> rights are "granted by the government" which can't be further from the truth in the US.

Yeah, this is a disconcerting trend that I've observed too. Do you this think could be an issue that's always existed at the same levels and is now easier to observe due to the window of social media (and looks like a trend), or do you think it's something new?

One possible theory is that in the race to standardize and push farther on standardized testing subjects, non core curriculums are getting cut because they are not tested for and the US has not expanded the school day or year significantly.

> the US has not expanded the school day or year significantly.

No, but while some students can benefit from the internet in general for school, I'm convinced keeping a socially-expected Skinner box on one's person every waking hour is not great in general. More specifically, learning complex, multi-faceted, and important topics while (attempting to) ignore the Skinner box is not good for any subject that is not, or cannot be, subjected to standardized testing - and many subjects that are.

It’s a non-obvious concept. If you don’t have some knowledge of the history of law, civics and republics, it’s easy to think of the Bill of Rights as granting rights.

Even with some knowledge of those things, it's hard to rationalize inherent rights with what we do to noncitizens. Everybody has these rights, but for some reason the Bill of Rights only protects the rights of Americans. Pretty easy to mistake that as the Bill of Rights granting rights.

>for some reason the Bill of Rights only protects the rights of Americans.

That is because the Bill of Rights form the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the preamble of which opens thusly:

"We the people of the United States,"[1]

That literature has been interpreted by the courts as the Constitution only applying to United States citizens.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...

Obligatory IANAL.

>That literature has been interpreted by the courts as the Constitution only applying to United States citizens

"For some reason" seems like a fair description of that. It's not explicitly said, the closest is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

And "We the people" is talking about who wrote it, I don't get how one can claim that bit is who it applies to.

I get the arguments made to do this, to me they seem clearly against the spirit of the Bill of Rights/Founding Fathers, something we generally hold to be sacrosanct.

Nothing is ever strange until compared. Nothing is large, nothing is small, only normality can exist in a vacuüm.

The only way I can see this making sense to anybody who is paying attention is if its presented as a tool to help their political side, which is obviously correct, against the opposing side, which is obviously the devil. Surely if _they_ had access to something like this they would use it to their benefit, the bastards. You'd have to be a saint not to use it against them! Acting fair is very hard when you keep being told your opponents aren't. No, you'd rather have an unfair system that is only unfair against your enemies...

> which can't be further from the truth in the US.

thats what the good document promises, not quite what plays out in real life

A new definition for "property rights"

One aspect of the problem is we just don't teach Civics very well as a matter of primary education. It's a big mistake.

the way the US is setup, you are guaranteed the right to vote as an individual.

There is no protection from the election being setup in such a way that your votes are diluted by some other set of votes.