When confronted with basic questions on “60 Minutes,” the group appeared ill-prepared and stumped and alleged their critics were trying to “marginalize us.”
Since its founding in 2021, the conservative organization Moms for Liberty has billed itself as a champion for “parents’ rights,” pushing campaigns across the country to ban books and the use of pronouns in schools. Their crusade, as my colleague Kiera Butler has reported, often alleges that educators, specifically in public education, are out to “groom” and “indoctrinate” kids.
But what, exactly, does that mean? It doesn’t appear as though Moms for Liberty knows either.
In an interview with 60 Minutes host Scott Pelley that aired on Sunday night, the group’s two co-founders repeatedly struggled to explain their platform beyond empty talking points that have fueled the culture war in schools. They also failed to present facts to back up various claims.
Good on the interviewer for exposing these two as ignorant clowns. If they demand to be taken seriously they should have to provide serious evidence. As it stands they have trouble even articulating exactly what they’re angry about. If this group is serious about wanting to stop grooming, they should start protesting churches, not libraries. “In the average American congregation of 400 persons, with women representing, on average, 60% of the congregation, there are, on average of 7 women who have experienced clergy sexual misconduct.” And that’s from a Christian watchdog group.
The outrage about indoctrinating children coming from within the echo chambers of homeschooling, religiously affiliated schools/camps, and and other child/youth groups is tragically ironic. I know, I grew up inside that system.
Oh, I think they can precisely articulate exactly what they’re angry about if you let them, but they know if they do that in public it’ll show just how crazy, hateful, ignorant, and bigoted they are. What they’re struggling with is how to articulate what they’re angry about in a way that doesn’t immediately expose them as a modern-day KKK for LGBT+ folk.
Can’t spew hate towards black people. That’s racist. But hating an “urban youth” or “thug” is totes devoid of any racial bias.
Exactly and if you say that they’ll call you racist for picturing a black person. As though anyone has ever meant a group of white kids in khakis and polos when saying this shit. Incidentally the young people who scare the hell out of me are exactly that, they look and sound like they would’ve been at Charlottesville.
This is exactly the problem. They’re trying to find a way to dog whistle in a world that’s increasingly aware of their bullshit. They’re running out of frequencies that the rest of us can’t hear.
As best I’ve been able to suss out, living as I do in a very red state, “grooming” has simply been expanded out to encompass any activity that makes a kid feel like they don’t have to be a cis-het Christian to be a good person.
“Woke” is 100% just shorthand for “anything I don’t like or don’t understand”. The people are angry because society is progressing past their antiquated beliefs and fears. It’s not even that they want to maintain the world they were born in - they want to “return” to a mythologically perfect past that never existed.
Neither party will go after churches, because theyre consistantvoters who vote how their religious leader tells them to vote.
me too
This seems to be the same failing those backing “anti-woke” efforts. When challenged, they can’t actually define what they mean by “woke”.
That’s because the right wing has moved far beyond reality, evidence, logic, reason, semantics—only ever casually familiar to them to begin with.
They are now only about feelings.
They are trained, ala Pavlov, to react to the sounds of certain words, not their meaning: woke, liberal, groomer, trans ideology, gay agenda, immigrant, and the like. The right wing pundits could just have easily used different bells and sound clips to evoke the same reactions.
Well, they certainly can define “woke”, but they probably know they can’t fully say the quiet part out loud.
To them, the existence of gay and trans people is “woke”. Teaching about inequality or systemic racism is “woke”. Heck, I’m sure women’s rights and related healthcare is also “woke” to them.
Well, they certainly can define “woke”, but they probably know they can’t fully say the quiet part out loud.
They apparently can’t say any part out loud then because they give no solid consistent definition at all.
To them, the existence of gay and trans people is “woke”.
The crazy part is, while that’s likely the answer for some of them, but I don’t think it is for all of them. So until they can give a definition they can actually agree on, passing “anti-woke” laws or standing on an “anti-woke” agenda is specious because they can’t even say what that is.
But that vagueness is the entire point to ruffle the feathers of their base and to get them angry at something/anything.
This is just another boogeyman for the GOP leadership to distract their base from any real issues.
Heck, do you hear anything about CRT anymore? Like a school of fish, the entire talking point shifted to “woke” and anti-trans.
i think you would find karlyn borysenko is actually pretty knowledgable. i watch her stuff instead of advocating my friends conduct real pol-ed. it’s honestly very good, she picks great topics, with a lot of queer theory but she never loses sight of the context of anticapitalist struggle. i’d say maybe she’s a bit **too** focused on it in the sort of “no war but classwar”-bros kind of way, but honestly she is very good but not at all leftist.
edit:
also, she has been dunking on MFL basically the entire time
I’m curious why is this so downvoted? I know nothing about karlyn.
she’s definitely not a lefty. she had a pretty good grift being the “liberal who went to a trump rally and found out they werent all monsters” or something. did a media circuit and fell into relative obscurity.
she stirs a lot of drama now. i can’t say that all or even most of her content is worth watching, but she does watch actual leftist seminars and then does her shitty commentary. by shitty i just mean “i disagree”. i’d say usually,she’s knowledgable about the topics.
Fascists look like idiots when interviewed until they get violent. They have no definitions or reasonable arguments for their position because bigotry isn’t a reasonable position and to them anyone who challenges them is an other, an outsider who deserves to be dehumanized. As long as they can convince people to be scared and angry they are safe to exploit hate. The more people collaborate, work together towards shared values, participate in local school and city board meetings, the less power these idiots can steal.
Which is why one of the best weapons against fascism is publicly mocking them
That’s a risky tactic because while none have substance some flounder and others don’t. For some people confidence can mask lack of substance, especially from someone able to target their biases. Folks like Jordan Peterson pre brain damage were dangerous to platform because idiots couldn’t tell. The difference is these were fascist organizers not fascist propagandists
Moms for Liberty was already on the way to dying out. Wait a year or two, though, and another org like them will pop up. Conservatives need to keep repackaging the same bad ideas because they think the messaging was the problem, not that the idea is bad.
Back in the 70s, Anita Bryant was saying:
What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. … I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before.
All the same “grooming children” lies as Moms for Liberty today. They have no new playbook, and they’ll keep using it under a new name.
Fortunately, they’ve also been getting less effective with each iteration. Moms for Liberty basically imploded after a few electoral successes.
Who would have thought calm, outlandishly dressed people would be more effective than calmly dressed, outlandishly behaved people?
Honestly I think it’s more about generating more Republican voters however “they” can. I would not in the slightest bit be surprised to find moms for liberty was some form of a “Koch funded” (not specifically that family though) enterprise that only has the aim of spreading propaganda that will trick more people into voting Republican to “save the children.”
The people actually joining and pushing this will more than likely be people that really think they’re doing the right thing, but I think the inception of this program was purely for political power.
“Let’s just say, children in America cannot read,” co-founder Tina Descovich responded, referencing the group’s effort to sharpen its focus on literacy issues, before Pelley’s voiceover narration interrupted to note that the co-founders “often dodged questions with talking points.”
“You’re being evasive,” Pelley shot back.
GREEEEEAT
Now do people in power the same way pls
They’re focusing on literary issues by forcing books out of the library?
In their culture, it is considered extremely disrespectful to challenge someone on their viewpoint or ask probing questions. Like “fighting words” level, or relationship-ending with that person and maybe several others in their same circle.
This one time on national prime-time TV may genuinely be the first time someone’s sat them down and asked them serious and challenging questions about what the hell they’re even talking about, where they can’t choose to just end the conversation in some fashion or other.
I’d love to ask these people when they think childrens’ rights trump parents’ rights. I’m betting their answer is “never”.
Well first they’d have to be convinced that children are allowed to have rights.
“Children have no rights! they are just my property and should do as I say, when I say it!” - These kinds of parents, usually.
I’ve said this before, but my abusive mother once told me that I wasn’t a human and had no rights beyond what she allowed me until I became an adult and moved out of her house. They truly don’t consider their children people. They also consider themselves wonderful parents who are victims when those children grow up and cut all contact with them.
Before birth, obviously.
Yep. Parent’s rights means having the right to a abuse or neglect their own children and the right to tell everyone what is appropriate for all children.
This is great and all, but I hate the fact that they are even being legitimized to the point of getting on a platform such as 60 minutes.
How did this legitimize them? They look like idiots to everyone who watched it. This was an opportunity for the public at large to get a view into what these people are like—it didn’t go well for them.
The person you’re replying to wasn’t saying, in any way, that this interview legitimized them. They were commenting on how the group had already been legitimized by others enough to be worth screentime on 60 minutes in the first place.
At least the Beaufort school board decided to review properly. This district, not so much. https://www.aclusc.org/en/press-releases/dorchester-2-schools-face-biggest-book-purge-yet-school-board-should-fight-back
Nice.
