3 3
brenthutch

Brittney Griner

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'm saying It's a multifaceted issue and not as black and white as some are trying to make it out to be.  It cannot be fully understood without examining the complex interplay of social, political, cultural and various religious factors/beliefs. 

Just a long winding way of saying some snowflakes think their hurt feelings are justified because things aren't the same as they used to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Just a long winding way of saying some snowflakes think their hurt feelings are justified because things aren't the same as they used to be.

Now, I'm really confused. I thought it was liberals = snowflakes and conservatives = nazis or are things not the same as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Now, I'm really confused. I thought it was liberals = snowflakes and conservatives = nazis or are things not the same as it used to be.

Conservatives seem to very easily have their feelings hurt and then meltdown like snowflakes. I do believe the word was first used by the right to make fun of the idea of everyone being different like special snowflakes. But it has long since been turned back on them. Nazis? I've never used the term myself except when speaking about, well, Nazis. It's just too easy to go all Godwin so I don't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Nazis? I've never used the term myself except when speaking about, well, Nazis. It's just too easy to go all Godwin so I don't.

It is a sad commentary on the state of American reality today that Mike Godwin had to clarify that it is actually OK to compare someone to a Nazi when they are, in fact, a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Now, I'm really confused. I thought it was liberals = snowflakes and conservatives = nazis or are things not the same as it used to be.

Conservatives say that liberals are snowflakes while exhibiting the most snowflakey behaviour possible. Texas passing a sweeping bill cancelling books, lessons and teachers’ freedom of speech if there’s a tiny chance their kids’ feelings might get hurt being a prime example.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jakee said:

Conservatives say that liberals are snowflakes

A few years ago I posted on how the word  "snowflake" in this forum seemingly was used exclusively by the left for about 3 years against conservative posters here that have never called any of you guys a snowflake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, jakee said:

What do you think these social messages are? What are the overly sexualised Disney messages that are any different from what they've always done? I'm genuinely curious.

The point in bringing up Disney in the discussion was to highlight how concerns over sexualized content in children's media are not limited to Christian/conservative viewpoints. 

That sentiment was reflected in a survey that reported on Disney's apparent emphasis on creating content that introduces sexual themes to young children. It queried respondents on their likelihood to continue doing business with Disney, as well as their inclination to support family-friendly alternatives.

A significant proportion of Democrats (48%) indicated that they were now less inclined to engage with Disney, and 59% expressed a willingness to endorse alternative family-friendly options.

So why do you think they had reservations about that?

The survey came out shortly after an interview about their gay agenda and a rather bizarre preoccupation with adding queerness.

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my, like, not-at-all-secret gay agenda, I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness.  No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”

So it's really no surprise if even democrats weren't receptive to such deliberate and creepy arrogance.

 

Then I posted how even a transgendered clinical psychologist said that "some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media. . .and that it's gone too far."

 

And then of course was the "Along for the Pride" clip highlighting that sentiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMBzfUj5zsg&t=326s


But the bottom line is that parents are opposed to the idea of schools teaching their 5 year old about sexual identity given the possible impact of environmental factors on the development of sexual orientation.  And I don't blame them in light of the personal bias and motivations of liberal educators, making them susceptible to using the classroom as a platform for  indoctrination in the midst of an ongoing culture war where children are being used as political pawns on both sides.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

A few years ago I posted on how the word  "snowflake" in this forum seemingly was used exclusively by the left for about 3 years against conservative posters here that have never called any of you guys a snowflake.

 

And before that it was used by other conservative posters, as well as by the conservative media -- no one is immune to using the picture that's painted for them instead of developing their own picture. And just as not all conservatives used the term snowflake, neither did all liberals.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

But the bottom line is that parents are opposed to the idea of schools teaching their 5 year old about sexual identity given the possible impact of environmental factors on the development of sexual orientation.

In a world where the child of a religious fundamentalist might go to school or otherwise meet with a child who has two mommies or two daddies, is there a way to convey that neither child has to hide their parentage? And maybe even that it's rude to either call the parents deviants or bigots? Because those are lessons that schools should be teaching -- that everyone comes from people, and no one should go out to offend.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
44 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Because those are lessons that schools should be teaching -- that everyone comes from people, and no one should go out to offend.

Nope. The school shouldn't be teaching shit about sexuality. Frankly, my daughter and all her friends are tired of hearing it from class, to class, to class. She is the quintessential nerd - advanced/honors everything. she just wants to learn about the subjects and not be subjected to every teacher's cheering the cause the first 15 minutes in each class. "Daddy, it gets really old."

This generation is more than aware, receptive and understanding of varying sexualities than any other generation, but they tire of everyone's agenda.   

Edited by BIGUN
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

A few years ago I posted on how the word  "snowflake" in this forum seemingly was used exclusively by the left for about 3 years against conservative posters here that have never called any of you guys a snowflake.

I just called the governor of Texas a snowflake. Does he post here? What’s his username? 
 

In general, in the real world ‘snowflake was popularised and by far most widely used by the right to use against the left as you very well know. Despite whatever logical contortions you wanted to use now or three years ago.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jakee said:

That’s literally not true though, is it?

It is. I should back off the totally not teach sex ed in class, cause we all had "a," "1," sex ed class, but when you left the class - it was over. It is in every class now. The kids are getting tired of it. They know. Again, THE most tolerant generation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

It is. I should back off the totally not teach sex ed in class, cause we all had "a," "1," sex ed class, but when you left the class - it was over. It is in every class now. The kids are getting tired of it. They know. Again, THE most tolerant generation.  

I agree with their being the most tolerant generation. And what I was just trying to say was that part of politeness is accepting people where they are, not where you approve of.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And what I was just trying to say was that part of politeness is accepting people where they are, not where you approve of.

I'm not tracking. Where they are or who they are? Cause who they are and politeness is defined in a sacred document, "the pursuit of happiness." Who they are . . . as in race, creed, color, sex, etc. was defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And yet, here we are, and where we are, some sixty years later - is having the conversation again.

Leave people the fuck alone. Mind your own business.

That's all people got to remember.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Mind your own business.

That's it in a nutshell. And you have a whole lot more direct contact with what's actually going on in schools right now than probably anyone else. At least that's a reliable reporter.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

not limited to Christian/conservative viewpoints. 

 

Thanks for clarifying the well known truth. It's not about Christian and/or Conservative viewpoints at all. Conservative economic principles are just a curtain to hide behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Nope. The school shouldn't be teaching shit about sexuality.

Unless you're in opposition to teaching kids how to do it, I disagree. Human sexuality is a part of human sociology. I think that it is especially important for kids going home to strongly religious households where acceptance and accommodation of other sexualities and lifestyles, than exist in the parents belief system, aren't taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Coreece said:

A significant proportion of Democrats (48%) indicated that they were now less inclined to engage with Disney, and 59% expressed a willingness to endorse alternative family-friendly options.

So why do you think they had reservations about that?

Why do you think they did? Use actual examples of oversexualised Disney kids content.

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my, like, not-at-all-secret gay agenda, I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness.  No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”

So it's really no surprise if even democrats weren't receptive to such deliberate and creepy arrogance.

What’s creepy and arrogant about someone deliberately deciding to include gay characters just living their lives and not hurting anyone in a film? In other words - better reflecting real modern society? Why would anyone who isn’t homophobic have a problem with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

It is. I should back off the totally not teach sex ed in class, cause we all had "a," "1," sex ed class, but when you left the class - it was over. It is in every class now.  

But it’s not though, is it?


Lets try this - the kids sit down in maths class, what exactly happens for that first fifteen minutes? What exactly is said to them every time before they see any equations?

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Nope. The school shouldn't be teaching shit about sexuality.

I think they should - but certainly not to the degree that you mention in your post.

When I was in school about a hundred years ago, there were two causes of the day - "blacks are people too" and "women can work."    We got this a lot, and there was a lot of pushback.  One friend (I'll call him Theo) was always complaining about how all the new-math worksheets we got had images of white AND black kids, and he told me he was sick of seeing it all the time.  This almost certainly came from his parents - he'd often repeat "don't eat that - a black man might have pissed on it!" when I ate something that had fallen on the floor.  And he didn't make that up himself.

Which is a good example of both the pushback that the racially-mixed coursework was causing, and the need for it.

A lot of this came from the Projects, which was a development near where I lived.  We lived in the "bad section" of an upperclass town on the North shore of Long Island.  The town yard was across the street.  Behind that was a swamp.  And next to the swamp and the town yard were the Projects, built shortly before I started remembering things.  The Projects were low income housing that attracted a lot of black residents, and of course they showed up in schools there.  (This was one reason we could afford the land to build a house there.) And back in the early 1970's, black residents were a very big deal.  Interracial marriage had been legalized only a few years before that, and there was a lot of resentment that the government was "shoving interracial marriage down our throats."  I wasn't aware of any of that back then - all I really saw of it were those worksheets and the echoes of Theo's parents in what he told me.

One of those racist people was my grandmother, who was living with us.  In her defense, she had never seen a black person until she moved to the US, and so she didn't have the advantage of those black kids on her homework.  (Or going to school with the black kids from the projects.)  It was still something she struggled with.  And towards the end of her life when we got home care to help with her, she started to accept the black woman who was helping her day to day.

So that's the benefit of that early work - avoiding the sort of struggles she went through.  And society is indeed better off when the default isn't racism.

But at the same time we were getting a lot of sexual-orientation and gender role training.  It was 100% "mommy and daddy have three kids" - the math problems of the time often used a variation on that theme, although in our case mommy was sometimes black.  (Black men marrying white women was a bridge too far even at that point.)  And the small amount of sex ed we got in middle school was all about how men and women have sex.  Of course no one considered claiming that 'daddy works and mommy volunteers at the library' or how sex works was sexual orientation or gender role training - it was just how the default world worked.

And all of that racial-diversity stuff was important back then.  My father was a principal at a very troubled high school - gang fights, metal detectors, armed security, pregnant 15 year olds, the whole deal.  So I got a lot of that anyway at home, because my father saw what divisions between black and white led to, and was more woke to those issues than other people of his generation.  But for people like Theo, it was (I think) pretty important.

And now we have kids.  They first talk about sex in fifth grade at our school, which I think makes a lot of sense - when you teach kids about it at that age it's just boring science information.  At that point it has nothing to do with their lives, so there isn't the same sort of embarrassement, shame and nervousness you get when you try to teach that to 14 year olds.  They do it twice again in later grades with more detail (types of birth control etc.)

And they get the same amount of presentation of sexual orientation and gender roles that we did back in the day, except now every once in a while a teacher will say "or if he has two dads"  "or he she only has a mom" etc.  And they are very aware of the nonbinary kids at school, and are careful with pronouns and names.

I agree that dedicating 15 minutes a day to that exclusively is overkill.  But integrating it into education is important, because if you don't, you end up teaching it anyway - it's just the default training that no one notices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, billvon said:

But at the same time we were getting a lot of sexual-orientation and gender role training. 

I was born in '57. All the training I got was to learn to call people fags if for some reason we wanted to dislike them. Later on we learned that is was not just accepted, but expected to beat up fags. Only later did we learn anything at all about what the word meant in a sexual context. I did not unlearn any of this shit till well into my late teens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

No he's not. I am a PGR ride captain, now inactive.

I believe BIGUN's point wasn't to suggest that you weren't there, but that you weren't the only one (i.e. he was there as well).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3