the 'parental rights' agenda
We have really got to stop letting these dishonest fuckwads claim the nominative high-ground.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
398 points (99.3% liked)
politics
24741 readers
3590 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It doesn’t hold up the moment you scrutinise the name.
Parents rights to what? The answer is basically “ownership” of their children. Fully control their children.
Children aren’t possessions, they’re people.
Yeah I support youth liberation. They obviously need guidance and all that, but guidance is not what these people are doing. They want their children to have no say in their lives and no information about the world
100% this
From the state's perspective, ownership of children makes some sense. It benefits the state to have a wide range in how children are raised, and they certainly don't want to be in the middle of it. Child Protective Services barely functions for the most extreme cases.
But this extreme withholding of information is a bit different.
I don't disagree with you; I just don't like the argument.
It’s not ownership. From the state perspective you don’t own your children. You can’t sell them, you can’t throw them in the garbage if they’re defective. It’s just insane. At best they’re dependents.
Shit from many “state perspectives” you don’t even own your fetus; you have less rights than it when it comes to health. Some states would rather see you die than the fetus. So much for state rights.
Also, and that’s an argument on your philosophy; even if it’s convenient on some aspect for a state to have a parent own their child, it’s not a winning strategy. States would spend more money and time that way than presuming children are people under the care of someone.
Amen. They make their platform sound so moral until you look at their doctrine for more than a minute
This is why anything with “for liberty” or “right to” in the name immediately makes me suspicious.
I wish more people realized this. “Right to Farm” was just passed in Texas by voters by a wide margin - long term it just removes accountability from agricultural giants and even emboldens them to push out small farmers.
It was advertised as being for small farmers 🤦
Moms for "Liberty"
Like so many conservative groups, their stated goals are really the opposite of what their actions show their real goals to be. MoL claims to support parental rights. But if they really support parental rights then they should be supporting my right to let my child have access to any book I choose in the library. I want them to have access to books about different races, and cultures, and lifestyles. This group wants to remove all books from school libraries that they feel are inappropriate. In other words, they are trying to take away my parental rights to decide for my child and instead only allow my child to access books that support a conservative agenda.
Maybe don't quote Hitler in your newsletter next time, morons.
Kinda glad they did? Makes it easier to know their priorities.
They're already learning this.
I am in a solidly blue district. 4 out of the 7 school board candidates, ALL of the non-incumbents, were running on some sort of "family values" or "parents' rights" platform. A couple of them were within a few hundred votes of taking a seat last year. This year, their statements to media were highly scrubbed because they knew to tread carefully and avoid the dog whistles. And this week, one of them unseated an incumbent (and the only POC in the group). I'm glad the trend is going in the right direction nationally. But I wouldn't call for a victory lap just yet.
That was a feature, not a bug.
I missed that. What was the quote?
Holy shit. They even cited him. Talk about tone deaf idiots.
Talk about tone deaf idiots.
Yes, indeed Republicans.
Good god, I thought it was an unattributed quote that some asshole thought was cute. I'm sure there are plenty of Hitler quotes that make sense out of context, but fuck me.
They still won 50 seats out of 24,000 up for election. Even that is too many.
How many candidates did they run? It certainly wasent 24,000.
They ran/endorsed ~365 or so, according to the article.
Good. Fuck terroristts.
last year we had a few sus folks running for local spots. They knew they were in enemy territory so they could mostly be identified by how evasive they were in any discussions.
There have been a few notable school districts in my state that got duped by these people over the last 10 years or so, and the pattern is pretty much the same:
- They get elected by not telling people what they actually beleive
- They immediately start doing crazy stupid shit
- They illegally shut down public meetings and comments
- They illegally hire an independent lawyer at taxpayer expense to defend themselves
- There is a recall election, and they are removed from office.
It's a huge waste of time and money, and in the end everyone hates these fucks even more than they did to start with, and people are even more interested in voting in local elections. I'm not sure it's a winning long-term strategy for the fascists. You could argue it works to get more progressives and moderates to the voting booth in the long run.
Glad the agenda flopped.