SectionC3

F him. One of the truly sad pieces of Trumpism is that there are some d-bags in this country who support that d-bag. Putin can rot.

Republicans won’t do anything because they don’t know what to do. Their social agenda is horrible. A majority of Americans dislike it. If they go with the “traditional” Republican message with respect to economics, they’re toast because the “middle” has been pushed away by a combination of the ridiculous, hypocritical social agenda (the party of personal freedom opposes marriage equality and bodily autonomy, go figure) and the relationship Trumpism. So the only option is to double down on Trumpism and juice turnout (hence picking on people like Mexicans and trans) to try to cobble enough together to win elections. The reality for Republicans is that, to save the GOP brand, they’re going to have to break with Trumpism and take a couple of bad election cycles. The problem is that there’s no appetite to do that. So Trump will emerge from the primaries, again be the standard bearer, and that will be that.

Hoax. You’re the worst poster here.

That makes more sense. The kids field is fairly close to the Sheldon plot, and significantly upgradient from the creek. I suspect the native burial ground probably is somewhere between the Sheldon space and what now is that field. No, but there is a cemetery on site (maybe 50 yards from gate 7). Check it out on Google Maps. It’s the Sheldon Family cemetery. (There’s also a Sheldon Road about not far from the stadium and where the Sheldon family homestead used to be.)

You would know better than me, but that would surprise me a bit. The situs of the stadium is (and was, to my understanding) the high point of that area. The Sheldons buried within yards of what became one of the gates. I'd be surprised if the Native American burial area is that much closer to the creek. The story has been that the burial ground was disturbed by the stadium. It's been said/urban legend/rumor/whatever for decades.

I can’t convince you of anything, so I’m not going to try. For years I’ve been telling you that HCQ is not an effective treatment for COVID. And for years you’ve ignored me on that issue. Then you got into the Ivermectin hoax. Yummy as it may be, it doesn’t work with respect to COVID. And there you still are with your zinc, and Lysol, and HCQ, insisting that if you just take those things on the third harvest moon of the month and eat them with green play doh while watching Newsmax you can effectively treat COVID. So, no, I’m not going to try to convince you of anything. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Hoax. Hoax. And a misquote on your end. There is no desperation. I also never said that Pokémon or whatever is part of that bunch of dudes. If you’re going to group yourself with those inspired by the possibly gay frog and the possibly gay toad, so be it. But that’s on you.

One where the difference between there and their is taught.

And this is the point. A bunch of dudes who, based on their fleeting relationships with grammar and logic, probably never previously cared for education now are overwhelmed by concern for children in schools throughout the nation because someone told them about a book with a possibly gay frog and a possibly gay toad. America 2023. Gotta love it.

Turns out you’re a cancel culture guy, too. Interesting.

This is where we disagree. You think a ban has to be universal. I recognize the reality that a ban can apply to certain places. (Dogs are banned from the grocery store. Guns are banned in movie theaters. Christians are banned from Mecca.) My view is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition (dictionary.com, for what it’s worth), which does not contain the universality component you wish to project.

It’s Potter Stewart’s game. Google him. If you get Internet in that van down by the river.

I don’t even know what the stalemate is. You’re playing some semantical game about “ban.” You disagree with Noah Webster with respect to the definition of the word. Fine. Maybe you have a problem with linguists. Whatever. Beyond that, I have no clue what you’re talking about. You have a point on the semantics of it. Perhaps what should have been said is exposing the genitals of every child who wishes to compete or to attempt to compete in interscholastic sports. A smaller universe of those who must submit to an inspection of their junk, to be sure, but it doesn’t change the fact that said inspection is really, really messed up.

Define “the left.”

I don’t get your point. If you’re asking whether I believe pornography should be banned from publicly-funded K-12 schools and from public libraries, the answer is an emphatic yes. If you’re trying to get into some sort of semantics game, unfortunately for you I don’t find that sufficiently amusing at the moment to participate. Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. But semantics just isn’t funny enough for me right now. And yet you didn’t publish your definition.

The definition is used appropriately. If you disagree, then I suggest doing such things as picking up empty cans (not Bud Light cans, of course), or holding a bake sale to raise funds sufficient to purchase a dictionary. A garage sale may also satisfy this purpose.

You and Tipper Gore might have more in common than you think. This particular difference is a MAGA issue.

We disagree on the dictionary definition of ban. For yours to work, you’d have to fire up the DeLorean, get a timely lightning strike, and get Noah Webster on board before he takes his dirt nap. As to your other point, I’m not the guy looking to ban, so it’s not my list to make. But I believe my answer lies in other posts. A restriction, like a prohibition? Which *gasp* is a ban.

That’s sort of the point. Nobody disputes that something like a playboy magazine shouldn’t appear in a public or school library. Nobody. It’s when we get into the removal of non-explicit material covering certain subject areas that I have a problem. If MAGA wants to say that children shouldn’t have access to explicit materials, and wants to define “explicit” as pornographic, then I’d be on board. (Defining “pornographic” is its own nettlesome issue, but that’s sort of a “know it when you see it” thing.) But MAGA hasn’t framed its complaint as such. Again to my anecdotal interpretation, the issue doesn’t rest simply with explicit materials, but with a wider swath of literature and thought that is not explicit and which respect to which MAGA simply disagrees. That is not my America.

Sorry, but it’s a ban. Plain and simple. You want to prevent literature that you deem to consider an objectionable or disagreeable topic from appearing in a public or school library. That’s unamerican, and it’s a ban.

Burning is hyperbolic. Funny, and illustrative, but hyperbolic. No doubt about it. Banning is a fair characterization, though. And, as long as we’re on the topic, in terms of things that people should “quit” saying, I’d start with the demonization of anyone who doesn’t agree with MAGA. Child molester, pedophile, communist, etc. I’ve been called (anonymously) a lot of nasty things on this board. I couldn’t care less about it. It also happens in real life. There it’s a little more concerning. There’s definitely room for linguistic moderation on both sides. But I’d start with the really nasty stuff first and then get into the more semantical disputes.

Interesting. We’re going to play the semantics game. Ban is synonymous with prohibit. MAGA wants to prohibit books that hurt its feelings from appearing in school and public libraries. If you’re saying that you don’t want to ban said books in totality, then I suppose you’re correct. But, ultimately, you’re still talking about a ban.

So what? Who cares. They have the right to have their say. If you don’t like it, then that’s on you. Bud Light is the perfect example. Bud Light has a right to put whomever or whatever it wants (so long as it is not explicit) on its packaging. You have the right to break the habit and not drink Bud Light because you don’t like the packaging. That’s how things work here. But burning books or banning books because the literature talks about gay characters or articulates the point that Native Americans, not Chris Columbus, “discovered” North America . . . It’s an unamerican viewpoint. Plain and simple.

I don’t think anyone disputes or should dispute that children should not have access to sexually explicit materials. The problem with MAGA is that it doesn’t know what it wants to burn, and that, to my sort of anecdotal interpretation, it has indicated that it would prefer to burn such things are non-explicit literature that that involves gay or questioning characters (the frog and the toad from earlier, for example) or views of American history inconsistent with MAGA beliefs (e.g., with respect to slavery, or the “discovery” of North America).

You misread the post. Which is not really a surprise, sadly.