| |
| ▲ | jwally 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This is the key to everything in the US right now I feel. Laws exist, but they're not being enforced or are difficult to enforce legally. This lets people at the top do whatever now since the eventual consequences (if any) are way out in the future and punitive to the gains they get now. Its like being a bank robber with a Ferrari when the cops are stuck using horse-and-buggies. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > This is the key to everything in the US right now I feel. Laws exist, but they're not being enforced or are difficult to enforce legally. My hope is that this situation wakes Americans up to the fact that laws were always this way. I'm hoping this breaks the myth of the law as a fair arbiter of justice. In reality the legal system of the USA is enforced at the whim of incredibly biased cops, judges, and politicians. I really think a day in a county courthouse should be a requirement for all American kids so they can see just how arbitrarily sentencing is applied or how whether someone ends up in trial at all can hinge on whether a judge agrees or disagrees there was probable cause, and the judge will do like 20 of these hearings one after another. Not to mention the fact that any black American can tell you that there's two justice systems in the USA: the one for white people, and the one for everyone else. Hence why so many black kids can tell you about when their parents gave them "The Talk," and no, it's not the birds and bees one, it's the one about how your white friends can get up to mischief that you can't and there's nothing you can do about it so don't bother getting mad about it, just keep your head down and never backtalk the cops. | | |
| ▲ | chrisco255 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > never backtalk the cops This is advice my parents gave me too. It's generally sound advice. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think it really matters how you talk bad. Telling the police ACAB won't fly anywhere. Asking them to inform you about the law (which you think is different than there interpretation of it), might be a start of a conversation. They are also just humans who do their job and want to be treated nicely like everyone else. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > I think it really matters how you talk bad. Telling the police ACAB won't fly anywhere. Asking them to inform you about the law (which you think is different than there interpretation of it), might be a start of a conversation. They are also just humans who do their job and want to be treated nicely like everyone else. One of the goals of ACAB folks is to help people understand that this isn't true. Yes, police are humans, but no, you can't reason with them. You as an individual aren't going to overcome the might of the state's propagandizing and training of them to treat you like a potential threat to their life, or at best, a criminal. Modern police training revolves heavily around hyper paranoia around how any interaction could lead to their sudden death. For whatever reason, the apparatus has chosen to create an army of armed, nervous, below-a-defined-level IQ thugs. I personally believe all humans deserve a minimum of respect, but ACAB isn't just a statement of ideology, it's a warning: All bears are hungry, all cops are bastards. You wouldn't try to reason with a bear, you wouldn't make sudden movements around a bear, nor should you do that with a cop. With a cop you should simply say nothing other than wanting to maintain your 5th amendment right to remain silent, and then try to leave an interaction with them or wait for them to take you to jail. ACAB is a warning against attempting for any other outcome, because no other outcome is statistically probable enough to justify taking a risk to achieve. The moment a cop engages with you, you are dealing with a potentially hungry bear. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So it isn't just an insult, it is a propaganda to treat the representation of your fellow citizens like wild animals, which will cause harm for the believers of the propaganda. That is even more concerning than the literal meaning I took it to mean. I basically disagree with you on all fronts there. You essentially wage civil war. "You know, those guys that come when you are in a live threatening situation (fire, assault), those guys who are regulating your daily activity so that not too much people die by doing dangerous and stupid stuff (speed limit penalties, vehicle checks), those who tell your 'corporate slave master' that you also have rights (workers rights, minimal wage, cartel breakup), yeah they are aliens, enemies. They are merely wild animals not really humans at all, so you can treat them like shit. When they are friendly, don't trust them, don't trust you eyes. When they will fight back, now you see how they truly are." Seriously how can you expect such a society to work? No wonder when you don't have pleasant police encounters. You are actively sabotaging your society. How can you expect it to stay peaceful with your behaviour? So today I learned that the social struggles of the United States are not solely due to politicians and corruption. You guys have way bigger issues there. I can only hope that this is a minority opinion, otherwise civil war will be inevitable. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > it is a propaganda to treat the representation of your fellow citizens like wild animals Cops treat Americans like wild animals. I'm not sure how this is news to someone in 2025, when we've had countless stories of police brutality come out and had breaking stories about e.g. the California county sheriff department gangs. I'm warning people about this reality that cops are not what the copaganda would lead us to believe in elementary school. "Just don't resist," how about I send you a video of a cop gleefully pepper spraying not violent protesters sitting on the ground? Shooting into a house during a no knock raid on the wrong house and murdering a woman in her bed? Shooting a man with a rifle as he crawls towards them per their screamed contradictory orders? Shooting blindly into a residential neighborhood because an acorn fell on a squad car? > You know, those guys that come when you are in a live threatening situation (fire, assault), those guys who are regulating your daily activity so that not too much people die by doing dangerous and stupid stuff (speed limit penalties, vehicle checks), those who tell your 'corporate slave master' that you also have rights (workers rights, minimal wage, cartel breakup), Please, no. I checked your post history, you are a smart and informed individual, this gap in your knowledge could be resolved with a single afternoon of Wikipedia. Cops don't save people from fires, they arrest firemen that hurt their fragile egos. Cops don't enforce labor protections, they violently break up strikes. Cops don't save you from assault, they assault you for the crime of recording them, or they watch you get stabbed to death from the other side of a subway carriage door. They don't save you from active shooters, they prevent you from entering the school to rescue your child while they stand around terrified, waiting for the shooter to kill himself. Treat them like shit, my foot. America's most well funded gang deserves my respect? The government already gives them every toy they ask for so they can unleash their depraved need for violence on unarmed people. The Austin Texas cops have a honest to God APC. > Seriously how can you expect such a society to work? I just don't want armed, well funded gangs running amok with no accountability, robbing people blind and beating them with no recourse. That's all. Too much to ask? Little bit of law and order and civility? Cops escalate every situation they arrive at. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Cops treat Americans like wild animals. ... Yes truly horrendous. I wonder how that could become that worse. It sounds like you got the repressive state police earlier than the commanding dictator. > I'm not sure how this is news to someone in 2025. I have of course heard about that. However for me the USA is a "far"-away country somewhat about the ocean(, that still affects me negatively). As anything reported I expect this to be somewhat exaggerated. Surely not every policeman will be like that. I would expect them to be a very "vocal" (/active) minority. I just don't see how your advice helps the victims here. When you encounter that gang, you basically have already lost? When you fight back won't you just bring the state against you, so that also the non-gang policeman are against you? And on the (rare?) chance that you meet a decent policeman, you will also turn him against you, which will make the current encounter unpleasant for both of you, might expose you to the "gang" and also serves as a justification for their barbaric behaviour. > I checked your post history, you are a smart and informed individual Thank you very much. :-) > this gap in your knowledge This "gap in my knowledge" is mostly me failing to see some idiotic US men with guns as the pinnacle of a policeman. > I just don't want armed, well funded gangs running amok with no accountability, robbing people blind and beating them with no recourse. That's all. Too much to ask? Yes and no. No, I'm with you on that wish; yes, because the majority of people live not in a first-world country. Sadly this also (now?) applies also to the US-citizens. I seriously think your only chance at improving the situation is becoming a policeman. Ideally the judicative would hold them accountable, but this is messed up in your country as well. Being a policeman protects you from the fate and also lets you be a better civil servant. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, my warning is that once you're interacting with a cop in the USA, you're in a hopeless situation, because this is sound advice and the one least likely to lead to your death, and also most likely to, after you go to jail, keep you out of jail on a bogus conviction. Plead the 5th and wait. The nicest cop is indistinguishable from the one leveraging his training to seem nice to get any info out of you he can use for probable cause. He gets you to joke around, talks about how he used to smoke weed in college, didn't you as well? You don't answer, he takes that as tacit admission (unless you verbally plead the 5th, silence is admissable), now he has predisposition to drug use, probable cause to search, oops he's found "shake" in your car (fuzzy leftover bits of weed, I've seen cops rip up a bit of carpet and call it shake first hand), now you're spending the weekend in jail because it's Friday and he'll fail to finish your paperwork before 5. Your suggestion to try to fix it from the inside comes from a good place but a naive one, you say you aren't American so I'll share with you what happens to "good" American cops. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft Adrian blew the whistle on NYPD abuse again black Brooklynites and in return they raided his home, kidnapped him, and institutionalized him. In the best case, they get fired: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/west-virginia-cop-fired... Or look up Sean Gannon or Joe Crystal. Joe was fired for reporting an incident of police brutality. Sean for reporting when his partner raped someone. I thought about filling this post with cases. I could probably find 50 more, I've a large collection over the years. The point is, the system selects for bad cops. To us, a good cop reports abuse and doesn't do it. That good cop makes less arrests. A bad cop is abusive and lies. That's the opposite of what the system selects for. A good cop follows orders and meets their arrest quotas, a bad cop blows the whistle and empathizes with the people on their beat. Because of this fact you are safe to assume every cop you encounter is a bad one. We didn't arrive at abolition out of nowhere. The policing in America is completely rotten from top to bottom. It works in some other countries that have much better policies and regulations. We arrived at abolition because the only cops left are the ones that would wiggle their way around such regulations. It needs to be completely cleaned out in the USA. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It seams we have a bit of different images in mind, what it means to treat someone nicely and maybe have a pleasant conversation. Especially when you know how dangerous they can be, you shouldn't treat them as brutal animals. When you give them the opportunity to follow orders and still be seen as loyal to the people and the constitution, why shouldn't they take that opportunity? Of-course you wouldn't say anything compromising, that would be really dumb. But why would you talk to a policeman about anything personal? You can have a conversation about politics, the economy global/nation/local, tax-policy, etc. . You can talk about their uniform, their new car, (because you are in HN) their encounters with software, the recent trend in UI. You can talk about the road quality, the new highway, where he thinks should be a new highway, what he thinks about public infrastructure, public transport (when that exists), the new park in town, the littering of the park in town. You can rant about the idiots going over the speed limit, the idiots parking everywhere, those modifying their cars, about issues with water, electricity, garbage disposal, regulatory overreach, those idiots in the EU, the idiots in near and far East, the idiots in Africa. When a policeman jokes about talking drugs, I would expect you to deflect and tell him that taking drugs is forbidden, or how you held a lecture about the effects of drugs in school, how you always avoided the regions were it smells so bad. Nothing of that must be true. I'm sure you can show me hundreds of cases, when there are millions of policeman it still wouldn't show that a majority of policeman is corrupt and commits crimes. > Sean for reporting when his partner raped someone. I can't really wrap my mind about that, because in my experience a superior that thinks a rape here and there is a good thing, still will kick subordinates out, to save his own reputation. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You can have a conversation about politics You are lucky, you must live in a nice country with normal laws and normal cops. I can't imagine any other reason why you'd just offer this up... Even an American with a thin blue line flag on their house would warn against talking politics with a cop. Check out the videos of the statsi troops going door to door in DC, fawning to locals about how they're there on trump's orders to "keep them safe." Armed to the teeth. You think it's a good idea to try to have a polite political conversation with men like that? You are blessed! For your own safety, never come to America, stay in peace and comfort elsewhere, I genuinely fear how your kind hearted openness will land you into awful trouble in the USA. If you do come, enjoy a day sitting in a courtroom. Watch how the simplest, most meaningless conversation with a cop is read out by the court in a toneless transcript without any context and how a judge will grant probable cause on it, or consider it in sentencing to their detriment. Bon homanie about the slow construction of a local freeway? In court that's lack of attachment and local loyalty, disaffected personality, antisocial tendencies. Complaints about the EU? General disrespect of authority, likelihood to stir up trouble, lack of respect for law and order. I guess it's time to trudge out the classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE Anything you say will be used against you. > I'm sure you can show me hundreds of cases, when there are millions of policeman it still wouldn't show that a majority of policeman is corrupt and commits crimes. The most likely outcome of an encounter with a bear is it runs away. Sometimes though, it's lost its discomfort around humans, is rabid, or just hungry enough to give it a shot. You should treat every bear like that bear. So too for the police. If the police want to be liked and treated with respect, they can become firemen instead. There's no song called "fuck the fire department." > I can't really wrap my mind about that, because in my experience a superior that thinks a rape here and there is a good thing, still will kick subordinates out, to save his own reputation. Untold such cases. It doesn't have to be logical to you, police departments in the USA reject candidates that are too smart. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you think your policeman is incapable of accepting different political positions, the "conversation" can mean you listening and asking questions to highlight the position of the policeman. In my country joking about incapability of some public organization is a common topic of jokes it doesn't reveals anything about you, you are just citing "public opinion" as being broadcasted by the state media. You can choose your equivalent in your country. I thought it is republican accepted stance to rant about the libs not being able to do anything for the public? That's what I think about ranting about the state of the highway. I thought some like to rant about the "trade restrictions" of the EU? That's what I had in mind. Will that kind of thing bring you into trouble? --- > statsi [sic!] troops That's a good reference, because that's actually what I have in mind. It's not just my personal believe, it is about a lesson from a historic successful revolution. The troops of the StaSi (ministry for state security) and the NVA (national peoples army) were also convinced that the demonstrators are all rapist, that do horrible things, that will riot and deserve to be shot. They were well prepared to repeat what happened in China just some weeks earlier. The marksmen were all well positioned, the police made violent noise and gestures. Everything was prepared for the next massacre. Do you know what prevented that? The demonstrators being peaceful, singing and praying. It was quite important that nobody shouts, nobody lets themself in anger kick against even a garbage bin. Like you wrote the police has infinite resources compared to you. They are quite well prepared to you rioting. You know what they aren't prepared for? You treating them like a decent human. That's why treating them as the brutal animals they often reveal themself as, won't actually help you. They expect you to, and this strengthens their opinions about you. You know what actually might help? Treating them like gentlemen. > It doesn't have to be logical to you It isn't about being smart, it's about the power of public opinion. When you say "it has been like this", you are actually weakening the public opinion. That's why that doesn't cause what you want it to. --- > General disrespect of authority This shouldn't have any effect on a judgement. Can you seriously be convicted for such nebulous crimes in the USA? | | |
| ▲ | komali2 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The demonstrators being peaceful, singing and praying. I never advocated against peaceful protest. You are describing the protest ideology I subscribe to, as described in the new version of The Anarchist Cookbook by the founders of Food Not Bombs: https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html However: https://tminstituteldf.org/police-and-protests-the-inequity-... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/20/nypd... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incide... https://www.amnestyusa.org/aiusa-documents-police-violence-a... Police in the USA beat peaceful protestors. Here's a picture of them pepper spraying students that are sitting down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident... "Treating police like they're human beings" gets you beat in the USA. I am an advocate for peaceful protest, I'm just warning people - you will probably get shot with tear gas or bean bags or plastic bullets if you participate, and you might lose an eye or die as a result. I won't lie to people about this reality. Americans should still resist this rising fascism, but they should go with both eyes open (behind safety goggles). > This shouldn't have any effect on a judgement. Can you seriously be convicted for such nebulous crimes in the USA? Yes, you can be arrested and convicted of "resisting arrest," this happens to people who lawfully film police all the time. They are given an unlawful order, question it on camera, are arrested, and then because the cops have no crime to accuse them of, accuse them of "resisting arrest," and the judge agrees during probable cause determination. It's easier to get the probable cause determination if you say anything about your political opinions, which the type of people who film cops often can't help themselves from doing. And yes, that includes "tendency to disrespect authority." I've personally witnessed this happen to protest observers, though I'm too tired to dig through court docs and find examples. I understand that you don't want America to be this way, or are in disbelief perhaps that it's that bad, but that is my whole point for sharing these stories - you're not the only one surprised that it's this bad! It's this bad. Don't come to America and if you do, don't talk to cops!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 1718627440 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a notion I have read several times now on HN by seemingly US Americans. While it might or might not be true that your judicial system has always worked like that, when you just accept that as a fact, you are endorsing it. No I don't think that such a judicial system is normal. > the myth of the law as a fair arbiter of justice That is NOT a myth. That is what it is supposed to be. When you start to say "yeah, that's just how it always has been", that IS when radical ideologies start to rise. How public opinion treats thinks that is how they tend to become. That is true with humans and that is true with systems. I heard it is quite less regulated to become a police man and there are quite a lot of black police mans* already. I heard you have a system where there is a jury that can overrule the judge. Why isn't there a massive influx of black/other-wise-suppressed people into the judicial or executive branch? * yeah and woman of course | | |
| ▲ | komali2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > when you just accept that as a fact, you are endorsing it I strongly disagree. > No I don't think that such a judicial system is normal. I believe we have enough evidence now to indicate that it is in fact normal. Americans believe their constitution is written about this - aggregation of power inevitably leading to tyranny, thus such aggregations must be prevented. The contradiction is believing a bureaucratized aggregation of power (the United States government or individual state governments) would function as an effective regulation. We have 250 years of evidence now that it does not. 250 years, and a significant portion of the time a large portion of the population was enslaved. Half the time, more than half the population couldn't even vote. In living memory, portions of the population were marched into concentration camps. Actually, that's happening again. 250 years and the largest per capita prison population. The experiment was successful - now we know these systems don't work. Time to trust the American instinct's true origins, in an enlightenment triggered by Western confrontation with indigenous American ideology, best described as "anarchism." Most values Americans falsely believe their institutions are upholding can be traced back to this root of American history, when colonists were intermingling with indigenous Americans. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >> you are endorsing it > I strongly disagree. > [proceeds to claim this is moral and just] > aggregation of power inevitably leading to tyranny, thus such aggregations must be prevented Yeah true, aggregation of power makes that easier, bureaucracy makes it still possible, in fact large bureaucracy makes it easier to oppress people by a majority who doesn't want oppression, because everyone is "just doing it's job". That's how Nazi Germany operated. > We have 250 years of evidence So you had 250 years to address this and are still complaining? /s > In living memory, portions of the population were marched into concentration camps. Why doesn't this lead to a social stigma against it and strong opposition against it? As an outsider it seams more like a large majority doesn't have this in memory at all. Does the whole society has stockholm syndrome? > The experiment was successful - now we know these systems don't work. Now you know YOUR system doesn't work. The same you already knew when you rejected the idea that your state is just (Did you?). In fact the United States of America are not the only existing society. > Americans falsely believe their institutions are upholding So you think: - I am not endorsing the current system.
- The current (judical) system is moral.
- The current system does not work and did not for 250 years.
- The core values (constitution) are against tyranny.
- The institutions are upholding the core values.
- The core values being uphold is wrong.
What are you arguing for? Your whole country has some cognitive dissonance (from an outsider view). But it fits that a majority seams to claim they are and want to be apolitical, yet isn't happy with the current state or actively distrust it. Or is the intersection of these circles empty? | | |
| ▲ | komali2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm an anarchist. I'm completely opposed to the current judicial system in the USA. Im not quite clear what I can change about my previous message to make that more clear but perhaps with this message my previous can be ready in the correct light. Normal doesn't mean good... Wage slavery and people killing themselves to make iphones is also normal. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I'm an anarchist. Yeah we will disagree on that really much, but I only find that tangentially to my point here, except if you think that this ideas is only promoted by anarchists. When this attitude is only promoted by the rare anarchist, then I find that somewhat "okish". My concern is when that attitude becomes commonplace. > Normal doesn't mean good. A Norm is a subjective society-wide agreed moral stance. What you seam to mean is what I would expect to be called common. That's basically my point treating it normal means endorsing it. > I'm completely opposed to the current judicial system in the USA. Yet this will also be the judicial system of next year. These things seem to stay constant even across civil wars and revolutions. That's why I think you should think of it as THE judicial system. It will be also the judicative of your aspired state (unless you disagree that there needs to be a judicative), if you want it to act differently you need to expect it to act differently, while of course still not being surprised when it doesn't. Somebody on HN recently claimed, that you can't treat your child as a "X" and expect it to not become "X". I think that applies also the state branches. When you give up and say it has always been like this, then you endorse the current regime. --- Oh, and I parsed > Most values Americans falsely believe their institutions are upholding as (Most values Americans falsely believe) (their institutions are upholding)
instead of Most values Americans (falsely believe) their institutions are upholding
which totally changes meaning. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yet this will also be the judicial system of next year. These things seem to stay constant even across civil wars and revolutions. That's a shame then, because that means we anarchists are correct that it is a lost cause and must be completely dismantled, a process which will probably result in short term suffering for some. I'm not sure where belief comes into it. The fact is that the judicial system is wildly inconsistent and arbitrary in the USA. That Americans trust it and anarchists (and other leftists) don't just means many people are ignorant of reality. Pursuing further ignorance seems the wrong strategy. Ostrich, head in sand. Expectations are nothing without action. Unless people acknowledge the reality that the judicial system is unsalvageable, they'll just accept it for what it is. Or if you want to be a liberal democrat about it (in the actual meaning of those words, not the Americanized versions), you still need to be aware of the system's rot to cut it out. I don't mind if libs take a crack at fixing it but historically they reallllllly prefer not to. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's a shame then No, you want to dismantle the judicial branch, because of their failures, but you also say you're an anarchist, so people hear you and think you are against every kind of judiciary and will oppose you. Violence will never lead to a better regime. Public opinion does. There might be violence while public opinion reveals itself. Denacification didn't happened by convicting them. It happened by temporarily forcing others into power and THEN raising children, who think differently. > you still need to be aware of the system's rot to cut it out Yes. There is a difference between "The system sucks fundamentally and has for 250 years, so screw it" and "The system is just and should be protected, there just happened to be a lot of idiots in there for the merely 250 years. That's why need to bring back it's glory." The latter might improve things, the former will only cause self-enforcing violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | graemep 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It should be commonly taught as a work of literature. Ideally the KJV which has largely fallen out of favour (except with certain groups) as a religious translation because more recent translations are so much better (advances in scholarship, more discoveries of early manuscripts...) but which is beautiful as a work. | | |
| ▲ | gorgoiler 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s a sign of the times that the powers that be might make KJV, a labour of love and the apple of the author’s eye, come forth to fight the good fight and rake in some filthy lucre! By the skin of their teeth, these wolves in sheep’s clothing’s days must be numbered, but if they keep on the straight and narrow, live by the sword, and go the extra mile, then lo and behold the first shall be last and every salt of the earth will be made a scapegoat from here to the ends of the earth! after KJV, possibly with thanks to Bill (Shakespeare) also. |
| |
| ▲ | nemomarx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | any Western literary piece. for translated novels from China you might want some other foundational texts on hand, or the Quran to complement Persian literature, or etc But I don't see any reason a library can't have various books from antiquity, for reference at least. Probably multiple editions or translations of each too. | |
| ▲ | jeroenhd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | TIL "Jezebel" is a reference to the bible. Without the bible, people still have dictionaries if they don't understand words or references. Or they could use Google. I don't see why some books would be "too crucial" not to ban in a law banning books intended to protect kids. If anything, I find it easier to defend a ban on religious books in (public) schools. | | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Typically biblical references are references to parables or lessons, not single words that can be easily looked up in a dictionary. |
| |
| ▲ | tomrod 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The bible is a crucial piece of literature reference. We no longer live in the middle of the 20th century. Based on your bandwagon logic, we should also require the Quran, Torah, Shruti, Smriti, The Book of Mormon and associated volumes, the apocrypha, Watchhouse volumes from JWs, NIV, NRSV-CE, The Good Book [0], Buddhist texts, Holy Piby. No. We don't need that. This is a misapplication of Chesteron's Fence to the late 18th century US culture. We all survived the 1950s to now and culture has, dramatically and mostly for the better, evolved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Book_(book) | | |
| ▲ | rmah 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The other religious texts you mentioned are not part of the western civilization canon and did not have much effect on western literature. Thus, while I think they should certainly be available in school libraries as they are important works, they need not be required reading. On the other hand, in different areas with different cultural traditions, each of those books should be required reading as they were central to their literary tradition. And, one assumes, are. To deny that contemporary American culture has its roots in European culture (i.e. western culture) is to deny reality. And honestly, it mystifies me why so many seem to want to be ignorant of their own cultural roots. | | |
| ▲ | tomrod 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > The other religious texts you mentioned are not part of the western civilization canon and did not have much effect on western literature. Incorrect. > To deny that contemporary American culture has its roots in European culture (i.e. western culture) is to deny [my] reality FTFY, otherwise an ignorant and frankly naive take. There are dozens to hundreds of cultures that have influenced and rooted American culture, and you'd do kindly to remember that: - The American Southwest is __heavily__ influenced by Spain and Mexican culture - Louisiana is __heavily__ influenced by French and African culture - Oklahoma, Alaska, Hawaii, the Dakotas, much of New England, and many others are __heavily__ influenced by Native American culture (Way down on the Chatahoochee, anyone?) - The Black belt and most of cities are __heavily__ influenced and rooted in the reformation of Black culture after being ripped out of their homelands by slavery - Blues, Rock, and Jazz all stem from African - What you call "European" is probably English (so, wrong) or a confusing and tangled mess of different cultures that get grouped as "European/Western" and assumed to be one strand of "Christian" or another (I note you missed the Torah being listed, Catholic scripture being listed, etc.). I strongly, strongly recommend that, if you are a citizen of the US, that you take pride in your own culture and learn where it _actually_ sources from -- of which you clearly care, given that you have chosen to make it _the_ supporting argument for why book bannings are okay and why an irrelevant text should be standard, non-optional reading in high school. The roots matter much less than what the culture currently is. | | |
| ▲ | rmah 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This is exactly what I meant when I said I was mystified. | | |
| ▲ | tomrod 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah! I didn't realize that was said in you comment as a self-reference. I understand you now I think, though your phrasing was quite confusing. |
|
|
|
|
|
