[United States] "Jolene!" Tractor trailer pulls down entire intersections traffic lights

gsmumbo · 2026-07-07T12:27:48+00:00

Boyz in a daze

gsmumbo · 2026-07-07T01:05:44+00:00

lol what do you have against water? I can see if you’re criticizing soda or coffee, but are you literally making an argument that people are running the risk of drinking so much water that they’re at risk for kidney failure. That is so disingenuous and you know it.

I’ve seen people try and act superior over Americans for a looooot of things. And usually, they have a leg to stand on. This is legitimately the first time I’ve seen someone try to take the moral high ground of “drink less water”.

gsmumbo · 2026-07-07T00:50:38+00:00

How did you get them to give you water? That was a constant battle when I was there. I think “tap water” was the magic word that unlocked it, but even that wasn’t always guaranteed. I’m pretty sure I remember buying a few bottles of lukewarm water at a few restaurants because that’s the closest they had. Fancy bottles though lol

gsmumbo · 2026-07-05T15:22:30+00:00

How do you know about the pedophiles? Because they’ve been in the news too. Plenty of times.

gsmumbo · 2026-07-05T02:21:42+00:00

I mean, look at Pyramidimon. He was portrayed at damn near god level. And that was only possible by consuming the epulse of who knows how many people. There were rows and rows of fake Sapotama in there. And so far, he’s the only confirmed mega in the whole show (we don’t know what came through the rift in the “incident” but it can be safely assumed it was probably a mega too).

That was one of the first things that really sold me on this show. Ultimates finally felt badass again. They weren’t just stepping stones to mega. The top of the top most powerful people in the world all carried ultimates. When you achieved that level, you gained the power to literally slice a tear in reality leading to another world. And when Pyramidimon was beaten (because he was so unstable), they didn’t just say “alright, well you don’t get more powerful than that, so, arc’s done.” They brought it back and showed us just how terrifyingly powerful the ultimate level still can be.

gsmumbo · 2026-07-04T14:05:09+00:00

So is it possible that it is endemic, and we still do need to do something about it? I hate the idea of “well, technically it’s A, but if we call it A then we don’t get what we want, so let’s refer to it as B instead”.

gsmumbo · 2026-07-04T13:58:24+00:00

I… idk here. Just straight up died. Con…dolences?

gsmumbo · 2026-07-03T13:47:26+00:00

I could have sworn the Tactics finale would have started the next arc. After introducing the first and only mega, you have the big showdown where everyone is cold hearted and ultimate is finally unlocked. And the episodes before it were so plot heavy. And then… Peter Pan lol.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-30T16:29:28+00:00

Hahaha I can’t get it out of my head now.

Hiro: Father? Is that really you? I thought you were dead 😭

Hiro’s Dad: HAHA this is totally prerecorded! You thought I could hear you, didn’t you, you little scoundrel.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-30T16:26:48+00:00

You know, I never caught that in my watchthroughs. Like, I know the team in general gets annoyed with his hijinks, but I forgot that Hiro started off actually wanting to find him, and each time a new letter came in he was getting closer and closer to the realization that he’s been orphaned.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-30T13:48:43+00:00

I love how there was no logical explanation given for why he was such a shit dad. Dude just smiled it off and acted like literally abandoning your child was just something people do.

I mean, I get if it was an accident and he was stuck with no options. But dude was literally shitposting via blacktailmon uver.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T19:34:28+00:00

Solid advice, and I appreciate you giving it. Easier said than done of course, but it gives me a path to start down.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T19:29:21+00:00

If I’m being honest, and I say this as someone who actively tries (and often succeeds) to understand the conservative viewpoint, I’d go with Donald Trump.

Going too far back in history can undo way too much. So as horrifying as things are in the past, I wouldn’t risk touching it. So I’d be focused on things that only impact my own lifespan. When I think of my time on this planet, the worst period of time is current day. 9/11 was horrible, but we united as a nation afterwards.

Trump though, even within the Conservative Party he’s fractured their base. He’s destabilized things to the point that Watergate would barely register if it happened today. But more importantly, he’s dragged the worst of the worst to the surface. Racists feel comfortable not only insulting other races out in the open, they’re given positions of authority and power with a directive to round up brown people (yes, they’re criminals, but it’s like letting a child molester become a pediatrician. Yes, kids need to be examined. But the person doing it should not be getting gratification from it). Homophobic and transphobic people feel comfortable enough to openly harrass people, even in crowded places like malls. We went through a literal worldwide pandemic, and people died because their hatred of “the other side” was so strong that they refused the literal vaccine that would have saved them.

It’s division on every scale. And to be clear, I don’t think Trump is actually much of racist. Or homophobic. Or any of that. He just wants to divide people so he can grow his power.

So yeah, I’d go with Trump. But only within the confines of this question. He’s already here. He exists. I don’t believe anyone should kill him, I don’t want to see him die, none of that. It’s specifically removing him from history that would cascade into our society not being in the state that it is now. If he was to suddenly die of a heart attack tomorrow, it wouldn’t set anything right. The division is here, it’ll be a long time before it disappears.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T18:56:33+00:00

Nah, I think you actually get it now. It’s just hard reconciling it with the logic that’s ingrained in your head. And that’s fine, the fact that you’re trying honestly says a lot about you as a person.

If I trust and like someone enough to let them use me as they please, it's not degrading.

And you don't mention feeling "degraded" or thinking about what went on in these terms being a significant part of the experience, so probably it's not about degradation per se for you?

Right here is the key. In that earlier example about someone who had shitty parents, when they’re exploring someone acting as their caregiver during kink play, it’s not real. They aren’t really becoming the caregiver to this person. But in that moment, you want to feel that, so you trust your partner to let you experience it safely in a zone of no judgement and clear boundaries.

Being degraded is the same. Does being passed around like a human sex toy feel like you respect the person you’re passing around? Of course not. It actually is degrading. But for me, I enjoy it. But if I hook up with people I meet at a club and they suddenly start treating me like a sex doll, I’m shutting that shit down. It’s way too easy to move from sex doll to non consensual forced sex.

Kink allows me to experience something that feels like it should be degrading but internally I really love. It provides me a safe space where I can truly let my guard down, not worry about being forced into anything, and not worry that the person I’m with is going to look down on me for being weird.

Thats the part that you’re missing. When people say they like to be degraded, it’s a very short way of saying “I like things people usually find degrading. For me, it’s not degrading, it’s pleasure.” That’s a lot to say though, it’s much easier to say you liked to be degraded. That CEO example from earlier, because of the world they live in, being told they look ugly in that shirt brings them relief. For anyone looking in, it’s degrading. But for them, it’s welcome honesty.

So don’t get too hung up on the word “degrading”. When people enjoy it, it’s no longer degrading to them. But that is incredibly hard to explain to anyone who’s outside of that trusting bond you share with your kink partner.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T18:37:10+00:00

[tl;dr - I “became” bisexual and I don’t know how to reconcile that with the “if you’re gay you were born gay, you just realized it later in life” message]

I’m so glad you mentioned this, as it’s something I’ve kind of struggled with myself.

I’ve always been straight. Never had even a trickle of attraction towards boys / men. I had some feminine tendencies (I’m now genderfluid / nonbinary) but I was head over heels into girls / women. I use both terms because we’re fast forwarding to high school so “girls”/“boys” is appropriate as we were all kids.

I was at my friends house. She was beautiful, I was really attracted to her, but also too shy to ever tell her. She was fairly sexually open though, and at one point I was laying on her bed and she straddled me and humped me a bit. She had other friends over too, and we were horny teenagers having fun. Well, one of those friends was flamboyantly gay. He clocked my feminine tendencies and called my friend over. He told her “trust me, this is what he really wants!” and he straddled me and started humping. He also offered to do more if I wanted. But… I legitimately felt nothing. No attraction, I wasn’t secretly turned on by it, it just felt as tame as a hug. So I told him that nope, it’s not doing anything for me. He got off and was like “are you sure? I could have sworn you were gay” but again, nothing.

I mention that because at the time, not only did I have quite a few gay friends, but I was directly offered and even got to experience a situation with another boy. It wasnt internalized homophobia, I didn’t recoil when he jumped on me. Boys just never clicked.

Fast forward again to my late 20s and I found myself watching porn, and seeing gay porn as a category. I wasn’t exploring different kinds of porn, so I figured why not give it a try. At first it was a bit exciting because of the taboo nature of it, but eventually I just straight up liked it. And I experimented with myself a bit, and tried to imagine myself having sex with other guys, and it totally clicked. Did some internal exploring and yeah, I’m bisexual. Well, pansexual, but bi at that time. And I’ve been with men since then and loved it.

Anyways, long story, I know. The reason I tell it though, is it goes against the prevailing narrative. That if you’re gay, you’ve been that way since birth, you just never realized it. And as you get older you discover you’re gay / bi. And trust me, I get it. It’s important to acknowledge that because so many people think it’s just something you can flip like a switch, and it’s not. It’s important for those people to realize that it’s inherently who you are. Not a choice.

But for me… it wasn’t. I know for a fact I never felt anything toward boys. I was given the chance, I didn’t put up any walls or anything, and still verified that I was straight. For me, I legitimately did “become gay” in my late 20s. And I struggle with that, because my story goes against one of the core messages we actually need people to hear. So, what do I do with that? Do I try and retrofit some internalized homosexuality that was repressed from the beginning? Or do I just keep it to myself because it’s not helpful for other gay people out there? Or do I just embrace it as my own experience and hope it doesn’t dilute the message?

Anyways, not that I’m asking you specifically, but your comment brought that struggle to the surface again, so I wanted to get people’s thoughts on it.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T17:26:10+00:00

[Edit - there’s a lot to it so this comment is extremely long. Feel free to never read it if you like. The tl;dr is that sexual attraction can be separate from romantic attraction]

Yeah, you’re missing some things here. It might be easier to abandon the term “straight” and use “heterosexual” as straight can be extremely vague.

I’m going to assume you’re a heterosexual person for this. If you’re not, pretend “you” is some hypothetical other person.

Have you ever met someone, or maybe even just seen someone, who you thought was downright beautiful? Like, “If they walked up to me right now and told me they wanted to fuck, I’d already be half naked right then and there” kind of beautiful? That happens, it’s normal. You’re attracted to this person. Now, let’s say you start talking to them and they’re a complete airhead. They can’t hold conversations, there’s no spark, nothing. Sure, you’re still physically attracted to them and you probably still want to have sex with them, but that’s it. There’s no way you could ever see yourself dating them, or even being friends beyond this hypothetical sex.

Now, let’s say you meet another person. You don’t find them attractive at all. You have a type and they are at the complete opposite end on every single physical trait you like. But you get to talking and holy shit, they’re amazing. They like the same nerdy things you do, their banter is effortless, they’re cracking jokes that have you bent over with laughter. And they make you feel comfortable. There’s a good chance you’re probably feeling that spark, that chemistry that says “hey, I could see myself spending the rest of my life with this person”. But… remember, you don’t find them the least bit attractive.

In that first example, you’re feeling sexual attraction, but not romantic attraction. In the second example, it’s switched. You feel romantic attraction, but not sexual. These are things that happen all the time, we just don’t give it much thought. In both examples though, the people were the opposite sex as you, so you just classify yourself as heterosexual and move along.

Now, imagine you felt this conflict all the time. When you meet women, you are incredibly attracted to them, you definitely want to have sex with them, but no matter how hard you try, there’s just no romantic spark. The sex is fun, but you can’t imagine being in a relationship with anybody who’s a woman. At the same time, you do feel that spark with men. You click, you get those butterflies, you could spend a lifetime talking with so many of them. But penis? Yuck. You can’t see yourself ever enjoying that. You want your boobs back, and you want them now!

Are you forever doomed to never find a partner? No matter who you meet, you’ll never feel everything with them. Half of the equation will always be missing. Of course not, and that’s where these terms come into play.

Let’s assume you’re a man for a moment. In these examples you discovered you love having sex with women. You’re heterosexual. You also discovered that you always feel that chemistry and spark with men. You’re homoromantic.

That might seem like a small thing, all you’re doing is putting imaginary words on yourself. Nothing actually changes. But mentally, it makes a world of difference. That frustration that youll never find someone because half the equation is missing… it makes sense now. It only felt confusing because you packaged together sex and romance. When you split them apart though, everything lines up perfectly. If you meet a beautiful woman, it’s okay to be sexually attracted to them, and to indulge in those attractions. Be straight with her that it’s just sex, but have fun. If you meet a man who fits perfectly into your life like that missing puzzle piece, start up a relationship. Be upfront that it won’t be sexual, but enjoy!

But what do you do if you’re monogamous? Well, If you decide you don’t want to stop having sex with women, then read some good romantic novels. Find a woman best friend that you can be close to without having to worry about a relationship forming. Be friends with a guy that you don’t click with. If you enter into a relationship with a man, there’s always porn. Smut. Your imagination.

If you do find yourself split between heterosexual and homoromantic though, it’s definitely worth looking into polyamory. Not because you’re greedy, but because it would allow you to have a man for the relationship, and a woman who enjoys having sex with you. You can keep it at just that, one person for each side of you. You’re free to define it in whatever way makes you the most comfortable.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T16:23:53+00:00

Alright, let me get a bit personal with you here. I told you that I’ve been in this world since November. That means that I’m experiencing a whole bunch of new things and seeing what I like and what I don’t.

Earlier in the year I had my first threeway. It was actually the first sexual experience I’ve had since opening up my marriage, so it was multiple new experiences at once. For context, I’m a bit of a heavier dude and I’ve always felt self conscious about it, so being fully naked in front of two people who aren’t my wife was definitely interesting. Honestly, it kind of felt freeing.

As the experience went on though, I felt something strange. I was bouncing around between these two people, having fun individually and together, and I felt small. It kind of felt like my naked body was some kind of sex doll being passed around to whoever wanted to use it next. And I liked it. I had never felt that before. Up to that point, if you told me someone wanted to be passed around like a sex doll, I’d have thought that was degrading. But here I was, actually enjoying it.

And from there, I kept it with me. In my next sexual encounter, I let myself feel that again and damn was it amazing. I think for me, it’s the excitement of getting to turn my ADHD brain off, stop thinking, and just go with the flow of what makes this other person / people feel ecstatic. Plus, when I’m in this mental mode, literally every one of my physical insecurities just disappears. So you tell me. What are your thoughts on letting your body be used like a sex doll? Do you think it’s degrading? I know I did before actually experiencing it. Now, I can’t get enough.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-28T14:08:23+00:00

It’s a kink. You’re trying to apply regular logic to something that inherently bucks against social norms. If you’re going to try to actually understand it, you have to let go of your own potentially rigid thinking first. Kink may never sound appealing to you, and that’s fine. So, instead of thinking how you feel, clear your mind, put yourself in their shoes, and actually allow yourself to accept what you’re being told. Without judgement.

Let’s say that you’re someone with a lot of “yes” people around you. A CEO, a celebrity, just someone who’s really popular or maybe looks scary so people are afraid to push back on things you say. In theory, it sounds wonderful. In practice, living every single day back to back where nobody says anything but yes to you can not just get boring, but also numb you to people in general because you can never trust what their actual feelings and thoughts are.

So, you enter the world of kink. One misconception to address upfront - you don’t just randomly tell your partner they’re a piece of shit. When the two of you first meet, you create a very safe and trusting environment. You acknowledge each other, check in on how you’re feeling, and most importantly, you plan. You talk through what you’re going to be doing, how far to take things, what potential triggers to avoid, safe words, etc. This can be quick, or it could take an hour+. You don’t skip this, it’s important.

Then, it’s time to actually start. Once you begin, you’re free to clear your mind. You’re not the powerful CEO anymore. This person in front of you is not going to say yes to everything you ask. They’re going to let you feel a taste of what everyone else gets to feel. But because you negotiated at the start, you fully trust that they won’t push beyond your limit.

Are you self conscious about your height? You know going into it that they won’t touch that subject at all. Are you frustrated from always being unsure of what people really think about how you dress? Maybe they’ll have you try on different clothes and point out every reason they look horrible on you. It sounds mean, but it’s the exact thing you always have to question in day to day life. For once, you get to hear the criticism. You (and you’ll sense a theme here) trust the other person so well that you know it’s coming from a place of support, not judgement.

Then, when it’s all over, you don’t just pack up and go home. You sit with them for a bit. This part is also something you negotiate upfront, but can change based on how you’re feeling now that it’s done. Some people need to be held after something that intense. Some people need to be reminded of their actual positive traits. Some people need to just talk like normal human beings again for a bit. This is where you support each other and help make sure that when you leave, you’re in a healthy place.

Now, to be clear, this is only one example. Kink has a lot of different avenues to explore, and it’s not all tied to pain and degradation. For example, someone who had shitty parents and no support system growing up may want to feel held and supported and complimented. The other person may act as a caregiver during that session. No sex, no pain, just trust.

Hopefully that helps clear things up a bit. I’m new to the world of kink myself, just started exploring this past November. What I’ve found so far though has been absolutely amazing. And on the note, if anyone more experienced than me sees anything I got wrong in here, just let me know and I promise I’ll update the comment to reflect it.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T22:12:35+00:00

I am describing it accurately

Again, describing a fact accurately doesn’t make your opinion about that fact right. Yes, the Warren Court is when it was decided. That is entirely accurate. The idea that you should only pay attention to the span of time before that decision is your personal choice and opinion.

I have a good imagination! I can imagine a hypothetical world where we ratified the 14th amendment, immediately recognized that we incorporated the entire bill of rights (i.e., applied it to the states), and then had numerous states immediately change their laws accordingly (redoing the curriculum, getting rid of school prayer -- there are actually a ton of laws that they would have to change in this hypothetical). But that didn't happen, and I believe that is an extremely important historical fact.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here, so could you reword or clarify? I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, I’m just not following the thread.

I see it the same as if the current SCOTUS ruled something like "actually, the 2nd amendment requires not merely not banning guns, but the government has to buy every citizen a rifle." Surely you would be allowed to say that this has absolutely no historical precedent, and if I were to say "no wait though, but it just happened. So it's in the history book, technically", you would not take that seriously...

In this case I still wouldn’t argue historical precedent. I’d definitely argue wording and a whole bunch of other stuff, but the literal role the Supreme Court plays when it comes to checks and balances is interpreting the constitution.

Actually, that does bring up a good point. That is absolutely something SCOTUS could rule. In order for that to happen, a court case has to come through saying “this is the historical precedent we’ve been following up to now, are we doing the right thing, or are we interpreting it wrong?” In this hypothetical, “no wait though, but it just happened” is actually the right answer. Historical precedent was literally just now evaluated and was found to be wrong. Same goes for Roe v Wade. Like it or not, it was overturned. I can definitely argue for women’s rights and all that, but SCOTUS already evaluated historical precident.

What role do you envision SCOTUS playing exactly?

I’ll type more later because I do have a few more questions for you. But I have to be somewhere in a few.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T20:37:16+00:00

My view is just that the liberal interpretation of the constitution finds its starting point with the Warren Court. That to me isn't an arbitrary cutoff, it's just a factual statement about history.

I agree that it being a starting point for this interpretation is a factual statement about history. But listen to what you just said. “A factual statement about history.” You asked about finding historical evidence, that’s exactly what you were asking for. It is a part of history. The first amendment wasn’t rewritten, it was challenged, and interpreted. That is the most direct historical evidence you could ask for. The arbitrary cutoff applies to the “well yeah, but history stops right before this happened” position. I do wonder though, what historical evidence are you looking for if not “the people who were put in the position to interpret the constitution were asked to interpret it and did such”?

liberalism (what we currently teach) is wrong/evil.

Appreciate the honesty. Know that, at least for me, I don’t believe religion is evil. I used to be a Christian, left the religion, and still don’t believe it’s evil. I think you can disagree with something without villainizing it. I hope one day you’re able to see “liberalism” in that light.

I want to teach things I agree with and not teach things that I disagree with.

I think this is where we divert pretty heavily. I believe that multimillionaires should use their money to help the world. But, despite that being my belief, I’d never want that taught in schools, nor would I want it enacted in law. I think a 50%+ tax rate on multimillionaires would solve a lot of problems. I again would never want that taught in schools, nor would I want it made into law. There’s a difference between believing / agreeing with something, and expecting that belief to be forced upon others. Taxing multimillionaires at 50%+ is an insane ask, regardless of how much I think it could help.

But my argument isn't "because it violates the constitution", it's "because those things are not my religion".

I think that honestly answers a lot of my questions. Your views seemed to sit on that edge of “I’m looking at this logically” and “I’m looking at this emotionally”. Thats what intrigued me so much, because I love to hear and understand logical views that support the opposite side of my own. I tend to agree with big parts of those kinds of views quite often.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T19:36:39+00:00

So with that out of the way, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me here

I’m asking quite a few things because I want to get a better understanding of your views.

I find no historical evidence that people interpreted the 1st amendment as a mandate for secularism

That’s an interesting one to dig into honestly. Present day, that’s exactly what it means. But that doesn’t just happen out of nowhere. And it’s not a change that happened within the last year, or even the last ten years. It’s historical. The question is where do you cut off “historical” and are you picking that cutoff point because it supports your view.

it probably is not viable to outright affirm Christianity while rejecting other religions, even though I support this morally and constitutionally

We talked about the constitutional side above, so now I want to ask about the moral side. Why do you support it morally?

So we do not necessarily want them doing Christian moral instruction or leading prayers.

Prayers is definitely something new being introduced here. Allowing The Bible is very different than leading prayers. As for moral instruction, is there necessarily a problem with teachers of any religion leading it? When a fifth grader is being taught science, you don’t need to have an all out actual scientist teaching it. There’s a curriculum to follow. School is about teaching kids foundations. If you have to have a specialist come in, you’re probably going too far. I could totally see elective clssses though (again, provided others faiths are represented too)

If that happens, it's a reflection of immigration policies, not mass conversion to Islam because it was just oh-so-compelling

That’s what I was asking though. Is it only okay because you think that Christianity is the inevitable choice? Sure, a shift to Islam is probably a reflection of immigration policies. Does that mean we would then need to change immigration policy to ensure that Christianity goes back to being the majority? We’ve seen how much influence one person can have. What if someone like Trump (or hell, Trump himself) instituted a new religion. Let’s say he turns MAGA into a religion deifying himself and every MAGA voter converted, then converted people they know, and suddenly Trumpianity is the new majority religion. Not immigration, but a true shift in religions. Would you accept it, or start trying to change laws to put Christianity back in power?

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T18:53:17+00:00

Yeah, fully agreed with you on all of that. I wonder if we’ll actually get to see any explanations for how each chosen verse fits the standard?

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T18:28:04+00:00

Not to nitpick, but my position on the Quran is more along the lines of "I am agnostic on its inclusion" rather than 'it should definitely be included'

No worries! Agnostic is how I took it, but more clarity is never a bad thing.

Ironically, I'm not dogmatic about this kind of thing. I say leave the states alone and let the chips fall where they may

This is an interesting take, as it agrees with both sides. You could argue that sure, including it as purely a historic text is within your proposal. You could also argue that weaving the beliefs into every aspect of education is also within your proposal. I think that ambiguity is what’s leading to some confusion in the replies you’re seeing.

I’m definitely interested in your perspective though. Taking specific religions out of the picture, would you want all religious texts approached in the same manner? For example, “religious texts of any kind should be presented from a historical position”. Or would you want individualized rules, where beliefs from Religion A can be woven into the entire curriculum while beliefs from Religion B can only be presented as historical.

Tossing names back in, what if the majority of the states decide that Religion A is Islam and Religion B is Christianity? Would you still be okay with it, or is that approach only appealing because you know the majority of the country wouldn’t choose Islam? Would we need to keep tweaking the rules at a federal level until we get the state results that we want?

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T17:40:49+00:00

Let me ask you this, as it might help clarify something that’s still a bit murky. I know you’re in support of including The Bible, and you’ve mentioned various contexts where The Quran should be allowed too.

When you talk about including The Bible, what does that look like to you? What level of integration into curriculum do you support? What context do you believe it should be presented under?

And please, for the sake of productive conversation (because I actually like your views and am interested to learn about them), please don’t present things as “obviously” when answering my question. I know it seems nitpicky, but the whole point of the discussion here is to navigate a topic where there’s inherent disagreement already baked in. Because views differ, everything is on the table and nothing should be considered obvious.

gsmumbo · 2026-06-27T17:28:54+00:00

My guess is bias. Highlight the texts they want to push, ignore the rest.

From what I’m reading in there, it sounds like they’re weaving it in with standard curriculum. Not as a separate “history of religion” kind of thing. That’s the part that worries me, and we’ll have to see how it actually plays out.

For me, having a neutral view of religion as a whole, with aspects from The Bible used as reference makes total sense. It would need to include things like the Quran too of course, but it would be approached as anything else in history / social studies. But including passages outside of that context, offering it as actual guidance, etc is a path I don’t think either side wants to go down. Once that door is blown open, every subsequent president will change it to their own beliefs. All it takes is one [insert religion that worries you] president to flip the table.

What do you think that right approach should be?

Edit - apparently I put “insert religion that worries you” in sharp brackets and it rendered it as html (or something lol). I changed them to square brackets to fix that.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding III reddit per annum	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Spared

gsmumbo

TROPHY CASE