Teacher Resigns After Parent Complains Pride Flag Is "Personal Agenda"

[Ana the Ist]

I'll grant it is a thing, though it's hardly substantive by much data, since the sample sizes are painfully small and not much beyond something that would amount more to a paraphilia than genuine sexual attraction in the sense of human interactions. Even asexuality is on the basis of understanding that human interactions are generally what we are concerned about. Same with aromanticism.

If these things are just social constructs, I don't see how you get to decide which are "valid".

I'd say LGBTQ pride flag covers all sexualities and gender identities, so you've basically missed the point entirely.

How? It was created before most were invented. It also doesn't include straight.

And you also utilize the oft quoted straight pride, as if that's remotely something comparable.

It's directly comparable.

As I already pointed out, straight people are considered the norm, their need for pride is as likely as being proud to be black in Africa, where that's generally the common racial group. Being white in America is similar in that it is still a majority, even if that is shifting away.

Are you saying that you cannot express pride if you're a part of a majority?

 

[tall73]

The object's presence doesn't mean he was asking students to inquire about it in class, because the added banner was more a passive message of support and he established from the start that he would be there to talk to students if they wanted to, but NOT on class time.

A message of support? Then it was meant to convey a message.

Then they're being hypocritical, the picture with a significant other would still have a message to it in the context of the classroom if we're going with the assumption that every object has to have some explicit and aggressive educational element and cannot be a more passive aspect of approval versus making a statement forcefully.

I am going with the assumption that a flag with an established meaning is meant to convey that meaning. That is its purpose. That seemed to be acknowledged above.


A photo of a significant other may convey multiple meanings. It could have a purpose of reminding the teacher of the significant other, or conveying to others that they love he significant other, etc. It doesn't have a universally recognized meaning as you acknowledge by context of the classroom being required, which would not be the case for the pride flag.

So one is intended to convey a consistent message to a broad audience, and the other is more of a personal memento that may have various meanings to those who know the significance.

 

[tall73]

If these things are just social constructs, I don't see how you get to decide which are "valid".

Yeah, at this rate schools will need objectum sexual banners to assure kids they are safe from muichimotsu discounting their sexual orientation.

 

[muichimotsu]

Is there a Democratic Party flag?

There's flags that have the traditional donkey and elephant on a white background, that good enough for you?

I don't mean to insinuate that. He could be Republican for all I know.

I feel like it's statistically unlikely, but the problem is that is a common assumption people make about the flag, as if it's partisan in nature at all (it really isn't, respecting LGBTQ is a bipartisan issue, if not really just a non partisan aspect of being a civil human being)

Again....if you don't understand what a fact is, we can go over it in detail....but it's really the sort of thing you need to understand before addressing the topic.

The facts as observed in science don't equate to a mind independent reality necessarily, especially when it comes to assessing those facts in a way that would be free of bias in methodology, etc.

A fallacy I didn't commit.

You bring up some other related thing and act like it is equivalent to the situation when the nature of the LGBTQ flag is not comparable or possessing of the divisive political nature that the Confederate flag does, same as the BLM flag. Having exceptions to a rule doesn't invalidate the rule in principle when specified.

But fine, let's just ban them all: you seem to suggest you wouldn't care at all if the flag stayed up and would permit any flag, but that's as naive as banning them all, as if it is possible to be purely objective in terms of this kind of situation rather than seeking objectivity while admitting subjectivity in the existential sense

How do you know that?

I certainly used to believe that...but I've seen an awful lot of gay people claiming that they can be gay one day and straight the next.

"Awful lot" is not substantive or quantifiable, it's a generalization that you seem to think applies to the LGBTQ community as a whole rather than some people that just don't want to be bi, which is a whole other problem called bi erasure, look it up on GLAAD's website, or a simple Google search.

Never said I knew it as if it was an absolute fact, but to say that someone chooses their sexual attractions is naive: of course people choose sexual behavior, but that's not the same as the attraction itself

 

[tall73]

Never said I knew it as if it was an absolute fact, but to say that someone chooses their sexual attractions is naive: of course people choose sexual behavior, but that's not the same as the attraction itself

Then why did you marginalize objectum sexuals?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, at this rate schools will need objectum sexual banners to assure kids they are safe from muichimotsu discounting their sexual orientation.

At this point....I'm not 100% sold on the idea that all bullying is bad. I think physical violence and the threat of violence is a problem. I would even say that persistent verbal abuse or egregious deliberate humiliation are problematic.

The idea that we are doing children good by sheltering them from any negative attitudes or confrontations is bizarre. The idea that they should automatically be labeled victims is worse.

The NYT had an article recently about the troubling increase in suicides amongst black teen females and how it's so mysterious. I couldn't help but think that perhaps this political ideology that labels them as automatic victims who cannot possibly hope to succeed might have something to do with it.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, at this rate schools will need objectum sexual banners to assure kids they are safe from muichimotsu discounting their sexual orientation.

Not sure you're qualified to talk about sexual orientation or even understand that it's different from paraphilias in terms of discussions.

Also, never claimed that the lack of LGBTQ pride flag was suggesting necessarily that the school didn't care, that's more strawmanning out of some sense of snark

 

[muichimotsu]

At this point....I'm not 100% sold on the idea that all bullying is bad. I think physical violence and the threat of violence is a problem. I would even say that persistent verbal abuse or egregious deliberate humiliation are problematic.

The idea that we are doing children good by sheltering them from any negative attitudes or confrontations is bizarre. The idea that they should automatically be labeled victims is worse.

The NYT had an article recently about the troubling increase in suicides amongst black teen females and how it's so mysterious. I couldn't help but think that perhaps this political ideology that labels them as automatic victims who cannot possibly hope to succeed might have something to do with it.

This is not about sheltering, that's a dishonest characterization of what is being done, which is to not just let teachers run roughshod in their sense of pedagogy, like they can never be wrong in teaching students ever. Respecting students and presenting things in as objective a way as possible is the goal, or are you suddenly not about objectivity when it comes to teaching because that takes away people's freedoms as teachers to express themselves?

And no, this is not a matter of the victimhood you've bought into as some caricature of the situation. Someone having struggles does not make them a permanent victim, it means they need to be addressed in a societal way and not purely on an individual basis that is helpful in the short term

More dishonesty: no one is claiming they cannot succeed, we have several examples of successful black females, you're trying to reduce suicidal tendencies to a social issue when I'm pretty sure that's not remotely the sole factor for why someone might have suicidal or self harming thoughts: hormonal imbalances and the like are also a factor, the neurological ones.

 

[muichimotsu]

Then why did you marginalize objectum sexuals?

Point out where I did that: I suggested that your characterization of it as such is based on incomplete data or understanding of what a sexual orientation is versus a paraphilia. And even if we granted it as such, that doesn't mean it necessarily requires its own flag or has it anyway.

You're engaging in tu quoque to suggest I'm being a hypocrite when that's not what is done with your cherry picked example that is meant to baffle and then "expose" someone as being somehow incompetent because they cannot respond as quickly as you expect

 

[muichimotsu]

A message of support? Then it was meant to convey a message.

Oh, you want to quibble further? A message of support is not controversial when it is not suggesting straight cis students are lesser, it's celebrating diversity. Is that a controversial message now just because it's bringing up marginalized groups that have had to repress themselves for centuries in American society alone?

I am going with the assumption that a flag with an established meaning is meant to convey that meaning. That is its purpose. That seemed to be acknowledged above.

Oh no, a meaning of diversity, how awful /sarcasm

A photo of a significant other may convey multiple meanings. It could have a purpose of reminding the teacher of the significant other, or conveying to others that they love he significant other, etc. It doesn't have a universally recognized meaning as you acknowledge by context of the classroom being required, which would not be the case for the pride flag.

Oh, you think the pride flag just has one meaning? And what's that? Please tell me, I'm all ears

So one is intended to convey a consistent message to a broad audience, and the other is more of a personal memento that may have various meanings to those who know the significance.

The problem is how people seem to misconstrue anything as having some intention that isn't there: see the parent thinking that the teacher was 1) teaching sexuality and 2) trying to turn students gay by the mere usage of the pride flag (which doesn't just represent gay people, btw, it covers the objectophiliacs you referenced, and yes that is a term that can be utilized as well, unless you think everyone has to use your particular jargon)

 

[muichimotsu]

If my kid is experiencing anxiety because your kid goes to the same school....should your kid be expelled?

That's an oddly generalized situation and no, they shouldn't be expelled, there should be an attempt to understand their dynamics and why one child is experiencing anxiety, which may be related or not to the student in question opposite the other.

Did you just say "school counselor" like they're some sort of student therapist?

When I went to the school, the counselor was a person who seemed barely employable.

The term is admittedly unclear to many, but if you can explain what it is, by all means, rather than taking this condescending tone like I'm beneath you.

Career counseling would be one thing, but a school nurse is often a thing, so it's not a stretch that there could be someone that would cover not only consultation about careers, but even offer assistance even if only by referencing to a clinical psychologist and such, assuming they personally cannot do anything specific beyond recognizing issues like depression, possible abuse, etc.

 

[muichimotsu]

In the context of facts, objective reality does mean one thing.

And what is that pray tell, if you think there's a monolithic unchanging definition in metaphysics? And you better be specific or it's more vagueness so you don't have to address alternatives in the perspective.

 

[muichimotsu]

Are you trying to downplay a minority group?



If you do a bit of searching you will see at least one objectum sexual made their own pride flag, representing different aspects of their movement.

Do you object to it?



Relevance? None of it is relevant to the curriculum.

Okay, I acknowledge they exist, I wasn't denying that in the first place, I was skeptical whether they really should be considered a sexual orientation, but you're obfuscating to muddy the waters from the core discussion

And it wasn't meant to be for the curriculum, it doesn't strictly have to be, even if the rules as you describe may require that. This is oversimplifying every symbol in class as if they all have to have immediate relevance when that's not what a student is going to be focused on necessarily when engaging with the lessons

 

[muichimotsu]

If these things are just social constructs, I don't see how you get to decide which are "valid".

Do we need to quibble over what you think valid means? It's not monolithic either, btw. Social constructs are valid insofar as they apply in terms of what is not some absolute existence, we're always in flux, much as you want things to just stay the same, naive as that is

How? It was created before most were invented. It also doesn't include straight.

Ah, more dishonest characterization of them just being invented, like it was a whim rather than investigation and categorization through said investigation. That'd be like saying Newton just "invented" gravity rather than using it as a term to explain things that had been observed before, but he codified them

and yes, it does include straight in that the goal is reflecting diversity. And even if it didn't, so what? Straight people are meant to be allies, this isn't like a pie, and if one person doesn't get an equal piece it's suddenly unfair. Do you really think straight people are being marginalized? They get the most representation of any sexuality, period, only close behind maybe might be bisexuality, if we're being generous.

It's directly comparable.

It's a dishonest comparison in the same vein as white lives matter. Or do you think that's a genuine counterpoint rather than being outright racist and rooted in privilege where society already treats white people as the norm?

Are you saying that you cannot express pride if you're a part of a majority?

And again, I have to explain that pride in this context is not something the majority needs, rather than a matter of them not being able to. They can express it, it's just patently stupid, because it misses the point and downplays and marginalizes minorities, gaslighting them as if their experience is not more important than theirs (which no one's saying they're more important, because that's not the meaning of pride here, which is more self respect and dignity, not self aggrandization)

: a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people : self-respect
2 : a feeling that you are more important or better than other people
3 : a feeling of happiness that you get when you or someone you know does something good, difficult, etc.

Which definition do you think applies to gay pride, to black pride? Because it's not #2, I can promise you that and 1 and 3 are probably the two likely ones, though really, you're still missing the point in that words don't have fixed meanings, they have meaning based on usage, the dictionary changes *gasp* much as you seem to insinuate it's unchanging in the meanings.

'Pride': The Word That Went From Vice to Strength

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's flags that have the traditional donkey and elephant on a white background, that good enough for you?

Ok.

I feel like it's statistically unlikely, but the problem is that is a common assumption people make about the flag, as if it's partisan in nature at all (it really isn't, respecting LGBTQ is a bipartisan issue, if not really just a non partisan aspect of being a civil human being)

I didn't make this about partisan politics. I pointed out that the justification for such things is already very low. It's mere offense.

Was someone offended by the Pride flag? Yes. Does the reason why they were offended matter? No.

It's a low bar of justification...but the left set it. There's nothing to complain about. If liberals are upset by this, they have only themselves to blame.

The facts as observed in science don't equate to a mind independent reality necessarily, especially when it comes to assessing those facts in a way that would be free of bias in methodology, etc.

Science isn't required for this. If you slip on a banana peel and land on your face...I can make a factual statement about that based in objective reality. No science required.

You bring up some other related thing and act like it is equivalent to the situation when the nature of the LGBTQ flag is not comparable or possessing of the divisive political nature that the Confederate flag does, same as the BLM flag. Having exceptions to a rule doesn't invalidate the rule in principle when specified.

Whataboutism is the act of trying to justify or defend something by pointing out something completely unrelated.

I was comparing two like things. It's an analogy. I wasn't defending nazis or Democrats.

Since you're not good at analogies....I'll just say the meaning of it as blatantly as possible. If you're only tolerant of those you agree with, and say nothing about tolerance for those who you disagree with....then your tolerance is paper thin and entirely self serving and I immediately reject your pleas for tolerance.

Is that clear enough?

"Awful lot" is not substantive or quantifiable,

It's more than 2 but less than all of them.

 

[FireDragon76]

M
Also, NRA is explicitly trying to influence policy, a rainbow flag is not necessarily linked in the same way, because it doesn't have to be about policy, but principle.

I don't even think its about principle. The LGBT movement is far more diverse than a monolithic ideology, and conservative Christians err when they assume otherwise.

A mere rainbow flag or such is not exclusionary at all, same as a BLM flag, because it is not saying white lives suck, it's saying they already matter and that systemic racism should be addressed, neither of which are controversial in the 21st century except in an absurdly white supremacist country like America where white fragility rules.

This is why America has such intractable social problems. Perfectly innocent gestures are demonized. A symbol that could make some students feel more accepted is compared to a symbol of hate. That represents a fundamental moral failing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is not about sheltering, that's a dishonest characterization of what is being done,

Really? I'll address this at the bottom.

which is to not just let teachers run roughshod in their sense of pedagogy, like they can never be wrong in teaching students ever.

I made a thread about CRT and political indoctrination in the classroom. I clearly don't believe teachers are infallible.

Respecting students

Respect is earned.

and presenting things in as objective a way as possible

Weren't you just arguing against this in a different thread?

And no, this is not a matter of the victimhood you've bought into as some caricature of the situation. Someone having struggles does not make them a permanent victim

You're assuming they're a struggling victim to begin with. Let's take a look...

The child is more distraught by the bigotry they experience as someone that is struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity, the lack of a flag is showing potentially that people don't really care.

More victim blaming, you're such a "nice" person to show how you "care" about students. Except apparently the school is more important and student welfare is an afterthought, how "compassionate"

This is you assuming that someone is a victim, or struggling, or facing bigotry....simply because they are gay.

I even asked you "a victim of what?" and you had no answer.

That's because in reality....being gay doesn't make anyone a victim or ensure they are struggling.

However, you seem to have bought into a disgusting political dogma that celebrates victimhood and fabricates struggles, or discrimination, or oppression out of thin air.

I say it's disgusting because quite frankly, I can't imagine thinking someone is somehow less than me, and a victim, simply because of these identities that your political dogma places a premium on. You call it "compassion" or "empathy" but it looks like naked bigotry to me. It's a self aggrandizing moral view that categorizes people based on nothing more than abject characteristics that don't really matter. You see them as "victims" who are beneath you and need your help....why? Because they are gay....and that justifies all sorts of assumptions about them in your mind.

So again, I'll be as clear as possible.

No one is a victim simply by virtue of their identity. They are not beneath you and in need of your help. You aren't compassionate or empathetic by assuming these things about them. Indeed, such assumptions are not only about their pathetic status as victims....but moral accusations about everyone else. That's just bigotry, and nothing more.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And what is that pray tell, if you think there's a monolithic unchanging definition in metaphysics?

I don't need metaphysics for this point either....see my previous post.

Language may be imperfect, as is our use of it in describing reality, but that doesn't change the objective nature of facts.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't even think its about principle. The LGBT movement is far more diverse than a monolithic ideology, and conservative Christians err when they assume otherwise.



This is why America has such intractable social problems. Perfectly innocent gestures are demonized. A symbol that could make some students feel more accepted is compared to a symbol of hate. That represents a fundamental moral failing.

The problem is memesis and how we don't realize how much faster it happens in a technologically advanced age when a meme can spread on social media in less than a day

And then you have situations where someone is just being a major jerk and tries to insinuate something about white power from a gesture that now is basically avoided in general, but especially by people using ASL. That whole thing supposedly originates from a 4 chan post or the like, just being a provocateur and spreading disinformation.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't need metaphysics for this point either....see my previous post.

Language may be imperfect, as is our use of it in describing reality, but that doesn't change the objective nature of facts.

Those facts are not always appropriated by the mind accurately, how can you claim to have anything resembling perfect understanding that would be required to know objective facts independent of ANY bias? Your notion of epistemology seems suspiciously Randian.