testtest

Warning: Do Not Read the Constitution or Bill of Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChanceMcCall

Master Class
The administration has decided that reading the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights could be dangerous to you. Here is a link to the warning:

NARA’s Statement on Potentially Harmful Content

The Catalog and web pages of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) provide access to many millions of descriptions and digital copies of the permanent records of the United States federal government. The Catalog and web pages contain some content that may be harmful or...
www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

Here is some commentary from Alaska:

mustreadalaska.com

Biden Administration places 'harmful language' warning on U.S. Constitution at National Archives catalog

The National Archives catalog has placed warnings on founding documents of the United States, telling researchers and viewers that the language contained in them may be found harmful. One such warning is shown above the U.S. Constitution. See National Archives warning verbiage at this link...
mustreadalaska.com mustreadalaska.com

and some more:

dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com

Why Did the Federal Government Just Put a ‘Trigger Warning’ on the Constitution?

The United States government recently put a “harmful content” warning on its website dedicated to preserving the nation’s historical documents for historians, researchers and the general public. What on earth is going on?
dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com
 
The damn "trigger warnings" are going way too far. We're already only a couple steps from losing Mark Twain and F. Scott Fitzgerald due to certain normal-at-the-time language. Now we have to worry about the Constitution being too violent? I'm liberal classic, I prefer open expression of even insulting and dangerous language. What would the ACLU of 1968 think of this nonsense?
 
According to Lord Tytler, a Scottish Historian, the average age of the world's democracies is around 200 years. After two hundred years, the nations collapse due to various economic policies and be followed by a dictatorship. Lord Tytler identified "Eight Stages of a Democracy", from beginning to end. The eight stages go from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence, and finally from dependence back to bondage. Life and our universe moves in cycles, and history is no different. So, in our Democratic form of a Republic, which stage do you suppose we are in?
 
I saw this somewhere a little while ago and thought it right enough to save for the future, but don't remember who to credit it to. Sorry!

"We are living in a generation of emotionally weak people ….. where everything must be watered down for them because it's offensive, even including the truth!"

Author unknown.
 
10mmLife said:
The main problem is that the older crowd seasoned politicians are buying into this and they going full bore supporting these snowflake ideals.
Click to expand...
Those you're identifying are "buying" into it hoping to prevent themselves being 'cancelled' by the snowflakes (ultra progressive liberals).

It's similar to the old story about people (society) in a boat in the swamp and the stronger ones throwing the weaker into the water full of alligators one by one ...... in hopes that by the time they get down to their own, the alligators will all be full/satisfied and won't eat them too !!!

That's a really loose paraphrase of the story, but you can get the idea.
 
jumpinjoe said:
I saw this somewhere a little while ago and thought it right enough to save for the future, but don't remember who to credit it to. Sorry!

"We are living in a generation of emotionally weak people ….. where everything must be watered down for them because it's offensive, even including the truth!"

Author unknown.
Click to expand...
It's been attributed to Keanu Reeves, but somehow I doubt he actually said it.
 
Our historical documents written in the honest, direct manner that accompanies truth, might offend the newly sissified generation that seems to think any uncomfortable statement is an act of aggression against them. The politicians at the highest levels know that putting gags on the mouths of the people limits criticism and increases their personal power immensely. Thus the warning, to assure the snowflake that the precepts described no longer apply in reality.
Yet they do. There has been no Constitutional convention to revoke or edit our Law of the Land.

“If you can’t control your own emotions, you’re forced to control other people’s behavior, that’s why the touchiest, most oversensitive and easily upset must not set the standard for the rest of us.” ~ John Cleese

It's wrong to let them think their newspeak applies to all of us.
 
"What harmful or difficult content may be found in the National Archives Catalog and our web pages?
Some items may:

reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies."

Sensationalism is another pitfall, as with the title of this thread. The original document cited did not say, "Do not read...", but rather Do not quote without due consideration of the social context of the archived document.
 
Honestly I see where you’re coming from, about liberals being sensitive and entitled; but, all this is talking about is how our government is/was racist, sexist, and bigoted. It’s just a disclaimer saying it doesn’t reflect the current views of the government. I think some of you are just as sensitive as the liberal snowflakes to be quite honest. You don’t think the national archives (not the Biden admin BTW) should say that our documents from the past were racist. I guess, women’s suffrage, slavery, and the cultural obliteration of native peoples just didn’t occur right? It’s unfathomable to me the right’s ability to create its own fictitious reality and be blind to all else.
-Mason (XD 4”, XDe 3.3”, p365, Marlin-Glenfield 30A, Remlin 60)
 
conax said:
Our historical documents written in the honest, direct manner that accompanies truth, might offend the newly sissified generation that seems to think any uncomfortable statement is an act of aggression against them. The politicians at the highest levels know that putting gags on the mouths of the people limits criticism and increases their personal power immensely. Thus the warning, to assure the snowflake that the precepts described no longer apply in reality.
Yet they do. There has been no Constitutional convention to revoke or edit our Law of the Land.

“If you can’t control your own emotions, you’re forced to control other people’s behavior, that’s why the touchiest, most oversensitive and easily upset must not set the standard for the rest of us.” ~ John Cleese

It's wrong to let them think their newspeak applies to all of us.
Click to expand...
Actually there has been, they are called amendments.
 
flintmas said:
Actually there has been, they are called amendments.
Click to expand...
Not all amendments were ratified legally, thanks to the craftiness of the government over the years.
The Articles of Confederation were superior in regards to freedom as they kept most power in the states, thus closer to home. If you didn't like the state you inhabited you could move to one more suitable to your sensibilities.

However the article we're discussing isn't about the contents of the constitution, but the warning that our founding documents are somehow unacceptable to this latest generation. For 232 years nobody took offense. Now, for some reason, they do.

Now they are bad and evil. To subversives and communists, I suppose they are.
 
It’s not saying unacceptable, just racist as ****. I can accept they are racist, but since now we claim to no longer be racist we need a disclaimer. You act like I can’t hate racism and love America at the same time. Yes America is racist. Yes I would die to protect it. Yes I am socialist and proud. These are not mutually exclusive ideals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top