[flagged]
It's not propaganda. It's a legal and historical theory that found popular purchase. The word propaganda has a meaning, and we're in a point in history where ensuring it retains that meaning is more important than in any other time in my life.
You can claim as you wish while I and others can do the same.
If you're saying we need to hold to beliefs of the past, that's a position that physical reality makes untenable.
See you in church? That was the center of communal life for the majority for centuries. Anyone that's abandoned such agency has engaged in abandonment of history, of norms others can just as easily (and do) claim are more important than ever.
You can make whatever claims you want rhetorically but the non-fractal reality we live in does not allow for the strict conservatism you appeal for. Entropy gives rise to generational churn which gives rise to shifting social values.
These corny appeals to history you never directly experienced are little more than parroting grammatically correct statements you were taught.
Sure. The definition of propaganda OP uses is an internet niche one to mean any broadly-held (and thus disseminated) theory one disagrees with.
The argument against co-equal branches is a legitimate one. Calling the theory propaganda cheapens a real argument by making it look childish.
noun The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
...my use seems to fit the definition to me.
You are applying personal emotional bias to a very plain stated definition.
Where is that definition from? It lacks key elements of the definition, notably, an agenda.
Your operating definition would turn the teaching of evolution (or frankly, any education or broadly-communicated message) into propaganda.
That isn’t a serious claim. If it is for someone, that person’s definition of propaganda isn’t the generally-accepted one, which means it’s unclear how they’re speaking about anything else. By being hyperbolic you’re getting downvoted and ignored.
> You are applying personal emotional bias
Nope. I’m explaining why a serious argument you’re making, one that deserves consideration, is being downvoted and ignored for being introduced with a thoroughly unserious assertion.
What about striking down unconstitutional laws, though? That has to be up to SCOTUS, nobody else can do it.
So do not listen to justices that claim to be "originalist". SCOTUS authority to strike laws is self dealing and not at all an originalist power.
The original expectation was the public would demand such change via elections every 2-6 years and remove the corrupted Senator or Representative.
SCOTUS is not supposed to have power over theoretical cases yet it operates on concepts all the time. Just another way in which the system is rigged; the appeals of originalists who have clearly read the words, they're plain English, are just more self dealing power away from the public to the elites