Marianne Williamson

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 141
4/15/2025, 8:29:06 PM
X
In reply to:
clausnitzer
@Clausnitzercan
·
23d
@marwilliamson It’s a military library. Correct? Why shouldn’t a military library have the book the biggest foe the US has battled wrote? A book that was the bedrock for nazism? Is this not historically relevant?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
23d
@Clausnitzercan No it is not egregious, because it's still an issue of what books are banned while others are permitted to remain on the shelves. It's not the role of the President of the United States to determine what literature or history people read, or cultural institutions such as museums
clausnitzer
@Clausnitzercan
·
23d
@marwilliamson Marianne, Don’t you see how egregious that is? You and so many others almost want this administration to be Nazi’s. This allows you to focus on fallacy’s instead of actual policy.

Meanwhile countless thousands of people saw your post and are now further emboldened to go key a
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
23d
@Clausnitzercan Because I was apparently wrong. I read an article that said Mein Kampf had been on the shelves and they simply kept them there. So I deleted what turned out to be inaccurate information.
clausnitzer
@Clausnitzercan
·
23d
@marwilliamson Marianne deleted her previous post wherein she very specifically said, and emphasized, that they removed, “I Know Why The Cage Bird Sings,” and *added* to the shelves Mein Kampf. She really emphasized that they intentionally added Mein Kampf.

Why the change?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
23d
In keeping with Trump's DEI directives, the U.S. Naval Academy took all books about Blacks, Jews, or gays off the bookshelves (including "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings").

But they kept MEIN KAMPF.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of book banning in military libraries, specifically focusing on the removal of a book by a Black author and the implications for American democracy and culture.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and instead focuses on promoting understanding of cultural and democratic values. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the dignity of others by advocating against the banning of literature based on the author's race. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by highlighting the importance of diverse perspectives in literature. [+2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by acknowledging the other person's point and expanding on it without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not directly address any mistakes, but it is part of a conversation where a previous mistake was acknowledged and corrected. [+1]