(Part 3) Top products from r/forwardsfromgrandma

Academic Cross Cultural Communications papers are literally made of this stuff, if you want some direction. Edward T. Hall's "Beyond Culture" is a good primer to a lot of cross cultural communication concepts (although it focus on international cross cultural communication), and the field in general does a lot of analysis of how to communicate in a a way to make your ideas understood in good context by another party because of it's usefulness in diplomacy.

Some language and rhetoric texts would also be a good place to start.

Reagan was an actor playing the role of President. He looked and sounded the part. He delivered some really great soundbytes and let some really awful people run his administration.

For a gentle and amusing introduction to Reagan, get a copy of Herb Lock' s Through the Looking Glass

Https://www.amazon.com/Herblock-Through-Looking-Glass-Herbert/dp/0393019292/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486299773&sr=1-12&keywords=herblock

I am Jewish also, but I read "Lamb" by Christopher Moore, so allow me to explain:

Jesus was scheduled to preach. A bunch of people showed up to hear him. For some reason, those people failed to bring any food and were hungry. All the disciples had was, like, one fish and a loaf of bread. Jesus performed a miracle and transformed the single fish and loaf into many - enough to feed the masses of people that had come to hear him preach.

The end.

[I hear good things about this] (https://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573)

What, like this?

I remember reading Dreams in the Golden Country from the Dear America series when I was a preteen; it's about a Russian Jewish immigrant family in 1903. The protagonist's mother clings tightly to her Orthodox traditions, and when the protagonist suggests she go out without her wig because other Jewish ladies do it in America, the mother flips out. That always stuck with me for some reason!

thanks, pfafulous. You've given this a lot of thought. Just to mess you up further, you should know that all four of these board books ( Five Stinky Socks, Robot Kitties, Piggy Paints, and Where's My Fnurgle ) are linked together in ways I hope the babies notice.

As far as I can tell, this is the source.

Maybe he's reading this?

It exists.

Here is another source verifying it. And a link to the book.

Grandma

has

a point.

Maybe not, but the book does seem to exist.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0393319288

No, grandma. He is just one of the few who has read the bible.

Click here to buy a bible to read along with in church instead of just listening to the pastor.

A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America

>Yes, but you are setting a double standard here. You in one breathe say that you didn't say all, but then in the next breathe lump them all together as if all conservatives are oppressing minorities, destroying the environment, etc, etc. Shit, I get lumped in with both sides, by the other side and I know I'm not the only one.

I am listing things that conservatives do. I'm not lumping them in together, just presenting counterexamples that contradict your narrative. I could provide more such as antagonizing our close ally (Mexico), the Bush tax cuts which had an overall destabilizing effect much like massive tax cuts such as the Reagan tax cuts are largely to blame for the current budget deficit (the national debt tripled under Reagan).

It's a narrative not borne out in the facts is what I'm saying. Not all conservatives are racist but most racists are conservative. Squares and rectangles.

>I could try to answer the question of what they were hoping to stave off, but you and I both know, we don't actually know. We can make speculations and assumptions till the we're red in the face, but honestly, I think we can both conclude some was malicious and some just wanting try and keep the peace the best way they knew how. If all these people were truly spiteful, hateful, and bigoted during the Civil Rights Movement, what honestly makes you think it would of succeeded in the first place?

I'd suggest you read Social Dominance by Sidanius and Prato. You can probably find it at a local university library. Basically, the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) population wanted to retain its relatively high social standing and views the subjugation of minority population as a means of retaining power. This may be subconsciously or consciously. Of course, part of it is just ignorant tribalism without any broader intent. it's hard to draw a fine distinction between the two.

>I'm confused by your desegregation comment as there is a backlash against it now for occurring in the first place from the left. So... how can one ask what they were hoping to hold back back then, but then give lip for it having gone through in the first place. It's an unwinnable situation for the right side to even win. A literal damned if they do and damned if they don't situation.

This is demonstrably false. The parties have evolved over the years with the Democratic Party beginning to reflect progressive values starting in the 1940's while the Republican Party was a liberal party in the 1850's (under Lincoln) but liberal ideology is separate from party affiliation. (this of course sets aside the more obvious rebuke, being that the schools were desegregated under Kennedy and the Civil Rights Act passed under Johnson with conservatives protesting and Kennedy having to push back hard to desegregate the schools. Johnson went as far as saying that passing the Civil Rights Act lost the South to the Democrats for the next 50 years).

Look further at union busting, the Vietnam War protestors, the War on Drugs (conservatives lashing out against the interests of working people and minorities.)

>Criminal justice reform has seen a rise in false crime reporting towards LGBTQ and women in the past few years. Surely, this isn't the end goal. I agree, there needs to be reform. Legalize pot for starters and remove people from jail for minor drug offenses. Issue being though, an increase in people reporting crimes that didn't happen and funny enough, people reporting crimes they did themselves to make themselves look like they were targeted and getting caught in the act.

Source?

>You know, I have a question of my own, a little while ago, To Kill a Mockingbird, was under fire for racism simply being in its pages, even though the book has the strong message that racism is bad. The issue is that, it was the left trying to say it needed to be banned and removed from school curriculum and libraries. Why exactly? Also, why an outcry for censorship while there are claims of not trying to censor?

Single parent, single school district. Not a representative sample of liberals. Balled faced propaganda.

>While the right wants to sit back and claim the left is trying to take away their rights, the left is sitting back saying the same thing. There are crazies on both sides and I think we can both agree to that. Which side is crazier... depends on the situation if I had to be honest from where I sit.

The issue is that most of the "rights" that conservatives are worried about are actually just their power to dominate over other groups and enforce their ideology over the whole society (e.g The War on Christmas, Prayer in School, LGBTQ bathroom bills.) The left are trying to bring greater justice to society through things like the Black Lives Matter movement and are met with a textbook belittling counterpoint (All Lives Matter) which doesn't even actually contradict BLM (it just attempts to shout it down and delegitimize it.)

>Bromide argument, so my arguments obvious? Sorry, but I've heard the word used before, but I can't find anything on a "bromide argument" specifically. If I'm right about its meaning, I was intending for them to be for easy understanding and rather trite. The internet isn't full off misinterpretations just by dumb luck. Simpler is usually better for these things.

I've heard this argument many times. It's bromide in the sense that it is an unoriginal attempt to placate both sides but actually glosses over the substance of the debate.

>Your "traditional political divides" in America are universal and not special to just the US.

I know. American is not different, special or exceptional. The same rules apply here as elsewhere. I am staunchly anti-nationalism.

>There will never be a utopia as it will always live up to its Greek coined pun name's meaning, No Place.

There is a lot of improvement that can be made before we start worrying about perfection. We are no where near the limits of progress.

> Just out of curiosity, if you had to name a style to replace what is current, what would you suggest or go about renovating it?

I could right a book or two on this question.

Long story short, I'm somewhere on the spectrum economically between Libertarian Socialism, Market Socialism and Democratic Socialism for the economy. A free market but one that is heavily regulated and one with even distribution of wealth.

I'm somewhat technocratic in my view of government (policy based on science and expert knowledge, carried out but subject matter experts) but support local control (things should be resolved at the lowest level administratively feasible).

I also believe in global civil society built on the principles set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the goal of eliminating global poverty. I am also an extreme social libertarian. I believe in the legalization of drugs, elimination of censorship, legalization of public nudity, etc.

I'm a staunch environmentalist.

I support Rank-Choice Voting and National Popular Vote for a nonpartisan affiliated president to a single 6-yr term as well as Shorest Splitline Districting for legislative districts.

EDIT: I'm also in favor of term limits on judicial appointments rather than lifetime appointments.

If you worried about rape in Missoula you should start arresting the football teams.

http://www.amazon.com/Missoula-Rape-Justice-System-College/dp/0385538731

> While discussing labour-intensive projects such as waterworks and making steel, Mao said to his inner circle in November 1958: "Working like this, with all these projects, half of China may well have to die. If not half, one-third, or one-tenth—50 million—die."

Noted in https://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679746323

And there were direct mass killings, too, which of course Mao was also aware of. Per Jasper Becker:

> Mass killings are not usually associated with Mao and the Great Leap Forward, and China continues to benefit from a more favourable comparison with Cambodia or the Soviet Union. But as fresh and abundant archival evidence shows, coercion, terror and systematic violence were the foundation of the Great Leap, and between 1958 to 1962, by a rough approximation, some 6 to 8 per cent of those who died were tortured to death or summarily killed—amounting to at least 3 million victims.

> Countless others were deliberately deprived of food and consequently starved to death. Many more vanished because they were too old, weak or sick to work—and hence unable to earn their keep. People were killed selectively because they had the wrong class background, because they dragged their feet, because they spoke out or simply because they were not liked, for whatever reason, by the man who wielded the ladle in the canteen.

Mao was probably history's greatest monster by death toll.