nothing about the interpretation given to these programs seems to me accurate.
nothing at all. so i would say delaware should not have bothered to react to this. the "story" isnt worth a damn, the "interpretations" given in the far right press are lunacy (the fixation on the word "treatment" is particularly funny--working hard to make a benign social tolerance program seem like something stalinist.)
on the other hand--ok let's play your game, ustwo.
if the reports were to be confused with something not tendentious (you know, distorted by a partisan viewpoint so much that the factual content comes to be meaningless) what is your objection exactly?
to wit (quoting myself....ugh,)
Quote:
1. what opposing benign programs like this puts conservatives in the position of arguing against: conservatives now oppose sustainability (why?); the oppose tolerance of difference (why?); they oppose social justice (this we knew, but i doubt that conservatives like to array themselves against social justice)...they oppose programs that would tell undergraduates that being racist is perhaps not the best idea, they oppose the notion that homophobia is a problem.
so we could arrange a little picture of what conservatives support from this:
racism
homophobia
social injustice
non-sustainable practice
intolerance
|
btw: host has pretty effectively demolished the source.
the interpretations of the op piece were already taken apart by the good mister tuber above--i came in late to the thread and am only adding small things--the main arguments to be addressed here, really, are in host and ubertuber's posts...but we can play if you want. it'll get to the same thing.