Opinion: How to be a good friend to your Black colleagues during traumatic times - Houston Chronicle

In Historic Opinion, Third Circuit Protects Public School Students' Off-Campus Social Media Speech - EFF

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an historic opinion in B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, upholding the free speech rights of public school students. The court adopted the position EFF urged in our amicus brief that the First Amendment prohibits disciplining public school students for off-campus social media speech.

B.L. was a high school student who had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and was placed on junior varsity instead. Out of frustration, she posted—over the weekend and off school grounds—a Snapchat selfie with text that said, among other things, “fuck cheer.” One of her Snapchat connections took a screen shot of the “snap” and shared it with the cheerleading coaches, who suspended B.L. from the J.V. squad for one year. She and her parents sought administrative relief to no avail, and eventually sued the school district with the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

In its opinion protecting B.L.’s social media speech under the First Amendment, the Third Circuit issued three key holdings.

Social Media Post Was “Off-Campus” Speech

First, the Third Circuit held that B.L.’s post was indeed “off-campus” speech. The court recognized that the question of whether student speech is “on-campus” or “off-campus” is a “tricky” one whose “difficulty has only increased after the digital revolution.” Nevertheless, the court concluded that “a student’s online speech is not rendered ‘on campus’ simply because it involves the school, mentions teachers or administrators, is shared with or accessible to students, or reaches the school environment.”

Therefore, B.L.’s Snapchat post was “off-campus” speech because she “created the snap away from campus, over the weekend, and without school resources, and she shared it on a social media platform unaffiliated with the school.”

The court quoted EFF’s amicus brief to highlight why protecting off-campus social media speech is so critical:

Students use social media and other forms of communication with remarkable frequency. Sometimes the conversation online is a high-minded one, with students “participating in issue- or cause-focused groups, encouraging other people to take action on issues they care about, and finding information on protests or rallies.”

Vulgar Off-Campus Social Media Speech is Not Punishable

Second, the Third Circuit reaffirmed its prior holding that the ability of public school officials to punish students for vulgar, lewd, profane, or otherwise offensive speech, per the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), does not apply to off-campus speech.

The court held that the fact that B.L.’s punishment related to an extracurricular activity (cheerleading) was immaterial. The school district had argued that students have “no constitutionally protected property right to participate in extracurricular activities.” The court expressed concern when any form of punishment is “used to control students’ free expression in an area traditionally beyond regulation.”

Off-Campus Social Media Speech That “Substantially Disrupts” the On-Campus Environment is Not Punishable

Third, the Third Circuit finally answered the question that had been left open by its prior decisions: whether public school officials may punish students for off-campus speech that is likely to “substantially disrupt” the on-campus environment. School administrators often make this argument based on a misinterpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School (1969).

Tinker involved only on-campus speech: students wearing black armbands on school grounds, during school hours, to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that the school violated the student protestors’ First Amendment rights by suspending them for refusing to remove the armbands because the students’ speech did not “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,” and school officials did not reasonably forecast such disruption.

Tinker was a resounding free speech victory when it was decided, reversing the previously widespread assumption that school administrators had wide latitude to punish student speech on campus. Nevertheless, lower courts have more recently read Tinker as a sword against student speech rather than a shield protecting it, allowing schools to punish student off-campus speech they deem “disruptive.”

The Third Circuit unequivocally rejected reading Tinker as creating a pathway to punish student off-campus speech, such as B.L.’s Snapchat post. The court concisely defined “off-campus” speech as “speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school’s imprimatur.”

The Third Circuit noted that EFF was the only party to argue that the court should reach this holding (p. 22 n.8). The court reasoned that “social media has continued its expansion into every corner of modern life,” and that it was time to end the “legal uncertainty” that “in this context creates unique problems.” The court stated, “Obscure lines between permissible and impermissible speech have an independent chilling effect on speech.”

Possible Limits on Student Social Media Speech

The Third Circuit clarified that schools may punish on-campus disruption that was caused by an off-campus social media post when a “student who, on campus, shares or reacts to controversial off-campus speech in a disruptive manner.” That is, a “school can punish any disruptive speech or expressive conduct within the school context that meets” the Supreme Court’s demanding standards for actual and serious disruption of the school day.

Thus, “a student who opens his cellphone and shows a classmate a Facebook post from the night before” may be punished if that post, by virtue of being affirmatively shared on campus by the original poster, “substantially disrupts” the on-campus environment. Similarly, if other students act disruptively on campus in response to that Facebook post, they may be punished—but not the original poster if he himself did not share the post on campus.

Additionally, the Third Circuit “reserv[ed] for another day the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others,” an issue that was not presented in this case.

Supreme Court Review Possible

The Third Circuit’s opinion is historic because it is the first federal appellate court to affirm that the substantial disruption exception from Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.

Other circuits have upheld regulating off-campus speech citing Tinker in various contexts and under different specific rules, such as when it is “reasonably foreseeable” that off-campus speech will reach the school environment, or when off-campus speech has a sufficient “nexus” to the school’s “pedagogical interests.”

The Third Circuit rejected all these approaches. The court argued that its “sister circuits have adopted tests that sweep far too much speech into the realm of schools’ authority.” The court was critical of these approaches because they “subvert[] the longstanding principle that heightened authority over student speech is the exception rather than the rule.”

Because there is a circuit split on this important First Amendment student speech issue, it is possible that the school district will seek certiorari and that the Supreme Court will grant review. Until then, we can celebrate this historic win for public school students’ free speech rights.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
August 01, 2020 at 02:55AM
https://ift.tt/33kWats

In Historic Opinion, Third Circuit Protects Public School Students' Off-Campus Social Media Speech - EFF
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Trump, Please Quit Before You’re Fired - The New York Times

It was clear when President Trump woke up on Thursday morning, with no pollster left to lie to him, and not enough Fox News sycophancy to fill his cereal bowl, that he would have to play one of the last tricks in the dictator’s handbook.

He floated the idea of breaching the Constitution by illegally delaying the national election. It follows his logic on a pandemic that has taken more than 150,000 American lives. If there were less testing for the coronavirus, cases would go down. Ergo, if there were no election on Nov. 3, he couldn’t be booted from office in a wipeout. The stable genius strikes again!

Here’s a better suggestion: As a mortal threat to those looking for life-and-death guidance from the White House, he should do humanity a favor and surrender now. He can quit while he’s only behind by 10 points or so. More important, by walking away today, he can save many lives of supporters who have listened to the lethal quackery from the presidential podium.

He gave up in the war on Covid-19 from Day 1, when he declared that there was nothing to worry about, it would all soon disappear like magic. And his throw-in-the-towel tactics continue to this day, as he promotes the harmful and bizarre suggestions of a woman who also believes in demon sperm transmitted through dreams.

And here’s the net result of a country run by a crackpot: On a single day this week, there were nearly twice as many Covid-19 deaths in just one American state, Texas, than in the five major countries of Western Europe combined. On that same day, Thursday, the Covid Tracking Project reported 1,400 American deaths, the most in a single day since May 15.

Trump publicly quit on his country two years ago, when he chose Vladimir Putin’s word over that of American intelligence officials, the infamous sellout in Helsinki. So it was no surprise when the two leaders spoke by phone this week, that Trump did not even raise the question of Russians paying a bounty to have American soldiers killed in Afghanistan. That is dereliction of duty, son.

He quit on the economy in early spring, when he pushed for a widespread reopening, even though health experts warned that the results could be catastrophic. And thus, this week we saw the largest drop in economic output on record, as people were afraid to resume normal commerce in a country fevered with viral hotspots.

Trump has yet to realize what every sensible business owner knows: The only path back to prosperity is through the managed economic sacrifice and uniform health guidelines needed to get the virus under control.

He quit on the Constitution, obstructing Congress and abusing power, in the scheme to tie aid to a struggling ally to a demand that Ukraine dig up dirt on a political opponent.

From there, he’s become increasingly authoritarian. Clearing a park full of peaceful protesters by force in order to stage a photo op with a Bible was just the start.

Of late, Trump has been itching for a riot. With buildings aflame, windows smashed and mobs in the streets, he could fulfill his prophecy of being the only man able to fix the American carnage he warned us about. Majorities support changes needed to root out systemic racism. The only way that Trump can hold back the tide is to change the story.

Except, some of the players are not who we think they are. The police have identified the man who turned largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests into mayhem in Minneapolis — the window-smashing Umbrella Man — as a white supremacist.

Sending Trump’s troops into American cities appears to have backfired, even as the president announced plans to possibly send new federal agents into Cleveland, Milwaukee and Detroit, counting on swing state showdowns for the Fox News machine.

If Trump were to quit, he would join Richard Nixon in disgrace — he’d be an impeached president (Nixon quit on the brink of impeachment) forced from office. Except, Nixon is a notch higher in the hell-scape, given his diplomatic openings in China and his signing of landmark environmental laws.

Delaying the Nov. 3 election is not only illegal, it would be unprecedented. Lincoln held the regular election during the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt faced voters on time during World War II.

If Trump were to walk away today, the likely nominee of his party would be Mike Pence. And Democrats shouldn’t be afraid of facing Pence. He’s Trump with a pious veneer, the man sent to the border to justify putting kids in cages, the Stepford veep always there with a timely bootlick. And of course, he carries a portfolio of failure as the man chosen to oversee the federal government’s disastrous response to the pandemic.

Quitting before an election would deprive Americans of the satisfaction of rejecting him by an overwhelming margin, a national shower to clean off four years of his grime and grift.

But there’s another image, equally satisfying. Trump could play one last gambit in the dictator’s checklist and refuse to leave office on Jan. 20 — election or no election — as required by the Constitution. If he does this, a weary nation would be rewarded with a presidential perp walk, as Trump is escorted out of the White House and into infamy by military police.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Timothy Egan (@nytegan) is a contributing opinion writer who covers the environment, the American West and politics. He is a winner of the National Book Award and author, most recently, of “A Pilgrimage to Eternity.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
August 01, 2020 at 01:15AM
https://ift.tt/2XaDclp

Trump, Please Quit Before You’re Fired - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

America's Third Reconstruction is happening now - CNN

Americans are living in an era when efforts to forge a new national identity — what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. characterized as a "beloved community" free of racial injustice — are directly confronting deeply entrenched national myths rooted in white supremacy. We are in the midst of what amounts to America's Third Reconstruction.

In the wake of the Civil War, the architects of Reconstruction (1865-1877) made a valiant attempt to create a new interracial democracy. It faltered in the face of brutal violence, legal decisions that assaulted Black citizenship, and a political system that reinforced racial divisions thought to have been eradicated after the war. In the years that followed, segregationists erected Confederate monuments, massacred Black towns, and imposed a version of American history rooted in vicious racist myths that became part of our national culture.

Movies such as "Birth of a Nation" (1915) and "Gone With the Wind" (1939), racist memorabilia such as lawn jockeys, and everyday items such as Aunt Jemima syrup and Uncle Ben's rice reflected not only personal indignities but wider injuries related to policies and systems of racial oppression.

America's Second Reconstruction, the civil rights movement's heroic period in the 1950s and 1960s, attempted to combat the symbols and substance of white supremacy and anti-Black racism, but its mission -- despite watershed legal and legislative victories like Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Fair Housing Acts -- remains incomplete.

America's Third Reconstruction began with the soaring promise of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential election and the victory of a campaign that millions took to be a definitive symbol of historic racial progress.

Dreams that a Black president could prove transformative to national race relations proved short-lived, and the emerging Black Lives Matter movement during Obama's second term exposed the limited impact of a Black First Family on entrenched systems of oppression.

The 2016 election of Donald J. Trump revealed the depth and breadth of racial resentment and fear among those who correctly interpreted the phrase "Make America Great Again" as a call for a restoration of white supremacy: the "Redeemer South" of Reconstruction, devoted to the removal of gains made by African Americans, updated for a digital age.

This year has ushered in the most dynamic social movement for racial justice in American history as Black Lives Matter 2.0 awakened the entire nation to a reality of White supremacy -- made more legible to millions of White Americans who, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, shelter-in-place orders and mass unemployment showed new layers of empathy in taking the streets to protest against the killing of George Floyd.

If 2008 reflected hopes that one Black leader could transform racial injustice from the inside out, 2020 bears witness to the power of millions of Americans seeking fundamental transformation of systems of racial injustice from the bottom up.

This year of plague, racial justice protest, and violence has hastened America's moral and political reckoning with over a century of longstanding monuments, citadels, and symbols of White supremacy that have narrated myths about our nation's collective past.

The 1619 Project, the New York Times' multimedia history of racial slavery and democracy since the arrival of the first enslaved African in Jamestown Colony, Virginia, has become the latest battleground in our long running cultural war over the very meaning of freedom, democracy and citizenship.

Conceived by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the project sought to uncover the deep and broad roots of racial slavery and its aftermath on American democracy in ways that have been forgotten, ignored and distorted.

Published in August 2019, the 1619 Project quickly went viral, becoming a much-needed teaching tool to help public school teachers avoid glossing over America's brutal history of racial slavery and Jim Crow.

The project brilliantly explored slavery's relationship with capitalism, the creation of a racial caste system and the perpetuation of disparities in wealth and health care that are based on systems rooted in bondage.

Readers of the 1619 Project come away with a better and historically sophisticated understanding of how slavery fostered supply chains of power and privilege for Whites and misery and grief for Blacks -- in ways that have received dedicated scholarly attention but comparatively scant public debate.

Tom Cotton, the US senator from Arkansas who publicly called for the use of military troops to route racial justice protesters in the spring, has introduced legislation designed to prevent the teaching of the 1619 Project in public schools.

In denouncing the 1619 Project as anti-American, he characterized slavery as a "necessary evil" that the founders realized would be ended one day, citing Abraham Lincoln as validating this perspective (comments he later tried with dubious success to walk back).

The poverty of Cotton's historical explanation is surpassed by the mendacity of his description of racial slavery -- a practice which slaughtered, maimed, killed, raped and crushed the bones, but not the spirits, of generations of Black human beings.

The Civil War's gruesome death toll of more than 600,000 Americans obliterates his assertion that the founders realized that slavery would one day be removed from the face of the republic.

Slavery, far from being an inevitable or "necessary evil," proved to be a system that flourished thanks to thousands of personal, political and policy choices made during the antebellum era and that the 1619 Project rightfully exposed as the brutal progenitor of contemporary systems of mass incarceration, segregation and poverty that persist to this day.

Lincoln's soaring and concise second inaugural address in 1865, in which he observed that "every drop of blood drawn by the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword" remains a testament to the high price paid to settle, once and for all, whether the United States would embrace freedom or slavery, since the war reflected that a house divided against itself proved destined to fall.

Parts of America still remain divided against itself. Cotton's efforts to impugn the 1619 Project form the latest effort in a war over the narrative that began as soon as the Civil War ended.

While the North won the physical battle, the South proved victorious in retelling the story of racial slavery to future generations. The "Lost Cause" has proven tenacious enough that even 21st century schoolchildren are frequently taught that the Civil War was fought over "states' rights" instead of racial slavery.

The 1619 Project refutes this hollow narrative victory with a national history that reflects the bitter fruits of racial slavery and violence as well as the beauty of generations of Black Americans who helped reimagine democracy with an indefatigable will.

Slavery represented an incomprehensible moral and political evil, one that the founders, subsequent presidents, abolitionists and enslaved Black Americans wrestled and debated -- but it was never a necessary one.

Suggesting otherwise perpetuates the acceptance of slavery's legacy. To believe otherwise is to endorse the continuation of a seemingly unbroken chain of wrong turns and bad choices made collectively by a nation that has remained, until as recently as a few months ago, willfully blind to the racial sins of the past.

Cotton's words remind us that a "narrative war" continues in our own time. The culture wars of the 21st century, like past conflicts, centered around public interpretations of history as a tool to make sense of the present in service of envisioning the country's political future.

America's Third Reconstruction, like its two earlier iterations, represents a time for choosing moral sides. Millions of Americans across the nation have and are continuing to do so in unprecedented numbers of demonstrations, protests, and marches advocating racial and social justice.

The choice ahead of us is as stark now as it was on the eve of the Civil War. America can choose a liberated future that acknowledges past racial sins in a generational effort at atonement and repair -- or we can double down on the same willful blinders that got us in this mess, aided by rationalizations that describe incomprehensible evil as the cost of doing business.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
August 01, 2020 at 12:02AM
https://ift.tt/2XcKcyc

America's Third Reconstruction is happening now - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion | The inevitable is inevitable - alreporter.com

I am about to say something nice about Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill. But, still, before this column is over, he’ll most likely get triggered, write a press release on secretary of state stationery, taking my column out of context and arguing that he’s not a supporter of voter suppression.

But, of course, Merrill not only supports it, he goes to court to protect it. Voter suppression is the Republican strategy across the country for eking out elections; otherwise, Republicans could hardly win in many places based on their platform, which includes the following: racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny – basically, white supremacy.

Oh, of course, none of that is written in the “platform,” but actions always speak louder than words. Look at the Republican Party’s actions – and silence; most Republicans clearly fawn over their dear leader, Donald Trump.

I about lost my lunch this week when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Racist-Kentucky) took to the Senate floor to praise the just-passed U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia. Do these people have any shame? McConnell has been sitting on a bill to fix the Voting Rights Act for more than 225 days, and still sits on it today, after praising Lewis.

Oh, that reminds me, another plank in the Republican platform: hypocrisy.

Back to Merrill: On Monday, Merrill extended the option to use COVID-19 as an excuse to vote by absentee ballot through the Nov. 3 general election.

That is a good decision, and Alabama voters like me – who worry they could contract the virus and pass it on to more vulnerable people, like my wife of 40 years who has a suppressed immune system – have one fewer issue to stress out about during this totally whacky year.

Public Service Announcement

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will, indeed, jump through the hoops required to get and cast an absentee ballot, and my wife will do the same.

“Amid coronavirus concerns, it is important to remember that Alabamians who are concerned about contracting or spreading an illness have the opportunity to avoid the polls on Election Day by casting an absentee ballot,” Merrill said in the press release.

Merrill does give us permission to tell a little white lie as we apply for our ballots. He says we can just check this excuse: “I have a physical illness or infirmity which prevents my attendance at the polls. [ID REQUIRED]”

ADVERTISEMENT

Honestly, neither my wife nor I are physically unable to go to the polls. But our exposure to a potential virus infection will compel us to check that “excuse,” wink-wink.

Now here’s what is going to trigger Merrill: Why isn’t he more of an advocate for making it easier, not more difficult, to vote? Just this week, again, he was singing the praises of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold Alabama’s voter ID law. Earlier this year, Merrill and Attorney General Steve Marshall fought against allowing folks to cast their ballots curb side. They fought mandatory mask orders at the polls.

Merrill should be advocating for mail-in voting (not absentee) and for early voting and for easy voting and for easy access to Alabama’s ballot for candidates. But even he knows that the more voters who vote make it more difficult for his party to win.

In-person voter fraud is rare; indeed, most voter fraud occurs with absentee ballots, when it occurs at all. But Merrill and other Republican election officials (and, of course, Trump) live for that myth. What they know is that the more barriers they erect to voting, the fewer voters will turn out, and the better chance Republicans will have. Sometimes it only takes a few voters to stay home to turn an election.

Trump took the 2016 election by winning narrow margins in some key battleground states, even as he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

As of this writing, Trump is down in polling in every one of those battleground states, so voter suppression is definitely a key strategy Republicans will use in an attempt to get Trump re-elected this fall.

The challenge this election for Republicans, though, is that voters aren’t nearly as enthusiastic about voting FOR Joe Biden as they are enthusiastic about voting AGAINST Donald Trump.He’s kind of wore out his welcome for most everybody but racists.

That’s because when your platform is basically one of hate, you’re going to piss off a lot of different groups. This president, indeed, is defending the Confederate flag and Confederate Civil War generals and Confederate statues. He’s sending unidentified federal policing teams into cities to stop peaceful protests and fire tear gas and flashbangs at moms.

Plus, Trump has so mishandled the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic that more than 140,000 Americans have died, more than 3 million have been infected, and thousands more are suffering permanent health damage from their infections.

Can somebody read the room that badly and still expect to win? Trump says he believes he can win, so he’s more dangerous than ever.

Secretary of State Merrill seems to be a smart person, so it’s puzzling that he’d fall in with such a crowd. But, then, maybe not. Maybe it is his crowd, and he’s as complicit as most other Republicans.

It won’t be the first time an Alabama politician is on the wrong side of history.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
July 31, 2020 at 07:33PM
https://ift.tt/3fbbH1u

Opinion | The inevitable is inevitable - alreporter.com
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

America's new yard sign discourse - The Week

israelob.blogspot.com

July 31, 2020

The Twin Cities are bursting with political yard signs.

They're not campaign signs — those are tellingly few. I've seen more faded blue holdovers from 2016 than support for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden or President Trump. No, the signs dotting my neighborhood and absolutely swarming the next neighborhood over aren't about voting, per se. They're about policy, principles, identity, and they're almost entirely left-wing. While I've never been fond of the phrase "virtue signaling" — its contempt is often unfair — used literally, it's an apt description of what's happening in our metro's front yards.

I decorated my college-era car with bumper stickers, but when that car died, my political signage impulse went with it. Though hardly shy about my views, I've never considered a yard sign. The people around me may have very different politics from mine, and I worry this sort of impersonal political engagement might get in the way of our neighborliness.

But clearly many of my neighbors don't share my qualms. As signs multiplied in recent months, I began wondering four things: Is this only a local trend? Where did the most popular sign originate? Is there a right-of-center analogue? And what's the thought process behind putting such signs in your yard — which is to say, what does this phenomenon tell us about the state of our country?

The current batch of signs, it should be noted, is not the Twin Cities' first. When I moved here in 2013, mere days after Minnesota began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, rainbow signs were in vogue. "All are welcome here," or, "Love is love," they said.

Once Trump was elected, attention shifted to immigration and refugee policy, and a new sign appeared. In English, Spanish, and Arabic, it announced: "No matter where you are from, we're glad you're our neighbor." An NPR story from the time reported this sign was popping up nationwide, often distributed by churches. Smaller political moments and holidays occasioned other signs, too. The death of Philando Castile at the hands of police in a nearby suburb was followed by a slew of "Black Lives Matter" and "Justice for Philando" signs. "Blessed Ramadan" signs (used by non-Muslims) are a seasonal option. I think there's a Christmas one, but I can't quite remember it now.

Yet none of these have replicated the popularity of the sign du jour: "In this house, we believe..."

New sign for the yard! And my car. And my.....everywhere? pic.twitter.com/lzr8NRXdgi

— sarahdessen (@sarahdessen) July 28, 2020

This sign is everywhere. In predominantly white, progressive, upper- or middle-class neighborhoods, it's rare to find a block without one — or five. (Anecdotally, though I'm not the only one to make this observation, I've never seen "In this house" at a home I know to be occupied by people of color. My majority-minority neighborhood, with a large population of first-generation immigrants, has markedly fewer signs than the mostly white neighborhood to the west.) When a red, white, and blue version appeared, as if on cue, for the Fourth of July, I briefly considered there might be a subscription service which everyone knew about but me.

What I find fascinating about "In this house," beyond its ubiquity, is that it's functionally a creed, a dense statement of political and even metaphysical belief.

Every line has a major dogma in view, and to correctly interpret the entire statement requires a high degree of political knowledge, just as something like the Apostle's Creed points Christians to larger theological doctrines. The commentary about climate change, evolution, and/or vaccines intended by "Science is real," for example, cannot be gleaned from the text itself. "Women's rights are human rights" does not mention abortion or suffrage or sexual assault, though it certainly seems intended to address all three.

By creedal standards, this is one for the true believers, and, like religious creeds, it is a complete package of orthodoxy to be received, not dissected. There are no political "Protestants" among yard signers. No one displays an "In this house" sign with half the list struck out. If you're in, you're all in.

Back to my four questions.

The first was the most easily answered: "In this house" (and similar signage) has gone nationwide. An informal poll I conducted with friends around the country returned reports of the same sign proliferating in Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago, Indianapolis, Boise, Santa Fe, Richmond, Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and many smaller cities, towns, and suburbs. The only friend who said she hadn't seen "In this house" lives in Lynchburg, Virginia, home of Liberty University and located in a county that voted 71 percent for Trump in 2016.

The sign's origin story was easily discovered, too. Written by a woman in Madison, Wisconsin, for her own yard, the design with colorful typography went viral in the "Pantsuit Nation" Facebook group following Trump's victory. Now there are cross-stitch versions, poster versions, shiplap versions, and pandemic face shield versions. (The format has also been co-opted by Disney and Harry Potter fandoms, naturally.) A business in Portland offers "In this house" as a flagship product among a full slate of "signs for justice."

The right-wing analogue question is more difficult to settle. Friends in Virginia and Texas reported seeing a few "Back the Blue" signs in politically mixed suburban and bedroom communities. There are conservative variants of "In this house" available online, but they're rare in real life:

Conservative "In This House" Yard Sign https://t.co/G4zbE8bVq2 #Republican #GOP pic.twitter.com/XdB8dd5N04

— ElectionGear (@ElectionGear) June 17, 2020

When Republicans want to announce their politics, they seem to prefer bumper stickers over yard signs; campaign signs over broader political statements; and, sometimes, a certain ambiguity over precise messaging. The American flag, which these days can equally communicate generic patriotism or a patriotically correct slam on the Black Lives Matter movement, is a favorite.

That apparent interest in ambiguity (deniability?) was on my mind when I read the results of a Cato Institute/YouGov survey published last week. The poll found a growing majority of Americans across party lines have political views they are afraid to share because of the reaction they anticipate from those who disagree. Though fear of political backlash is rising across the board, the further someone moves to the right, the more likely she is to self-censor.

A quarter of Democrats at all levels of education worry they could lose their jobs over their politics, the survey found, but fully 60 percent of high-education Republicans — those in the professional-managerial class — think their politics could "harm them at work." The same poll shows that fear is not unfounded: A third of "strong conservatives" support firing business executives who donate to Biden, and 50 percent of "strong liberals" would do the same with Trump. The desire to punish and insulate oneself from political difference isn't universal in America, but it's certainly mainstream, particularly on the left.

Perhaps predictably, as likely all my conversation partners would fall into the survey's "strong liberal" category, this fear was not much in evidence when I interviewed a handful of Twin Cities residents and an online acquaintance from Ohio about their display of "In this house" or signage like it. On the contrary, several expressed a sense of relief in having few or no known conservatives in their social circles who might take umbrage with their signs.

"I'm lucky," said Chelsea, who lives in Saint Paul. "I don't have a large family I feel the need to mollify, [and] I work in a progressive company." She doesn't invite anyone to her house who doesn't affirm her signs' doctrines, Chelsea told me, describing this as a matter of "fundamental morality," not mere politics. "We live in a bubble," said another Saint Paulite, Laurie. "It is unlikely that visitors to our house will disagree with our signs."

Why display them? The universal reason was virtue signaling in that literal sense. Laurie's next-door neighbors are refugees, she said, and "we wanted to signal to them that we were welcoming." Chelsea's family, too, wanted to "identify ourselves as friendly and safe" while sending a message to "people who may not be sympathetic that this neighborhood will stand up for people who need it." She recounted overhearing passersby cite her sign as evidence that "this neighborhood is nice people." Another neighbor, Tiffany, had her family and students of color in mind, while George in Ohio displayed "In this house" because "those with differing political or societal views aren't always welcomed with open arms," and a sign struck him as a good, pandemic-friendly option to say otherwise.

Every person I spoke with said they expect to keep their signs up long-term. Biden's election will not make them feel less necessary. They would only come down after massive societal change, which seems to mean after those "people who may not be sympathetic" are either converted to the creed, rendered politically powerless, or die off.

Is that mindset meaningfully different from ordinary politics? After all, every political movement seeks victory. Adherents of every political ideology want to grow their ranks. Every political party tries to take power from its opponents. And the signaling of yard signers seems sincerely intended to be virtuous — George, a Lutheran Christian, called his sign a "theologically-driven" effort to love his neighbors well. These are not Václav Havel's greengrocer, submissively putting up signs reflecting the dominant political ideology because if they "were to refuse, there could be trouble."

Maybe I'm still uneasy about these signs because I'm simply not a "sign person." Temperament may be coloring my judgment here. But I don't think that's all it is. Regardless of the intent and content of the messaging displayed, I find something troubling, disordered even, in a society so fixated on politics and signification of political loyalties.

Signs often serve as a warning to some as much as a welcome to others. They can become one more means of isolating ourselves from those who think differently in our homes, our relationships, and, of late, our workplaces. They can serve as an announcement that we are not the wicked to be disavowed and deplored, though of course we know (or should know) that line of division is not so neatly drawn; it does not skirt the perimeters of our hearts.

And the parable of the greengrocer reminds me that a wholesome political society — unlike the totalitarianism of which Havel wrote — does not expect its citizens to thus advertise their politics. In our recent history, heavy political signage has not corresponded with political health.

"Just so," sign owners could retort, "and our signs look forward to a day when signs are unnecessary." Perhaps, but I worry about how we'll get there. Whatever their meaning and motive, signs strike me as an escalatory move, and I don't know how much more escalation we can take.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"discourse" - Google News
July 31, 2020 at 04:55PM
https://ift.tt/2PeUE3T

America's new yard sign discourse - The Week
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

These are the people who must stop Trump's assault on voting - CNN

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama spoke passionately and with great emotion about issues such as fairness, love, the rule of law, humility, compassion, selflessness, unity, courage, dignity and service to others. They exemplified why the presidency is such a revered office. They captured the moment.

A few hours later, their successor, Donald Trump -- who pointedly refused to pay his respects to Lewis -- took to the podium at the White House to criticize his predecessors and give himself undeserved credit despite his gross failure to competently manage the Covid-19 pandemic that has taken the lives of over 150,000 Americans. He also doubled down on his threat not to accept the results of the upcoming election in November. As Trump often does, he diminished the stature of the presidency.

By his cowardly and self-aggrandizing behavior, he showed that the greatest threat to our democracy is posed not by foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia or Xi Jinping of China, but by our own president. Indeed, by intentionally casting doubt on the legitimacy of an election that he seems likely to lose according to the most recent polls, Trump seeks to rip out the very heart of our democracy. Nothing is more essential or defining of a democracy than the selection of leaders by the will of the people, expressed through their votes. Anything short of that is a monarchy or a dictatorship.

President Trump can present all the false arguments he wishes about "widespread" voter fraud and the unreliability of mail-in ballots. But there is no evidence to support his claims that either of these is true. Experts across the country have repeatedly pointed out the reliability of ballots submitted by mail (of which Trump and many in his administration have taken advantage) and the overall integrity of our electoral system. Only someone who fears losing would suggest an election could be rigged.

What to do? A place to start might be with the Republican leaders in the Senate, the House, and the party itself. It was bad enough that they have remained silent -- and some would say complicit -- in the face of Trump's many previous transgressions, including being accused of threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine until it gave him dirt on Joe Biden (Trump denies there was any quid pro quo), his obsequious fawning over Putin, his lies about pretty much everything, and his disgusting attacks on women, minorities, the press and the institutions of government. But what's done is done. We cannot go back.

Looking to the present and future, if there ever was a time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. John Thune, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Steve Scalise, and the Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel to step up and put the country ahead of the party, it is now.

It might be worth their while to ask themselves why they got into politics to begin with. Was it to gain fame and power? If so, there is little hope they will be of any use to America. But if, by chance, they went into politics because they believed in the nobility of public service, were attracted to the idea of making a contribution to society, and wanted to preserve and strengthen our democracy, then this is their moment.

This is their moment to say: "We care more about our country than our own political fortunes. Mr. President, enough is enough. Quit casting false aspersions on our electoral process. Either agree here and now to accept the results or withdraw your candidacy."

Were they to do so, two things are certain: Trump would explode against them on Twitter, but they would forever secure their places in history as people who helped to save America. Not really a tough choice.

Whether one liked or supported the policies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, on Thursday it was obvious that all three men believed deeply in the goodness of America, the nobility of public service, and the promise of our future. And, perhaps, more importantly, they believe in what founding father John Adams said: "Ours is a government of laws, and not of men."

It was not lost on anyone who watched on Thursday that the man who lives and works where Clinton, Bush, and Obama did, disrespected a national hero and shrunk from the moment.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
July 31, 2020 at 08:21PM
https://ift.tt/2XcyDXU

These are the people who must stop Trump's assault on voting - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: Writing the next chapter in California’s environmental history - The Mercury News

California Assemblyman Ash Kalra is the author of AB 3030, which would put California at the forefront of global environmental conservation. (Randy Vazquez / Bay Area News Group)

Ask any Californian why they enjoy living in the Golden State, and you’re likely to hear about the environment, from our treasured oceans to public lands.

We’re lucky to share such splendor with a vast array of native species, including plants, migratory birds, aquatic animals and wildlife. And our experience over the past months, collectively committing to slow the spread of COVID-19 through social distancing, has only reinforced how critical nature is to California’s way of life. It was one of our few escapes, where we could get away from the stresses of a global pandemic dominating everyone’s life.

Yet as we settle into the new decade, scientists are sounding the alarm that nature is facing unprecedented challenges. Without action, the California we know and love will cease to exist.

On June 8, the California Assembly passed AB 3030, a bill I wrote to put our state at the forefront of global environmental conservation. AB 3030 is part of a growing effort to protect 30% of the world’s lands and oceans by 2030. If enacted, California would be the first in the United States to take statewide action — writing the next chapter in our proud history of environmental leadership.

I was pleased to see the bill, co-sponsored by my fellow Assemblymembers Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, Eloise Gomez Reyes, D-Grand Terrace, and Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, pass by a wide margin; now, it’s in the hands of the state Senate.

Last year, the United Nations issued a stunning report that shows one million animals and plants are now threatened with extinction. Even worse, the report predicted many of those species could die off within decades — the fastest decline in human history. California’s scientific community takes such warnings seriously and are already documenting a rapid loss of natural areas and biodiversity here at home. From 2001 to 2017 alone, California lost more than one million acres of natural lands. Additional studies show at least 686 species are at risk of extinction, and an astonishing two-thirds of the state’s native plants are forecast to lose most of their range in the next 100 years.

This is why scientists throughout California and around the world are imploring us to act, and why we have responded with our legislation. Fortunately, California is already a leader in protecting nature, with 22% of our state’s lands and 16% of coastal waters protected and managed for their natural resources. Increasing those numbers to 30% by 2030 is achievable, but it will take an all hands-on-deck approach.

AB 3030 takes up the mantel by establishing a statewide policy to protect and restore at least 30% of California’s lands, freshwater and oceans by 2030. Recognizing there is more than one path to conservation, the bill was designed to set and achieve a goal in lieu of prescribed mandates. It would task the state to work with the U.S. government, local and Indigenous communities, and private landowners to conserve natural resources.

Decades ago, California deployed its strengths to become a leader in renewable energy, setting ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gases and putting forth an economy-wide effort to meet them. Our 30×30 bill supports those efforts while simultaneously building on them to tackle the nature crisis we now face and rebuild our economy. With more than 100 million acres in and only five million currently in urban or suburban development, California has enough land to protect important areas, provide the public with access to nature, and build and sustain a robust economy.

In the age of COVID-19, we are all too familiar with the importance of maintaining a healthy ecosystem — for the planet and ourselves. Let’s address the crisis head-on by passing AB3030 and making 30×30 a reality.

Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, represents the 27th District in the California Assembly.

Get Morning Report and other email newsletters

Sign Up

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
July 31, 2020 at 08:10PM
https://ift.tt/339L9LL

Opinion: Writing the next chapter in California’s environmental history - The Mercury News
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

The discourse of climate denial - Environment Journal

israelob.blogspot.com

Climate denial hasn’t gone away – here’s how to spot arguments for delaying climate action.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

The UK and many other rich countries have set ambitious targets for emissions cuts to tackle climate change, and have already made much headway in recent years. Further progress can be achieved while making sure that fossil fuels are used responsibly, and with promising new technology such as aircraft powered by batteries.

The UK should not do more though, while countries like China and the US continue to emit far more than we do. It’s hard to see why hard-working families should be denied simple pleasures either, like flying on foreign holidays.

In fact, why should we limit emissions at all, since the worst of climate change is already looking inevitable?

If these sorts of claims sound familiar – reasonable even – that’s because they are some of the most common ways of arguing for less ambition on tackling the climate crisis. Outright denial of climate change is becoming rarer but is simply being replaced by more subtle ways of downplaying the need for urgent and far-reaching action.

In new research, we have identified what we call 12 ‘discourses of delay.’

These are ways of speaking and writing about climate change that are commonly used by politicians, media commentators and industry spokespeople. Though they shy away from denying the reality of climate change, their effect on the collective effort to respond to it is no less corrosive.

Delay arguments are often different in type but have the same desired effect – to undermine action on climate change.

Delay is the new denial

Some of these arguments direct responsibility to others (‘what about China?’) or stress the supposed downsides of taking action (‘why should ordinary people pay?’).

At other times, past achievements or future plans may be emphasised when pushing solutions that aren’t likely to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions (‘we have world-beating climate targets’), or it may simply be argued that it is now too late to do anything anyway (‘the climate apocalypse is coming’).

When people make appeals to delay or limit action on climate change, it is often couched in the language of optimism and progress.

Take the remarks on aviation by UK health minister Matt Hancock in January 2020. He said that there is no need to reduce how much we fly because electric planes are on the horizon (disclaimer: they aren’t). On the other hand, tackling climate change can just as easily be undermined by a sense of futility or hopelessness in the potential for meaningful action.

It’s important to appreciate that many of these arguments contain at least a grain of truth – and may be used by people in good faith. After all, who hasn’t wondered at some point whether cycling to work instead of driving has much bearing on a vast global problem?

Likewise, it’s not fair to expect those who have contributed the least to climate change to be held back from attaining a decent standard of living.

Nor is it reasonable to expect someone in rented housing to pay to upgrade a poorly insulated property in the UK.

Genuine concerns about the wider impacts of climate policies become delay arguments only when they are used to downplay the scale of the problems we face or to obscure the need for immediate and radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

How to respond

By defining the most common delay arguments, we can better understand the obstacles being placed in the path of tackling the climate crisis.

They are part of a wider range of stories used to describe climate change that act as important influences on public opinion. They can make the difference between engendering a resolve to act and spreading disgruntled resignation.

A clearer understanding of these arguments also forces us to engage with and find better responses to them.

For instance, it’s convenient to view action on climate change as a situation where one country determined to continue polluting can take advantage of the goodwill of others who reduce their emissions.

The argument that if I take action it will be exploited by someone else unwilling to do the same (which we call the ‘free rider’ excuse) has been used by the US president, Donald Trump, to pit developing countries against the US on emissions reductions, and to press the case for withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

All nations bear responsibilities for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions – some greater than others.

It is also an argument used to dispute the value of action at the individual level. Emphasis instead on emissions reduction as something for which we all have shared responsibility and obligations – as citizens, communities and countries – is one response to this type of claim.

Another is to highlight the opportunities for fairer and better societies that can flourish with the right sort of climate action.

Now that the human hand in climate change is recognised by most people, the debate should concern where we are headed as societies, how fundamental are the changes that we need to make, how to compel the vested interests of fossil-fuelled industries to make those changes (whether they want to or not), and how to wrestle with the worrying signs of a changing climate without abandoning our resolve to prevent it worsening.

Discourses of delay risk obscuring this essential conversation. We must learn to recognise and answer them with confidence.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

Photo Credit – Pixabay

Article Rating

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"discourse" - Google News
July 31, 2020 at 05:38PM
https://ift.tt/3hUy4d8

The discourse of climate denial - Environment Journal
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

America's new yard sign discourse - Yahoo News

israelob.blogspot.com

The Twin Cities are bursting with political yard signs.

They're not campaign signs — those are tellingly few. I've seen more faded blue holdovers from 2016 than support for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden or President Trump. No, the signs dotting my neighborhood and absolutely swarming the next neighborhood over aren't about voting, per se. They're about policy, principles, identity, and they're almost entirely left-wing. While I've never been fond of the phrase "virtue signaling" — its contempt is often unfair — used literally, it's an apt description of what's happening in our metro's front yards.

I decorated my college-era car with bumper stickers, but when that car died, my political signage impulse went with it. Though hardly shy about my views, I've never considered a yard sign. The people around me may have very different politics from mine, and I worry this sort of impersonal political engagement might get in the way of our neighborliness.

But clearly many of my neighbors don't share my qualms. As signs multiplied in recent months, I began wondering four things: Is this only a local trend? Where did the most popular sign originate? Is there a right-of-center analogue? And what's the thought process behind putting such signs in your yard — which is to say, what does this phenomenon tell us about the state of our country?

The current batch of signs, it should be noted, is not the Twin Cities' first. When I moved here in 2013, mere days after Minnesota began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, rainbow signs were in vogue. "All are welcome here," or, "Love is love," they said.

Once Trump was elected, attention shifted to immigration and refugee policy, and a new sign appeared. In English, Spanish, and Arabic, it announced: "No matter where you are from, we're glad you're our neighbor." An NPR story from the time reported this sign was popping up nationwide, often distributed by churches. Smaller political moments and holidays occasioned other signs, too. The death of Philando Castile at the hands of police in a nearby suburb was followed by a slew of "Black Lives Matter" and "Justice for Philando" signs. "Blessed Ramadan" signs (used by non-Muslims) are a seasonal option. I think there's a Christmas one, but I can't quite remember it now.

Yet none of these have replicated the popularity of the sign du jour: "In this house, we believe..."

New sign for the yard! And my car. And my.....everywhere? pic.twitter.com/lzr8NRXdgi

— sarahdessen (@sarahdessen) July 28, 2020

This sign is everywhere. In predominantly white, progressive, upper- or middle-class neighborhoods, it's rare to find a block without one — or five. (Anecdotally, though I'm not the only one to make this observation, I've never seen "In this house" at a home I know to be occupied by people of color. My majority-minority neighborhood, with a large population of first-generation immigrants, has markedly fewer signs than the mostly white neighborhood to the west.) When a red, white, and blue version appeared, as if on cue, for the Fourth of July, I briefly considered there might be a subscription service which everyone knew about but me.

What I find fascinating about "In this house," beyond its ubiquity, is that it's functionally a creed, a dense statement of political and even metaphysical belief.

Every line has a major dogma in view, and to correctly interpret the entire statement requires a high degree of political knowledge, just as something like the Apostle's Creed points Christians to larger theological doctrines. The commentary about climate change, evolution, and/or vaccines intended by "Science is real," for example, cannot be gleaned from the text itself. "Women's rights are human rights" does not mention abortion or suffrage or sexual assault, though it certainly seems intended to address all three.

By creedal standards, this is one for the true believers, and, like religious creeds, it is a complete package of orthodoxy to be received, not dissected. There are no political "Protestants" among yard signers. No one displays an "In this house" sign with half the list struck out. If you're in, you're all in.

Back to my four questions.

The first was the most easily answered: "In this house" (and similar signage) has gone nationwide. An informal poll I conducted with friends around the country returned reports of the same sign proliferating in Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago, Indianapolis, Boise, Santa Fe, Richmond, Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and many smaller cities, towns, and suburbs. The only friend who said she hadn't seen "In this house" lives in Lynchburg, Virginia, home of Liberty University and located in a county that voted 71 percent for Trump in 2016.

The sign's origin story was easily discovered, too. Written by a woman in Madison, Wisconsin, for her own yard, the design with colorful typography went viral in the "Pantsuit Nation" Facebook group following Trump's victory. Now there are cross-stitch versions, poster versions, shiplap versions, and pandemic face shield versions. (The format has also been co-opted by Disney and Harry Potter fandoms, naturally.) A business in Portland offers "In this house" as a flagship product among a full slate of "signs for justice."

The right-wing analogue question is more difficult to settle. Friends in Virginia and Texas reported seeing a few "Back the Blue" signs in politically mixed suburban and bedroom communities. There are conservative variants of "In this house" available online, but they're rare in real life:

Conservative "In This House" Yard Sign https://t.co/G4zbE8bVq2 #Republican #GOP pic.twitter.com/XdB8dd5N04

— ElectionGear (@ElectionGear) June 17, 2020

When Republicans want to announce their politics, they seem to prefer bumper stickers over yard signs; campaign signs over broader political statements; and, sometimes, a certain ambiguity over precise messaging. The American flag, which these days can equally communicate generic patriotism or a patriotically correct slam on the Black Lives Matter movement, is a favorite.

That apparent interest in ambiguity (deniability?) was on my mind when I read the results of a Cato Institute/YouGov survey published last week. The poll found a growing majority of Americans across party lines have political views they are afraid to share because of the reaction they anticipate from those who disagree. Though fear of political backlash is rising across the board, the further someone moves to the right, the more likely she is to self-censor.

A quarter of Democrats at all levels of education worry they could lose their jobs over their politics, the survey found, but fully 60 percent of high-education Republicans — those in the professional-managerial class — think their politics could "harm them at work." The same poll shows that fear is not unfounded: A third of "strong conservatives" support firing business executives who donate to Biden, and 50 percent of "strong liberals" would do the same with Trump. The desire to punish and insulate oneself from political difference isn't universal in America, but it's certainly mainstream, particularly on the left.

Perhaps predictably, as likely all my conversation partners would fall into the survey's "strong liberal" category, this fear was not much in evidence when I interviewed a handful of Twin Cities residents and an online acquaintance from Ohio about their display of "In this house" or signage like it. On the contrary, several expressed a sense of relief in having few or no known conservatives in their social circles who might take umbrage with their signs.

"I'm lucky," said Chelsea, who lives in Saint Paul. "I don't have a large family I feel the need to mollify, [and] I work in a progressive company." She doesn't invite anyone to her house who doesn't affirm her signs' doctrines, Chelsea told me, describing this as a matter of "fundamental morality," not mere politics. "We live in a bubble," said another Saint Paulite, Laurie. "It is unlikely that visitors to our house will disagree with our signs."

Why display them? The universal reason was virtue signaling in that literal sense. Laurie's next-door neighbors are refugees, she said, and "we wanted to signal to them that we were welcoming." Chelsea's family, too, wanted to "identify ourselves as friendly and safe" while sending a message to "people who may not be sympathetic that this neighborhood will stand up for people who need it." She recounted overhearing passersby cite her sign as evidence that "this neighborhood is nice people." Another neighbor, Tiffany, had her family and students of color in mind, while George in Ohio displayed "In this house" because "those with differing political or societal views aren't always welcomed with open arms," and a sign struck him as a good, pandemic-friendly option to say otherwise.

Every person I spoke with said they expect to keep their signs up long-term. Biden's election will not make them feel less necessary. They would only come down after massive societal change, which seems to mean after those "people who may not be sympathetic" are either converted to the creed, rendered politically powerless, or die off.

Is that mindset meaningfully different from ordinary politics? After all, every political movement seeks victory. Adherents of every political ideology want to grow their ranks. Every political party tries to take power from its opponents. And the signaling of yard signers seems sincerely intended to be virtuous — George, a Lutheran Christian, called his sign a "theologically-driven" effort to love his neighbors well. These are not Václav Havel's greengrocer, submissively putting up signs reflecting the dominant political ideology because if they "were to refuse, there could be trouble."

Maybe I'm still uneasy about these signs because I'm simply not a "sign person." Temperament may be coloring my judgment here. But I don't think that's all it is. Regardless of the intent and content of the messaging displayed, I find something troubling, disordered even, in a society so fixated on politics and signification of political loyalties.

Signs often serve as a warning to some as much as a welcome to others. They can become one more means of isolating ourselves from those who think differently in our homes, our relationships, and, of late, our workplaces. They can serve as an announcement that we are not the wicked to be disavowed and deplored, though of course we know (or should know) that line of division is not so neatly drawn; it does not skirt the perimeters of our hearts.

And the parable of the greengrocer reminds me that a wholesome political society — unlike the totalitarianism of which Havel wrote — does not expect its citizens to thus advertise their politics. In our recent history, heavy political signage has not corresponded with political health.

"Just so," sign owners could retort, "and our signs look forward to a day when signs are unnecessary." Perhaps, but I worry about how we'll get there. Whatever their meaning and motive, signs strike me as an escalatory move, and I don't know how much more escalation we can take.

More stories from theweek.com
Conservative propaganda has crippled the U.S. coronavirus response
New Lincoln Project video imagines what it's like to wake up from a coma in 2020
Now a Category 1 hurricane, Isaias approaches the Bahamas

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"discourse" - Google News
July 31, 2020 at 04:55PM
https://ift.tt/313KF7c

America's new yard sign discourse - Yahoo News
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4