Society is screwed

[flockofseagulls104]

So, once again, getting back to the subject....

Is the major argument why we need to teach 1st and 2nd graders about 'gender' in public schools because we can't trust their parents to do it? Or do it the 'right' way?

Please enlighten me....

Funnily, the original post, that I made, was about the inanity of Hollywood, media, etc. I may start a new thread. Then they can blast me for my unwokeness in re the discussion at hand.

I guess you don't have the entourage of enemies that I have. They will come in gangs in any thread to dispute anything I say and get in their slams at me.

[Beebs52]

So, once again, getting back to the subject....

Is the major argument why we need to teach 1st and 2nd graders about 'gender' in public schools because we can't trust their parents to do it? Or do it the 'right' way?

Please enlighten me....

Funnily, the original post, that I made, was about the inanity of Hollywood, media, etc. I may start a new thread. Then they can blast me for my unwokeness in re the discussion at hand.

I guess you don't have the entourage of enemies that I have. They will come in gangs in any thread to dispute anything I say and get in their slams at me.

Join the thread.

[Bob78164]

This guy, Missouri state Rep. Ian Mackey, says it much better than I could ever hope to. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

This guy, Missouri state Rep. Ian Mackey, says it much better than I could ever hope to. --Bob

That guy comes across himself as a bigot.

I don't know what the legislation he is referring to contains. But I will go with the assumption it is similar to the FL law in discussion.

First of all he makes an accusation against one of his colleagues. He assumes that his colleague 'wouldn't let his children be around his gay brother' (paraphrasing). His colleague states that accusation is not true, but he ignores that statement and goes right on with his rant about it, even though his premise has just proven to be false.

He goes right on with a self-righteous rant (similar to ones I have read somewhere). Though I sympathise with his portrayal of his personal struggles, that is the entire content of his speech. He does not go into any detail of the legislation he disagrees with. But this is a short clip: He may have done so at another time. But the major point of his speech is to attack his opponent's character and moral values. And he pretty much accuses everyone who may support this particular piece of legislation of hating and oppressing gay people. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is a very good way of gathering support for your position. But you use that tactic all the time when you don't have a response to a particular topic on this bored. So I guess you think it's effective in some way.

This clip is an emotional outrage clip. It is only out there for it's emotional value to spark outrage. There is no discussion about the actual issues involved. That is the major problem with social media as it is currently used. It is used to spark emotional outrage and dissent. It is not designed anywhere to encourage reasoned and civil debate.

Sorry, bob, but there is another side to this issue that is just as valid.

[Bob78164]

This guy, Missouri state Rep. Ian Mackey, says it much better than I could ever hope to. --Bob

That guy comes across himself as a bigot.

I don't know what the legislation he is referring to contains. But I will go with the assumption it is similar to the FL law in discussion.

First of all he makes an accusation against one of his colleagues. He assumes that his colleague 'wouldn't let his children be around his gay brother' (paraphrasing). His colleague states that accusation is not true, but he ignores that statement and goes right on with his rant about it, even though his premise has just proven to be false.

He goes right on with a self-righteous rant (similar to ones I have read somewhere). Though I sympathise with his portrayal of his personal struggles, that is the entire content of his speech. He does not go into any detail of the legislation he disagrees with. But this is a short clip: He may have done so at another time. But the major point of his speech is to attack his opponent's character and moral values. And he pretty much accuses everyone who may support this particular piece of legislation of hating and oppressing gay people. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is a very good way of gathering support for your position. But you use that tactic all the time when you don't have a response to a particular topic on this bored. So I guess you think it's effective in some way.

This clip is an emotional outrage clip. It is only out there for it's emotional value to spark outrage. There is no discussion about the actual issues involved. That is the major problem with social media as it is currently used. It is used to spark emotional outrage and dissent. It is not designed anywhere to encourage reasoned and civil debate.

Sorry, bob, but there is another side to this issue that is just as valid.

First, you didn't listen very carefully. He didn't assume his colleague wouldn't let his children be around his gay brother. He noted that that was the fear of the colleague's brother (who presumably knows the colleague much better than you or I do).'

Much more important, you're missing the entire point. The emotional harm caused to vulnerable children by this act of bigotry is the point. Rep. Mackey suffered exactly such harm, though he was able to survive it. So by dismissing any and all emotional responses, you're also dismissing the feelings of all of those who are harmed by what's happening. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

This guy, Missouri state Rep. Ian Mackey, says it much better than I could ever hope to. --Bob

That guy comes across himself as a bigot.

I don't know what the legislation he is referring to contains. But I will go with the assumption it is similar to the FL law in discussion.

First of all he makes an accusation against one of his colleagues. He assumes that his colleague 'wouldn't let his children be around his gay brother' (paraphrasing). His colleague states that accusation is not true, but he ignores that statement and goes right on with his rant about it, even though his premise has just proven to be false.

He goes right on with a self-righteous rant (similar to ones I have read somewhere). Though I sympathise with his portrayal of his personal struggles, that is the entire content of his speech. He does not go into any detail of the legislation he disagrees with. But this is a short clip: He may have done so at another time. But the major point of his speech is to attack his opponent's character and moral values. And he pretty much accuses everyone who may support this particular piece of legislation of hating and oppressing gay people. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is a very good way of gathering support for your position. But you use that tactic all the time when you don't have a response to a particular topic on this bored. So I guess you think it's effective in some way.

This clip is an emotional outrage clip. It is only out there for it's emotional value to spark outrage. There is no discussion about the actual issues involved. That is the major problem with social media as it is currently used. It is used to spark emotional outrage and dissent. It is not designed anywhere to encourage reasoned and civil debate.

Sorry, bob, but there is another side to this issue that is just as valid.

First, you didn't listen very carefully. He didn't assume his colleague wouldn't let his children be around his gay brother. He noted that that was the fear of the colleague's brother (who presumably knows the colleague much better than you or I do).'

Much more important, you're missing the entire point. The emotional harm caused to vulnerable children by this act of bigotry is the point. Rep. Mackey suffered exactly such harm, though he was able to survive it. So by dismissing any and all emotional responses, you're also dismissing the feelings of all of those who are harmed by what's happening. --Bob

His colleagues brother's fear was unfounded, based on what was said in this short clip, which is all I could go on. But from my 'personal experience', I doubt there are very many people who would act, in real life, the way the speaker, or his colleagues brother, are accusing. That's just a stereotype perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in it being perpetuated. As you have stated, society has changed, and that stereotype is majorly a thing of the past.

I cannot determine what, from this clip, specifically is supposed to be 'bigotted' in the legistlation they are debating. Perhaps I would agree with the speaker if I knew. But that is not why this clip is on twitter.

[kroxquo]

I doubt there are very many people who would act, in real life, the way the speaker, or his colleagues brother, are accusing. That's just a stereotype perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in it being perpetuated. As you have stated, society has changed, and that stereotype is majorly a thing of the past.

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

[Bob78164]

I doubt there are very many people who would act, in real life, the way the speaker, or his colleagues brother, are accusing. That's just a stereotype perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in it being perpetuated. As you have stated, society has changed, and that stereotype is majorly a thing of the past.

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

One of my colleagues here at the office (originally from Florida, by the way) had parents who barely spoke to him for years after he came out in college.

But there's a much easier way to understand the issue. No one ever talks about "coming out" as straight. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I doubt there are very many people who would act, in real life, the way the speaker, or his colleagues brother, are accusing. That's just a stereotype perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in it being perpetuated. As you have stated, society has changed, and that stereotype is majorly a thing of the past.

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

I can only assume you are referring to kids who are past puberty.
None of the laws that I know of object to reasonable sex education in that age group. We are talking about 1st and 2nd graders here. Well before puberty. Any LGBTQ 2nd graders in your school? If there are, THOSE are the parents that should be scrutinized, IMO.

[flockofseagulls104]

I doubt there are very many people who would act, in real life, the way the speaker, or his colleagues brother, are accusing. That's just a stereotype perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in it being perpetuated. As you have stated, society has changed, and that stereotype is majorly a thing of the past.

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

One of my colleagues here at the office (originally from Florida, by the way) had parents who barely spoke to him for years after he came out in college.

But there's a much easier way to understand the issue. No one ever talks about "coming out" as straight. --Bob

Please raise your hand if you would stop talking to a friend or family member if they were to tell you they were gay......

Anybody?

Bueller? Bueller?

[jarnon]

I doubt there are very many people who would act, in real life, the way the speaker, or his colleagues brother, are accusing. That's just a stereotype perpetuated by people who have a vested interest in it being perpetuated. As you have stated, society has changed, and that stereotype is majorly a thing of the past.

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

I can only assume you are referring to kids who are past puberty.
None of the laws that I know of object to reasonable sex education in that age group. We are talking about 1st and 2nd graders here. Well before puberty. Any LGBTQ 2nd graders in your school? If there are, THOSE are the parents that should be scrutinized, IMO.

The 1st and 2nd grade lessons seem to be about kids with two moms, boys who play with dolls, things like that. That's enough for that age. And it should be taught in the context of tolerance for all kinds of differences - ethnic, religious, economic, physical, whatever could be a trigger for stereotypes or bullying in the particular school.

[flockofseagulls104]

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

I can only assume you are referring to kids who are past puberty.
None of the laws that I know of object to reasonable sex education in that age group. We are talking about 1st and 2nd graders here. Well before puberty. Any LGBTQ 2nd graders in your school? If there are, THOSE are the parents that should be scrutinized, IMO.

The 1st and 2nd grade lessons seem to be about kids with two moms, boys who play with dolls, things like that. That's enough for that age. And it should be taught in the context of tolerance for all kinds of differences - ethnic, religious, economic, whatever could be a trigger for stereotypes or bullying in the particular school.

I posted proposed curricula for one such school district, and it seemed to go well beyond that. At that age, you can tell a child that it is alright to believe you have super powers and they might jump out their window. I still say the answer is to send the info to the parents and let them decide. But none of you have even referenced that idea. Too bought into the idea that ONLY teachers can possibly teach it or that most parents are raving monsters or something.

[BackInTex]

or that most parents are raving monsters or something.

No, just the ones you are arguing with.

[Bob78164]

I can only assume you are referring to kids who are past puberty.
None of the laws that I know of object to reasonable sex education in that age group. We are talking about 1st and 2nd graders here. Well before puberty. Any LGBTQ 2nd graders in your school? If there are, THOSE are the parents that should be scrutinized, IMO.

The 1st and 2nd grade lessons seem to be about kids with two moms, boys who play with dolls, things like that. That's enough for that age. And it should be taught in the context of tolerance for all kinds of differences - ethnic, religious, economic, whatever could be a trigger for stereotypes or bullying in the particular school.

I posted proposed curricula for one such school district, and it seemed to go well beyond that. At that age, you can tell a child that it is alright to believe you have super powers and they might jump out their window. I still say the answer is to send the info to the parents and let them decide. But none of you have even referenced that idea. Too bought into the idea that ONLY teachers can possibly teach it or that most parents are raving monsters or something.

You're advocating for parents' right to, without interference, teach their kids to be bigots. We can't stop parents from trying to teach bigotry to their kids, but we can and should make a counterweight available. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The 1st and 2nd grade lessons seem to be about kids with two moms, boys who play with dolls, things like that. That's enough for that age. And it should be taught in the context of tolerance for all kinds of differences - ethnic, religious, economic, whatever could be a trigger for stereotypes or bullying in the particular school.

I posted proposed curricula for one such school district, and it seemed to go well beyond that. At that age, you can tell a child that it is alright to believe you have super powers and they might jump out their window. I still say the answer is to send the info to the parents and let them decide. But none of you have even referenced that idea. Too bought into the idea that ONLY teachers can possibly teach it or that most parents are raving monsters or something.

You're advocating for parents' right to, without interference, teach their kids to be bigots. We can't stop parents from trying to teach bigotry to their kids, but we can and should make a counterweight available. --Bob

You really like that word. Your overuse of it has dulled it's meaning. It now simply means anyone that disagrees with you.

[Beebs52]

I posted proposed curricula for one such school district, and it seemed to go well beyond that. At that age, you can tell a child that it is alright to believe you have super powers and they might jump out their window. I still say the answer is to send the info to the parents and let them decide. But none of you have even referenced that idea. Too bought into the idea that ONLY teachers can possibly teach it or that most parents are raving monsters or something.

You're advocating for parents' right to, without interference, teach their kids to be bigots. We can't stop parents from trying to teach bigotry to their kids, but we can and should make a counterweight available. --Bob

You really like that word. Your overuse of it has dulled it's meaning. It now simply means anyone that disagrees with you.

Exactly. Thank you.

[flockofseagulls104]

You're advocating for parents' right to, without interference, teach their kids to be bigots. We can't stop parents from trying to teach bigotry to their kids, but we can and should make a counterweight available. --Bob

You really like that word. Your overuse of it has dulled it's meaning. It now simply means anyone that disagrees with you.

Exactly. Thank you.

As opposed to the state indoctrinating kids with whatever they deem to be 'for the public good' without interference from their parents?

[BackInTex]

You really like that word. Your overuse of it has dulled it's meaning. It now simply means anyone that disagrees with you.

Exactly. Thank you.

As opposed to the state indoctrinating kids with whatever they deem to be 'for the public good' without interference from their parents?

Kinda like The Third Reich.

[Bob Juch]

You really like that word. Your overuse of it has dulled it's meaning. It now simply means anyone that disagrees with you.

Exactly. Thank you.

As opposed to the state indoctrinating kids with whatever they deem to be 'for the public good' without interference from their parents?

That's what has been happening in many states for many years. Example: Texas tells schoolbook publishers what should be in and out of history instruction and, in some cases, the exact words to use. That's done without parental consultation.

[flockofseagulls104]

Exactly. Thank you.

As opposed to the state indoctrinating kids with whatever they deem to be 'for the public good' without interference from their parents?

That's what has been happening in many states for many years. Example: Texas tells schoolbook publishers what should be in and out of history instruction and, in some cases, the exact words to use. That's done without parental consultation.

Don't change the subject. You want to talk history, start another thread. And use your graphics.....

[Beebs52]

Exactly. Thank you.

As opposed to the state indoctrinating kids with whatever they deem to be 'for the public good' without interference from their parents?

That's what has been happening in many states for many years. Example: Texas tells schoolbook publishers what should be in and out of history instruction and, in some cases, the exact words to use. That's done without parental consultation.

Many states do this. There are boards for that.

[Bob Juch]

As opposed to the state indoctrinating kids with whatever they deem to be 'for the public good' without interference from their parents?

That's what has been happening in many states for many years. Example: Texas tells schoolbook publishers what should be in and out of history instruction and, in some cases, the exact words to use. That's done without parental consultation.

Many states do this. There are boards for that.

Exactly!

[wbtravis007]

Then I must conclude that you have very little experience with LGBTQ youth, because I see numerous kids struggling with this every single day in the very rural North Carolina school where I teach.

One of my colleagues here at the office (originally from Florida, by the way) had parents who barely spoke to him for years after he came out in college.

But there's a much easier way to understand the issue. No one ever talks about "coming out" as straight. --Bob

Please raise your hand if you would stop talking to a friend or family member if they were to tell you they were gay......

Anybody?

Bueller? Bueller?

BiT? BiT?

[flockofseagulls104]

One of my colleagues here at the office (originally from Florida, by the way) had parents who barely spoke to him for years after he came out in college.

But there's a much easier way to understand the issue. No one ever talks about "coming out" as straight. --Bob

Please raise your hand if you would stop talking to a friend or family member if they were to tell you they were gay......

Anybody?

Bueller? Bueller?

BiT? BiT?

Strawman? Strawman?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The Florida Department of Education announced it had rejected 41 percent of submitted mathematics textbooks because the books contained "prohibited topics" such as Critical Race Theory and Social Emotional Learning.