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

[muichimotsu]

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



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.

Yeah, just ignore that it was within a particular context and not applicable absolutely. I know plenty of people in minority positions in my area, I don't assume they're a victim absolutely and that's where you're flat out wrong in characterizing this as such when it is a case by case situation and is not just full on extreme all the time

So you just act like everything's fine while simultaneously talking like there are problems, but you can't even start to suggest a solution that isn't just dismissive and so generalizing it might as well treat everyone like a statistic and not an individual. Intersectionality and identity politics are not the bludgeons you seem to treat them as, you're conflating different concepts entirely with them because it's simpler to generalize a term instead of consider that a different one fits what you're describing.

It is not merely that trait that I consider, it is a factor in terms of situations where it becomes pertinent. To suggest otherwise is making more strawmen and dishonest representations of the situation and ascribing malice instead of considering possible ignorance, violating Hanlon's law

If you hate the idea of ME assuming something about you, then I'd appreciate you doing the same, especially when you have virtually no basis for this idea that you think I espouse beyond Ben Shapiro's ramblings on Prager U.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do we need to quibble over what you think valid means?

No...I'm simply pointing out that you don't determine what a valid social construct is.

Super Straight is a sexual orientation that was created just last month. If you think that the person who created it should have consulted with you first....then you don't understand what socially constructed means.

If however, you think the evidence points to these characteristics being innate....then they aren't socially constructed, but biological realities. That's a whole other can of worms, but at least then we can discuss which orientations are valid.

Ah, more dishonest characterization of them just being invented, like it was a whim rather than investigation and categorization through said investigation.

I just pointed out one that was invented.

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

Are you saying that sexual orientations and genders are a biological reality or social construct?

and yes, it does include straight in that the goal is reflecting diversity.

If it includes every gender and orientation then why is there an acronym at all? Why is there a flag? What's the point?

And even if it didn't, so what?

So what? Your argument falls apart....that's what.

Straight people are meant to be allies,

If you're using the term allies the way I think you are....I disagree. That's a degrading term.

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're the only orientation it's socially acceptable to be bigoted against.

It's a dishonest comparison in the same vein as white lives matter.

That's the only race that it's socially acceptable to be racist against.

And again, I have to explain that pride in this context is not something the majority needs,

Remarkable how you think you get to decide the emotional needs of so many.

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

And you just proved the two points I made above.

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

I'd go with....

: a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people

Now, since white people are the only race that it's now socially acceptable to be racist against, and straight people (to a lesser extent than whites) are the only orientation it's acceptable to be bigoted against....

Why don't you think they should be able to express their respective pride? Is it because of you don't respect them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, just ignore that it was within a particular context and not applicable absolutely.

Don't kid yourself. You didn't give a context other than (non-straight) student.

I know plenty of people in minority positions in my area, I don't assume they're a victim absolutely and that's where you're flat out wrong in characterizing this as such when it is a case by case situation and is not just full on extreme all the time

Uh huh.

If they aren't a victim then why do you keep calling them that and assuming they are struggling and need some sort of intervention from you (or their school)?

If you don't assume these things, you don't have any argument. You don't even have a point for this thread. Teacher had pride flag, parent was offended, teacher had to choose between removing it and quitting. Teacher quit. End of story.

What's the issue?

If you hate the idea of ME assuming something about you, then I'd appreciate you doing the same

I didn't assume anything, I quoted you. You called them victims who are struggling. I asked victims of what?

That was your opportunity to provide some context. You didn't, because in your mind they're victims because of their identity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Those facts are not always appropriated by the mind accurately,

I never said people are perfect at identifying facts. You're proof of that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Again, if you're using the term "allies" in the way I think you are....I disagree, and I think it's a dishonest and degrading term. For example...

'Being an ally is a daily labor': How to be an ally to all marginalized communities


"An ally is someone who chooses every day to take on the struggle and the problems that other groups are facing. It's not an identity. It's a daily labor," said Kim. "Self-educating is definitely the first step. You don't want to rush in and not know the issue or work already being done in that community. Figuring out places where you can usefully take action helps too. Maybe that's volunteering or maybe that's calling your political representative. It could even be showing up for a vigil or protest."

There's a similar set of characteristics to "allyship" that are almost universal when used by the left. First off, we aren't talking about minorities....we're talking about white people, particularly white straight people. Everyone else tends to be called an advocate or activist. Regardless, the traits are generally as follows....

1. Self education (because allies are dumb).
2. Listen, don't talk (because your opinions and views don't matter).
3. Advocacy/activism...for the interests of others (never for you or your interests)

In my mind, an ally is an actor in a unique sort of relationship of mutual respect and pursuit of mutual interests. If you're automatically considered uneducated and your opinion isn't valued and you're only ever going to pursue the interests of one actor in the relationship....then you aren't an ally, you're at best a servant, or more appropriately, a stooge.

STOOGE English Definition and Meaning | Lexico.com

A person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work.

 

[SilverBear]

This is what the left wanted.

Is it? Did they have a vote or something?

 

[SilverBear]

double post

 

[tstor]

They weren't going to discuss either, they were offering basic support as an educator to their students, especially knowing the struggles that a gay student would have, given that the teacher themself is gay.

Offering support doesn't have to come in that form. Support students by being a good teacher and creating an engaging learning environment. My high school didn't tolerate any sort of bullying, but none of the classrooms had LGBT, BLM, or any other sort of contentious symbols.

The class context didn't necessitate any discussion of that nature and the teacher KNEW that, the parent and administrators were either overreacting or trying to cover their butts from litigation based on said overreaction and claims of "indoctrination" (which is apparently fine for a house of worship, but heaven forbid a public education talk to children in a supportive manner apart from any discussions of sexuality or gender identity, just saying they are welcome. How "awful")

You're correct that the context might not have necessitated any discussion. Speaking as someone who was a conservative Christian during my high school years, I would have been deeply offended and bothered if any of my classes had an LGBT flag. However, I probably wouldn't have said anything about it. Likewise, many LGBT students have historically kept silent when they've been deeply offended and bothered. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Let's drop the "churches are indoctrinating children" talk, please. It's entirely ridiculous.

 

[SilverBear]

No...I believe I said it's not the job of the school to protect student feelings.

That's wildly different from physical safety.

.

They exist to educate children, and ALSO exist to make sure children feel safe.

Wrong.

and as noted Missouri state law does make it the job of the school to address any student concern about safety not just from physical violence but from bullying and harassment. And you then said that the student who does not feel safe in school is "whiny" and should be sent to a therapist. Should all students be safe from violence and bullying and harassment in the schools or is OK to when the student is LGBT?

 

[SilverBear]

You asked for a Missouri document describing the legal situation and I provided it.

And yes, apparently the school wants to be neutral in regards to all sexual orientations. Sexual orientation pride is not the subject matter of his class.

Would you be fine with a banner indicating objectum sexual pride? Would you be fine with a banner promoting heterosexual pride?

There is no need to put pride flags for any sexual orientation.

the flag was put up as an indication of the class being a place safe from harassment. It's sad you turned that into something sexual.

 

[SilverBear]

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.

Would you think this if it was your child being bullied?

 

[Mark Quayle]

A lot of people make statements like that on this site, but when asked can’t produce any evidence to support it. A more accurate statement would be that the media, assuming you mean the ‘MSM’, very occasionally get something ‘wrong’ as in incorrect. The longest list anyone sent me by way of proof for the old ‘fake news’ nonsense contained only 8 news items from a space of about 5 years, and only a couple of those were actual examples of incorrect information rather than matters of opinion.

If you have some other examples we can compare how objectively different media outlets reported on the stories.

Tell me who didn't get it wrong, for more than four years, the Trump-Russia collusion, while ignoring the KNOWN Hillary-Russia collusion to obtain made-up evidence against him. How about the Duke-Lacrosse players? Accusations on the Front Page, retractions buried way back in the depths if they were there at all. The "hands-up, don't shoot" narrative that is still being employed.

 

[SilverBear]

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.

The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey measures such things. the most recent data shows that 85% of LGBT high school students have experienced verbal attacks, harassment, cyber bullying, death threats, damage done to personal property and been physically assaulted in the school. 24% report that such attacks have come from educators. They are being harassed and attacked simply because of who they are.
But then you don't think such things are necessarily bad....

 

[SilverBear]

Offering support doesn't have to come in that form. Support students by being a good teacher and creating an engaging learning environment. My high school didn't tolerate any sort of bullying,

i wonder if the LGBT students of your school would agree

 

[Tom 1]

Tell me who didn't get it wrong, for more than four years, the Trump-Russia collusion, while ignoring the KNOWN Hillary-Russia collusion to obtain made-up evidence against him. How about the Duke-Lacrosse players? Accusations on the Front Page, retractions buried way back in the depths if they were there at all. The "hands-up, don't shoot" narrative that is still being employed.

I’m afraid this just sounds typical of the jumbled up notions and skewed interpretations presented as ‘facts’ I was referring to in my post. If you have something you think of as evidence, please go ahead, but only if you are willing to explain why you think it is evidence of your take on whatever it is, as opposed to a transparent distortion of some series of events through the lens of the Fox et al. mindset.

 

[tstor]

i wonder if the LGBT students of your school would agree

I knew only one gay guy at my school. He was rather popular and very involved with cheerleading. That's just one person, but he never appeared to be bullied.

 

[98cwitr]

There is no need for LGBT propaganda in classrooms. What the teacher does in he own time is he business, but what he does in front of children becomes the parents' business. I would have raised cane as well. Teach, don't indoctrinate.

edit: His twitter page says it all

 

[tall73]

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

You stated in the other thread regarding CRT you were not an expert and also said you didn't know very many non-white people. I also stated I am not an expert on CRT, (and didn't attempt to discuss it by that term). Yet we still conversed. Being a qualified expert is not a requirement for discussion here.

I am referring to it as an orientation based on statements by people who claim that orientation. If that lacks expertise you will just have to bear with me.

But they claim it is an orientation.

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

If the lack of a flag is not evidence that the school didn't care, and, as you already acknowledged earlier the flag was not needed, then why do you object to them asking him to remove it? Especially since it is not part of the curriculum, and they dictate that.

Moreover, he already had a sign that says "Everyone is Welcome". Why wouldn't that send the message that everyone is welcome, if that was his goal?

 

[tall73]

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

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

Now was this just to baffle because you couldn't respond quickly?

Why do you have to respond quickly? You can look up information.

I introduced it not as a distraction but because you dismissed every parallel situation as not related. Yet this is a group who claims to have a sexual orientation that is very much numerically in the minority, the small population of which you acknowledge, and they do report negative interactions from people based on their self-reported orientation. It seemed something that is parallel.

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.

If you want to change the law and precedents then you will need to make that effort.

 

[tall73]

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 quoted your assertion that the flag sent a message. That is not quibbling, that is showing both of us indicate it was sending a message.

He already had a sign that stated "Everyone Is Welcome." That conveys the message that everyone is welcome.

Now if you indicate the pride flag refers to specific marginalized groups, then that message is more specific than "Everyone is Welcome".

In the same way a flag for objectum sexual pride would also indicate a marginalized group, beyond the notion of everyone being welcome.

If the school wishes to remain neutral on the question of sexual orientation, yet welcome everyone, they can dictate that message, as they dictate speech in the class room.

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

I think this is a valid critique. It may indeed have multiple meanings.

However, it differs from a photo of a couple in that there are more readily associated historical connotations to a flag that was meant to communicate a message to the community in general, than there are to a personal memento of a couples relationship.