• eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      if we’re lucky, there’s be a paragraph about it between to the paragraph about the trail of tears and the other paragraph about martin luther king jr in american history books.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I highly recommend Lies My Teacher Told Me, American history textbooks are fucking garbage lol

        For example, that the US Army hunted buffalo to near extinction specifically to starve the plains natives, it was a deliberate strategy of using starvation as a weapon. I was taught it was just “”“poaching”“” from settlers and that it was all an accident.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          that and A People’s History of the United States informs most of what i know.

          i also marvel from time to time at how the bullshit that i was taught when i was young can still completely overpower the things i learned in my young adulthood; and it somehow got worse once i reached middle age.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  shield
                  M
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I won’t reveal who reports who, but I will say it was someone else.

                  The civility rule is NOT ambiguous:

                  “Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members.”

                  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    All good but this moderation approach is censoring non-problematic content because some people have poor reading comprehension and/or don’t understand sarcasm.

                    I would expect them to get better instead of content getting diluted.

                    @[email protected] did confirm that he did not report me, so this is literally some third party injecting themselves into a discussion. Either way, rules can be used by faith actors to stifle speech, that’s how it works on reddit. I would posit context should be counted when issuing removals.