abounds. If we can't agree on at least that baseline, then there's probably no productive way to proceed with a discussion.

Yes, the other side divides and groups people, too, and we might not like that. But I'd argue it's for the purpose of uplifting already-vulnerable groups rather than knocking them down. I'd love to live in a world where nobody does this grouping, but we're obviously not there yet.

> The problem with that rephrasing is that OP certainly meant to include hispanics (who are the largest group of “brown people”) in the country

OP didn't say anything about non-white Hispanics and other non-white people as a group. He is not suggesting anything about a group identity there. He is simply stating the fact that Trump treats them differently because Trump sees them as a group, including removing books and history about these people.

Do we need the government to write a law and ban the color purple, and similar, from being taught in second grade? I am not a fan of the government doing that level of micromanagement in most circumstances.

> Your confusion follows from your premise that this is about “banning.” This is about what books are made available to kids in school libraries

Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't look into the details. But it appeared to be a ban to me.

If all they did was say: "these are the books that must be made available at school libraries"

That would be very different, and we wouldn't be talking about a ban.

But if they specifically targeted certain books (who might have not even been at all the school libraries to begin with), and said here are the books that are not allowed to be made available... I mean, that's called a ban.

I support your desire to make sure your kids feel at home and are able to, like everyone else, consider themselves American. I'm from an immigrant family, and it bothers me when people ask "what am I", I'm American, and they're always like... Come on! What are you really? And it's like, dude, you're also 'not really" American, you're German, you're British, etc. Except we're all really American, born and raised.

So I'm with you on that point, and the "born and raise" part, yes it means you should be raised the same as well, raised American.

Where I'll have to disagree with you, is that the books made available and the school curriculum isn't about any of this. It should focus on education, kids shouldn't be dumb, they need to learn history and it's effects, they should engage with hard topics and real problems, they should be exposed to well reasoned and intelligent diverse opinions from all sides, etc. You don't achieve that by selectively banning books whose narrative you personally don't like.

If you came at me complaining that the current selection of books and curriculum goes against that, that it's pigeonholing kids into "brown" and "not brown", and so on, I'd be like, damn right that's a problem, and I'd put forward the same argument I'm making now for why it's an issue that needs addressed.

But like I said, banning books just feels like pigeonholing and propaganda the same that you're trying to avoid just someone else's agenda.

Any which words we choose about it, we're still talking about a government mandate which books are not ok to read. I don't doubt your personal experiences, but the leap to blacklisting literature is a huge one and doesn't follow logically at all.

While this is a ground one should tread most carefully, surely you can see the historical precedents?

You sound like you're old enough to have lived through the aftermath of 9/11, I'm glad to hear you didn't experience any racism due to your skin color.

Your "extensive" Pew analysis has error bars of +/- 10% for the Asian groups and certainly doesn't show "over 40%" but something that rounds to 40%. Other exit polls all show less than 40%.

It's great that you haven't experienced racial discrimination. This hasn't been the experience of people applying for housing at Trump properties.

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117470/documents/...

> In practice, the people who draw attention to my skin color in embarrassing and demeaning ways are white liberals.

Explain to me how putting up Confederate monuments is so we don't "erase history" but removing historical notes about Native Americans, not mentioning a holiday celebrating freedom for all Americans except to disparage it, and removing information about Trump's impeachment is not. I'd like to understand any other explanation than that Trump and his supporters don't see Native Americans or black Americans as "real" Americans, which is what people mean when they use the word "dehumanizing." Is there any other way to explain it than by using skin color? That is why "white liberals" (why are you bringing their skin color into it) bring it up — the only reasonable explanation involves skin color. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that anybody build an identity around it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-restoring-confederate-nam...

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/5444429-racist-monu...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juneteenth-trump-too-many-non-w...

https://www.kqed.org/news/12049405/muir-woods-national-monum...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/11/smit...

You're quite correct that the Miller test makes no such provision, because as another commenter here has noted, it is too general to require one.

Here is the text of the relevant decision, in case anyone would like to discuss that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15

Why not? All three parts of the Miller test can be tailored to average reader age.